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

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."[1]

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) "[2]

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).[3] 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[4]. 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[5], and the WSJ[6]. 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 [7] and Ann Coulter [8]. 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]"[9]

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."[10]

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) "[11]

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)

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)

Survey (WorldNetDaily RfC)

• 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)

How should we handle cases like Christopher Monckton? His WND opinion column is used as a primary source for his comments, which were further discussed and given weight by The Independent and Huffington Post. –dlthewave ☎ 13:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this is okay under WP:ABOUTSELF, since Monckton is the author of the column, and the source is only being used to support claims regarding Monckton himself in the article about him. — Newslinger talk 21:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't. We have secondary sources describing his views and adding context (i.e. that he is wrong). Why would we then also want to link to him actually being wrong? What does linking to egregious bullshit add over and above the descriptions of it being egregious bullshit in reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 19:33, 26 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)
• Yes - Poor source for just about anything, as per the arguments and evidence in the many past discussions linked below. The useful thing here is the edit filter, I think. The issue is people adding poor sources without knowing they're poor sources, or to articles which have no watchers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - WND is already de facto deprecated as a source. Let's make it official.- MrX 🖋 14:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - agree with Aquillion and others. I don't see a disadvantage to formalizing this, and edit filter warning is a good idea. Neutrality^talk 16:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• No based on a Special:LinkSearch, most usage of WND in mainspace which I see is WP:SELFPUB, which is generally appropriate. feminist (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I can support an edit filter to warn editors trying to insert a link, but not a blacklisting like the Daily Mail. feminist (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • From the first 20 search results in article space for the query insource:"wnd.com", I see 7 instances of WorldNetDaily being used under WP:SELFPUB or as a primary source, and 13 instances of the site being used as a secondary source to substantiate claims about third parties or events not directly related to WorldNetDaily:
      • Under WP:SELFPUB or as primary source: Roy Moore; Alan Keyes; WorldNetDaily; Dominion theology; Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States; Tom Tancredo; Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
      • Secondary source for third parties or unrelated events: Ann Coulter; United States Senate election in Texas, 2014; National Enquirer; List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016; WABC (AM); Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War; Opposition to the Iraq War; Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel; Killian documents controversy; Sexual violence in South Africa; The Rush Limbaugh Show; Aimee Semple McPherson; Fetal rights

    Note that the Daily Mail is not blacklisted, because it's not on the spam blacklist. The Daily Mail RfC concluded that "its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited", but also that "it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion".​ — Newslinger talk 12:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

    • • For some reason when I searched, the first results were all WP:SELFPUB. But this still shows that a significant proportion of WND use is appropriate. I'm concerned about the collateral damage caused by an edit filter. If this source is already mostly deprecated it should not be hard to find existing instances of inappropriate usage and replace them. feminist (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Having taken a look at how WND is used as a source at Fetal rights I think I can support this proposal under the condition that an editor is not prevented from including a link to the website. Based on the results it seems that both appropriate and inappropriate usage exist, although the majority of usage is inappropriate. feminist (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The biggest problem with these links is that in many cases no independent third party has commented on the content, so we have a Wikipedia editor as sole arbiter deciding that what J Random Blowhard says on WND is significant enough to include from the primary self-published source. Normally we only include self-published sources for uncontroversial statements, and secondary sources are always preferred, but a small number of editors seem quite determined to use primary self-published material from WND in biographies, which I think is a very bad idea. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Completely unreliable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, as discussed many times before. Renata (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes WND has no reputation of fact checking. Deprecation seems a wise choice. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Same reason as the Sun RFC below: those who have already said "No" are making some unusual points like that "we could deprecate it and make an edit filter, but let's not ban it outright", which does not appear to be what's proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes We have to start removing these types of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. WND famously fabricates falsehoods. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I thought we already had! Doug Weller talk 16:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (WorldNetDaily RfC)

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 and 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."
     • I consider this an improper closure.
   • 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)
• Yes - Not as common to see added as WND or other subjects of similar RfCs, but I also wouldn't say that it's unnecessary, since I've seen it added on at least a couple occasions. As I said above, I think the idea of an edit filter is a good idea to discourage people from adding it, promoting discussion in those few cases when it might be sensible to add (although off-hand I have trouble thinking of any outside of commentary about itself/its projects). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• No. why ??? There is no need or purpose shown. (I see no cite using them nor anything on the article TALK.) Nor does this give a basis in policy, guideline, evidence, or an organized approach to support this. This appears to be a call for ad hoc ban by whim purely for show of appearances, or perhaps personal politics. So if it is not something that is presented, has no functional use, and has an appearance of being not reputable behaviour, then WP should not do it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's the list. –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the mentions, it seems a lot of these citations are just for showing that such-and-such person writes for VDARE. I'm curious as to whether other editors think this is an acceptable use. Nblund ^talk 18:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I would see that as an acceptable use within the person's own article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for poor search missing the ~50 links to writers etcetera. That insource search also found it in a few places like Paleolibertarianism#References and the Paleoconservatism#Further reading which seem likely OK. OTOH, VDare being used at Brigitte Bardot and Governorship of Mike Huckabee seems a bit odd. But I'm still not seeing any real need or purpose for a block having been stated, nor an issue from the insource, nor prior discussion in RSN archives -- so I'm still at this is not reputable to block. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• No - I disagree with TFD that they merely publish opinion pieces. Their bread-and-butter is racist pseudo-science like this and this. That said: it doesn't seem that most Wikipedians are citing them for statements of fact. If I'm vastly overestimating the potential complication here, then let me know, but I think an edit filter that flagged nearly-every potentially bad source could lead to some major technical issues, and so it should be reserved for cases where there is a demonstrable pattern of misuse that I'm not seeing here. Nblund ^talk 18:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Fears of technical problems can be remedied by setting the filter to warn, thus still allowing editors to use the site if they really want. Which is what is proposed btw. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Nblund - ? there seems something askew with your evidence... saying ‘disagree with TFD that they merely publish opinion pieces’ seems odd to then link two opinion pieces. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: My concern was less with people being unintentionally blocked from adding a source and more with performance issues. I don't have any experience setting these up, but the guidelines mention that checking for external links is a slow operation. VDARE is a terrible source, obviously, but if we have an edit filter that checks for every terrible website on the internet, then we are probably going to end up with a very slow edit filter.

