Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 395

Rash Behari Bose
A user is frequently insisting that this book from 1966 published by "Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay" and written by Uma Mukherjee (credentials unknown) is reliable for a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim being made here.

The misinformation is question is the claim that Rash Behari Bose founded "Hindu Mahasabha" branch in Japan.

The source has a single passing mention, and the source makes a number of laughable claims such as "In any case, the role of the revolutionaries in the achievement of India's Independence is still today much too minimised , the official apologists claiming that the crown of martyrdom to the cause of Freedom rightfully belongs to the Congress." (full text)

In accordance with WP:HISTRS and WP:RS, this source appears to be totally failing the threshold for reliability.

There is no reliable source that can confirm this information. Even our page on Hindu Mahasabha is rid of this misinformation.

A good chapter dedicated to Rash Behari Bose here or in this CNN link, which also makes no mention of any "Hindu Mahasabha", let alone establishing one in Japan. Capitals00 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. What happened was a single letter exchange with a Mahasabha leader Savarkar that "attempt should be made to create Hindu bloc" but nothing more. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay or Firma KLM is a WP:RS, and has been cited many times on Wikipedia. Uma Mukherjee is a historian specialising in history of freedom movement, and biographer of freedom fighters. It's the best-known biography of RB Bose and cited by other scholars like Casolari, see page 115, reference 31. Also see Doug Weller's input.Chanchaldm (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Aman Kumar Goel:"What happened was a single letter exchange with a Mahasabha leader Savarkar that "attempt should be made to create Hindu bloc"". Please consult more. They had lively correspondence and there were multiple exchanges of letters. Check here. Chanchaldm (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Savarkar said "Hindu sabha should take immediate steps for establishing branches of Mahasabha in Japan, China, Siam and other countries of the pacific". However, we can see that no branches were ever established. If they were, then the source which I mentioned above could make provide details on that. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * p67: "Savarkar maintained a lively correspondence with the aforementioned Rashbehari Bose in Tokyo. Bose, who had become a naturalized citizen in Japan and had married locally, was a pan-Asianist first and foremost, and his activities give little cause to think of his Asianism in a strictly Hindu or Hindu-Buddhist format.86 In writing to Savarkar, however, he had no qualms in adapting to the latter’s Asian cartography in writing: Every attempt should be made to create a Hindu bloc extending from the Indian Ocean up to the Pacific Ocean. For this purpose, the Hindu Sabha should take immediate steps for establishing branches of Mahasabha in Japan, China, Siam and other countries of the Pacific and sending their representatives for creating solidarity among the Eastern races.87 Although Savarkar was reluctant to devote Mahasabha resources to international activities, he had no objection to sympathizers expanding his organization on their own dime. The Bombay secretariat of the Mahasabha officially authorized the Japanese branch to be established.88 Privately, Savarkar wrote to Rashbehari Bose that his “scheme of building a Pan-Hindu temple in Japan is excellent.", you haven't mentioned total point.Chanchaldm (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * p161: Rash Behari, who retained contact with Savarkar, had established a branch of the Hindu Mahasabha in Japan.. Nothing exceptional about the views.Chanchaldm (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It provides a source for each claim except this particular passing mention. It seems to be some kind of misunderstanding like I said and would require clear-cut details but apparently those details don't exist. Capitals00 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Firma KLM is a quite reliable publisher. That said, it is stupid to hold that Bose was a member of Hindu Mahasabha; anti-colonial solidarities led to strange bedfellows. M. N. Roy, arguably India's first Communist, was not only awed by Savarkar since youth but also had correspondence with HM and remained a friend till death; does that make him a Hindu Mahasabha-ite? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Firma KLM is reliable and I have used books from this publisher before on Wiki. Actually I was also a bit surprised to find the information in the article that RB Bose established a branch of Hindu Mahasabha in Japan. But since there was the source, I decided to keep it as I believe these are important details for an encyclopaedic article. Moreover I have got many other sources(some of which I have cited and gave quotations above) on this and about correspondence between Savarkar and Bose. Aren't those reliable?, I have seen your editing practices on a number of articles; your ability  to find out numerous sources on various topics is commendable; and you've very rightly said "anti-colonial solidarities led to strange bedfellows." Could you please add all around views about this correspondence in the article?Chanchaldm (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Time to reconsider CoinDesk
CoinDesk, a news site about cryptocurrencies, has been discussed so many times that it has its own shortcut: WP:COINDESK. After the following five (!) discussions concluded that it was not a reliable source, I'm proceeding with a sixth, because I think the site has become appropriately skeptical and investigative.


 * 1) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190 (2015)
 * 2) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_212 (2016)
 * 3) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236 (2018)
 * 4) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251 (2018)
 * 5) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273 (2019)

In the past, CoinDesk has been deemed unreliable because of its tendency to publish promotional and non-investigative material. In 2022, though, CoinDesk broke the story of misbehavior at FTX, which led to the exchange's bankruptcy and to Sam Bankman-Fried's arrest. Looking at the site today, I see a mixture of news reporting and opinion, each clearly marked, and with the news being critical and well-written. Each article includes a disclosure both about CoinDesk (which is owned by a digital currency firm and which offers cryptocurrency as compensation) and about the author (e.g., about their holdings of crypto). This is a similar level of disclosure as with other financial news sites that we consider to be reliable. (Personally, I hold no cryptocurrency or derivatives, I am unaffiliated with CoinDesk or its parent, and I am still curious about these alternative investments/instruments.)

I feel that our current blanket ban on CoinDesk as a reliable source does a disservice to its reporting work; we can cite other sources that credit CoinDesk as a source themselves, but I don't think it's fair that we shun CoinDesk and its reporters. I propose that for recent news (since 2022) but not opinion articles, CoinDesk be permitted as a source. White 720 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Their purpose appears to be advocacy and promotion. I'd be very concerned about trying to change past consensus without a great deal of independent coverage demonstrating a major change in their approach. --Hipal (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the Intelligencer post linked above, The Verge published an article on CoinDesk's change of style here: https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/8/23498823/coindesk-ftx-dcg-barry-silbert-grayscale-genesis White 720 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional coverage from The Economic Times (India; via ProQuest, since it's paywalled on the web) mentioning CoinDesk as a source: "From FTX's Collapse to "the Merge": Top Crypto Developments in 2022 [Tech & Internet]." The Economic Times, Dec 30, 2022. https://ezproxy.spl.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/pqrl?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/ftxs-collapse-merge-top-crypto-developments-2022/docview/2759060221/se-2. Quote: "The trigger for the collapse was a CoinDesk article that revealed serious issues in FTX's financials. Soon after it was published, the CEO of Binance offered to bail out FTX as investors dashed to retrieve their funds from the platform." White 720 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Coindesk broke the FTX story (which was due a leaker giving them access to internal financial information), and this was cited by more mainstream sources, but having a single major scoop does not make a source reliable. If you look at mainstream financial journalism outlets like FT, Bloomberg, WSJ etc, these tend to cover crypto news now, so there's really no reason to use any of these cypto-focused news sites over them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the scoop was in CoinDesk because Allison - a freelancer - brought the story to CoinDesk, rather than any of the other outlets he writes for - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That Verge article in no way claims a change of style. What wording did you get that from? - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * LOL no. The site still has no understanding of what constitutes a conflict of interest. I point out this editorial policy page (archive) announcing their plan to give employees equity-equivalent-rights in DCG, Coindesk's owner:
 * The reasons we initially planned to exclude content staff from the SARs program stemmed from our commitment to quality journalism: the potential conflict of interest, or public perception thereof, given that so many of the companies and assets we cover at CoinDesk are owned or partly owned by our parent company.
 * Writers given such rights would be required to disclose it, right? Well, no - CoinDesk explicitly does not want such beneficiaries to advertise their COI:
 * We are not requiring journalists who receive SARs to disclose this in their bios (as we do for crypto asset holdings above $1,000 in value). The main reason we do not require such disclosure in this instance is respect for their privacy: An employee's compensation, and how pay differs from person to person across a company, is an inherently private matter
 * CoinDesk specifically wants writers with a good solid conflict of interest:
 * Offering this incentive fits more with an emerging crypto community philosophy that trust is built by having skin in the game with high transparency rather than by rules and restrictions.
 * Note the bit where CoinDesk already allows writers to hold up to $1,000 of a crypto-asset without disclosing the fact at all. Compare non-clownshoes finance journalism outlets such as the Financial Times or Bloomberg - who require zero holdings of any company or asset a journalist writes about, except under appropriate editorial supervision.
 * CoinDesk has no understanding of COI, and doubling down with this editorial policy - and explicitly stating they want conflicts of interest - means everything in the discussion opinions summarised at RSP still holds.
 * There is no other source we'd put up with acting this way with regards to COI, let alone explicitly announcing they really, really want COI.
 * Ian Allison is a good journalist. He's one of the several CoinDesk writers I look out for especially. Allison freelances for multiple outlets, such as Insider. The Alameda story is a huge credit to Allison. That he brought the story to CoinDesk in no way mean the problems with CoinDesk are gone. 'Cos they aren't. - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. There would need to be, essentially, a history of adherence to the principles of WP:RS and a singular story does not a history make.  This is a single data point, and not a total view of the overall reliability.  -- Jayron 32 16:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No Basically what Jayron said. While I certainly think the FTX reporting is absolutely a point in their favor, at this time, for me, it is still swamped by the countervailing concerns regarding advocacy and conflict of interest.  In theory they might get to RS status at some point, but I don't see them there yet.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. RS is about a source's long-term reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; one incident or story, whether positive or negative, can't usually decide a source's categorization. And in particular trying to use one well-received story to argue that a source is a RS runs into "but officer, look at all the people I haven't stabbed" problems - if a source regularly has egregious systematic problems with fact-checking and accuracy, occasionally getting a story right doesn't change that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I use this website in citing one of my articles?
I am working on an article about symbolism of animals and I found this blog which belongs to a skull store and I'm wondering if I can use the blog post in citing my article. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The blog is part of a commercial website, so it can't be considered independent of its commercial concerns. Also the about us page gives no hint of editorial oversight. Sorry but this wouldn't be considered a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Cinestaan ,Pune Mirror, Maharashtra Times, Lokmat, The Times of India Review
There are a total of five movie reviews in this draft Draft:Truckbhar Swapna. It has just been rejected. Lokmat news paper is 50 years old. it is considered reliable, but here editor consider it not reliable. The film 's review in the different languages of The Times Group is reliably considered but here the editor rejects it. Despite the source of cinestaan.com being reliable rejected it too ~ AShiv1212 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging reviewer .  VickKiang  (talk)  02:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a comment there on that draft. Please address the issue there. Thank you.  ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 05:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

19th-Century sources relating to the Swastika
On the page Fylfot, several 19th century sources are used.

Thomas Wilson (1896) The Swastika: The Earliest Known Symbol, and Its Migrations; with Observations on the Migration of Certain Industries in Prehistoric Times. Smithsonian Institution.

J.G Waller (1873) "The Church of Great Canfield, Essex". Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society. New Series. II(Part IV): 377–388.

Ernst Johann Eitel (1873, republished 1884) "Buddhism: its historical, theoretical and popular aspects."


 * Wilson is stated to have suggested etymologies for fylfot, with his own publication as the source, but it is later stated in wikivoice that they "appear to be false".


 * Waller is used to source the claim that a fylfot currently appears at a particular church.


 * Eitel is used to source a claim the the fylfot was a symbol of the Norse god Thor.

There are also a large number of early-20th century (pre-WWII) sources on the page, so a general view of where a reasonable cut off might be with regards to WP:AGE MATTERS would possibly be helpful here.

17:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Boynamedsue (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there more recent scholarship that we can use? Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For Wilson's etymologies (which are not stated in the article), there does not appear to be. There is a modern source which outlines an outdated 19th century etymology. For Waller, the existence of the Fylfot at the church is sourceable, but the viewpoints of Waller seem to be included without attribution, and I'm not sure whether they can be sourced or not. The Vital claim re Thor is very common in the 19th century, but doesn't seem to be mentioned in anything other than unreliable modern neo-pagan sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In general I see no reason why a nineteenth century source couldn't be reliable for the claim that a particular symbol was associated with a certain Norse god, but Ernst Johann Eitel does not appear to have any relevant expertise, and if he were publishing a book about Buddhism today we would not consider that an especially reliable source about the history of Norse religion!
 * Using an 1883 source to state that something is a particular way today is obviously suspect – it would be better to either find a modern source supporting that it is still the case, or be clear in the article that we are talking about the church as it was in the nineteenth century. (The next sentence cites the parish guide from 2000, which would be very helpful in demonstrating that it was still there rather more recently!)
 * Wilson is obviously a reliable source for the fact that he discussed etymology, but doesn't demonstrate WP:DUE. A modern source does appear to have now been added for the idea that his etymologies are not accurate. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the modern source doesn't mention Wilson, so there is an OR problem. My preference would be to just use the modern source to state the single older etymology (from Waller, strangely enough) it covers, stating it is now outdated. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think old sources such as this can be useful on wikipedia at least for historical purposes - for the history of thought on the matter. But WP:attribution should help to avoid putting a particular etymology that may or may not be outdated in the voice wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Travelmath.com
Is Travelmath.com a reliable source to figure out the halfway point between 2 cities? 2600:100C:A210:2BB2:8CBF:4BCD:5816:C71A (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My initial impression is no. What is the purpose of the halfway point and for what article is this referring to? Please see WP:OR to see if what you are including is original research - information that is not claimed in a reliable source. If such information is trivia, it probably is best to leave out of wikipedia. Hope this helps.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Art 21 Magazine
https://magazine.art21.org/2009/08/17/sam-gould-red76 suggested as a source to be used to satisfy Notability (organizations and companies) in the article Red 76. I really don't know enough about this source and its credibility on art related subject. Would this be seen as a full featured article in the Time Magazine, or more like FORBESCON ? Graywalls (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * According to This, prior to 2013, the site was a "guest blogging program", which sounds a lot like an unvetted hosting site for user-created blogs. I would say that doesn't meet the WP:RS standard.  -- Jayron 32 13:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Based on its description of its operation since 2013, it appears that it is still basically a kind of group blog. They invite a "guest editor" to put out each quarterly themed issue and solicit content on the theme. I would not regard this as a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Art Forum magazine contents for the purpose of establishing WP:CORPDEPTH notability
This relates to the weight of this article and similar such articles from Art Forum for the purpose of substantiating notability of a company. At the bottom, it says about the author "Matthew Stadler is a Portland, Oregon–based novelist." Both Huffington Post and Forbes have been vetted as good sources at Reliable sources/Perennial sources over a series of community discussions; however Wikipedia community has deemed both HuffPo and Forbes contributors sections as unreliable sources.

I am not sure the publication process behind Artforum. Does someone having submitted an in-depth article about an organization to Artforum and that being included place heavy weight on the notability of the organization talked about? This also relates to Red 76 article sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Artforum is a well-established magazine in business since 1962 with highly-regarded editors. It was acquired by Penske Media Corporation late last year, publisher of numerous reliable publications. As stated in the Wikipedia article on the magazine:


 * Sarah Thornton's documentary book Seven Days in the Art World (2008) contains a chapter titled "The Magazine" which is set in the offices of Artforum. In it, Thornton says, "Artforum is to art what Vogue is to fashion and Rolling Stone was to rock and roll. It’s a trade magazine with crossover cachet and an institution with controversial clout.".
 * It is clearly a reliable source on art. Banks Irk (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Closed archived discussions
Just dropping a note that I have closed the discussions regarding the reliability of The Economist, The Times, and The Telegraph in their coverage of transgender and transsexual topics. The result was that all three are reliable in these areas. Extended explanations for these outcomes can be found at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392, and my talk page. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Compassionate727: I regard this close as unwarranted and bad procedure. Closing an archived RfC is at best controversial, as evidenced by recent discussions e.g. in thread RfC closures after archiving. and RfCs not closed (my own take is that the item is already closed as Redrose64 long ago explained to me). Even if somebody comes up with the bad idea of closing what's effectively already closed, the procedure followed here is not what Help:Archiving a talk page recommends, and is against what is at the top of the archive page, in bold: "Do not edit the contents of this page." Plus (just my opinion rather than policy) by taking the despicable 4-way template seriously you are encouraging more use of it. I see that there was an objection on your talk page, where you only acknowledged your act is "unusual". Well, I wish it were so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, an archived discussion should never be closed. Once something is in the archive it should be frozen as archived.  If the discussion needs to be closed it should be taken out of archive, closed and then left up so editors can review and if need be challenge the close.  A serious problem with a closure within the archive is many editors don't have archives on their watch list.  Thus a controversial close could be made within an archive.  Later editors might treat it as an uncontested close because it would have no related discussion in the archive.  At the same time editors who would disagree with the closing would be unaware of the closing.  I would suggest reverting the close, restore the discussion to the noticeboard then close it there.  Compassionate727, please note, I have not reviewed your actual closing rational so please do not take this as any comment on the quality of the closing itself, just the process.  Springee (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that people generally don't watch archives, which is why I drop a notice here. But since three people have now complained about me handling it this way, I'll just switch to unarchiving and closing. It's a little more work, but no big deal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Compassionate727: I thought that you meant you would self-revert then unarchive and close. But that hasn't happened. Is there a problem? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had meant that I would begin doing that going forward. In this particular case, it strikes me as a bad idea because 1) it would involve adding three long sections to an already very large page and 2) I would need to take Archive 392 to XfD because it would be empty, although now that I think about it, I don't know if that would mess the bot up. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Doubt about a source: Celebrity Twitter account
Hello,

I need help about how proceed in this case. There's a video where a celebrity states their birthday, but it's on Twitter. Based on WP:TWITTER can't be used because social media are not a reliable source, at the same time the video is authentic, filmed in a public occasion.

