Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.

It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu [sic!], i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Wikipedia, because it is misleading.--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure. I wouldn't have a problem with it being mentioned as "some biographies say", i.e. carefully attributed. It seems to be overused at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor. Assayer wants Heaton off Wikipedia. He has failed to show Heaton unreliable. Those are the facts that matter.

I am also concerned with the comments from Itsmejudith. What do you know about the literature of aerial warfare in World War II? And how could you say that about a book you've never read?

I'd encourage people to have a look at the talk page of Hans-Joachim Marseille - where the complainant makes accusation and assertion with no evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. Popular books by non-historians are not reliable for the history of WW2. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, biographical works by academic historians on members of the Wehrmacht or SS below the rank of general can be numbered on the fingers of one hand, so WP:HISTRS is useless and we must fall back upon the traditional methods of evaluating a book and its author like use of primary sources, use of puffery or biased language, etc. All that requires actually reading the book more thoroughly than a Google snippet can allow. I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not. Personally, I'd be most interested to see what Wübbe has to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2. He is qualified in the area, has been published on the subject as well as earning a living from it for a significant time. If the only thing being held against him requires second-guessing him, thats not how WP:V works and is bordering on original research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As to the argument that Heaton is "qualified in the area": According to Heaton's own CV on his own commercial website he holds a BA and two MA degrees in history, was consultant and adjunct professor to the online American Military University and guest historian for a single episode of a History channel programme. That's not very impressive. What is more, I looked for reviews of his works and could not find much. It seems, however, that Heaton regularly uses "oral testimony" from people involved. That is stressed by Stephen M. Miller in a recent review of Heaton's Four-War Boer for the Journal of African History (2016), commenting that the information of the interviews are not substantiated in the text or in the notes ("unfortunately") and Horst Boog, reviewing Heaton's Night Fighters (which is his MA thesis at Temple Univ.) for the Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift (2010). Boog also points to numerous errors, for example Heaton's estimate of 1.2 million civillian German bomb victims. (The highest estimate is actually 635,000 victims, recent research (Richard Overy) estimates 353,000 victims.) I might add that by now I am challenging the reliability of the book for a certain, controversial characterization of Jochen Marseille. Thus one does not need to read the whole book (which I did), because I refer to a couple of pages which are cited at length in the article, I point to the sources and how they are used and I point to the language.--Assayer (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The above is a combination of original research which we dont do and actual genuine concerns. If multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on his credibility (critical reviews, peers countering his claims etc) then that does shed doubt on his useability in an article. Could you make a list of the sources critical of him/his book? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked. Nothing. I did say earlier in this thread, this claim of unreliability is just an opinion of one editor. This type of personal attack on sources has been made across multiple threads and articles with the same old result. Heaton qualifies as reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you could find critical reviews about facets of any one of these academics work, even Overy and Miller. Using the differentials in casualty figures, which vary among all academics is a weak argument (never mind what the latest, supposedly new, research has to say, which doesn't automatically make it accurate anyway). And can you define victims? Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim. Such vague descriptions are unhelpful. Opinions are also unhelpful. Assayer is well aware of what is required here. Does this editor have reviews that are directly critical or not? Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Could you please elaborate where you draw the line between OR and "genuine concerns"? Neither do I use unpublished sources nor do I come to a conclusion on my own. I simply hold what Heaton says against what other published sources say. Isn't that what User:Sturmvogel 66 asks for, if we don't have biographical works by academic historians at hand? How else could we evaluate the reliability of a publication, that is ignored by historiographical works? Please do also take into account how the material sourced to Heaton's biography is presented in the article, namely as factual accounts. Of course this is what Heaton does in his work: He weaves lengthy quotations of various anecdotes related to him through interviews into a coherent narrative. These anecdotes are not supported by third party sources and Heaton does not discuss their reliability. Thus many of the information can only be traced to oral testimony. Do we have to accept that as reliable, simply because Heaton does?

@Dapi89: Although I chose to ignore your continuous personal attacks I have to say that remarks like "Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim" are highly inappropriate. And the literature on aerial warfare in World War II is not that "vague".--Assayer (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not an attack it is an observation on your behaviour. Those comments are entirely appropriate unless you feel the wounded don't count. I didn't say it was vague. I said you're vague. All this is hot air. You're trying to use discrepancies and differentials in accounts and figures, and unbelievably spelling differences (!!), to try and have an author discredited. OR is being kind. You're views are personal and tendentious. You're a polemist. End of story. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If Horst Boog, one of the most respected German authorities on aerial warfare during WW II, devotes a whole paragraph of his review to a list of errors, concluding that there were even more errors, then this does not add to an author's reliability as a source. I take notice that this biography is predominantly cosidered to be a "very weak" source, to say the least. One editor questioned the applicability of WP:HISTRS in cases such as this, while yet another considered the evaluation of certain claims against the background of other published sources as OR. The contradictions between these different approaches were not resolved. One editor rather commented on me than on the content, so that my evidence remains unchallenged. Maybe, as a piece of WP:FANCRUFT, the article in question is fittingly based upon anecdotes told by veterans and former Nazis. I find it troubling, however, that this is a GA by Wikipedia standards and short of FA status only because of the prose, not because of dubious content or unreliable sources.--Assayer (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

References to LinuxInsider and ECT network websites removed by KnowledgeBattle

On December 20th, @Knowledgebattle: went through approximately 50 pages, deleting all sources from websites owned by ECT News Network, primarily LinuxInsider, leaving edit summaries saying "ECT News (and it's extra platforms) is a scam site. Shouldn't be referenced." In subsequent discussion on his talk page, he expressed a willingness to discuss it here, but then did not follow through and two weeks later said "I forgot to care about this. I dunno, do whatever you want." What I want to do is get this sorted out. Can these sources be cited or not?

What makes this particularly egregious is that Knowledgebattle removed the citations carelessly, leaving many orphaned refs—and then when AnomieBot rescued them, he reverted AnomieBot's edits (see this edit to Wikipedia as an example). So several pages have had orphaned refs in them for two weeks now as a result, and whichever way this is decided these need to be fixed.

(@David Gerard: @Guy Macon: @Icebob99: @Shenme:)

ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• This editor should have at the very least discus it first. So not points for that. He hasn’t indicted either what is wrong with L.I. just claiming it is a scam. Suggest a topic ban. --Aspro (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro: He did explain his reasoning on his talk page. Hoping he comes here to discuss. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. Should have added that this editor called it 'just a blog' when it is part of the ECT News Network, Inc. featuring professional tech writers and read by professionals. Thus he didn’t explain why it is just a blog. The fact that some stories look rehashed, is for the same reason that the long running magazines such as new scientist, Nature, Scientific America etc., run stories may look rehashed, as they often print the same syndicated articles. A journalist can’t survive by the pittance one magazine will pay him, so his verbiage gets

syndicated.--Aspro (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If those references are truly legitimate, then I would like for them to be returned back to their original articles, but I don't think any form of punishment or penance needs to be meted out. Icebob99 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. Just a reprimand. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Going by the "forgot to care about this. I dunno, do whatever you want.", I don't think user:Knowledgebattle cares anymore either way, so in the absence of anyone else to take his argument, I would like to see those citations restored. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

CC: @ZackTheCardshark: @Aspro: @Icebob99: @David Gerard: @Guy Macon: @Shenme:

Re: LinuxInsider

As I've made clear elsewhere, it was the sketchiness of the ETC Network publishing practices which indicated to me that the site was a scam. A legit business model wouldn't have any need to copy their business model and present it as something different, while hiding their parent companies or owners. I've been corrected - I should have brought it here and presented my findings, rather than taking it into my own hands.

@Aspro: A topic ban? Oh puh-lease. What are you trying to do? Encourage socks?

@Icebob99: Thanks for that. I'm aware that other people have gone over the changes I've made, but I'll review the changes I made too, and try to fix whatever hasn't been addressed. However, in the several cases where LinuxInsider simply regurgitated an original source, I'll be sticking with the original source, rather than their echo. I would expect that's fair handling of sources.

@ZackTheCardshark: Sure, reprimand me. Whatever. Or don't. Whatever. In the meantime, I'm going to review those changes, too. It wasn't my intention to irritate you or anyone else. I enjoy contributing, and it's annoying when people use freelance journalists as sources. Could you imagine what the evolution article would look like, if just any source were deemed acceptable? LinuxInsider is hiring freelance journalists right now, according to their Careers page, and the expectations aren't that high - a journalism degree, a little experience and a little knowledge. That's understandable, of course, when you realize that all they do is rehash other stories they find online for advertising revenue. But, if that's what's considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

All, in conclusion: To clarify, I'm about to start reviewing the edits where I seemingly messed up. Gonna go make a pot of coffee, then get to work. However, consider the points I made at User:Knowledgebattle/interesting, as well as the points I've made here, when considering LinuxInsider as a source.

^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 11:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Think the proper way now, is to revert all this editor's edits regarding LI - period. Clearly (by his own comments) has demonstrated an inaccurate understanding of both the job and profession of journalism and how news gets presented to the pubic, not to mention the input of copyeditors, who can 'rehash articles' hidden behind pay-walls so that the general public can become aware if it. So he is demonstrably not well placed to review his own edits. What is Freelance Journalism?. He questions a topic ban, whilst at the same time continues to pontificate, adding yet more fuel to the fire for such a ban. --Aspro (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to provide an overview of this issue.

There are four places where this is discussed. Might I propose that all future discussion be referred here so that we have one discussion in one place?

The four places are: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to LinuxInsider and ECT network websites removed by KnowledgeBattle User:Knowledgebattle/interesting User talk:Knowledgebattle#LinuxInsider Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 20#LinuxInsider

First, let us have no more talk about sanctions, blocks, topic bans, etc. This is RSN, not ANI, and thus such discussion are inappropriate here.

OK, on to the main question. Knowledgebattle has presented evidence for CIO Today, CRM Daily, CRM Buyer, E-commerce Times, ECT News Network, Enterprise Security Today, LinuxInsider, NewsFactor, Sci-Tech Today, and TechNewsWorld having a common owner. (He got it wrong concerning FreeNewsFeed. That's a service offered by NewsFactor, not a site like the others)

However, as ZackTheCardshark asks,[1] "Is this particularly different from the way MacWorld, PCWorld, and TechHive are all part of the IDG network? Is that similarly problematic?"