@Markbassett: Those articles contain expressions of opinion, but they also contain a number of pseudo-scientific claims that white people have high IQs, and that "diverse" young people don't value liberty. This is just racist nonsense, but it's the kind of racist nonsense that a naive editor might mistake for actual analysis. Nblund ^talk 16:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Nblund - the first opinion piece does not claim “white people have high IQs”, it says northeast Asians and American Jews are higher. (I don’t know how accurate those numbers are, but believe racial differences in IQ is scientific fact, not opinion.) The opinion part is the claim that social issues of African Americans is better explained by IQ differences than by “blaming” white racism, that racism happens to all minority groups and IQ is the determining factor. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Sure. I could have been more precise in summarizing the argument, but I assumed the fringiness was pretty self-evident. To be more precise: the article takes the stance that race and genetics are the primary cause of observed gap in IQ. The author also posits that race explains things like gaps in educational attainment, crime, and mental health outcomes. The author cites crackpot journals like Mankind Quarterly, a journal which exists solely to crank out the sloppy pseudo-science that no one in the mainstream scientific community takes seriously. This isn't just an expression of an opinion, it's promoting WP:FRINGE pop-psychology that is no more scientific than homeopathy. This is indicative of VDARE's general editorial mission. Nblund ^talk 23:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Nblund - the VDARE opinion piece is just a non-scientist WP:OPINION about their perception on a particular paper, it is not "psuedo-scientific" nor WP:FRINGE pop-psychology, and the paper may be a bit off-mainstream that was cherry-picked as an instance of one more easily picked on. However, by WP guidance the scholarly paper is more authoritative as an RS of expert voice by nature of being scholarly and peer-reviewed, but it is not sufficiently authoritative to state as fact. The VDARE piece - if not an Opinion article - would be RS for reactions to the paper or the theme, but that would be of less WEIGHT and is RS only for the credence the position has in open public. The linking of genetics or race and IQ and the importance of IQ is not just ancient Scientific racism, it is in actual recent scientific discussions (more fools they to open that can of worms). Try a BING of 'scientific studies of IQ and race, for the Slate article and pieces it links to such as this; the WP History of the race and intelligence controversy; and The Guardian The unwelcome revival of 'race science'. , "The Bell Curve" that individual cases excel, or more recent discoveries about intelligence and development ... there's plenty that both the VDARE piece and the piece it criticizes are oversimplifying past ... Maybe bet to say NEITHER tells the whole story or is particularly worth a cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but if you're suggesting that we should treat VDARE's white nationalist bloggers as though they have similar credibility to papers published in a mainstream scientific journals, then I don't think that's a proposal that even warrants debating. As the Guardian piece you cite makes clear, the racist science of people like Peter Brimelow has been repeatedly debunked, and its primary advocates today come from outside the scientific community. VDARE is not reliable for claims of fact about questions of science, human biology, or public policy, and their opinions are so wildly outside the mainstream that attending a dinner party with their editor is cause for a minor scandal. I struggle to imagine any scenario where citing them would be consistent with due weight and verifiability. Nblund ^talk 23:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Nblund Irrelevant to topic. Opinion piece / blogger parts would not be up for cite anyway to worry about RS, and as not VDARE writing are not an indication of VDARE editorial RS. Talk like Banning VDARE for what a blogger said there is not on, nor if they report on a current spat (which here the RS says is still ongoing and “debunked” is too far) in a rightish way. Otherwise you’ve got almost Non-overlapping magisterium that BOTH a VDARE and scientific journal might be RS for different contexts of a topic. VDARE seems possible RS for info on the rightish position in the context of general coverage or reaction ... where they would have more authority than a journal article, because it’s the context of public reaction and that’s not at all what journals do. Scientific journals would have more authority in the context of scientific points, because that’s not at all what VDARE does. But mostly this is all just hypotheticals ... my post point that this all seems proposing to flag VDARE on no actual incident or need other than IDONTLIKETHEM. If you cannot make an argument without hypotheticals and hyperbolics, can just drop it. I think we have beaten the points out so... over & out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Apart from being racists is there any evidence they are unreliable?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The website has no reputation for fact-checking and should probably not be trusted as a source on either biology or medicine. But could we use it as a primary source for its controversial writings (such as in the website's own article) or on background information on its writers? For example, we have an article on VDARE columnist Steve Sailer, and it used a citation to the website's list of columnists. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this would be allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF, but reliable secondary sources are still preferred. — Newslinger talk 06:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, this is a garbage website. As per the respected Yascha Mounk in his book The People vs. Democracy, page 145. However, we don't ban WP:BIASED sources just because they are biased. wumbolo ^^^ 14:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. This blog publishes unsubstantiated discriminatory claims, and then presents them as facts. Here are some quotations:
  • "left-handedness is generally a product of something having gone wrong in development either due to a sub-optimal environment, mutant genes or a combination of the two. This leads to an asymmetrical brain (asymmetry being a sign of “developmental instability”), the over-use of the right hemisphere, and thus left-handedness. Consistent with this, sexual deviants such as homosexuals and paedophiles display elevated levels of left-handedness." (from "How Many Divisions Have The Transsexuals?")
  • "Medicare fraud is dominated by immigrants, mostly Soviet Jews, but some Muslims and Africans. Even the few Anglo names, when investigated, invariably prove to be Third Worlders" (from "Why MSM Won’t Name Medicare Fraudsters: They’re All Immigrants")
  • "With their mental instability, risk-taking and hyper-sexuality, mixed-race people are following a “faster Life History Strategy” than monoracial people. A fast Life History Strategy happens when, due to an unstable ecology, you adapt to “live fast and die young” in order to pass on as many of your genes as you can as fast as you can." (from "Mixed-Race People: Taller, More Intelligent, Better Looking? —But Also Crazy")

— Newslinger talk 04:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The above quotes lean me towards it is not reliable, but being discriminatory or unsubstantiated does not mean "false" or "wrong". Can you provide some examples of them promoting provably false information?Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not how science works - some claims are too dumb or obscure to bother refuting, and Wikipedia doesn't rely on sources that make unsubstantiated OR false claims. Nblund ^talk 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

No, but you have to demonstrate they are false. As this has not been done (or attempted) I have to assume it cannot be shown they publish false information, just information people do not agree with.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No, we really don't. What you're doing here is reversing the burden of proof - if this were the policy, we would need to track down reliable sources to repudiate every fringe claim that came up, regardless of how implausible. No scientific journal is likely to publish a specific factcheck on the crackpot assertion that trans people are "madmen", but we can point to the scientific consensus around gender dysphoria to dismiss it as nonsense. Similarly, we're never going to get explicit refutations of VDARE's iteration of the various white genocide, George Soros, and voter fraud conspiracy theories, but we don't need to entertain the notion that these are any more accurate than any other versions of these long-debunked ideas. Nblund ^talk 20:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Also please do this to American Renaissance if that hasn't already happened. jps (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. These folks have nothing good to offer humankind. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• No I do not like it is not a valid objections, nor is publishing opinion (and that is what they do). I have asked for some evidence they falsify information (which given some of the claims presented here should not be that hard, facts can be checked), and no evidence has been forthcoming.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 4 December 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 an 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)

User:Hzh the about page you cited says "David Crotty serves as the Editor in Chief of The Scholarly Kitchen and Angela Cochran is our Associate Editor." Editors provide editorial control. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the review part? I've struck off that part, although "review" for research article usually refers to something done by one or more independent reviewers (they assess the quality of the article whether it is suitable for publishing), not the editor who serves a different function, but I can see that you interpret it in a different way. Hzh (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page further. We care about editorial control per WP:BIASED. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what WP:BIASED is referring to. Having an editor does not mean it is considered to have good editorial control, and I'm pretty sure a lot of discussions at RSN involve publications with editors. Hzh (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That said, it is indeed a blog, albeit an edited blog. It has been a major site for discussion of the open access movement. (ref doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2013.08.016 The question is whether the author is an expert, whose opinion should be given any WEIGHT in WP. The author is Andrew Pitts, Co-Founder and CEO of Publisher Solutions International, and is based on an invited talk he gave at a panel session at the 2018 Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) Annual Meeting, per the source. (the talk is here). Per this he is also the founder of IPRegistry, which is a service that provides IT security for publishers and their customers, especially academic libraries. So he way has a financial conflict of interest. He also is very clearly an expert in IT security in this field, and in my view his findings are relevant.

That source is from 2018. There is an earlier source from 2016:

Based in Kazakhstan, Sci-Hub hackers allegedly use compromised user credentials—usernames and passwords—to access proxy servers that manage access to licensed IP-authenticated content from academic institutions.... Sci-Hub takes advantage of an active international market in stolen user credentials, where innocent users give up their passwords to phishing attacks targeting the university community. In one such email attack, the hacker poses as a library service manager by using a combination of two real library staff members’ names familiar to faculty. The email draws users to a familiar URL address but, instead of taking them to their own library server, sends them to a secondary page (see Figure 1) with similar branding, though hosted in New Zealand. Input typed into the username and password fields on this page is captured and later used to illegally access licensed content... In October 2015 the court ruled in favor of Elsevier, agreeing that the defendants fraudulently obtained student or faculty access credentials on university campuses and used those credentials to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted scholarly journals, articles, and books hosted on ScienceDirect. Another content provider taking action to protect themselves against Sci-Hub is Wiley. In July 2015, Wiley informed customers that Sci-Hub was targeting student and faculty access credentials using methods similar to those mentioned in the Elsevier complaint, and offered guidance on identifying compromised systems and securing them against further attacks. Russell/Sanchez 2016-03 (That is from a journal, and the authors are Carrie Russell,. director of the Program on Public Access to Information in the American Library Association, and Ed Sanchez, who is head of Library and Information Technology at Marquette University)

btw, Cyber spying on universities is a thing; there actually is market for university credentials (just like there is for other username/passwords)

between those two refs, the content is fine, in my view. Please note the content does not say that Sci-Hub actively phishes; it only says that one source of the credentials they use is the black market in stolen university credentials.

finally, Elbakyan has said

in response to what Sanchez wrote: "That is untrue that we obtain any passwords by phishing though the Sci-Hub website." In response to followup question about the phishing experience described by Sanchez: "In that case it is possible, because Sci-Hub acquires passwords from many different sources. So it may well be possible that this professor’s password finally ended up being used on Sci-Hub website." In response to a follow up question: "At this moment I prefer not to disclose the thorough details of Sci-Hub operation, but I expect this to become possible in future." Sauropod followup to Ruff 2016-02 (widely cited in other refs here)

“It may be well possible that phished passwords ended up being used at Sci-Hub,” she said. “I did not send any phishing emails to anyone myself. The exact source of the passwords was never personally important to me.” (wapo 2016 (the first part of that quote is also in bohannon in Science, 2016-04

I did not tell Science how credentials were donated: either voluntarily or not. I only told that I cannot disclose the source of the credentials. I assume that some credentials coming to Sci-Hub could have been obtained by phishing. Anyway, Sci-Hub is not doing any phishing by itself. The credentials are used only to download papers. her 2017 "what WP gets wrong" post which is "Elbakyan, 2017" cited in eLife) Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I note that the 2016 piece presented no evidence for the claim of Sci-Hub takes advantage of an active international market in stolen user credentials and it is not sourced to any other studies. Note also that this quote does not support the more detailed description given in the content - the allegation by Scholarly Kitchen is that Sci-Hub sold credentials it stole, which is different from the 2016 piece which is about Sci-Hub obtaining credentials through the market. That 2016 article in any case looks to be an opinion piece with unsubstantiated allegations, and therefore should be treated as any other opinion piece, i.e. attribute the opinion. The other quotes are not useful to the discussion except to show that Elbakyan denied Sci-Hub was involved in phishing, as they do not support the claim made by Scholarly Kitchen which is about Sci-Hub being the active party in phishing and trading. Hzh (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It is right there in the quoted content from Sanchez.

