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.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

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

Is Designers & Dragons a RS for: (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs?

Recently the question arose as to whether or not Designers & Dragons [1], a book on fantasy role-play games, is a WP:RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) WP:BLPs.

• Publisher: The book's publisher is Evil Hat, a fantasy game and t-shirt company located somewhere in the United States (no physical address is given on its website and I was unable to locate it via a reverse EIN search either). [2]
• Author: The book's author is Shannon Applecline. A bio purporting to be that of Applecline is here: [3].
• Reception: The book has been cited in about two-dozen master's degree theses and undergraduate term papers. [4] A check of JSTOR and Google News finds no scholarly journals or mainstream media which have reviewed it. It is cited once each in Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons from Bloomsbury and Dragons in the Stacks: A Teen Librarian's GUide to Tabletop Role-Playing from ABC-CLIO.

Is this source RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs? Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• Undecided on "A", No on "B" - I'm undecided leaning towards "RS" for games and game companies. However, I don't believe this could surmount the high threshold required to source a BLP. Neither the publisher nor author have any non-fiction credits other than this book and the author has no known educational credentials, or wider journalistic / academic reputation, that would qualify him to conduct original historical or biographical research. I have been unable to find any physical presence for the publisher by which it could be held legally responsible for what it publishes, as it appears not to disclose its physical address and even a reverse EIN search turns up blank. With the exception of undergraduate papers and master theses (which are not, themselves, RS) instances of the book being cited by reliable sources are light and there's no examples of it being used to cite a biographical statement in a RS (only product descriptions). Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the lack of information on the publisher, and low profile of the author, I would say the book is not a reliable source, period. - Donald Albury 02:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with Donald Albury, for the reasons stated. Not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Being published by a game company I would suspect it fails the editorial control/reputation for fact checking and accuracy criteria. On the other hand several volumes have been published so that is enough to establish a reputation. On yet another hand, I see no evidence of other reliable sources making use of it, which is really the only proxy we have for its reputation and acceptance. Based on that I do not think it could be considered a reliable source for anything until we can get a better handle on its editorial control and fact checking. Jbh ^Talk 05:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Designers & Dragons is cited by many/all of the authoritative scholarly sources in the field (as WP:SECONDARY reminds us to check whether "the source has entered mainstream academic discourse"). Most recently, Designers & Dragons is cited extensively and with evident approbation in Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations, the new academic text, published by Routledge, which for now is the leading text in the field. I can produce earlier citations of Designers & Dragons, but SCHOLARSHIP seems to be easily met by its role in unquestionably reliable sources, and SCHOKARSHIP is, as I understand it, the "gold standard for both BIO and CORP sources. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
          • What you say appears to be incorrect. It is listed in several chapter's bibliographies and as 'Further reading' but I see nothing directly cited to the work. Without that it is impossible to know what it was used for. So, yes, it was consulted but I see no indication in that work that it was used for historical information about gaming companies which is the matter at hand here.
            This paper used it for some historical information on D&D, TSR. Jbh ^Talk 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
            • The above statement appears to be misleading. The Routledge text employs chapter bibliographies rather than individual citations, based on its intended use in universities. Most of the chapter references are either primary sources or academic/theoretical sources. The repeated references to Designers & Dragons in the bibliographies give it pride of place as a secondary source in the field, as having "entered mainstream scholarly discourse". Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
              • That is an … erm … interesting … source analysis. I will however disagree. We can not infer anything other than several authors looked at the work. In particular there is no indication that the work was used for the history of game companies, which is what we are examining it for here, or is any way considered generally authoritative purpose by the academic community.
                My concern is that the publisher has no history of academic, or even non-fiction, publishing. Therefore I do not accept, without evidence, that the editorial standards they have for publishing games are adequate, particularly in terms of fact checking and accuracy, for an authoritative "academic" work.
                I just looked at the Amazon free sample of the work and it is no more than a narrative history. I see no citations for facts nor any indications that it is reliable beyond a single person's observations and musings. It is effectively an oral history – a good work but essentially a primary source. Jbh ^Talk 17:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes it is for A and B - and a note that the user who opposed has been trying to argue for mass deletion of pages that rely on it as a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Given it is published by a games company, I would say no. There are issues if primary source and even SPS here. OK maybe they might be OK for historical information, about people or products that have no connection to the company. But outside that I would say they are not interdependent enough to be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that each edition of Designers & Dragons is not RS for the publisher at the time, which is the one issue of independence. Also agreed that its relevance is for historical/factual information, not really for analysis.Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I believe it meets all three criteria. To clarify on the part of the publisher, there have been two editions of the book, published by two separate game publishers who I believe are fully independent from each other and are headquartered in different countries. The first edition of the book was published as a single volume in 2011 by British game company Mongoose Publishing. The second edition was greatly expanded and published in 2014 in four volumes by US game company Evil Hat Productions. The first edition consists of roughly 50-60 chapters, with each chapter consisting of a history of one game company that was known for producing role-playing games, including discussing the people who have been a part of that company, and games that the company is known for. The text is written as partial oral history and partial commentary on decisions made by the companies. The second edition expands on the information in the first edition by adding more than 20 additional chapters on other companies, and expanding on the information featured in most of the chapters from the first edition; most of the text is reproduced identically from the first edition. Shannon Appelcline himself has been a game designer/writer, and he currently runs RPGnet and publishes articles there - most of the information from the first edition of Designers & Dragons was and still is on RPGnet, written for fans of the website before Mongoose agreed to publish it as a book. I would say his design experience and research qualifies him as an expert in the field. The credits of the book list a few dozen industry professionals that he consulted for information to write the book with. Important individuals in the field are discussed in detail in the book, including in some cases talking somewhat about their earlier lives and schooling, personal lives, and careers before and after getting into the gaming field. BOZ (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Appelcline does not cite his sources inline in the text, but at the end of the Mongoose edition, he provides a bibliography of sources "built from thousands of primary sources including interviews, design notes, reviews, news articles, press releases, catalogues, forum postings and other non-fiction articles. It was also built with the assistance of hundreds of readers, fact-checkers and scanners." He lists over 30 magazines and similar publications ("a solid collection of RPG magazines dating back through the ‘80s and ’90, before the age of the internet made it easy for publishers to get information out to fans"), more than a dozen non-fiction books about the industry ("Any number of RPG books was consulted, primarily for insight into that game or its publisher. The following non-fiction sources were also used. Secondary sources like the Role-Playing Bibles tended to be used for date confirmation and references to primary sources, not for analysis.") several web resources ("The web proved an invaluable resource, particularly for companies in existence from the late ‘90s onward [and] a few of the web sites that I visited multiple times over the course of the project") and he lists several dozen fact checkers, most of whom worked for one or more of the companies he wrote about ("Whenever I finished an article, I tried to get one or more people associated with the company in question to comment on it. In one or two cases where I did not have sufficient company feedback, I got some help from fans as well. These people helped to make this book considerably more accurate and informative thanks to both corrections and insight generously given. Some were kind enough to comment on multiple editions of these articles over the years."). BOZ (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Which means his assertions are untraceable and uncheckable. The reliability of the source then comes down to, in my opinion, the reputation of the publisher, which for reasons I have previously mentioned, is inadequate. The deficiencies of documentation and publisher could be offset if the author had a reputation for, or training in historiography. He does not.

There is no doubt the author put great time and effort into his work but, for the reasons I have stated, I do not believe it meets the Wikipedia's standards to be considered a reliable source for company histories or BLP. Jbh ^Talk 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please see instructions at the top. What article and what material is this being used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Only in death does duty end, sorry. It's used quite extensively in BLPs so I can't provide an exhaustive list, however, here are a few examples:

• M. Alexander Jurkat - used to cite entire article including professional licenses (attorney), bankruptcy, inspirations / favorite things, and employment history [5]
• John Harshman - used to cite educational credentials and place of residence [6]
• Fred Hicks - used to cite the entire article, including the BLP's employment history, employment status, favorite things, friendships, and inspirations. [7]
• Andria Hayday - used to cite date the BLP's employer terminated them [8]
• Jack Herman - used to cite most of article, including the BLP's legal disputes and details of his business contracts with other people [9]
• Shane Lacy Hensley - used to cite most of article, including place of birth, childhood hobbies, and detailed employment history
• Dale Henson - used to cite entire article [10]

Chetsford (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable for company histories nor for BLP per my arguments above. The publisher is not an established publisher of non-fiction works and therefore can not be assumed to have adequate editorial controls for fact checking and accuracy. What I have seen of the work (Amazon sample) it is written as an oral history and provides no backstop for facts presented beyond the assertion of its author. Jbh ^Talk 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable for both Each of the four volumes provides a Bibliography citing the sources used. Many of the sources are, in turn, other publications such as magazines. There is also a fifth volume entitled "Designers & Dragons The Platinum Appendix" that also lists all the references used. For me, the books meet the criteria of a reliable source. The books have been published and are available to purchase in hard copy form, and they're available and stocked in book stores. In addition, the author is identified and the publisher identified. The books have been cited in academic sources and has been acknowledged in lots of other sources as a comprehensive history. For example, The Oxonian Review which has an editorial board.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC (UTC)
• Reliable for Games/Companies, unsure for BLP Designers and Dragons is extremely heavily used and referenced inside the RPG industry and generally hailed as the pre-eminent source for RPG histories. Shannon Appelcline is regarded as the premier historian of RPGs. The first edition was published by Mongoose Publishing and the second edition multi volume set was published by Evil Hat. Note that the author does not work for either of those companies, it was just the means of publishing. The work is generally referenced (not as specifically and heavily as Wikipedia but all sources are listed), but as for many communities the outside oversight is minor as it is for every smaller subject area. Most company information is heavily cross referenced to people who worked for those companies and additional third party sources about the companies. As for BLP I'd be a little more unsure but considering the number of people interviewed for the work and since Shannon used most major players in the industry, I'd say it's as reliable a source for BLPs of the prominent people in the RPG industry as any, but I'm open to an argument against it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Addition I would also like to add that since it covers all aspects of the tabletop RPG industry, it should NOT be used for notability determination, just fact checking and claim supports like any other text on an industry. The fact that a game is included in it doesn't make that game/company notable as it goes into details on a lot of obscure RPGs. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Borderline, reliable for non-extraordinary claims about game companies but not for BLPs. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the guideline governing the type of source it purports to be, since the publisher is not academic we ascertain reliability by citation patterns. As discussed above, it is cited only in sources that are themselves marginal—theses and tiny start-up journals—with the exception of the Routledge collection, which is edited by an associate professor and a PhD in Media Studies. In this, it's cited only a half-dozen times, albeit usually for substantial points of fact, and chapter 4, Tabletop Role-Playing Games, names it as one of two sources on which "the historical arc traced here draws in large measure upon". Balancing the fact that this is only one publication (and mostly one chapter) with the fact that precious little has been published in this field, I would cautiously say that this source seems reliable for unsurprising claims about its field, but that it hasn't been vetted widely or frequently enough to rely on it for BLP information. FourViolas (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Based on the description from HighKing, I'd have to say it counts as a RS for all purposes. That said, if there is an extraordinary claim I'd want a second independent source (though I feel that way about nearly all sources, some things like Nature or the WSJ I'd accept as a single source for all but the most outrageous of claims). Hobit (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Marginal at best, not suitable for BLPs or for establishing notability. The first edition was published by a game company, the second via Kickstarter. This appears to be an "in-universe", hobbyist work -- slightly better than self-published. Okay to use for non-controversial details once notability of the subjects is established via other means, but I don't see evidence of fact-checking or accuracy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable for both I'm not seeing any evidence that the source is erroneous. We have numerous BLPs for people like footballers and pornstars which are supported by weak sources and, in general, we commonly use books and newspapers as sources even though these often contain errors and bias. All I'm seeing here is a case of prejudice against the field. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment it should be noted that the primary Wikiproject for RPGs, Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons, has determined it to be a reliable secondary source for their purposes. Not sure what that says. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was added to the Resources list by User:JEB215 in 2015. The page was built by User:Drilnoth in 2008 using available sources at that time; Designers & Dragons and several other books were not written yet and so were added later. BOZ (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment on Notability A couple of editors have commented that Designers & Dragons may be an independent, reliable source for article content but not for WP:N. I believe this line of thinking reflects a misunderstanding about what WP Notability is: per policy, it is not supposed to be a measure of the importance of a topic, or of its encyclopaedicity (which is covered by WP:NOT), but simply a question of whether there are adequate sources to treat a topic; if there are not enough sources, it is not notable, but if there are enough sources, it is. (There may be some deletionists who disagree with this criterion, but the policy and guidelines are actually pretty clear). Of course, not all sources topics require their own articles, and some are best dealt with in sections of longer articles, but these are questions of encyclopaedicity rather than Notability.

So if Designers & Dragons is a reliable, independent source - which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it - then it is evidence of Notability based on the significance of the mention, same as any other RS. I do of course agree that no extraordinary claims should be based on the text in question, nor do I trust it's theoretical or analytical judgements very far, but it's factual accuracy is excellent. And the argument that boils down to "it covers so many games that none of them can be very important" simply runs contrary to what WP:N actually means; for example, the listing of very, very diagnoses in the DSM doesn't make any of them less Notable for WP. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it While I certainly understand the spirit of your perspective, I would dispute that there can be scholarship in a field that is not a scholarly field. This is not a comment on the value or import of role-playing games, however, I don't believe their design or manufacture is a scholarly field. Scholarship "within the field" might be a reasonable touchpoint for the academic disciplines, however, I don't see evidence that role-playing games is an academic discipline. This is not to say that any entertainment topic is un-scholarly. Film, for instance, is both a topic of entertainment and a topic of scholarship (the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals about film, a large number of university professorships studying film, and a general recognition of the viability of the field of film studies). However, I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Is that why you didn't include the new Routledge text in your "reception" section of the RSN notice: because of your OR decision that it was not in a scholarly field? You should inform Routledge, then, and you might want to tell the publishers of the game studies journals, as well. Newimpartial (talk)

the publishers of the game studies journals I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some so I could better acquaint myself and consider modifying my !vote appropriately? Chetsford (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware of any journals that are confined to RPGs, but the RPG form is certainly discussed within the burgeoning scholarship on game studies (or Ludology) in general. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you could share some of those journals then? Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The obvious specialty journal for you to start with would be http://analoggamestudies.org . Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've checked SCOPUS and EBSCO and it doesn't appear to be indexed. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That would explain why it didn't show up in the Google Scholar results. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