So, on what basis does Knowledgebattle conclude that "having the same owner" equals "unreliable source"? Disney owns ABC, ESPN, A+E, Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios. Does that make those sources unreliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, right? Frustrating. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So since no one else has any objections, and user:Aspro makes a strong case, can we consider the source legitimate? If so, then I assume there are some tools available that can aid in restoring the references. Is there anyone who can do that? Or should this be requested on another noticeboard? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Help:Reverting#Bot_rollbackHelp:Reverting#Bot_rollback may help here but think we need an uninvolved administrator to over see it. Oh why are admins so like policemen – they're never about when one needs one.--Aspro (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Have just posted this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Activating_a_bot--Aspro (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's really not that many edits. Surely this can, and should, be done manually. I'll start going through these and see what I can do. Bradv 15:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Several of these edits had already been reverted previously, but they are all fixed now. There is no need for a bot. Bradv 16:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done At the very least, the first one that I noticed on my watchlist has not been added back. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Knowledgebattle just silently deleted his "for all those wondering about why LinuxInsider was removed, I show the reason here" talk page entry,[2] all with zero effort to clean up the mess he made or have a substantive conversation about why so many people are pissed off at him. If he repeats the behavior, take him straight to WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail RfC

Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source? I envisage something just short of blacklisting, whereby its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support prohibition Looking through the archives and talkpages across WP reveals a clear consensus not to use it at all. Many, many editors (and Jimmy Wales) have said over the years that the Mail is not a relaible source in any area. A list of reasons why would be enormous, it doesn't need reiterating, the paper is trash, pure and simple. There may be rare exceptions where a reference may be useful, perhaps when a Mail story is itself the subject – cases could be presented here for discussion. There is little chance anything of encyclopedic value would be lost from such a move, and everything to be gained, not least an end to continual Mail-related arguments. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no justification for the blanket banning of a mass-circulation newspaper as a source. There will be cases where it is a suitable rs source. The problem with the "Mail-related arguments" mentioned, if the latest example here [3] is typical, is just with editors not knowing what appropriate sources to use. Should the Daily Mail be used to support a claim related to astronomy? Well duh, obviously not! The proposer seems to have a longterm pov agenda here, in an earlier comment he actually compared the Daily Mail to Völkischer Beobachter and has been busy compiling [4]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We obviously shouldn't use it for anything science related, it is de facto prohibited from BLPs and BLP-related articles, and politics would seem out of bounds given their continual lies and misrepresentation in this area. Even their photography can't be relied upon (sorry, Martin). In what scenario would the Mail be an irreplaceable source? They regularly publish sexualized photos of children. A coroner blamed them in the death of a transexual they had hounded. How on earth is dailymail.co.uk (current front-page headline: "Patrick Swayze was a 'flirt' and Ariana Grande hung out with 'snobby entitled rich girls': Former classmates of A-listers reveal what they were REALLY like at school - but who were the meanest?") a suitable source for an encyclopedia? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone proposing to use those articles for Wikipedia citations and article content? Making over-the-top hypotheticals and comparisons and very dubious allegations are not convincing. 99.999% of the content on the Daily Mail that could be in some way be Wikipedia notable will also be source-able in more appropriate sources, so I do not see a problem that needs to be addressed in this way. The problem is editors not using appropriate sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Mail should be on the citation blacklist. There's no area of news where it is actually reliable. It can be relied on to accurately report celebrity gossip, but in that case the gossip itself is frequently false and the Mail doesn't check it. Their coverage of medical, science and political topics is a byword for deliberate inaccuracy. It is pretty close to a fake news source in some areas. Also: this: [5]. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That link is absolutely hilarious.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hipsters with access to a guitar, freshly-bought artisan-brown T-shirts, an A3 color laser printer, and a slightly lighter brown blank wall make formidable satirists (or at least they seem to think they do). I suggest we derail their brown revolution by providing a suitable framed poster to stick on that blank wall. Something hipster ironic - like a reprinted wood-cut on rice-paper Bolshevik propaganda poster perhaps? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Very funny link, Guy! DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a gem. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A Grammy worthy example of songwriting if I've ever seen one. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support prohibition As others have said it is a byword for the worst kinds of yellow journalism, it is (in effect) a fake news organ. Just because a lot of people buy it (or even by it) does not mean it is a reliable source for anything other then it's own views.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Only very limited circumstances. I've defended the use of the Mail in the past for uncontroversial stuff like sport news, but actually the paper has got much worse and I can't think of many circumstances when it would be the best source or even acceptable. Definitely never for international news or science. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that if we restrict it's use to anything uncontroversial we are (in effect) prohibiting it anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support prohibition It's just a mouthpiece for Paul Dacre & I remove it on sight. JRPG (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition unless directly relevant to the article - Anything found in the Daily Mail which can't be found in a more reliable, trustworthy source probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition (within reason) if it can't be found anywhere else reliable, then it probably isn't reliable anyway.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the Mail to be just as ok as other large outlet news/trendycr@p places, and anyway there are bigger outlets (read: Wired, TTAC) to fry than Mail.L3X1 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose prohibition, but there are very few circumstances in which we should rely on tabloid journalism. Exceptions include when BLP subjects have a byline in one of those newspapers, so long as they're not disparaging third parties. I can't see a reason to single out the Daily Mail; there are others just as bad and worse. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We should put it on the reference revert list (so good-faith additions of refs are reverted and can be discussed individually) but not blacklist it, and we should strongly consider doing the same for other tabloids, especially the Express and the Sun. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support that. I've come across a few BLPs at FAC that rely on these tabloids, and the nominators get upset when asked to remove them, so a broader solution would help. It would also be good to add something more detailed to WP:BLPSOURCES. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: where is this reference revert list, please? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• e/c Comment I am totally fed up with seeing this subject come up. Many, many readers are not aware of the disdain with which the Mail is viewed by some editors and then when they try to use it as a source, they are treated as if they are stupid or deliberately trying to get around PAG's. I know this from personal experience when in the distant past I tried to use the Daily Mail as a source - a sharp learning curve ensued. I agree with comments that if it is not in other newspapers, then it should probably not be in Wikipedia at all. However, I also agree with SlimVirgin above that there are others just as bad, and worse. This means we need to be looking at a number of papers. On occasions, I have been editing and used a website source. However, when trying to save the article, Wikipedia automatically rejects it because it has been blacklisted. Can we not set up a similar system for those newspapers we consider to be unreliable sources? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow up: For those who wish to stop short of blacklisting, maybe we could flash up a warning message that the source is widely considered to be unreliable and the saving editor should reconsider its inclusion and use other sources instead. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that there may be others as bad does not justify using the Mail. And my proposal, with which I think SV agrees, is to use the citation revert list, as we do for predatory journals. Guy (Help!) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think DrChrissy has a good idea. A warning message whenever anyone puts 'dailymail.co.uk' or 'The Daily Mail' between a pair of <ref> tags would be a great idea. I get uneasy about fully blacklisting any source (it's the sort of thing that adds fuel to the fire of every editor who whines about WP being censored), and would rather see a more educational than legalistic approach taken.

I also agree that there are many other sources just as bad, and possibly even worse. I think getting something going that would create a list of these sources and generate a message when folks try to use them is the way to go. Hell, I'm a coder myself, and I'd be happy to work on it. I don't think it's a big project, but I'm not sure where to get started with something like this, beyond maybe taking it to the village pump or the main page talk to get enough editors behind it to impress the WMF or the en.wp staff. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