As for SK, I already posted this at the sci-hub talk page, but the SK ref says {{tq}|More evidence collected shows that credentials that get into Sci-Hub’s hands are subsequently shared widely. How do we know? We caught them. When a particular set of credentials had been stolen and used first by Sci-Hub, the password was reset. For a short period afterward, the stolen credentials were monitored. The log file analysis revealed that there were 302 further attempts to access the site using the stolen credentials. The access points came from 12 countries including the United States, China, Thailand and Hong Kong. Only 17 of the attempts were from Sci-Hub itself, demonstrating the credentials stolen by Sci-Hub had gone viral. Scarily, those same stolen credentials were even being used by university users at 34 recognized universities! This tells us that the credentials had been passed around the web.}}

The number of misrepresentations in what you have posted here have made a mess of this. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No. Allegations and assertions are not evidence. Consider, say, a charge is made that John killed Jane, and it is then claimed that John entered the room, where the body of Jane's body was then found. Photos of someone entering the room and and Jane's body are then produced as evidence. That however is only evidence that someone had entered the room and that Jane died, and not who killed her, certainly not John. You need to produce evidence that it was John who actually entered the room and that there are other evidence to link him and her death. The so-called evidence given in the blog post is that attacks had taken place, the stolen credentials became widely available, but no evidence at all that it was Sci-Hub that was engaging in the attack or was responsible for spreading the credentials. There is absolutely zilch evidence for that, and the author made it clear that he cannot present such evidence. If this is a research article submitted for publication to a reputable journal, an independent reviewer would have picked up on the lack of actual evidence linking Sci-Hub to the hacking/phishing and trading, and would recommend rejection of the article. Hzh (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Primarily responding to the original post here, without getting into the broader content dispute. It strikes me that, regardless of the specific claims, if the only source covering claims regarding the rights of publishers being violated is an organization for those publishers, we should not be including it. Same principle as any other advocacy/lobbying/trade representation group that publishes material about how this or that is harming its members -- if it's worth including, it'll get picked up elsewhere (e.g. RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP on p2p throughout the 00s). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I would oppose using it with attribution except insofar as a secondary source has reported on the same claims. Otherwise, as with any other trade/advocacy organization, it does not carry WP:WEIGHT for most purposes. Same would go for any organization making claims to try to defend their members -- it needs to go through another degree of sourcing first. If there's secondary source coverage of the claims, then I see no problem to include the citation along with the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Only for attributed quotes - and with a clear qualification on the source (e.g. "The Scholarly Kitchen a blog established by the Society for Scholarly Publishing"). This is a blog by an advocacy group for academic publishers - and academic publishers are clearly in conflict with Sci-Hub (as via Sci-Hub users are able to bypass paywalls setup by the publishers - harming publisher revenue). Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• OK with attribution, and attribution is only needed if it is the sole source for this, since there are many blogs making the same point and indeed Elbakyan doesn't appear to dispute it. Icewhiz, there's no actual conflict here, scholarly publishing also encompasses open access and several of the organisational members of SSP publish open access journals. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  I would assume Elbakyan would dispute that Sci-Hub passes (or sells) credentials it receives onward to other third parties for purposes other than Sci-Hub. She probably doesn't dispute that Sci-Hub receives (or buys) the credentials. Many, if not most, of SSP members sell journals for profit. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, many, but not all by a long chalk. Enough that SSP's opposition to Sci-Hub is plausibly due to rights issues not just profit, anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The content no where says that Sci-Hub sells credentials; it seems not at all unlikely that the site buys them from the black market. The "donated, voluntarily or not" line kills me. But she is so cagey that this is all hazy - all we have are the bits and scraps. All the references for credentials are gathered at Talk:Sci-Hub#source_of_credentials_in_the_body along with a proposed edit to summarize them. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note, the issue with calls for 'attribution" are that the SK ref is a second source, behind the much stronger Sanchez one - unclear how this call for attribution would be realized in the content. The result of attribution would be to give the SK ref more prominence than what I (for one) would prefer to give it. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Sanchez article does not mention that the credentials used by Sci-Hub being subsequently used by third parties to access other information on university network. The Sanchez source is here, [12], and it says Sci-Hub hackers allegedly use compromised user credentials, then gather copyright-protected materials to be made available for its customeers via Sci-Hub. What the content says is very different. Note also its use of the word "allegedly". Hzh (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• should have mentioned that the Ruseell/Sanchez reference, to which the Sanchez piece is a follow up, says "Sci-Hub takes advantage of an active international market in stolen user credentials, where innocent users give up their passwords to phishing attacks targeting the university community. " That ref is important here as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Contrary to what was said above, the Society for Scholarly Publishing is not representative of all academic publishers; open access publishers have other industry bodies, such as OASPA. SSP's "Sustaining Organizational Members" and the Scholarly Kitchen Cabinet include at least three entities which are currently involved in a lawsuit against the subject of the article, which is pretty much the definition of a conflict of interest. That said, the publication often hosts pieces by reliable sources, you just have to discriminate on a case by case basis. Nemo 17:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Can we close this? There was significant support for TBANning the OP of this thread on ANI a few weeks back, and it doesn't look like there's been any improvement, as this dispute is also currently on AN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Fundinguniverse.com

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

It seem was discussed before, but i found out instead of problem as reliable source, the site seem in fact pirated the content of International Directory of Company Histories, which despite the book is RS, the website and the pirated version may not be a RS. So, should all the link be clean up entirely and add the domain to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? Matthew hk (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say not, as I can find nothing about who they are, or how they verify their information.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. FundingUniverse appears to be a self-published tertiary source that doesn't disclose who its authors are. The "Further Reading" section at the bottom of each listing provides a bibliography that makes a great starting point for research, but content from the site itself shouldn't be relied upon for accuracy. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, if you can show that the content is pirated, you should be able to remove external links to it under WP:ELNEVER. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• The content reproduced in Funding Universe is not pirated, it is released by the copyright holder. The content is from old editions of International Directory of Company Histories, and the same content is also used by the websites Encyclopedia.com, ReferenceForBusiness.com, and some others. One can determine the specific volume, date, publisher, and editor of the International Directory of Company Histories in question by Googling any sentence or long phrase (in quotation marks) of the content. They are always old volumes; Gale (the current copyright holder of International Dictionary of Company Histories) the keeps current volumes (the last few years) under copyright but releases content of the old volumes for general use. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not see any copyright notice of International Directory of Company Histories that release the content to that site. It sound strange. Matthew hk (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/terms.php. It just said the material was copyrighted but did not claim it received permission from the old publisher of International Directory of Company Histories. Also the first volume was published in 1988, they are not in the public domain. Matthew hk (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter that you can't personally find the info; what I stated is accurate. Gale publishes updated volumes of International Directory of Company Histories every year, and releases or sells the content of its various volumes from more than a few years back (a decade or more) to be reproduced by Encyclopedia.com, ReferenceForBusiness.com, and FundingUniverse.com. The source is attributed on each article/page. You're free to contact them to verify: [13]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It sound lame to email the pirate site to ask them do you pirated the content.They make a poorly coded website that also made invitation to post ad on the website. Also, http://www.fundinguniverse.com/licenses.php is dead link or intended or unintended "Unable to connect to MySQL server." to display the page. Matthew hk (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Rfc: Fundinguniverse.com

Should Fundinguniverse.com be removed and blacklisted on questionable copyright and as self-published tertiary source of International Directory of Company Histories. Matthew hk (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Not a Wikipedia RS. This is a somewhat preliminary answer, pending answers to questions below. There is no description of -- or really evidence of -- any real fact-checking or investigatory work done by the source. Most sources, and the company's own site, refer to the site as a service to get funding for businesses, not any kind of journalism. The primary WP:RS coverage of FundingUniverse is a 2011 Forbes magazine article claiming that they might be a ripoff and it appears the company changed its name at the same time. [14] It appears that the site scrapes content from the International Directory of Company Histories. Regardless of whether that is an authorized use, given the lack of any evidence or reputation of being a quality secondary source, it seems clear that the encyclopedia should cite the International Directory, not FundingUniverse.com. Chris vLS (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Couple questions. (Summoned by bot.)

@Matthew hk: Could you please provide a link to the previous discussion for this source? Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Do you have a source for the copyright status of the International Directory of Company Histories? Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

'Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz by Jan Gross

I'm bringing this discussion here from here: Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Postwar_Antisemitism.

A student I'm working with posted to the talk page for the article on the history of the Jews in Poland with his plans as far as expanding the section on postwar antisemitism. The source he planned on using is Jan Gross's 2006 book Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, which was published by Random House and Princeton University Press. This source has been disputed on the talk page with the following arguments for or against its use:

Against

• Xx236: The book is biased, has been criticized, and Gross is a sociologist as opposed to a historian.
• 2600:1001:B116:91A6:306F:ED57:5BDF:7A1D/2600:1001:B10D:19D1:CD21:E0C4:D1B4:B681 (I believe these to be the same person): States that Icewhiz is trying to push a viewpoint and that the book is only accepted by Jewish/Israeli media, not the overall mainstream media.