So this is not an indexed journal? To my original query of the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals did you have any examples of indexed journals? The question as to whether roleplaying games is an academic field comes down to several factors listed above, including are there scholarly journals? If there are, I'm hoping you can help us identify them. Keeping in mind that simply starting a website and calling it "journal" does not make it a scholarly journal in the spirit of WP:NJOURNAL. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't move goalposts. I was answering your direct question, "I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some...?" I was not answering your oblique reference to indexed film journals, nor was I offering an opinion on the specifics of any journal's editorial process. (I trust that WP editors can read websites and make their own decisions about editorial oversight.) RPGs are included in the overall field or ludology, specifically in the less lucrative part of that field dealing with "analog games". I have no interest in proceeding any further down this rabbit hole, none of which explains your non-inclusion of the Routledge text in your filing here at RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is roleplay gaming an academic discipline? Sorry, I assumed when I said "scholarly journals" it was evident, vis a vis my previous comment the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals, what it was I was looking for (i.e. not just any publication or website including the word "journal" in their name but scholarly journals). If I expressed myself imperfectly, I apologize. In any case, Analog Game Studies would objectively not meet our WP:NJOURNAL criteria since we have set-forth that "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices". Therefore, IMO, on the basis of there being no scholarly journals on role-playing games, no or very few academics at accredited universities researching roleplaying games, no learned society dedicated to the topic of roleplaying games, and roleplaying games are not listed in the Classification of Instructional Programs [11] or the Joint Academic Coding System [12] I would maintain the position that roleplaying games are not an academic discipline. I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding BLP sourcing: I should have made it clearer above, but when Appelcline lists his "fact-checkers", these were not just random people who happened to work at the company. Many of the people written about in the book – not anywhere near all, but many – were among the 120-or-so fact-checkers listed. My understanding of how the material for the book came to be is that Appelcline would write an article about one company and the games and people associated with it by reading interviews, news articles, non-fiction books about the industry, magazine articles, websites, etc, and compile the information together based on that, and send the article to one or more people who were significant to that company in some way for feedback and to act as a fact-checker. Let's say he were writing about "Happy Fun Time Games" which was started by John Smith; he would send the article to Smith and I imagine he might get a response something like: "I actually started HFTG in my basement in 1985 while I was at Blah University in Colorado with my friend Jim Johnson who was working as a lawyer in Tennessee at the time. He left the company in 1994 to go back to BlahBlah Law school, so I hired Robert Thompson to take his place after he was let go from Goofy Games, and he left in 2002 to go into photography in Georgia. Johnson sued us and won for licensing rights in 2003. I took time off from the company from 2004-2006 to play golf, and then I came back. Other than that, it looks like you got everything right, so great work!" He would then publish the article online, and after a while there were a few dozen such articles online, so Mongoose agreed to publish these articles as a book, and the editor in the credits is Charlotte Law, and that is how Designers & Dragons came to be. The question then is, since we have people approving of what was written about them and about people they know, does that make the source more or less reliable? I suppose some people will argue that no one knows you and your friends better than yourself, while other people will say that giving input that way just gives people the opportunity to lie about themselves and people they know, so me asking this may or may not put us closer to a consensus. BOZ (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  This thread is likely to be closed in the near future, and it may be difficult to determine the consensus here as so many differing opinions have been offerred. Wikipedia policy is determined partly by consensus discussion of what should and should not happen, and partly by practice of what does happen. Chetsford has put a lot of effort into arguing that while Designers & Dragons could possibly be used as a reliable source under the right circumstances, that a subject's inclusion in this book should not be taken as an indicator of notability, and he even tried for some reason to have it documented as such and as one of the perennial source discussions despite this being the first and only discussion of the source on a noticeboard that I am aware of. So as far as documenting practice, this noticeboard discussion came out of Chetsford nominating almost 20 tabletop gaming-related (mostly RPG, but not all) articles for AFD. Of those, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy Imperium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen and the Art of Mayhem, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Cross (role-playing game) have been closed as delete, and as a few similar articles are also likely to be – but please note that none of them were sourced to Designers & Dragons (or sourced at all, for that matter). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Roleplaying Game and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Abranson were both sourced to Designers & Dragons, and both were closed as Keep. Five more pending AFDs are also on articles sourced to Designers & Dragons, and from a look at each of them it seems likely to me at this point that they will all close as either Keep or Merge. Merge is not Delete, and does allow for some of the sourced content to be moved to another article. Since policy on Wikipedia reflects practice in part, I am urging whoever closes this discussion to not explicitly rule that Designers & Dragons does not contribute to notability. If you cannot find that it in fact does contribute to notability, then please leave it as an open question for now. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above that there is no consensus it is RS, nor is there a consensus it is not insofar as BLPs are concerned. I would say there is probably a consensus it is RS for non-biographical facts. Just in point of clarification of my nominations regarding RPGs, I've nominated 19, of which 4 have been deleted, 4 kept, 2 merged, and 9 are either open or have had to be relisted. I'm not sure which involved Designers & Dragons. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I explained here already regarding which of your AFDs involved Designers & Dragons as a source, but if my explanation was not clear – three were closed as Keep, one as Merge, and three remain to be closed but are unlikely to be closed as delete unless there is a last-minute push in that direction. That is not enough evidence on its own to say that the book definitely does contribute to notability, but my point here is that it does show some practice-based evidence that it may contribute to notability, thus my request to the closer that the book should not be ruled as clearly a non-contributor to notability, and thus leaving that an open question at worst. The majority of your recent game-related AFDs do not involve this source, so I was not discussing them here, as this discussion is about just one source, and not about your success rate which you keep touting as some important metric. But since you brought it up, on your chart, lets just say that four of the seven "red" unsuccessful nomination results on the current version of the chart involved Designers & Dragons as a source, while none of the "green" successful nomination results involved said book as a source. So, let's just say that your success rate when it comes to articles sourced by this book is… underwhelming at best. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it appears we agree that there is a consensus it's fine for articles about games and game companies and no consensus as to whether it is or is not RS for BLPs. Since the Keep/Delete decision in each AfD was not based solely on the status of Designers & Dragons but rather on an holistic evaluation of all the sources in the article, as well as arguments for the subject's inherent notability on the basis of various awards, this centralized discussion in which Designers & Dragons is the exclusive subject of analysis is probably a better judge of the community's opinion. In any case, I think discussions at RSN usually just fade away 9 times out of 10 rather than being formally closed. Best - Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just adding that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillfolk was closed as Keep as well, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Britannica as merge. The three remaining AFDs involving Designers & Dragons as a source have been relisted, and as noted above, at this time look more likely to be Keep or Merge rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just adding for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubicle 7 was closed as No consensus (delete 3; keep 10). BOZ (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Likewise, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic McDowall-Thomas was closed as no consensus. The last AFD in question was relisted for a second time earlier this week, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy, with most respondents split between either Keep or Merge/redirect, and only the nominator and one other arguing to delete. So, to reiterate, with all the AFD results noted above going "merge" at worst, and most as keep or no consensus (aka, default keep), I will again dispute the notion that the community should consider Designers & Dragons to be not a RS or contribute to notability. It was not the only source in question on those articles, so it alone does not determine notability, but the failure to get a single delete result among the 7 articles that used this source tell me that the community does consider it enough of a RS that contributes to notability (along with other sources) that consensus could not be found to delete any of those 7 articles. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy was finally closed today as Keep. BOZ (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Most certainly reliable. No idea why this is not considered a reliable source. It is every bit as reliable as any other source compiled by a specialist historian of a subject. The fact its publisher is a games company is neither here nor there. Inclusion in it does not make a game, product, company or individual inherently notable, of course, but as a source for facts on the tabletop RPG industry it is certainly a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Appears Reliable. I found this source popping up in some scholarly ghits and I've found no evidence of negative claims against it, so, at least for now, I have no reason to doubt its general reliability. Certainly it's an appropriate source for WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes for A and B. First referring to Evil Hat as "T-shirt company" is akin to calling Microsoft a "company that sells mice and keyboards". It is an attempt to weaken the status of a publisher. No one that has any familiarity with Evil Hat would call them a T-Shirt company. They sell books and games and happen to have branded t-shirts. Secondly, the scholarship of these books (there are now five) rests in the hands of the author, Shannon Appelcline who is also the editor-in-chief of RPGnet and historian for DriveThruRPG/RPGNow. While he has no page himself he is mentioned in over 900 Wikipedia pages. Third. The book was originally published by Mongoose Publishing and is based on his articles at RPGNet. Web Warlock (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes for both, with the caveat that it's a book about the history of RPGs, not about people's biographies outside RPGs. It's a respected series in multiple volumes. It's a genre piece, but so is, say, a book on history of Physics. BOZ seems to know quite a bit about it. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Closure requested at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the discussion is closed. (I am adding this because discussions frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.)

  Cunard (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Prelim tally

Since the above discussion is becoming more detailed than anticipated, for ease of overview (but not to replace or substitute for the above discussion as per WP:NOTAVOTE), I have created the following summary table of the position of individual editors as a GF attempt to represent an interpretation of their opinions. Please feel free to edit or modify it directly if I have misrepresented you (edit - or remove yourself entirely if you do not want your opinion presented in summary format or to add yourself if you're not represented but contributed above). Chetsford (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor	Reliable for Games or Game Companies?	Reliable for BLPs?
Chetsford	Maybe	No
Jbhunley	No	No
Cullen328	No	No
Donald Albury	No	No
BOZ	Yes	Yes
Simonm223	Yes (non-extraordinary claims)	Yes
Newimpartial	Yes	Yes
HighKing	Yes	Yes
Slatersteven	No (except on rare occasions)	No (except on rare occasions)
Canterbury Tail	Yes (facts but not notability)	Maybe
FourViolas	Yes (non-extraordinary claims)	No
Hobit	Yes	Yes
K.e.coffman	Maybe (facts but not notability)	No
Andrew Davidson	Yes	Yes
Necrothesp	Yes	Yes
Reyk	Maybe (non-controversial facts, but not notability)	No
Praemonitus	Yes	Yes
Webwarlock	Yes	Yes
GRuban	Yes	Yes

Thanks - you might want to put a "ping" next to each of their names or something to give them a chance to make sure they agree with your interpretation. BOZ (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent point - done. Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine but I should note that I agree with FourViolas' qualification that it be used mostly for non-extraordinary claims. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I did in fact say no, I just accepted there might be rare occasions when it might have not been "not RS". But these do not outweigh my overall concerns about its neutrality and independence.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - I apologize and have amended accordingly. If I've still got it wrong, please feel free to edit it as you see fit. Sorry again. Chetsford (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued !voting

• Krikey! Unreliable for anything, and hell no for BLPs. btw writing something about a company and sending it to a company founder, and taking his or her recollections as a "fact check" is about as amateur hour as it gets; doing that is called "PR' not "journalism" much less scholarly research. I imagine there will be decent scholarship done on this stuff one day. Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC) (tweak formatting Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC))

• I wrote a critical review of a portion of this work which may be found here http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2011/11/designers-and-dragons-only-4995.html In my opinion the work is not wholly reliable, though certain sections dealing with later game development may be. DHBoggs (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC) DHBoggs

• "...on the basis of there being no scholarly journals on role-playing games..." The content is there, of course, with Games and Culture and Simulation & Gaming both publishing decent amounts of info on RPG's—and if anyone's curious what a true academic publication about RPG's looks like—you can bypass Designers and Dragons and look straight to Dungeons, Dragons and Digital Denizens (doi:10.5040/9781628927900)  spintendo  16:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• comment just a note that, in addition to contributing to the wrong section of the noticeboard, none of the last three comments actually contribute anything to the policy-based determination of whether Designers & Dragons is a RS, which is to be based on the editorial oversight of its various publications and not on whether its claims correspond to those documented elsewhere. WEIGHT should be given to its citation in the developing scholarly literature on RPGs, though it is not of course a scholarly work so [;[WP: SCHOLARSHIP]] does not apply.

Anyway, this whole thing should probably have been closed "no consensus" last week... Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

DHBoggs, it seems likely that you found your way to this RSN discussion after I started this other thread regarding your addition of blogs and forums posts as citations for an article. I see that you posted a review of the book on your blog; per your comments here and on your user page you have an interest in archaeology and anthropology, but can you state what qualifications you have as a book reviewer, by which you can assert that your WP:SPS review of a 7-page portion of the book has any real relevance here? I am concerned about your ability to judge what sources are and are not reliable. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• There is no universal pronouncement to be made. You've got to take into account whether a claim is contentious, self-serving, an invasion of privacy, or "likely to be challenged". In any of those circumstances, I'd be wary of this source. If none of those conditions apply though, it's not necessary to be extremely picky about things like the author's educational background as long as you're satisfying WP:V - ie, a reader can track down the claim and see what they think about it for themselves. Rhoark (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that statement sums up this discussion about as well as anything that could be said. I'm not sure why no one has closed this yet, considering anything meaningful that still needed to be said was done about a month ago. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Generaly reliable This seems to be the type of source where great care has been taken to ensure accuracy, written by an expert in the field. The quantity of source material referenced would support further research should there be anything controversial, which has not AFAICS been suggested. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC).
  

Using the term "chess prodigy"

Are The New York Times, Financial Times and similar sources reliable for describing an individual as a chess prodigy, or are chess-specific sources required?

The background is that the description of Peter Thiel as a chess prodigy, which was sourced to the NYT and FT, was removed with the reasoning it was "used only by nonchessplaying journalists", and later described as "sloppy journalism". Here are the NYT and FT references. The description is also made by The Times, CNBC, NBC News, New York Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, Business Insider, though this does not change the question. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• My general sense is that any chess title less than Grandmaster (chess) is generally not meaningful. He can say he was a "chess prodigy" if he wants. I wouldn't include it in Wikipedia's voice; the CNBC profile in particular is clearly only parroting Thiel's own claims. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue. The question is not whether the above are considered reliable sources, it's whether we should parrot some description just because it's in the NYT, even when it is demonstrably incorrect. After all, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Chess players rarely describe other players as "prodigies", since only a tiny number (Capablanca, Fischer and Reshevsky come to mind) have had any outstanding achievements as children. Thiel is not one of them. And omitting incorrect information is not WP:OR. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

How is it demonstrably incorrect? I'm not aware of any strict definition of prodigy. Maybe the issue is just that it's imprecise and unencyclopedic to use such a term, I don't know. Our article says "Chess prodigies are children who can beat experienced adult players and even Masters at chess." i.e. pretty low bar. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "prodigy" needs to be included in the list of WP:PEACOCK words. It is an imprecise term which tends to get thrown around far too readily for any kid who knows how to play the violin or push chess pieces. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Titles below GM are meaningful, we have lots of articles on individuals notable solely as chess players who are not GMs. But "chess prodigy" is not a formal title (I also do not think Thiel has described himself as such, where have you read that it is a self-description?), it is just a description. The question is what type of sources are required to describe someone as a chess prodigy? Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• The word "prodigy" is generally unencyclopaedic at anything less than a century's distance. Mozart was a prodigy, the kid your local paper calls a prodigy because he can play Mozart, not so much. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Agree that we shouldn't describe someone as a prodigy in Wikipedia's voice - it's too subjective and peacocky. There are other ways that you could describe someone that would be meaningful, e.g. 'professional chess player', or 'winner of the blah Chess Tournament', but 'prodigy' doesn't add anything. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• To me, "prodigy" suggests a child who is doing something that usually only adults can do. Excelling in the field of junior players is not such a trait. Newspapers are not reliable sources for technical terms; the sources given are using the term as puffery rather than an objective description. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Like I recently stated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Prodigy, "child prodigy" is a legitimate term and it seems more objective to me than "genius." Are we never to note that a child is considered a prodigy, or that a child or adult is considered a genius? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no issue with stating "chess prodigy" if WP:Reliable sources do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" by people who know nothing about chess. Thiel is not exceptional, just a pretty good player. Anyone who knows chess can confirm this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

FIDE rating of 2199 is better than "pretty good", as anyone who knows chess can confirm. :/ 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I think you may have leaped hastily here. No is saying the term is illegitimate. No one is saying we can't use it. Our biographies on Paul Morphy, José Raúl Capablanca, Samuel Reshevsky all describe them as "chess prodigies", and I would definitely oppose removing the term from those articles. The concern is that "prodigy" is being used in a comparatively frivolous manner here. A child who competes against other children is normally not considered a "prodigy". Alsee (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel that I leaped hastily. More here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what is in reliable sources. If they describe them as such, then its appropriate. If they don't, it's not. If there is no question of the reliability of the sources used, then it's an editorial inclusion issue for the article talk page. If editors are complaining RS shouldn't be used because they are 'using the word wrong' or 'don't know about chess' without providing any references to back up their arguments, those are opinions lacking evidence and hold very little weight. Personally I'm with Jzg on the use of the word prodigy, but this doesn't appear to be an RS issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

In terms of whether this is an "RS issue" or not, I'd suggest that sources with field-expertise are "more" reliable for some things. The apparent absence of chess-related sources considering this to qualify as chess prodigy seems significant, when such sources do recognize many individuals as chess prodigies. Alsee (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• The appropriate thing to do here, IMO, is not parrot the claim that he was a prodigy, but look up his rating on FIDE. He is listed at 2199, but has not played a rated game since at least 2001, which is as far back as the online records go. 2200 is the threshold for Candidate Master — impressive, but still well below GM level (~2500). In other words, he would have been among the strongest amateur players in the USA at some point, good enough to play in semi-pro leagues such as the 4NCL, and could have competed in international tournaments. I recommend citing the FIDE listing and saying something like, "Theil was once among the strongest amateur chess players in the USA, achieving a FIDE rating of 2199." Although this probably understates his ability somewhat as he likely had a higher rating than 2199 at some point.🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The majority of USCF tournaments are not FIDE rated because they don't comply with FIDE regulations, at least for classical games, with respect to time controls, number of games played per day etc. This was even more so in the 80s and 90s when Thiel was active. Thiel's FIDE rating first appeared in the July 2003 list, based on a total of 10 games, and hasn't moved since. It's a fairly meaningless figure really. More useful are the USCF online records , which go back to 1992 when Thiel was 24. They provide no evidence of any exceptional ability, just one ordinary USCF master among many. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• he likely had a higher rating than 2199 at some point. His peak USCF rating is either 2342 or 2337, though he possibly could have reached a higher rating before 1992 that is not listed. USCF and FIDE ratings are not the same, but he would likely have been higher rated than 2199 if he set a FIDE rating at the time he recorded his peak USCF rating. A 1996 conversion table states 2340 USCF would be equivalent to 2295 FIDE. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the fact that he was rated is already something given his age. I think that we should not take prodigy as some form of certification but a description, indicating ability and not accumulated ratings. Whether he won or joined less tournaments is irrelevant because it has no bearing or did not diminish his talent. Perhaps Feldman and Morelock could be of help here when they defined prodigy as a child, who, at a very young age, performs at a level of an adult professional in some cognitively demanding field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwin Naz (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus - just because it's in the New York Times doesn't mean we have to parrot it if specialist sources disagree. Is that a reasonable interpretation? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say the consensus is that calling someone a prodigy is generally unencyclopaedic, vague (similar to WP:PEACOCK/WP:WEASEL words), and should generally be avoided in favor of more accurate descriptions of ability (including FIDE/USCF ratings or other titles). -Obsidi (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless an article has a chess focus, saying someone has "a rating of 2337" is excessively geeky, and meaningless to the general reader. Even the Ken Rogoff article doesn't quote Elo ratings. Just saying he was a top 10 US junior players and holds the US Master title is enough. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, on most non-chess articles, a title would normally be enough (but a bio might have their rating). -Obsidi (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How do we report academic criticism of the Mainstream Media (MSM) if MSM refuses to cover it?