An edit filter could do that. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It honestly never occurred to me that we have edit filters. Sometimes I like to eat glue. Ooh! SHINY!!! <wanders off> MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support prohibition I thought it was considered unreliable before I saw this RfC. The worst kind of tabloid spam journalism. Laurdecl ^talk 10:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Editors are supposed to always use judgment when choosing sources. Usually the broadsheets are better than the tabloids but there are circumstances when tabloids provide better coverage such as sports and crime. And if we exclude the Mail, there are a lot of other publications of lower quality that would still be considered reliable. TFD (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Kill it. Kill it with fire. Under NO circumstances should the Daily Mail be used for anything, ever. They have proven themselves to be willing to make up fake quotes and to create doctored pictures, and nothing they say or do is to be trusted. Even in the cases that some of the editors in this discussion believe to be OK (sports scores, for example), if it really happened then the Daily Mail won't be the only source and if the Daily Mail is the only source, it probably didn't happen. Relevant links:[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support with reasonable exceptions It should never ever be used for any support for factual content, but there are cases where the DM itself is part of the story, so referencing relevant articles by the DM that are a part of that story is reasonable. And there may be appropriate editorial content where we would attribute those opinions to the author that can be included. Outright blacklisting is probably not appropriate but its use absolutely must be kept away from any type of factual claims. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition with the usual reasonable exceptions as outlined or mentioned by Masem, NorthBySouthBaranof (these would be rare: i.e., IAR exceptions). Neutrality^talk 23:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition though noting that common sense also applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment By coincidence, I have just noted a recent edit to the Cheetah article used the Daily Mail as a source for the maximum speed of cheetahs. I tagged this with "Better source needed" and an editor replaced this with the scientific sources. However, the problem here is that we have gone from a secondary source to a primary source. Many editors object to this, but new or inexperienced editors will see this as good editing until they understand this secondary source is considered non-RS. I am not for one second suggesting the Daily Mail should be allowed for this, but this is a matter of educating editors or simply prohibiting those sources considered non-RS. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• support this RfC is kind of beating a dead horse as the community has rejected this source pretty much every time it comes here. so much time has been wasted explaining people not to use this. It has no place in WP where our mission it to summarize accepted knowledge. so yes kill it with fire Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support with reasonable exceptions per Masem. For news items if it isn't covered in a broadsheet newspaper then it probably isn't significant anyway, but for references to specific opinions or perspectives it may be useful. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• support It is unnecessary to allow for the unlikely scenario that the Daily Mail would both a trustworthy and the only available source. That other tabloids exist that are just as bad doesn't mean we should keep the Daily Mail: It means we should blacklist those too. Mduvekot (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bashing the Mail is fun, and it doesn't look as if anyone disagrees much that it is best avoided, but that there will possibly be rare occasions when it will be a good source, given the context (eg, as noted, something about the paper itself). But that's the point: identifying appropriate sources is all about context, and there are plenty of rubbish websites out there that should rarely or never be used, and plenty of occasions when even broadsheet reporting isn't worth much for an encyclopedia. And even if we accept the idea of effectively banning certain sources – which is fraught with problems itself – this is being done back to front by singling out one newspaper for blacklisting, rather than establishing the principle of a blacklist and then working out what to include in it. I don't see how existing general principles don't broadly deal with the problem – and are there really endless cases of people insisting on using it, such that we need this draconian intervention, aimed at this one paper? N-HH talk/edits 11:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Unfortunately existing general principles don't deal with the problem. Questioning the use of DM regularly comes up; people argue it's not a tabloid, or refer to its status as the biggest online news service, etc. I can't tell you how much bullshit I've had to remove from articles, especially after searching for dailymail.co.uk incategory:"Living people", John, who has done sterling work in this area, could elaborate. Ideally, yes, each edit should be examined in context, and banning a source outright is something of a blunt instrument -- but in this case I think the benefits of something like an edit-filter will heavily outweigh the negatives, there are simply too many articles to keep an eye on (~800,000 BLPs!). I would support a filter for other unreliable sources too, and I agree that it is a somewhat back-to-front process, but I really think the DM is a special case. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  What are you suggesting when you talk about an edit filter. Does this prevent the entire edit, or does it just filter out the source? By the way, if this goes ahead (and I think it should) there are plenty of other sources that should be considered - the Daily Mail is just a precedent. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know which options are available or appropriate, I guess a separate discussion regarding this will be necessary pending the outcome of the RfC. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The DM does occasionally get exclusive interviews with well-known people and gives direct quotes of what they say. It's hard to believe these stories and quotes would ever be fabricated or published without the express permission of the person concerned. So a full-on ban would deny this material. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be a natural assumption, but this is yet another area in which their standards are pretty low, eg. "Daily Mail Accused of Fake Interview by Paul Pogba, French Soccer Player, May Sue" and "The Inquisitr, Daily Mail Admit Roger Moore Quotes Fake" or "Andrea Pirlo slams Daily Mail on Instagram for making up interview trolling Man United" --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. That hardly inspires confidence. Maybe a price worth paying then. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Another example, from Daily Mail censured for fictional story about Amanda Knox verdict in The Guardian:

"The Mail's website reported that Knox has lost her appeal against her conviction for murdering Meredith Kercher when, in fact, she had been successful. [...] These included quotes attributed to the prosecutors apparently reacting to the guilty verdict, and the description of the reaction in the courtroom to the news, stating that Knox 'sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears'. It further stated that the family of Meredith Kercher 'remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family'. The newspaper apologised for the mistake. It said that it was standard practice in such high-profile cases for two alternative stories (plus supporting quotes) to be prepared in advance"

So we now know that it is standard practice for The Daily Mail to fabricate direct quotes. Add that to the many examples of photoshopped images and the conclusion is inescapable; we cannot trust anything written in The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk)

• Support more or less as per the terms in the opening statement, that it still (very occasionally) be allowed when there is some sort of need for that content. I have no clear idea what that might be, other than maybe a few useful celebrity interview exclusive comments, or matters regarding lawsuits, or something like that. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Request There has been talk here of a "blacklist" and a "reference revert list". Please could someone direct me to this/these. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing, another indication of flaws inherent in this RfC. I think "support" opinions for an non-existent thing can safely be dismissed - they are not based on Wikipedia guidelines but on personal animosity towards the source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know about a "reference revert list," but Wikipedia:Spam blacklist is I think the blacklist being referred to. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for this John. It appears that this blacklist only applies to URLs. I may be getting ahead of the subject here but I suspect what is needed is an easily accessible page which lists newspapers (perhaps also magazines) where consensus has been reached that they are generally considered unreliable and consensus should be sought (on here perhaps) if they are to be used. Perhaps this could be called Grey-listed popular press sources? DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  We have one for video games. --Izno (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for this. It is interesting to note that in the table of Unreliable Sources toward the bottom - one of the sources is Wikipedia itself! DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  I know that Wikipedia is an unreliable source because I looked it up on Wikipedia. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  There's also a (less detailed) list at Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, many of which give no indication in their books that said book has been self-published. On academic subjects, we also refer to Beall's list. The Daily Mail, would belong, if anywhere, in a totally new kind of list. It actually wouldn't be a bad idea to make a well-annotated list like for videogames, and list the various publishers that have come up here with a note to their consensus outcome and links to every discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  We don't even have a list that says The Onion isn't a reliable source.[15] That being said, if you look at the recent "fake news" meme you will find that it has been used to label things that are not actually fake news (a fake news site is one that knowingly spreads fabricated content), but rather unpopular editorial content combined with low quality sourcing. See the RfC at Talk:List of fake news websites#Request for Comment - Removal of Infowars from this list also see this:[16] We need to strictly limit any such list to avoid it being used as a club to suppress unpopular opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Infowars is identified by reliable independent sources as a fake news site, based on its tendency to publish things with absolutely no care as to whether they are objectively true or not. It's not our job to second-guess the sources which call it fake news, see WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

'"You have yet to produce any quality sources, let alone a majority of reliable sources, which actually state that InfoWars intentionally publishes hoax stories. WP:SYNTH expressly forbids drawing conclusions based on an editor's own personal conclusions not actually stated by the sources." -- posted by User:A Quest For Knowledge on 12:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC) on Talk:List of fake news websites.

CNN is also identified as fake news sources by a reliable independent source[17][18][19] Seriously, please read this editorial[20] and give careful consideration to the possibility that the "fake news" label is being used to try to silence opposing views. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Come on, did you even read those first three sources? The first one doesn't go anywhere near an accusation that CNN is fake news. The second one only accuses CNN of "stooping to the same level as fake news sites" on one specific story, and the third is merely reporting that Trump has accused CNN of being fake news. Anyway, as for InfoWars, there are grades of fake news. There are obviously the purest of fake news sites that publish deliberately false stories for either clicks, luls, or godknowswhat. Then you have things like InfoWars and NaturalNews, which no one can prove are deliberately dishonest, but whose writers are utterly paranoid and have no bullshit filters. Plenty of reliable sources will refer to them as "fake news" all the same, just as publishing false and defamatory statements with malicious disregard for the truth is legally considered the same as intentionally lying, at least in the US. We should clarify these things where possible, but you know as well as everyone else here that "fakenews" on Wikipedia is what reliable sources say is "fakenews". Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Because the current position is that its not reliable for much (except itself) and for those things it could be used for, better sources are available, and if the only source is the daily mail, its not worth covering. An easy-to-direct discussion where we can point people who ask 'Should I use the Daily Mail' with the answer 'no' would make everything a lot simpler. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are some things for which it's useful, despite all that's been said above. Occsaionally it accurately rakes muck that nobody else has turned over. If the proposer could be a little clearer about how we might demonstrate need to use it in those rare cases where the DM can be considered reliable, I might well change my mind. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors attempting to add DM as a ref (and any others deemed suitable for a "greylist") could be directed here, or if that runs the risk of swamping the RSN, a new board. Alternatively, any such edits could be flagged in a similar way to pending changes, needing the nod from a reviewer (if that's possible?) I'm afraid I don't know how the edit filters work, so am not sure exactly what options are available/feasible. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Noting that this has been discussed a few dozen times now. Neither the DM nor any other news source is absolutely reliable on articles concerning celebrities. IMO, Wikipedia would be best off declining to republish "celebrity gossip" in the first place. More to the point, the DM has not been shown to be unreliable in other matters, although its headlines may misstate the content of articles, this is also true of every single newspaper known to man. I suggest, in fact, that "headlines" not be allowed as a source for what an article states, and only be allowed to illustrate what the headline stated and cited as such. Collect (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree about headlines, but the DM has been shown to be unreliable in other matters many, many times, far more than other publications. Remember the Amanda Knox guilty verdict? [21] --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: The oft-repeated claim that the DM is specifically evil, read [22] for information about all major media and their use of press releases. In fact, moreover, other than in the area of celebrity gossip (where no paper should be trusted in the first place), the DM's record is akin to the record of The Guardian and other broadsheets. Collect (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but that's utter bollocks.

Press Complaints Commission records over a ten-year period: Successful complaints against Fleet Street publications: average = 43, Daily Mail = 153. Let us not forget that Paul Dacre was a member of the "toothless" PCC for a decade, and that they rejected over 90% of cases without investigation. Nick Davies (2011). Flat Earth News.