For

• Icewhiz: The book is usable, Gross is considered to be a reliable source on the topic, and the criticism for the book has predominantly come from Polish media and nationalists. The book has been routinely cited as an academic source. Mentions the Google Scholar citation counts and refutes the IP's assertion that the acceptance comes from only Jewish and Israeli media.
• Chapmansh: (Note: course instructor) The book has been accepted enough by mainstream academia to be used as a source. A compromise would be to acknowledge the criticism for the source in the expansion.
• Simon Adler: A very usable work, obviously accepted as an academic RS. Actually (IMO) one of those rare works which act as an engine of historiographical progress. For that reason and for expected orthodox academic debate I would agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's points about differing RS's being deployed as appropriate, but that hardly needs to be said.
• E.M.Gregory Gross and this book are regarded as the leading mainstream academic authority on the subject.

Neutral

• Piotrus: The book is usable as a reliable source, but doesn't represent a moderate standpoint. Suggests using other sources along with the Gross source.

I think that these are the only ones who have participated in the talk page discussion thus far. My suggestion is along the lines of Chapmansh and Piotrus, which is to acknowledge criticism and use multiple sources. I've also asked for examples of moderate sources. Since the discussion has gone on for quite a bit, I think it would be good to move this here to get a wider consensus. I'm a little concerned that this is more of a symptom of something that should be a far larger topic for discussion, since there are claims that this is an attempt to introduce biased content into the article (ie, pro-Judaism/Israeli bias or right-wing nationalists trying to downplay the impact of Poland during and after WWII). --Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• The article on the book (Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz) is a good place to look for more context. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gross's findings in Fear have been confirmed by multiple scholars. First, if it was published by Princeton University Press - one of the most highly valued academic presses - that means it was peer-reviewed by leading scholars in the field. Second, following are just two examples of university professors who rely on his work in their own (peer-reviewed) publications. Joshua Zimmerman, historian at Yeshiva University, acknowledged that Gross's work has generated large debate, but argued that said controversy was not a sign of Gross's weakness as a historian. Indeed, he wrote in relation to Neighbors, Gross's earlier book, "What distinguished this public debate was the consensus in the mainstream Polish press on the basic accuracy of Gross's findings, even if some details and Gross's methodology continue to inspire scholarly dialogue" (Introduction to Contested Memories, Rutgers 2003, pages 10-11). Natalia Aleksiun, professor of history at Touro College, wrote that Gross is one of the leading authorities on postwar anti-Semitism in Poland. "For the best account of antisemitism in the immediate postwar years, see Jan T. Gross" (Aleksiun, "Jewish Responses to Anti-Semitism in Poland, 1944-1947," in Contested Memories, Rutgers 2003, p 258). Third, Fear was a finalist for the National Book Award, a decision overseen by a panel of 25 "distinguished writers, translators, critics, librarians, and booksellers." ([15]). Fourth, in November 2016 the American Historical Association - the foremost professional association of historians in the United States - issued a public statement stating, "Princeton University Professor Jan Tomasz Gross... for four decades has done exemplary work on the history of World War II and on the Shoah in Poland." ([16]). There is no doubt that Gross has ruffled some feathers by drawing attention to Polish anti-Semitism in both his books, Neighbors and Fear, and his work has arguably been the most significant factor in propelling the Polish government to issue the Holocaust Law. Some scholars question minor aspects of his work - as scholars should - but no serious scholar has discredited Gross's work - not even near that. His work remains standard reading in college courses, and is cited as a reliable base by scholars who work on related matters. I'm happy to provide further evidence of any of these points.Chapmansh (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Gross's work has generated large debate - it doesn't prove that Gross informs about facts. BTW Goldhagen has also generated large debate but his theory isn't accepted. Nolte started Historikerstreit, so what?Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

findings? Gross' own findings are highly unreliable, like the picture from Golden Harvest. Gross summarises rather findings of Polish historians and publishes them in English with some controversial comments. The most funny is when Western people believe that Gross interviewed eyewitnesses. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• This doesn't even need to be here, there's no chance in hell anyone can argue Gross' book is non reliable. Of course it is. I am neutral only in so far as the book's neutrality is concerned. My point is that Gross, just like any other source, is biased, and represents one of several sides in the debate. As long as one understands that Gross is not the final authority, just one of many voices in the ongoing discussion, and that some other reliable sources have criticized some of his findings (which doesn't mean he cannot be cited and considered reliable!) it's all good. The student (and everyone else) is more than welcome to use this book - with the understanding that some things Gross writes are certainly not neutral (ditto for his critics, of course). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Include and attribute this information as a significant scholarly viewpoint on the topic. If there are other viewpoints include and attribute them. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously reliable, no attribution needed. This is probaby the most cited work in the field in the past decade. Google scholar has this cited almost 400 times. Gross is considered an authority. There is generally no need to attribute - Gross detractors, as they are, consist mainly of Polish far-right media, politicians, and a handful a WP:FRINGE scholars of an extreme ethno-nationalist school - these "detractors" (the more vocal of them) generally deny the well accepted Polish role in the Holocaust, Polish antisemitism, and justify or rationalize violence against Jews due to alleged Judeo-Communism (generally considered an antisemitic canard). While these ethno-nationalist "detractors" have been a subject of study (e.g. Michlic has published a number of academic works on Holocaust reception in Poland) - they are a WP:FRINGE viewpoint generally either dismissed outright or mentioned in the context of denial in Poland to accepted historical findings (a topic worthy perhaps of an article or section itself - there have been a few works analyzing this denialist movement).Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. The above comment is a good indicator of why Gross needs to be (occasionally) attributed. There are some in academia (and in our editor corps) who consider certain viewpoints to be truly neutral, perfect, and unchallenged, and label all critics of their preferred viewpoints as fringe extremists (an attitude that is a direct violation of NPOV). Gross is of course reliable and widely cited, but it does not mean that those who disagree with some of his claims are fringe extremists. One should wonder if such a claim shouldn't be made about those who put a certain viewpoint above and beyond any criticism, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would have to see the specific opinions/conclusions of Gross that are to be included and what any reputable counter arguments are for me to weigh in fully on this. Generally if it sounds like an opinion and there is only one source for that opinion I would say attribute it. Any facts that are peer reviewed by historians and not seriously questioned by other reliable sources could be stated in Wikipedia's voice. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I think Princeton University Press is a very good publisher, but agree with above comments; opinions should be attributed, even reliable ones.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Right. As I said, this discussion is pointless (a misunderstanding). Gross is reliable and can be cited, and occasionally some of his more unique/controversial claims should be attributed. This is all normal and per policy. There's nothing extraordinary to find and conclude here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
        • WP:FALSEBALANCE. Gross's writings are widely accepted. While repudiations and counter-works by far-right pundits in Poland,[17][18], media, and scholarship (per - [19] "using the term rather broadly") have become a topic of study (of Polish views and society) - such media discourse and quasi-scholarship is rarely cited in the academic sense outside of the context of analysis of denial-ism. The existence of a WP:FRINGE counter-view, does not mean we attribute mainstream published work on facts.Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Icewhiz: I don't have the foreign language skills to comment on the Polish language sources, but it seems there is consensus that Gross is reliable. If you want to discuss the reliability of other sources it might be easier to start separate discussions for those sources.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Seraphim System: Generally on high-level articles (specifically this one - History of the Jews in Poland as opposed to an individual event/locale/person which is lower down in the weeds), per policy WP:NOENG ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance") we should stick to English language sources - as they are of equal or superior quality and readily cover the topic. While there are some secondary sources available only in Hebrew, German, and Polish - most of the major journals are in English, as are the majority of books (for primary sources - in which Yiddish is important too - it is a different matter - however we generally don't use primary sources). The more significant non-English books also tend to be translated to English, and when not they are usually cited by others. There is a reason for this policy - use of non-English hampers WP:V and discussion by editors not fluent in the language, and I can also say from personal experience (and this is not specific to Polish language sources) - that there tends to be more verification/misrepresentation issues with non-English sources. As an aside - Gross in most of his works wrote little that was "new" to Western scholarship (e.g. English, German, Hebrew) - Jedwabne was a well known event prior to Gross (though not as extensively researched as it has become post-Gross), as are the events in Fear. Gross's work was groundbreaking in that it incorporated Polish language primary evidence (available after the fall of communism) and in its being delivered to a Polish audience (in Polish, in parallel to his English version, the Polish versions do differ from the English) - which sparked a public debate in Poland, on matters for the most part settled decades prior in Western scholarship.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  The foreign language source issue was discussed extensively at AE and there was no consensus for an outright ban. I don't see what it has to do with Gross. Regarding the use of sources outside mainline Western scholarship, the conclusion at AE was that it needs to be resolved through discussion at the article talk page. I don't think anything has changed about that, we can't just ban them for being non-Western. You would have to post the sources and the context they were used in.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Gross isn't reliable, because he doesn't care about details. His books were adressed to Polish people, to oppose their childish nationalism/d3enialism, rather than to inform the world about facts.

