Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RfC on use of CoinDesk

• CoinDesk is a notable specialist news outlet focused entirely on cryptocurrency and blockchain. It maintains a Bitcoin Price Index data which is widely used by mainstream newspapers when reporting on Bitcoin price. Occasionally reports it publishes are quoted by mainstream reliable sources. It has an editorial policy, about page, and a conflict of interest with the companies listed here.
• The vast majority of crypto/blockchain related sources are unreliable and often highly promotional, with a great deal of paid content, undisclosed native advertising, and unlabeled press releases. Coindesk is generally considered more reputable than the average crypto/blockchain related publications.
• Coindesk is widely used as a source in articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrency, there is no consistent treatment of whether it is reliable or not. Some editors will remove it along with other spam sources, others hold it to be an exception to the rule and consider it at least partly reliable.
• This topic is under general sanctions, detailed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies.

Previous discussions

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190#CoinDesk
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#CoinDesk
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_212#CoinDesk_and_CoinTelegraph_on_the_article_Ethereum
• Talk:Ethereum/Archive_2#Coin_desk
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_52#Ethereum
• Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article

My question is simply what the consensus is on CoinDesk's reliability. Is it;

A. A questionable source to be discouraged, or not to be used at all.

B. A biased source which should not be used to support statements in Wikipedia's voice, but can be used if attributed.

C. A reliable specialist source.

Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Reliable within the scope of cyrptocurrency/blockchain. They have an editorial staff and an editorial policy. They do issue corrections [1]. They were founded 5 years ago (which is small for most mainstream publications, but given the topic area isn't unusual). I'm not aware of any well known accusations of factual mistakes (especially uncorrected ones). To me, this all adds up as reliable (within its expertise area). -Obsidi (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable for bitcoin/etc. Seems fully appropriate to use to help source out articles in that topic area. --Masem (t) 14:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Questionable I think it is a good source overall, but it is still questionable (pardon the contradiction please). Note some articles that have a big problem with promotional content can always do an RfC on that specific article to put tighter restrictions in place. In general, I find the WP:GS/Crypto#GS in place on the crypto articles to be working well and I would keep this coindesk as it is the best (and often only reliable source) out of an awful group of cryptorags that are rife with promotionalism. Comments @MER-C:, @Jytdog:, @Retimuko:? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• 'questionable many of the pieces in Coindesk buy full-on into whatever is being hyped this week. Some pieces have expert analysis (positive and negative) and are useful. So it can be considered, but should not be used freely. (I will add, use of Coindesk, like other trade rag blogs, as proof of notability in deletion discussions is questionable per WP:ORGIND). Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• questionable It does seem to be one of the best among other cryptocurrency news sites, but I would still suggest using it sparingly. Some articles look like advertising. Retimuko (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Sometimes usable for our purposes - be cautious - in my experience (wearing my Public Expert on Crypto hat), it's usually not factually wrong about present-day stated facts, and tries to get them right. It's useless for notability - they never saw a press release they didn't like, and no future event or hypothetical can be trusted - they run too many articles on things that don't exist and never end up happening. It's also useless for expert opinion for Wikipedia purposes, unless the expert is notable. If an article is cited to Coinbase, I'd trust it for past and present factual statements - they're fine with those - but it wouldn't IMO confer notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Worse than questionable - it is likely the best industry source for cryptocurrencies, but that makes it the best of a ton of garbage, you have to pick through it really carefully. They have an editorial policy that claims editorial independence but links to the owners investments [2]. There are over 100 crypto companies listed there including some of the bigger ones (e.g. the Kraken exchange). I don't doubt the journalists' good faith, but given such a setup the editors, if not the journalists, will know which side of the bread has butter on it.

There is a tiny exception I might use it for. Reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the Financial Times, NY Times, WaPo quote bitcoin prices from such sources. If it's produced by Coindesk and quoted by a reliable source, I might use it in a long-term setting (not for news). In truth, there is no single bitcoin price at any time (the quotes you see from Google and Coindesk are about $40 apart now), so it's up to reliable sources to quote what they think is a reasonable estimate of general price levels. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sometimes usable for our purposes - be cautious CoinDesk and any other cryptocurrency news site shouldn't be used to establish notability. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Questionable at best. Let me pick one of the companies on https://dcg.co/portfolio/ at random... Chainalysis. Three most recent articles about the company - [3][4][5] - are all promotional, and with no specific conflict of interest disclosures. In fact, it appears they might have regressed: [6][7]. I've seen enough. MER-C 19:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Glad to see sanctions are in place. It's been some time since I worked on related articles, but my impression at the time that there were such strong financial incentives to promote the products and technology that it was best to treat the majority of such sources as heavily biased, in-world, and financially conflicted.

In cases like this, I'd like to see how clearly reliable, independent sources treat and describe CoinDesk. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Although there is an article on Coindesk, there is no substantial coverage on Coindesk in reliable sources. It is often quoted for facts related mainly to the price of Bitcoin, they make statements like; [Bitcoin is worth X] according to industry site CoinDesk. [Ether was worth X] according to data from CoinDesk. [Bitcoin is up] according to data from CoinDesk. [Bitcoin has lower highs] Coin Desk reports. Often reliable sources will look at other sources as well to verify the data, they don't blindly rely on Coindesk even for price stats. I personally don't think we should either, if I was voting on my own RfC I would vote B, leaning towards A. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• I posted links to this discussion on some related talk pages for interested people to be aware of it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• The way the process works is:
  1. Press release goes out
  2. Runs in crypto press
  3. Mainstream press sees crypto press coverage, assumes this is specialist technical press rather than a great big circle of press release reprints and altcoin pumping, reports it, changing all the "could" statements to "is" statements
  4. Et viola! more fodder to go "reliable? what on earth"

  - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with David here. In the past we were really lacking RS for these articles, but today it seems that crypto coverage is widely mainstream, thus our need as editors to be covering the most recent press releases is less and less everyday (i too include coindesk in this press release category). I think in general we should be very careful, and NOT use these sites at all to determine article notability. If an article has 10 sources from cointelegraph, coindesk, and coinwhatever.com but none from mainstream, it is for sure also a candidate for AfD. Essentially coindesk should be treated as only a little more reliable than a primary source, but a likely good quality one primary source at that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Are there persistent content disputes because of its use that existing dispute resolution methods can't handle? (Examples please) I think we've witnessed an unwelcome trend of banning "bad" sources one-by-one via RfCs. Such a heavy tool should only be used when the actual use of a source is proven problematic (à la Daily Mail) and there is a need to point to a strong consensus. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: There is not an issue of content disputes here because anyone who gets involved in a dispute on the subject is normally topic banned under the sanctions on crypto and blockchain topics. Or just blocked as a spammer. This is to see if Coindesk can be used to improve some crypto articles or whether we should be getting rid of it with any other source with "coin", "crypto", "block", or "fintech" in the title. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to ban Coindesk or the cryptocurrency press in general, admins using the discretionary sanctions can do that pretty well - hopefully giving one warning to editors who use these sources. But @Finnusertop:, you should understand the scope of the problem. There are advertisements for people to "monetize their cryptocurrency blogs" offering "the best rates" so there are essentially an unlimited number of very biased "trade publications" whose rehash of press releases, other cryptopress articles, and even spun rehashes of mainstream press just overwhelms coverage by the mainstream press. If you go to Google news and search for bitcoin, the first 50 results might only include 2 links to mainstream articles. If you go through and search for "bitcoin financial times" or "bitcoin bloomberg" there will still be a large amount from the crypto press. So newbys almost always include references to cryptopress. We should make clear here that

• when mainstream sources are available that the cryptopress should not be used
• when mainstream sources are not available, it's doubtful that any cryptopress should be used
• cryptopress should never be used to indicate notability.

Smallbones_(smalltalk)!

Then this RfC doesn't even try to address the problem. It tries to ban one source. It sounds like this is a "newbies" versus established editors issues. In other words, consensus already exists, but we've failed at communicating it. Perhaps someone should write an essay that would be a convenient point of reference. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes an essay on that would be good. The point which I feel is being missed here is that Coindesk is often held to be an exception to the rule, often held as better than other crypto publications, and without an RfC it is impossible to really say whether it is or not. I linked the previous debates and as you can they are all inconclusive. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite interested in writing an essay on this, but have very little time right now. It might take me a week to come up with a draft that I like and then I'd want lots of input from others. The aspect that might be controversial to some is that I'd like to aim at future problems rather than get stuck in the present, so the title might be something like WP:Specialized financial trade press (WP:SFTS?). The problem is that the cryptopress is not unique in what they do. The binary options press did much the same thing. Next year there will be the xyz financial product press. I'd like to try to lay down some general principles on how to deal with the overall problem. Feedback? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:57, 25 October 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) 06:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Pay-for-coverage crypto sites

• This is apposite - Breaker magazine (a crypto publication, but with a proper editor and stuff) asked crypto media outlets to run a story for payment, and over half accepted. It's a very low quality area. The pay-for-play sites they found were: NewsBTC, Bitcoinist, Cryptovest, Globalcoinreport, AMB Crypto, CoinIdol, BTCManager, Blokt, CryptoPotato, Coinspeaker, Cointelligence and CryptoNinjas. CoinTelegraph wouldn't run an article for payment themselves, but they did refer them to other sites in the "Cointelegraph Media Group." This should surprise absolutely nobody — for instance, CoinIdol asked me directly for money to do a book review. Outlets that flatly refused were BraveNewCoin, Coinjournal, CryptosRus, CCN, Mineable, Oracle Times and ZyCrypto - none of which I think quite make it to our RS standards, but at least they're trying to be responsible blogs - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Now going through and removing the pay-for-play sites from article references - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The article posted has been seriously contested. Many that were accused have come out to call it an outright lie. I am not saying the list is wrong. Simply that he failed to provide sources (screenshots or anything) and should not be considered fact. When I tried to reach out to the author about a few specific such as Bitcoinist, AMBCrypto, and BTCmanager (all alexa 100k or less) I was told no. Obviously since publishing the Breakermag article none of these publications admit to it. When I asked someone who did this kind of PR work he stated Cointelegraph and Zycrypto both use to for sure (as of april-may) though he could not speak to current situation. I agree we need to make a list but I am not sure it is fair to simply remove all these sites as source simply because of this article. I am no expert on wiki like you David, however it is my understanding that as long as there other articles on publications considered notable then sites like this can be used for some sourcing as they are niche news publications. Should we really consider this single article and a handful of undisclosed emails as proof of this. Can articles be bought on Bitcoinist? For sure 100% if you pay an author or editor. But that can be said of any publication. Ill defer to your judgment. Archersbobsburgers (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source?

Is [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41944 this link] a reliable source? There is a discussion of this source at the Mass killings under communist regimes article, and it would be desirable to have a fresh opinion on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Never for factual statements, only in its own article to document its own positions. It's birther central. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

WND is no-no. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Terrible article, and certainly not to be used as a source for history. Which is hardly a surprise considering this is WND. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It is being used in "Mass killings under communist regimes" as a source for quotes from Rudolph Rummel. I think it may meet rs because WND is probably a reliable source for the opinions of authors it publishes. Surely no one doubts that Rummel actually wrote the article. Also per "Exceptions", Rummel could be seen as an expert and therefore the article would be a reliable source for facts. I would omit it however because when an expert writes for conspiracy theory websites, it's often because they want to express views are so far outside the mainstream that they cannot be published in reliable sources. If that is not the case then it would be better to use better sources where he says the same thing. TFD (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be leery citing facts to that article directly. If Rummel is an expert on the subject of the article, he's written all of those facts down before in more reliable sources. Find his original works, and use those instead. It would be very strange for such facts to have been published first, and only, in an article on such a website. --Jayron32 16:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A source which comments on a secondary source or is presented as the basis of a secondary source should not be regarded as an accurate or fair descriptive of it as such. Recommended to not use it, or not regarde it is a fair source, given Rudolph Rummel has existence, good sources you can refer to. 45.62.243.176 (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles should not contain quotes from primary or unreliable sources unless the quote is cited to a secondary source which includes it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources are not unreliable. Those are not synonyms. I'm not saying he is an expert, but insofar as someone would be an expert, citing their work is fine. His works on history would not be primary sources. If he's a historian, his books ARE secondary sources. The primary sources would be the documents he used in compiling his research. --Jayron32 16:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean primary or unreliable as a general comment on deciding if a quote should be included. As a hypothetical example;

If Mr Jones writes something in say Breitbart then that should not be quoted in the Wikipedia article. If the New York Times reports that Mr Jones wrote something in Brietbart then it can be included in the Wikipedia article.