Independent Press Standards Organisation from 2014 to 2015: Mail 11 breaches, Guardian 0 breaches; reparations by Mail 34 times, Guardian 0 times. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

IPSO 2016: Daily Mail was the worst publication, with a total of 17 sanctions for inaccuracy. The Sun followed with 14, the Daily Express with 12. The Independent and Guardian had none. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 09:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sweet. But I guess most readers of The Sun don't know how to complain. Or, if they did, just think it's 100% true. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Not so sweet. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC) "the 2014 World Cup will always be remembered as the Milkybar penis"

I think Robin Jacobs, 31, should upload the image for the pareidolia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Or treat it like any other fake news site, how do we deal with those normally?17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[23] as an example.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The problem isn't that it is wrong or even that they might have a rogue journalist from time to time (even the NY Times have been caught out this way), the problem is that their editorial decisions seemingly contribute to the deception. They had the Amanda Knox story ready to go with fake quotes and reactions, and there was also the time that George Clooney took them to task over fake quotes. It simply can't be trusted. Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 12 Ja
• Oppose. Context matters, and that's up to the editors covering the particular issue. Whether it's a "well-established news outlet" matters, and it is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Sort of support. As I've said previously, the problem with Daily Mail appears to be their habit of taking ludicrous sources at face value, often publishing entire articles based on a single anonymous tweet or blog post. They appear to be not as willfully gullible as say, the National Enquirer, but it doesn't come close to what we normally consider reliable. However, it's probably the case that much of their content is factually accurate, especially on non-controversial subjects. I suspect this is a case of, "what is good is not unique; what is unique is not good." Basically, if something is covered in the Daily Mail and is true, we can probably find a better source for it. If something is only covered by the Daily Mail, it's probably not true. So I would support a more complicated prohibition, that the Daily Mail should not be a source for anything controversial, and where it is a source for anything else, it should be replaced as soon as possible by a better source. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The time has come. It is already rightly unacceptable for BLPs. Lousy record for making things up, in some well-attested cases to the detriment of living people. In a world where fake news is a thing, we should avoid knowingly using material sourced from its proven purveyors. Opposers have highlighted that most of it is true, but that which is true and genuinely noteworthy will have been covered by better sources. Something only covered in the DM, which it is vital for us to cover on Wikipedia; other than its comments about itself I have not seen an example given and could not imagine such an example. I challenge opposers to come up with one. --John (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition There should always be a better source for anything than the Daily Mail. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The reliability of a Daily Mail should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Most material is uncontroversial and mistakes occur no more often than in other publications. A user should not have to hunt around for the same fact to be found in a different source because the Daily Mail is disliked by certain editors. ¡Bozzio! 05:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Bozzio, do you have evidence that mistakes occur no more often than in other publications? It doesn't match my information or the figures cited by Hillbillyholiday. --John (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition -- if a particular sources of content can only be cited to DM than it's not worth including in an encyclopedia anyway. If it were important, it would be covered by better sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support without hesitation. This is long overdue given how notorious Daily Mail is for inaccuracies, and I would also have no reservations on blacklisting it, especially after seeing flat out absurd claims like "using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer". Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but is anyone suggesting using that piece? Everyone supporting the proposal is telling us what most of us already know: the Mail is generally not going to be a good source, either because it reports on things that would not be of interest to an encyclopedia in the first place or because much of what it reports is dubious, possibly to a greater degree than other papers. The actual question is whether a blanket ban on the Mail – and the Mail alone, as currently mooted – is needed to solve that problem, and whether it sets a dangerous precedent for people to push for "bans" on news sources they don't like for other reasons. Yes it's currently used quite a bit on WP, but I'm not aware of a widespread problem of people insisting on using it when it's removed or challenged. And, for example, are people suggesting it be banned from this page? N-HH talk/edits 15:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail should be banned from that page most of all. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources[24] that describe the actions of TDM in that case, and we should use those sources rather than trusting what the known liars at TDM say happened. Again I say, kill it. Kill it with fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What, the Guardian editorial that commends the Mail's "bold journalism" (yes, in that instance)? Of course secondary sources on the Mail's role would be useful too, but my point was that a total ban would disallow even sourcing the Mail headline/front page directly to the Mail. It's a bit surreal to suggest that a Mail story is not good evidence for what that story said, or that the Mail would not accurately report what its own editor said about its actions in that case. And anyway that isn't the only such case, nor was that brief rhetorical question my main point, which was a broader one about efficacy, process and practical effect, which you haven't addressed at all. And I'm not sure constantly repeating "kill it with fire" helps rational debate. N-HH talk/edits 18:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We have many, many sources that are banned, and all of them are by nature of being banned banned from being sources for their own headlines. Your argument can be used to argue against banning any source, no matter how bad. There will always be some contrived situation where it would be convenient to use the banned source Just This Once, but that doesn't stop us from banning sources. Nor do we want to allow individual editors to decide whether maybe this time The Daily Mail isn't lying. You want us to allow a source that has been shown to fabricate direct quotes and photos, and your arguments can be used to argue against banning any source. I stand by my "kill it with fire" comment. Wikipedia editors are grown-ups and do not need to be protected from a colorful turn of phrase. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any sources which are specifically, by name, "banned" currently or any list detailing them. And I do think individual editors can make judgments in context, not about whether a newspaper is lying in any individual instance (although obvious errors can be demonstrated by reference to other sources), but about whether certain sources might sometimes be appropriate for the material in question. Indeed, that's the basis of current policy, which is again part of my point: what is being attempted here is a rewrite of that policy, but relying on people's – entirely legitimate – concerns about one paper, which is far from the worst one out there (National Enquirer? Daily Express?) to spearhead it. It's all back to front. And as I suggested, yes, let's have grown-up discourse. N-HH talk/edits 09:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose prohibition The paper carried useful material at the time of World War I (though even then considerable caution is required) and it would be very sad to lose pictures such in St Paul's Survives which require attribution. Maybe something about requiring need would work but I'd want to see the wording to decide. Don't we effectively require need for challenged material anyway? With historical newspapers very different considerations are needed always. Thincat (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's a very important point, Thincat, and one so far wholly overlooked here, I think. Would it be feasible, or even possible, to provide some kind of year-based restriction/ regulation? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• That "heavily retouched" photo wouldn't necessarily be affected as the DM is part of the story there. There will always be exceptional cases when using the DM is necessary/desirable -- editors can demonstrate need here, and as long as their edits gain approval by consensus in the usual way, there's no problem; I really don't think it will come up too often. An edit-filter would, I assume, look for any new additions to WP which contain dailymail.com and thus pick up the more recent "stories". These are a real problem, and given the immense online presence of the DM, something that regularly comes up. A default position of the DM is barred as an unreliable source with the onus on the editor to justify its use would prevent a great deal of misinformation/lies/inaccuracies from creeping in, and would benefit those editors who currently have to make the same old arguments on talkpages across the project. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it would save, or at least reduce, a lot of repetitive removal. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support prohibition per JzG. The Daily Mail is demonstrably unreliable in comparison to other publications. Obviously there are exceptions, as Thincat demonstrates, but the presumption should be that DM isn't a reliable source. An edit filter would be a good solution. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There is an elephant in the room here. Despite comments by some editors, it appears there is currently no blacklist, greylist or edit filter that would prevent an editor using the DM or warning them about its use. I have no doubt whatsoever that if this precedent is set, editors will be suggesting other newspapers (nobody has mentioned the Daily Star yet!). How will these be decided? An RFC for each newspaper suggested? I have tried in the past to fathom how editors reach their decisions on deciding whether a newspaper is RS or not, but all I have been met with is "It depends on the case". I am not opposing the formation of grey/blacklist/edit filter, rather the opposite: I believe editors should be made aware immediately that consensus is that a source should not be used. Currently, this is opaque and has led to massive time sinks and a certain degree of animosity from some editors. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  @DrChrissy: The blacklist is at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and adding a new entry there is trivial. Creating an edit filter to look for the addition of Daily Mail references also wouldn't be difficult. Sam Walton (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Daily Mail gives coverage to many international news outside Europe and America. Daily Mail is not a good source in content dispute. But Daily Mail is good to prove notability of a subject. Daily Mail covers news stories which are not getting coverage in other English Media. We can use Daily Mail to establish notability of a politician, celebrity from Eastern Europe, Asia. Sometimes Daily Mail gives coverage to very ordinary things, but due to this they give coverage to many important Asian news, North African news and East-European news (where English is not official language). Marvellous Spider-Man 03:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"Daily Mail is not a good source in content dispute" is just another way of saying "not a good source for content on Wikipedia", which is the whole point of this RfC. Sure, you can use it demonstrate notability, but that's usually only necessary at AfD. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail can be used for articles outside USA and UK as these two countries has many reliable sources in English. The RFC doesn't say that we can use it for Romanian/Algerian/Latvian/Ukrainian/Turkish/Russian/Chinese/Japanese/Brazilian articles. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are talking about the English Wikipedia, yes it does. The phrase "should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source?" is quite clear. If this RfC passes, The Daily Mail will not be allowed as a source on Russian or Japanese articles on the English Wikipedia. If you are talking about the Russian or Japanese Wikipedias, no decision made on the English Wikipedia is binding on those other Wikipedias. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Then, I oppose this RFC, as per my first statement. Daily Mail is very inclusive and has no WP:GEOBIAS. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. The Daily Mail, as hated as it is, is a very mixed bag. It can contain wonderful information such as accurate and informative interviews of highly respected people like Lord Puttnam (yes, I've seen that; can find the link if you need it), informative and detailed film and television articles, detailed information on various openings, galas, and so on. Many of these items are exclusives, so we can't blacklist the publication. It also has an excellent (theatre, film, etc.) review team. We just have to keep in mind that it often stoops to tabloid scandal-mongering (and ridiculous political opinions). I think any intelligent editor can tell the difference. So with this publication it has to always be on a case-by-case basis. It's a middle-market newspaper, so we cannot avoid it or blacklist it. I'd say it's not to be used as a source for politics, science, medicine. But as a source for entertainment updates it is often helpful and often contains accurate information that is not available anywhere else. If it is contradicted by a more reliable source, it should not be used. Nothing negative, contentious, or potentially libelous or in any way scandalous should be sourced to the DM (unless it is a direct quote from an interview). Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and educate Strong support not to use it for BLPs, but I see no issue on using it to report on "news". However, any editor who uses it as a source should be reminded that better sources can be found and those should be used instead (should, not must). I challenge anyone to find a notable news story in the DM that isn't covered in better sources elsewhere. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The DM falls on a spectrum of news quality and it is far from the worst; singling it out for prohibition is not the solution here. It is hard not to suspect that it is being singled out because it combines a strong right-wing bias with a very large circulation. I see several editors above citing statistics regarding complaints and corrections as though this was a reason for prohibiting its use; but WP:NEWSORG gives the very fact that a complaints process exists and corrections are published as a reason to consider the source reliable. It should certainly be considered WP:BIASED, but then so should every news organisation that takes an editorial stance. This is already policy. Outright banning established, regulated, large-circulation newspapers from use on enwiki would be a terrible precedent to set, especially for having "ridiculous political opinions," as one editor has put it a few lines above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And, for those citing statistics above, do we really think that, for a daily newspaper, averaging somewhere near 15 upheld complaints in a year is sufficient to ban the whole output of that organisation as a source? GoldenRing (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The volume of upheld complaints is symptomatic of the Mail's deference to editorial ideology over factual accuracy. It is legendary for the inaccuracy of its articles on medicine and science, especially. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are more examples: 10 Egregiously False Stories In The ‘Daily Mail’.