Please prove that Fear is of equal or superior quality and readily covers the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The book has been discussed here, it has a separate page. Now a student comes - hello, I know the subject from the book. Please read a number of other sources.

The book is certainly not a reliable source regarding an alleged partisan's diary. If we decide the book is reliable, someone may quote the diary.Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The book is clearly a reliable source. It is already cited by 382 other works according to a google scholar search. Plus it has been published by Princeton University Press. Being biased is not an argument against reliability- if someone thinks that an opinion based on the book is biased, we can always attribute.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree that it is RS, and I agree that his claims need attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This book is clearly a reliable source as it is published by Princeton University Press. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I found at least three reviews on this book, all of them are generally positive:

• Reviewed Work(s): Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz by Jan T. Gross. Review by: Robert Legvold. Source: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 85, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 2006), p. 173
• Reviewed Work(s): Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, an Essay in Historical Interpretation by Jan T. Gross Review by: D. Stola Source: The English Historical Review, Vol. 122, No. 499 (Dec., 2007), pp. 1460-1463
• Reviewed Work(s): Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz. An Essay in Historical Interpretation by Jan T. Gross Review by: Padraic Kenney Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Spring, 2007), pp. 108

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion I really think this "Jews and antisemitism in Poland" topic area has reached the point where discretionary sanctions are warranted. I came to RSN just now because I was tired of the drahma boards, where this issue has come up frequently for at least the last year or so.

As for this specific question, I would say that the source can be used, preferably in conjunction with better sources, lacking any better sources that contradict it; it shouldn't be rejected for specific claims without a better source.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sentinelese and spears

• Source 1: "Attacked By Andaman Tribe, Coast Guard Officer's Terrifying Account" - NDTV
• Source 2: Cops Studying Rituals Of Tribe That Killed US Man To Recover His Body - NDTV
• Article: Sentinelese
• Text: [20]

This relates to a description of a 2006 incident where a group of Sentinelese attacked a helicopter. The incident is sourced by two articles, both from NDTV (so we are not at the moment debating whether NDTV is, in itself, a reliable source).

Source 1 is specifically about the incident, and quotes the pilot of the helicopter as saying: "As we were going down, we were attacked by the Sentinel tribals who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well. The arrows were coming up to a height of 100 feet".

Source 2 is primarily about a later incident, but includes a brief summary of the earlier incident: "In 2006, Sentinelese hurled arrows and spears at the chopper that Commandant Praveen Gaur flew to North Sentinel." This sentence links to Source 1.

Our page initially only used Source 1, and said the helicopter was "attacked with arrows"; User:DBigXray changed this to "with spears and arrows"; I reverted on the basis that this wasn't supported by the source given; DBigXray reverted back, and eventually added Source 2 as justification.

It seems to me that Source 1, an article about the topic with an eyewitness account, is the significantly better source on this incident, and specifically says that arrows were used and spears were not; Source 2, a brief summary in the same publication linking to Source 1, seems a clearly worse source.

In discussion at Talk:Sentinelese#Spears, DBigXray insists that we should use Source 2 to say that the helicopter was attacked with spears, and that he wants to include this because "the only weapons of tribals are arrows and spears and they have clearly used everything they got. A clear warning that meant 'trespasser be gone'. The damaging power of a spear is much larger than an arrow." This seems to me to be a decidedly POV approach to editing. He then provided a series of other putative sources to back up the content, but these all turned out to not actually relate to the incident in question.

This is an utterly minor debate in itself, but DBigXray said if I still objected to his version I should take it here, and I am sufficiently troubled by his approach to sourcing (in this and other debates on the same page) that I have done he suggests. TSP (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In my view, the first source is the best, and the second source does a poor job of summarizing the first. Contradictions between the two should be resolved in favor of the first source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The first source says two things. First it says "who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well", then it says "were attacking my helicopter with everything they had." The second sentence supports the contention that they were attacking with spears as well as with bows and arrows. The second source says "Sentinelese hurled arrows and spears at the chopper". I don't think one can say either of these sources is any better or worse than the other. They are from the same publication and about the same topic. In my opinion there are two reliable sources that support the contention that both bows and arrows and spears were used in the attack. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, I interpret the phrase "with everything they had" as fighting with great determination, but not neccesarily unleashing every single one of their weapons. The choice of the word "using" with regards to bows and arrows and "had" with regards to spears is significant and must be taken into account. Also worth noting is that a soldier can carry many arrows and they are effective at up to 200 meters. A soldier can only carry two or three spears and they are much shorter range weapons, used for thrusting in close combat more often than throwing, and have a far shorter effective range than arrows when thrown. Source one says that the helicopter was 200 meters away from the islanders. Given their culture and their available weapons, it was militarily effective to fire arrows. It would have been a total waste of their heaviest weapons to throw spears from 200 meters. In the Olympics, only one athlete in history has ever succeeded in throwing a javelin over 100 meters, and military grade spears are much heavier. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Cullen, I interpret "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had" as meaning "every weapon they had". Being a native speaker of Indian English, I can also safely claim that Gaur also meant the literal meaning (i.e. "every weapon they had") rather than the metaphorical meaning, as this phrase is commonly used in Indian English to refer to the literal meaning.
• During the 2004 incident the helicopter did not land it was attacked by both arrows and spears, with a clear motive.

• Indian Coast Guard helicopter surveying the island for survivors encountered tribals trying to bring it down with spears and arrows [21]

Please see Commandant Gaur's interview with NDTV here talking about the 2006 incident

• more than 50 or 100 people are running towards you with spears, arrows and shooting towards you.- Gaur

• In 2006, Sentinelese hurled arrows and spears at the chopper that Commandant Praveen Gaur flew to North Sentinel."[22]

Regarding your military analysis and possible uses, You are making a flawed assumption that during the 2006 incident with Gaur, the Helicopter always remained at a height of 200m, that assumption is not supported by any evidence. Please note that during the 2006 incident the helicopter wasn't always at a distance of 200m. In fact it did land at two occasions at two different places on the island. So it is quite possible that when the helicopter was flying at a lower height or while being landed, the Tribals would have used spears as well. Gaur also states that they were attacked with spears and arrows and these 2 quotes from NDTV plus several others mentioned above should be enough to settle this thread.

Here are some other sources that say that both arrows and spears are used.

• Police say Chau knew that the Sentinelese resisted all contact by outsiders, firing arrows and spears at passing helicopters [23]

• driving away uninvited guests — whether they arrive by boat or fly overhead — with spears and bow and arrows [24]

• I am going to ignore the false allegations of POV above. All said, this is such a trivial dispute and I fail to understand why so much fuss about spears and why TSP wants to remove spears while there are so many sources stating they use spears on Helicopters. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The question is not "do the Sentinelese ever use spears?", it is "Do the sources suggest they used spears on this occasion?" All these other sources either refer to completely different incidents, or refer to no incident in particular; so they are not relevant sources for this. There are not "so many sources" saying they used spears in 2006; there is one, it is not a very good one and it is contradicted by a much better one.

Regarding "with everything they had", the full quote is: "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere." That seems to clarify the meaning - it does not say "arrows and spears were flying everywhere". In several different quotes Gaur is specific about what they were attacked with; in each case he says arrows and does not say spears.

With regard to POV, I am only quoting your words. TSP (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Being a native speaker of Indian English" shouldn't make it hard for you to understand whatever is being told to you in English since the language and the meaning of the words is still entirely same. How it was possible to attack with spears? They must have got spears but where they used to spears or not is unclear. Excelse (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree with DBigXray that the literal meaning seems much more likely than the metaphorical one. I agree that the helicopter was on the ground at the time of the attack so an attack with spears would have been feasible. I don't think that Gaur saying that "arrows were flying everywhere" in any way means spears weren't being used. I think it means that there were lots of arrows. IMHO the first source alone makes it clear that spears were used in addition to arrows and the second source reiterates it. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere. I was on the ground on North Sentinel Island. The rotors of my chopper were running. In moments, my crew and I would have been captured and killed." - Gaur [25]

Notice that Gaur clearly says "he was on the ground" and not airborne at a height of 200m while talking about the attack.

When the helicopter tried to retrieve them, it was attacked with spears and arrows by more than 50 tribesmen who shot arrows to a height of more than 100 feet.

• The above is the quote from the Wikipedia article being discussed here and as it stands this statement doesn't make any wild or ludicrous claim and is sourced with RS and quotes that are mentioned above. Notice that our article is not claiming that the spears were thrown 200m above the ground. The line in the article does not distinguish between on ground attack or airborne attack. The line in article only claims what has been reported thus far. There are only 2 reported incidents of Helicopters coming under attack and both events mention arrows and spears. They used spears on Helicopter in 2004 and after just 2 years, in 2006 they did not use ? There is no reasonable explanation for why they will refrain from doing it. Anyway, we follow what the reliable media reports, and we have reliable media reports that back this statement.