Equally if a company says in a press releases that includes the CEO saying they have made a flying car, then the CEO of the company should not be quoted in the Wikipedia article as saying the company has a flying car. If the BBC run a feature about flying cars and quote the CEO as saying his company has made a flying car then that quote can then be included in the Wikipedia article. This is basic common sense when dealing with quotes.

I say basic common sense because I can't remember if a policy says this or which policy that would be. Feel free to come up with something else, this is just how I would personally treat whether to quote or not in my understanding of how to make articles neutral and reliable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As I expressed below, "opinions of authors it publishes" is not a blank check for WP:RS concerns. Opinion pieces used as sources here must also be published by someone with a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy - that is to say, a source that passes WP:RS - or they cannot be used. WP:ABOUTSELF establishes some very narrow exceptions for opinions that lack the backing of a WP:RS with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but that clearly does not apply here. The idea that being published in WND grants someone's opinions more weight than if they were published on (for instance) Reddit or their personal website is so bizarre that I find it honestly shocking coming from an experienced editor. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random opinions and burblings - even the most carefully-worded quote or paraphrase of an opinion, with the most cautious inline citations, still must be cited to a source that passes WP:RS if it violates any of the limitations in WP:ABOUTSELF. This is absolute and non-negotiable, and the idea that someone's opinions on third parties (or history, or exceptional claims in general, or anything that isn't strictly personal details about themselves) could become acceptable for a Wikipedia article via publication in an unreliable source like WND is absurd. WP:RSOPINION still requires that the opinion piece be published in an otherwise-reliable source, not in someplace like WND. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I responded to this point of yours in your second posting of it below. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Its reliable for author words whatever its WP:DUE or not its question for other for board--Shrike (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely is not WP:RS, not even in that context. Not ever. We rely on whoever published something to perform basic due-diligence and fact-checking even for opinion pieces; WND does not do that. Citing it for "the author's opinion" is no better than citing the author's unfiltered musings on a personal website, forum post, Reddit AMA, email chain or the like. There are very narrow circumstances where we can do that under WP:ABOUTSELF, but this doesn't pass those criteria (it involves claims about third parties, claims not directly related to the source, and - debatably - exceptional claims.) WP:RS is absolutely required even for opinion-pieces - that's why WP:ABOUTSELF, which covers people expressing opinions in venues that lack the fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires, is so restrictive. Implying that we can just put an opinion from WND about third parties into a Wikipedia article is absurd. This is clear-cut enough that I would express serious WP:COMPETENCE concerns for someone who insists on trying to do it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, WorldNetDaily is included in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, as a "generally unreliable" source, which I would agree with. However, it does not support your statement that Rummel's 2004 op-ed is not a reliable source in this context (for citing Rummel's opinion, not for citing support for factual material). Here is what the list says about WND, with bold added: "WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for most purposes. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[54]" The listing has two links to where the site has been discussed on this noticeboard in the past and here are the closing remarks for those discussions:

1) "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."[8]

2) "Resolved: Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jake, your efforts would be far better aimed at better sourcing rather than this repeated waste of everyone's time, and it's now time to leave the equine corpse alone. There's only a certain number of times before being pointy becomes disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "[9]

The past consensus for this site supports using it in this context, for the op-ed author's opinion. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This begs the question of why we would include the author's opinion, instead of a factual statement published in a secondary source, in the Proposed causes section. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason is because the content supported by this source is in the "Proposed Causes" section of the article, where sources' opinions are summarized, rather than facts. In this case, this op-ed was the most directly relevant publication by Rummel for his opinion related to ideology, because he explicitly discusses "Marxism", rather than "communism" generically, which might refer to regimes, rather than ideology. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, not under any circumstances. It's an absolute garbage source. Daveosaurus (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely not reliable. Find a better source. If you can't find a better source, consider that the information in question may not belong in a serious reference work. MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The original poster, Paul Siebert, was supposed to include three things in his post here, according to the page notice at the topic of the edit screen for this noticeboard. He did not post number 3: Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". Here is the missing content for the context of this citation:

Rummel positions Marxism as "by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide."[53] He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as "a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths."[53]

As you can see, the content is direct quotes of Rummel's own views and has nothing to do with the reliability of WND as a site in 2018. Besides the fact that the op-ed was published there in 2004 (well before any birtherism), the reliability is based upon the author; the publisher is not the source of the reliability. Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source:

"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)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." You can read his Wikipedia article here: Rudolph Rummel. And here is an article about him: R.J. Rummel—A Multi-faceted Scholar. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's worth including here, then it WILL be found in a RS, and that source should be cited, never WND. If it isn't, then we don't include it. Period. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

With respect, BullRangifer, how is an op-ed by Rummel not a reliable source of Rummel's views? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Generally that's true for everything, but we base all of our content on what's in RS, including our documentation of fringe views. If something is only found in unreliable sources, we don't document it. If a fringe source is notable enough for an article here, we will use RS to document it's existence, and we will often use it to document it's own positions, and only its own, but that's about it. An unreliable source is not accepted as a platform for other's views. This can get a bit tricky, so I won't get into that here, but the basic idea is to base all content on RS. If Rummel wants his ideas documented at Wikipedia, he'd better publish them in RS.

I'm not calling Rummel a charlatan, but Jimmy Wales said something interesting that's of some relevance here:

"No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

So stop looking in unreliable source....for anything. It smacks of desperation. Look only in RS. Some things are not worth documenting.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For example, if you are not calling Rummel a lunatic or a charlatan (and you are right not to), then posting that Jimbo quote here seems like a smear in this context. The reliability of a particular source for a particular statement depends on the statement in question, which was not included in the original post here, despite the instructions. That context, of it being an op-ed and that it is being cited for the author's opinion (who is widely regarded as a RS for the topic) makes clear that WND's reliability for facts as a news site has nothing to do with it, especially in 2004, prior to almost all the controversy there. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't doubt that these are the words that Rummel wrote, but we use reliable sources for more than just faithful reproduction of words. Reliable sources tell us that these words are accurate and represent a prominent scholarly viewpoint. Rummel's estimates, along with his theory that killings by communists should be lumped together as a single category, represent the WP:FRINGE view and should not be included unless they have been published in academic sources. The final sentence confirms that this is a non-mainstream opinion piece and not a scholarly work: The next time you come across or are lectured by one of our indigenous Marxists, or almost the equivalent, leftist zealots, ask them how they can justify the murder of over a hundred million their absolutist faith has brought about, and the misery it has created for many hundreds of millions more. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

dlthewave, if you don't doubt that the words are what Rummel wrote and accurately reflect his opinion, then you are agreeing the op-ed is a reliable source for Rummel's view, even if fringe. About whether views are "accurate and represent a prominent scholarly viewpoint", there is a separate fringe theories noticeboard for that, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. The reliable sources noticeboard is just for determining if a source is a reliable for a particular statement in a Wikipedia article. In this case, it clearly is because there can be no more reliable source for Rummel's opinion than Rummel himself. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

An unreliable source is not a reliable source for the author's opinion about anything other than themselves, period. –dlthewave ☎ 15:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The author here is Rummel himself. The sentences this is being used as a source for are Rummel's opinions, as published in his 2004 op-ed at WND. The source directly supports that and, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, is reliable for that unless you think Rummel did not actually write it. WND is not being cited as a reliable source of factual material, such as the news. Using WND in this context is consistent with the results of past discussions here about this site (that it is a reliable source of editorial opinion).[10] AmateurEditor (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If Rummel wants his ideas documented at Wikipedia, he'd better publish them in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with BullRangifer It is a normal situation when some author publishes some good research in a good journal, and then published more questionable speculations in some less reputable journal or even blog.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, your linked RS/N discussion was closed with this:

Motion to close with injunction

Resolved

 – Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jake, your efforts would be far better aimed at better sourcing rather than this repeated waste of everyone's time, and it's now time to leave the equine corpse alone. There's only a certain number of times before being pointy becomes disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good close from Black Kite. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, the reliability of a source depends entirely on how it is used and in this case it is being used appropriately. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Note the "apart from editorial opinion" part. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If Alex Jones writes an editorial opinion at InfoWars, it's fair game for the opinion of InfoWars, even though it's a horrible source. (It happens to be notable enough for an article here, but is deprecated as a source.) If anyone else writes an article at InfoWars, we ignore it. They must publish their article at a RS for us to even consider it. The very fact that they chose to write something at InfoWars seriously damages their credibility and makes them less reliable, no matter where else they write. I'd be less inclined to use them at all, even if they wrote in a RS. Such poor judgment should have consequences. We should not suffer fools lightly. Let's ping Black Kite to get their opinion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say it is fair game for the opinion of Alex Jones, or whoever else wrote it, especially if that person is considered by Wikipedia standards to be a reliable source in their own right for the topic they discuss. There are three definitions of a reliable source, and the creator of the work (who is an expert on the topic in question as well as, of course, about his own opinions) is the one that applies here. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't use unreliable sources to publish other's opinions. We try to avoid using unreliable sources at all. In the example, only Jones, or another editor of InfoWars, such as Paul Joseph Watson, who uses it to publish their dubious opinions, would be considered here, and such "consideration" is no guarantee we'll do anything, because we should only document the ideas they write there which are also mentioned (preferably criticized) in RS. The RS gives it notability enough to maybe be worth mentioning, and the RS is enough of a source, without linking to InfoWars. We do not allow InfoWars to be used as a platform to get their fringe theories documented here. Only if RS mention it. We really need to treat InfoWars like the plague. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a reliable or unreliable source outside of how it is being cited. What you mean is that WND (or InfoWars, or whatever) is not a reliable source for statements of facts, such as the news. That's not the situation here because we are citing the op-ed for the author's opinion and citing it as such in the wikipedia article. The op-ed is a reliable source for Rummel's opinion and Rummel is a notable expert for the topic he is discussing in the op-ed. If the website bothers you so much, please keep in mind that a website's reputation can change over time. This was back in 2004, before the controversies that would crop up later. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to belabor this point and will wait for more outside input. You should seek a third opinion. I'll leave you with this experience. It illustrates how we treated a notable person who lost their way. A number of years ago, we had a new editor who was a Nobel laureate, I believe in physics. They were obviously very notable and a subject expert, and they appeared here to push their own fringe theories, which were rejected by the scientific community. They didn't understand our rules here and demanded we just accept their word for it and use them and their website as a source. Well, we couldn't do that, and they became so disruptive we finally had to block them. I don't recall the name, but that's what happened. If they had published their fringe theories on some unreliable source, we still wouldn't have used that source to document their opinions. Now if it had also been mentioned in RS, we might have mentioned it. I don't recall other details now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. And it sounds like your previous experience would have fallen under RS guidelines at WP:Self published sources and WP:Academic consensus and the editor might have been referred to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard if they hadn't been disruptive. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, I think we should do our best to improve a reputation of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. Consider a situation when the reference to some "Science for kids" blog is added as a source to the article about Quantum entanglement. Even if this source is authored by a very reputable physicist, by adding this source, we undermine credibility of Wikipedia. Yes, formally, "Science for kids" may be a RS according to our loose standards, and the author is very reputable. However, if this author writes about really serious things, it is quite possible to find the same information is a more serious article published in more reputable sources. By mixing best quality sources with questionable ones (although acceptable by our loose standards) we undermine an overall credibility of Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's credibility is undermined by mis-statements of facts (including the fact that someone has some opinion) and by not being consistent in the application of its policies. If certain policies need tightening in your view, then get that change made. If not, then find a replacement source that you prefer for the facts as stated in the article and swap it out. I am sure that would cause no objection from anyone. But trying to delete highly relevant information from what has historically been a very contentious article on a premise that contradicts Wikipedia policies should not get you anywhere, if Wikipedia is working properly. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not shown to be due. And is not presented as even minimally reliable - such a thing as important to the twentieth century would be the subject of WP:SCHOLARSHIP not op-ed from a suspect source, is it scholarship of the author of the op-ed (and that is what would be cited not op-ed) and what's the prevalence of scholarship in this vein and complementary or qualifying or contradictory scholarship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Due weight is not relevant to this noticeboard (its a consideration for the NPOV noticeboard). This is only about whether the citation serves as a reliable source for the statement it is used as a reference for. This reference is also not the basis for the article in question, which does have multiple reliable academic secondary sources, including the author in question. See the references and the excerpt section here and the further reading section here. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