Also, see this quote:

"You probably know the Daily Mail as a race-baiting tabloid that once supported the Nazis. But it has another, secret identity it tries to keep hidden at all costs. The Daily Mail is possibly the biggest news media troll in history. Thanks to American outlets thinking it’s a respectable news source, the Daily Mail has managed to get the media to print more hoax stories than everyone else on this list combined. In 2014, a New York–based correspondent simply made up a story about Beijing installing giant TV screens so smog-choked residents could watch fake sunrises. Time, CBS, and the Huffington Post all ran with it, despite it being clear nonsense. In 2012, the Daily Mail made up another story about a Polish dentist pulling all her boyfriend’s teeth after he cheated on her. That one fooled most of the Internet, plus MSNBC, the LA Times, and the Daily Telegraph. In 2015, the Daily Mail ran a story that was picked up by other tabloids about a guy on welfare who was too busy working out to get a job. The guy turned out to be an actor. Go digging, and you’ll find more examples of the Daily Mail flooding the media with more fake stories than we can comfortably list here. Like that time it convinced Fox News a transgender kid was harassing girls in a school bathroom. Or that time it totally made up a poll and the Huffington Post believed it. Okay, we’re calling it now: The Daily Mail is officially the greatest media troll in the world." (source)

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Any sources that demonstrates a willingness to make shit up just to sell papers does not meet our definition of reliable source. If there are other newspapers that do this they should not be used either. Bradv 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support A bunch of people have made "but sometimes there's no other source" comments; well, in those cases, then, there's no legitimate source at all, and the material shouldn't be believed, much less used in Wikipedia. We waste too much time on the DM, and we aren't going to lose anything worthwhile by utterly excluding it as a source. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support? "Prohibit" seems like an imprecise word in the context of wikiguidelines, especially when combined with "just short of blacklisting". In general I like the idea of making "formal" that there is consensus that one should almost never use a given source, to avoid having those discussions or pointing to a smattering of RSN threads, often with unclear outcomes. Like others, I would oppose blacklisting this, but support an edit filter and certainly support the notion that this should almost never be used in articles. That seems like it would largely support this? But I see people opposing who have the same opinion. This makes me think what probably needs to happen is a more specific question within technical parameters (e.g. once an edit filter is established, an RfC to add this [and others] to it). Fun fact: in 2014, as listed in User:Emijrp/External Links Ranking, Daily Mail was our 86th most used external link, with more than 26,000 uses just in the article space. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

I have a question about a source at Jacob Barnett.

The relevant passage is this:

In 2011, following a series of (no longer available) YouTube videos published by Barnett's mother, several articles appeared in the mainstream media...

The source I'd like to discuss is:

• "This video is unavailable". YouTube. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

The apparent reason that this dead URL is being included is because, if you wanted to verify that this URL originally contained the now-unavailable (at that URL) video, then you could go to various Wikipedia talk page archives, and determine that some Wikipedia editors had viewed the video years ago and said that it contained the now-unavailable video.

I believe that this is insufficient to meet WP:V. First, it assumes that Wikipedia's past discussions are reliable sources for a BLP, even though WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second, the policy is that some people "can" verify whether or not this cited source contains the alleged information, not that "they could have checked this source, if they'd happened to have been around four years ago".

What do you think? Is this dead URL reliable for a claim in a BLP article that a particular video is "no longer available"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Time ref fixed by 67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There are at least two reasons to include something in a footnote like this: (1) to provide verifiable and published evidence that something is true, (2) to point to the original source of something, even though later sources may be more accessible. The newspaper quote "This video does not exist" serves the first purpose, and discussion of it is relevant for RSN. The link to where the original video once was on Youtube serves the second purpose, something RSN is less relevant for. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The link in the TIME source, and other sources, to the video (where the subject allegedly presents his novel theory of astrophysics), is now a dead link. If WhatamIdoing has an archive link to this video, or some other link, that would be a worthwhile addition to the article. Otherwise, I don't see that there is an issue in saying that the video is no longer available. That's easily verified by checking the secondary sources with the links to the videos. (Some even have embedded videos, which now, quite literally, say "This video no longer exists" in the text of the source.) The question of using Wikipedia as a source is just a red herring. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Several talk page discussions appear to have failed to reach consensus on this issue. Maybe it should go to formal arbitration. Viewfinder (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My question here is not whether the link is dead. My question here is whether any dead link is actually a reliable source for saying that the link previously worked, previously contained some stated content, and now that stated content is unavailable anywhere.

David Eppstein suggests that the link isn't meant to be a reliable source in the first place. His comment seems to imply that it's meant to be a sort of un-reliable pseudo-external link rather than a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No. It's a dead link, as outlined at the established editing guideline WP:LR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a dead link when you added it to the article. And WP:DEADREF – which assumes, perhaps naïvely, that editors are not going around deliberately adding links that they know are dead – tells you that verifiability actually is "temporary" in the sense that something that cannot be verified except to "some editor once upon a time claimed that this now-dead link contained this material, and you should trust him forever and ever": The last step is "Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources" (bolded in the original). I believe that a link that you know is down, and has been down for some time, and your only hope for calling it still WP:Published is your unsupported and dubious assertion that "This video still exists on Google's servers, and may be accessed by request to ABC, Inc." is not a good way to verify anything. (Of course, if you've ever gotten YouTube to show you someone else's deleted videos without invoking the legal system, then please do let us know how you did it.)

Based on a quick skim of the AFD comments and talk page discussions, it looks like this particular link has been down for about two years. Is that your impression, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the other cited sources links to that same video. That should be sufficient to verify that the video was at one time accessible. The dead link is cited to verify that the link is indeed dead. Hope that clears up any confusion around the original question. Now, is this valid? Is it a step too far into WP:OR, or is it a case of WP:BLUE? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's SYNTH to go to independent source #1 to find out whether that this is the true link, and then to primary and non-independent source #2 to say that the link is down. And I think it's anti-WP:V to say that this long-dead link (by itself) can be used to verify that this link previously contained anything at all, much less to verify that the content that used to be there is "no longer available" (anywhere, not just at the original link). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone explain why we are citing a dead link as 'proof' that the link is dead? If other sources have stated the video has been removed, cite them. If no one is commenting on the video being removed, why are we? There are more than enough sources for everything else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging User:Sławomir Biały and User:David Eppstein to explain why they're using this dead URL as 'proof' that the video is no longer available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you still beating your wife? Come back when you've read the discussion, thanks. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: please read WP:BURDEN, and, if possible, explain to us how something which in and of itself proves nothing whatsoever, being a dead link, is in any way considered a source for anything. The inclusion of the dead link has been questioned, so it is now incumbent on the individuals who wish to include to indicate exactly why they believe it is required.

If nothing else, it would, presumably, be reasonable to indicate in the text that the internet address listed is in fact the sole source for the material, preferably based on independent sources which substantiate that. Without that, all that anyone can see is that some address, which might have been chosen randomly for all they necessarily know, is in some way documentation that something has been removed. And even that might not unreasonably be seen as being some form of WP:OR. Providing an independent source which specifically refers to the page being taken would presumably be the optimal way to refer to this matter. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, Whatamidoing's deceptively loaded question has found a mark! Once more, this is settled by looking at secondary sources, wherein the text "This video does not exist" helpfully appears, word-for-word, as part of that source. We reference two such sources. No one is claiming that a dead link verifies in itself that the video was taken down. And furthermore it appears that an archive has been located, which after all is the intention of the LR guideline. I will not be responding to any more questions why a dead link verifies anything, since no one here said that, except User:WhatamIdoing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: So is the YouTube link itself unnecessary, in your estimation, if it’s not meant to verify anything? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Standards for scholarship are to include references to original sources where major scientific discoveries are made (such as presenting a new theory of astrophysics that disproves the Big Bang). Wikipedia also demands secondary sources. That is why we give both. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No major scientific discoveries were made, though. No theory has been presented to any significant extent outside of the subject’s own mind. I thought this was all well established. Even if there were such a source, that source no longer exists as far as we know, so it’s impossible to give a functional reference to it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It was widely reported that Barnett had disproved relativity and/or the Big Bang, was in line for the Nobel Prize, etc, on the basis of Jacob's theory. The only place where that theory was ever publicly discussed was the video in question. I am definitely open to replacing it with a more solid reference, when and if this supposed theory actually appears in some more appropriate written form. But it is certainly within the scope of things we are expected to do in an article to give a link to a video in which the theory was supposedly presented, when there are secondary sources to back this up, and I'm astonished that anyone would suggest otherwise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You were presenting the video as something which you’ve previously and insistently said it’s categorically not. Given that, as well as the fact that it’s inaccessible and never directly used as a source, I just don’t see how it could be considered of any benefit to our readers, or to anyone. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it accessible or not? Does the archive link not work? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no video accessible at the archive link, no. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a video title at the archive link, which seems like a better source for that video’s title than a generic error message is a source for anything. So I consider that an improvement, but it still has the reader investigating two separate links and visually comparing two URLs to verify the single claim that this was that video. It would be best (and remove any concerns of WP:Synthesis) to have a direct source, unless we can avoid making any such claims. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But we do have such a source, the TIME source that we cite. Does that link to a different non-existent video? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But no one has actually answered my question yet: What precisely are we sourcing? We dont need a dead link, or an archive of the removed video to say they uploaded a video, we have a reliable source that says they did. The subsequent availability of said video is irrelevant unless secondary sources comment on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the things we're expected to do when covering scientific topics (like novel theories of astrophysics) is to supply their textual locations. It is, in fact, part of the WP:V policy that mandates that exceptional claims (like a novel theory of astrophysics) require exceptional sources (peer reviewed scientific publications). Here we have supposedly "reliable sources" that point to the "textual" location, but that video is no longer available. It is incumbent on us to point out that this text is not available, and so the alleged theory cannot be verified. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Er no that is a gross mischaracterization of the editors job - which is to reflect what reliable sources have stated. No more or less. WP:V is for sourcing material to an article. So if you are claiming this is to comply with WP:V, that is *directly* contradictory to your statement below where you say the non existant video is not being used to reference anything. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We have sources that say the video does not exist, as has already been pointed out many many times. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Name one. I mean that literally—name precisely one source that identifies the video and says that it doesn’t exist. Until now, the answer has consistently been that no such source has been found, and jointly using two sources is the best we can do to verify that claim. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS it would be very problematic for us to attempt to synthesize sources to say that neither one explicitly states. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – I've updated the link in question with an archived version of the webpage. Sadly the video was not archived. "Jacob Barnett talk about Einstein... And eats lunch". Archived from the original on 7 April 2011. Retrieved 10 January 2017 – via YouTube.