Is there a way to use that video as source respecting Wikipedia verifiability?

Thanks.

. Koala Wiki (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, an account linked to the celebrity should be fine. That's as long as we're sure it's their account. Woodroar (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking into this further, it turns out that it's not the celebrity's Twitter account. Then no, we can't use it. Woodroar (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Journal of Anatomy
Is it a reliable source? I would answer yes of course. The content I wish to cite from this article https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joa.13481 has been rejected at Foreskin

the prepuce is the most sensitive area of the penis

is one quote I suggested for the conclusion of Foreskin To be able to cite it would be advantageous to the Wikipedia reader, it gives very good anatomical science on the subject which I believe is a better and more recent source than the citation in current use, a 2016 meta-analysis of previous studies. The context appears worthwhile to me as the article has a problem with multiple citations to a single source. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a primary source per WP:MEDRS, so it was properly rejected at the article. Banks Irk (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you looked up secondary sources? One step removed from primary sources like this? I am thinking of for example Grey's Anatomy, and excellent text on anatomy. Or perhaps a textbook? Or a review paper?Ramos1990 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * lolThelisteninghand (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting on the Ukraine war


I'm a bit concerned about FAIR's reliability for topics related to war reporting in US media, particularly in this December 1 article about alleged warmongering on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article seems a bit alarmist on the motives of US media companies, and FAIR has published similar articles in the past. While there are plausible concerns about the US media's stance on war topics, the red flag for me is that this page uses mostly left-wing sources, some of dubious reliability, to back its claims. The end, in particular, seems to veer toward a conspiratorial-style accusation that the US media are deliberately perpetuating the Ukraine war by acting to "censor and poison public discourse".

At this page, the following websites are linked in relation to the anti-war narratives on the Ukraine war and US media censorship of the matter, along with their status as listed on WP:NPPSG:
 * Al Jazeera (RS)
 * About the Azov Regiment; FAIR accuses US media of omitting information related to AR's involvementin the Ukraine crisis, but does not give a source directly supporting this claim.
 * Antiwar.com (not assessed)
 * About United States Strategic Command head Charles A. Richard warning that "the big one is coming"
 * Axios (RS)
 * Speech by Antonio Guterres warning against "nuclear blackmail"
 * Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (not assessed)
 * 2022 release about the most recent update to the Doomsday Clock
 * Caitlin Johnstone's blog (not assessed, but definitely not RS)
 * Conspiratorial spin on an NBC News report about US officials admitting to using information warfare, even in the lack of hard evidence; says that the US aims "to shore up narrative control to strengthen its hegemonic domination of the planet".
 * Common Dreams (not assessed)
 * About US media "cheerleading for US escalation in Ukraine"; FAIR article includes screenshot of lead
 * Narrative about alleged US involvement in the 2014 Ukrainian coup
 * Quoting the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
 * About anti-war protests against the Ukraine crisis; cited regarding climate change and the Ukraine war
 * Opinion piece about the necessity of a diplomatic solution
 * Poll by Data for Progress on behalf of Quincy Institute that most Americans are opposed to the US stategy on the Ukraine war
 * Consortium News (non-RS)
 * Accuses Western media of "atrocity propaganda" by repeating an unverified story from a Ukrainian government official who was removed from her position; republished from blog of "rogue journalist" Caitlin Johnstone
 * Declassified Australia (not assessed)
 * about a "covert online propaganda operation" from an unknown US-based entity
 * About an anti-Russia campaign by Twitter bots, "likely by pro-Ukrainian authorities", that emerged at the beginning of the war
 * A similar campaign
 * Democracy Now! (no consensus)
 * Interview with Stephen F. Cohen criticizing NATO's foreign policy of relentless expansion toward Russia
 * The Diplomat (RS)
 * 2014 report about threat of nuclear strikes to protect Crimea
 * FAIR (no consensus)
 * Demonization of Putin by Western media
 * Similar to above; cited at same place as above
 * Similar to above; cited in same place as above two
 * About media censorship of narratives not consistent with pro-war US government officials, including anti-war narratives about how actions of NATO-aligned governments provoked what would eventually be the 2022 invasion of Ukraine
 * Most of the internal links to FAIR postings are similar to the above, so I won't commant any further on these.
 * 
 * 
 * About largely one-sided US media coverage on nuclear weapons (in general)
 * The Intercept (RS)
 * About the capabilities of weapons sent by the US to the Ukraine war
 * Los Angeles Times (RS)
 * Described as "moment of sanity" for this outlet
 * Monthly Review (no consensus)
 * Accuses Google of censoring alternative news sites and reinforcing the establishment narrative, and thus the capitalist establishment itself, by downranking search results.
 * The Nation (RS)
 * Article accusing both sides of threatening nuclear war
 * The New Yorker (RS)
 * Describes John Mearsheimer's perspective that NATO-aligned actions are primarily responsible for the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion
 * Newsweek (no consensus post-2013)
 * Ukraianin official removed from office over publishing unverified stories
 * Real News Network (not assessed)
 * Accuses Ukraine of refusing to engage in diplomacy or otherwise de-escalate; screenshot of lead used by FAIR
 * Reuters (RS)
 * A letter by progressive US Congresspeople calling for peace talks was withdrawn. According to FAIR, this indicates "the severity of the lockdown on public debate about war in the US", but I am not convinced that the official statements about the withdrawal reflect this claim.
 * TomDispatch (not assessed)
 * Opinion piece by sports writer Robert Lipsyte about US cultural tendencies toward "home run" solutions, and is quoted in the article
 * Twitter (non-RS)
 * Series of tweets by self-described entrepreneur Arnaud Bertrand, who runs a blog on traditional Chinese medicine, repeating the anti-NATO narrative of the attacks
 * A tweet by a James Melville (who does not match any Wikipedia article about people with that name) resharing a 2015 anti-NATO commentary by John Mearsheimer
 * Tweet by Ben Norton, for journalist with The Grayzone (deprecated), that the US is threatenign to use nuclear weapons.
 * World Socialist Web Site (no consensus)
 * Accuses Google of censoring alternative news sites and reinforcing the establishment narrative by downranking search results, with a specific focus on official comments regarding WSWS itself. Most of the article links this to US imperialism, then devolves into anti-capitalist propaganda.
 * YouTube (non-RS)
 * Video from The Hill (RS) about US efforts to derail the Minsk II agreement
 * Print publications
 * Publisher listing for the book The Greatest Evil Is War by Chris Hedges

Prior RSN discussions about this source, which seems to be mixed but slightly leaning toward marginal reliability status: –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 03:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16 (July 2008)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_59 (March 2010 RfC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61 (April 2010)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_112 (December 2011–January 2012)


 * FAIR definitely can't be used unattributed; i.e., it can't be used to support statements in Wikivoice. Conceivably, it could be used for statements of opinion given in-text attribution; in that context, due weight (rather than source reliability) would be the issue. In almost all contexts, FAIR's take would probably be undue weight. For example, the FAIR articles that are apologia for the Russia invasion is really not something that would not be appropriate to note, except perhaps in the articles on FAIR itself. Neutralitytalk 03:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. As an advocacy organization, I wouldn't really consider FAIR an RS, use-with-attribution only (i.e., yellow, like all advocacy groups). Levivich (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a well-known and established organisation which has been criticised by the conservatives for having a liberal bias.
 * As with any other source, the decision whether the content sourced to FAIR has due weight and whether it should be attributed should be made on case-by-case basis. If a statement is not controversial, it can be stated in wikivoice ("Liberty Media has a dominant position in podcasting" ).
 * In your example FAIR says that "NATO Narratives and Corporate Media Are Leading to ‘Doorstep of Doom’". This statement is controversial so we should act per WP:NPOV, mentioning all the views in proportion to the coverage they receive in RS: "According to X, Y and Z corporate media are leading us to the glorious peaceful future while according to FAIR are leading to the doorstep of doom." Alaexis¿question? 10:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The aim of FAIR is to point out where the mainstream newspapers have been biasing the news. By weight Wikipedia should not just take them on face value, but they don't seem to have more than the usual number of inaccuracies one gets in newspapers. They have a definite bias okay and I don't agree with a lot in that article but I believe Wikipedia should included that as a secondary viewpoint with attribution. THere's no need for Wikipedia to accentuate mainstream bias. NadVolum (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mainstream bias does not exist. That's not an opinion, it's not an empirical observation, it's not a political stance. It is the definition of central Wikipedia policies, V and NPOV. It's no revelation that there are biased or erroneous narratives in the world, but all we do here is to summarize the central narratives. You may be on the wrong website if you cannot accept that constraint.  SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably u:NadVolum referred to the US mainstream media (which is what FAIR focuses on). Collectively they can certainly exhibit some bias, just like the mainstream media of Germany, India or South Africa. Alaexis¿question? 19:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in Wikimpedia saying the mainstream media has no bias. On the contrary we have articles on that precise business and guidlines saying what the bias of the newspapers seems to be and WP:WEIGHT talking about alternative viewpoints and how they should be treated. I haven't the foggiest where you got that funny idea from. Have a look at gravity for instance, where it has a big list of historical and current alternative theories to Einstein's theory and Wikipedia has articles on them. There's practically nothing in the newspapers or the soft sciences that anywhere approaches how thoroughy Einstein's theory has been tested or how accurate it is so why people go on fooling themselves about their level of knowledge or certainty of things I don't know. NadVolum (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There really, really, really is such a thing as "mainstream bias" when we talk about politics and news organisations. I am not aware of a single unbiased source of news, and if any user is editing on the basis that one exists, they should probably reconsider how they do things. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because a position is "mainstream" does not mean it can not be biased, as long as we have another standard which we can reasonably to compare to. Here on Wikipedia we clearly can and do accept a distinction between the best and most reliable sources, which are often little-known, specialized academic sources, and those sources which represent the most commonly held beliefs of people in various countries during various periods (e.g. mainstream media). Furthermore, there can be multiple positions which are mainstream at the same time, and so it can be meaningful to say that, for example, mainstream media in a certain country is biased in the sense that it under-reports some other mainstream positions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , is the source being used or proposed for use in any particular article? I can see it as a potential weak secondary source on what other US media outlets are saying, but would not use it as a source on anything happening in e.g. Ukraine or as giving weight to the fringe viewpoints it sometimes promotes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to downgrade FAIR's reliability based on the presented evidence. The idea that American "mainstream media" has a bias in favor of U.S. geopolitical objectives is utterly prevalent within American leftism (not centrism/Democratic Party). It's a central idea in Noam Chomsky's political works, and has been espoused by a number of leftist, socialist, anarchist, or Marxist scholars. Going back to FAIR: reliable sources are not required to be unbiased; if they are biased, they simply need to be attributed. Whether their views merit inclusion is better covered by WP:DUE than by reassessing the source's general reliability.
 * Further, given the well-documented advantages that right-wing media have (see: Facebook favoring right-wing outlets, and the large-scale takeover of local media outlets by right-wing conglomerate owners), it seems quite vital that we not eliminate left-wing outlets from Wikipedia altogether; FAIR is a high-quality and pretty vital voice for American leftism, especially with their focus on social justice issues, which can sometimes be treated as an afterthought in other outlets. DFlhb (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing an organization whose headlines are nearly indistinguishable from what you might hear from Russian state-owned news agencies does not even come close to "eliminat[ing] left-wing outlets from Wikipedia altogether". And just because Noam Chomsky and some other people say something doesn't mean it's actually true. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So, for what purpose is that article being used in Wikipedia? The OP has linked to an article, but has not indicated how it either is currently being used, nor have they indicated how they want to use it.  FAIR is not a news source or academic source per se; it's a self described "media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation." (from its own website).  As such, it's an opinion source.  It should only ever be used as an attributed source (according to FAIR... type statements), and even then so, only in relation to its general use by other sources for similar purposes.  Do reliable sources consider its opinions authoritative enough to also grant them prominence?  Are they considered by other reliable sources as worth paying attention to what they say?  Those are the questions we need to ask.  -- Jayron 32 19:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By its very nature it is a source that talks about controversial reporting in the major news sources so of course it will be considered controversial but it doesn't seem to me to be pushing some biased agenda like all the think tanks around the place do. I believe giving its opinion is in line with saying what reputable sources say about a subject rather than needing the main news sources quoting it. Actually on this subject I thought what FACT said was more in line with right wing conspiracy theories - perhaps both ends ofthe spectrum are joining up. But they are widely held views. NadVolum (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was stated far better than I did; they're an opinionated, biased source, and need to be attributed. My comment should have focused on that, rather than defending them from being declared WP:GUNREL, which AFAIK, was a misreading of the proposal on my part. DFlhb (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't class them as a biased opinionated source, that implies they are trying to push a point of view and they're pretty soft on that front in that they can be all over the place depending on what they're crticizing in the press, unlike Fox News for instance where you know exactly where they will stand on practically everything. But yes what they say has to be treated as an opinion and attributed. NadVolum (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No source about invention of lunisolar calendar
repeatedly claims That the lunisolar calendar "was invented in ancient China in Xia Dynasty(around 2700 BC-1600 BC)" [sic]. No source is offered. This disagrees with the poorly-referenced Wikipedia article section Chinese calendar which says this type of calendar was first used in China in the Zhou dynasty, and our Zhou dynasty article says it began about 1046 BC. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Religious bias on Wikipedia sources
I've tagged Religious bias on Wikipedia as relying on a number of sources that look to be unreliable (at least for factual claims - perhaps not for reporting their own opinions). Some help in sorting out the reliable from the unreliable would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You could start by striking the half-dozen or more references that are blogs and the content based on those blogs. Banks Irk (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Association of Religion Data Archives and World Religion Database
has removed ARDA religious estimations from various wiki pages because he says it uses some World Religion Database data which he claims is affiliated to the World Christian Database which he claims is unreliable. First of all, ARDA is completely separate from both of them. Below is ARDAs impressive resume from their about page https://www.thearda.com/about/about-the-arda

Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) strives to democratize access to the best data on religion. Founded as the American Religion Data Archive in 1997 and going online in 1998, the initial archive was targeted at researchers interested in American religion. The targeted audience and the data collection have both greatly expanded since 1998, now including American and international collections submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA is generously supported by the Lilly Endowment, the John Templeton Foundation, Chapman University, Pennsylvania State University and Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

ARDA Advisory Board: Renata Curty (UC Santa Barbara), Joel Herndon (Duke University), Nathaniel Porter (Virginia Tech), Ruth Tillman (Pennsylvania State University), Andrew Tyner (Center for Open Science)

ARDA Affiliates: US Religion Census, Baylor Univeristy, World Religion Database at Boston University, which is part of Brill publishing: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/

Here is The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion.