• Police say Chau knew that the Sentinelese resisted all contact by outsiders, firing arrows and spears at passing helicopters [26][27]

Notice the usage of plural with helicopter, the reliable media uses the statement for both occasions and Gaur's interview also confirms the spears were used to attack.--DBigXrayᗙ 02:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"There is no reasonable explanation for why they will refrain from doing it"? That is an extraordinary approach to writing a Wikipedia article - we should assert things happened because we can't think of a reason why they wouldn't have? Making inferences from plurals in articles seems pretty dubious too - if they'd used arrows twice and spears once, that still seems to be perfectly well-covered by "firing arrows and spears at passing helicopters". Trying to extract detailed commentary on a particular incident from a generic remark seems to be original research synthesis.

It still seems to me that we have two sources that actually describe this incident; and the one that says spears were not used is by far the superior one.

All the other sources are either *about a completely different incident*, or make a generic statement, so have no relevance; nor does anyone's logic about what behaviour on the part of the islanders would have been sensible. TSP (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

TSP your statement that "Spears were not used" is not based on any source but your own "personal opinion/understanding" of the quotes. Gaur states that he was attacked by arrows and spears and we have other reliable sources also stating that Spears were used on Helicopter. I have said all I had to say on this thread in great detail with quotes and there is nothing more for me to add. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Gaur doesn't say he was attacked by spears. He says the tribe members "were using bows and arrows and had spears as well". I find it hard to read that as saying they were using both arrows and spears.

The other sources which relate to different incidents or are general comments remain completely irrelevant. TSP (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

TSP, why do you think one of these sources is superior to the other? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my original post, they are from the same publication, but Source 1 is an extensive article specifically on this topic, quoting an eyewitness; Source 2 is a brief summary, with a link to Source 1, appearing in an article on another subject. It seems unlikely to me that Source 2 is more authoritative than Source 1, which it appears to be an attempt to summarise. TSP (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• It seems as though it is hard to be sure exactly what happened. What about this phrasing: ...firing arrows at the helicopter,[cite 1] and according to one article, throwing spears as well.[cite 2] ? -Darouet (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

From what I can gather it is not clearly stated whether they threw spears or not. "Everything they had" is not precise. Why not wrote something along the lines of

The helicopter was attacked by tribesmen armed with spears bows and arrows. The pilot is quoted as saying "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere."and leave it at that. This is better than trying to synth the sources and work out whether the spears they had were sufficient to get to any distance that could do any damage or whether they got closer than 200m or not. When a quote is not clear then write it as is rather than trying to interpret it. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, though I think "As we were going down, we were attacked by the Sentinel tribals who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well. The arrows were coming up to a height of 100 feet" is the more interesting quote; or we could include both. TSP (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks OK to me so long as the quote comes from a reliable source. I think it is not very important to the article whether it was spears or arrows that were coming at them. I find it odd that Indian English has a significantly different meaning to the phrase "with everything they had" that means that an Indian English speaker is more apt to understand than a British or American or Australian speaker for example. That aside I listened to the interview on youtube with the pilot and not once did he says that spears were thrown but not once did he say they were not so we cannot write they were or not thrown. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Commandant Pravin Gaur of the Coast Guard...His helicopter was attacked by arrows and spears and he couldn't land the first time round. NDTV

Another quote from NDTV directly stating that both arrows and spears were used.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Mm. So that is arguably a second source (from the same origin as the previous one). But, once again, it's a summary of more detailed content - a video this time - where Commandant Gaur has every opportunity to say that spears were used, but every time only says arrows were used (but that they also had spears).

"When we had gone down to make a search by the helicopter, the tribals, who are very ferocious, they started attacking the helicopter with bows and arrows"

"More than 50 or 100 people are running towards you with spears, arrows, and shooting at you"

TSP (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This is absolutely a third source that explicitly mentions spears, both in the text and in the video. I don't see why TSP thinks this is a summary. It is a live interview with Gaur that provides more details than in the other two reports. In the video Gaur says "more than 50, 100 people are running towards you with spears, arrows and shooting at you". All three reports are from NDTV which is a reliable source. There is no reason to not include mention of spears. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we may have lost sight of what the text is that is being discussed. Currently in the article: "When the helicopter tried to retrieve them, it was attacked with spears and arrows by more than 50 tribesmen who shot arrows to a height of more than 100 feet (30 m)." (my emphasis)

Yes, absolutely, Gaur has mentioned on multiple occasions that the tribesmen had spears. He also seems to consistently only mention that they attacked the helicopter with arrows. As per source 1, " we were attacked by the Sentinel tribals who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well." In the new source, only the text summary on the video suggests the helicopter was attacked with spears; Gaurs own words in the video (which I transcribed some of above), again, only mention it being attacked with arrows, while the tribesmen also had spears. TSP (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again I refer you to the attacking "with everything they had" quote. I support Domdeparis' suggestion that we go with the direct quote from the article instead of trying to infer what they mean i.e. "The helicopter was attacked by tribesmen armed with spears and bows and arrows. The pilot is quoted as saying "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere." Do you support this @DBigXray:? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Leigh (talk • contribs)

Accumulating all sources so far	Actual Quote from the linked article talking about Spear
NDTV Article 1	"As we were going down, we were attacked by the Sentinel tribals who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well. The arrows were coming up to a height of 100 feet," says Commandant Gaur. "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere. I was on the ground on North Sentinel Island. The rotors of my chopper were running. In moments, my crew and I would have been captured and killed."
NDTV Article 2	In 2006, Sentinelese hurled arrows and spears at the chopper that Commandant Praveen Gaur flew to North Sentinel.
NDTV Article 3	Commandant Pravin Gaur of the Coast Guard...His helicopter was attacked by arrows and spears and he couldn't land the first time round.
Interview with NDTV	more than 50 or 100 people are running towards you with spears, arrows and shooting towards you.- Gaur
Nbcnews	Police say Chau knew that the Sentinelese resisted all contact by outsiders, firing arrows and spears at passing helicopters.
TheSun	Police say Chau knew that the Sentinelese resisted all contact by outsiders, firing arrows and spears at passing helicopters.
News.com.au	The Sentinelese are the most reclusive of the cluster and have a fearsome reputation for driving away uninvited guests — whether they arrive by boat or fly overhead — with spears and bow and arrows.
Quartz	Indian Coast Guard helicopter surveying the island for survivors encountered tribals trying to bring it down with spears and arrows

• User:Morgan Leigh, noting that I didnt get your ping above, probably becuase you did not sign. I must extend my thanks to User:Morgan Leigh, for pointing out the obvious here to TSP.
• TSP, I hope you are aware that the Journos have a pre-interview discussion as well as post-interview discussion with the interviewee. I get a sense from your arguements above that you are assuming here that if something is not quoted in the first person quote in an article then it basically never happened. This is absolutely flawed approach. The direct quotes are added by the journos in the article to generate reader's interest as it makes the reading exciting. Other relevant discussions are generally summarized in the article. Not every piece of information is necessarily presented in the news report in the form of direct quote. Other than first person account, (Gaur here, who never said spears were not used), the journos also refer to other available primary, secondary, tertiary sources before writing the article. And the crux of the journo's investigation is published in their report.
• I have shared in this discussion thread 3 separate articles from NDTV stating that both spears and arrows were used to attack. Apart from NDTV there are other sources also confirming the same. The content on spear is reliably sourced. And our article should include the mention the use of "spears and arrows to attack". Although I will not prefer but I am ok to use the exact quote in the article, but if we are using a quote we should not be cherry picking based on personal likeness of the content. We will have to use the full quote as mentioned in the table row 1 above (that also mentions the use of spears). The use of spears is well documented and reliably sources, If TSP is not willing to acknowledge these reliable sources mentioning "spears", in spite of such a long discussion here it is his problem. The mention of attack with spears cannot be dropped from the article section.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You're still including sources that describe an entirely different incident. Surely you can at least acknowledge that those ones have no relevance?

A quote seems the best solution - I've never objected to mention of spears, only the assertion that they were used, which Gaur never seems to me to say - but if your reading is that he does say that, I guess we can just include the quote and both be happy.