--Auric talk 01:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: if you change some of the digits randomly in the above URL, (basically creating a random youtube designation) you will get the same result (providing you dont get the astronomically bad luck of getting a designation that has been issued to a video). In other words, the page displayed is the same for youtube designations that have been deleted, as for youtube designations that have not been issued to a video yet. Therefore I don't see the link adding much of anything, unless another source specified an exact youtube designation. this page that is returned is simply youtubes version of a 404 page.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: As has been said, the Time article linked to the same video ID. I think the idea was that the two sources together (the article and the YouTube error) show that the video no longer exists where it once did. Maybe the archive link does this better? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That still does not explain why that is necessary - is there anyone commenting on the videos being removed? At the moment it reads like it is trying to imply some negative impact due to them being removed, but since no one has actually commented on it, thats OR. Unless there is a reason why it being removed needs justification. As it stands, if the youtube video was being used to reference itself as a self-published source (which would be allowed) and its no longer uploaded, its treated as a dead link/ref. If it wasnt being used to actually source anything (as there are plenty of reliable secondary sources) but was only added to confirm its no longer there, thats ridiculous. You cant verify that a video was uploaded with a dead link that was added after the video was removed. Especially when no reliable source is actually mentioning it. And if they were mentioning it, we would just use them! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it's negative or not. But I think the text should now be rewritten to reflect the fact that an archive link has been found. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether we’re citing the video’s current state to an error message or we’re citing the video’s title to an archive page, we still have the reader investigating two separate links and visually comparing two URLs to verify the single claim that this was that video. Can anyone offer rationale for how this is not synthesis? Because it really looks like it to me. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If we got rid of the link to the video, it seems like your synthesis objection would disappear. But the link to the video is not meant to verify anything. It's just a link to the original video, just like we give links to all kinds of original documents in scientific articles. If there is a reasonable objection that it is the wrong video, then we can easily check that it is correct by looking at the TIME source, and (as you say) "visually comparing the two URLs". I think that settles any such reasonable objection. It is certainly not WP:SYN to include a link to the original video, on which absolutely no conclusions are made. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If its not meant to verify anything just remove the damn link. Its a dead link that serves absolutely no purpose other to show 'heres a dead link'. Since its not being used as a reference its completely pointless. We dont link to non-existant content. If it was being used as a reference it would have a valid place as a previously available reference. If it was a live video, it would have a place (even if not being used as a reference) as an external link that provides extra information. So far its doing neither of those things and so has no place in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A dead link is not proof that some medium is no longer available, because it can be put up somewhere else and found through searching. Doing that searching is research. We need a RS that says it was taken down. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, we do have such a source saying that the video is no longer available. This does not say that the video no longer exists anywhere, and neither does the article (and we wouldn't really be entitled to say that). I still do not see what the problem is with stating that the video is no longer available, sourced to the two secondary sources. Is the only problem here that we have a dead link in the article? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that explicitly states the video is no longer available, why are you using a dead link to reference the same material while simultaneously claiming you are not using it to reference anything? The length of this discussion should have made it clear to you that yes, having a dead link *that serves no purpose* in an article is a problem. If it doesnt need to be used as a reference for historial material, we dont use it. If there are reliable sources that state the video is not available, we dont use it. If its not being used to actually reference anything or being used to provide further information, we dont EL to a dead link. This is not a difficult concept, why are you failing to understand this? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least two editors have suggested that the link does serve a purpose, which is not related to RSN. But no one here seems to have caught onto that. I have removed the link to the video for now. But I suspect that local consensus will be to restore it for reasons beyond the mandate of this noticeboard. I assume the matter is now resolved. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

According to your comments at WT:V a few days ago, it appears that the purpose you have in mind is to treat it like a retracted academic paper: "It is certainly not undue weight to indicate that the video is no longer available. We would say the same thing if a researcher published a paper that was later retracted. I don't see why there should be a double standard here". As stated there, I firmly disagree with treating a 12-year-old kid's homemade video like it's a peer-reviewed academic journal article written by a professional academic whose academic career (rather than merely his YouTube page views) depends upon the status of the publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett (break)

My question is specifically about whether it's possible for current and future readers to verify material using this YouTube URL. It appears from the above that even the proponents of including it agree that it is not. I hope that they will now explain which guideline says that Wikipedia articles must cite original sources for scientific ideas, and how a YouTube video by a 12 year old falls under that standard. (I have my doubts about both of those points, but perhaps Wikipedia has a guideline for astrophysics, and perhaps it is exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's well-known guideline for biomedical sciences.)

On the other sources, I consider this a bit of a tangent from my original question, but we've already gone three rounds on the question of other reliable sources that say the video isn't available, so let me give the RSN folks a short summary.

The proponents of including this statement have produced two news stories from a few years ago that they say "verifies" the non-availability of the video because those stories (a) linked to the original YouTube URL and (b) now those YouTube URLs don't work. These sources are included at the top of the section. They are:

• The Daily Mail (yes, good ol' Daily Mail), which contains the standard YouTube error message. If you to go the article (and disable NoScript, etc.), you'll see the YouTube video embedded at the end of the page. Click the mostly blank video box, wait a moment, and then see that it says "This video does not exist". Why? Because that's what YouTube says when it can't find a public video for an embedded link. Daily Mail didn't write that; it's the standard YouTube error message. The error message isn't even on the website for The Daily Mail. — WhatamIdoing — continues after insertion below
  • And the text gives no indication as to that video’s content or source. All that could be reasonably assumed from looking at that article is that the video has something to do with Jacob Barnett, possibly a video adaptation of the Daily Mail article itself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• TIME magazine, which does not contain even an error message. The article says "as seen in the video above", so I assume that it originally embedded the video. However, I haven't found any combination of browser or settings that lets me see any video on that page, or even an empty hole where there could have been a video.  There's a still image at the top, but that's it.  It does not contain any information about the current function of the non-existent URL, or anything else that indicates whether this video is currently available. So perhaps other people can, but I personally can't even use the TIME source to get YouTube's own automated dead-link error message. — WhatamIdoing — continues after insertion below
  • Point of clarification: The Time article includes a YouTube link on the text, “while she taped her son explaining his take on the theory.” This link does not lead to a video page or an error message. Plugging the link into Archive.org does not yield a video page. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What the other editors have asked for is:

• A source that says this, in plain language. For example:
  • about two sentences,
  • written by an actual human (i.e., not a bot that tags pages with their equivalent of {{dead link}} and not the automatic error message from YouTube),
  • in a reliable source that has a chance of passing BLP standards (e.g., not a neighbor's personal blog), ** that says that the kid (or his mother) took the video down – ideally, but not necessarily, with some other information, e.g., when or why this happened.

That kind of source would let us know that:

1. it really happened/isn't just a change of URL (which is the RSN question) and
2. that Wikipedia should consider whether this information is worth including in an article (the DUE question).

So far, nobody seems to have found any human-written reliable sources talking about the broken URL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're quite right that an article about someone primarily "notable" for an unpublished theory of astrophysics, all trace of which has disappeared from the internet, is inherently problematic, and that's why it promises to be contentious for as long as the article remains in existence, at least until Barnett actually makes some meaningful accomplishments worthy of an encyclopedia article. At the present, he is notable largely for the ridiculous media overreaction unfortunately. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If the article communicated that this kid is basically a victim of a book tour, then we probably wouldn't be here. We probably would not bother saying that the videos links are down, especially since no reliable source has ever bothered to say that. We would probably not cite a bunch of blogs about this BLP. We would probably not worry one whit whether someone ever used the word "Nobel Prize" in the same paragraph as this kid's name; we would most especially not go on so long about Nobel Prizes that non-Wikipedians might start wondering whether this is all sour grapes because this kid's name was mentioned in the same paragraph as the Nobel Prize in some e-mail message from a kindly college professor, and ours wasn't. In fact, the article would probably just say something like "Jacob Barnett's mom wrote a heavily hyped book about him. The book sold okay, because people like reading stuff about kids on the autism spectrum who can do stuff that requires focus and perseverance, especially if it's a subject that they personally never focused and persevered in, like math."