AmateurEditor you wrote Wikipedia's credibility is undermined by mis-statements of facts- What facts? Please tell us. As far as Rummel is concerned it is a fact that was an academic who published statistical data on the lives lost due to the policies of non democratic regimes. I am not aware of a comprehensive critique of Rummel by a reliable academic source. We can cite his statistics on Wikipedia and contrast them with other reliable sources. We cannot as editors state in an article that Rummel is correct or not. The demographic facts of Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China are disputed, we have a range to cover. We can however contrast him with other reliable academic sources, the topic is covered in Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union Before 1991[11]. Rummel is not even cited in their bibliography. Rummel is a 800 gorilla that appears on Fox News to prove that America is the greatest country in the world, he is now sitting down in Wikipedia
Rummel’s claim of 43 million dead in the USSR makes no sense when you put it on a spreadsheet, unfortunately I can’t post that here. --Woogie 10w (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not referring to any specific mis-statement of facts in that comment, Woogie, I was responding to Paul Siebert's characterization of how Wikipedia loses credibility. You can review Rummel's body of work for yourself, but I do not know what you are talking about regarding Fox News. Rudolph Rummel died in 2014 so he certainly hasn't appeared there lately. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point,AmateurEditor. I was referring to Rummel metaphorically, since his 1997 estimate of 100 million deaths due to communism appears on Fox News[12], and the WSJ[13]. Rummel was the grand daddy of this statistic that appears in his "Democide" from 1994 and the Black Book of Communism from 1999. Fox News and the WSJ are widely read sources that we cannot ignore. Reliable or not Fox News and the WSJ parrot a statistic that many readers believe as an accepted fact. We should point out that there was no body count, the 100 million is a demographic estimate. Without posting OR we need to inform readers that Rummel's figures are estimates not established facts. N.B. Rummel subsequently updated the 100 million figure by adding 38 million famine deaths in China --Woogie 10w (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say no. For all I know he chose to publish that in WND because he knew he couldn't publish it elsewhere. And I have no problem with editors pointing out other issues here such as WP:UNDUE, in fact I'd rather deal with all the issues about a source in one spot. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, It's probably because this 2004 op-ed was after his retirement from the University of Hawaii in 1995, so we wouldn't expect to see it in an academic source. If you mean why was it in WND rather than some other website or newspaper, that was probably because this was in 2004 when the site had an uncontroversial reputation. Rummel also wrote an op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter the following year, which begins with the following statement: "Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I'm now trying to get word out that I've had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. One is Wild Swans: Two Daughters of China by Jung Chang, and the other is Mao: the Unknown Story that she wrote with her husband, Jon Halliday. I'm now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin.". The timing may be related to a renewed interest on his part related to that or may not, I can't say for sure. He apparently often preferred to use his own personal website, posthumously maintained now by the University of Hawaii.

If the question is what weight Rummel should have in the article, it should be significant. His work is foundational for many others and is widely cited. A Google Scholar search for "R J Rummel" returns 25,500 hits, the first of which has been "cited by 3423". You can read a list of his publications in his wikipedia article. Here is the list of other academics citing or responding to his work in Mass killings under communist regimes:

• Harff, Barbara (1996), "Death by Government by R. J. Rummel", The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, The MIT Press, 27 (1)
• Harff, Barbara (2017), "12. The Comparative Analysis of Mass Atrocities and Genocide", in Gleditsch, N.P., R.J. Rummel: An Assessment of His Many Contributions, 37, SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54463-2_12, ISBN 978-3-319-54463-2
• Dulić, Tomislav (2004), "Tito's Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel's Work on Democide", Journal of Peace Research, Sage Publications, Ltd., 41 (1)
• Valentino, Benjamin A. (2005), Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Cornell University Press, ISBN 978-0-801-47273-2
• Wayman, FW; Tago, A (2009), "Explaining the onset of mass killing, 1949–87", Journal of Peace Research Online
• He is included among a 2016 compilation of academic sources assembled by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for an updated range of estimates of those killed by communist regimes, seen here.

These are just the ones easiest to find with CTRL+F on the article page at the moment. Other sources currently in the article cite him but it doesn't cite them citing him. This should be sufficient to show that he clearly remains notable in this area. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There is actual WP:SCHOLARSHIP you argue, than use that not op-ed per WP:BESTSOURCES. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The scholarship I listed relates to Rummel's due weight in the article. The best source for Rummel's opinion is Rummel himself, and this source is the best one for his opinion on how ideology related to the killing. Where he wrote it doesn't change who he is. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No. It's not BESTSOURCES, at all. And where someone writes does matter per the policies I already cited. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the entirety of what WP:BESTSOURCES says:

"Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk."

It links to WP:RS, which begins with this overview, after the lead: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

Rummel is a reliable source. He wrote the op-ed. It includes his views about about Marxism and mass killing, which are relevant to the article and cited there as his opinion, along with the views of others. It is the best source available for that particular opinion of Rummel's, and WND's later issues have no bearing on any of this because it was written in 2004. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is a bad-joke. The op-ed is not scholarship. Its mode of publication says it's not scholarship. You've been directed to how to identify scholarship. Looking above, it appears multiple editors in multiple ways have told you this: use scholarly sources. Don't use lazy sources in lazy ways and pass it off as worthwhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say the op-ed was scholarship, I said Rummel is a notable scholar and this is a reliable source for the article statements it is being used to support. That is the issue to be discusses at the reliable sources noticeboard and WP:RS is clearly not restricted to scholarship. It is the best source yet identified for his views on Marxism's relationship to the killing, but its reliability as a source depends on the author, not on WND. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It remains, you want to use a crap source, instead of scholarship for what should be by weight alone covered in scholarship, and WP:RS does choose scholarship every-time over an op-ed published by an unreliable publisher and so does WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, I explained you several times: Rummel is notable for introduction of factor analysis into the area of conflict and genocide research. He also is notable foro his "Democratic peace" concept. However, he is not considered as a good source for figures, and his conclusions he made based on his estimates are not recognised by experts. Therefore, he published his research related to factor analysis in reputable media, and his more extravagant conclusions - in a personal blog.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, it is not a choice between a "crap source" and a scholarly one, it is a choice between a reliable source for his views and nothing else (at the moment). Of course we should cite a scholarly source over a non-scholarly equivalent, but we should not delete a source that meets RS criteria (for the author in a question of the author's opinion) before finding a better replacement. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source for his views on this, a reliable source for his views on this intensely covered aspect of 20th century scholarship would be found in his scholarship, not in an unreliable publication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you explaining to me what your opinion is doesn't change what reliable sources we have identified for the article and so shouldn't change how we write the article. We already have identified reliable academic sources that cite his figures, such as Valentino, so his 110 million figure is recognized (and his update to it based on more recent RS publications should be as well). When you say "experts", you are referring to single-country specialists who do not mention the broader topic one way or another, so we cannot come to any conclusion about him from them. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug, a summary of Rummel's material appeared on the website World Net Daily. Rummel's works were published by Transaction Publishers. I own hard copies of Rummel's four works on "Democide".--Woogie 10w (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker you cited sources that discuss Rummel. He is a reality that has to be dealt with, an 800 lb gorilla. Using Accounting 101 methodology, I Would take his figures line by line and provide contrasting sources that differ from him line by line. I am currently reading about the Chinese famine which was not a natural disaster, reliable sources are cited that indicate least 40 million deaths, not including the Laogai deaths. The Soviet issues are well covered in the Soviet Studies articles. The Wheatcroft supporters will say that the famine deaths were not deliberate purposeful deaths but in reality caused by poor planning. The Rosefielde,Rummel Fox News crowd will claim a Red Holocaust. Make it simple line by line, with brief explanations. You guys are blogging about an issue that should be put to sleep AASP--Woogie 10w (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Just one more thing, I am reading Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union Before 1991 from page 434. 18.5% of all deaths from 1946-58 were not registered, they were estimated. We are not dealing with established facts, but with a rough estimates. An educated guess made in Russia that is treated as gospel in the west.--Woogie 10w (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I cited sources? I think you meant someone else did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• We should always consider where something was published when considering due weight and whether an opinion is significant enough to include in an article. If an eminent expert on something writes on the wall of a bathroom, the result is still bathroom graffiti. If the best place you can get published is a cracko conspiracy theory rag, that indicates better and more reliable sources do not regard your opinions highly enough to publish them. So in articles about general subjects, we should stick to the opinions of people who are subject matter experts and had them published in high-quality, reliable sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Pile-on no - It's all been said already (and on this board in the past). Not a good source for statements of fact (or just about anything else). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinions sourced to WorldNetDaily

This is both an RS and NPOV issue, but I'm bringing it here so that it can be discussed in one place. I removed opinions sourced to WND from Conservapedia [14] and Ann Coulter [15]. My concern is that although a non-rs may be used as a source of opinion in certain situations, these particular opinions do not seem to meet WP:WEIGHT because they do not appear in reliable sources. This is currently being discussed on both talk pages, and I'm coming here to get some clarity on A) when a non-rs can be used as an opinion source and B) whether it is appropriate to include these opinions per WP:NPOV. –dlthewave ☎ 01:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Dlthewave: This will be redundant to #Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source? above unless it is an RfC, in which case it should be templated as such. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 01:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I see this as a separate issue, since these RS questions are usually handled case-by-case and the "expert" credentials of the quoted person will vary. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would also like this issue addressed from a general perspective, because there seems to be some inconsistency. Is an op-ed published on an otherwise non-RS site a reliable source for the author's opinion or not? WorldNetDaily is listed in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, as a "generally unreliable" source, with the following description (bold added for emphasis):

"WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for most purposes. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[54]"[16]

The listing has two links to where the site has been discussed on this noticeboard in the past and here are the closing remarks for those discussions:

1) "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."[17]

2) "Resolved: Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jake, your efforts would be far better aimed at better sourcing rather than this repeated waste of everyone's time, and it's now time to leave the equine corpse alone. There's only a certain number of times before being pointy becomes disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "[18]

If an op-ed on the site is not permissible as a source for the op-ed author's opinion, then the description in the listing should be updated so this doesn't come up here again. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If I understand it correct, the issue is whether we are supposed to trust a person (e.g., a renown expert) or a source. When a person who is an established scholar publishes their view on some site with questionable reputation, what should we do with that?