Below are multiple book sources that call ARDA and the World Religion Database "Reliable", including the Oxford handbook and Cambridge University: 12, 3, 4, 5 AEO does not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely his personal opinion from his own original research. He thinks he knows better than Harvard and Oxford. Foorgood (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Since 2022, ARDA has completely reviewed its datasets and has aligned them with those of the WRD/WCD. As I have thoroughly demonstrated here, the WRD and the WCD are the same, they are the continuation of the World Christian Encyclopedia, and are ultimately produced by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. They are therefore biased and unreliable (WP:PARTISAN, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SPONSORED). In any case, they should never replace data from national censuses and surveys conducted by statistical organisations. In the linked discussion, I cited extensive excerpts from WP:RS which have criticised the WRD/WCD. I have also thoroughly commented the links provided by Foorgood in support of his opinion and even provided an excerpt from one of them which demonstrates my view.
 * Other users who have recently been involved in discussions about these topics can intervene:, , .--Æo (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The World Religion Database and World Christian Database are not officially affiliated but in any case both are considered Reliable by endless scholars including the 5 I included above such as Oxford and Cambridge.Foorgood (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , "endless scholars" isn't going to cut it, and "Oxford and Cambridge" aren't scholars. It's important to be precise here. One of the librarians listed on one of the pages you linked confirmed to me what academics already know: a note on a library guide on a university library's website should NOT be taken as any kind of official endorsement for the reliability of that database. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have 5 books from scholars in the original post and then I added some of the many institutional examples: Harvards Library calls it "a good source of statistics for religions" right here https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and Stanfords Library calls ARDA "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports" here https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion but I'm done with this conversation. Have your way and make the source deprecated so that all the scholars and universities can continue to tell their students they shouldnt use Wikipedia. New editors here will now see that sources called good by Harvard are considered deprecated by Wiki. Foorgood (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In one of the sources provided by Foorgood (F. Lionel Young, III, World Christianity and the Unfinished Task: A Very Short Introduction, Wipf and Stock, 2020), which is itself a book dedicated to a particular Protestant missionary project and view, you can read the following lines: ...Barrett's research has continued under the auspices of an organization established in 2001 named the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, now situated on the campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. The center's co-director, Todd Johnson, began working with Barrett in 1989, and collaborates with his colleague on several projects, including the 2001 edition of the WEC. Building on Barrett's groundbreaking work, the center launched the World Christian Database and the World Religion Database....

As a general example and point of reference, compare ARDA projections about Australia to the Australian 2021 Census (ARDA overestimates Christianity by 14%); ARDA projections about Canada to the Canadian 2021 Census (ARDA overestimates Christianity by 10%). They are completely wrong, for every single country.

A further critical remark is that ARDA data are speculative projections, not actual surveys, and therefore violate WP:CRYSTAL. There have already been discussions about these matters in the past (e.g.), and some time ago and I discussed about the possibility of making these sources WP:DEPRECATED (here).--Æo (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Religion studies scholars & statisticians
For the sake of information completeness, I re-copy hereunder the excerpts I originally reported on my (Æo's) talk page in the discussion with Foorgood.

The following academic papers express criticism about the WRD/WCD, regarding their common origin in the WCE as a missionary tool, their systematic overestimate of Christianity while underestimating other forms of religion, and their favouring certain Christian denominations (Protestant ones) over others:


 * p. 9: "...the World Christian Database (WCD) or the World Religion Database (WRD) which is a direct offspring of the WCD. ... In itself the latter is not an unproblematic source, because its data, gathered originally from the World Christian Encyclopedia, result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries. Therefore, a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism".
 * p. 9: "...the World Christian Database (WCD) or the World Religion Database (WRD) which is a direct offspring of the WCD. ... In itself the latter is not an unproblematic source, because its data, gathered originally from the World Christian Encyclopedia, result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries. Therefore, a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism".


 * p. 679: ... The main criticisms scholars have directed at the WCD concern the estimation and categorization of certain religious populations. There are questions about whether religious composition within countries is skewed by the overcounting of certain groups or variance in quality of information obtained on different religious groups. There is also concern about possible bias because the WCE was originally developed as a Christian missionary tool. Some of the country descriptions in the WCE have been characterized as having an anti-Catholic and pro-Protestant orientation (McClymond 2002:881), and Martin describes the WCE as a work "dedicated to the conversion of mankind" (1990:293). Criticisms have also been raised about projections for different religious groups and demographic trends, as the WCD provides empirical data for the population of religious groups well into the future. Doubts have been raised about the WCD's estimation and categorization of new religious groups. Steenbrink (1998) criticizes the 1982 WCE data for Indonesia, which suggest the population is only 43.2 percent Muslim and 36.4 percent "new religionist." Steenbrink maintains that those classified as "new religionists" should actually be classified as Muslim, even if stricter Islamic groups might disagree. Lewis (2004) observes that the Soka Gakkai, Rissho Kosei Kai, and Nichiren Shoshu in the Japanese Buddhist tradition are classified as new religions, whereas Pentecostals (a much more recent movement) are classified as Christian rather than a new religion. The size of Christian populations is also debated. Jenkins (2002) notes a large gap between the reported size of India's Christian population in the government census and in the WCE/WCD. While he admits that census figures omit many Scheduled Caste adherents who can lose government benefits by declaring Christian identity, he suspects the WCD overcounts Christians in India. The WCE has also been criticized for including "inadequate and confusing" categories of Christian religious groups, in particular, "Great Commission Christians," "Latent Christians," "Non-baptized believers in Christ," and "Crypto-Christians" (Anderson 2002:129). Some worry that it is difficult to distinguish Christians who keep their faith secret from Christians who practice an indigenized form of Christianity that incorporates elements of non-Christian religions. McClymond writes that estimates for the "non-baptized believers in Christ" or "non-Christian believers in Christ" in India who are Buddhist and Muslim "seem to be largely anecdotal" (2002:886). Estimates of adherents in the United States have also been challenged. Noll has questioned the designation and size of certain Christian categories, for which the WCD and WCE provide the most detail. Although he finds estimates for most Christian denominations agree with other sources, he notes that "Great Commission Christians"—a category used to describe those actively involved in Christian expansion—are estimated in the United States and Europe to be a much larger group than the number of Christians who weekly attend church (2002:451). Another cause for concern is the number of "independents," a muddled category including African-American, "community," and "Bible" churches. Changes in the data set also raise issues about categories: Anderson notes that groups previously labeled as Protestant in the first edition of the WCE in 1982 (Conservative Baptist Association of America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America) were relabeled Independent in the second edition published in 2001 (Anderson 2002). Some have argued that projections of religious composition for years such as 2025 and 2050 should not be included with the empirical data, as they are merely conjecture (McClymond 2002). Irvin (2005) argues against making predictions about the future of worldwide religion based on recent statistics because Christian growth in Asia and Africa will not necessarily continue along the trajectory it has in past decades. ....
 * p. 680: ... To address the criticisms mentioned above, we compare the religious composition estimates in the WCD to four other cross-national data sets on religious composition (two survey-based data sets and two government-sponsored data sets): the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department). In our analysis, we find support for some of the criticisms made by reviewers ... the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries. Another important difference between the WCD and other cross-national data sets is that the WCD includes data on 18 different religious groups for each country while other data sets only estimate the size of major religions. In evaluating some of the specific critiques discussed above, we find that WCD estimates of American Christian groups are generally higher than those based on surveys and denominational statistics. ... The majority of data came from fieldwork, unpublished reports, and private communications from contributors who are a mix of clergy, academics, and others; the Christian origins of the encyclopedia explain in part its detailed information on Christian groups. ....
 * p. 684: ... Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. This suggests that while the percentage Christian estimates are closely related among the data sets, the tendency is for them to be slightly higher in the WCD. ... On the other hand, the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions..
 * p. 692: ... We find some evidence for the three main criticisms directed at the WCD regarding estimation, ambiguous religious categories, and bias. The WCD consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets. ... We also found evidence of overestimation when we compared WCD data on American denominational adherence to American survey data such as ARIS, due in part to inclusion of children, and perhaps also to uncritical acceptance of estimates from religious institutions. We agree with reviewers that some of the WCD's religious categories are impossible to measure accurately, such as "Great Commission Christians," "latent Christians," and "Crypto-Christians." ....
 * (Added by Ramos1990). However, context matters. Here is their overall conclusion: ...In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups.
 * (Added by Ramos1990). However, context matters. Here is their overall conclusion: ...In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups.

Missionologists
Added by Erp and Ramos1990:


 * Quote: ... the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals ....
 * However, context matters: Despite these criticisms, we can appreciate the editors’ achievement in applying a relatively consistent methodology across the world. Furthermore, the WRD estimates are highly correlated with other cross-national estimates of religious distribution, a conclusion supported by an article by Becky Hsu and others. and also ...Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group.
 * However, context matters: Despite these criticisms, we can appreciate the editors’ achievement in applying a relatively consistent methodology across the world. Furthermore, the WRD estimates are highly correlated with other cross-national estimates of religious distribution, a conclusion supported by an article by Becky Hsu and others. and also ...Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group.


 * Quote: overestimate of Christianity in China, which adds a lot to the total number and percentage of world Christians: ... At the extreme high end, the World Religion Database puts the percentage of Christians in China at 7.76 percent, or a just above 100 million, but this number is most certainly an overestimation ....
 * Quote: overestimate of Christianity in China, which adds a lot to the total number and percentage of world Christians: ... At the extreme high end, the World Religion Database puts the percentage of Christians in China at 7.76 percent, or a just above 100 million, but this number is most certainly an overestimation ....

Added by Æo:

Another edition of WRD/WCD data has been the Atlas of Global Christianity (produced by the same Gordon-Conwell team). I have found negative critical assessments even for this edition, this time coming from an "insider" (Christian missionary) source, even though through an academic publisher, written by Anne-Marie Kool of the Evangelical Theological Seminary of Osijek, Croatia: Among other sources, some of which we have already analysed, Kool makes reference to:
 * p. 1: ... [the resource] seeks to give “as nuanced a picture as possible” of the history of Christianity over the last 100 years showing an “unmistakable” general pattern, that Christianity experiences a “severe recession” on the European continent that once was its primary base, while it has undergone “unprecedented growth and expansion” in the other parts of the world. ....
 * p. 2: ... widespread caution is raised with regard to the accuracy of the figures and not to engage in statistical analysis with the data, “without robustness checking… they contain random error and probably some systematic error” ....
 * p. 9, containing a self-criticism from Kool for having herself made uncritical use of the data: ... The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database serve as sources for the data of the Atlas. With regard to the methodology used, Woodberry is right in emphasizing that “more transparency is needed”. It might well be that the great quantity of details easily silenced possible critical voices. It is peculiar that hardly any serious critical interaction and discussion of the underlying methodology of the Atlas has taken place, neither of its two data providing predecessors. The data are simply taken for granted, as I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades. ....
 * p. 12, about systematic overestimation of Christianity in Europe, with allusions that there might be financial reason behind such overestimations: ... The statistical image of Europe that is now communicated only re-enforces the image of Europe as a Christian continent, by not giving insight in the internal diversification and erosion. So why is only this broad definition used? Is it for fear of losing power? Or for maintaining the image of the numerically strong “World C” that provides the human and financial resources to “finish the task”? Are matters of Christian finance playing a role? Out of a sense of empire building? Or of a sense of hidden resistance to accept that Europe also is now also a mission field? Is it out of fear of becoming a minority? Fear for ending up statistically weaker than the Muslims? Or an attempt to cling to the influence of the “Western” over the “non-Western” world, based on an image of Europe as still a massive Christian continent? ....
 * p. 13; it is a missionary tool designed for a specific strategy of aggression towards what in American missionary Christianity has been conceptualised as the "10/40 window": ... Eric Friede’s sharp analysis points us to the fact that the Atlas is ultimately written from the perspective of the so-called Great Commission Christians, Christians who engage in and support Christian missions, as many essays address the issue of “how to grow Christianity” in a particular region. The mission strategy invoked is then one of identifying within Global Christianity the resources needed for the task, the human resources, the GCC Christians, as well as the Christian finances that could make this enterprise work. An assessment of major tools needed for finishing this task is offered in subsequent sections, like Bible translation is followed by a section on Evangelization, with a division of the world in A, B and C, according to the level “being evangelized”. Statistics are used to motivate missionaries and national workers to mission action with Christian mission being reduced to a manageable enterprise with a dominant quantitative approach and a well-defined pragmatic orientation, “as a typical school of thought coming from modern United States”. .... Kool makes largely reference to: Eric Friede, "Book Review. Atlas of Global Christianity: 1910-2010, by Johnson, T.M. & Ross, K.R. (Eds.), 2010", Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, Theological Librarianship 3(1), 2010.
 * p. 13; it is a missionary tool designed for a specific strategy of aggression towards what in American missionary Christianity has been conceptualised as the "10/40 window": ... Eric Friede’s sharp analysis points us to the fact that the Atlas is ultimately written from the perspective of the so-called Great Commission Christians, Christians who engage in and support Christian missions, as many essays address the issue of “how to grow Christianity” in a particular region. The mission strategy invoked is then one of identifying within Global Christianity the resources needed for the task, the human resources, the GCC Christians, as well as the Christian finances that could make this enterprise work. An assessment of major tools needed for finishing this task is offered in subsequent sections, like Bible translation is followed by a section on Evangelization, with a division of the world in A, B and C, according to the level “being evangelized”. Statistics are used to motivate missionaries and national workers to mission action with Christian mission being reduced to a manageable enterprise with a dominant quantitative approach and a well-defined pragmatic orientation, “as a typical school of thought coming from modern United States”. .... Kool makes largely reference to: Eric Friede, "Book Review. Atlas of Global Christianity: 1910-2010, by Johnson, T.M. & Ross, K.R. (Eds.), 2010", Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, Theological Librarianship 3(1), 2010.
 * It is a critical assessment, once again coming from a missionary journal, that raises doubts as to the reliability of the WRD on the basis of the mismatch of the latter's data (purportedly based on censuses) with actual data from censuses, in particular those of the UK. Judd Birdsall and Lori Beaman, in Faith in Numbers: Can we Trust Quantitative Data on Religious Affiliation and Religious Freedom?, Transatlantic Policy Network on Religion & Diplomacy, 22 June 2020, at p. 3 say that the WRD, despite being widely cited and impressive, "comes with limitations. In his review of the Database, the statistician Peter Brierley pointed out that for the United Kingdom the Database used denominational reports, such as Church of England baptismal records, rather than the UK census figures to calculate affiliation. A tally of denominational reporting showed that 82% of Britons were Christian, whereas only 72% of them claimed to be Christian in the UK census". (n.b. Brierley makes reference to the UK 2001 census data, showing that already in 2001 the WRD overestimated Christianity in the UK by at least 10%).
 * (Added by Ramos1990). However context matters. The same source states: The WRD is a truly remarkable resource for researchers, Christian workers, church leaders, religious academics, and any others wanting to see how the various religions of the world impact both the global and the local scenes. It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it.
 * (Added by Ramos1990). However context matters. The same source states: The WRD is a truly remarkable resource for researchers, Christian workers, church leaders, religious academics, and any others wanting to see how the various religions of the world impact both the global and the local scenes. It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it.