But that's not what we've got. Maybe you'd like to try re-writing the article to head in that direction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

this kid is basically a victim of a book tour—That’s actually a good idea. But we need more sources about the aftermath, even if we don’t go that route; I think we only have two. But that’s a discussion more for the article than RSN. Same goes for everything in these replies, actually; none of it seems relevant to the question posed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to use Google Amp service

It would be useful if we could find a place to notate to users to not use Google's amp service as a reliable source and to instead use the actual originating source. Google's /amp/ service was blacklisted by request as it has been a means to get around blacklists, and that it was believed that we should not be using pseudo-source. I am currently seeing regular edit blocks on the urls for the amp service. I have amended the blacklist edit-blocking note to give a little more guidance, however telling users in a block message is too late, and we need to put something more overt and helpful to users. Thanks if someone can think of the best spot to add such a note. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

How does one get the original URL from an AMP version on a phone? As I recall, there is no easy way to do this. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My basic understanding of the amp service is that the base url of the source matches the part of the url after the /amp/ so "www.google.com.br/amp/www.ibtimes.com/nikki-mudarris-love-triangle-blows-her-face-love-hip-hop-hollywood-season-3-episode-5-2418724" becomes "www.ibtimes.com/nikki-mudarris-love-triangle-blows-her-face-love-hip-hop-hollywood-season-3-episode-5-2418724" — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I just tried that with a Fortune article, which I cannot link: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/%3Fsource%3Ddam?client=safari. Removing google.com/amp/ results in a amp.timeinc.net URL, generating a 404 error [25]. I see no reliable and repeatable way to derive the original URL from the AMP URL other than loading the latter on a desktop device, where it redirects to the former. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

looks like it flicks to "fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/" and I will agree that it is a bit ugly for the way that time have set up their service. We will have to see how it all works itself out. Plus how the community wishes to deal with it, are they like url redirects and prohibited, or is the community wishing for the general use, and happy to manage the negative effects. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: Any desktop user would be able to click on an AMP link, be redirected to the canonical link, and correct the citation. Mobile users should be permitted to post AMP links since they are so easily corrected by others. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I was considering the problem of amp being used to avoid the blacklist, but it occurs to me we already have this issue with any URL-obfuscating service, and to my knowledge those are not blacklisted or anything. These should still be avoided, but that may be more something for a bot to go around and fix. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Strike that, it looks like such services are blocked from meta - hadn't checked there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If AMP is blocked for potentially circumventing the blacklist, and AMP URLs usually contain the original URL as a substring, couldn’t we work around that by blocking the domain names as substrings? Or we could remove blacklisted AMPed links at the time of de-AMPing them, which would obviously be more of a delayed process than blacklisting. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably the simplest way for mobile users to get the original URL is to put their mobile browser in desktop mode which will likely mean they'll be provided the full site URL just as a normal desktop user. Most modern mobile browsers do have a desktop mode. They'll still have to copy it from their URL bar or whatever but that isn't any different from getting the AMP link. Note that this isn't the first time that a blacklist of shortened URLs has made it more difficult for editors to provide links. youtu.be for example is blacklisted even though it's what share this link will provide and it's not possible (AFAIK) to use it to link to anything other than Youtube videos. I presume the reason is because if you don't blacklist it, to blacklist videos properly you'd need to blacklist only the hash. People can just copy the URL from the URL bar although if they want to provide a time they either need to know how to transfer this from the share shortcut or open the share shortcut in their browser then copy the URL. (In most cases you shouldn't be including a time in a Youtube link but in some cases, especially in discussions it'll be useful.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Or know how to set it manually—#t=1m23s. And I disagree. You should include timecodes for the same reason you should include page numbers. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW removing the extraneous stuff added by Google will likely allow the URL to work although it'll still be the amp version just hosted on the originalo site. E.g. amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/ Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice catch! I’m not sure why I didn’t try truncating it at the last /. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Products of Academic Research

I am looking at a source for record chart data originally published by Radio & Records magazine. The source, http://wweb.uta.edu/faculty/gghunt/charts/chart.html, while not the most sophisticated web design, appears to be the product of academic research by a Graham Hunt, Ph.D., Professor of Musicology and Music Theory at the University of Texas at Arlington. This research could possibly just be a hobby, although the site says Radio & Records granted permission to use the data which suggests an academic pursuit. Opinions and guidance would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't the most obvious step be to email Hunt and ask him? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it's just a hobby. Piriczki (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

History And Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations

The blocked User:Mkd07 and their various Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mkd07/Archive socks made liberal use of a particular reference. "History And Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations, Tome Egumenoski & Aleksandar Donski, 2012". Recently the Mkd07 sockpuppet User:ConstantinVacheron used it to support their creation of a now-deleted article, Phosphate analysis in archaeological sites. The article cited p.8 of the source in question but the article content was actually a near copy-paste from the open-access Sassa website.

"History And Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations" seems not to have been published online. Wikibin has a brief summary of its authorship and content but I can find no peer reviews of the work itself. A search for its "main author" (Tome Egumenoski) draws a blank - more or less. It seems likely that the cited translator is one and the same as the Aleksandar Donski who has a YouTube page, dedicated to various Macedonian, Balkan-related (and apparently controversial) historical claims. An article about the cited work was created and maintained by Mkd07/their sockpuppets until its deletion.[26]

I'm doing my utmost here to assume good faith here, despite the socking, but the work (assuming it exists in paper form) seems self-published at best. Apologies for not giving diffs here; if I gave them, there would still be no way to verify the information they were supposed to support. The source should not be used for any Wikipedia article, imo. Haploidavey (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming the work in question is not included in any journals. I also assume that the ISBN has been checked, and it has been determined that the publisher is not a major academic publisher. The Sassa website indicates it is managed by the University of Stirling, so it might presumably qualify as reliable on that basis, but the lack of any other independent coverage on the topics mentioned certainly would qualify any material sourced from it alone for consideration for deletion. I guess the most relevant question then becomes whether the SASSA website itself qualifies as reliable. I think I should probably leave that question best for others to deal with. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. The Sassa website is open source and GNU, same as Wikipedia; maybe reliable in some things, and less so in others. The problem here is "History and_Archaeology Through Laboratory_Examinations" - details above - which has been used to support some claims in various Balkans-related articles, but cannot be verified, and seems not to be published or commented on by any academic source at all. Haploidavey (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

While the above can be technically interpreted as true, most obvious readings of the second sentence are misleading or wrong. The SASSA website runs on the Mediawiki Software, which is under the GNU GPL (and hence Open Source), but not part of the GNU project in the narrower sense, managed by the FSF. But that refers only to the software platform - by that criterion, about 95% of the web are open source. The content, on the other hand, is under a Creative Commons license, but not under the GDFL (unlike Wikipedia). SASSA is also a Wiki, hence "like Wikipedia" in that sense, but it only allows contributions by registered users which have to go through an application process [27]. SASSA was build by the University of Stirling with funding from the Natural Environment Research Council. It is run by a group of academics and has two advisory councils [28].Thus it is probably reasonably reliable for its area of expertise - at least on the level of a Master thesis or a Technical Repot by a serious university. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If, as you say, the Sassa site is comparably reliable to our own, then its utility for these purposes should be equivalent to how frequently we use our own site as a reliable source, which is to say, not at all. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly so. Haploidavey (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Phosphate analysis is an established archaeological technique with numerous credible sources in journals such as J. Archaeological Science and Geoprospection, and those listed in the SASSA wiki. There is no need to use the SASSA page or the queried article. Martinlc (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And I agree with that too; but perhaps I've not made my point very clearly. The deleted article is no longer a problem; nor is Sassa, no matter how used or misused. The deleted article is just one example among many in which "History and_Archaeology Through Laboratory_Examinations" has been cited in Balkans-related articles by various socks of a banned user. It, and its authors, appear to have no proven academic standing. So I'd like to remove it. Haploidavey (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at this noticeboard, we tend to discuss only whether specific individual sources can or should be used in specific individual instances, not offer the sort of blanket approval you might be seeking. There are so many possible ways for sources to be used in so many situations that attempting to do so would be problematic. Having said that, if the source under discussion is not directly the source of a specific quotation or other item in an article which can't be sourced elsewhere, I can't see any real reason not to remove it. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the light dawns - after a fashion. Thanks for your replies - and on re-reading my query, I see that I've been less precise than I should, for which my apologies. Indeed, blanket approval for removal is what I'm after here. Haploidavey (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

An article about FAKE medical journals used to identify a journal as a medical journal

I don't think an article that identifies fake medical journals should be used to identify real medical journals as such. Others seem to disagree and will not help me find better sources. [29]

Please advise.

Two articles where this is being done:

Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Acupuncture in Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article being referenced: [30]

jps (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles from Forbes Contributors are generally considered unreliable sources for facts (opinions are fine), primarily because they are effectively non-reviewed blogs for the most part, compared to staff Forbes writers. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And academic journals about medical subjects are generally called "medical journals" (regardless of what they publish is bad science, pseudoscience, quackery or whatnot). Theer's no value judgment implicated in the term "medical journal". --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

jps, does this really need a source? Do you really think that someone's WP:LIKELY to come along and seriously wonder whether this might be a journal about poetry or something? Usually, we don't bother sourcing such statements; the journal itself is a usable primary source for a general (i.e., vague) description of its contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that these journals are not real journals, in fact. In an age of fake news, it is important that we identify what is and isn't authentic as best as we can. If something is inauthentic, it seems irresponsible to me to WP:ASSERT, in Wikipedia's voice, that it is what it claims to be. Would we write that Weekly World News was a news periodical? jps (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

WWN was a news periodical, and we say that in the first sentence: "a largely fictional news tabloid". If it's "news" and comes out "periodically" (i.e., weekly), then it's "a news periodical". (Tabloid is the size of the paper, not a value judgment on the contents.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The edit says it was a peer-reviewed medical journal, which needs verification. And while it may be correct to say that a pseudo-scientific medical journal is a medical journal, it is misleading and should not be phrased that way. Opinion pieces of course are not reliable sources for facts, and generally you would need an academic source to determine that something is an actual medical journal. If it is, a source should not be hard to find. TFD (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The source is there: the journal is included in the Index Medicus, a prestigious curated collection of medical journals. What is not well-sourced at the moment is that this is somehow a "fake" journal (only sourced to the above mentioned Forbes blog and another personal blog). --Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be fair to call it a controversial journal, I think the term peer reviewed is tendentious in context as woo reviewed by a peer panel of woo-meisters is still woo. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