An academic report called “Labour, Antisemitism and the News – A disinformation paradigm“ has been published by the Media Reform Coalition in conjunction with Birkbeck College University of London. I fear the MSM will refuse to publish criticism of itself, thereby eliminating all 'qualifying' secondary sources of information on the report. Could we reference this as a primary source, being an academic study with the University of London's logo on the report, or make an exception for alternative media as a secondary source who have already covered this report Andromedean (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no indication that it's published in a journal. Any professor can write a screed on his or her pet topic (and many do). So it's WP:SPS. The question is then one of due weight: why are this professor's views on the media important enough to be included? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally agree, it looks like an SPS, it may or may not pass undue. But that is a different issue. At this time no RS have picked up on it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You miss the point though. The paper has just 'proven' the Wikipedia list of main Reliable Sources are not reliable, in this subject area at least! (Andromedean (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

No, it hasn't. Don't be ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I do get the point, it has not "proven" anything, it makes a claim (on by the way I think is very very valid). But it still has to pass the policy test. I can hardly start to say "but this means we cannot uses these this "expert" says THEY ARE WRONG", whilst denying (and I have) to others. Either we accept RS policy or we do not. We cannot modify it as and when the whim takes us.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

not when the whim takes us. However, if we believe there's evidence of systematic bias in a subject area by the MSM why can't we question them being reliable sources in this restricted area under there are no rules rule? I really think there has been a serious breach in reporting standards here, perhaps the greatest since the Iraq war. (Andromedean (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

This is a separate issue to whether or not the paper is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

if we believe there's evidence of systematic bias in a subject area by the MSM... Then we lack the competence to evaluate reliable sources. The notion that all or even most "mainstream" media is united in an attempt to publish propaganda of a specific socio-political viewpoint is a conspiracy theory and utterly ignorant and illogical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You are saying my accusation of systematic bias is a trope at an organised conspiracy? I claim nothing more than this statement in the report. "We use the concept of disinformation to denote systematic reporting failures that broadly privileged a particular agenda and narrative" However, I agree with Slatersteven that we are drifting off the issue of the suitability of this report for inclusion in the main article. (Andromedean (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

You are saying my accusation of systematic bias is a trope at an organised conspiracy? No, for two reason: first, that doesn't make grammatical sense, and I generally don't say things that don't make grammatical sense. Second, because what I was saying is that unqualified statements about the "MSM" being unreliable are ignorant and illogical conspiracy theories. If you would like me to point out how that belief is ignorant and illogical, I will do so, but I'm not planning on going into it without being asked to because I try to avoid posting unnecessary walls of text. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)That paper is quite literally about one particular issue and there are lots of non-"mainstream media" methods of publication for scholarly writing, which would qualify this paper as an unambiguous RS. I would also note that this paper does, in fact, meet the requirements of being written by "...an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". So it's usable as a source right now. But only on this particular issue and most likely only attributed, but that would need to have a discussion first, IMHO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

As somebody who's pretty strongly aware of the context surrounding this question I agree with MPants at work Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The main author has a major (self-declared) conflict of interest: "He is an active member of the Labour Party and the associated group Jewish Voice for Labour" (his piece is about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party). In combination with it being self-published, this weakens any case for treating it as an RS. EddieHugh (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

We need to determine the reception the article has in reliable secondary sources. These would typically be academic articles and textbooks. I do not think there is any absence of academic writing about media bias. Manufacturing Consent for example. Note that most media bias is typically shown by their choice of stories and emphasis rather than fabrication of facts, so that they are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Although it could possibly be cited for the opinions of the author (who seems to be a recognized expert in the field), it might be better to do some more digging for papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the same topic with regards to media coverage of that scandal. For example, a quick search turned up this - Overland and Seymour obviously have a clear perspective, but it's still a peer-reviewed journal, so it's a good source to use for that perspective, probably with in-line citations. Also try this one. More generally, though, our purpose here is not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think that this topic has has more coverage than you suspect, but when there is genuinely no coverage, we can't just say "oh, the mainstream media is suppressing it" and accept stuff that otherwise fails WP:RS. Ultimately, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's purpose is to reflect what people would get by summarizing mainstream reliable sources and to give them a broad overview based on that - not to correct the record. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to reflect what people would get by summarizing reliable sources, not mainstream reliable sources. For example a peer reviewed publication isn't mainstream but it's certainly reliable. That brings us back to what is reliable. There seems to be no objective systematic attempt on Wikipedia to take account of the reliability of sources. Certain types of source are simply assumed to be reliable or unreliable by tradition or on faith, despite independent assessments being available from fact checkers.

The failures in objective reporting of anti-semitism by the BBC or the Guardian doesn't make them inherently unreliable on other subjects, but it does question their ability to report reliably on this issue. We have to seriously consider if they have an editorial line of assuming guilt of anyone accused of anti-semitism, and siding with the accuser, in a misreading of the 'MacPherson principle'.

It has now been disclosed that independent sites were also assessed by the Media Reform Coalition. The author states the MSMs failed output on the antisemitism issue was:

"almost indistinguishable from the far right media such as Breitbart or Order-Order....By contrast, “leftist” independent media are “often unfairly and lazily lumped together with” alt-right outlets by media keen to portray them as equivalents.... that while leftist sites such as SKWAWKBOX, Canary and Evolve Politics may also have an imbalance of sources, it’s in a way that is entirely in line with their explicit editorial position of providing a corrective to the distortions of mainstream coverage. But in terms of inaccuracies and the kinds of reporting failures that we broadly categorised as misleading, we found next to none of that in the left-wing independent publications. --Andromedean (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• We don't report it.We only include what is reported by WP:RS and not your version of WP:TRUTH --Shrike (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• As far as I can see this falls under Self published source and is not a Reliable Source.
  Independent of the RS question, and as someone with little interest or knowledge in UK politics, the arguments analysis and evidence presented in the paper are asinine. Let's say someone preforms a similar analysis of US coverage of white supremacist marches. They find that the news coverage contains 6.3 times as many statements or commentators critical of the white supremacists than in support of them, and that many pieces contain zero commentators defending the white supremacists. The paper-author then reason that because there wasn't exactly 50% coverage in support of each side, that is evidence of improper bias in coverage. They then self-publish that analysis, because no reputable journal would accept or peer review it. And after self publishing it, it receives exactly zero coverage in "MainStreamMedia". Someone then comes on Wikipedia saying our policies are broken, the paper proves the MSM is biased. The question was How do we report academic criticism of the Mainstream Media (MSM) if MSM refuses to cover it? The answer is.... we don't. We do not debate truth on Wikipedia. Trying to debate truth here doesn't work. We summarize what Reliable Sources say. If Reliable Sources are biased against White Supremacists or anyone else, then we will accurately summarize that bias. If Reliable Sources all say the moon is made of green cheese, then Wikipedia will accurately summarize the sources saying that.
  If the paper is peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, or if it gets significant coverage in "MSM", then it might be usable. Alsee (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That issue amongst others may have been addressed in this response published today.

"we don’t categorise or count quoted sources from opinion pieces other than the authors themselves. But we do examine them for accuracy in keeping with conventional editorial codes of conduct."--Andromedean (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• The long and short of it is that you can't. It's a common criticism of Wikipedia, but that's just the way things are right now. This was debated in depth during the Gamergate controversy a few years back. You can check out the 60 pages of talk page archives if you want. Databased (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• This is objectively not a self-published source. The publisher is the "Media Reform Coalition" which as an entity is independent of the text's authors and able to exercise authority on whether or not to publish those authors under its institutional name. The questions you should be asking are whether it's neutral or due to use this, which is likely not the case. Rhoark (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Rhoark you apparently didn't read the first sentence of the introduction which says "The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018." Hm. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That does not seem to have any bearing on the question. Organizations often publish the research of their members. Consider cases like RAND Corp, SPLC, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. That is not self-publishing because someone besides the author of the content has authority over whether to lend the organization's name and platform. Rhoark (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You can embrace "alternative facts" all you like. This is the same as Greenpeace or the Heritage Foundation publishing something. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it a SPS, just a WP:QUESTIONABLE source without the reliability needed to be a RS. The result is the same, but it isn't a SPS. -Obsidi (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think we should wait until other scholars review or cite the report. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• WP:QUESTIONABLE source can make claims about themselves but not third parties (like the mainstream media). As such normally there are WP:V problems with including this information (I have not examined the credentials of the author, if they are an expert in the field then they can be included even if the source itself is questionable). But assume for a moment that this was in a RS (go find a fox news or other such source and you will find plenty of people holding views of such bias). Then the question becomes one of WP:NPOV. The question shouldn't be why include the views of this specific person, but are these views a significant viewpoint. If so, we should include them (from someone). If it is only held by an "extremely small minority" then it becomes WP:FRINGE (think there was no moon landing people), then it should normally be excluded except in articles talking about such fringe views as the topic. I doubt this would be such a small view as to be considered WP:FRINGE. It isn't the majority view (otherwise they wouldn't be called the "mainstream media"), but I could name a variety of prominent adherents to the view, and as such it should be considered a minority view but not fringe. -Obsidi (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Lifezette.com

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

See this story. It seems pretty clear that Lifezette is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Extremely partisan, "pro-life" (until you're born), partially religious, unreliable source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Never heard of it before, but half of our article is devoted to fake news incidents/accusations. Bin it. Daß Wölf 01:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• No result here. Lifezette is looking rather questionable, however the question here failed to follow RSN posting instructions. RSN questions should indicate what article and content are at issue, so we can determine whether the source is reliable for that information in that context. If you are seeking some kind of blanket-ban against the source, that requires a well publicized RFC and much deeper consideration and consensus. Alsee (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a result. Two comments that back my hunch, indicating that removals are unlikely to be challenged. I know how to get a source deprecated, see WP:BREITBART. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Garbage source. Has all the hallmarks of a fringe right-wing site: Seth Rich conspiracy theories, climate change denial, massive numbers of undocumented immigrants voting in US elections... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source. It is owned by Laura Ingram who has been one of Fox News' worst mouthpieces. I have no doubt that she is pushing through a lot of the controversy on this site. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source for statements of fact. No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Per WP:Identifying reliable sources Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Are they highly reliable, no. But I see no reason why they are a clearly unrelaible source either (to prove that to me, you would need evidence of them having published a story they knew to include false factual information or failed to correct such information after its inaccuracy was made known to them). Also per WP:SOURCES The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: * The piece of work itself (the article, book) *The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) *The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. For most factual unexceptional claims, I expect that they would be reliable. I would not expect them to be reliable for exceptional factual claims. They have an editorial board lead by Maureen Mackey (previously managing editor of The Fiscal Times). They posted a story concerning a conspiracy theory about Clinton, but issued a correction saying it was in jest. They posed a story about a connection between voting machines and Soros, but that story was also published by Fox News (are they the next target?). -Obsidi (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• ...but that story was also published by Fox News

You write that as if you thought that was an endorsement. It wouldn't be, even if that story was also published by CNN or Mother Jones. --Calton | Talk 12:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The facts they wrote about, were accurate, I suggest you read the story [13]. Smartmatic did post a flowchart claiming to be providing voting machines to 16 states. Smartmatic Chairman does sit on the board of Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The story does say that Smartmatic is not on a list of firms that provide federally-certified election systems to states. You want to make a claim that they are not factually accurate, what about the story is not factually accurate? -Obsidi (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not about accuracy, it's about reliability. Alex Jones could publish a factual article, that would not make him a reliable source for those facts. If a reliable source said the same thing we still would not cite Jones, we'd cite the reliable source. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliability is demonstrated by producing articles that are factually accurate and correcting any inaccuracies that occur over a long period of time. Alex Jones produces factually inaccurate articles all the time, that is why even if he were to produce a factual accurate article it still wouldn't be reliable given the history of his previous inaccuracies. -Obsidi (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"Greviance Studies" scandal - use of peer-reviewed journals as RS

Should we be wary of using certain peer-reviewed studies as RS?

Recent investigative work has suggested that some peer-reviewed journals in the humanities, including Gender studies and Sociology, are publishing work which has no academic merit. The so-called 'Grievance Studies" scandal is covered here in the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950 and by academics in Quillette see https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/

The journals affected include Affilia, which a published a 3000 word excerpt of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, rewritten in the language of Intersectionality theory and Hypatia. Keith Johnston (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Quillette is neither a reliable source nor a peer reviewed journal. wumbolo ^^^ 19:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This is funny, a bunch of friends of mine and I have been laughing at that ridiculous "grievance studies" scandal on Facebook completely separate from Wikipedia all day. It's just silly Conservative posturing about the evils of Postmodernism. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Which one of James M. Lindsay, secular liberal humanist Helen Pluckrose, and New Atheism philosopher Peter Boghossian, is a "silly Conservative posturing about the evils of Postmodernism"? wumbolo ^^^ 20:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, because no atheist conservatives call themselves "secular liberals." It's a tempest in a tea-pot and poor scholarship. It's barely worthy of notice except as a momentary diversion to laugh at three people trying to drum up attention for an imaginary problem. I mean, if we were being fully fair about the sciences here, pretty much every psychology article would be part of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE but let's be honest. Academics angsting about imperfections in academia is a central feature of the discipline.Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Lindsay and Boghossian have form. Remember, these are the guys who used a social sciences bullshit generator to write an article which they then hawked to a number of journals, where it was rejected, they then paid to have it published in a pay-for-play journal and claimed this as "evidence" that the social sciences literature is publishing bullshit. Alan Sokal they are not. This time, they have proved... that most of their bullshit got rejected. Again. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Sokal himself makes of it is irrelevant. wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If four hoaxes out of twenty submitted are published, that's a pretty serious problem. That's far worse than what we have on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia), and I thought that Wikipedia was the absolute worst at identifying hoaxes. wumbolo ^^^ 20:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Just that a journal claims to be peer-reviewed does not guarantee that its contents are true. Fake articles, hoax articles and nonsense are published in academic journals all the time. There is absolutely no reason to single out the humanities here, given that physics had the Bogdanov affair and the Schön scandal. The peer-reviewed mathematics journal Nonlinear Analysis published a purported solution for Hilbert's sixteenth problem in 2003 that no serious peer reviewer could have possibly accepted while awake. There is also stuff like Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Academic publishing is full of problematic practices right now, and the existence of hoax articles in journals says absolutely nothing about the validity of certain fields of study. —Kusma (t·c) 19:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I want objective analysis of the journals involved. Last time they used publication in pay-for-play journals as "proof" that an entire field is fraudulent. They have done other things that show them to be social injustice warriors. We have many reasons to distrust their work here. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of them were not pay-for-play. wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that can't be solved by applying good judgement and existing policies. Peer-reviewed research findings are WP:PRIMARY - so, yes, we should be wary of citing them haphazardly regardless of whether the topic is gender studies or physics. Review articles are usually better than new research to get a sense of what is important, and generalist journals are generally higher quality and more notable than specialty journals. When in doubt, check the journal impact factor and the number of citations, and avoid relying too heavily in a single source. Nblund ^talk 20:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Journal quality should always be taken into account. The problem of predatory journals is well known by now. This latest affair is distinct from past hoaxes in that it very specifically targeted journals that are not predatory (at least not in the usual sense of having a profit motive.) I don't think it reveals anything that's a basis to exclude any journals from Wikipedia. It is however a further indication that these kinds of journals, which exist primarily to advance a local political consensus, should not be used to exclude other POVs that conflict with that "scholarly consensus". That has for many years been a very fruitful tactic for editors whose views align with those of these "grievance studies" type of journals. Rhoark (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No and no. "These kinds of journals" were the only kind that they examined, there's no reason to suspect that concerted academic fraud is only possible in the humanities. There's also nothing here suggests that "scholarly consensus" (which is usually determined by multiple citations and review articles) is inherently suspect. Nblund ^talk 18:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• The sources were all primary sources in the relevant literature, which we should not be using much anyway, and only with great caution when we do. Happily none of them were reviews. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And these authors have form. Remember the conceptual penis hoax, where they made identical claims based on the fact that they paid to get a hoax article published in a predatory journal? Guy (Help!) 14:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about who organized this hoax and why may be interesting, but they are a distraction from the OP's question. I would say yes. If a journal publishes a clear hoax, as four of these did, further citations to that journal should be taken with a grain of salt. Connor Behan (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. It depends on what they do about it. If they retract, then that is a point in their favour. This was, after all, a deliberately malicious act by people with an ideological hatred of the field, with one failed attempt already under their belts, not a prank against pomposity like the egregious nonsense in the Sokal hoax. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope they retract, but even assuming they do, it undermines their credibility as a reliable source if they are willing to publish such nonsense before they knew it was a hoax. How much better is it than a WP:USERG if they effectively don't review it? -Obsidi (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Even the New York Times wrote an article about it! [14] wumbolo ^^^ 20:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• From that Quillette link: Today, postmodernism isn’t a fashion — it’s our culture. I would say that right there is solid proof that the author doesn't know shit about postmodernism, and is only using the term in the same sense that conservatives usually do: meaning "anything I disagree with". Don't get me wrong; postmodernism is the debris put off by the collision of large egos and small intellects, blended with a liberal dose of bullshit and mixed into slurry deep in the navels of people who should damn well know better, but it's certainly not our culture. Not even academic culture. Hell, this who affair is blind to just how postmodernist this exercise is to begin with. Rewriting a section of Mein Kampf in "the language of intersectionality" and then trying to get that published in a peer-reviewed journal in order to make a meta-statement about academia in general is 100% pure, Grade A postmodernism, right thur.