This story reminds me a situation with publication policy of the Royal Society. In past, some established scientist were granted a permission to publish their paper in Royal Society journals, and they could publish whatever they wanted. That was an old analog of a modern peer-review procedure: instead of subjecting each paper to a peer-review procedure, Royal Society "peer-reviewed" scientists themselves: as soon as some scientist successfully passed a "peer-review", his manuscript were published without any restriction. However, later, this strategy was abandoned, and now each paper is subjected to a peer-review. (Arguably, the only exception is Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of U.S.A., which publishes manuscripts authored by members of the National Academy without peer-reviewing; as a result, everybody knows that a PNAS article authored by some academician may be of lower quality than the articles submitted by other authors).

In connection to that, the idea to trust an expert, not a source, is a step back as compared to the old publishing strategy that existed in a scientific world a 100 years ago. I don't think Wikipedia will benefit from that.

Frankly, I cannot understand the motives of Wikipedians who are advocating various questionable web sites. When some renown expert publishes their thoughts on such a web site, and the same information cannot be found in more trustworthy sources, that this expert is not totally confident in what they say: such statement may be inaccurate, provocative or questionable, and its publication in peer-reviewed of other good quality media may lead to some sort of reputational risks. In other words, publications of that sort should be considered as the expert's "hobby", and treated accordingly.

Wikipedia has a very non-uniform reputation, some say it contains a lot of bullshit. If we really want to improve it, it would be better to too rigorous than too liberal when we select sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:RS a person is a source, as is a publisher and a work, so it is not choosing between a person and a source. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No. Not alone, who-by and where it's published matters to source evaluation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Only to a considered extent in an overall evaluation, the conditions for inclusion are section 1 OR section 2 OR ... not AND. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry? I understand, I think, the first part of your comment, "overall evaluation", as I said it is part of the evaluation of a source, (who by, who the publisher is, where, where is it published) but I don't understand the second part, are they abbreviations(?) (eg. WP:OR? WP:AND?) and what you are trying to say there? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying the basic conditions for inclusion are condition 1 OR condition 2 OR condition 3 etc, not condition 1 AND condition 2 AND condition 3. AND means all conditions must be satisfied, OR means one or more must be satisfied. I capitalized them so you would have a chance of noticing them. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You're comment is still cryptic, "condition for inclusion" is odd, but to the extent you are arguing that you consider things in isolation your statement makes little, even common-sense. We consider things in context, given several factors that are bound together simultaneously not in some fictitious isolation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, I really cannot understand why you are so persistent: this approach would decrease quality of Wikipedia. Imagine some serious article about, e.g. black holes, which is based on good articles from Science, Nature and PRL: will it benefit if we add there some claim from some "Flat Earth society" portal? Even if our rules do not prohibit that, a good faith user is supposed to avoid such things.

And, by the way, you interpret WP:EXPERTSOURCE incorrectly. Expert's opinion published in questionable sources is acceptable only when this statement is uncontroversial: our policy does not allow it as a support of extraordinary claims. Obviously, that means that everything written in WND should be treated with greater suspect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• WorldNetDaily is an appropriate source for uncontroversial facts about itself on the article WorldNetDaily and pretty much nothing else. Anything which is said only on WND and not repeated by reliable independent secondary sources, is WP:UNDUE pretty much by definition. Guy (Help!)

10:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• When we can't trust the publisher/editor, we can't trust what they published or how they edited it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't need everything peer reviewed on Wikipedia. That is a daft idea. In this case we're not talking about WND as a general source but its editor as a source about conservative ideas on the Bible. The appropriate criterion to judge that by is section one of WP:NEWSORG. Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's WP:SPS for that, and its editor is not a notable qualified commentator on the subject. $RANDOMBLOWHARD cited to their own website is never a good idea for Wikipedia sourcing. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I don't have an opinion regarding if WND is a reliable source. However, I do have concerns when I see all material cited to WND systematically removed without asking if a lower quality source is really a concern and/or if an alternative source is available. Take a case where WND is reporting the views/statements of a person who's opinion on a subject would generally have WEIGHT. Unless we think WND is actively changing/misquoting people then I would say there is ONUS to show that WND is not reliable for such basic material. That doesn't establish WEIGHT, only an assumption of a low level of reliability. If the author is someone who's opinion on the subject would generally be notable then we shouldn't exclude it just because it was published on WND. In that case I would treat it like self published material from an expert. Unlike such an opinion published in say the NYT, I wouldn't take the fact that it was published on WND as evidence that the opinon/views/facts etc in question have WEIGHT. If WND reporters are interpreting facts/events then I would say the bar is higher and it sounds like the general answer is no, not reliable. However, this does not mean any material that is sourced to WND should be automatically removed from articles especially with no effort to find an alternative source for the same material/quotes. Instead if the sourced material is factual (quotes, otherwise non-controversial statements/attributions) then an effort should either be made to find alternative sources or start a talk page discussion asking if removal is justified. Springee (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Springee, I think you are not right. Per WP:EXPERTSOURCE, a statement published in WND may be acceptable when it is made by an established expert, and it contains no extraordinary claim. Removal of materials supported by WND happens not because someone dislikes this source, but because someone considers the claim this source makes extraordinary. If that happened, the best way to restore this material is to find a better source that supports the same claim. If that was done, the material can be restored, and, probably, the WND reference can be restored too (optionally). However, per WP:BURDEN, all of that should be done by those who want to restore this material. It would be absolutely incorrect to say that "there is ONUS to show that WND is not reliable", but the opposite is correct: a proof should be presented in each case when WND is used that this particular WND article is reliable. However, if such a proof (in a form of another publication in more reputable source) has been provided that makes WND redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we actually disagree here. The question is what counts as "extraordinary"? Consider an article statement, "Expert A said, "This is a good idea because..." ". WND is only being used to claim that Expert A made the statement. In that case are we claiming WND falsified the statement? In any case, an editor removing material from a Wiki article because it is cited to WND should make a good faith effort to see if an alternative source for the claim is available. Springee (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That is not a big question. "Extraordinary" means "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". That means any surprising statement not supported by better sources can be considered extraordinary unless opposed has not been proven. Regarding "good faith efforts", that is what I usually do. However, that is not mandatory. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not include spaces between replies per MOS:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems wikiEd adds spaces automatically. Just in case if other users are having this problem, disabling of wikiEd resolves it. Or switch to from Firefox to Chrome...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Same as above. Bathroom graffiti written by an eminent expert is still bathroom graffiti. If the best source someone could get published in is a totally junk publication like WND, we should probably ask ourselves "Huh, why didn't better sources publish this too?", and then use those better sources, and the things they chose to publish about the subject, instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well better sources by our standards have said essentially the same thing there, but they are sources which one would expect to pooh ppooh some nutcase conservative idea. This is a dyed in the wool right winger and creationist that one might expect to be supportive saying the project is nutty. Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Almost never - Basically what JzG said. Maybe an opinion about itself or one of its authors, used in the article about itself or said reporter, but basically nothing else. Too often we find something to be a terrible source, but exercise no discretion when it comes to including those sources anyway, but with attribution. If something is as poor of a source as WND, we just shouldn't be using it except in remarkable circumstances. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be answering the previous discussion 'Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source?'. This one has a title phrased like that one but the question is different, it is about the editor and his competence for a particular type of opinion. Dmcq (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I responded in that section, too. Perhaps I answered OP's questions a little sideways, but I'm responding to the question of, ~"let's say WND is an unreliable source; when should an opinion published in WND be considered suitable for inclusion per WP:WEIGHT". My answer is "almost never," and I would say it's generalizable. I think it's too often that we come to a consensus that a source is unreliable for statements of fact, but exercise little control over use of that source for attributed opinion as though e.g. anything published in a lousy source can be included if it's attributed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That just indicates to me you missed the point. Anyway no skin off my teeth I'm happy enough for it to go. Dmcq (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Rhododendrites, RS discussions often end with consensus regarding statements of fact but no clear guidance for when a source may be used for opinions. It might help to have an RfC for WND as a source of opinions, since it's been coming up a lot lately. Part of the problem is that reliable sources aren't only used to determine the veracity of a statement; they also tell us how much WP:WEIGHT the viewpoint should carry. My opinion is that even if an unreliable source faithfully reproduces the words of the author, it does not contribute to its weight. As others have pointed out, the opinion would need to be repeated by reliable secondary sources to justify inclusion, so we might as well just cite those sources. We should also reject arguments that assign weight to a particular individual due to their prominence or expertise since this is not supported by policy. –dlthewave ☎ 23:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's policy:

Due and undue weight

• "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

I think that's pretty clear. We determine due weight based ONLY on what's in RS. We ignore unreliable sources. If anything, content in unreliable sources is a negative weight matter. We not only don't use it, we deprecate it and those who publish in unreliable sources.

Yes, there are situations where an unreliable source can be cited, and that is the source's opinions about itself and its POV, in its OWN article. It cannot be used for other opinions and POV published on the unreliable source. Find a RS which comments on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Is womenyoushouldknow.net a WP:RS for use in a WP:BLP?

Here's the edit that cites this website. My gut is that it's not a WP:RS. But I'd like to hear other opinions. Msnicki (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be some sort of curated inspiration site, there is no evidence that it's RS. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• It is a perfectly good site but not what I would describe as a reliable source, for BLPs particularly. Mainly due to the fact it is unclear who write their content or what their editorial process is. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• I spend a lot of time working on scientists. One of the hardest things is to find sources that actually discuss the science and what people did. This site gives more detail about the actual science than most of the sites I've seen, and I find it extremely useful. I found it when looking for information about the work of Marie Maynard Daly. It actually gave some information about what she did on nucleic acids and why that was important to researchers like Watson and Crick. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the author, Dale DeBakcsy, is clearly identified on the site, and has published books in this topic area. cf. The Illustrated Women in Science (2015), The Cartoon History of Humanism. This is a very reasonable site to be referencing, and much better than a number of others I've seen, many of which just repeat the same information without giving useful detail. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• No. According to the site's footer and privacy policy, Women You Should Know is owned and operated by Outhouse PR, which describes itself as a "Public Relations and Event Marketing Firm". The company's homepage states:

We specialize in grassroots brand building and image proliferation for both emerging and high-profile brands across a number of consumer industries. Delivering incomparable services and measurable results are our foundation. Contributing to the growth and success of our clients is our purpose.

Because of this, Women You Should Know appears to be a questionable source, but content from the site that is authored by established subject matter experts may qualify for the expert exception. — Newslinger talk 23:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

And to clarify, I don't think the expert exception is adequate justification to include content regarding living persons from questionable sources. — Newslinger talk 00:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Australian Head of State

Article: Monarchy of Australia

Source: Government Politics in Australia, 10th edition, by Alan Fenna, Jane Robbins, and John Summers. Pearson Higher Education 2013, p. 21: "The precise status of the two, the Queen and the Governor-General, is so unclear that experts debate which is the 'true' head of state in Australia."

There is a question whether the article should say the Queen is head of state or to say there is a dispute. Does the wording of the source say there is a dispute and if it does, is it a reliable source?

TFD (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I would rather there we had more then one source saying there is a debate among experts. It is an RS but should be attributed. But No I am not sure it says there is a dispute, it says it is unclear.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Given the content of the current version of the article[19], and the Talk page[20], please note that the above query seems to be beside the point. Qexigator (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I found a number of books and articles about the topic, but unfortunately do not have access to them. But here are two Australian government sources I found used in the Australian head of state dispute:

"Who is the Australian ead of State?", Parliamentary Research Service, 28 August 1995. " The Constitution can be used to argue either proposition."

"Governors-General of Australia", Museum of Australian Democracy (part of the federal Department of Communications). "Some authorities argue that the GovernorGeneral is Australia’s Head of State in every respect: others disagree."