But you need sources for that. In any case, "medical journal" and "peer-reviewed" are neutral statements in my eyes, because it doesn't say anything about the quality of the journal. It can very well be a bad medical journal and incompetent peer review. But, again, in order to say anything either way (good or bad), we need sources that verify such a statement. The personal opinion of us WP editors should not enter into that. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we live in a day-and-age where the institutions of academic publishing and peer review are being mimicked by bad actors to their own designs. This is why it is important that we identify with reliable sources (not just indices) that a publication is what it says it is. We do the readers no favors by declaring in Wikipedia's voice that a publication which contains misinformation and medical claims that, for example, fail WP:MEDRS spectacularly, is a peer-reviewed medical journal. For better or worse, the connotations of such a label are that the publication is an authentically peer-reviewed and mainstream medical journal. Even though those words are not there, that's the way most people read such a text. The fact that we can find no sources which explicitly state that the journals in question are peer reviewed medical journals is not surprising to me as I am fairly convinced that they are fake journals. I'm not asking that Wikipedia state that in its voice, but I am asking that it not state something that would mislead readers into believing something else. jps (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has become incredibly shattered, with postings by you on different notice boards, article talk pages, etc. I refer to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:NJournals, where these issues are all being addressed. I don't intend to continue discussing here. --Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The basic question as to what to describe FAKE journals on their webpages cannot really be addressed at WP:NJOURNALs, I think. This is a question for either here or WP:NPOVN or the article talkpages, surely. I think since it crosses many different articles, it would be worthwhile to discuss it among others who are not involved in the discussion about overhauling WP:NJOURNALs since that is a separate matter in part. jps (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

CINAHL calls it a medical journal, so does Current Contents (which lists it under "Clinical Medicine"), Index Medicus, and the Journal Citation Reports. These are all reliable sources. You, on the other hand, have a blog post that says it's "fake". And of course your own infallible opinion, lest I forget that. So unless you can come up with reliable sources that say something else, we're done here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a source for it being controversial, the article cited. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Those are blogs. But regardless, that still means that we first describe the journal and then provide sourced criticism. It still remains a "peer-reviewed medical journal". The sources then confirm that the peer review is incompetent and the medical science is crap. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that we can be held responsible for readers assuming that "medical journal" means "reputable medical journal that publishes only scientifically sound academic work" (a definition that would certainly disqualify NEJM). Medical Hypotheses is a medical journal, despite its reputation for carrying speculation. Medical Humanities (journal) is a medical journal, despite publishing no science. For that matter, I could start my own medical journal: "medical journal" ultimately means "magazine that publishes stuff about medicine" – including the art of medicine, the human experience of medicine, the nonsense of medicine, etc.

If you want readers to have an accurate understanding of the journal's reputation, then you need to add more sentences, rather than trying to remove these words. (Those sentences should indicate that this is one of the most reputable journals about acupuncture, and not merely that you think acupuncture is a bunch of pointless garbage.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Whereas acupuncture and meridian studies is a journal about pseudomedicine, and Explore is a pseudo-journal about mainly pseudomedicine. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. That's not the impression I get from our own article on the subject: medical journal. jps (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It is conceivably possible that the editors who are willing to write an article like medical literature (peace be upon them, may they increase, etc.) are disposed to think of it as a special and wonderful subject. You might find the article journal slightly more informative about the minimum standards for creating a journal, which are basically "someone publishes something, especially on a regular schedule". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Box Office Bangladesh (boxofficebangladesh.wordpress.com)

Are [31] and [32] reliable sources for the film budget and box office information in Ami Shudhu Cheyechi Tomay (4 citations)?

The website's home page shows "blog stats" and advertises "Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com." There is no "about us" or "contact us". The author of all content is identified only by the handle dhallywoodworld. There is no evidence of editorial review. I see no reputation for fact checking or accuracy. I haven't found any reliable sources that cite Box Office Bangladesh.

So my evaluation is that it is not a reliable source. It is cited in 17 Wikipedia articles, mostly by IPs (7 articles) and sockpuppets (6 articles), who may not know or care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also by editors in good standing (4 articles). The author of List of highest grossing Bangladeshi films cited it, but included the disclaimer "There is no official tracking of figures, and sites publishing data are frequently pressured to increase their estimates", a caveat that was later removed by a sockpuppet. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wordpress is a blogging site that lets anyone publish anything. This specific blog provides absolutely no information about who writes it, or where their information comes from. I would consider it absolutely unreliable for any and all purposes. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of a doctoral thesis as a source

I intended to use the source “Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age” to expand our article on the SCP Foundation. The source in question provides a lot of useful information on the SCP Foundation website that is not available in any other reliable source. For example, the source describes the website’s forums, deletion policy, application policy, and also gives an overview of the general structure of SCP articles that is much more through than the overview given by other sources. My problem with the source is that it is a doctoral thesis, rather than a traditionally published journal article. I have zero experience with this type of source, and our policy on reliable sources seemed kind of iffy on whether they were acceptable or not. I’d appreciate it if anyone more familiar with this type of source could provide some feedback on whether or not this is a useable source. The full citation is: Newsom, E. T. (2013). Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age (Order No. 3601025). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1466302542). url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1466302542?accountid=11091 . Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Accepted doctoral theses, from respected institutions, adviser actually in the field the thesis was published on, are generally considered reliable sources for non-controversial content. The type of information you're talking about sounds sufficiently non-controversial, I would consider it reliable for such purposes. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would consider this reliable and usable along the lines of what Someguy1221's comment. Neutrality^talk 21:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both for your feedback. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Scholarship" says, "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available...can be used...." It is always important though to consider why a source is selected and you have provided a good explanation. TFD (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Intercept as a source

Hi, just trying to use The Intercept as a source. The Intercept journalist cites multiple military and intelligence sources stating that a subject of a Wikipedia article, Linda Norgrove, worked for British Intelligence. I'd like to make a brief note of this in her bio. Another editor undid my edit, said the source was not reliable (among other things).

• Source: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/

"Norgrove, though in Afghanistan as an aid worker for DAI, an American NGO, secretly worked with Britain’s MI-6, according to four U.S. military and intelligence sources. Two of these sources told me that the British government informed SEAL Team 6 mission planners that Norgrove worked for the spy agency, and that they had been tracking her movements since the abduction."

• Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Linda_Norgrove
• Content: DIFF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Linda_Norgrove&type=revision&diff=760121262&oldid=760120586

"On 26 September 2010, British aid worker and reported MI6 worker Linda Norgrove and three Afghan colleagues were kidnapped by members of the Taliban in the Kunar Province of eastern Afghanistan."

• Further Info: Tried to resolve this (unsuccessfully) on Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Linda_Norgrove#MI6_connection
• Further Info: Journalist is Matthew Cole, bio here: https://theintercept.com/staff/matthewcole/

Fx6893 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I see no particular reason not to allow The Intercept. It is a news organisation with editorial oversight and operated by well-respected (if not well-liked by all sides) journalists. I don't think your phrasing conveys the same message as the original article, though. Her alleged MI6 contacts have not ben "reported" by neutral sources (and certainly not by The Intercept, which only reports on what their sources say). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Could you give an example of phrasing that would be better? Fx6893 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say this falls into the basket of reliable but use with caution due to strong editorial agenda. In practice that usually means attribution rather than stating anything in Wikipedia's voice. I must say I was dismissive of this site until the Juan Thompson incident. Retraction, correction and eventual firing constitute a robust response to bad journalism. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally agree that the fact that some people dislike The Intercept's politics would not be a good reason to exclude it, although attribution might be an idea when sourcing things to it, as it usually is for anything beyond basic facts. It can be quite opinion-heavy, but is staffed and run by serious journalists and also does some serious investigative work, like the piece in question (and in any event, would be "reliable" as a source for the opinions of its writers). That's especially true in this case, where it is passing on the comments of anonymous sources. That said, although WP:RS was raised here, the real issue in this case seems to be more about weight and presentation. Norgrove is not commonly described as an "MI6 worker/agent". The Intercept piece is not primarily about her or her death. This single element of one report is not enough to justify describing her straight-up in the very first sentence as such. It may be useful for attributed and qualified detail about the circumstances of her death in the main body. N-HH talk/edits 12:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, though I have no real knowledge of the specifics of this case. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I am. There are related issues that the Aid/Development organisation she worked for has been accused of being a CIA front. Personally I would want at least another source before including that sort of information. The intercept *by itself* does not go into enough detail to label her as such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

MIMS

Is this website) a reliable source? It seems to be different from this site. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to tell us exactly how you want to use it. No source is reliable for all possible statements, and no source is unreliable for all possible statements.

In general, if you try to use it to support a claim about WP:Biomedical information, you should expect people to claim that it fails WP:MEDRS. In some cases, it may be (barely) reliable for claims about biomedical information; in no case will it be the best possible source for those claims. On the other hand, it might be a perfectly reasonable source for non-biomedical information (e.g., how much money a health company made last year). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ray al-Youm

The source is an article from Ray al-Youm here. It's being used to support these statements in 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping:

According to the Rai al-Youm on-line newspaper, 'Abdeh Raji', known as 'Captain', and 'Biar Rizq', known as 'Akram', were involved in the abduction.

The abducted individuals were reportedly poisoned under the supervision of Elie Hobeika, a then Phalangist, in Karantina for 20 days and were moved to the prison of Adonis.

Later in 2016, according to what the London-based Rai al-Youm referred to as an accurate intelligence report, a recently released Greek prisoner from Israeli jails informed the Iranian embassy in Athens that he had seen the four abducted individuals alive in Israeli jails. Ahmad Habibollah Abu Hesham, known as a "spiritual father" of prisoners of Israeli jails, had made a similar comment that Motavesellian and the others were alive in Atlit detainee camp after visiting and inspecting prisoners in Israeli jails. He died in what Rai al-Youm claimed was a "made up accident by Israel."

Elie Hobeika verified the abduction of the diplomats and their handing over to Israel by Geagea's group

What our Wikipedia article refers to as a London-based online newspaper looks to me like a propaganda website run by an expat. I don't speak Arabic but I don't get the impression there's any real fact checking or editorial oversight involved. The Wikipedia article already suffers from a pro-Iranian bias due to the fact the there's not much interest in the subject from outlets outside the region. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The mentioned newspaper is used as a source on other occasions by reliable sources such as the Washington institute for Near East Policy ([33], [34]), Defend Democracy Press, Middle East Eye, New York Times, Jerusalem Post and etc. Moreover, the quoted material is reflected by other sources such as [35], [36] and [37]. Finally, we know that per WP:BIASED, "... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Chris Troutman: I think the final sentence of your comment, i.e. "the Wikipedia article already suffers...", is completely irrelevant here in this board and will be respected on the article talk page. I think you had mentioned that in the GA review. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)