I guess it can be all 81 words of Gaur's two quotes - seems like rather a lot, but sure. TSP (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yay, we have a consensus! Thank you both for your input. Someone can go ahead and put this text in ""The helicopter was attacked by tribesmen armed with spears and bows and arrows. The pilot is quoted as saying "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere."". Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, as suggested I have updated the article with the quote above. Thank you everyone for sharing your kind opinions on this thread. Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

bahai-library.com

There are hundreds of links to bahai-library.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com . The site's About page says: "This library is a private, independent, all-volunteer project created by Jonah Winters and a team of contributors. It and its content are wholly unofficial and are not sponsored or endorsed by any Bahá'í body or institution. It is not affiliated with the Bahá'í Reference Library". Unless anyone disagrees, I will set about removing them as the spam they appear to be. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be just another website, yep I would say not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Not even close to RS Cinadon36 (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Two things. (a) The site in question is a reference library and is hosting books and other scholarly materials, which are in turn being cited on wikipedia. (b) This noticeboard requires you to provide discreet information about each source you wish to have comment on and the exact text it is referring to. This being the case, each work should be scrutinised by looking at the author, publisher and what it is being cited for. What you are asking for here is a blanket ban on an entire site without any of this information. IMHO This is a very dangerous direction for Wikipedia to head in. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

^ what he said. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Jonah here, chief editor of Baha'i Library Online (bahai-library.com). I had to include the note cited above, about "wholly unofficial", only because of a unique aspect of Baha'i studies known as "Literature Review" (an in-house review process for print publications, the details of which don't matter here). But the thousands of items on the website include hundreds of books and articles which have both gone through academic peer-review, have been published by reputable mainstream publishers, and have been approved for posting online by the copyright holders themselves. These materials are all indubitably RS. Each link to bahai-library.com needs to be scrutinized independently. A sample of its content can be gleaned by browsing the citations from academia.edu: google.com/search?q=site:academia.edu+bahai-library.com Jonah Winters (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to pop in to lend my support to Morgan and Jonah here and say that the individual links should be scrutinized rather than putting a blanket ban on the site. As Jonah said, many of the texts available on the site have been peer reviewed and released by reputable publishers; they're simply made available on the site in the same way that Google Books or the Internet Archive makes publications available online. However, there are other texts on the site that have not been published anywhere else; these include personal essays and emails that have been essentially given to the site for posting (@Jonah22:, correct me if I'm wrong here). These probably shouldn't be considered reliable sources since this essentially amounts to self-publishing. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 04:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Dragfire, Jonah and Moran Leigh. Here's a list of academic publications beyond academic.edu that actually use cites from BLO I put together:

• Velasco, Ismael (2001). "Academic Irrelevance or Disciplinary Blind-Spot?". Middle Eastern Studies and the Bahā’i Faith Today. 35 (2). Cambridge University Press: 188–198. doi:10.1017/S0026318400043340.
• Bishop, Laura Jane; Susan Cartier Poland (Dec 2002). "Bioethics and cloning, part II". Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 12 (4): 391–407. ISSN 1054-6863. OCLC 4637509259.
• Pink, Johanna (2005). "The Concept of Freedom of Belief and Its Boundaries in Egypt: The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Baha'i Faith Between Established Religions and An Authoritarian State". Culture and Religion. 6 (1): 135–160. doi:10.1080/01438300500071422.
• Melanie Lotfali (2006). Engaging East Timorese Men in the Process of Establishing Gender Equality (Doctorate). University of New England, Maine. p. 76. OCLC 277175039.
• Habib Allah Afnan; Ahang Rabbani (Nov 27, 2008). Genesis of the Bábi-Bahá'í Faiths in Shíráz and Fárs. Studies in the history of religions. Vol. 122. Brill. p. 382. ISBN 9789047442349. OCLC 878682368.
• Danesh, Roshan (2010). "Hegemony and Revelation: A Bahá'í Perspective on World Order". Religious Studies and Theology. 29 (1): 123–138. doi:10.1558/rsth.v29i1.123. ISSN 1747-5414.
• Gilman, P. (2011). "Whatever the Sacrifice: Illness and Authority in the Baha'i Faith". In Schumm D.; Stoltzfus M. (eds.). Disability and Religious Diversity. New York: Palsgrave Macmillan. pp. 19–45. doi:10.1057/9780230339484_2. ISBN 978-0-230-11973-4.
• Palmer, David A. (10 Dec 2014) [2012]. "From "Congregations" to "Small Group Community Building" Localizing the Bahá'í Faith in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Mainland China". Chinese Sociological Review. 45 (2): 78–98. doi:10.2753/CSA2162-0555450205.
• Lisbeth Nielsen; Sue L.T. McGregor (September 2013) [June 10, 2013]. "Consumer morality and moral norms". International Journal of Consumer Studies. 37 (5): 473–480. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12032. ISSN 1470-6423.
• Roland Faber (20 June 2018). The Garden of Reality: Transreligious Relativity in a World of Becoming. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 483, 484, 489, 493, 509. ISBN 978-1-4985-7624-6.

The reliability of the sources depends on the sources themselves. BLO is a responsible library of material. Smkolins (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

And here's some reliable sources that suggest one should go to BLO (all gathered today though none included dates of their own publication):

• "Baha'i library online". Arts and Humanities Community Resource. University of Oxford.
• "Baha'i - Portals". Religious Studies Web Guide. Libraries and Cultural Resources, University of Calgary.
• "Baha'i faith". SOAS Library. University of London.
• "Research Guides: Religion : Websites". University of Tennessee Chattanooga.
• "Website On Religion - baha\'i". American Theological Library Association.

and I could not find any that warned people not to go there. Smkolins (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Smkolins, Morgan, Jonah, Dragfyre, etc. Some of the content hosted there is really high quality and it would be a shame to try and locate some of it elsewhere. However, if there is specific questionable content on the site we should remove those sources. Rm9820 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: The Sun

Should The Sun be deprecated as a source in the same manner as the Daily Mail (RfC), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use the The Sun as a reference? feminist (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Addendum: note that this does not prevent The Sun from being used as a source. Users are merely warned when trying to use it as a source, but nothing prevents it from being added to an article. feminist (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey (The Sun)

• Support as nominator. The Sun is considered less trustworthy, less accurate and more biased than the Daily Mail in polls and surveys. (Ofcom News Consumption in the UK 2018, p 94, Ipsos Impartiality and Trust Market Content Survey 2017, p 14-16, BBC 2014, p 10-11) Prior discussions on the suitability of The Sun as a reference (see WP:RSP#The Sun) often compare its unreliability to the Daily Mail. It's clear that The Sun is at least as bad as the Daily Mail as a source, and should be deprecated the same way. feminist (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am swayed by the opposing arguments provided. I still think The Sun should generally be avoided as a source, and a filter may be helpful in that regard, though I am no longer convinced that something akin to what happened the Daily Mail ban would be ideal. I don't want editors to be bullied off the project just because they used an unreliable source, nor do I want non-contentious content referencing unreliable sources to be blanket removed or their citations replaced with {{cn}}. feminist (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support seems perfectly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support of the "I thought they already were" variety. ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all such "deprecations" as being past the slippery slope level. Especially since almost all "science and medicine articles" (in newspapers and the like) (appended parenthetical comment to avoid misapprehension) are based on press releases not otherwise checked in any way by extremely few major newspapers. I support deprecation of every single "celebrity gossip" site, however, for celebrity gossip. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/science-by-press-release/ " Instead of presenting an accurate representation of medical research, medical journalists have become complicit in transmitting inaccurate or deceptive “puff pieces” designed to hype the supposed discovery and hide any deficiencies in the research." https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/dec/10/science-health-news-hype-press-releases-universities " Instead, in most cases when news stories made claims beyond those made in the peer-reviewed journal article, such exaggeration was already present in the university press release." https://www.imediaethics.org/telegraph-didnt-break-press-guidelines-bc-anti-fracking-error-came-from-govt-report/ "Even though the UK Telegraph’s article on a local British government report was inaccurate, it wasn’t a breach of press guidelines because the Telegraph accurately reported on the government report, and the report itself had the error." The errors are from reports and press releases which are now unchecked by most news outlets at all. Even The Times and The Guardian. Ban them all if this is the rationale. Collect (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  You refer to a problem in one area for otherwise reliable sources, while this is about recurring issues regarding fabrication of stories in many topic areas. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

almost all "science and medicine articles" are based on press releases - I don't think that's correct. The biomedical information in most medical articles is built around quality (WP:MEDRS) sources, not press releases reported in newspapers. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you note that press releases are used by just about every major newspaper now - recall that staffing levels at newspapers in general are down more than 40% in less than a decade. Revenues for newspapers are down about 60% in the same general time period. For medical press releases see [28] back in 1998 - " Of the 1060 newspaper stories analyzed, 142 referred to journal articles; of these, 119 (84%) referred to articles mentioned in press releases and 23 (16%) referred to journal articles not mentioned in press releases (comparison of proportions, P=.03). Articles described first or second were referenced in more newspapers than articles described later in the press release (P=.01 by chi2 analysis)." Yep - newspapers even back in 1998 relied very heavily on those press releases, and did not do too much work as journals not mentioned near the top of the release did not get mentioned in articles.

[29] 2003 "Maryland. In a breakthrough discovery that may change the face of scientific communication forever, a researcher has found that, although journalists rely on press releases to bring important discoveries to their attention, they do not write news stories about every press release they receive. Even more striking is the discovery that press releases from scientific journals sometimes present incomplete information about scientific findings.