Part 1

 * The World Religion Database provides its estimates based on census and surveys: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/, just like Pew Research does. The sources I cited above from Oxford and Princeton call it very reliable and accurate even though it is not exact as Censuss but estimates like Pew are used all over Wikipedia.Foorgood (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That being said, I want to confirm whether or not AEOs position is that ARDA/WRD estimates shouldn't override national censuss(which I agree with) meaning they could still be used for other estimates, OR if AEOs position is that ARDA/WRD should not be used at all(which is absurd given their reliable reputation with Oxford and Cambridge)?Foorgood (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The WRD is not a census (survey of the entire population of a state by that state's statistical office), and, as demonstrated by Erp herebelow, their methods for collecting and elaborating data are unclear (and, n.b., circular! the WRD makes reference to Pew which in turn made reference to WRD!). With my comments, I have abundantly demonstrated the bias of the WRD and its sponsors. Please note that some of the sources you have cited are from the same sponsors of the ARDA (e.g. Pennsylvania University), others (the Oxford etc. books you claim recommend ARDA) are from years ago when the ARDA had not yet switched completely to WRD data (I myself consulted the ARDA site in 2020/2021 and their data were completely different, and more reasonable, than those from the WRD implemented after 2020/2021) and they merely list or cite ARDA as a source. That ARDA data should never replace data from national censuses is obvious. Moreover, they are WP:CRYSTAL projections. Therefore, I think that ARDA/Gordon-Conwell data, together with Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures (another dataset of projections based on Pew 2001-2010 surveys) should be WP:DEPRECATED. Æo (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope you cannot radically decide to block PEW and ARDA, both globally recognized as top reliable sources, from Wikipedia just because you now think you know better than them. But what we can do is give preeminence to Censuss while allowing estimates to be provided lower in the article with the disclaimer that they are not official surveys etc. Foorgood (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Both globally recognized as top reliable sources". Please note that such alleged "global recognition" is basically the result of their own campaigns of promotion, and support by their allied journalistic media. Take the F. Lionel Young source cited above: it indeed praises the WRD within a chapter dedicated to statistical sources which are part of a precise Protestant Christian missionary project. These are, very simply, unreliable biased sources. Obviously, I cannot classify them as deprecated myself; this would require community consensus. Let's see how the present discussion will develop before proceeding with further steps. Æo (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You actually think that PEW or ARDA, globally recognized as reliable, would meet all the requirements listed here?!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources.. Again are you so extreme in your stance that you can't come to a compromise like you've done already by simply having Censuss take top priority on nations religions pages? Foorgood (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding census data I have not come to any compromise; census data are simply the best, most accurate available. And yes, I think ARDA/WRD/WCD (alias Gordon-Conwell) and Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures (projections based on outdated 2001-2010 surveys/collections of data) meet the requirement for deprecation. Note that deprecation does not mean banning a source (blacklisting), it's just a warning that will appear whenever contributors will insert links to such sources. Æo (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok so you are saying that you don't feel the PEW or ARDA data needs to banned entirely from articles, just given disclaimer that it's not an official survey like a census? Foorgood (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ARDA itself is a database archive and states that when citing ARDA the original source must be included in the cite so the key question in most cases is the reliability of WRD. I have access to the World Religion Database so decided to check one recent cite in the Demographics of atheism article where the claim was "In 2020, the World Religion Database estimated that the countries with the highest percentage of atheists were North Korea and Sweden". First how on earth does anyone know what the percentage of the population are atheists in North Korea?  Tunneling down through the WRD yielded the source for its info on religion in that country as "North Korea, Future of the Global Muslim Population (FGMP), 2020" and a note at the bottom of a fairly blank page was "Pew Forum Projection". Unfortunately the Pew  FGMP (a) doesn't mention atheists and (b) cites the WRD as its source for the Muslim population of North Korea.  I do note a WRD discussion of its methodology is at https://worldreligiondatabase.org/wrd/doc/WRD_Methodology.pdf  including the paragraph:
 * "Religious demography must attempt to be comprehensive. In certain countries where no hard statistical data or reliable surveys are available, researchers have to rely on the informed estimates of experts in the area and subject.  Researchers make no detailed attempt at a critique of each nation’s censuses and polls or each church’s statistical operations.  After examining what is available, researchers then select the best data available until such time as better data come into existence.  In addition, there are a number of areas of religious life where it is impossible to obtain accurate statistics, usually because of state opposition to particular tradition(s).  Thus it will probably never be possible to get exact numbers of atheists in Indonesia or Baha’i in Iran.  Where such information is necessary, reasonable and somewhat conservative estimates are made."
 * My suspicion is the estimate of the number of atheists in North Korea is a guess with very large error bars. The number of atheists in Sweden is likely to be more accurate though the latest survey they used is 2008. One should check what definition of atheist is being used by WRD. Erp (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me the 2017 Win/Gallup poll also has Sweden as the 2nd most atheist country and here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea we can see 2 different estimates are used to give North Korea's high atheist percentage. Estimates have their own methodology and they are considered Reliable by Oxford and Cambridge so don't try to reinvent the wheel and say that we know better than these statisticians because if so you're going to have to remove every single estimate on Wikipedia for every topic- and there are thousands. Our job on Wikipedia is to include estimates that are reliable while obviously giving precedence to government surveys *When available*.Foorgood (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually the estimates for North Korea in the Religion in North Korea are for 'no religion' which is not the same as being atheistic. Also the 2017 Win/Gallop report (https://web.archive.org/web/20171114113506/http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/370/file/370.pdf) has China as being the 'least religious', not atheistic, of the countries polled with Sweden second.  However in the same report when it comes to percentage stating they are atheists Sweden drops below China, Hong Kong, Japan, Czech Republic, Slovenia, South Korea, France, and Belgium.  North Korea for obvious reasons was not among the countries polled.  This does not help in showing that WRD is a reliable source. Note that does not mean I agree with @Æo that censuses are the best sources; censuses can have biases or be incomplete and good surveys/polls can be just as reliable or better if not as precise.  I would be happier with WRD if it were specific on how it got its figures for each country (among other things it would avoid articles citing X and then citing WRD which in turn was using X). Erp (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you click here https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/np-sort?var=ADH_704#S_1 and read the top it says "Variables: Total number of Atheists by country and percent of population that are Atheists: Persons who deny the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural. (World Religion Database, 2020) (Atheists)1" Again, you guys are acting like you know better than these world renowned sources. Foorgood (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Foorgood, I have thoroughly demonstrated that such "world renowned sources" are not produced by actual statisticians but by Protestant missionaries and Erp has demonstrated that their methods for collecting data are dubious. The line you have cited does not mean anything as to statistical survey methodology, it is just a conceptual category they have used to represent their data. Please read WP:NOTHERE. Æo (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect the precision of exactly 4,016,422 atheists in North Korea in 2020, too precise for what is suppose to be an estimate. Have the authors not heard of significant figures or more likely it is an issue with the database design not being able to round?  Also the definition at the top of the ARDA WRD chart is not quite the same as the one in the World Religion Database (the numbers do match).  The  latter definition is "Number of Atheists in this country's population. Atheists are persons professing atheism, skepticism, impiety, disbelief or irreligion, or Marxist-Leninist Communism regarded as a political faith, or other quasi-religions, and who abstain from religious activities and have severed all religious affiliation; and others opposed, hostile or militantly opposed to all religion (anti-religious); dialectical materialists, militant non-believers, anti-religious humanists, skeptics." There is a separate category for agnostics.
 * As for world renowned? Something can be well known yet still not be deemed reliable. I did a search of the Wiley Online Library for "World Religion Database",  27 hits though 16 of them were to a single book by the people who created the database.  Wiley also includes the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion which had two of the cites (one of which was a critique of the World Christian Database).  One would think people contributing to a journal on the scientific study of religion might be using this database extensively?  I also did a search on "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" in Wiley, that had 1,248 hits.
 * I will note that Brian Grim's background does include a PhD in sociology from Penn State which should ensure some statistical training. Erp (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oxford and Cambridge and 3 other top publishers call them reliable 12, 3, 4, 5 Why? Because they are all statisticians from Universities around the country: ARDA Advisory Board: Renata Curty (UC Santa Barbara), Joel Herndon (Duke University), Nathaniel Porter (Virginia Tech), Ruth Tillman (Pennsylvania State University), Andrew Tyner (Center for Open Science)


 * ARDA Affiliates: US Religion Census, Baylor Univeristy, World Religion Database at Boston University, which is part of Brill publishing: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/


 * No, you do not know better than these experts. But AEO I'm asking you, your position is that ARDA not be banned from articles you just want it with the deprecated tag?Foorgood (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And ERP you will have to show us a screenshot if you think we will simply take your word about what WRD classifies as atheism because there is so far absolutely 0 proof of what you just stated. Foorgood (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Foorgood I'm not sure I'm permitted to put a screen shot in this discussion (wikipedia images are suppose to be stuff we can use in articles) or even if it would be sufficient proof for you given you apparently have no access to the database and therefore don't know what it looks like (I could after all photoshop it). Would it be better to have a third party who has access to WRD to vouch for the accuracy?  A party you choose.  I'm not sure whether @NebY or @Æo have access. Erp (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope because as I wrote below: Here is The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion. All the top Universities call it a reliable source period you do not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely your personal opinion from your own original research. Foorgood (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Erp: I don't have access to the database, but I personally trust your word. In any case, I think it would not be a problem if you uploaded a little screenshot of the section of the page which demonstrates unclear and circular reporting; I think it would not be a copyright violation. Regarding Foorgood, I think he is gaming the discussion system by bringing the interlocutor to exhaustion, ignoring the evidence we have put forward and stubbornly copy-pasting his links which do not demonstrate anything except that ARDA/WRD is listed among other sources on some university/library websites. Æo (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also remind of WP:AGF. We have no reason to suspect Erp of fabricating a quotation from WRD and I very much hope that FoorGood doesn't imagine that such suspicion would be justified by or would justify misleading statements by Foorgood themself. NebY (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for pointing that out about Good Faith. I would like someone else to check given that I am using an older browser so perhaps some things are hidden from me such as lack of sources (not the definition of atheists, that is definitely there).  Or I should check on a different computer.  I note @Foorgood has been contacting various people and one of them might have access.
 * I'm actually not so sure it was circular reporting since it isn't clear whether the surveys listed by WRD were actually listed sources or listed links for related information. The idea behind the WRD makes a certain amount of sense; however, the methodology is lacking in a few ways. What are the sources for each country and a short description on how they are used, who is responsible for the calculations in each country (or are the listed editors, Todd M. Johnson, Brian J. Grim, Gina A. Zurlo, Peter Crossing, and David Hannan, responsible for all countries?), are there regular archives so a researcher using it doesn't find the data changing out from underneath them (these archives might exist); why aren't figures rounded to avoid giving a precision that is impossible for estimates?  what are the error estimates?
 * By the way if WRD is well known (whether for good and/or for bad), it probably should have its own Wikipedia article. Erp (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Foorgood, your wrote "Oxford and Cambridge and 3 other top publishers call them reliable" and previously "they are considered Reliable by Oxford and Cambridge". Books publishesd by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press don't represent the opinion or judgment of OUP or CUP (or of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge), and this is true of publishers generally; for example, a book published by Harper Collins does not represent the opinion of Rupert Murdoch. An advisory board of statisticians "from Universities around the country" isn't automatically of high quality (they might be the best in the US or they might be the only ones in the US who'll work with that organisation) and the extent to which advisory boards influence an organisation's work and output varies massively. NebY (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is even The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion. All the top Universities call it a reliable source period you do not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely your personal opinion from your own original research. Foorgood (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Foorgood, note that the sites you have linked merely list ARDA among other sources, and the blurb is likely a self-presentation. They are not critical researches; critical assessments are those like the ones from which I have excerpted the quotes reported at the beginning of the discussion (Liedhegener et al. 2013, Hsu et al. 2008). Also please note, and I repeat this for the umpteenth time, that the ARDA acquired all its data from the WRD only by 2021/2022, and before then it hosted completely different data. As already expressed before, the first problem here is the WRD, and the ARDA is the secondary problem as it functions as the dissemination platform of WRD data. Æo (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And as you saw Harvard calls World Religion Database a good source so do yourself a favor and stop humiliating yourself trying to make it seem deprecated and pretending you know better than Harvard Stanford and Oxford. Even the Yale and Princeton Library websites suggest World Religion Database. Foorgood (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's better, at least to start with; you clearly identify those mentions as being from university libraries. But then you veer into saying "all the top universities", as if the libraries are the universities, as if those samples do call it a reliable source, and as if your sample proves that all "top" universities or even their libraries call it a reliable source. And then you tell me that "you do not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely your personal opinion from your own original research". You do not know what my opinion is; my comment above on your statements was my first. NebY (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That first sentence from Stanford Library, "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world", is also in our article Association of Religion Data Archives and has been since its origination in 2006. The Stanford page appears to be comparatively recent - note that this Jan 2022 list of guides from the Wayback Machine doesn't mention a religion page. The Stanford statement might be copied from Wikipedia, which is not a WP:RS, or both might be taken from a self-description of ARDA, whose website currently has "now including American and international collections submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world." (I notice that's not such a strong statement, not making a claim about all the data.) It does not appear to be Stanford Library's independent appraisal of ARDA. NebY (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, as I wrote above the blurb is a self-presentation copied and pasted here and there, including on Wikipedia. Also note that the self-proclaimed "foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world" are fundamentally the same people of the WRD alias Gordon-Conwell and of the John Templeton Foundation (another organisation about which we could report plenty of criticism). Æo (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that you'd found it on wikipedia too! NebY (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Foorgood (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that much of the evidence presented so far by User:Foorgood indicates that ARDA is a reliable source. The set of references that were provided 12, 3, 4, 5 indicate that there is scholarly usage of such a database. Keep in mind that all major surveys have their limitations and none are really the final word - especially on atheism. Estimates of atheism are particularly problematic e.g. estimates from China differ between surveys (WIN-Gallup International vs Pew Research Center) and China and well... Asia alone shifts the global estimates of atheism considering that just China by itslef has the greatest number of atheists in the world. From wikipedia's stand point there is no issue using ARDA. It is not a depreciated source. It has limitations and problems like all other surveys. Attribution may solve the issues of putting any results from any particular survey in wikipedia's voice.
 * From the arguments presented against ARDA, none indicate that it is a depreciable source. ARDA has notable sociological researchers like Roger Finke in its board and peer reviewed articles on it are also available . Also, there are many hits from other scholarly sources on google scholar using the database too .Ramos1990 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view it is not ARDA that is in question but rather one of the databases it archives, World Religion Database. ARDA itself says that the source should be cited with ARDA just being the repository.
 * If I modify the google scholar search for just "World Religion Database" I get 559 results though some of them aren't exactly supportive. For instance
 * one article reviewing the database states "Second, the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals" and [things which] would radically improve the usefulness and face-validity of the data:
 * Documenting how each estimate was calculated. A Webbased format is ideal for revealing this kind of information: most users would not be interested in the details, and costs to print such information would be exorbitant.
 * Providing some measure of uncertainty with each estimate (e.g., standard errors or even a qualitative evaluation by the editors). Researchers could then integrate uncertainty into their statistical models or exclude cases with uncertain estimates. As it is, estimates for Afghanistan, Algeria, China, and North Korea appear as precise as estimates from Canada and Germany.
 * I also noted that many of the other cites were in articles authored by the database creators.
 * I also did a search on jstor which tends to be a bit more selective than google scholar on what is scholarly though some recent stuff (3-5 years) may not yet be available on it. There were 31 results (with at least 3 of those by people directly involved in the database). One is by Hsu et al. 2008 mentioned above which is not favorable to the database. One article had the statement "'Relying on the 2010 estimates of the World Religion Database (WRD), this method is used in instances where no better data than the religious composition of the birth country were available'" This seems to show a reluctance to use it if anything better was available. Also "'At the extreme high end, the World Religion Database puts the percentage of Christians in China at 7.76 percent, or a just above 100 million, but this number is most certainly an overestimation'"
 * WRD seems to be on the edge of acceptability. At most it should only be used if no better source exists (I still can't imagine how they calculated the so very precise numbers for North Korea). Erp (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WRD is not on the edge of acceptability. It is clearly used in the sources you cited above. Brill, which is an academic publisher, publishes the database and it comes from Boston University by the way so it is RS by that measure alone. I see no reason to object to it from wikipedia's policy standpoint. The sources you brought do not show that it is a bad database, because clearly peer reviewed sources do use it. Google scholar also produces peer reviewed articles and books that use it too. I got more than 800 when looking at "world religion database (WRD)". How is this a problem for it? It is used quite a bit. Bad sources do not get used this often to build on research. So clearly it has value for academics.
 * Now, there are studies that do sloppy work on atheism such as WIN-Gallup which showed global atheism rising way too fast in 2012, and magically declining by half in the subsequent WIN-Gallup surveys within the same decade. This of course is preposterous - that atheists would double and then decline in 10 years. People, on a global scale, do not change radically one way and then change back in a decade. And some researchers have advised caution on WIN-Gallup's data set (e.g. Oxford Handbook of Atheism) since their numbers on atheism in China are way too large - compared to all data sets on religion and atheism available. But none of this makes WIN-Gallup an non usable or depreciated source on wikipedia.
 * That is because all studies have their weaknesses and they usually contradict each other in the literature (Pew vs WIN-Gallup vs WVS vs census data, etc). Wikipedia just presents what certain data sets have come up with. We as wikieditors do not psychologize or make assessments or judgments on how one database is good or bad methodologically. As long as WRD has an academic standing in some way in the literature, there is no real reason to discount it over any other. Attribution should take care of placing the weight on the database being cited for the numbers.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As it has already been written and amply demonstrated, the ARDA is a repository of data which at some point between 2021 and 2022 changed all its datasets with those of the WRD/WCD alias Gordon-Conwell. It is the latter that is in question in this discussion, and judgment on the ARDA follows judgment on WRD/WCD. As it has been widely demonstrated, the WRD/WCD is a Protestant Christian encyclopedia, dataset and missionary tool. Its sources are Protestant Christian missionaries, for the most part, as stated in its own methodology paper (pp. 13-14: ... The WRD taps into knowledge from contacts in every country of the world who inform us on what is happening in non-traditional forms of Christianity, such as churches and insider movements ...; notice that some of these firsthand informers, "insiders", are sometimes completely out of reality: for instance, in 2013 some Protestant churches predicted that 10% of Mongolians would be Christians by 2020, yet between 2010 and 2020 (census data) Christians in the country have declined from 2.2% to 1.3%).
 * As for the sources you have listed (which are the same links provided by Foorgood), the respectability of the publisher or hosting site does not necessarily imply that the content is qualitative and reliable. Cf. WP:RS: WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "POV and peer review in journals": Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs...; cf. Drmies above who has contacted one of the hosting websites: One of the librarians listed on one of the pages you linked confirmed to me what academics already know: a note on a library guide on a university library's website should NOT be taken as any kind of official endorsement for the reliability of that database.
 * Regarding more in detail the sources you (and Foorgood) have listed, I repeat once again: #1 is a book dedicated to a particular Protestant Christian view and project which is ultimately the same one of Gordon-Conwell; #2 is written by one of the compilers of the ARDA itself (Finke of Pennsylvania University); #3 simply lists and comments the ARDA among other resources, and, note it well, goes back to 2011 when ARDA had not yet switched to the WRD/WCD (it says that at that time its sources were mainly the World Value Survey and the International Social Survey Program); #4 is just the list of references used within the book; #5 is not a source of a good quality and in any case I don't find any reference to the ARDA. Æo (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. O.T. Regarding atheism/irreligion and WIN-Gallup, which are not into question in the present discussion, notice that the definition of "atheism" and "irreligion" can vary according to the context, and that these categories overlap and are not as well definible as belief in a specific Abrahamic religion. Also notice that "atheism" and "irreligion" can overlap with the categories of Eastern religions: Buddhists could be considered atheists, while the notion of "religion" in East Asia does not traditionally apply to non-Abrahamic religions (or to forms of East Asian religions which have adopted an organisational form similar to that of Abrahamic religions), especially to East Asian diffused traditions of worship of gods and ancestors, and the same could be said for certain non-Abrahamic religions and unorganised beliefs which are emerging in the Western world. Æo (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Part 2