TFD (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well that is enough to say it is unclear and undefined.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been going on for years and will undoubtedly continue until Mrs. Windsor pops her clogs, leading to the accession of Prince Chas and Australia becoming a republic. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

AlterNet

Alternet is in the red box in the media bias chart, it is heavily opinionated and at least as biased as the Daily Mail. It is cited in around 900 articles, often for medical claims (it is an abject failure on WP:MEDRS and many of the claims are bogus alt-med nonsense). One particular favourite is punting homeopathy as a remedy for anthrax. Kids: don't try this at home. I propose to clean these references out. Any fact that is genuinely significant will be covered in a better source. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Clearly unreliable.Should be put in the same category as Daily mail --Shrike (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support oh my goodness yes. Is its owner, Raw Story, already categorised similarly? If not it should be - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Paging BullRangifer, because it is on his list regarding the reliability of various sources. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Not generally reliable. They provide an "alternative" news story - which is at times very much alternative. They definitely do not have a reputation for fact checking. As for whether they are as bad as the DM - not sure - but they aren't far off.Icewhiz (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Not RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Much of AlterNet's content is aggregated from other sites (Salon, TruthDig, Common Dreams, etc). Most of these are also not RSs, but some may be, so worth checking source and citing the original where appropriate. Also be careful not to cull citations to the similarly named Alertnet, a project of the Reuters Thompson Foundation that was a highly reliable source! BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sequential Tart

Please could I have some opinions as to whether Sequential Tart is a reliable source? It is currently being used to support a statement in the next DYK queue (see Template:Did you know nominations/Girlamatic), so we need to decide before the end of today whether this is permissible or not. If it isn't, the hook will need replacing and probably the sourced material removed from the article too. Also courtesy pinging Yoninah, Maplestrip, Narutolovehinata5 and The Rambling Man who have been involved in discussions about this hook/article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - just to add, initially I was tempted to just scrap it immediately, but looking at a Google search it also seems to feature a lot in various places on Wikipedia, so it may be more notable than initially meets the eye. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case, it appears to be an interview with someone actually involved with the article subject. At the very least, this could be an IAR case, and according to an off-wiki conversation I had with Maple, the source used is reliable and a frequent source for webcomics both on and off-wiki. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Amakuru, I think the better or more pressing question for the moment is, is it (or the specific article/link in question) a reliable source to back up whatever claim it is currently supporting? What is the claim, and what is the article/link linked to? After that is determined, then the overarching use in other Wikipedia article citations can be addressed. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: the claim is: that the editor of webcomic subscription service Girlamatic originally wanted to call the website "ModernGirls", but this name was already taken by a porn site. For which the Sequential Tart source is [21]. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• The article in question being an interview, I believe the source should be relatively safe regardless. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Whether or not it's an interview, there seems to be no evidence whatsoever that what is being claimed is actually true, where's the editorial oversight in the website which checks the facts? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• You think Sequential Tart should have confirmed the fact that "ModernGirls" was considered as a potential name with other people who were involved with the creation of the website (like Joey Manley, for example)? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think someone should have checked the claim about it being a porn site was actually true, yes. For a RS, I'd expect that kind of check, and certainly before such claims are made on the main page, doubly so. I can't find any reliable third party evidence to back up that claim, can you? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's a direct quote from a verbatim interview on a site that, per the comment by Maplestrip below, is reliable, and there seems to be no reason to question the reliability of the verbatim interview. The only conceivable reason I could see to discount or disbelieve that statement is if it had obviously been made in jest or as a snark, but nothing in the interview indicates the interviewee is being anything but sober and frank anywhere in the interview. Softlavender (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• But there's no evidence what was said is true. No evidence at all. Show me some third party RS where ModernGirls has ever been a porn site and no problem. In the meantime, it's just something someone said which (apparently) is completely untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Why do you say it is apparently completely untrue? And what motive would Lea Hernandez have for making a "completely untrue" statement with that amount of specificity? Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have no idea, maybe it was a mistake? But as I noted, there's no editorial oversight on that website that I can see, no fact-checking, and therefore it's just a primary claim until proven otherwise. As I said many times, an RS proving this was the case when they tried to obtain the domain would be just fine. Otherwise it's not. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• The hook should probably say " but she claimed that name was " ... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is likely not the correct venue to propose alternative blurbs, but would you be OK with the following: ... that Lea Hernandez, editor of webcomic subscription service Girlamatic originally wanted to call the website "ModernGirls", but Hernandez said this name was already taken by a porn site. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• That's appears much closer to the reality of the situation as far as we can reliably source, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm completely fine with this change; it matters little to me. I do not know where to formally propose this change in the current state of the DYK process. Can you help me with this, Rambling Man? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Template:UAmakuru will be able to sort something out, I'm certain... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

   Done  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• At the risk of TMI, I subscribed to a for-women porn site in approximately 2005/2006, and it was called Modern Girls. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC); edited 11:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC); see below

  I was just about to say that I was having difficulty finding the non-notable porn site, but it is good to hear this. Do you remember the URL? Maybe we can find it on the Wayback Machine. Just confirming that it existed at all should probably be enough. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, I don't remember the URL, and I unsubscribed to it in 2007 because the videos got pretty samey and tame. But I am certain it was called Modern Girls, and that had sounded classy to me and made me feel like it wasn't so sleazy to actually subscribe to a porn site. Even the URL would be defunct by now, since I think it went out of business as things got a lot more competitive. I dont think that Wayback would have captured a porn site in the early 2000s; it doesn't have workable captures for the URL "moderngirls.com" until 2015: [22]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC); edited 11:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  So anecdotal evidence but nothing reliable. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  I have done some digging on Bing (Google seems to tend to suppress porn results nowadays), and the site I subscribed to is and was called "For the Girls" (here's a description; not the actual link, no NSFW images: [23]), so I mis-remembered the site's name. Softlavender (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have done a write-up on Sequential Tart's reliability at Wikipedia:Webcomic sources#Sequential Tart a long while back, and my conclusion has been that it is reliable. It had simply not been contested until now. Sequential Tart has a clear editorial board and has been used as a source by some of our other reliable sources, like Wired and Comic Book Resources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you link to this, I can find no reference to an editorial board, or editorial practices.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Its editorial board (as well as a list of contributors) can be found here. I am linking an older version because the list has been edited and trimmed in the past few years. Editorial practices are not described, no. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Trimmed? in what way. Surely if there are few people on the editorial board that must raise doubts?Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The staff has shrunk since the mid-2000s, that's true. I am not sure whether that changes how we consider their older articles, though. Moreover, they also simply stopped listing all of the authors who have contributed to the website since relatively recently, probably because that list had simply become too long. A lot of people have written for Sequential Tart in the past fifteen years. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter how many writers they have, what maters is oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, but individual writers can be experts in the field, so having the list is useful. The editorial board was also bigger at the time than it is now. Perhaps they are downscaling the publication. Two sections, "Cultures Vultures" and "Features", seem to have been halted. If we want to use one of these sections as a source, this older version of the editorial board is relevant. Moreover, Patti Martinson was not yet an assistant editor at the time the interview under discussion was published, etc. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is "Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine" a reliable source for our Posttraumatic stress disorder article?

See Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder#Acupuncture --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

One of the founding editors, Professor Edzard Ernst, has described the journal as "useless rubbish", primarily due to ineffective peer review. So no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

SCAM-specific journals are rarely reliable, and this one, as noted above, is no exception. Also, as a PTSD sufferer and supporter of Combat Stress (patron Sir Patrick Stewart, no less): scamming PTSD patients with quack treatments is a shitty trick. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the website Rugby League Project reliable

This site http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org looks like a personal site maintained by 3 friends as per [24]. It does not say where their sources come from apart from contributions from indivduals. They do not say if they fact check. This site has been used as a source on 595 pages. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Not seeing how this is not "just another blog".Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: WorldNetDaily

Should WorldNetDaily be deprecated as a source in the same way as the Daily Mail (RfC), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use WorldNetDaily as a reference? — Newslinger talk 16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. 16 previous discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard indicate an overwhelming consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source that publishes falsehoods and conspiracy theories. — Newslinger talk 16:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes a quick look at the lead and I saw massive ovecitte as to the fact it tells porkies, when that many sources think you are about as reliable as a lawyers bill you know there is a problem.Slatersteven (talk)
• No Obviously the source is not reliable. However, i find the piecemeal selection of sites to be more of a name and shame exercise and not constructive. Instead, it would be constructive to create a page that summarizes conclusions of previous discussions. TFD (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Four Deuces: We already kind of have one WP:RSP. I was recently made aware of it, pretty handy and lists previous discussions with a summary. PackMecEng (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I had forgotten about it. It says, "There is consensus that WorldNetDaily is a generally unreliable source." I notice there is a link at the top of this page. We might want to make the link more noticeable. We could even decide that sources that list says have been found unreliable should not be used. TFD (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, the entry for WorldNetDaily on WP:RSP was recently expanded. Only the most egregious sources cited on Wikipedia are subjected to this type of deprecation proposal. Besides the Daily Mail RfC, the other RfCs (Breitbart News, InfoWars, and Occupy Democrats) only deprecated sources that have engaged in a pattern of intentionally publishing false information without issuing error corrections afterward. Most sources on WP:RSP that are considered "generally unreliable" don't meet the threshold of repeated and purposeful deception that would qualify them for deprecation. — Newslinger talk 20:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I will reply in the discussion section below. TFD (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• No per WP:CREEP something like this should be a rare thing for only the worst cases. From what I see they are generally unreliable but I do not think an edit filter is required. PackMecEng (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Looking at the list of egregious conspiracy theories and general editorial bias. DN (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• No There was a good reason to blacklist Daily Mail as they went out of their way to falsify stories, rather than publish inaccuracies, making the case that DM should never be used unless DM is at the center of the topic. That they have poor editorial should make them not an RS, but not a black-listed one, they still qualify for any RSOPINION statements. We should not be used editorial basis as a means to disqualify sources. --Masem (t) 01:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • They absolutely do not qualify for WP:RSOPINION (and I'm shocked that a longstanding editor would get this point wrong.) As WP:RSOPINION says, A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. WP:RSOPINION allows us to eg. cite an opinion piece from the NYT, assuming we follow its restrictions; it does not allow us to cite any publication that does not otherwise pass WP:RS. Fullstop. If an opinion has not been published or referenced in sources that pass WP:RS, it cannot be mentioned (let alone quoted) in Wikipedia under any circumstances, fullstop; any opinion worth covering should have at least some presence in a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: the following is included in the lead: The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[7][8][6][9][10][11][12][13][14]. If it carries a relevant story, then this information is likely available in much better sources elsewhere. If it's the only outlet to have covered a particular story, then it's probably fake news or a conspiracy theory. An edit filter is a good idea. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• No. Not supported really, and factually this is in use as RS and would continue as RS, so kind of false to state it’s not. Too much stating the sensational without proving a case or having any organised due process. Look, someone stuck it on a table as right wing nutcase and dinged some hearsay items and some extreme items of it. That’s not presenting a full examination or organised approach, its that someone opinionated, and declared they had a consensus. Seems what elsewhere would get called an overstatement or a false claim. I’ll say keep it for NPOV and because of creeping blindness by excluding a lot of WEIGHT of material, and just looks iffy. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - The less we rely on fringe conspiracy-mongering fake-news sites of any political persuasion, the better. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it in use as an RS for anything other than its own opinion? Because if it is, it needs to be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - This is not a reliable source for facts or opinions, as WND does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. Although the opinion of a guest columnist may be portrayed accurately, publication in WND is insufficient to establish a significant viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT. If it really is a significant viewpoint, it will be repeated by reliable secondary sources which can then be cited. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. I would have objected per TFD (in that it's so obviously unusable as a source under any circumstances that it's instruction-creep to write it out), but the fact that even a few people here seem to be arguing that it's sometimes reliable is alarming enough to suggest that it does have to be settled decisively. FWIW a quick search only shows 163 cites, most of them using it as a WP:PRIMARY source for bios of people who have written there in order to link to their columns or to establish that they're a WND writer. But glancing down that list does show a few places where it's being used and probably shouldn't be. As far as that goes - it's primarily famous for promoting debunked conspiracy theories. An essay there absolutely does not pass WP:RSOPINION. People forget that while our rules for opinions are more lax, they do still require WP:RS; we rely on basic fact-checking and editorial control even for opinion-pieces, and an opinion that has not been published by a venue that passes WP:RS should only be reported on in Wikipedia if a secondary source covers it (and then using, exclusively, the framing and context of the secondary source.) To do otherwise invites people to drop their own conspiracy-theories and opinions in as "opinions"; any opinion worth covering should be have be referenced in a reliable source. As WP:RSOPINION says, A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. - emphasis mine. WND is not usable as a source, even for statements of opinion - when we want to cover WP:FRINGE views or conspiracy-theories, we should do so by looking at what reliable sources have said about them. If none exist, we shouldn't spread them by relying on a source like WND. --Aquillion (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - we should recognise these generally unreliable sources, edit filter them referencing the perennial sources list, and help to avoid the frustration of inexperienced editors who do not frequent this forum. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Newslinger, what is the point of singling out WND when there are a huge number of unreliable sources and we already have a page devoted to this? It seems all that does is invite WND to add this to their conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This is to determine whether an edit filter should be created for WorldNetDaily, which would be consistent with the other deprecated sources. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not just post a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? Alex Jones' Prisonplanet for example is listed there but do we really want him to say that his website was the second or third ever banned from Wikipedia? TFD (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than banning it, since an edit filter set to "warn" would inform the user that the source is deprecated, but wouldn't prevent the user from citing it in an article. In contrast, adding a source to the spam blacklist is equivalent to banning it, since the spam blacklist does prevent users from linking to the source. If this RfC passes, it wouldn't be correct for a publication to say that "WorldNetDaily is banned from Wikipedia". However, it would be correct to say that "editors are discouraged from citing WorldNetDaily in Wikipedia articles".​ — Newslinger talk 01:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Here are the 16 previous discussions of WorldNetDaily:
  1. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily
  2. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#WorldNetDaily
  3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38#World Net Daily
  4. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 45#Open source intelligence websites as reliable sources - WorldNetDaily
  5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 49#Statement in book published by WND Books--Purpose: to reflect that author warned of risk before event happened
  6. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52#WorldNetDaily
  7. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 59#WorldNetDaily books
  8. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 62#WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed
  9. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#World Net Daily - RS citation?
  10. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 113#WND (WorldNetDaily?, WorldNetWeekly?, not sure what the acronym stands for)
  11. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Is WND.com RS
  12. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 200#Are Xinhau and WND reliable sources for information on Islamism in the Gaza Strip
  13. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 229#wnd.com (i.e. World Net Daily) and citizenwells.net (i.e. Citizen News) for use in Suicide of Vince Foster (third listing)
  14. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 251#Billy Graham interview on WorldNetDaily
  15. WP:RSN#Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source?
  16. WP:RSN#Opinions sourced to WorldNetDaily