For those of you not following because you've never taken the time to delve into what postmodernism is (read: for those of you smarter/less massochistic than I), allow me to break it down: This whole affair is bullshit, predicated upon bullshit, using bullshit to prove bullshit ideas, and it says absolutely nothing about the state of science or any serious scholarly discipline. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to say a lot about the so called "grievance studies" (gender, sexuality, race, fat, and critical theory). Now, none of those may be "serious" scholarly disciple (although I smell a little of the No true Scotsmans fallacy), or considered a "science." But it does say a lot about those fields. -Obsidi (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• The whole "Grievance Studies" thing is a specie of pseudo-academic fertilizer. If this were in the medical field it would rightly be labeled as quackery. I would not accept any journal dedicated to this field as a reliable source for the current weather. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• This sort of thing should be taken into account when considering the reliability of papers in the specific journals that accepted and published the hoaxes. When journals accept fake papers submitted under the names of fake people, it just points to them having weaknesses in their review process. I don't think this says anything about the state of any discipline as a whole. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, you should be wary of citing any peer-reviewed studies as RS. See:

1. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
2. Publish and be wrong
3. Peer review: a flawed process...

Even systematic reviews are suspect. See The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Andrew D. (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Is David French's Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959 (2015) a Reliable Source for the article of EOKA

There is a dispute between me and @Dr.K.: concerning the aforementioned book. You can access the discussion Talk:EOKA#Preventing "David French's POV". I will provide you with my reasoning why I think D.French is reliable, I will try to debunk some of Dr.K.'s arguments that have been presented in the discussion and I will let Dr.K. make his case why D.French is not a reliable source.

First, who is David French?: Emeritus Professor of History Dept of History Faculty of S&HS] at University College of London. Please have a look at his publications and achievement (prizes he won ie Templer Medal (2005) Medal Society for Army Historical Research).

Reviews of his book: According to google scholar French book is cited 27 times. (One can read that his other overlapping book The British way in counter-insurgency, 1945-1967 (2011) has 190 citations). Among those 27 citations, there are some reviews. I present a sample.

• Robbins, S. (2017) says s David French has produced a very readable and lucid account which offers an excellent analysis of the origins, course, and consequences of the British counter-insurgency campaign on Cyprus. It is well researched, exploiting the available primary sources skilfully, and providing a thoughtprovoking evaluation of the motives and actions of the participants involved in the insurgency and counter-insurgency on Cyprus during the second half of the 1950s. It is likely to be the standard volume for scholars and researchers interested in this particular subject for the foreseeable future.Robbins, S. (2017) Book Review: Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. David FrenchFrenchDavid, Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2015; xi + 334pp. 9780198729341, $110 (hbk). War in History, 24(2), 250–251. doi:10.1177/0968344516686518i

• Dr Andrekos Varnava says Fighting EOKA is an engaging and, thankfully, not overly long read. In my view, it hits the spot. Some people may not like it, but French calls a spade a spade, and for this, as a Cypriot (who had one side of his family ‘serve’ in EOKA, including a cousin of my mother’s as an Area Commander’, and the other side of my family be prominent, at least locally, AKEL supporters), I am pleased and relieved, and as a historian I am thankful that he has done such a thorough job that I am not tempted to take to the archives on this subject.Dr Andrekos Varnava, review of Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959, (review no. 1901) DOI: 10.14296/RiH/2014/1901 Date accessed: 4 October, 2018

• Thomas M. writes: David French offers answers in what will surely endure as the authoritative account of the Cyprus ‘Emergency’. His book title, pithy as it is, sells him rather short because Fighting EOKA is not confined to analysis of British security force practices. It also delves deeply into the workings of their opponents: the National Organization of Greek Fighters (Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston – EOKA) and, latterly, the Turkish Resistance Organization (Türk Mukavermet Teşkilati – TMT). The result is a gripping investigation of a fast-moving but ultimately exasperating conflict. An ‘investigation’ for two reasons: one is that the book’s findings rest substantially on recent releases from the FCO ‘migrated archive’ of security-related colonial files; the other is that French, a scrupulous empiricist, applies the skills of the foren"Thomas, M. (2016). Fighting EOKA: the British counter-insurgency campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. Intelligence and National Security, 31(7), 1057–1058. doi:10.1080/02684527.2015.1125209

Dr.K.'s argument is that French "David French's POV against EOKA is simply monumental. His main thesis is that EOKA are comparable to jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here he is doing a comparative analysis of suicide bombers with EOKA tactics. This is anachronistic, revisionist POV.". Actually, none of the reviewers mentioned anything about jihadists, nor Dr.K. provided evidence for it. Neither did they mention anything about relativist, anarchronistic POV. So these views are not really based on solid ground. Dr.K seems to think that because of French claims that the guerillas were terrorist, that means he is POV. But A lot of scholars have the same opinion (see ref number 29 which cites 7 RS in current version). This should be presented in the article, along with the heroics aspects of the struggle.

David French is an excelent scholar whose book I intend to use even more in the article. I will try to avoid using adjectives relating to negative nuances (terrorist) or positives ones (freedom fighters) as much as I can without distorting any source. But French can not be excluded as a scholar not his books. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems RS to me, but would (given the nature of the statement) need attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The initial statement by the OP is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. First, this is not a personal dispute between me and the OP. There are other editors involved in this dispute, regarding the claims made in this book which anachronistically compare modern-day jihadists with EOKA fighters. Please see this link, where French is doing a comparative analysis of suicide bombers with EOKA tactics, and also compares them to jihadists in Iraq and Ahghanistan. This is anachronistic, revisionist POV by this author, which, to my knowledge, has no academic currency or acceptance. I am not disputing that EOKA is viewed by some academics as a terrorist organisation. What I am disputing is French's assertion, and subsequent analysis, that are based on the thesis that Hellenism and its components, including the Orthodox religion, are similar to jihadist ideology. This is WP:FRINGE material. Dr. K. 12:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Still Dr.K. did not provide peer reviewed articles making claims about anachronism or POV. Meanwhile, let's read WP:FRINGENOT: "WP:FRINGE is most often abused in political and social articles where better policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE are appropriate. Citing WP:FRINGE in discussions and edit summaries is often done by POV pushers in an attempt to demonize viewpoints which contradict their own. Opponents to reliable sources will often argue that their opponents reliable sources are FRINGE because they spread false information or have a viewpoint which is not mainstream" and WP:FRINGE has nothing to do with politics or opinions. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, this book was not self-published (it was published by Oxford University Press, which had editorial oversight of it), and, as such, I believe would qualify as a reliable source. That said, for a claim that the organization is a terrorist organization, we would not want such a claim in WP voice without a lot more high quality RS per WP:Exceptional claims. For instance, if they were on the state department's list of foreign terrorist organizations then we could consider such a claim in WP voice. Instead, we should treat this as his opinion and per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it should be attributed to him when used. Oh, and this is NOT a WP:FRINGE view. There are a variety of people that hold this view other than David French, and David French is a prominent adherent of this view, as such it is at least a minority view that should be included. -Obsidi (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Obsidi for your contribution. I agree with you that prof. D. French is a RS. As for branding EOKA as a terrorist organisation, that is a secondary matter. If we will ever discuss it in the Talk Page, I will ping you, if you don't mind. In my opinion, "a villain is a hero of the other side" (just my pov). There are several academic sources describe EOKA as a terrorist band. British government and press used to deem EOKA as a terrorist group. On the other hand, among Greeks, EOKA is regarded as a heroic guerilla group. I believe that the article should represent (and explain) this dual imaginary of EOKA. Anyway, thanks for your comment. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically, he isn't the RS (as he didn't publish the book and I have not seen the evidence that is an independently recognized expert), it is Oxford University Press which is the RS. He just has a prominent viewpoint (which may be a minority viewpoint). Feel free to ping me if it isn't WP:Canvassing. -Obsidi (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Obsidi: I never claimed that French's view that EOKA is a terrorist organisation is FRINGE. In my statement above, I said that French's comparison of EOKA to jihadists is fringe. Please see my statement above and check the link (I also provided the same link above), where French analyses EOKA and compares them to suicide bombers and jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also compares Hellenism and its components, including the Orthodox religion, to jihadist ideology. This is a fringe opinion, and, to my knowledge, it is not shared by any other person, expert, or non-expert. Dr. K. 18:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

So, you do accept David Frech and his book as RS? Should we close the discussion? As for the jihadist claim, I can not see how the link you provided proves that he actually made that statement.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What precisely is the edit you think is fringe? The only one I saw complained of was this one. Mind you, much of this should have been attributed, and I would probably cut the second sentence and the first part of the third, but I don't see anything else here that seems fringe. Is there another edit I am missing? -Obsidi (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the edit that makes the reference to jihadis, Hellenism, religion, etc. The edit you mentioned, continues on a similar path, trying to portray religion as part of a deliberate EOKA indoctrination process to create murderers and terrorists. By the way, the transcription of the edit you pointed to is probably wrong or OR, because French makes a clear distinction in his book between assassination and murder. Dr. K. 20:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes its perfectly reliable. Academic expert publishing in a reliable publisher. Unless there are some RS presented that state otherwise (and I have not seen any provided yet) most of the argument here and on the talk-page appears to be opinion-based assertations and a waste of everyone's time. There has been no RS provided which indicates his writing reflects a minority or fringe view, there have been no RS provided which state the point he is making is a fringe/minority view (even if they dont mention French himself). Even when attributed to him directly, an UNDUE argument is a non-starter given his credentials and reviews of his work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• There has been no RS provided which indicates his writing reflects a minority or fringe view, there have been no RS provided which state the point he is making is a fringe/minority view (even if they dont mention French himself). This historical area is not a hotbed of activity, so it is very unlikely for an expert to write an academic paper, or book, refuting French's comparison of EOKA fighters with jihadis, and his association of the vague concept of Hellenism and the orthodox religion with the jihadist belief system. In addition, the view that EOKA is a terrorist organisation is a minority one, but at least one can find several RS supporting it. The view that EOKA fighters are comparable to suicide bombers and jihadis and that Hellenism and the Greek Orthodox religion are comparable to jihadist ideology is only held by French, and no other scholar. That, by itself, demonstrates French's extreme, minority of one, POV. Also, French's credentials as a researcher are not clear to me. I haven't seen him publishing any paper, peer-reviewed or otherwise, on EOKA's belief system and ideology as compared to the jihadist belief system. Reviews of his books are no substitute for French writing a paper and publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal, especially if his POV is so isolated academically, to the point that no other scholar, to the best of my knowledge, makes, or has adopted, the jihadist comparison. Now, obviously, by mentioning that this discussion is a waste of time, you have a position, diametrically opposed to mine. Nothing wrong with that. You are entitled to your opinion. However, I would like to see a few more opinions on this subject. Dr. K. 15:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for any of the above, otherwise your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is no argument at all. Given that it is a widespread view that EOKA is/was a terrorist organisation, its equally as believeble that no one has felt the need to make the comparisons between one set of terrorists and another as they obvious. Only we dont actually do that, we leave it to RS to make and publish those arguments, of which you have provided precisely zero. So to the question 'Is David French reliable for the comparisons made by David French' the answer will always be yes unless you can provide a solid reason why not. If you want to make an UNDUE argument then that is a matter for the talkpage of the article, not RSN, but you have so far been attemptin to attack the reliability without providing any evidence its unreliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have addressed your point regarding providing RS and why I think French's views are fringe when he compares EOKA, Hellenism and the Orthodox religion to jihadi ideology and actions. I am not going to repeat my arguments. Neither am I going to continue arguing so that you can keep labeling my points as IJDLIT, "Waste of time" etc.. I am disengaging from further discussion with you. Dr. K. 19:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

As I do have the book of prof. French, I did a quick search. I have searched the world "jihad" and the word does not appear anywhere in the book.I checked for Afghanistan and here it what is says p. 8

EOKA fought using some of the weapons commonly associated with more recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. They employed not only modern firearms but also large numbers of what today are called improvised explosive devices. There are also parallels between yesterday and today beyond the battlefield. In Cyprus, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the counterinsurgents did not merely try to defeat the insurgents with guns. They also tried to bolster or reconstruct state institutions in an effort to reconfigure the local political landscape.

So the parallel is not with EOKA and afghan rebels. He compares the respond by the British Empire in 1955-59 with the nowadays War in Afghanistan. It does states that they both used iprovised explosive devices. It is a textbook knowledge that EOKA was using home-made bombs. So there is nothing extreme about French's claim. And a second comment: scholars make abudent use of the word "terrorist" when describing EOKA or its actions. (see ref number 29 which cites 7 RS in current version. On the other hand I can not find a source/ref stating that it is a minority opinion among academics that EOKA was a terrorist organisation. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have provided you with a link where all this stuff is clear. In the link there are references to "suicide bombers", "Hellenism and its religion", where French calls religion an "important component" of Hellenism - a concept French never bothers to define or analyse in depth. French also mentions a "charismatic religious leader", "martyrs' cult" etc.. All designed to make the comparison between the faith and ideological background of the EOKA fighters and that of Islamist extremists. Dr. K. 19:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Are we allowed to cite climate scientists?

The editor PackMecEng is edit-warring to remove content from The Daily Wire about the publication's false stories about climate change, claiming that the website climatefeedback.org can't be used as a source. Climatefeedback.org is a website run by recognized experts on climate change and is basically just a collection of assessments of news stories by recognized experts on climate change. This is the content in question that the editor believes should be deleted in full (click the links below to see how the website basically works):

• The Daily Wire has published a number of articles doubting that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading.

So, are we allowed to cite climate scientists on Wikipedia? Or are climate scientists "unreliable", as the editor PackMecEng suggests? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[15] Columbia Journalism Review[16], Axios[17], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[18]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

They are a relatively recent blog which has only existed for a few years now. Not enough time to build up a reputation of reliability as an organization. That said, many of people posting there are experts in their field, and they personally have the reliability. As such they could fall under Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and be reliable. It would depend on exactly who the individual expert is. -Obsidi (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Climate Feedback has a very high rating for factual reliability, the Daily Wire, only obtains a mixed rating on Media Bias fact check. I notice publications rated as mixed on media bia fact check are often considered inappropriate sources on Wikipedia. In this particular subject the Daily Wire would be highly inappropriate since

The Daily Wire is owned by Forward Publishing LLC. Forward Publishing is owned and managed by the billionaire Wilks Bothers who made their money through the fossil fuel industry with their company Frac Tech. The Wilks brothers are also a part of the extreme Christian right who interpret the bible literally. The website is funded through a subscription and advertising model. --Andromedean (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

WP doesn't determine what a reliable source is based on what mediabiasfactcheck says. Nor does it matter who owns them or where they got their money or what their subscription model is. Please just go read WP:Identifying reliable sources and make a policy based argument. -Obsidi (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Media Bias FactCheck is not a RS. It's run by a random dude, has an absurd methodology and changes ratings when random users complain. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on The Daily Wire talk, there's a reliable source for it being a reliable source, and along with Snoogansnoogans links above, there's a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" + editorial control + their summaries are based on comments from experts in the relevant field, showing reliability (interestingly enough, their community standards are inspired by "The Wikipedia’s five pillars (and references therein)") Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

All I see is a description of them in that link, including where they are funded, but no claim of reliability. -Obsidi (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a list of "resources can stake reasonable - though not irrefutable - claims as either reliable fact-checking sources or as reliable evaluators of the credibility of other information pages" Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see what your referring to now. That source and the guardian article are the only two that seem relevant so far, in my opinion. -Obsidi (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• From what I see they would qualify under WP:USERG. Which goes along the disclaimers at the bottom of their articles Our reviews are crowdsourced directly from a community of scientists with relevant expertise.[19] Notable for their opinion perhaps but not a RS for statements of fact. Most info I can find are a long those lines as well as their original Indiegogo campaign to get started.[20] PackMecEng (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Also side note, the section heading you choose is at best misleading to the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Their "community of scientist with relevant expertise" statement is excessively modest -- these folks include many of the very very top people in the field. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I see they would qualify under WP:USERG. If you can't sign up and write an article, then they're not user generated. They might be blogs (meaning WP:SPS), but given the authorship, that shouldn't matter. The authors are reliable sources, hence it doesn't much matter what the details of publishing are.