 * Worth observing the Foorgood has repeatedly canvassed editors to this discussion; that's how Ramos1990 got here, for example. --66.44.22.126 (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Nowhere did he/her or anyone else reach out to me prior to me making a comment on this thread.
 * Back to the program, to the comments of AEO, I see that most of the discussion is not on whether it is academic (clearly it is - has peer review, Brill is an academic published with peer review, Boston University, notable academics head the project, many peer reviewed publications widely use it, etc). On this alone it is a RS per wikipedia. The stuff about WP:Scholarship applies to fringe publishers, but not Brill (which uses peer review).


 * Most of the issues that mentioned in this thread relate to methodology and the papers cited in the top of the thread (Liedhegener (2013) and Hsu (2008) both show generally positive views of WRD despite any shortcomings). This has nothing to do with the fact that it IS an academic source, is used by academics to advance research and that it used as a tool in academic research on religion worldwide. As far as I have seen, no major objections have been provided on this latter front. If bias or fault is perceived (this is not agreed upon and the uses of it in peer reviewed publications show its wide utility), this would not be a problem for wikipedia either because even WP:PARTISAN states that sources do not need to be neutral and that these sources may be better sources for numerous contexts and that attribution would be appropriate.


 * On top of that I see that researchers on Islam use it too The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies, and apparently Pew uses WRD data for some of its numbers in Africa for instance The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa. (interestingly it mentions that census data have design problems as well so no dataset is without its problems - which is true since censuses have inconsistent terminology and metrics on religion and some censuses like the American one do not ask about religion). Also, the Liedhegener (2013) paper mentioned at the top of this thread says WCD was used for Encyclopedia Britannica numbers too. Here is another paper using WRD in combination with other sources to get a comprehensive demography . Here is another on Islam in combination with other studies . Also here is one that compares WRD numbers in New Zealand on the nonreligious along with other datasets and is comparable to Pew. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7


 * The more I look into this the more I find that it is used quite a bit in the literature along with other datasets either As Is or in a supplementary fashion. I don't see it being used in a depreciative fashion. I see no issue with it being cited with attribution (most studies get attributed either way) and scholars generally do not have a problem with it either (which is why they use it in the first place including general positive comments on it from Liedhegener (2013) and Hsu (2008) which were cited at the top o the thread), and there certainly is no wikipedia policy basis against WRD.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "...As far as I have seen, no major objections have been provided on this latter front". What needed to be said has been said, about the use of the source in certain books and about the publishers of either the source itself or books which have made use of it, and academic assessments regarding its non-neutrality and dubious methodology (with one such assessments even affirming that they "seem to have constructed their estimates... from surveys of denominations and missionaries") have been provided (please see WP:IDNHT).
 * Moving forward, please notice that there are various precedents of sources sponsored by or affiliated to religious organisations which have been deemed unreliable: Catholic Answers, Catholic News Agency, Church Militant, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, and, most significantly, the academic CESNUR and its journal Bitter Winter, which are listed among semi-deprecated sources for being "an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits". Also the Annuario Pontificio of the Catholic Church is not used in Wikipedia for statistics about Catholics in every country of the world, so I don't see why Wikipedia should be filled with statistics produced by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Æo (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we have brought up our points on the matter and when you look at the sources, they show more than what you constantly present in your quotes. The sources you presented here usually support WRD too. For instance, its own methodology paper you cited clearly shows that WRD's sources include Censuses, surveys and polls along with denominational data (see p. 4-5) methodology paper. So just isolating "from surveys of denominations and missionaries" is incorrect on methodological grounds and even this quote misrepresents the source you extracted this from (Woodberry, Robert D. (2010). "World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable") because after reading it, Woodberry is very positive to WRD overall and acknowledges its comparativeness with other datasets and even says "Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group." Plus the fact that WRD is used by Islamic researchers, nonreligious researchers, Pew Research Center (actually integrates it as part of Pew's methodological design per Barton in Palgrave Handbook), CIA estimates (per Woodberry), and Encyclopedia Britannica (per Liedhegener) show that it much more reliable and trusted than you are willing to give credit. But since all datasets have their problems - including censuses, attribution would solve any issues. And its academic status with Brill which is a peer reviewed publisher helps too.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another edition of WRD/WCD data has been the Atlas of Global Christianity (produced by the same Gordon-Conwell team). I have found negative critical assessments even for this edition, this time coming from an "insider" (Christian missionary) source, even though through an academic publisher, written by Anne-Marie Kool of the Evangelical Theological Seminary of Osijek, Croatia:
 * p. 1: 《... [the resource] seeks to give “as nuanced a picture as possible” of the history of Christianity over the last 100 years showing an “unmistakable” general pattern, that Christianity experiences a “severe recession” on the European continent that once was its primary base, while it has undergone “unprecedented growth and expansion” in the other parts of the world.》
 * p. 2: 《... widespread caution is raised with regard to the accuracy of the figures and not to engage in statistical analysis with the data, “without robustness checking… they contain random error and probably some systematic error” ...》
 * p. 9, containing a self-criticism from Kool for having herself made uncritical use of the data: 《The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database serve as sources for the data of the Atlas. With regard to the methodology used, Woodberry is right in emphasizing that “more transparency is needed”. It might well be that the great quantity of details easily silenced possible critical voices. It is peculiar that hardly any serious critical interaction and discussion of the underlying methodology of the Atlas has taken place, neither of its two data providing predecessors. The data are simply taken for granted, as I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades.》
 * p. 12, about systematic overestimation of Christianity in Europe, with allusions that there might be financial reason behind such overestimations: 《The statistical image of Europe that is now communicated only re-enforces the image of Europe as a Christian continent, by not giving insight in the internal diversification and erosion. So why is only this broad definition used? Is it for fear of losing power? Or for maintaining the image of the numerically strong “World C” that provides the human and financial resources to “finish the task”? Are matters of Christian finance playing a role? Out of a sense of empire building? Or of a sense of hidden resistance to accept that Europe also is now also a mission field? Is it out of fear of becoming a minority? Fear for ending up statistically weaker than the Muslims? Or an attempt to cling to the influence of the “Western” over the “non-Western” world, based on an image of Europe as still a massive Christian continent?》
 * p. 13; it is a missionary tool designed for a specific strategy of aggression towards what in American missionary Christianity has been conceptualised as the "10/40 window": 《Eric Friede’s sharp analysis points us to the fact that the Atlas is ultimately written from the perspective of the so-called Great Commission Christians, Christians who engage in and support Christian missions, as many essays address the issue of “how to grow Christianity” in a particular region. The mission strategy invoked is then one of identifying within Global Christianity the resources needed for the task, the human resources, the GCC Christians, as well as the Christian finances that could make this enterprise work. An assessment of major tools needed for finishing this task is offered in subsequent sections, like Bible translation is followed by a section on Evangelization, with a division of the world in A, B and C, according to the level “being evangelized”. Statistics are used to motivate missionaries and national workers to mission action with Christian mission being reduced to a manageable enterprise with a dominant quantitative approach and a well-defined pragmatic orientation, “as a typical school of thought coming from modern United States”.》 Kool makes largely reference to: Eric Friede, "Book Review. Atlas of Global Christianity: 1910-2010, by Johnson, T.M. & Ross, K.R. (Eds.), 2010", Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, Theological Librarianship 3(1), 2010.
 * Among other sources, some of which we have already analysed, Kool makes reference to:
 * I can't access the paper at the moment. However, it is a critical assessment, once again coming from a missionary journal, that raises doubts as to the reliability of the WRD on the basis of the mismatch of the latter's data (purportedly based on censuses) with actual data from censuses, in particular those of the UK. Judd Birdsall and Lori Beaman, in Faith in Numbers: Can we Trust Quantitative Data on Religious Affiliation and Religious Freedom?, Transatlantic Policy Network on Religion & Diplomacy, 22 June 2020, at p. 3 say that the WRD, despite being widely cited and impressive, "comes with limitations. In his review of the Database, the statistician Peter Brierley pointed out that for the United Kingdom the Database used denominational reports, such as Church of England baptismal records, rather than the UK census figures to calculate affiliation. A tally of denominational reporting showed that 82% of Britons were Christian, whereas only 72% of them claimed to be Christian in the UK census". (n.b. Brierley makes reference to the UK 2001 census data, showing that already in 2001 the WRD overestimated Christianity in the UK by at least 10%).
 * Æo (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the references. However, again these do not impact WRD much at all. The Kool source on the Atlas mentions that WRD data is used by the Atlas, not that WRD is the Atlas or that the goal of the Atlas was the same as WRD. Just like Pew uses WRD, it makes no sense to associate Pew's agendas with WRD's database just because one uses the other. The Atlas' goal and interpretations numerical data is different than WRD and Kool rightly focuses on the contents of the Atlas, instead of WRD (WRD is not mentioned much throughout the paper). WRD is one data set and is not the only one and attribution solves any issues here on wikipedia. You keep on thinking that these papers are calling for the removal of WRD when they are actually trying to improve it and they continuously praise it overall. They all agree that it is very valuable and merely say that there are limitations to it - just as the same applies to Pew, Gallup, and censuses all around the world. This is nothing new in this and if you ever look at the numbers of nonreligion, for example; from Pew, Gallup, and Cenuses, there are significant discrepancies to be found there between these datasets (easy examples include China, Japan, and numerous countries in Europe like Netherlands and Sweden). They are all flawed and limited. None stands as the authority. Stuff like "spiritual but not religious" messes up the numbers because religion is not perceived in Western sense in most of the world.
 * Æo (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the references. However, again these do not impact WRD much at all. The Kool source on the Atlas mentions that WRD data is used by the Atlas, not that WRD is the Atlas or that the goal of the Atlas was the same as WRD. Just like Pew uses WRD, it makes no sense to associate Pew's agendas with WRD's database just because one uses the other. The Atlas' goal and interpretations numerical data is different than WRD and Kool rightly focuses on the contents of the Atlas, instead of WRD (WRD is not mentioned much throughout the paper). WRD is one data set and is not the only one and attribution solves any issues here on wikipedia. You keep on thinking that these papers are calling for the removal of WRD when they are actually trying to improve it and they continuously praise it overall. They all agree that it is very valuable and merely say that there are limitations to it - just as the same applies to Pew, Gallup, and censuses all around the world. This is nothing new in this and if you ever look at the numbers of nonreligion, for example; from Pew, Gallup, and Cenuses, there are significant discrepancies to be found there between these datasets (easy examples include China, Japan, and numerous countries in Europe like Netherlands and Sweden). They are all flawed and limited. None stands as the authority. Stuff like "spiritual but not religious" messes up the numbers because religion is not perceived in Western sense in most of the world.


 * If we want to criticize census data, there are papers showing the limitations and issues with that too . Censuses get quantity - but they do not guarantee quality of course. In fact Pew's methodology mentions the limitations of surveys and census too (America has not asked on religion for 70 years, for example). Pew clearly states that "Censuses and nationally representative surveys can provide valid and reliable measures of religious landscapes when they are conducted following the best practices of social science research. Valid measurement in censuses and surveys also requires that respondents are free to provide information without fear of negative governmental or social consequences. However, variation in methods among censuses and surveys (including sampling, question wording, response categories and period of data collection) can lead to variation in results. Social, cultural or political factors also may affect how answers to census and survey questions are provided and recorded." Its pretty obvious that big variations exist between just these datasets alone. Anyways, Pew also mention that they used WRD data for 57 countries as a supplement in their methodology in that same section. Furthermore, Pew acknowledges that statistical reports from religious groups are also valid measures. "In cases where censuses and surveys lacked sufficient detail on minority groups, the estimates also drew on estimates provided by the World Religion Database, which takes into account other sources of information on religious affiliation, including statistical reports from religious groups themselves."


 * So I don't see much of an issue in light of this. So all of this thread on equating a critique of a dataset = bad dataset is preposterous when you see that all datasets have problems and issues. In fact, there is research indicating that "religion" is invented in surveys and polls (if you are interested see Wuthnow, Robert (2015). Inventing American Religion : Polls, Surveys, and the Tenuous Quest for a Nation's Faith. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190258900.) We know that WRD is used by Pew, CIA, Encyclopedia Britannica, Islamic researchers, and nonreligious researchers among many others. But most importantly it satisfies wikipedia's RS criteria since it has peer review, and is from Brill, an academic publisher.