— Newslinger talk 17:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not get this either, this discussion/consensus is practically already codified at the sources page, no need to do it all again (not for this publication). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• This list of 16 complaints just is not making sense as any kind of evidence. So NYT has 28 complaints (listed... I am sure there are more than that), so WND list has 16 (and again I am sure more exist), so someone else has N... So what about it? I look at say the Billy Graham complaint and ... its someone deleted a mention of Graham doing WND input that linked to the WND article having it seemed a demonstration of WND provided a fact. I look at the item about WND books, and not only is it not the same thing as the website but again seems like demonstrated WND Books provided a fact. I look at the Open Source one and it mentions their being (perhaps) an advocacy like ACLU, SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etcetera and that again their report was correct but not widely covered. So the list is just saying there were 16 or more asking... and nothing more. I am more curious on what WP:policy was used to gather 16 queries to the table and what criteria is the page basing conclusions on ... or is it sheer opinions ? Meanwhile, this all just seems thin. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an exhaustive list of every discussion on WP:RSN (and its archives) where the section header included the term "WorldNetDaily", "World Net Daily", or "WND". It was compiled from the search results of the "Search this noticeboard & archives" box at the top of this page, and no discussions that matched the query were excluded from the list. Discussions on WP:RSN aren't necessarily complaints: they're inquiries where editors ask "Is this source reliable for this use case?"

  The WP:RSP entry for The New York Times considers the publication "generally reliable" because the listed discussions (which were obtained from the same search box) almost always conclude in strong editor consensus that The New York Times is a reliable source. In these discussions, most editors take the reliability of The New York Times for granted, and phrase their comments in a way that suggests an attack on the general reliability of the publication would be unexpected. When an article from The New York Times is challenged, it's typically done on the basis of a policy or guideline that applies to all news sources, such as WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:RSOPINION, and WP:MEDRS.

  The discussions about WorldNetDaily are quite the opposite, with most editors describing it as unreliable. In many of the discussions, editors take the unreliability of the site for granted with regard to the site's poor "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and complain that WorldNetDaily has been discussed repeatedly and excessively when the consensus is clear. When an article from WorldNetDaily is condoned, it's typically done on the basis of WP:ABOUTSELF, which applies to all questionable sources. For specific incidents, the most significant complaint is of WorldNetDaily's role in propagating the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In general, editors show a strong consensus that WorldNetDaily should not be used for any type of factual reporting, because it publishes too many intentionally misleading stories.​ — Newslinger talk 15:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• User:Newslinger that was a circular argument rather than one showing much evidence, policy, or consistent approach. So there were 16 asks on RSN here...again, lots of suspicions voiced for NYT also... and though WND provided factual info and is used as RS in cite somehow that doesn’t help count as RS ? How on earth is that arrived at ? What were the CONCLUSIONS of the RSN discussions seems more relevant — what percentage of the questions wound up accepting it as RS ? Look, other than what seems factual concerns on circulation WEIGHT and POV like ACLU or SLPC, it just looks like suspicions not supported and seems the blacklist is not as reputable here than WND. Come on, is this just someone put it in table because ‘I felt it shifty’ ??? Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The key criterion is a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (from WP:V and WP:IRS). From past discussions on WP:RSN, editors show strong consensus that The New York Times meets this standard, while WorldNetDaily does not. If you don't think the "generally unreliable" classification or the summary in the WP:RSP entry for WorldNetDaily is accurate, please start a discussion or RfC at WT:RSP about the interpretation of these discussions, and also present your preferred version of the summary. Likewise, if you don't think the "generally reliable" classification or the summary in the WP:RSP entry for The New York Times is accurate, please do the same. WP:RSP entries don't present any new arguments, but only summarize the comments from these previous discussions. The methodology for acquiring and summarizing the discussions for both WP:RSP entries is exactly the same.​ — Newslinger talk 01:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Newslinger are you now dropping your claim above that 16 queries “indicate an overwhelming consensus” ??? Because they simply were not showing as such when I open them up. Again other than your pointing to a list as if length 16 was important and claim consensus or poor for facts, but opening up several things only showed me cases where WND was good as a Source and/or no clear consensus made at the case, and NYT has a longer list. So the reputation is proven by your claiming the reputation annnnnd that is the circular argument, not one demonstrating evidence in support of a policy point. I am looking for How did the table entry reach and come to its statement or how is this question being evidenced, just not seeing any rules or method to believe the words. Look, WND is a website of opinions and news aggregation of conservatives but POV and small is not a RS block. For some of the 16 cases WND shown correct and some contexts it would seem ok.... a categorical blacklist looks like a claim with no serious support and failed to show a case. Tell me where or what the case is, because just looking at several of the 16 I got WND was right, right, again right, .... seems evidence that supports it being RS... not seeing how table gets ‘not reliable’ out of just there were 16 RS queries. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

As requested, here are summaries of each of the 16 discussions:

1. 2007: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily has "a reputation for publishing fringe theories", and does not have "a reputation for accuracy, nor high standards of journalism".
2. 2008: Weak consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
3. 2009: Consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
4. 2009: Consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source. Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
5. 2009: Consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source. Consensus that a physical book published by WND Books can be cited as an opinion piece.
6. 2009: No consensus.
7. 2010: No consensus on a book published by WND Books.
8. 2010: Extremely long discussion. Consensus that WorldNetDaily "is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material". Consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
9. 2010: Long discussion. Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source with respect to its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
10. 2012: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source.
11. 2015: Consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source, with the exception of WP:ABOUTSELF.
12. 2015: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source with respect to its "reputation for fact checking and accuracy".
13. 2017: Long discussion. WP:SNOW consensus that WorldNetDaily is "completely un-reliable".
14. 2018: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source, even for opinion pieces.
15. 2018: Long discussion. Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source for any situation. Consensus that citing opinions from WorldNetDaily would constitute undue weight.
16. 2018: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source for any situation. Consensus that citing opinions from WorldNetDaily would constitute undue weight.

For each discussion, opinions from editors are weighted equally regardless of the volume of their comments in the discussion. (Regardless of whether a person posts two comments or ten, their comments as a whole are weighted as one opinion). Long in-depth discussions are weighted more heavily than short discussions. Since consensus can change, newer discussions are weighted more heavily than older discussions. If editors describe a source as partisan, this only affects the source's summary, and not its reliability classification. If you would like the challenge the classification or summary of WP:RSP entry for The New York Times, I can do the same if you request this on WT:RSP.​ — Newslinger talk 02:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Newslinger - look, WND is accepted as a RS is simply a fact - there was a lot of suspicions and many replacements, but they are still the source of factual material and in use as cites, and discussions often made mention that they are usable as RS. As to your list above, giving your view of the items is not responsive to the question I asked (instead the lack of evidence or method is again demonstrated) and it added that your summary looks flawed.

• First note "I am looking for How did the table entry reach and come to its statement or how is this question being evidenced, just not seeing any rules or method to believe the words." Your list of 16 ad hoc personal views today of the discussions do not provide an explanation of how the table came to its conclusion back then -- the table does not make apparent any such evidence or any general method. The list of a couple dozen unorganized opinions does not make them more authoritative but does make the lack of context and method more obvious, and your list of 16 is heading the same way except now these are all your opinions. I on the other hand pointed out those WND discussions repeatedly support WND as factually correct, and in specified contexts reliable - and also mention WP repeated concerns as not standing up to scrutiny.
• Second -- your evaluation approach looks flawed. in first pointing to 16 (as if that was significant) and now pointing to POV (as if that is significant). But a source POVness just does not preclude RS - WND does seem POV (opinion pieces and news aggregator rather than journalist site) but as I mentioned from discussions so are (distinct advocacy groups) ACLU and NRA and SPLC -- and having cautions on using ACLU and SPLC and NRA and WND seems correct per WP:BIASED, but that is not a block to RS. As I said above, I opened up several cases listed and found that despite suspicions due to its being POV, WND was factual and correct. For some of these, the suspicion seems to not be on evidence related to the item or looking for third party views and just runs on internal suspicions of editors from it having a reputation of POV. WND gets questioned as NYT is more so, and that's OK and reasonable -- but again, asking or number of askings does not block RS acceptance and use.
• Third - in opening up the listed discussions, things seem a lot more of WND as RS with caution and not blacklisting, and assertions otherwise are not standing up to scrutiny.