However, even the details of publication become entirely irrelevant when one considers that 5 RSes have described it as an RS, meaning we shouldn't even consider it a blog. It has a reputation for fact checking. As far as I'm concerned, everything I've seen here strongly suggests that this is an impeccably reliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

My issue is they have been around about 2 years now? I am not sure that is long enough to establish a track record of being a RS, I have also not seen anything that hints at actual editorial oversight. Granted I am sure they are very smart people and I have no reason to suspect what they write is wrong. RS listed above speak to that fact, but that alone is not enough. However the question is should their statements be attributed to them, as in "According to Climate Feedback X" rather than in Wikipedia's voice as statements of fact on it's own. It is not if they are correct in their assessments or not. Also here is their signup page if you want to become a reviewer there, if you wanted to write for them. PackMecEng (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

My issue is they have been around about 2 years now? I am not sure that is long enough to establish a track record of being a RS Well, the RSes linked above do consider that long enough to establish a track record, and no offense, but I trust their judgement more than any Wikipedians. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So, they have established criteria for vetting the qualifications of their contributors. I understand reliable sources do that sort of thing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That is what you saw from an online signup sheet? Wow just wow. PackMecEng (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That signup sheet states quite clearly that, in order to apply (bolding is because nowhere on that page does it state that admittance is guaranteed if you meet the criteria), you must have a PhD in a relevant field and be the first author of a paper published in the relevant field within the last three years. It furthermore requires that you be associated with an academic institute, that you have a web page giving your credentials, and encourages you to add at least three such publications. I would also note that some rather strict criteria are given for what sort of publications they expect you to have, at the bottom. I would bet dollars to donuts that individuals who have signed up who barely scrape by the minimum requirements have been declined admission to the site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not really a betting person. But that all sounds like personal speculation. Again it is not a matter of if they are right. It is only part of the determination.(ps how many donuts are we talking here?) PackMecEng (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• This website (climatefeedback.org) appears to be a reliable source for climate-science-related content. The arguments in favor of that designation are pretty persuasive—the contributors are reputable experts in their field, the site has clearly delineated editorial control of its content, and other clearly-reliable sources treat the website as reliable. The arguments against are weak (and that's being charitable). This isn't a "user-generated" site as defined in WP:USERG; it is a legitimate reliable source for content within its scope. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Per above I think it qualifies as a RS. At worst it is a qualified WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Daß Wölf 00:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

FamilySearch and LDS historical figures

A new user, @Michaelnelson123123:, has added references to FamilySearch for the birth/death dates of various 19th century Mormon figures (such as Brigham Young). Normally, I would revert this and explain that geneology sites are discouraged for this type of data when other sources are available; relying on published secondary sources is preferred to using primary census data.

However, FamilySearch is owned by the LDS Church, which complicates things. It may be more likely to be reliable than other sites for this information. Is this an acceptable and reliable reference here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say its reliable, and even more so when the original documents are cited there. It's certainly better than no reference, which is what is left if you remove it. I'd suggest leaving it in unless/until you find a better reference. - Nunh-huh 00:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to deliberately evaluating reliable sources, but to me the same ways I would evaluate if a source is reliable in my writing is one it would be deemed reliable from an encyclopedic stand-point. And thus, I have a few concerns here. The first is that the FamilySearch page appears to have been written with minimal POV review, and to have been primarily maintained by people directly affiliated with the site, under the direction of one of the directors of the FamilySearch project. And based on his Talk page, he appears to be someone who left Wikipedia in quite a specific type of "I'm not getting my way" huff. If you look at the Talk archive, and the reference list, you can see why the article was recently tagged as self-published. I am hesitant to treat any source as reliable if they have a long history of trying to use their Wikipedia page as an advertising or propaganda tool instead of strictly as an encyclopedia record.

Another issue is the sole comment on the current FamilySearch Talk page, which says that they are no longer open source. If you have to create an account, and thereby give an LDS-run company your email address, to view the birth or death certificates of famous figures that they are archiving, I am very hesitant to treat that as any kind of a reliable source when writing an academic paper, article, etc. Which to me makes it a specious source for Wikipedia. I realize we link to scientific studies behind a paywall sometimes, because it's the only option, but those pay sites also have an abstract and enough other information to demonstrates that the study does exist.

So I followed the reference that this user added to the Brigham Young page, and it does indeed require you to create an account to view the documents it's claiming will prove their birth/death dates are correct. I'm not saying that this makes them an unreliable source, but that's only one of a few issues. Their perception even within the LDS community as an unreliable genealogical source, their only recent reversal on treating this database as a way to trace ancestry to Adam and Eve, their requirement to stop allowing the site to be used for concocting fake genealogies to justify post-humously baptizing historical figures who weren't LDS members... to me all of this says "Not reliable" to me. If they are trying to become a reliable genealogical resource now, based on some recent proposed changes, then it's something to reconsider later. But to note that, you also have to note that the reference on the page about them adding same-sex marriage functionality to the database has been "coming soon" for about 4 years now, and is still not projected to happen until at least 2019. So, for me, it would take a few years and many changes for this site to be treated as reliable for any information that isn't 100% open-source and externally verifiable.

And on a side note, why is a bot archiving the FamilySearch Talk page so often? I'm not saying it is suspicious, I've just never seen it before. But I'm sure there's a lot I haven't seen. So please do tell me if that level of archiving activity is normal? CleverTitania (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Family Search is just a collection of user created data mixed up with primary sources. It is not a reliable source - no competent professional genealogist would use an entry from Family Search for anything. Instead, you go to the sources that should be cited in the Family Search entry and verify them before considering the information reliable. It is no different than any of the family trees on Ancestry.com... user generated material. Whether its about an LDS figure or not has no bearing on whether it is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info @Ealdgyth:. I didn't realize there are already policies and/or consensus applicable to this type of genealogy site. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered documenting all the different concerns I had over their being treated as a reliable source, and stuck with just that. I should've done more digging for RS documentation on existing sites of a similar design/style.

Though I am still concerned over the lack of POV-review of the Wiki page for this site, and why its Talk page is being archived so often. But I've put those on my 'ToDo' list of things in Wiki I want to improve upon, on when I have time. Though eek is that list growing. :) CleverTitania (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Codpieces and medicine

Special:Contributions/175.36.225.204 has added some material about the supposed medical use of codpieces in Renaissance Europe. I'm pretty sure none of the sources provided are WP:RS, but I'd like to get some further input on the issue. The sources in question are

• The codpiece: social fashion or medical need? Speculative article by Con Reed. Reed was a medical doctor, but not a medical or costume historian.
• Codpieces And Syphilis In The Middle Ages Non-academic article, no sources for claims.
• The Galaunt Tradition Mentions Reed's claims.
• Codpieces: Style on the Rise Another non-academic article with no sources.

PepperBeast (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be that fast discarding all four sources. I agree that Sothebys and worldhistory.us are not RS, so I will not discuss any further. The article by Con Reed could be of some use. It has been published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, a journal with impact factor 6,06 which is quite decent. Further, it has been cited 6 times already, which is not much, but given the triviality of the matter, I suppose it is hard to find articles with many more citations. The problem with Con Reed not being a historian is surely a drawback but doesn't eliminate his article as a potential RS. So my advice is to use this source with attribution, if and only if the material added is not controversial. Now, concerning the book, I am hesitant using a book that I can just read half a paragraph in googlebooks, I could be taking material out of context without even knowing it. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the article doesn't present anything but a pet theory with no supporting evidence. PepperBeast (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct pepperbeast, I share your opinion, but if a source can pass the tests of notability and RS, we shouldn't be judging the material as such. That's why I am mostly neutral on the subject, while on other sources I 'd vote "not RS". Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Con Reed article is indeed speculative- far too speculative to be used to support anything not directly attributed to him. (his lack of historical qualifications shows..its highly dubious in several areas of historical fact, which have now found their way into the Wikipedia article). Perhaps RS for the symptoms of syphilis,but not much else. The Galaunt Tradition chapter looks pretty good, but you would need to see the whole thing; the author seems to be mid argument when the viewable area starts and it appears the material about codpices is only peripheral to her central thesis. She doesn't appear to be fully supporting the medical idea either, although its hard to say without seeing the whole chapter. Some of the sources still present in that section WP article are rubbish as well. Even having a whole section in the article gives far to much weight to what is a pretty fringey idea by historical standards. The Sothebys article may not be RS, but they deal with it in three sentences, one of which is "Most historians agree, though, that codpieces were less about function than spectacle." Thats all that needs to be said about it really... Curdle (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Modern Diplomacy and Ahtribune

Can this source and this source be used to add materials with regard to comparison of ISIL and MEK to People's Mujahedin of Iran article?

James Bovard[21], Catherine Shakdam, Eric Walberg[22] are among the Ahtribune's contributors and the board of Modern Diplomacy is seen here. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC) --Mhhossein ^talk 18:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You gotta be joking. AHT has connections to salem-news and Veterans Today. It doea not have much of a reputation, though the editor in chief has been criticized for Holocaust denial and 9/11 conspiracy theories - CBC primary source.Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

As for MD, per their about: "Disclaimer: The views expressed within Modern Diplomacy are solely those of the authors in their private capacity and do not in any way represent or reflect the views of the Modern Diplomacy, its Advisory and Editorial Boards, Sponsors, Partners, or Affiliates." - so this is an oped you can attribute to the author. The author of this exceedingly poorly translated oped is Sajad Abedi who is with the Iranian "National Security and Defense Think Tank" - and is merely representing the Iranian regime view in a somewhat garbled translation (down to using hypocrites (26 times) for MEK without providing context or an introduction for a non-Iranian audience).Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither is Reliable. I've been running into American Herald Tribune (ahtribune.com) lately. It's part of an alt-media network that runs conspiracy theories and other fringe content. It's definitely NOT a reliable source. I'm not previously familiar with Modern Diplomacy. The disclaimer noted above is a major red flag that we can't rely on the contents of a site. Even worse, the article you linked has badly broken English throughout. The article clearly has not gone through any editorial review at all, much less responsible and reliable editorial review. Alsee (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Alsee for your civil and fair comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC

RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI restated Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources on talk pages

The Conspiracy theory article states: "Robert Blaskiewicz notes examples as early as the nineteenth century and finds that the term [conspiracy theory] has always been derogatory." The cite indicates the author used Google Books as the source for those examples.

My concern is with the word 'always'. A Google Books search shows 19th c. sources that did not use 'conspiracy theory' in a derogatory manner — e.g., The Conspiracy against Quay, 1890 and a review of Rhodes's History of the United States, 1895.

Can these sources that challenge the 'always' claim be cited in talk page discussions? If not, for my reference, on what specific policy grounds?

Also, I am not clear on the category of Blaskiewicz's article as an RS. What section(s) of WP:RS provide guidance on this kind of article -- e.g., is it a blog piece? It does not seem that — at least on the specific issue of the term 'always' being derogatory — it has achieved any sense of scholarly consensus.

Note that I am not disputing whether Blaskiewicz is an expert on 'conspiracy theory'; only his credibility on the history of phrase usage, especially given that the GB sources were easily available to him at the time of his writing. Humanengr (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

References

If you find RS that do not use it in a derogatory manner, you can add those to the article to provide a NPOV. This isn't really a RS question. -Obsidi (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• The WP:FORUMSHOP is closed. You raised the question and comprehensively failed to persuade, then you proposed a WordPress blog as "rebuttal". I'm not convinced you understand our sourcing policies at all. "Always" here is a direct quote, per WP:ATT. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Can fansites be used as sources?

I used to be fully against using fansites as sources back in 2009 when I had a to the letter approach concerning policies. But what prompted my question is that someone used Power Rangers NOW as the source for the episode number of Power Rangers Beast Morphers. Personally I see nothing wrong with this particular source, but as a general question, since I often edit television-related articles, are fansites generally a good idea for adding new information about a TV series when there's no other sources out there?—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 02:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No , fansites cannot be used for sourcing. At best, they may be used for external links if we know the fan site has very strong editorial control (for example Star Trek episodes can link to Memory Alpha). --Masem (t) 02:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I just took another look at the source and it quotes information from Issuu. It might be a better idea to remove the Power Rangers NOW source and replace it with the Issuu source.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 03:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: I've just taken another look at the Power Rangers NOW source. It says the information came from Issuu/Mipcom, yet that source only says the show will be 22 minutes and nothing about 22 episodes (page 64-65). So I removed it, thanks for your input!—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 03:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Fansites are usually a WP:QUESTIONABLE source, and so can be used for opinion, viewpoint, commentary if it is a significant viewpoint (and it must be attributed), they shouldn't be used for claims as to third parties. Substantial long term editorial control without errors could make them a RS, but this would be very unusual. Although we do try to avoid them, primary sources (such as the actual show or book) can be used if there is no reliable secondary source for the information. -Obsidi (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Per WP:FANSITE, we normally don't even link to them. They are rarely considered WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks JzG. I will read up on that.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 16:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing for image-can-be-used

Does an image illustrating an article have to be accompanied by a source which says that it illustrates the article? This was disputed when I used this fair-use image to illustrate some points made by reliable sources.

I now have a reliable source saying that the illustration illustrates the general topic of the article, though not a source that says that it illustrates each separately-sourced point. However, I don't think I need these sources in order to include the image, as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" don't need a non-primary source (according to WP:PRIMARY). The image is a primary source for its own contents. So if the image obviously illustrates a)the article and b)the points, it seems to me that I don't need additional sources to say that it illustrates. Am I wrong? Is it necessary to have a source saying that an image illustrates an article, and if "sometimes", under what circumstances?

I initially raised this as a sub-point here, and got no response, possibly because the post was pretty stale. Sorry to raise it again. HLHJ (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally yes. If you have a reliable source that says 'Tobacco companies have often marketed alternatives to quitting smoking' and you want to use a tobacco company cigarette ad, you would generally need a source linking the two - the ad as an illustration of the claim. Otherwise its original research. In this specific case as I recall the ad is directly 'Why quit? Switch...' so I would personally say this falls under WP:SKYISBLUE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Even more so, I'd recommend not using an image to illustrate a point unless it's very clear. Unlike straightforward text, a complex image can have different meanings to different viewers, in fact many visual artists play with this kind of ambiguity intentionally. So if you want to use this cigarette ad to illustrate Nicotine marketing, that's pretty clear. Or if you want to use this ad to illustrate "ads to switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes", that's also clear, it says that outright. But if you want to use this ad to say that "this is emphasizing rebellion", when the word "rebellion" is not used in the ad, and the guy in the ad is not obviously showing any rebel qualities, that's very debatable. --GRuban (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. So, if I have understood, the image does not need a source to say that it illustrates nicotine marketing, or e-cig marketing, because that is WP:SKYISBLUE-obvious. But if I want to say more, I might need sourcing, unless what I say is also obvious. In this case, I stated that the ad offers an alternative to quitting (indeed, it says "WHY QUIT? Switch..."), that the phrase "Nobody likes a quitter" plays on social anxieties, and that "take back your freedom" empathizes choice, freedom, and rebellion. GRuban thinks the first is acceptable, because it's obvious, but the last is more open to interpretation. Have I got this right? Is the social-anxieties claim OR? HLHJ (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Subgenres of the Beast

@RoseCherry64: warned me not to restore Kegan, Yrjänä (2015). Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide. lulu.com. ISBN 1312984503. to the two articles from where it had been removed. This based on a discussion at Talk:Streetcleaner/GA1 that includes a comment added by RoseCherry64 that links to https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/2155/whats-a-head-banging-rock-song/5098#5098 as proof. There is nothing present within the definition of "headbanging" taken from the book that coincides with the definition at the Wikipedia article, as far as I can see. I agree that lulu.com is a self-published source, but I see no reason to exclude it as a mirror. Am I missing something. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Source was deleted from Lulu.com and is not in any known library, no longer available to preview on Google Books. This arguably makes it not Wikipedia:Published. Looking at one old revision of the page and the StackExchange screenshot, it is obvious that the book was a mirror. RoseCherry64 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

cf. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_249#Nicolae_Sfetcu_ebooks RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RoseCherry64: That "old revision" is actually a a screenshot of the Wikipedia article as it appeared in August 2015 and not a page from the book.

The quote you linked to is

The origin of the term "headbanging" is contested. It is possible that the term "headbanger" was coined during Led Zeppelin's first US tour in 1969. During a show at the Boston Tea Party, audience members in the first row were banging their heads against the stage in rhythm with the music.

A definition describing "headbanging", from the book "Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide" By Yrjänä Kegan

Then below that it shows the definition from Wikipedia and posts the screenshot. So unless I'm misreading it, they are two separate statements.

And now you're edit warring based on your misunderstanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_metal&oldid=prev&diff=863235541 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HM_(magazine)&oldid=prev&diff=863235510 Please self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That "cf" is a different book entirely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Breakdown on "Jorgesys" post on Stack Exchange (only online source of the book I could find):

Probably the first HeadBanging: [quote], might be taken from the e-book which mirrored Wikipedia.

A definition describing "headbanging", from the book "Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide" By Yrjänä Kegan:

Screenshot presumably for Google books. Note that there's no caption underneath it. It is clearly the book in reference. However, I did find another reference on Google Books - a negative review stating "This guy literally printed wikipedia.org"

" That "cf" is a different book entirely." — It's the same concept. Self-published book of Wikipedia music articles, uploaded to Google Books, inserted in articles by editors not checking the source properly. There are a lot of these books on Google books.

I didn't break WP:3RR? Is there some other reason I should self-revert? RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@RoseCherry64: Thanks for the self-revert. You were at 3RR. Any comment on my claim here that the "page" you're claiming is from the book is actually a mobile phone screenshot of the Wikipedia article taken in August?