 * You cited . Cool. It says the same thing - that there are limitations. But keep in mind what he also clearly states "It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it." And after reading it, the overall view is positive to WRD, not negative on WRD.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:IDNHT:
 * You write: "...these do not impact WRD much at all". This is your opinion, not that of Kool, and not my opinion or that of other editors for whom the WRD's reliability is questionable.
 * "The Kool source on the Atlas mentions that WRD data is used by the Atlas, not that WRD is the Atlas or that the goal of the Atlas was the same as WRD". Kool is clear: "The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database serve as sources for the data of the Atlas", and the Atlas is produced by the very same Gordon-Conwell team.
 * As for the rest of your message, it is completely off-topic and diverts from the main theme. Censuses, Pew, CIA, Britannica (of which the latter two are not statistical organisations and only cite figures taken from other sources) are not what is being discussed here. Indeed, Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures is affected by the present discussion since it, just like ARDA/WCD/WRD, is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (pseudodata projections based on Pew's 2001-2010 cycles of surveys, which are being presented throughout Wikipedia as hard data for 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050). The fact that Pew used the WRD for some of its data only detracts from Pew's own quality.
 * Æo (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Atlas uses WRD as a source for its data, like you mentioned. So does Pew, Muslim researchers, nonreligion researchers, etc. None of this means that WRD is equivalent to the interpretations, contents, views or arguments presented in the Atlas, Pew, Muslim, nonreligion sources. It is just a dataset. In terms of projections, I am sure you already know that ALL projections are wrong. In the last quarter century it was projected by numerous sources and studies that significant parts of the world would not be religious, due to secularization. But this never happened. Projections are usually wrong. But that is a different discussion.Ramos1990 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Not being sure, whether it is the right place, I am repeating my comment regaridng sources for membership data in religious bodies. They should be used according this priority ranking: 1. Data of the religious body itself if officially counted like in Austria and Germany 2. Census data like in India, Indonesia and many other contries 3. Data from high quality independent surveys like in Spain or US 4. CIA data may fill the remainig gaps 5. Data from missionary sources should be avoided! Nillurcheier (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nillurcheier, in the next days I will proceed with drawing up a summary rationale and a RfC for the deprecation of missionary and projected data. Æo (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Summary of general consensus
According to authoritative assessments provided hereinabove: N.b. the links may not be exhaustive, as the data have been replicated on various other websites.
 * The following ARDA/WCD/WRD alias Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary datasets are WP:SPONSORED by Christian missionary organisations, are therefore WP:PARTISAN and are ultimately WP:QUESTIONED; moreover, they are WP:CRYSTAL, since their data are projections from the past (1900) to the future (2050) made on the basis of unclear and non-empirical methodologies (i.e. they lack concrete grounding in data provided by actual surveys of populations):
 * https://www.gordonconwell.edu/
 * https://worldreligiondatabase.org/
 * https://worldchristiandatabase.org/
 * https://www.thearda.com/
 * The Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures dataset (n.b. not other studies made by the Pew Research Center) presents problems similar to those of ARDA/WCD/WRD/GC datasets as to the reliability of projections (WP:CRYSTAL; from 2010 to 2050, and sometimes to 2070 and 2100), although in this case the methodology is somewhat clearer (their projections are based on censuses of the early 2000s and Pew's own surveys conducted prior to 2010, the year from which the GRF data were projected; however, note well that Pew's surveys conducted after 2010, focused on religion demographics of the United States in 2014, 2019 and 2021, have already disproven previous GRF projections):
 * http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/
 * https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projection-table/
 * https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

The problem with these datasets has arisen since they have been passed off in various Wikipedia articles as hard data (which they are not, as they are projections). In any case, there is general consensus, both in the discussion hereinabove and in past discussions on other Wikipedia talk pages, that projected data and data produced by missionary organisations should never be used to replace census data and data produced by professional (non-partisan) statistical organisations.--Æo (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Correction to the "summary of general consensus"
Parts 1 and 2 of the whole discussion clearly show massive disagreements among editors on everything mentioned in the "Summary of general consensus". There was no consensus.


 * The sources used "authoritative assessments provided hereinabove" generally support the use of either of the 3 databases they discuss (ARDA, WCD, WRD). These sources do not depreciate theses databases and some specifically mention that they use these databases themselves. I extracted more quotes at the bottom of some of these sources to show context since it looks like ignoring the positive things they say would distort their assessment. Context matters and transparency is important.


 * Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures was not discussed much either and even here there were clear disagreements among editors.


 * The notion of using projection data was not discussed much throughout this whole discussion and in the little that was mentioned, there were clearly disagreements among editors.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Replying to your points,


 * 1) There is a general consensus that the sources are questionable, both from the present discussion and past ones. In the present discussion, 5 users have raised concerns, while 2 (i.e. you and Foorgood) have continued to repeat the same things to support the datasets. The consensus, from both the present and past discussions, is that these sources should never replace censuses and surveys from statistical organisations; it is not about deprecation, as we have not reached that point yet, and it will require a RfC.


 * 2&3) About GRF and projections, I mainly referred to past discussions. In any case, they are against WP:CRYSTAL and passing them off as actual data is very simply an untruth.

--Æo (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We should leave it up to an uninvolved editor to summarize this whole discussion, not you or me. Other editors have not agreed to your points. Most just provided very few comments early on on what makes the source relaible or not per wikipedia criteria. None of which look like they mention your points one methodology at all. And none said these were unreliable explicitly either.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ramos1990, I agree about an uninvolved closure. However, my summary was not meant to close the discussion, it was meant to provide a rationale for a RfC as the next step. In any case, I have taken part in various discussions concerning this topic over the years, in many of which also participated and supported my views; my idea of consensus is built on those past discussions too.--Æo (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. The issue about methodology was first raised by Erp, then further investigated by me, and is mentioned in particular in one of the excerpts from Anne-Marie Kool's paper.--Æo (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC: deprecation of Gordon-Conwell's WRD/WCD/ARDA & Pew-Templeton's GRF
QUESTION: Should we deprecate the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary's World Religion Database/World Christian Database, also published by the Association of Religion Data Archives, as WP:SPONSORED, WP:PARTISAN, WP:QUESTIONABLE & WP:CRYSTAL, and the Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures dataset as WP:CRYSTAL, thus as unreliable sources in the field of religion statistics and demographics?

Please see:
 * The summary of general consensus as a rationale for deprecation, with the main links to the datasets in question.
 * The entire discussion above, and in particular the authoritative critical assessments that have been collected.

Further considerations:
 * Note well that this RfC for deprecation is unrelated to the "general consensus" elaborated hereabove, which is built on the discussion further above plus the fragmented consensuses about the same issue reached over the years in various Wikipedia talk pages (according to which the datasets in question should never replace data from censuses and statistical organisations, as they are built largely on Christian missionary sources and/or speculative projections, not yielded by actual surveys); this RfC will only enforce that consensus through deprecation, in case the community will express itself in favour of deprecation.
 * A RfC for deprecation is needed because, despite the aforementioned fragmented consensuses collected over the years, the datasets in question are periodically re-added to Wikipedia articles about countries and religion demographics and passed off as results of actual surveys, and this could be better curbed with a deprecation warning.

Nom:--Æo (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey (GC's WRD/WCD/ARDA & PT's GRF)

 * I suspect that there has been some WP:CANVASSING here, given that an account with no previous involvement with either this discussion or noticeboard has suddenly returned after weeks of inactivity specifically to express a vote here, and that Foorgood has been provocatively counting the votes. Better to remind everyone that this is not a ballot (WP:POLL) with the tag above, and to Foorgood that he has not "won the dispute" as he has been claiming on some talk pages.--Æo (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * N.b.: Foorgood was banned on 3 December.--Æo (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Please respond Yes or No.


 * No. I'm not seeing reasoning in your arguments here or in past discussion that are compelling. WP:PARTISAN does not affect the reliability of the source, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. I think we can all agree that census data should be used where it can, but when we don't have it, we used the best we can find. Unfortunately, humanity has had to rely on religious sources for centuries, across many fields, because they were often the only institution with the means or authority to collect the data. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Pyrrho the Skipper, the problem of reliability is not that these datasets are "religious sources" (there can be datasets provided by religious organisations that are neutral, such as the membership registers published by churches in Germany and Austria). The problem with these datasets is that they have been widely questioned by academic critique as being driven by a systematic bias. Besides the bias, the main problem for Wikipedia is that these datasets are projections and are periodically re-added to Wikipedia articles, passed off as hard data, often even overwriting data from censuses and reliable surveys held by statistical organisations (e.g., , ), so even in those cases (and they are the majority) where there are better and neutral sources (censuses and reliable surveys). A good comparison, and precedent, is the CESNUR, which is currently deprecated because it was ascertained to be driven by a systematic bias in favour of various new religious movements. In any case, deprecation is not a complete blacklisting, and in this case it would only be a warning that these datasets are questioned by RS and there are better sources to use. Æo (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No Below is ARDAs impressive resume from their about page https://www.thearda.com/about/about-the-arda


 * Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) strives to democratize access to the best data on religion. Founded as the American Religion Data Archive in 1997 and going online in 1998, the initial archive was targeted at researchers interested in American religion. The targeted audience and the data collection have both greatly expanded since 1998, now including American and international collections submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA is generously supported by the Lilly Endowment, the John Templeton Foundation, Chapman University, Pennsylvania State University and Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.


 * ARDA Advisory Board: Renata Curty (UC Santa Barbara), Joel Herndon (Duke University), Nathaniel Porter (Virginia Tech), Ruth Tillman (Pennsylvania State University), Andrew Tyner (Center for Open Science)


 * ARDA Affiliates: US Religion Census, Baylor Univeristy, World Religion Database at Boston University, which is part of Brill publishing: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/


 * Here is The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion.


 * Below are multiple book sources that call ARDA and the World Religion Database "Reliable", including the Oxford handbook and Cambridge University: 12, 3, 4, 5
 * Foorgood (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No. Having read through all of this, I think that while some individual sources do question the databases noted above (unsurprising given the controversy of religious topics in general), I think there is no basis for deprecation. Given the number of well-respected institutions that recommend the sources, as noted above, I'm inclined to think these are reliable enough for Wikipedia's purposes.  -- Jayron 32 19:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No… but: I don’t think deprecation is the right answer here… but… Perhaps in-text attribution should be required. This would prevent the data being presented in Wikipedia’s voice, and alert the reader that there might be bias in its compilation. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. For details, see my previous reply to Pyrrho the Skipper, plus my previous discussions with and , and  . Moreover note that, as it has been pointed out by  in the discussion above, the fact that the datasets in question are listed on the websites of academic institutions (Foorgood has copy-pasted the very same message which started the entire discussion) does not imply that they are reliable and that said academic institutions support them ( even contacted one such institutions and they confirmed this). The solution invoked by  ("...alert the reader that there might be bias...") would be possible, in my opinion, only through a deprecation warning.--Æo (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Aren't users who initiate RFCs not supposed to make a vote? In any case User Ramos1990 would make 5 NOs to your RFC.. Do you not give up when you have been denied?Foorgood (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * At WP:RFC I have not found a precise rule that forbids the nom to express his vote (if there is such a norm, I will strike my comment). In any case, it's certainly not a double vote. Æo (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Foorgood, don't be silly. Of course the nominator has a say here. Why shouldn't they? And Ramos1990 does not count for five. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes--meaning, the numbers simply cannot be accepted at face value, and I'm somewhat more critical here than, whose opinion I value, is. If scholars agree that for instance the number of Chinese Christians is inflated, then the basic facts supplied by the database are in question. If I read one more time that "Below is ARDAs impressive resume from their about page" or some such thing I'm going to cry--it is very unfortunate that Foorgood keeps repeating the same points no matter how much scholarship Æo cites. I was pinged here because I contacted one of the librarians on whose page the database was linked, pointed them to the discussion (weeks ago), and they told me they would rephrase the "recommendation" on their website--and noted of course how linking something is HARDLY the same as giving a wholehearted endorsement. Foorgood seems to be deaf to such arguments. , I'm wondering if you have an opinion here--and the time to read through this long, long thread. I'll add that for me this is a tricky decision, because Brill is one of those publishers that I tell my students are eminently reliable--and not just because they published my book, haha. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I will take your word about the librarian. Maybe I will call another librarian and get a statement that they still recommend WRD.. in any case Ramos already stated he will come respond with a NO so the majority will overrule such an absurd request for deprecation. At that point maybe we will finally stop hearing of such "repetitions" you allude to.
 * Foorgood (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No These databases seem to be respected sources by demographers and are NOT partisan. Brill publishes these and it is academic. These databases are actually used by a diversity of scholars and authoritative sources such as scholars of Islam (e.g. The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies), scholars of nonreligion / irreligion (e.g. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7), Pew Research Center's uses it in own methodology and database (see Pew's methodology and The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa), is used for CIA estimates (per Woodberry in " authoritative critical assessments" link in RFC), and is used by Encyclopedia Britannica (per Liedhegener in "authoritative critical assessments" link in RFC).


 * I extracted more quotes from the "authoritative critical assessments" link in RFC because upon closer inspection they do not really support the claims in the RFC. They actually show deep respect for these databases, not depreciation:
 * - Hsu, Becky; Reynolds, Amy; Hackett, Conrad; Gibbon, James (2008). "Estimating the Religious Composition of All Nations: An Empirical Assessment of the World Christian Database" - here is their overall conclusion: "In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups." Even in the abstract of the paper they state that World Christian Database highly correlated with 4 other databases: World Values Survey, Pew Global Assessment Project, CIA World Factbook, and the U.S. Department of State.


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


 * - Brierley, Peter. (2010). "World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!" - "The WRD is a truly remarkable resource for researchers, Christian workers, church leaders, religious academics, and any others wanting to see how the various religions of the world impact both the global and the local scenes. It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it."
 * As others and I have mentioned, ATTRIBUTION would resolve any issues since it would not put anything from any demography source in wikipedia's voice. All sources should be attributed since none are the last word on religious demography.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes on World Religion Database with a caveat. In my own examination of the database, I think the detail is beyond belief and I think they fail the Accurate part of CRAAP (https://guides.library.illinoisstate.edu/evaluating/craap) in that they (a) fail to list their sources or describe how they got their numbers in at least a few cases (e.g., North Korea), (b) they are precise to single digits in cases where that is extremely unlikely to be accurate (again North Korea), (c) they don't give error bars. I also noted very few peer reviewed articles that use the data outside of Christian mission related articles.  The caveat, no scholar has taken them to task in a public take down.  I note that Johnson and Grim are aware of the issues of getting accurate data; it just isn't reflected in the data.  If it is determined that World Religion Database is a 'reliable' enough source, I strongly suggest an article on it  so readers can make their own evaluations. However, I think it is better to say we lack information on religious demographics rather than use what might not be good.  On ARDA, it is a database repository and each database within it must be evaluated on its own merits; ARDA itself is not a source and explicitly says the actual source should be cited. --Erp (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The CRAAP test is really relevant. I think something similar, or the CRAAP itself, should be adopted as part of the WP:RS policy. Æo (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No As already mentioned by a few here, Brill is an academic publisher for these databases : see and  and do not look partisan as is claimed in the RFC since their databases extensively use empirical data from secular sources like general censuses, polls, surveys in addition to the field records which are quite unique (see for example ). On top of the that, the "criticism" sources mentioned in the RFC as "authoritative critical assessments" are overall constructive criticisms that are friendly to these databases to the point that yes, they either show eagerness to use these databases themselves or give praise to it despite any quibbles. The Hsu 2008 paper clearly states positive vibes "We test the reliability of the WCD by comparing its religious composition estimates to four other data sources (World Values Survey, Pew Global Assessment Project, CIA World Factbook, and the U.S. Department of State), finding that estimates are highly correlated." and also "Religious composition estimates in the WCD are generally plausible and consistent with other data sets." This should not be ignored since that supposed "criticism" paper clearly shows the opposite of the RFC. Like others have mentioned, attribution would be a good practice when using demographic data from any source since no one source is the authority in religion demographics either way. Wareon (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They do not use census data. That description is misleading. Compare ARDA/WRD Australia to Australia 2021 Census; ARDA/WRD Canada to Canada 2021 Census; ARDA/WRD Switzerland to Switzerland 2020 Census; ARDA/WRD Estonia to Estonia 2021 Census, and so on.
 * Indeed, among the critical sources provided in the discussion above, you find, for instance, that:
 * Woodberry 2010: ...the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals....
 * Liedhegener & Odermatt 2013, p. 9: ...a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism....
 * Hsu et al. 2008, p. 684: ...Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. ... On the other hand, the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions....
 * The WCD/WRD correlates with other datasets for statistics about certain religions but not others; in particular, there is a systematic overestimation of Christianity in every country of the world (e.g. the statistics for Estonia, where Protestants are 10% according to the national census, and 24% according to WCD/WRD projection). Æo (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6 no's to 3 yes's. I want to know at what point will AEO accept the wiki community's decision and stop griping for his opinion to be accepted? Foorgood (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No: I do not see any reason for a witch hunt. The database is used often by religionists (religionistic = scientific viewpoint on religions, reached on universities, etc) for a quick orientation and to get exact information, which is almost not possible to get elsewhere therefore it is a valuable source. Comparison with other cases on the noticeboard is improper as each case is simply different and the consensus could change over time. So, quickly looking at the case, it looks like there could be some political agenda behind the proposal, but I do not know the case in detail, nor the editor, so I could not tell. But in my opinion, religious intolerance, like other intolerances, should not have any space on Wikipedia. --Dee (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no "witch hunt" or "political agenda" here, certainly not from my part. The WCD/WRD, otherwise, has been proven by WP:RS to have a precise agenda. This RfC for deprecation is precisely for the sake of "exact information" and facts, which the WCD/WRD has been abundantly proven not to represent, and has been driven by past consensus and discussions. Exact information is not "...almost not possible to get elsewhere...": official censuses yield exact information on religions and other demographics for most countries. Æo (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Notice not only demographics in the database, but religion-related info as well, which is not at all available in the official censuses. Pls, check that there are trees in the forest. --Dee (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Further evidence: compare ARDA/WRD Manx 2021 data (84.1% Christian) with 2021 Manx Census data (54.7% Christian). A 30% overestimation. Æo (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9 nos to 3 yes's. This is exactly a witch hunt against a supposed "Christian" source yet AEO has already been told World Religion Database is not even currently affiliated with World Christian Database in any way. Does he not understand the word NO? No idea why Drmies joined this witch hunt either but it's embarrassing. Foorgood (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No but Pew-Templeton has to be treated with greater caution than I often see. Two examples from my experience, quite apart from the discussion above: editors seeking statistics use figures for 2020 without noting (or maybe knowing) that they're old projections. Their methodology tends to minimise irreligious numbers, which I do see as in accordance with an aim to emphasise that religion is compatible with science and the modern world. If deprecation was a milder term in Wikipedia, I would say yes. NebY (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. These databases are used by researchers in politics, sociology and demography. Brill is known as a reliable publisher and ARDA seems to be a usable resource and does have many academics from numerous institutions running it. From wikipedia policy, I see no issues on it a reliable source and I don't see why it would be seen as problematic. Just attribute like another editor has mentioned.--عبد المسيح (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that عبد المسيح (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — عبد المسيح (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This user had been inactive for weeks before voting here on 30 November (and making another comment on the talk page of an article I had been working on), wherupon they became inactive again. This account was suspected to be a sockpuppet of Jobas in May 2021, but never checked (see: Sockpuppet investigations/Jobas/Archive). Tagging and, to whom I have already reported concerns about this.--Æo (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Concerning the false accusation, I saw an unusual amount of activity in Religion in Bulgaria on my watchlist by User:AEO . I noticed the RFC on sources in his history. And since it peaked my interest, added a comment to this RFC. Anyone can comment on an RFC and no one has to edit a particular amount for it to matter. Plus it was posted in numerous RFC lists: Religion and philosophy, Society, sports, and culture, and History and geography and other noticeboards by User:AEO himself. So obviously he wanted more attention from other editors. With respect to the sock puppet stuff, I will essentially say what I said there, I have no connection with the named users. If you need to investigate to confirm this, feel free. Please ping me when you are talking about me too. It is rude otherwise. Regards.--عبد المسيح (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User:AEO, SPI investigation was completed showing that I am not related to any of these users. Since both investigations now show (via  archive check and  IP check) that I have no relation to any of these users, please desist from further accusations. I may take it to an admin if this continues in the future.