1. 2007: "Note that they are good sources for opinion", another noted that WND did do a correction (a WP policy indication of journalistic quality), and "should be citeable, but with appropriate caution". Result - RSN Discussion was not used, instead the article discussed that it was excluding critic Paul Sperry and agreed locally to [not use either source] effectively not RS determination of WND in this case.
2. 2008: "it depends" (the RS of source they are quoting is the question), remark that for this topic "avoid using partisan sources", and in the end result - the article in question no longer exists, but weakly remarked as RS of the BIASED sort.
3. 2009: "It's been discussed several times, but it hasn't been dismissed conclusively." "basic facts generally don't get slanted; opinions and analyses do" - so again one editor said a RS of the BIASED sort.
4. 2009: WND "is already considered a reliable source for many articles"; "Whatever your taste regarding their politics, they meet a professional criteria to publish, a presumption in favour of them. I'd want to see circulation figures and / or media reviews of their newspaper". "would treat them more like a political advocacy group ( as I would the ACLU, SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc ) than a newspaper. Which means there will be some caveats about citing them for a BLP, especially for extraordinary claims"; Exclude the specific content based on UNDUE and possibly defamatory so exclude for BLP; and that it is Joseph Farah being aggregated there; and finally a sidenote that this content is also (elsewhere) in the news but not in article so WND seems not alone with wider coverage. Result - content not included, no RS consensus and multiple other concerns.
5. 2009: "RS as far as stating opinions about the person, and as far as stating when the author held those opinions. ", "citing WND is more like citing a political advocacy group than a traditional news organization. Which is still allowable with attribution, though there are some caveats involved if it's a BLP. ", mentions that the same info is available thru the Telegraph or DHS.gov (better BESTSOURCES); so "the book was in fact a reliable source in this instance". WND Content accepted, but citing to the larger RS.
6. 2009: "There was never an overwhelming consensus on WND, but it is highly slanted towards a Christian Fundamentalist and Christian Zionist point of view." "I would think that these sources would be fine, though perhaps better if bothe were attributed. (If we are to be even-handed--Nableezy just commented at an AfD in support of an article supported by Electronic Intifida, which has much lesser indicia of fact-checking and reliability than WND). " "WND may be OK for news and current affairs, depending on context. Not OK for historical placenames. "- Result: WND Content included, but cited to two more scholarly works.
7. 2010: "book is certainly reliable for a statement as to the opinion of the book's author (P. David Gaubatz) ... but that raises the question of whether that author's opinion is worth noting (per WP:UNDUE). "; " the WSJ article provides more background, so it would supercede WND as a source"; "This knee-jerk reaction to anything associated with WND is getting old." "Some books WND publishes are more reliable than others. It's a question of individual books, not the publisher as a whole."; use "both the WSJ article and this book"; " I did find a few other sources. There was a brief mention in a Chicago Tribune article from 2004,[45], as well as a couple of articles that Farah ( founder of WND ) wrote in the Washington Post in 2004[46] and 2002,[47] plus"...; - Result: WND content included, but said cited to other sources; currently cited to Vogue (?)
8. 2010: Mixed summary of not liked and no evidence given - "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."; "I have listed and commented upon every "controversial article" currently presented in the Wikipedia WND article and, IMHO, all, save for one, lend scant support for an assertion of chronic WND "unreliability" inre their demonstrable "fact-checking and accuracy" record."; "I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion."; " As a source for an assertion as to what WND's opinion is and what WND says about something, it is reliable. (Of course, this opens the secondary issue of whether discussing what WND says about a topic in the context of a specific article is appropriate or not. That is really a WP:UNDUE question"; "WND is being used a source for a column that they printed (ie, evidence that the author said it). Not a question of what the author said was true, but that they said it." "the question still remains (despite the prolific echoes inre WND as an RS) does the "reputation" stand up to scrutiny." "One should simply look who authored each specific publication in WND. "; "There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source. ";

I think that's enough to demonstrate supportive material exists that was not being shown. Look so there was prejudice shown but no evidence shown, and WND remained citeable. I just do not see any more of a case or organization to this other than IDONTLIKEIT there was 8 years ago. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Before I present my evaluation, I'd like to emphasize that within discussions #1-16, discussions #1-8 are most favorable to WorldNetDaily's reliability, since they conclude that WorldNetDaily is generally unreliable while carving out some exceptions that allow for its content to be cited. Discusions #9-16, which haven't been analyzed by Markbassett or me in this level of detail, establish much stronger consensus on the unreliability of WorldNetDaily.

Among discussions #1-8, only #1 (2007), #4 (2009), and #8 (2010) show consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source. The others (#2-3 and #5-7) didn't result in consensus regarding the site's reliability. Here's a detailed analysis of #1-8, with a broader selection of quotes:

1. FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily (2007)
   • The discussion involved 17 editors.
   • 10 editors stated that WorldNetDaily is unreliable. The other 7 did not express an opinion on WorldNetDaily's reliability.
   • The first comment ("WorldNetDaily has a reputation for publishing fringe theories. [...] Neither site has a reputation for accuracy, nor high standards of journalism. In the example above, there is no way these would be reliable sources.") was seconded by 8 other editors.
   • While one of the supporting editors claimed that "they are good sources for opinion, where that is warranted", that portion of the editor's comment didn't receive support from other editors.
   • The error correction you mentioned doesn't really support WorldNetDaily's reliability, as the error concerns WorldNetDaily accidentally using information sourced from The Onion.
   • In this discussion, no editors defended the reliability of WorldNetDaily. The discussion shows a strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is generally unreliable, with no consensus on whether it is a "good source for opinion".
2. WorldNetDaily (2008)
   • The discussion was very short and only involved 2 editors.
   • One editor described WorldNetDaily as a partisan source.
   • The other editor stated the reliability of the WorldNetDaily article "depends as to whether World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission is regarded as a reliable source on Christianity affairs in India, as this is who they source most of their material for this". A significant portion of the article in question was quoted directly from the Commission.
   • Since this discussion was brief and had low participation, the consensus here is weak and deserves minimal weight.
3. World Net Daily (2009)
   • This discussion was short and involved 4 editors. The discussion starter did not express an opinion.
   • One editor, as you quoted, stated that WorldNetDaily has "been discussed several times, but it hasn't been dismissed conclusively" and that the site's "writing is heavily slanted".
   • Two other editors were less charitable with their wording. One said "WND has been discussed several times on this board and has been determined to be unreliable." and the other said "it would only be reliable for its own viewpoint and not for any facts, which means in most cases there'd never be a reason to cite it".
   • The discussion did not generate consensus on the reliability of WorldNetDaily, but there was no dissent to the site being labeled as a partisan source.
   • Since the discussion was brief, it deserves reduced weight.
4. Open source intelligence websites as reliable sources - WorldNetDaily (2009)
   • The discussion involved 9 editors.
   • 7 editors described WorldNetDaily as an unreliable source, while 1 editor defended WorldNetDaily's usage in certain cases. 1 editor did not express an opinion.
   • Quotes from editors who argued that WorldNetDaily was unreliable:
     • "They seem dangerously close to being the right wing equivalent of a Trotskyite party newspaper: Trotskyite papers can be RS, but the presumption would have to be against them until you can point to evaluations of the quality of the journalism."
     • "worldnetdaily - should be banned as a reliable source in Wikipedia since it is right wing and publishes dubious facts"
     • "WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source for disputed and possibly defamatory [...] information about a living person"
     • "WND has come up several times. As far as I can remember, it has never been found a reliable source."
   • The one editor who defended WorldNetDaily still qualified their opinion: "They may be OK for facts that come from public records, but I wouldn't use their analysis or their reporting of unverifiable claims".
   • The consensus in this discussion is that WorldNetDaily is both unreliable and partisan.
5. Statement in book published by WND Books--Purpose: to reflect that author warned of risk before event happened (2009)
   • This discussion is about Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, a book published by WorldNetDaily's imprint, WND Books.
   • The discussion involved 8 editors.
   • 3 editors agreed that the book from WND Books could be cited as a source of opinions. 2 editors (including 1 unsigned) criticized the reliability of WorldNetDaily. 3 editors did not comment on the suitability or reliability of WorldNetDaily or WND Books.
   • The editor supporting WorldNetDaily's reliability stated: "Use of WND as a source of opinions is certainly allowable. It is absolutely RS as far as stating opinions about the person, and as far as stating when the author held those opinions."
   • The sole dissenter stated: "WND is neither particularly notable, nor does it have a good reputation as a publisher of reliable books."
   • Editors agreed that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source. An editor defending the use of the book said: "I would say that citing WND is more like citing a political advocacy group than a traditional news organization."
   • This discussion shows weak consensus that a physical book published by WND Books can be cited as an opinion piece, and consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
6. WorldNetDaily (2009)
   • This discussion involved 4 editors.
   • For this particular situation, 2 editors supported the use of WorldNetDaily content, while 2 editors opposed.
   • The discussion starter opposed the use of WorldNetDaily, saying: "Looking back at previous RS/N threads [...] there appears to be an overwhelming consensus that this "source"" is generally unreliable."
   • Other editors argued that WorldNetDaily should be accepted in some cases. Regarding the general reliability of WorldNetDaily, one said "There was never an overwhelming consensus on WND, but it is highly slanted towards a Christian Fundamentalist and Christian Zionist point of view." and another stated "WND may be OK for news and current affairs, depending on context. Not OK for historical placenames."
   • This discussion shows no consensus on the general reliability of WorldNetDaily.
7. WorldNetDaily books (2010)
   • This discussion is about Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, a book published by WorldNetDaily's imprint, WND Books.
   • The discussion involved 8 editors.
   • For this particular situation, 3 editors supported the use of the book, and 4 editors opposed. The discussion starter did not express an opinion.
   • Editors who supported the book asserted that the book should be treated like most published works. According to one, "The book should be treated like any other book. [...] Some books WND publishes are more reliable than others. It's a question of individual books, not the publisher as a whole."
   • Other editors believed that WND Books inherits the reputation of WorldNetDaily and should be discarded as undue weight. One editor states: "WND on the whole is not considered a reputable publisher and it would be make a travesty of the RS policy to allow it to be used."
   • This discussion did not generate consensus on a book published by WND Books.
8. WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed (2010)
   • This discussion is extremely long, and actually consists of 2 discussions collapsed together. 20 editors participated.
   • 5 editors argued that WorldNetDaily should be an acceptable source in at least some situations. 8 editors argued that those situations are rare, and stated that WorldNetDaily is generally unreliable. 7 editors did not express an explicit opinion.
   • Quotes from editors who supported WorldNetDaily's reliability:
     • "As a source for an assertion of fact, WND is not reliable. As a source for an assertion as to what WND's opinion is and what WND says about something, it is reliable."
     • "there's no reason for complete removal of all links to WND. The practice has always been that we do treat WND as a niche source, similar to TMZ for entertainment news."
   • Quotes from editors who disputed WorldNetDaily's reliability:
     • 'World Net Daily seems to fail miserably against the policy here which is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy".'
     • "I don't think they effectively fact-check even basic uncontroversial statements, certainly not when it gets in the way of their agenda."
     • "Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content. As noted above, accuracy and oversight, and not political leanings, are the reasons for this consensus."
   • The closure of this discussion was extremely contentious, and resulted in a separate lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Inappropriate move to subpage / Archival.
   • The original closing statement, written by an editor who did not express an explicit opinion in the discussion, was:
     • "Per MastCell, we appear to have a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material, but may be acceptable to source the opinions of its creators. The discussion has been going on for three weeks and additional contributions do not seem to be changing that view."
   • The editor who posted the largest number of comments in favor of WorldNetDaily's reliability engaged in an edit war over the closing statement. (See details here.) This editor then replaced the previous closing statement with their own version, which is the one currently in the archived discussion:
     • "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."
   • Since the discussion was extended and had high participation, it deserves higher weight.
   • In conclusion, this discussion shows consensus that WorldNetDaily is generally unreliable. Specifically, it is "not acceptable as a source for factual material".

Older discussions (such as #1-8, from 2007 to 2010) don't carry as much weight as newer discussions because they are less representative of current consensus. As WP:RSP's lead section states: "Consensus can change, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or argument reaches a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes."