Anyone else care to offer an opinion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I see your update comment. However, that headbanging definition is not taken from Wikipedia, and the screenshot is of Wikipedia. No idea who the anonymous reviewer is so we can't verify that review. Do you have any RSes that it's a Wikipedia mirror and not just self-published? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And just to be 100% clear on this. The text in that posting is from the book. The screenshot is from the Wikipedia article in August 2015, not a page from the book. That picture is not from Google books. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"The text in that posting is from the book." — also appears verbatim in an earlier revision, before the e-book was published.

"you're claiming is from the book" "The screenshot is from the Wikipedia article in August 2015, not a page from the book. That picture is not from Google books." — There is clearly a source preface over it. Wikipedia doesn't look like that on mobile browsers. It's not available for purchase anymore (lulu.com prints on-demand) and it cannot be located in any library on Worldcat. I would say it fails WP:Published — "The source is available to the public to review in some manner." It was on Google Books until the publisher pulled it. I can't even find where one would even obtain a copy now. I don't feel like I need to comment further on this source and will leave it to other editors. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The source is for the text above it, not for the picture below it. It's simple to see that the picture is from Wikipedia as books would not highlight links. I agree that there is similarity between the 2013 version of the article and the quote from the book. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"It's simple to see that the picture is from Wikipedia as books would not highlight links."

The cf. Nicolae Sfetcu ebook is formatted exactly like this — Nicolae Sfetcu - The Music Sound, Krautrock chapter RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Those are blue links with a wide page layout and the ones in the screenshot are in the red colour spectrum, and have a very narrow layout. The excerpts are short in height and wide while the screenshot is about one mobile phone screen page long and narrow. I don't see them as being similar. Without a direct quote from the book you claim is copied from Wikipedia, we're left with making assumptions. Perhaps we should let others comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Its a self-published book which has clearly and obviously been ripped from Wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Do you have evidence of that claim or is it just an opinion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

All sources are unreliable until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on the one who wants the claim to stay, not the one who removes it, per WP:BURDEN. In this discussion, you asked asked for an "reliable source" proving a random ebook that was removed by the on-demand publisher contains plagiarism, which is not how it works. Either way, here's some more plagiarism comparisons.

The source on the Christian metal article you restored on is for the following citation:

"Black metal song lyrics usually "…attack Christianity" using "…apocalyptic language" and "Satanic" elements."

Here is a quote from the black metal article, revision as of 22 October 2014 (prior to the self-released book):

"Black metal lyrics typically attack Christianity and the other institutional religions,[13] often using apocalyptic language. Satanic lyrics are common,[18] and many see them as essential to black metal." RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And I have proven it is reliable although self-published. You claim it's a mirror of Wikipedia bit have offered misinterpreted posts and a similar book.

That two Wikipedia articles have similar test is not surprising. That the idea is supported in a book is similarly not surprising. What you lack, and have lacked from the outset, is a direct quote from the book that is a direct quote from a Wikipedia article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

And BURDEN is about the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", not proving the sources are reliable or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"And BURDEN is about the 'burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material'"

"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."

"What you lack, and have lacked from the outset, is a direct quote from the book that is a direct quote from a Wikipedia article."

There is not a single word different from the three sentences of headbanging posted on StackExchange. Please tell me which of these I copied from Wikipedia or the StackExchange post. You have previously claimed that the text except in that post came directly from the ebook.

A) The origin of the term "headbanging" is contested. It is possible that the term "headbanger" was coined during Led Zeppelin's first US tour in 1969. During a show at the Boston Tea Party, audience members in the first row were banging their heads against the stage in rhythm with the music.

B) The origin of the term "headbanging" is contested. It is possible that the term "headbanger" was coined during Led Zeppelin's first US tour in 1969. During a show at the Boston Tea Party, audience members in the first row were banging their heads against the stage in rhythm with the music.

Trick question! Both sentences are the exact same. I would seriously, seriously contest that you "have proven it is reliable although self-published." RoseCherry64 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I did find another quote I removed, cited to said book and directly taken from a Wikipedia page:

• A characteristic metal drumming technique is the cymbal choke, which consists of striking a cymbal and then immediately silencing it by grabbing it [...] producing a burst of sound. — Subgenres of the Beast (2015), cited on Cymbal choke, old revision. I assume the ... was added by the editor.
• "A characteristic metal drumming technique is the cymbal choke, which consists of striking a cymbal and then immediately silencing it by grabbing it with the other hand (or, in some cases, the same striking hand), producing a burst of sound" — Heavy metal music, present on revision pre-book release (4 October 2014)

It does almost seem like someone just took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and put them on a self-publishing platform! RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This evidence is, in my opinion, convincing. I already removed the book in question from some of the articles within my purview. By the way, I was involved with the original discussion at Talk:Streetcleaner/GA1. Even without this evidence above, just knowing it was self-published by someone without clear credentials warranted it to me to take it out. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 01:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It's circular reasoning! The text existed before. A reference to that book was added to the text. The text exists today.

What's missing is the actual text from the book. In short, this supposedly convincing evidence is empty. Could someone with brain please look at this thread? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh? It's not circular reasoning, it's circular referencing. The quote was added to cymbal choke on this revision, clearly after the book was published.

The actual text from the book is absent because the book is absent. Let's say that I have $10,000 to spend on this single source and access to every library in the world. Where or how can I obtain a copy of this ebook that was deleted by the publisher? RoseCherry64 (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I just showed how it's circular reasoning. And since you don't have a copy to support that any of it is actually from Wikipeda, that's all you can go on. Your sole claims are inference. No facts. And it's not going to cost you $10,000. There's a copy available from a Canadian seller: https://www.amazon.ca/Subgenres-Beast-Heavy-Metal-Yrjana/dp/B01B99PMWG/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

But still, no proof. You're a terrible logician and worse at sourcing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

1. This quote was inserted in an article with a citation to a book.

2. It is assumed that the quote is actually in the book, per assuming good faith on the editor who inserted it.

3. Said quote (cymbal choke) exists verbatim in a Wikipedia article prior to the publication of the book.

4. Since the Wikipedia article came first and the phrasing is identical, it is assumed that the book is the copy.

5. Multiple other references (black metal lyrics, headbanging) to the book have been proven to contain content taken from older Wikipedia revisions.

6. Not a single sentence from the book which isn't traced to a Wikipedia article has been provided.

7. The book is self-published on a on-demand printing site by an author with no credentials.

Where is the circular reasoning? Circular reasoning is reasoning without evidence distinct from the conclusion. There is clearly more than a conclusion here. Per cymbal choke (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cymbal_choke&diff=788564534&oldid=750059753 revision]) — "the text existed before" isn't true. It contained a direct quote (if the editor who inserted it is to be trusted) and was added after the publication of the book.

I will admit that the source is still accessible in some form, since it seems like there was at least one paperback copy sold which is listed for sale. RoseCherry64 (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Le Monde Diplomatique

Editors at WP:BLPN are challenging whether or not this article in Le Monde Diplomatique is a reliable source for the charge that Adam Milstein is the founder of Canary Mission, a claim he denies. They have argued that the article is an op-ed, that it is based on a documentary that al-Jazeera declined to air, and that it is based on hearsay. My question to this board is if this article is an op-ed, and if any of the other claims are even relevant. My understanding of our policies is that we very much oppose Wikipedia editors second-guessing the editorial judgments of reliable sources and that we are not in a position to judge the veracity of a claim only its verifiability. Is this an acceptable source for that material? nableezy - 19:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, how many noticeboards+articles is this open on? No one is contesting Le Diplo is reliable for the opinions of Gersh or for reporting on the contents of the leaked video segments that al Jazeera canned (declining to publish). The question is whether Le Diplo is reliable for assertions made in the canned doco on which it is reporting (e.g. is a movie review reliable for claims made in the movie?).Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I intend to ask for outside views for each of the claims made, first it was BLP now it is RS. Two editors have claimed this is an op-ed, that it is not reliable for what it states as a fact, namely that Milstein is the founder of Canary Mission. The exact quote, from this source, is

Kleinfeld managed to talk to Canary Mission’s founder and financial backer, Adam Milstein, chairman of the Israeli-American Council (IAC). Milstein was jailed briefly for tax fraud in 2009, but that didn’t prevent him from carrying on his activities from prison. He explained his philosophy to Kleinfeld: ‘First of all, investigate who they [the pro-Palestine activists] are. What’s their agenda? They’re picking on the Jews because it’s easy, because it’s popular. We need to expose what they really are. And we need to expose the fact that they are anti everything we believe in. And we need to put them on the run. We’re doing it by exposing who they are, what they are, the fact that they are racist, the fact that they are bigots, [that] they’re anti-democracy.’

Is this specific source, basing its reporting on whatever its editors found sufficient to publish, reliable for the statement that Milstein is the founder of Canary Mission? I would personally love to see that simple question addressed by the uninvolved editors on this board without the flood of repeatedly debunked claims about the source cited being made here. nableezy - 20:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Le Diplo source also contains the rather unusual footnote - "(1) Unless otherwise specified, all quotations in this article are taken from the documentary.". I urge uninvolved editors to examine the entire piece and not fragments (e.g. the mentioned footnote (at the beginning of the article, well away from this fragment, essentially attributes most of the long block quote above to the unpublished documentary).Icewhiz (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Whether this publication is a reliable source in general is not disputed, only its use in that article and it should be discussed there, at the RfC at the article in which there are multiple grounds to exclude the material in question. It should not be forum-shopped all over the place. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, when somebody challenges a source this is the venue for it. I am asking if this specific article is reliable for this specific statement. nableezy - 20:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh please. This is essentially the same issue being reviewed in the RfC[23], which you then took to BLPN and now here. What you're doing is forum-shopping, pure and simple. You want this to be the third venue at which to discuss whether it is appropriate for a few words in this source can be used in Adam Milstein. You're doing that by portraying this as a "challenge of the source" when actually it is a challenge of the use of the source in this particular instance. Any source can be challenged on that basis. People can misuse the New York Times or anything. It is not a challenge to the reliability of the Times in general What you are doing is not an appropriate use of this noticeboard, especially since you have phrased it in a non-neutral way. Please stop. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please yourself, kindly stop disrupting the purpose of the board. You claimed BLP for a revert so I took it there, then you claimed that this is an op-ed and not a reliable source, so I brought it here. If you would perhaps allow uninvolved editors a chance to review the material and comment about the actual topic here that would be just great. And no, I am bringing this as a challenge of this source for this statement, you are again making deliberately false statements. Please stop. This board is specifically meant to discuss the reliability of specific sources for specific statements, not challenges to the reliability of the Times in general, whatever that is supposed to mean. If you would pay attention to the top of this page, you can see yourself that it is for assessing the reliability of a specific source in a specific context. nableezy - 21:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? Uninvolved? I'm one of the uninvolved editors who was called to the RfC by bot. You just don't like my opinion, so you've shopped the process. And by the way, I was mistaken. There are actually four forums at which we are discussing the same issue, three of them initiated by you: 1) the RfC at the talk page of Adam Milstein; 2) the talk page of Canary Mission; 3) the BLP Noticeboard [24] and now 4) here. Can we try for five? Six? Seven? Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have made your position clear. You have made outright false statements (this is an op-ed) and bogus arguments. I am here seeking other outside opinions. Is there some reason you are incapable of allowing that to happen without turning every attempt at dispute resolution into a mind-numbing clusterfuck that no sane person would come near? I am asking one specific question here, is this article a reliable source for this statement. As is the exact purpose of this board. If you would stop being disruptive and allow anybody else to speak on that issue that would be wonderful. nableezy - 21:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And didn't you just make that same point at Talk:Canary Mission?[25]? Or maybe I'm confused with your raising the same point at the RfC at Talk:Adam Milstein?[26] Or the BLP noticeboard?[27] Sorry but this has been repetitively discussed on so many noticeboards that I'm getting a bit dizzy. Your repetitive incivility doesn't help. Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I made that point on the talk page. And since that is a low-trafficked page where two editors may be able to subvert Wikipedia policy I brought the issue to each noticeboard for policies that have been used to challenge the material. I feel quite the same about your repeated incivility and repeatedly, yet repeated, debunked statements. Hopefully my last comment here, this specific board is for asking for outside input on the reliability of a specific source for a specific statement. I would love to see outside views on if Le Monde Diplomatique is a reliable source for that specific statement. Can you allow that to happen? nableezy - 21:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The proper path to take with noticeboards is not to begin a repetitious discussion on multiple noticeboards as you have done, beating the drum in a contentious manner to spin it your way each time, but to comply with WP:FORUMSHOP by posting a neutral statement on the noticeboards with links to the RfC discussion. Instead you chose to began a "clusterfuck" as you elegantly put it (here or in one of the repetitive discussions you've commenced... I forget). Coretheapple (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I chose to pose a single question that this specific board is specifically equipped to answer. Well done derailing that too, a near perfect record on that score. nableezy - 22:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"that it is based on a documentary that al-Jazeera declined to air"

I'm as uninvolved as can be in this discussion, and upon reading the sources, it seems correct. Al Jazeera's documentary is clearly mentioned in both articles as the source for this claim, as well in the Haaretz article linked as a source for Milstein denying being the founder in the article. The claim shouldn't be attributed to Le Monde diplomatique if they're reporting on a documentary from Al Jazeera. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@RoseCherry64: Would the leaked portions of the canned doco be a RS? Do they count as published? Self published? As under AJ's editorial control? Or is AJ's rejection significant in terms of reliability? My understanding is that AJ owns the film and that the leaked video segments from the film were released without their permission.Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite the documentary by itself, but there are sources reporting on it. As long as it includes:

• A) The source of the claim (Leaked AJ documentary, reported by sources. Prose should include the context it was revealed in.)
• B) Response to the claim (Haaretz)
• C) Doesn't list him as the founder (The status is uncertain—original documentary wasn't published, response to claim published. It shouldn't say that he's the founder if there's no consensus about it in media.)

I think it would be fine. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, neither I nor anybody else is suggesting that he be named as the founder, only that he was reported to be and that he has denied that according to JTA and Haaretz and the Forward. It was widely reported that he has been reported to be the founder and that he has denied it. nableezy - 23:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think A) should be addressed. It reads like there has been two independent reports of it right now, when both sources use the same source (AJ). I don't see anything bad with mentioning the claims, given its wide reporting. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@RoseCherry64: Just to be clear, the text that the OP wishes to add is as follows

In August 2018, Le Monde diplomatique reported that Milstein is the founder and financial backer of Canary Mission,[33] an anonymous[34] website that hosts profiles of individuals that it considers to be anti-Israel or antisemitic, focusing primarily on students and professors at North American universities.[35][33] While some of those who have been targeted by Canary have called it a blacklist,[33] some pro-Israel advocates have applauded it for harassing hardcore activists.[36] Milstein denies being the founder of Canary Mission.[35][37]

Now, we can get into the wording but let's not. We have an RfC for that. The subject of this noticeboard's discussion is whether the Le Monde Diplomatique's op-ed can be utilized, but it has to be also considered whether this is UNDUE and objectionable on other grounds, which is why I find it unhelpful to have so many duplicative discussions on this subject when there is really one place to discuss all the issues involved, which is the RfC on the article talk page at Adam Milstein. Coretheapple (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Where are you getting this is an op-ed? Do you know what an op-ed is? nableezy - 16:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Its A)an opinion piece, B)its not actually reporting anything itself, its just regurgitating claims made in a non-aired documentary, C)as such, the documentary would be the source not Le Monde and fails the first hurdle of RS 'is it published by a reliable publisher' - no, because they didnt actually air it. D)As its a biography of a living person, WP:BLP takes precedence and would prevent controversial poorly sourced material being used - which applies both to Le Monde's opinion piece and the original unaired documentary. At best, Le Monde would at best be reliable for what the documentary contained, but not reliable for any of the material itself - which would still prevent it being used in a biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

How is it an opinion piece? Where are people getting this from? And how does Le Monde publishing it not make it Le Monde publishing it? nableezy - 15:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems it was not written by the staff of the news outlet. -- Shrike (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, and because it is, we do not include in a Bio or BLP info sourced only to a film that was never broadcast, even though the allegation was mentioned in some publications, all of which attributed the info to the same bit of film. Teh subject of the BLP denied the allegation, and no evidence to support it has surfaced. We do not deal in unsubstantiated rumour.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed research within American politics

As someone who adds a lot of peer-reviewed research and who happens to also edit on the topic of American politics, I've noticed a big problem with the removal of peer-reviewed academic research when the research in question reflects poorly on a conservative cause, figure or talking point. On pages unrelated to American politics, I virtually never see anyone remove peer-reviewed research and I'm having trouble even recalling anyone removing research when it reflects poorly on a liberal cause, figure or talking point. The removals usually demonstrate a complete disregard for Wikipedia's RS policy (peer-reviewed research are usually THE best sources), an unfamiliarity with how peer-review works (judging by talk page discussions), and a conflation of a study with "opinion". In one memorable exchange, one editor justified the removal of academic content by claiming the study was authored by an "assistant professor", not even a full professor.