 * Also please stop WP:Canvassing. Numerous editors you have pinged (I see about 5 or 6) to this whole thread have voted on your side because you already know they support your views. Especially the ones you have pinged multiple times to try to get their votes. As is clearly seen here when you requested their vote knowing how they would vote beforehand . RFCs are supposed to get multiple different opinions, not only the opinions of editors who already side with your views. It disturbs the open process of these types of discussions.--عبد المسيح (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) All the users I pinged are those who already gave their opinion in the discussion above, and later I personally solicited Nillurcheier because his vote was missing; 2) given that you were already suspected of being Jobas in the past, my suspicion was perfectly legitimate and not a groundless accusation.--Æo (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No per Wareon, etc. I see no reasonable basis for taking the extreme step of deprecation for these sources. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes following the arguments already made by others. ThePew-TEmpelton is pure glassball and often missleading since many authors take it for a survey or poll, what it isn't. The other source is biased or at least not from a neutral source. If the nos have a majority, I recommend to use these 2 sources as last fallback only. Nillurcheier (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting closure by completely uninvolved editor
A completely uninvolved editor is requested to close this due to the nature of accusations that were made by at least 2 users.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * N.b.: I closed this RfC as at WP:RFCCLOSE I read "...if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion". Expecting that Ramos1990 would dispute it, as I am the same user who opened the RfC, I asked a final review to . For the record, my summary endnote, which Ramos1990 has reverted despite I consider it perfectly balanced (it summarises the most salient points that emerged in the previous discussion, and those expressed by the yesses, by the no/buts, and by the nos), is the following one (no "emotions flared" from my side; on the other hand, Ramos1990's revert has been precipitous):
 * Yes: 4; no/but: 2; no: 8. There is no consensus at this time for the step of deprecation, which has been deemed extreme in this case. The sources in question, two statistical datasets (ARDA/WRD/WCD and Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures), are explicitly linked to some American Christian organisations (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), missionary projects (10/40 window), and philanthropic companies with roots in American Christianity (John Templeton Foundation; Lilly Endowment), and have been criticised for containing some systematic bias (overestimation of Christianity, underestimation of other religious and irreligious populations), and Erp «also noted [that] very few peer reviewed articles ...use the data outside of Christian mission related articles». Both of them are also old mathematical projections, "purely glassball", often misleadingly passed off as hard data from surveys (cf. Æo, NebY, Nillurcheier). It is clear from the discussion that the sources in question should never be used in place of data from censuses and statistical organisations, should be treated with a grain of salt and never accepted at face value. Even some of those who voted no and no/but agreed that «we can all agree that census data should be used where it can» (Pyrrho the Skipper) and that «in-text attribution should be required [to] ...alert the reader that there might be bias» (Blueboar). Those who voted with a clear no (cf. Foorgood, Jayron32, Ramos1990, Wareon, Dee, عبد المسيح) pointed out that some of the sources in question are published by respectable publishing houses, are listed on some academic institutions' websites, and some critical reviews underline the positive sides of them; however, Drmies «contacted one of the librarians on whose page the database was linked, pointed them to the discussion, and they told [him] they would rephrase the "recommendation" on their website – and noted of course how linking something is hardly the same as giving a wholehearted endorsement». Erp also highlighted that the datasets in question fail the CRAAP test: they (a) fail to list their sources or describe how they got their numbers in at least a few cases; (b) they are precise to single digits in cases where that is extremely unlikely to be accurate; (c) they don't give error bars.
 * Anyway, I agree that a completely uninvolved party closes the RfC.--Æo (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Look at your quote again: ...if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion". That makes sense. However, you yourself closed it as "No Consensus" so that clause does not apply since according to you the consensus was not clear. WP:CLOSE says If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Please ensure that any request there seeking a close is neutrally worded, and do not use that board to continue the discussion in question. Your closure looks very biased as it does not emphasize the majority votes - most of it instead definitely emphasizes the minority views as if there was agreement with them - there was not. And indeed another editor was stunned by what you wrote in your closure  and agreed with my reverting your closure in its entirety. And most did not agree with your RFC. What you posted in Green is an attempt at trying to influence the closure and the closer's opinion by providing your personal summary. We already had problems with your summarizing approach above  to the point that I had to issue a correction . When editors disagree, we cannot be the ones that close these RFCs or discussions. What you are doing is WP:DISRUPTIVE and quite frankly disturbing as to how far you are willing to go to force editors to agree with your POV and even pre-selecting editors to side with "your" closure (looks like WP:canvassing to me) which even you admit could be considered biased . For some reason you really want this editor to close it  with you telling him to go ahead and close it despite canvassing concerns . If this type of obsessive and accusatory behavior on trying to control the discussion, the RFC, and closure continues I may have to take it to the admins.
 * On aside note, the closing request has been made and initiated already in the closure requests page by the way. To ensure a neutrality. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "If consensus is undoubtedly clear" may refer to either positive or negative consensus, and I don't see where I expressed that the consensus here is not clear: there is no consensus for a deprecation. Regarding the "majority vote", RfCs are not ballots: "please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors... and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes", and I don't see a supermajority in 8 nos, 2 no/buts and 4 yesses (WP:!VOTE: "the use of the words "vote" and "voting" might not be the best choice when describing Wikipedia processes. While technically correct, such references may contribute to the misconception that we use a system of majority or supermajority rule... it is not the vote that matters, but the reasoning behind the vote that is important. While we do often seem to vote on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important..."; and, let me reiterate, in my endnote all the salient points that emerged from the votes – yesses, not/buts and nos – were summarised). Regarding what I wrote here, I am assuming the good faith and neutrality of that user. Regarding the rest of your assumptions of bad faith, I have already responded here. Æo (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not convinced since you explicitly sought votes after claiming it was not about votes, for example. Not buying that the vote was "missing" either. They were already pinged by you early on in November 21, 2022  for the RFC specifically and therefore notified of its existence. If they did not respond then, why seek them out months later requesting their vote after you said it is not about votes? I will hold up on the other vote seeking behaviors I am noticing. But will say that your "closure" wording emphasized numerical votes- even splitting by individuals as if to designate weight by number of vote. I also responded to the bad faith claims . Ramos1990 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, "vote" can be interpreted as "comment" (as described in WP:!VOTE), and my endnote divided the votes' values in yes, no/but, and no, as it seems a correct formality. You are assuming bad faith by interpreting pings and my message to Nillurcheier as what they are not. As already written, Nillurcheier expressed his will to take part in a discussion/RfC on this topic in the past, and since I assume the good faith and I value the experience of that user, with whom I have had various interactions about this topic, I notified him. And as I wrote here, I valued past discussions on the topic. The other pings are WP:MENTIONs of users who already took part in the previous discussions and made significant contributions to them, and note that I quoted them or linked to discussions with them, and I think pinging is a correct practice when one quotes another user. You yourself notified Foorgood of the RfC (and didn't bat an eyelid for his disruptive behaviour against me and other participants), but I never accused you of canvassing, as I interpreted it as a normal interaction between users. Æo (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And P.S., at WP:CAN we read "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Neither in my message to Nillurcheier nor in my pinging the previous participants I asked them to vote a certain way ("answer yes!"); therefore, none of them are canvassing and they fit with the appropriate notification rule (WP:APPNOTE: "on the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion"; "editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"; "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"; "editors known for expertise in the field"; and "notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief").--Æo (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I arrived at the discussion independently (no one pinged me to join). Plus Foorgood and I both made extensive contributions to this discussion which shows we were following it periodically. Its one thing to update editors already involved in a discussion who arrived independently at the discussion, it is another to solicit editors who were not involved in the discussion in the first place. You pinged multiple editors early on in October who tended to side with you because you knew their views already (their RFC votes were predictable now that I see this ). In other words you pre-selected these editors to come here knowing their views. This alone accounts for the 3 of 4 yeses in the RFC by the way, you being the third. All the other votes in the RFC seem to be independent. Because you did accuse others of canvassing, I may escalate this to admins along with other behaviors you have displayed here. It is WP:Disruptive.Ramos1990 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is time that this be closed. Personally I'm not all that interested in who got here how; charges of canvassing may have validity but shouldn't really influence the close. I will say that User:Foorgood accusing me of participating in a witch hunt is completely tasteless (I didn't see that until just now)--but then their attitude elsewhere got them blocked already. Ramos1990 complaining about votestacking is silly also, considering that this discussion has been up here for two months by now; accept the result, which I hope will be forthcoming, and move on. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Horror Obsessive
Is this source reliable? They appear to have an editorial team. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 23:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Having an editorial staff is necessary, but not sufficient. I don't see any other reliable sources citing this website. I note that Rotten Tomatoes does not accept its reviews except where written by a couple of specific reviewers, which means those reviewers are notable and reliable, but not the website itself. If it's not good enough for Rotten Tomatoes, it's not good enough for Wikipedia. Banks Irk (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes accepts all kinds of self-published blogs as "Tomatometer approved". Being accepted by Rotten Tomatoes is meaningless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Being rejected by Rotten Tomatoes, on the other hand, is pretty much the kiss of death when it comes to reliability. Banks Irk (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

georgia today
Is https://web.archive.org/web/20180321134612/http://georgiatoday.ge/news/3112/American-Ex-Paratrooper-Joins-Georgian-Legion-Fighting-in-Ukraine a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola Tønningsberg (talk • contribs)