Discussions #8-16 (from 2010 to 2018) show much clearer consensus that WorldNetDaily does not have the "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" required by the verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. The most recent discussions (#14-16, from 2018) go even further to explicitly criticize the use of WorldNetDaily opinion pieces as undue weight in articles. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Newslinger Talking results and details is somewhat better, but again .... simple fact is that WND is in use as RS, and in other cases their material was factual and kept but cite switched to bigger source. So in some contexts they simply are a RS. This list of 16 seems simply not giving much to the discussion of whether they should be, other than a circular one. They just are ad hoc individual cases, not giving wider info or applicable to the items I mentioned.

1. First, how did the opinions in the table come to it’s statement and how is it evidenced? I am not seeing any rules or organised method to make the entry credible, which seems a bit disreputable. At the least, one does not know what the table is saying or how much credence to give it.
2. Second, your analysis still looks flawed by mentioning items irrelevant to RS as if they are something that matters. So there were (at least) 16 questioning ... irrelevant, e.g. NYT has 28. So the circulation has little WP:WEIGHT may mean material is UNDUE ... affects use but DUE is not a matter of RS. So they are perceived as WP:PARTISAN or said “right wing” ... irrelevant, also POV are ACLU, SPLC, and NRA advocacy groups, and the policy explicitly says “reliable sources are not required to be neutral”. The list of 16 seems treating their website and publishing as if all the individual situation asks re RS were all the same, as if one RS discussion applies to all other materials from a source, to be treating books or website (opinion articles and aggregator) as if these are items WND produced and the same source. These RSN are in theory asking about if forindividual products is WND RS for different contexts, not an overall TALK about a global block for all contexts.
3. Third, the list of 16 I see a flavour of “use with caution” in discussion and that seems to be the practice. The list of 16 events just did not stand up to scrutiny or for the context of whether an overall block suits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

in other cases their material was factual and kept but cite switched to bigger source...

"Bigger"? No, to actually reliable. To say that replacing a source with something that's reliable as somehow evidence of the former being reliable is, well, breathtaking. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Calton - nope, factually untrue. What the discussions said and the policies named were not about RS. Those kept the WND material as correct, but had cite switch for a larger venue per policy WP:WEIGHT aka DUE, or to academic sources per guide to use WP:BESTSOURCES. There also seems expressed prejudice against WND as being right wing but the evidence and policies stated near the change were not RS. The WND as aggregator and opinion pieces (sort of a fundamentalist Yahoo) is only a RS that the material exists from sources stated, at whatever worth the source has, but that does not prevent other sources or coverage from also existing. Where a more prominent source and/or one more authoritative for the topic context appears later on, then putting in the bigger is better for WP... but that’s not about RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• RSN discussions often have consensus regarding statements of fact but are less clear when it comes to opinion. Several recent WND discussions concern the use of opinion pieces written by guest authors, so it will be important to decide how to proceed in these situations. –dlthewave ☎ 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• This is essentially like asking whether we can cite Mein Kamph when discussing Hitler’s views. It may be an appropriate citation to a primary source, but there are limited situations in which it is appropriate to mention Hitler’s views.

Yes, if someone writes an opinion piece (Op-Ed) on WND, and we mention this opinion in an article, then WND is a reliable Primary source for the view. Whether to mention an opinion in a specific article is more a question of WP:UNDUE). But if we do mention it, we should cite the publication where the opinion was expressed.

SO... I don’t think we can say “never cite WND, ever”... but, I think we can say: “while opinions written in WND can be cited to WND, the situations where it is appropriate to mention an opinion written in WND will be very rare.” Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC: VDARE

Should VDARE be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - The site is associated with white supremacy, white nationalism and the alt-right. The Anti-Defamation League says it posts, promotes, and archives the work of racists, anti-immigrant figures, and anti-Semites. There is essentially never a reason to use this extremist, racist, anti-Semitic site as a source for anything on Wikipedia other than opinions of white supremacists, where deemed relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Agree - reliable for attributed statements of opinion (in limited situations), but not for unattributed facts. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: a WP:FRINGE source that would not be appropriate in almost all situations. Please add to the edit filter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: as per k.e.coffman and NorthBySouthBaranof. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oh yes. Not in the least bit reliable. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Seems unnecessary since it does contain any news articles, merely opinion pieces that would not be rs even if published in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

RTT News

Is RTT News a reliable source? Its currently being used on Caution (Mariah Carey album) to call it a hip hop album. It doesn't have a Wikipedia article so I thought I should ask here about its reliability. I found it fishy that this is the only website that called it a hip hop album, while none of the generally used reliable music sources called it explicitly a "hip hop album". To further prove their unreliability, the article in question also calls two of the songs that were only promotional singles as just "singles", while also forgetting to mention "The Distance" which was also released prior to the album.--NØ 19:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Mmm unsure, what are its editorial polices (does it have an editor). At this time I am leaning towards no.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree - I looked around and did some Google searching but can't find anything on its editorial board or anything else that would indicate reliability. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible bot removal and blacklisting of Baidu

Moving this discussion over here:

1. It has been suggested that Baidu Baike references be replaced with or something using a bot.

2. It has been suggested that Baidu Baike be blacklisted.

Thoughts?

Convenience link(s):

• Search Baidu at RSN

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Wasn't this brought up here already a couple of months ago? I remember commenting on this before. Daß Wölf 03:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And it was, woohoo! Daß Wölf 03:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Seeing that, and considering all things, yes, support. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. As an open wiki, Baidu Baike is a self-published source and should not be cited in articles. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Christian-specific sources as sources for notability

• Advent Film Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Advent Film Group relies almost exclusively on ChristianCinema.com and Christian Newswire. The latter is obviuously a PR feed, but is the former sufficient to establish notability for a company that has received vanishingly little coverage anywhere else? Guy (Help!) 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say "no" - Christian Cinema appears to be mostly involved in selling Christian Films, so it probably has some strong incentives to give undue coverage to relatively unimportant production companies. That said, Advent Film group was also covered by The Daily Beast, and Huffington Post (an actual reporter, not a blogger as far as I can tell), those would definitely qualify - so you might be able to make a case on those sources. Nblund ^talk 22:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Christiancinema is a best a trade rag, and per WP:ORGIND they are not very helpful toward showing N. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Geni.com

I scanned the RSN archive for stuff on www.geni.com and found some past discussion, but nothing which appears to clearly state whether it's reliable. Any it's being cited alot in Victoria Coffey for information about relatives of Coffey, so I'm wondering whether the cite is considered a RS. Lots of the sourced content was recently added to the article by some new editors who might not be familiar with WP:RS and assumed that published online means good enough for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Another editor commented that it was unreliable.[25] Bear in mind that it consists of articles written by people about their family with no fact-checking. That certainly does not meet rs. TFD (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Understand and thanks for the input. That discussion, however, dates back to 2012 and I'm wondering if there's been anything more recent about this particular site. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is "Blak Pantha" a reliable source for Yoro Dyao

This link[26] is used 10 times in the article. Pantha describes himself as "Author and researcher of African history, culture and spirituality" and states that "Having traveled to KMT and Senegal he is avid researcher and focuses on sound methodology, primary and well verified secondary sources as his means of providing information."[27] The source itself suggests he works at Cheikh Anta Diop University which has such a journal.[28] Doug Weller talk 13:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The source blakpanthaserer.com looks self-published. Is his work published elsewhere in any reliable sources? --Jayron32 14:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sérgio Moro

Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A9rgio_Moro&action=history

The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so is there any experienced editor who can give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia because those sources are partisan/editorials that doesn't meet WP:RS and WP:V.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.99.171 (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• If you got your account blocked over this and it's still blocked, then using an IP account to continue the dispute is going to be considered WP:EVADE. You should first get your account unblocked and then try to resolve the dispute per WP:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Advisory boards of NASA and the Pentagon of USA

An article about Sambhaji Bhide claims that he has been on the advisory boards of NASA and the Pentagon of USA. The source claims

he is reported to have been on the advisory boards of NASA and the Pentagon of USA

This is attributed to a user created content in Sulekha. The link is [29] Can it be accepted ? Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"he is reported to have been" is an indication that the source hasn't confirmed it, so I don't think this is reliable enough to use. Zero^talk 14:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

A vague mention in a blog? No, that's not a reliable source for that. --tronvillain (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The Epoch Times for anything related to political controversies involving Falun Gong

Source: The Epoch Times

Article: Tuidang movement and any other page related to political controversies involving Falun Gong

Content: The entire article in as much as it relates to the existence of the Tuidang Movement.

I've just had a look at an article related to Falun Gong (the Tuidang movement) describing a supposed movement within China to quit the communist party and other communist party-related organisations. Supposedly already 300 million people in China have quit the communist party, a number greatly exceeding the membership of the communist party (~90 million), and also a number (roughly a quarter of the Chinese population) which would surprise most people who have lived in China and never met anyone who has quit the party.

My biggest issue with this page is that the only sources that actually describe this movement (the Tuidang movement) as existing are either the Epoch Times, are sources quoting the Epoch Times, or are articles written by activists within the Falun Gong movement. Other parts of the page, relating to the suppression of the Falun Gong movement in general, appear well sourced, however the repression of Falun Gong within China is already covered on a different page. Absent the Epoch Times references, this article might well lack notability per WP:GNG and verifiability per WP:V since nothing else actually discusses the Tuidang movement per se.

Is Epoch Times an independent, reliable source when it comes to political controversies that involve Falun Gong? Its editorial stance and relationship to Falun Gong are described here. Particularly relevant are the claims that The Epoch Times serves as part of a public-relations campaign for Falun Gong and that the paper "operates as a mouthpiece for" Falun Gong. More recently, following an incident where an Epoch Times reporter at the White House tried to hand a dossier to the president, Ming Xia, a political-science professor at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, described The Epoch Times as follows:

"“They support the Falun Gong because they are Falun Gong practitioners,” Xia said. “It’s a way to accumulate their merit. They are not professional journalists and they do not follow the protocols professional journalists abide by. That’s how they can be very pushy and aggressive.”"

The same WaPo article linked above has an Obama-era official describing The Epoch Times as being "more activists than journalists".

For balance it should also be said that the editor of the English-language Epoch Times has denied that the paper is directly owned by Falun Gong. I also don't think the Epoch Times is necessarily not a reliable source for things not related to Falun Gong - it's the specific issue where the topic is a political controversy related to Falun Gong that concerns me. FOARP (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Scholarly Kitchen article on Sci-Hub

Source - Scholarly Kitchen

Article - Sci-Hub

Content - Credentials used by Sci-Hub to access paywalled articles have been subsequently used by third parties to access other information on university networks and are bought and sold like other personal information in black markets. (Two references are provided following the quote, but only the Scholarly Kitchen one directly supports the content).

According to Scholarly Kitchen itself, it is a blog established by the Society for Scholarly Publishing. There is no apparent review process for what's posted there. This particular post is based on a talk the author gave to the society. In this post, a number of allegations were made against Sci-Hub - it says that Sci-Hub directly engaged in hacking and phishing, and that it traded in stolen credential on the dark web, suggesting that this might be a source of revenue for Sci-Hub. Note however that no actual evidence was provided for the charges. The article clearly stated that it cannot provide evidence so as not to reveal their sources. What evidence that is given in article cannot actually tell us that it was Sci-Hub that was engaging in hacking/phishing or trading. Sci-Hub itself denied that it is involved, and it is entirely possible that the attacks were conducted by a third party that provided the credentials to Sci-Hub and traded them, and the author may be using a association fallacy argument for his allegations. Also in the article is a number of assertions that are also not backed up with any evidence, e.g. vast majority of the credentials used by Sci-Hub were obtained by phishing and attacks.

As a blog post that contains many allegations without providing any clear evidence of guilt, can it be considered a reliable source? It is also clearly a primary source, can it be used as a source for an unambiguous statement? The Scholarly Kitchen piece was discussed in a few places in the Sci-Hub talk page, for example in Talk:Sci-Hub#Primary self-published source. Hzh (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)