This adds a lot to the dysfunction that we see on American politics pages on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if there is a solution that can ensure that editors stop removing peer-reviewed research for spurious reasons. I know this is extreme but I've always been of the mind that editors who remove peer-reviewed research published in high-quality presses and journals tarnish themselves to such a degree that they should just be banned (unless they self-revert upon warning) for extreme incompetence and bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this in relation to this section you also opened on the talk page there or is this a policy change proposal? PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This is broader problem in American politics that needs to be solved. I want to hear what remedies are already available and what policy changes can be made if existing tools are unsuitable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So what you are purposing is that if someone removes a peer-reviewed paper they should be banned? What exactly is the remedy you are suggesting and what kind of guidelines to enforce that remedy would there be? PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think s/he's proposing that if an editor makes a habit of obstructing obviously reliable sources, then some sort of sanction is appropriate. I tend to agree, as such behavior falls under our guidelines on disruptive and tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I get that, I was asking how that would be defined and how it would be enforced. Without being too broad and creating non-uniform enforcement. PackMecEng (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not an RSN problem. American politics is under discretionary sanctions, if editors are removing good reliable peer reviewed research claiming its 'opinion', make them aware of DS and then take them to AE for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (see also WP:TE). Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I 100% agree, not a RSN problem. This is a description of disruptive and tendentious editing which should be proven at AN/ANI/AE. -Obsidi (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Can you please provide diffs (either here or on my talkpage) of specific instances where you believe clearly-reliable sources are being inappropriately rejected? If an editor rejects a peer-reviewed reliable source because its author was an assistant, rather than a full, professor, then step one is to gently educate that editor as to why such an objection is inappropriate. If an editor has a pattern of creating such inappropriate roadblocks to reliable sources, particularly if that pattern reflects a partisan agenda, then the next step would be administrative intervention. I am willing to review such cases, subject to time constraints, as I suspect other admins would be as well, but they require evidence in the form of diffs. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• I can't substantiate that there are editors who have a documented pattern of doing this, but I will start to write down instances (as they occur). The most recent individual instances were on the Donald Trump (where three studies were removed under the guise of being "opinion")[28] and the Mitch McConnell (where several peer-reviewed publications and publications by recognized experts were removed)[29] pages. The most memorable instances are when Malerooster stalked me to the Federalism page to remove a study[30][31] and when James Lambden removed a book published by Lexington Books (peer-reviewed academic publisher) because it was by an assistant professor[32]. But as I understand it, these single actions don't constitute sanctionable behavior. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Um... looking at some of those examples, I don’t actually see peer reviewed studies. They do strike me as being author opinion. It may be well informed (or even expert) opinion, but it is opinion nevertheless. That said, I agree that removing the sources was the wrong way to deal with the problem... rather than remove opinion, it should be re-phrased to make it clear that it IS opinion... the problem was that the opinion was presented as fact (in Wikipedia’s voice) rather than attributed. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Fully agree w/ Blueboar here, and adding that once you recognize that these are opinions or subjective conclusions that should be attributed, whether to include or not fall under UNDUE/WEIGHT, which should factor in the prominence of the academic writing the book. (This would be a case where if an asst. prof. is making a very contentious claim, and no one else in the world corroborates the idea, you probably should not be weighing too much on that source.) --Masem (t) 02:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Nearly every study that I add, I attribute ("Study X found Y", "Scholar A wrote B"). I don't do it for mundane statements of fact or for info that clearly reflects overwhelming agreement in the literature. And Blueboar is wrong. These are studies and they are peer-reviewed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not know who added what was removed in this diff but that's definitely not attributed statements. --Masem (t) 04:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What should be attributed in those statements? Nothing in the text is contentious or disputed among political scientists and historians, and multiple RS are cited. It's entirely unfeasible to just start listing random scholars and studies. We wouldn't say "Economists 1, 2.... 500, 501 say that the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth" on the Free trade page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Academics have opinions too - as well as a range of views. It is usually best to attribute such stmts - on Free Trade, for instance, we say There is a broad consensus among economists ... - which is indeed the case, however there are also dissenting academic views on Free Trade (in a clear minority these days - but - they still exist). However, what's really wrong in the diff above are the citations - - no page numbers. Without a page number in a book (and if it is contentious - a quote is often helpful as well) - the text does not pass WP:V. Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The quotes are here[33]. It's page 6 for the Sides book. I have the other two in epub format, so the page numbers are inconsistent with the print or normal PDF versions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the citations is also missing the authors. The epub doesn't have print page numbers? If it doesn't, then I would at least provide a chapter number/title and an inline quote for the ref (assuming it is a short quote that supports the stmt). Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Books published by academic presses are peer-reviewed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No... the fact that a book has been published by an academic press does not mean it has been peer reviewed. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It isn't necessary peer reviewed, but the question is if it is a reliable source, and academic press qualifies for that. -Obsidi (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The claim that Princeton University Press does not do peer-review is extraordinary and should be backed up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Some may, some may not. But key is that "peer review" does not mean "factually true". --Masem (t) 04:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems a bit silly - those sources are all peer-reviewed, any monograph published by Yale or Princeton will have been peer reviewed by multiple experts in the field, in addition to having been reviewed in depth by the press' own editors. Anyone who argues otherwise is just showing their ignorance of how academic publishing works. They are a valid source for facts, and in fact they're pretty much exactly what we should be using to write articles. It's quite possible that there's valid quibbles about the citation format, lack of page numbers, or weight of the author's perspective in some of these instances but those are clearly, obviously high-quality RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

In the area of social sciences, where there is a lot less objective evidence that can be used to come to a conclusion as there are in the physical sciences, we have to be aware of when statements made are based on personal opinions and conclusions, and when they are more factually grounded. The peer-review is basically going to make sure that if a personal opinion or conclusions is made that it likely reflects the discourse for the journal or book publisher or avoids the extremes, as well as making sure the more objective conclusions are based on sound reasoning and science. To that end, these types of works should be treated as a mix of RS and RSOPINION, with context mattering. And when it is more in RSOPINION, then inline attribution is a requirement. --Masem (t) 14:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Social sciences, for the most part, still follow systemic, methodological processes to establish claims. They use theories like the hard sciences, and they rely on the principle of falsifiability as much as possible.

Though the "soft" sciences got their name for a reason, it is important that we should not be treating them differently from the hard sciences, because the experts, conclusions and consensuses that arise from them are used frequently and inform many fields. As those conclusions, experts and consensuses change, so can we.

Finally, it should be noted that the social sciences are one of the most PC-friendly (or PC-infested, depending on your opinion of political correctness) fields out there. Anything that's even remotely contentious among the experts is highly unlikely to make it through peer review. We are not the arbiters of what is controversial: we are merely the reporters of it. Unless sources of similar quality can be produced stating opposing claims, then anything stated as a fact in a peer-reviewed work of social sciences should be treated by WP as a fact.

Masem, these are exactly the sorts of sources that arise around a political event when sufficient time has passed and the event remains notable. Basing our articles on these sorts of sources is exactly the explicitly stated goal of our perennial proposal to limit the use of low-to-middling quality sources too close in time to an event. Imagine my surprise to see you arguing against it, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Never said it can't be used, just that it falls between RS and RSOPINION depending on context. The Yale book above would appear to be an RS to describe voting patterns for the last few elections based on the material I can see in the preview. But for the claim that it was used for that Trump was "the most prominent proponent" of the Obama-birther theory, that's clearly an RSOPINION and needs inline attribution. And that once something is deemed RSOPINION, whether to include or not becomes an UNDUE factor. (The same thing would be done in hard sciences too with a novel claim: if a group just published a peer-revieed paper that claims they broke the speed of light, we'd not say in WP voice "it is possible to break the speed of light", but instead "In 20xx a group from Harvard reported successful experiments in breaking the speed of light." If that is corroborate over many years and additional experiments, then we can eventually state that as fact.). A reliable source doesn't mean its true but that it does have sound backing to be included in WP with anything that should seem contentious being attributed inline. --Masem (t) 15:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

If the original poster can't find places where negative opinions on liberal positions/people are removed but sees overwhelming amounts of negative material on conservative positions being removed, I suggest they search for and add peer-reviewed negative material to liberal positions until they start seeing it removed. This appears to be something that "Writing for the opposition" would cure. It's somewhat depressing that such a partisan approach to editing is tolerated in a topic area that is dysfunctional. In fact, the "concern" being raised is the reason it's dysfunctional. The easiest way to not see "your" opinion being removed is to stop adding it.

Reliablility of an SPS

Around three weeks ago, a user added a reference to Southern soul citing this page on the website SoulBluesMusic.com. It initially seemed to be a blog written by an enthusiast and therefore cleary unreliable. However, further investigation brought forth new information that caused me to reconsider. The website is run by "Blues Critic" Dylann DeAnna (the author of the cited webpage), who uses it to host his CD-selling business and his "Southern Soul Blog". DeAnna claims on his website to have extensive contacts within the music industry. Searching for his name revealed that DeAnna was a writer for the now-defunct online magazine BluesWax. I then found this PDF copy of one of its issues, in which it is confirmed that DeAnna did write for the magazine in āāat least 2006 and that the publication's staff included at least one "contributing editor." In looking through that issue, the magazine did not appear to be particularly reputable, but what intrigued me was the number of reliable sources I came across that mentioned BluesWax's awards or interviews.

My question is this: given everything that I have stated, does DeAnna meet the WP:SPS criteria of "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" such that his self-published writings would be considered reliable? LifeofTau 03:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

For me, you would need multiple reliable sources effectively claiming the individual is an expert in this field before that provision would apply. (For instance multiple publications of a person's work in peer-reviewed journals is usually enough, as it is assumed that the journal wouldn't be publishing non-experts.) Merely being a contributing editor (even at a RS), isn't usually enough to say the individual is an expert. More often you could use it as a RS for his own views on the music under WP:SELFPUB (assuming that he has a significant viewpoint that isn't otherwise covered in the article.) -Obsidi (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; your reply is appreciated. LifeofTau 16:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Should Fox News be considered a Reliable Source or should it be considered in the same category as Daily Mail and Breitbart?

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

---

Proposed: That Fox News should be considered "Generally Unreliable" due to reliability issues similar to Breitbart, Infowars and the Daily Mail and a similarly poor reputation for factual accuracy. These include but are not limited to:

• Failure to issue timely retractions or corrections for false information
• Failures to clearly identify editorial content as editorial content (at present time the main headline on the website is an editorial titled "STOKING AN ANGRY MOB: REP. STEVE SCALISE: Democrats' calls for violence threaten all of us – and our democracy" by Steve Scalise that does not clearly delineate that it is "Opinion" or another editorial category in the front page headline)
• Repeatedly pushing conspiracy theories and other false information that originates from highly suspect sources (including Breitbart or Breitbart-affiliated right-wing blogs such as GatewayPundit known for producing false information).

Sources:

• Fox News's propaganda pattern, similar to other problem sources such as Breitbart and Infowars - [34]
• Fox News's pushing of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, which was never backed up by any factual information, and failure to retract or apologize in a timely fashion - [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]
• Fox News promoting other conspiracy theories - [40] [41] [42] [43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.213.186 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There's no way there would be any consensus for this. If we're going to ban any cable news, it will start with a less prominent cable news than Fox. See WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 15:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There are definitely parts of FOX News that should be avoided for anything like an RS for facts but still acceptable as RSOPINION, and we should exclude those parts (eg like Hannity) when reviewing Fox as a whole. When you eliminate those problem actors, the rest of FOX news is fine, even if they show a strong right-leaning bias. --Masem (t) 15:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hm. "So if we ignore the problems there are no problems"? Well alt-righty then! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.213.186 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• If we do this, we might as well just ban anything to the right of NPR This is a ridiculous suggestion and the OP should be ashamed of this POV pushing nonsense. Fox News is no worse than MSNBC when it comes to bias, and far better in terms of bias and factual accuracy than Breitbart, InfoWars or the Daily Mail. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

YAY WHATABOUTISM! And no I won't be ashamed for making a sensible suggestion. Thanks for the insult and proving alt-right-wingers lack basic civility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.213.186 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fox News is a fairly standard news organization. While they've been accused of political bias, a source's bias is independent of its reliability. Designating Fox News as "generally unreliable" would be inappropriate. — Newslinger talk 17:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

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

News reporting vs news opinion/commentary

Should we do more to highlight the difference between reporting, analysis, and opinion/commentary when it comes to news sources? Sources such as Fox (on the right) and MSNBC (on the left) have news reports, but they also have analysis and commentary programs (and some that mix the two). These two types of programs should be handled differently. My understanding is that the news reports are reliable for statements of fact about events... but the analysis and commentary programs need to be hedged as being opinion (and thus attributed). It is obvious that a lot of editors don’t understand the distinction. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but this problem is broader than just Fox or MSNBC. There are a lot of websites that are considered RS but have substantial opinion commentary involved even when not identified as "opinion" articles (they tend to be explicitly ideological like Vox, Daily Caller, Mother Jones, LifeZette, Huffington Post, etc.). Probably any source that explicitly identifies as conservative or liberal we should be careful with. Frankly major op-eds in places like the WSJ/NYT's are often better than some of these ideological RS. -Obsidi (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

All opinion pieces are "ideological", whether they are on the right, the left or the middle. The point is not that they are biased, so much as that they are don't abide by the standards of rigour of news reporting, such as fact-checking, triangulating sources, etc, so cannot be used as sources for statements of fact. I think WP makes this clear, but maybe not clear enough as editors continually use opinion pieces to source facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the point isn't that they are biased (even the NYT's or the WSJ news reporting has its own bias). The NYT or WSJ opeds are not as rigorous as their news reporting, but they fact-check their op-eds a lot more than other online publications that are considered RS. But among the organizations that are explicitly ideological, I don't see a lot of difference between Hannity and an op-ed at the WSJ or a Vox article or a Daily Caller article in terms of fact-checking, triangulating sources, etc. Do they fact check, absolutely, but they also slant the facts with so much opinion that one must be very careful in using them to pull out facts from opinion carefully and not just follow the sources. What constitutes opinion vs fact for these more explicitly ideologically biased RS seems very hard for a lot of WP editors to distinguish it seems to me. At least with something like the more mainstream news outlets that claim to not be conservative or liberal, they tend to keep their statements more NPOV in the source, meaning editors tend to do a better job maintaining NPOV when they use those sources. -Obsidi (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't compare Hannity to Vox. That's like comparing Breitbart to MSNBC: yeah, they have the same problems, but the scale is so different. See Sean Hannity's file at politifact.com. Even Rachel Maddow, one of the worst offenders on the left has a better record than Hannity.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just say that was a painful comparison to read... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't consider the "file" at politifact to determine how truthful they actually are. Politifact is a RS but has a liberal bias, as such it tends to "check" questionable conservative statements more often and "check" statements they already known are going to be truthful from liberal sources (this is source selection bias of what to check which changes the overall percentages). And then in choosing which grade to give a statement, they tend to give conservative statements half-truth or mostly false while liberals with the same evidence are given mostly true results (look for instance at this). In one instance the exact same statement were rated differently until they were so attacked for it they issued a correction ([44] [45]). Mostly unless it is pant's on fire or truth there is a lot of wiggle room there for bias to get involved (and even then you got the Obama "you can keep your plan" statement they rated as 100% true, until it was pants on fire lie of the year). Is Vox better than Maddow that is better than Hannity, yea probably, but I wouldn't trust politifact to make that determination. -Obsidi (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Politifact is a RS but has a liberal bias Bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

So I guess its just random chance that the exact same statement was rates higher when said by a democrat? That almost all the Democrats are rated higher than almost all the Republicans? Is there any right of center person you can point to that thinks politifact is unbiased? (I can point to multiple accusations of bias from right wing RS. If they were truly neutral you would expect accusations of bias equally from both sides. That just simply isn’t the case. -Obsidi (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahem... Bull. Shit. The major fact checking organizations (including politifact) are not biased. Every single fucking claim of bias I've ever seen made against them (and I've seen tons) all are either completely made up, or rely on the fact that the more right-wing a person is, the more lies they're caught out on. Politifact is not biased, and if it was, you'd have responded with clear evidence, instead of vague, made-up claims. Hannity is full of shit. Maddow is full of shit too, but not quite as much. I wouldn't trust Hannity as far as I could throw him and anyone who would is either dishonest or deceived. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You can say bullshit all you want, but its just pounding the table not logical arguments. I presented clear evidence, the exact same statement was rated mostly true for a Democrat[[46]] and half true for the Republican [47]. How much clearer of evidence of bias could you have? And your own statement concerning fact that the more right-wing a person is, the more lies they're caught out on proves my case that you see them with rose colored glasses. -Obsidi (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You're quite confused: "Bullshit" is the conclusion. It's only a part of the argument. As for your evidence: First off, they're two different claims. Paul claimed there was no income tax before 1913. Webb later claimed there was no federal income tax before then. Big difference. Second, you're taking two fact checks, made two years apart, by two different people and from that single data set making a generalized statement about the entire organization. The "logic" in that is so fucking terrible that "Bullshit" is the single best way to describe it. Third, you probably didn't notice that the Paul check actually links to the fact check of a similar claim by Michelle Bachman that they rated "True". I guess their left-wing bias led them to to make that distinction, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You miss-read what the politifact said it was checking for the Paul quote, the question he was asked what what the highest federal income tax rate should be, and so politifact said it was checking the statement that the U.S. federal income tax rate was 0 percent until 1913, likewise in the conclusion it says Paul’s statement that the federal' income tax rate was zero until 1913.... As I said, when politifact says something is 100% true it probably is (without bias for democrats or republicans), likewise when they say something is pants on fire. Its those middle grades where bias gets involved. -Obsidi (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the quotes that politifact explicitly claimed they checked, just the headlines. And you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of my comment. See, this is why I stopped editing politics: Because people like you insist upon bullshit claims about reality being absolutely true because if you squint hard enough at a narrow enough slice of reality it kinda sorta looks like they might be right in this particular case and that, of course, proves that they're right about everything. And no matter what evidence to the contrary you folks see ([48], [49], [50], [51] or even [52], [53]), you'll just keep insisting that your version of the story is true because you say so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Politifact makes very clear he was asked a question about federal income taxes, and even it understood him to be answering in that context. -Obsidi (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

They also made it very clear they were fact checking his answer: in which he talked about taxes in general. And for the third time: even if you're right, that doesn't prove shit. It's like me pointing to a Trump tweet as proof that conservatives always lie. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I don’t think we should use MSNBC or Fox commentary programs as sources without attribution and labeled as opinion, unless they agree with other sources that we consider reliable. And then, if other sources are usable – why not use them instead? The exception would be about statements made by interviewees. I don’t think we should ever use folk like Hannity or Tucker for anything other than their own (couldn’t think of a polite term) – and then only in articles related to them. I also wouldn’t use Maddow. But, I don’t think I’m saying anything that hasn’t generally been followed as good practice according to our current guidelines. Well, not counting the fact that Fox “news” programs are so extremely slanted. But, I know that argument can’t prevail here. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Agree that we need to be careful about differentiating facts from opinions. To call MSBNC "left" is a bit laughable, because it is just as much a part of the corporate media(corporate control) as Fox.[54] Certainly you won't find anyone on the supposedly left-wing MSNBC advocating for a Communist revolution that would overthrow corporate control in the U.S. The same goes for PBS which is just as corporate as the others.[55][56][57]. The across the board media bias favoring and not questioning "the rush to war" like the Iraq War [58] and Gulf War [59] are well documented. (See also Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Pro-power_and_pro-government_bias)

As for facts vs. opinions, I have not found the fact-checking at Fox vs. MSNBC vs. PBS to be less reliable--at least on local stories (I pay little attention to their national news.) I was not able to find WP:RS that categorically showed Fox or MSNBC to be more reliable. (Consider this Google Scholar search). See for example [60] discussing how a false story permeated all the news.