 * I would say yes. It seems like a standard English-language newspaper with an editorial team in a democratic country. Unless there's some disqualifying factor that I'm not aware of, it should be fine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News
A small group of editors at the Twitter files article have refused to consider the use of Fox News as a source for the article, even though it is the mainstream media outlet that has done the most extensive reporting on the issue. It also appears that one or two admins have blocked IP editors who have suggested using Fox as a source. Has Wikipedia blacklisted Fox News site-wide, or only in political articles frequented by the same established editors and admins? 152.130.15.15 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From WP:RSP; "For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas.". Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not a "small group of editors" on one talk page, but all of the editors who discussed the issue here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all who discussed there agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unanimity is not a synonym for consensus... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ... which is why people shouldn't claim it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The point being that OP is mischaracterizing the consensus as among only a small group of editors. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While Fox is certainly a "main" media outlet, after Trump it has become a fringe media outlet pushing conspiracy theories, fake news, and directly repeating Russian propaganda from Russian media sources. Main does not equal mainstream. At Wikipedia, a source's popularity with a segment of society (increasingly radicalized and far-right wing) does not guarantee reliability. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fox News should not be considered reliable for this instance. A recent RFC found that it is not generally reliable for politics, and should be used with care for controversial topics. WP:FOXNEWS recent RFC Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 22:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The RfC found no consensus on the reliability of Fox for politics. Editors who claim it was found to be generally unreliable/not reliable are misinforming others. I will note Andrevan is correctly stating it was not found to be "generally reliable" but the yellow category is a considerations apply, not "do not use".  This is certainly a story where information reported by Fox should not be dismissed on a procedural basis.  Springee (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is "do not use" for controversial claims, which Twitter Files are. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is case by case. Also the Twitter files as a whole are not a controversial claim.  You would have to look at the specific claim being added to the article to say "exclude as controversial". Springee (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not case by case for controversial claims. It is only usable in routine and uncontroversial situations and better sources should be used when available. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree, case by case for controversial claims. That also means we agree it can be used for controversial claims in some cases. Springee (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? I just said, no it cannot be used for controversial claims. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, then you are wrong per the guidelines. "Other considerations apply" != "can not be used". Springee (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you need to read it, it is not a high-quality source for controversial claims. It may be used for uncontroversial and routine claims. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Per the above, this has been discussed many times (see WP:FOXNEWS for a list of them), and the general consensus is that while Fox News is generally reliable for some subjects, it should NOT be considered a reliable source for politics, especially for exceptional claims which are not corroborated by other sources. It should generally be avoided; if it is the only such source, then it shouldn't be used, and if its reporting is corroborated by strictly reliable sources, use those instead.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh… Has anything changed since the last 10 times we discussed Fox News? If not, give it a rest. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No it seems not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, not everyone that comes asking was privy to the earlier discussions, nor knows how to find them. Much better to be empathetic with people new to the area, and gently help them understand the current consensus and where to read the discussions to know how how we arrived there.  It may be the 10th time you've dealt with the matter, but it's the OPs first.  And when it's your 11th, it will be the NEXT person's first as well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Since the RfC was closed as Yellow for Fox News and politics, it shouldn't be excluded as a view on the subject. A number of editors have incorrectly taken the RfC to mean Fox should never be used for political claims other than in about self type instances.  That is not what the closing said.  Instead it should be evaluated on a case by case basis and typically attributed.  If Fox is saying something that may be different from other sources then including with attribution should be fine.  Note this does not apply to cases where the Fox News story is referencing a Fox commentator.  Springee (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it can be used with attribution, though I would try to find something better if possible. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommend you read the close again as well as the description of a marginally reliable source. The close clearly found a consensus that Fox News is not generally reliable for politics and should not be used for contentious or controversial claims. It may be attributed for opinion, but it should be avoided for situations where it is saying something different than other sources. This RfC establishes Fox News's marginal reliability not through an absence of consensus as to reliability (as determined in the July 2020 RfC) but instead through an affirmative community consensus that Fox News does not qualify as "generally reliable". Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not green != generally unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. In this case the specific claims being attributed to Fox would matter. Springee (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The claims would have to be routine and uncontroversial facts. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, if it isn't routine/uncontroversial then it should be reviewed and discussed. It should not be dismissed out of hand based on the false idea that RSP yellow=never use for anything other than.... Springee (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what is going on. What's going on is that a consensus of editors on the Twitter Files have determined it shouldn't be used for those, and some editors don't understand how the system works. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article talk page the question about Fox wasn't asked well since it just said "Why no Fox?" That could be as simple as "we haven't found a claim that we needed to source to them".  However, the answers that amount to a blanket ban on the use are wrong and do not align with the closings of the RSN discussions. Springee (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing blanket about it, it's a specific context of controversial political article topics and statements. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not "generally reliable" is not the same as do not use for politics. Again, this is the problem with editors who have taken reasonable claims (Option 2, use with care/considerations apply) and turn it into (don't use for politics).  With something like the WSJ we generally will assume the information is good if reported there.  With Fox we should look and think before including.  That does not mean, never use or only use for very basic claims.  If Fox is saying something different we need to ask what is being said and in what way is it different?  Is it a conflicting interpretation (ie both claims are interpretations but Fox and CNN reach different interpretations)?  In that case we could include Fox with attribution.  Is it a medical related claim that conflicts with the CDC?  In that case we shouldn't include it.  Is it a non-interpretive fact that other source having mentions, in that case we can include it assuming it's relevant.  That we are cautious when using Fox is a good thing (and should apply to more sources).  That we think total exclusion is a good idea moves us towards systemic bias. Springee (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fox News generally does not qualify as a high-quality source[] for the purposes of substantiating exceptional claims. That includes basically everything about the Twitter Files and the Covid vaccine claims being made therein. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally dose not!= do not use. Additionally, we need to be clear what counts as an exceptional claim.  "Biden was found to be on Russian paylist" = exceptional claim.  Without knowing the specific Twitter claim in question we can't say it was or was not "exceptional". Springee (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a consensus of editors on the Twitter Files talk page that it shouldn't be used for the Twitter Files. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that "consensus" is based on a limited number of editors who are misapplying WP:RSP. I would encourage any editor who thinks they are being stonewalled by editors who assume Fox cannot be used for politics vs should be used with care to start a RfC.  Then editors can try to make more coherent arguments and a a RfC closing can decide if "Fox not OK for politics" arguments can be dismissed. Springee (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, again, look at both that and this discussion, there is a consensus that Fox News should not be used for controversial claims. A new RFC is certainly not necessary as there is a consensus. Your opinion is not changing the consensus. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about what RSP yellow actually means. Yes, that is how many use it and often numbers trump the actual guidelines in question but that is not the correct read.  Additionally, a local RfC on the content supersedes the RSP RfC.  It both satisfies the "considerations apply" part and would allow editors to decide if the specific claim in question is actually "contentious"/controversial. Springee (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By virtue of editors determining this material is contentious and controversial and by determining that Fox News shouldn't be used in this instance, the RFC is satisfied as well as the local consensus. There is no consensus that Fox News may be used in this instance. There is a consensus that Fox News is not generally reliable. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since no specific claim was proposed it is inappropriate to issue a general statement that Fox cannot be used. We also do need to be careful when local consensus is based on a relatively small number of editors with a similar view on the subject.  I've seen cases where local consensus says one thing but when a broader group looks at the question the consensus flips.  Still, since we don't have a specific claim and source in question all we can reasonably say is, there is no blanket ban.  Specific claims need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The local consensus and the project consensus and the noticeboard consensus all say that Fox News is not reliable for controversial political issues. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think one can make a blanket statement like basically everything about the Twitter Files and the Covid vaccine claims being made therein, it depends. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One can make such a statement if one has the support of consensus. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure but we are talking about the RFC here, not a local consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But that also means editors who simply argue "Fox not allowed for politics" aren't offering a meaningful reason to decline the information. They might as well say "Fox not OK because we don't know what the fox says". Springee (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is arguing that? Would you read the OP's post again? Fox News cannot and should not be used per the OP's argument. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The OP asked if Fox is blacklisted. The obvious answer is no it is not.  Since the OP didn't say what specific claim was being added we can't answer if it considerations have applied or not. Springee (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The OP is referring to a conversation about the Twitter Files. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 14:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The question here was if Fox can be used at all, no specific claim is or source article has been presented here. Springee (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You just need to read what the OP wrote again, because that is not what the OP wrote. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not clear to me, the OP should refile like the old days, is Fox News reliable, with attribution, for (some statement). Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion. One of the worst things to happen at RSN was the creation of RSP.  It basically encourages editors to try to get sources bucketed based on their preference rather than doing what RS says we should do, consider if the source is reliable for the specific claim in question. Springee (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The ship has sailed on this. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's see if the OP does refile, I am withholding judgement until then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quite. One of the key questions with marginal sources (which is what we concluded Fox is, when it comes to politics) is whether a claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL or not. It can be used for simple unexceptional statements; it can't be used for shocking things, political scandals, or other claims of an exceptional nature. This is article is clearly focused on the latter - it posits an extensive conspiracy between various political actors, the government, and the former management of Twitter based on virtually no evidence or on evidence that essentially all reliable sources have said they're misrepresenting. More generally, it should be obvious that when it comes to this topic, statements that are only citable to Fox are quite frequently going to be exceptional - a common problem when trying to cite marginally reliable sources, so it generally shouldn't be used here. Fox is still used in all sorts of places for all sorts of unexceptional claims, but the fact is that most of the areas we're likely to come into dispute on are going to be cases where Fox says exceptional things. (In fact, OP essentially acknowledges that this is exceptional when they say that only Fox is writing about these aspects - the easiest way to demonstrate that something is unexceptional is to show multiple sources covering it.) More generally, the simple reality is that yellow sources should be replaced by higher-quality sources whenever possible; and when they can't be replaced because they're the only source for something, that's often a reason to examine that statement very carefully to make sure it's not exceptional. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've read the Fox News articles on the Twitter Files in comparison to more typical media, and the usual problems with Fox and politics shine there - they are taking the claims of Elon Musk and those he shared the files with as undisputable facts, whereas most media point out that the files only point to typical moderation choices that would be handled at a large internet forum board. The only place where Fox news has any relevance is they are one of the dogwhistles to try to boost the importance of these files beyond what they actually are (something we can source to more reliable sources) M asem (t) 15:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would still like to see what it is exactly the OP seeks to have an opinion about, it reads more like a complaint about our classification of Fox and doesn't actually say anything specific about Twitter files (I had to look that up). Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Twitter files is 100% political, as it is claims of Twitter censoring conservative voices including collusion with the federal gov't to do so.  Given that most mainstream sources pretty much ignored the antics of the Twitter Files while the right-leaning media (including NYPost and WSJ, in addition to Fox and others) dove into the claims, it tells us that we need very careful handling of how they should be reported, and certainly not taking the original reports at their word. M asem  (t) 15:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but if there is attribution, we are not taking the reports at their word, we are not making claims in WP voice as fact. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The contents of the Twitter Files (which are the original stories posted by individual journalists typically not associated with any work) should definitely be quoted and attributed if used, and attributed if summarized. That said, when we summarize, we should not summarize ourselves from the primary source (that clearly would include OR), so we need a secondary source to tell us what the summary is. That is where we need reliable secondary sources that shouldn't be stretching the truth of the original primary source (eg: we should not interpret Supreme Court rulings ourselves but rely on this type of reporting from secondary sources to tell us what is important, and to that end, we want good, quality RSes for that that will not twist the truth).
 * Fortunately in the case of the Twitter Files, we do have RSes that explain the take that right-leaning sources are taking, alongside a less nuanced take on what the impact of the files really are, so there's no need to evoke the primary source (outside of showing where they came from) and poor RSes like Fox. M asem (t) 15:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Masem Wow, thank you for that enlightening and not at all tedious explanation of how to properly attribute sources. I mean, who needs to actually read the primary source when you can just rely on some 'reliable secondary sources' to tell you what's important? And thank goodness we have those trusty 'RSes' to guide us away from those pesky 'right-leaning sources' and protect us from the dangers of actually thinking for ourselves. Truly, this is the height of Wikipedian integrity. Man-at-Bogomil (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC) [troll blocked; Drmies (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)]
 * This is a core aspect of WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. We prefer reliable secondary sources over reliable primary sources as the secondary sources will help explain why something is important and avoid editor's own OR to make such a claim (as it would absolutely be for a case like the Twitter Files). M asem (t) 05:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this gets to what I've argued all along, we need to see the specific claim and the specific source. I agree that if "Musk says X" we shouldn't treat that as anything other than a likely self serving claim made by Musk.  If Fox quotes it we have to decide if Musk's opinion on the subject is DUE.  If Fox treat it as fact we should not and should consider if it should be included (I'm not inclined to believe Musk).  However, we should not kneejerk reject any inclusion of Fox as a source. Springee (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem is exactly right. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see where the IP/OP has provided any example here nor there. So, why are we wasting time? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The nuance of our RSP listing is important… while it is accurate to say that we do not consider Fox generally reliable, that does not mean we consider it generally unreliable. It is currently in a wishy-washy in-between state. And THAT means we have to examine whether it is or is not specifically reliable (ie reliable for a specific statement, in a specific article). So, until we know the specifics, we can not answer the OP’s question, except to say “no, we have not banned Fox outright… but there are restrictions, so we need more information”. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we're ignoring that OP has provided a specific article and it is a controversial one. In that case, no, Fox is not reliable. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The OP only asked one question Has Wikipedia blacklisted Fox News site-wide, or only in political articles frequented by the same established editors and admins? Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just glossing over the opening sentence that elucidates the context. A small group of editors at the Twitter files article have refused to consider the use of Fox News as a source for the article. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Context, background, who knows? That's why I said I would wait and see if OP refiles, if not there is nothing to debate. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup… a dif or two would be helpful here, so we could see what specifically is not being accepted and the context in which the OP wishes to cite it. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Response to IP. I believe the Wiki-community has already decided on which news outlets are reliable, which aren't & anywhere in between. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The focus of the article is clearly on exceptional claims about politics, which are not appropriate to cite to a marginally reliable source like Fox. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Forbes as a source
User:Horse Eye's Back has asserted that Forbes is not always considered a WP:RS. I am working on a draft article. I had wanted to include that the subject studied ballet in her youth per this source. However, this edit contests the verifiability of the source. Is this really the case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * See WP:FORBESCON, Forbes staff and Forbes contributors are two very different sources. signed,Rosguill talk 21:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thx -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The same content regarding her ballet experience is included in this podcast. The aformentioned contested verifiability edit summary says something about this source being OK. Can I add that she studied ballet in her youth based on the podcast content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be a listed exception. Sorry. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources and twitter
I see sometimes on the reliable sources verified accounts on twitter can be a source. I was wondering if the account is not verified but it is shown in multiple reliable sources such as the time, the Guardian... that they mention the username that it's the real one, can it be used then?

For more informations, I found a draft called Draft: Edward Hayter and have been editing it since then as he is one of my favourite actor. The reason of the main question is because he doesn't have much articles about him but he has collaborated with Victoria Emslie and she has stated in these reliable sources her twitter username, and she does mention him and it would make more reliable sources and content I could use such as proving he was in a music video with her


 * Veganpurplefox, if I understand your question correctly. If the Guardian states "this twitter account belongs to that person", then IMO that "works" for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes. However WP:SPS is quite strict here: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Emphasis in original. So it will not help you in WP-land. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So it says "you can follow (this person) on @(this person)". So it's quite hard to know how I can use it. Also is a Spotify podcast where they are being interviewed a reliable source?

Digitaljournal.com
This site was discussed in 2011, and deemed not reliable. I encountered it in MC Luna Trine, which uses this article as a reference. As you can see, it is complete rubbish and shouldn't be used on enwiki. However, I notice that digitaljournal.com is used on 1707 articles, including many high profile ones. Many of their posts are just AfP reprints it seems, so these can be get from other sources. Do others have similar experiences with the source, or is this just a one-off aberration? Fram (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've run in to this one a thousand times, always on those kinds of articles. It's a mix of limited original content, and a large amount of aggregate news feeds and paid placement/press release material. The only point in their favor is that they do not try to hide the source; articles have a clear indicator of which press release feed (iNewswire, CDN Newswire, Newsmantraa, TheExpressWire, etc) provided the material, or if it from a "real" news feed. That one is "GetNews", which seems to just spew out PR and crytobro stuff, so not in any way RS. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, I ran across another new article using such a "Get News" promo article as a source. Is there an easy way to get this source restricted or blacklisted? Fram (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

List of possible impact structures on Earth uses a number of unreliable sources
Links to this site are used quite a bit, and I note that when the site does source it is often or usually to conference papers, etc. In the actual article searching for conf. turns up 9 conference papers. Also 10 uses of ironically a Roger Weller who is a geography instructor at Cochise College which offers associate degrees. 15 links to meetings. Most if not all of the two word citations are links to the Russian site. A bit of a mess. Am I correct about my assessment of these sources, esp the Russian one? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there's a question of list inclusion criteria, and whether these references are even required. RSN is for global discussion of specific sources. Let's take the discussion to Talk:List of possible impact structures on Earth. — hike395 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Soap Opera News for the dob of an actor?
Is this page at Soap Opera News relaible for the date of birth of actor Mike Manning? Nightscream (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't really pass the "sniff test". The About Us page looks rather amateurish.  For certain banal things like perhaps episode synopses and air dates and stuff like that, it might be better than nothing, but I wouldn't hang any WP:BLP-type stuff on it, especially not birthdates.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

new update software
updating software 223.233.74.137 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Is OhNoitsJamie wrong or right? When and where can the allegations of Castorina's perjury be included in his article?
OhNoitsJamie sent this.

Final warning; please take it to WP:RSN[edit] You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. It is not appropriate to make allegations of perjury in the WP:LEDE of a WP:BLP article based on primary source from a single journalist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[ reply]


 * MY RESPONSE:
 * Frank Parlato broke the story in a series of articles:
 * https://frankreport.com/?s=castorina
 * 2. Frank Paralto is bonafide:
 * Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist. His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents. His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.  Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.  Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.  Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.  IMDb — Frank Parlato  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Parlato,_Jr.
 * 3. Click on the article. There are also:
 * Filed Court Transcripts
 * Filed Court Documents
 * Here is the link to the Filed Court Documents:
 * https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FljjGb1Vy0xnOWHqkVi0rcVrvB7c7SEK/view?usp=sharing
 * 4. Here is another source:
 * https://luthmann.substack.com/p/luthmann-files-motion-to-vacate-fake
 * 5.This story will probably break BIG in the NY media over the next day or two. RALafontaine (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I probably should've suggested that you take this to WP:BLPN, but there are overlapping issues here; mainly, that a single, questionable primary source is not suffucient to publish perjury allegations in the WP:LEDE of a BLP. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OhNoitsJamie is correct. We cannot accuse a living person of a crime based on a self published blog post, even if the blog poster is a well known journalist. If it does break BIG in the NY media then we can wait until it does and then cite a major news outlet. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So who counts in NY? The NY Post, the NY Times, the NY Daily News? RALafontaine (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of "who counts in NY." It's a question verifiability via multiple third-party reliable sources, especially for allegations as you've tried to post. See WP:RSP for examples of sources that are considered to be reliable (or not). OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have to agree with OhNoitsJamie here. I certainly believe that the source is reliable, but for BLP issues "exception claims require exception sources". And I don't see the source rising to that level, addition high quality sources would need to publish the allegations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if, as suggests, the news story does "break BIG in the NY media over the next day or two", then sources will soon be available and there's no harm waiting for them.  If it doesn't, then perhaps it's not that important and doesn't need including! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of "who counts in NY." It's a question verifiability via multiple third-party reliable sources, especially for allegations as you've tried to post. See WP:RSP for examples of sources that are considered to be reliable (or not). OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have to agree with OhNoitsJamie here. I certainly believe that the source is reliable, but for BLP issues "exception claims require exception sources". And I don't see the source rising to that level, addition high quality sources would need to publish the allegations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if, as suggests, the news story does "break BIG in the NY media over the next day or two", then sources will soon be available and there's no harm waiting for them.  If it doesn't, then perhaps it's not that important and doesn't need including! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)