Politicfact and other fact checking sites are of limited reliability.[61]. This article about reliability of fact checking says:

"In broadcast news outlets, attention to fact-checkers obeys a partisan logic: PolitiFact and FactCheck.org are mentioned mainly on ostensibly neutral outlets such as CNN, while liberal Media Matters and conservative NewsBusters get most of their attention from Fox News (on the right) and MSNBC (on the left), though not solely from their ostensible supporters."

This French paper on the U.S. media basically concludes that the U.S. media has gone away from solid reporting and turned in to Infotainment.

I do agree that the opinions and the choice as to what is covered and what is omitted, what experts to include, etc. varies between these stations, and this may be why so many call MSNBC "left" and Fox "right", when, in fact, their agenda is very similar--to sell advertising and make money from their programs. [to be continued--still need to talk about how to address the initial question]. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

reboot

My question above was about HOW we should use commentary/analysis sources, not WHETHER we should use them. Should commentary/analysis programs be required to have inline attribution? Blueboar (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd start by distinguishing commentary from analysis. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• We should differentiate facts from opinions. For example, a reporter calling a belief a "conspiracy theory" is an opinionated label, and we should not put that in a wiki voice, but attribute it to the author and/or paper. The same article states as if it is a fact "there are the talking heads on Fox News, who last week needed something other than negative Trump stories to make conversation about." Claims by various pro-Democrat papers saying "IT'S OVER: Hillary has the Democratic primary in the bag" and "Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal." were opinions. Saying there are only two candidates worth considering in any race (suggesting you can only choose between the Democrat or the Republican [62]) and that any other candidates are not worth mentioning is an opinion, not a fact. The problem is that these papers report opinions as if they are facts. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

On that I agree. (In fact, I started a whole thread just to discuss this over at WP:NPOVN#Conspiracy_theories_and_NPOV) -Obsidi (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Commentary/analysis sources, because they are usually made "ad hoc" (they will come with prepared statements, have an array of facts and figures in front of them, but their actual dialog is not to a script), should be treated as opinion - requiring inline attribution and appropriate due weight considerations as a "default" mode. This does does not rule out that some of these statements can be treated as facts if there is no other source to corroborate and no other source contradicts, and sound judgement and common sense should be used, as it will depend on who is talking, what they are saying, and where that information comes from. If the director of the FBI came onto Nightline, and said something like "There are over 1 million people incarcerated in the United States", we have a person who should have proper access to that type of information giving that information so that can be treated as fact (thought it cannot hurt to say "As stated by the FBI's director on Nightline in 2018..." to just be clear it was a number uncorroborated from anywhere else. On the other hand, if a political activist came on and gave the same information under the same conditions, that should be treated as a claim requiring attribution and with due weight considerations. --Masem (t) 23:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  An off the cuff statement by the FBI director should always be attributed. Prepared testimony is vetted. Off the cuff remarks coming from the top of a qualified individual'a head are quite often incorrect / out of date / inaccurate. I will also note that for this particular statistic that the FBI is not always up to speed or with access to state law enforcement.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada (Again)

I constantly encounter the problem of editors refusing to except Electronic Intifada (EI) as a reliable source. Could someone suggest a method of obtaining a binding decision one way or the other on this? Can arbitration or mediation help in reliable source disputes? This isn't a dispute against any one person, but we need to make an objective decision which can be referenced when editors from any article attempt to exclude EI for political reasons only.

I believe the case for including EI as a reliable source is overwhelming. The only excuses I've seen for excluding EI are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT which is not an argument to use in talk page discussions; or that it's biased, which isn't a reason for exclusion. See the opinionated source guidance in WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Wikipedia editors simply claiming EI is unreliable without evidence should carry less weight, than those who cite secondary sources or direct proof that EI have made valid mistakes, particularly mistakes which they refuse to retract. So far I've found no direct evidence of any factual mistakes. EI has however, exposed mistakes with fact-checkers and the unsuitability of Wikipedia editors. Therefore, far from being an unreliable source the opposite seems to be the case.

[There are some comments on EI] on the reliable sources noticeboard on secondary sources, (obviously we need to be cautious about criticisms from pro-Zionist commentators), and on the Wikipedia page for EI. The last item in the following list explains why we should be particularly vigilant against unfounded criticisms of EI on Wikipedia.

"They claim to have been favourably reviewed in several "mainstream" sources, including the center-right Jerusalem Post. An unfavourable review at the Jewish Telegraph Agency wire still called it a useful resource for understanding Palestinian opinions.

The Financial Times apparently said: "The Electronic Intifada is a highly professional site, apparently designed and run from the UK, which blends links to newspaper stories, in-depth comment on the way the conflict is being presented in the media, the Live From Palestine "diary project" and snippets such as a running total of Palestinian and Israeli deaths. The design is clean, using interesting fonts and images, and the material is up to date. On Tuesday morning there were already links to a dozen articles covering the Gaza City attack"

An ITV program called "The Web Review" supposedly gave EI a 10/10 rating "In form this site is a slick newsroom, rational and cross-referenced.

In an April 2008 article, online publication Electronic Intifada revealed the existence of a Google group set up by CAMERA. The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors". Five editors involved in the campaign were sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators, who wrote that Wikipedia's open nature "is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing" Here it is reported in the New York times"

The Media Bias Fact check site based on international fact-checking sites backs up these claims, awarding a high factual reporting rating for EI. This site also states:

"Electronic Intifada has a very strong Pro-Palestinian bias in report choices and does not always cover both sides of the story. There is frequent use of loaded emotional words that are positive for Palestine and negative for Israel. However, Electronic Intifada is generally very well sourced to credible media outlets. In reviewing fact checks we could not find any instance where EI directly failed a fact check from major fact checking sources. We did however find a case where EI refuted a pants on fire claim from Politifact that stated the Baltimore police were trained by Mossad."

I also notice reliable sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post often reference EI. So if EI weren't reliable, surely this would render these publications unreliable?

I therefore suggest that according to Wikipedia rules EI should be eligible as a source, subject to adjusting the language to a neutral tone.--Andromedean (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias should not make it not RS, look at the Fox news debate. I see no reason why it is any less of an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Its not in the same league, FOX could be compared to BBC and NYT they have left wing bias but we allow it--Shrike (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The NYT does not have a left-wing bias, and comparing it to FOX news is kind of laughable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What? That is something that I would have thought was undeniable. The NYTimes does indeed have a left wing bias and it's clear as day. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

NYTimes has a liberal bias, but it doesn't extend farther left than that. They're considered "left-wing" by the standards of US political discourse, but that says more about US political discourse than it does about the Times. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable. This website has a reputation for partisan advocacy, very fast (but inaccurate) reporting, and making far out claims (which, as the better known Daily Mail, do get reported elsewhere - attributed to EI). They are also very open to receiving pitches or even full written stories, and they publish what other outlets are unwilling to publish. Their reporting often blurs facts (inaccurate as they may be) with opinion, omitting responses from the "other" side. What they do not have, is a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. In fact, they have a reputation for publishing outright hoaxes when it advances their advocacy, e.g. [63]. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  Icewhiz, most of your comments fall under the issues which I've already raised, and don't demonstrate that EI is unsuitable. However your last point might be relevant. 'If the Dutch pension company repurchased these Israeli stocks under an OECD portfolio that would indicate mere restructuring not a divestment, but did they?''''Bold text EI do state in their article that PGGM announced that PFZW was divesting from Africa-Israel for “technical reasons. They also seem to be simply repeating what the company told them in good faith. So I'm not convinced EI are at fault here. --Andromedean (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  "technical"? That is unfounded speculation. This was a blatant hoax - and a rather obvious one for anyone involved in equity trading. The MSCI and OECD classification to DM led to record trading volumes (and a trading day that was ad hoc extended three times).[64] A record that to date has not been surpassed (and is at least 3x bigger than the second highest). Many-many funds base their asset allocation on market classification - and when it changes - they sell/buy as appropriate (and this is not Israel specific - has happened on such events elsewhere). This was not and itty bitty detail someone overlooked - this was the biggest trading event in the Israeli market going back at least two decades.Icewhiz (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Unreliable and WP:UNDUE This in propaganda site that whose goal is to disseminate a certain POV that have no history of fact checking --Shrike (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable A bias in a source is not grounds for it being considered unreliable, and the editors claiming it's unreliable have provided negligible evidence of any sort of wide-spread failure to fact-check. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Is not you who argued that Israeldefence is only reliable for not controversial information just because of it POV and didn't provided any evidence --Shrike (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If you'll note, I asked some questions in that thread but ultimately supported the reliability of the source for the edit in discussion. As per the scope of this page. I just reserved the right to dispute its reliability in the future on other matters. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Jerusalem Post is no less biased and partisan than EI, so no reason to treat different. To claim that EI is consistently unreliable needs evidence. Wickey (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable As its name clearly states, this is an advocacy website that does not even pretend to provide objective and balanced information. Omitting the "other side" is a given, as noted above. That's what makes it propaganda. Even newspapers in Nazi Germany occasionally stated facts. That did not make the publications reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I fear this is going to turn into yet another POV discussion about EI. Returning to my original question:

could someone suggest a method of obtaining a binding decision one way or the other on this? Can arbitration or mediation help in reliable source disputes? --Andromedean (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not Reliable It seems to me clear as day that this is a partisan site and serves one purpose and that purpose is not to produce news. Therefore, if something is newsworthy, it should be from a newssource. If it's not newsworthy, then it doesn't' need to be covered. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable I don't care if they are biased or not. But they cannot publish what is proven to be clearly untrue hoaxes and be considered reliable such as this hoax. Additionally, in this article it says Haaretz story which does not support his claim of threats. And then go read the Haaretz story [65] of which the very first line is Former lead singer of The Animals Eric Burdon on Tuesday announced he is cancelling his planned concert in Israel, citing threats. In this article they say In 2002, Israeli army chief Moshe Yaalon declared that “the Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people." If you read the editor's note at the bottom, you will see that even they recognize that this statement is completely unverifiable but they keep it in the story anyway. They actively oppose the widely recognized by mainstream media fact that senior Palistianian officials said that 500 people were killed in Jenin [66]. Here is what the Guardian wrote Saeb Erekat, a senior negotiator for the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, said in mid-April that 500 people had been killed.. If they continue to insist on facts being different than most other RS, we cannot count on them being reliable.

As for how to create a "binding decision" on this. We discuss such things on the page and consensus develops. If people think that is a local consensus not representative of the wider WP community they can come here (at RSN) and see if a wider consensus be established, finally if they think that is a local in time consensus that other editors will understand is wrong, they can start a RfC, which will be binding unless new information or a new RfC says otherwise. But Consensus can change so on WP nothing is every "finally" settled for all time, but we can settle such issues in the short term and then reconsider them down the road if people still think they are wrong. -Obsidi (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Obsidi, I've already addressed your first claim. In the second case EI seem to have carried out extra research since it's dated 2 days later, how do you know the Haaretz claim is accurate? Strictly, there's nothing inconsistent between the two articles since EI are refuting a BDS threat, there's no mention of a BDS threat in Haaretz. In the third case they seem to have quoted a New York times article which was also widely quoted elsewhere, but the source has since been questioned. EI have placed the same statement at the bottom of their article as the NYTimes have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have already addressed the first claim, I don't know where. Yes, the EI article is 2 days later. I have no idea if threats were really issued or not (I wasn't there). But what I do know is that EI claimed that the Haaretz story does not support the claim that the concert was canceled citing threats, which is a claim about the Haaretz article, which I can see for myself that EI is stating false information (that is exactly what the Haaretz article says). As to the third claim, they did add a statement at the bottom like the NYTs would, but you know what else the NYT's would do? They edit the actual text to remove the inaccurate information! (go read the original NYT's article if you don't believe me [67]) -Obsidi (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• In the last case they have simply researched exactly what the Palestinian leader said. He said 'could reach 500 dead' and didn't use the word massacre. This was incorrectly translated by the MSM that the Palestinians were claiming a massacre and 500 dead.

Erekat told CNN Anchor Jim Clancy: “What we’re saying, we see an opportunity in the secretary’s visit. We want to help in order to insure the success of the secretary’s visit, because insuring the success of implementing [UN resolution] 1402 means stopping the killing fields out there, and you know as the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began. Thousands of wounded. You know, the Jenin refuge camp is no longer in existence, and now we’ve heard of executions there.” --Andromedean (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't the word "massacre," the problem is claiming 500 people died rather than 50-60 in Jenin. Also you are citing a diffrent interview. You are citing the interview on the 12th of April. I am referring to the one on the 17th where he said:

SAEB ERAKAT, CHIEF PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: Well, I have a suggestion to make, Wolf, to Mr. Ben-Eliezer. How about if we form an international commission of inquiry, let them go to Jenin with the equipment needed (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And let them tell the world, this being American, European, anybody, we have 1,600 missing men in this refugee camp. Mostly women and children, husbands and wives. I'm not saying they are killed. I'm saying that the situation in this refugee camp which we have been reporting from there now, even milk is prevented to the children now. Bodies are rotting. It's a disastrous area, Wolf. So it is not for us to decide how many were killed. There is no longer a refugee camp there. And maybe the defense minister and the prime minister of Israel want to deny what CNN is showing, that the camp was totally destroyed. They conducted terror. They're not out there to fight terror. They are conducting terror. They're killing Palestinians. They have made Palestinians so filled now with anger, with hate. They have set the clock back to 30 years ago. All the work of the good people, Palestinians and Israelis who devoted their lives to make peace, reconciliation, healing have been destroyed in the last few weeks at the hands of Sharon and his people. So, as far as he is concerned, we officially offer to have an international commission of inquiry to get the results (ph) and to decide how many people were massacred. And we say the number will not be less than 500.

[68] -Obsidi (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Would not use it as a source for facts. Its close to Arutz Sheva, it may publish true things but with a heavy spin, and occasionally will publish false things without later at least retracting them. When they publish something of note it will be found in other sources. nableezy - 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."WP:BIASED When you don't specify what materials are to be used from the source, it's not possible to say whether or not the source is reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Complicated. Reading up, it seems that it's often reliable for factual reporting and rarely called out for falsification or the like, but it does seem to be a situation where we'd need to look case by case and check that the individual story is itself well sourced. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• I can see why some people have a problem with EI now, they see they parts they wish to see, then reinterpret them, and always assume a opposing view refutes it. I've highlighted some of the critical terminology which should help, but probably won't. I still don't see anything to refute the professional views and assessments of EI given in my header, only people who just don't like EI.--Andromedean (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Agrippa Mandangu

Agrippa Mandangu

yes, you have a source you wish to discus?Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)