“I’m shocked, just shocked”, said the author of the article, which appears in the current issue of Science Editor. “I never would have guessed that journalists would have such blatant disregard for what they are told is news, and I never would have suspected that journals aren’t neurotically meticulous in their press releases.” ("fake" press release used for real article following)

(actual finding) Woloshin and Schwartz found that 23% of the press releases mentioned study limitations, and 65% quantified study results. (JAMA study)

In short - often the fault is in the press release sent out by the actual medical journal, and something an editor would not normally call back on. (read the full article - it also deals with specific newspapers)

[30] (covering the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and Times) In 2008, researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, UK, discovered that 60 percent of the articles in British newspapers the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent had been copied from wire reports and press announcements issued by various corporations, businesses and universities. Three out of four such stories had also gone to print without being fact-checked, a trend that seems widespread: in 2012, an audit sponsored by the European Observatory of Journalism found factual errors in approximately half of all news stories published in Switzerland, Italy and the United States:60% - and including the "elite" newspapers in the same group. [31] "Most newspaper articles (72%) were written by named journalists (the unnamed journalist category refers to labels such as ‘Daily Mail Reporter’) and in nearly a quarter of cases were there was no clear identification of who had written the story (as is often the case with Nibs). Only 1% of stories were directly attributable to PA or other wire services (see Table 2.4). At first glance, then, these data suggest that the newspapers give the impression that they depend on their own journalists rather than wires or other outside sources." then " Indeed, 30% of the stories in our press sample replicated wire service copy almost directly, and a further 19% were largely dependent on wire copy. In other words, nearly half of all press stories appeared to come wholly or mainly from wire services. " Even where a "journalist" gets a by-line.

DM gets a hit "So, for example, a story about the health risks of eating oily fish (‘Why oily fish might not be so good for your health after all’, Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail, March 24th 2006, p7) directly replicates facts and quotations taken from two Press Association stories, and another from the regional news wire Mercury." but not for being "inaccurate" but for copying inaccurate material from what Wikipedia would normally accept as a "reliable source."

"Despite the covert nature of much PR activity, we expected to find examples of PR playing an agenda-setting role. However, in many cases the influence of PR goes much further. We found that nearly one in five newspaper stories and 17% of broadcast stories were verifiably derived mainly or wholly from PR material or activity (Table 2.6) – which suggests that the practice is rather more typical than John Lloyd’s critique suggests."

"For example, a Times story headlined ‘George Cross for Iraq War Hero’ (Michael Evans, The Times, 24th March 2006, p27) is an almost verbatim repetition of a press release issued by the Ministry of Defence. " also from The Times "An example of a print story that mainly consists of information from a single source of PR material is an article in The Times about a new league table of UK Heart Surgeons (‘Hand on heart, who is the best surgeon?’, Nigel Hawkes, The Times, 27th April 2006, p16). The article is almost wholly derived from a press release issued by the Healthcare Commission," uzw.

In short - even a decade or more ago, newspapers were dominated by press release material - and the situation is worse today by far (noting that US newspaper employment is down over 40% - and the number of actual newspaper journalists is down much more as the total "newsroom" count includes the "web editors.") Back in 1998 [32] " Like most news organizations, Business Week has no choice but to put its trust in the fairness and accuracy of its reporters, because neither money nor time allows for writers' work to be formally fact-checked. ", then "At the same time, newsmagazines are curtailing their fact-checking budgets and requiring their writers to verify those details once double-checked by others. And at many newspapers, those traditional sentinels of accuracy, editors and copy editors, are expected to focus more than ever on presentation of stories, less on their content." then " One more fact-checking caveat. Most researchers rarely trust newspaper clips. Not formally fact-checked before publication, say magazine staffers, they're just too prone to contain errors. "We're not going to trust that the New York Times has been fact-checked," says Forbes' Kroll. " Clear?

[33] from Forbes is fun to read - managing to note a newspaper which ran a headline "Amphibious Pitcher Makes Debut" But wait, there's more!

[34] The Times again " Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error." In 2015 they should have caught it earlier. And delightfully The New York Times "An earlier version of this column misidentified the sea that God parted in the Book of Exodus. It is the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea." Although I suppose Lot parted the Dead Sea ...

What we have left? No newspaper is as assiduous in fact-checking as it was even 15 years ago. Even "elite" papers routinely use press releases without actually looking to the studies puffed. Silly proof-readers are no longer used at newspapers - they rely on automated spill chuckers. And thus the theoretical belief that "good newspapers always check facts" is gone with the wind. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble - but papers that used to have a dozen (low paid) fact checkers now generally have zero. Their old group of actual proofreaders - gone forever. One newspaper (?) [35] offers zero money for "volunteer proofreaders"! In 1909, New York City alone[36] had on the order of 1000 compositors and proofreaders. Many "working" proofreaders get well under $25K p.a. (bottom 10% get under $19K) In New York, a person at the proposed new minimum wage for fry cooks there will make over $30K p.a.

I trust the points are clear - so will leave with [37] The New York Times got rid of all its remaining 125 Linotype operators and proofreaders (many did both due to cutbacks) - by 1990. In short "elite" papers also run press releases. The main and substantiated difference is down to headline writing - and the job of the headline writer is the same as the "clickbait" writer - no more, no less. If anyone uses a newspaper article, note that the real journalist does not write the headlines. Until we have genuine amphibious pitchers in baseball. And not the fact that 49% of "science articles" as a minimum use such press releases as the source. Collect (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

So, you seem to be suggesting that citing The Sun is fine since, because no newspaper bothers to check facts any more, it's no worse than any other newspaper. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said no such thing at all, I ask you to pay attention to what I wrote. Attacking "straw men" might be fun, but it rarely has any real value. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I "paid attention" by reading all of it. Now twice. And that was the message I personally got from it. Apologies if that was a complete misunderstanding on my part. I wonder could you possibly explain, for numpty nitwits like myself, how what you have written is relevant to The Sun. Yours, with the short straw, Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, I would consider no newspaper to meet WP:MEDRS full-stop, unless it is written by an acknowledged expert in the field with the appropriate qualifications. And even then I might only go as far as saying it's a reliable source for an opinion. However, I can't remember the last time I saw any argument for using The Sun as a reliable source for medicine against other news sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No newspaper which uses press releases from any source without checking them is really reliable for any material at all any more. And that means This proposal should include The Times and The Guardian and The New York Times. Sorry -- this proposal is fatally flawed and will lead to hundreds of blacklisted sources in the long run. Those who say "We all know The Sun is rubbish and we should excise all rubbish from the project are wrong, because at some other place and time, your own favored sources might well be considered "rubbish" by others. This is not really about WP:MEDRS at all. Collect (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see this proposal not as a total ban of The Sun. I understand it as an attempt to save our time, because, as a rule, an attempt to use The Sun as a source may have two outcomes. First, it may face no opposition, and, as a result, we have some WP article that is supported by some The Sun article that ostensibly expresses some universal opinion. This discredits Wikipedia in eyes of educated public. In the second scenario, the discussion of The Sun starts on the talk page, and, after some time, the participants come here, and the verdict is "not a good source". Therefore, by applying a filter we just inform an editor about the problems with The Sun; that will save our time and improve the overall quality of the WP content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The question as posed is "Should The Sun be deprecated as a source in the same manner as the Daily Mail (RfC), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use the The Sun as a reference?" As the DM is "deprecated" now to the extent that folks are told not to use it even for MECCANO illos, the case here is dang clear- A Ban on this source unless the editors agree to use it pretty much unanimously. This is far beyond your interpretation that it is only a suggestion to discuss the use on this page, as Andy has shown by actual example. Collect (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly so. And this is the reason to re-open the DM ban as well, since it is (according to the people who support that ban, whilst denying that that is what it is) being interpreted far beyond what it was originally supposed to be. The effect has been that any editor using the DM for any purpose - even when it is just being used as additional support for something cited independently in other sources - gets someone coming in to delete it with no further justification beyond "Daily Mail, therefore delete". If this is not a ban then I would like to see what one looks like. EDIT: oh, and the editors arguing that this automatic ban reduces their work-load really need to explain why it was that their previous manual trawling of the pages of Wiki to expunge every reference to the DM was actually necessary, since so much of what they were doing was entirely unnecessary given that the references they were deleting weren't controversial or BLP. FOARP (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support as a Daily Mail-esque problem. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support It is hard to find the border between facts and fiction in this kind of tabloids. Articles are filled with sensational details. Surveys provided by feminist are very informative. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose To do this is to either assume that editors are idiots, or to treat them that way anyway. Editors are here to make editorial decisions, not to be automated into just nodding past subjective value judgements made by a clique of filter editors.

Yes, the Sun is trash. And our editors can be assumed to either recognise that, or to have a damned good reason to be using it (you can't cover the Falklands Campaign without referencing their Gotcha headline).

I'm also concerned at the increasing bias here against UK newspapers. It's common currency that the Daily Mail is banned (it isn't) Even the Guardian and the Telegraph are getting described in the same terms. Yet Fox News and Russia Today go unchallenged? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I responded in the discussion section below. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Where do we draw the line? I think a better approach would be for editors to use the best sources available, which in most cases would exclude the Sun. TFD (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose If we ban a particular publication from being cited at all we loose the opportunity to highlight their poor coverage of events. IMHO it is much more preferable to allow these sources to be cited and then to provide other sources that demonstrate the contrasts in coverage. This is absolutely a slippery slope. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Previous discussions established that The Sun is at least as unreliable as the Daily Mail. For consistency, The Sun should be subject to the same treatment. Three points of clarification:
  1. It's important not to misinterpret this RfC, which is not calling for a "ban" of The Sun. It's proposing an edit filter that shows a message to editors who attempt to use The Sun as a source, and asks them if they want to proceed. This RfC would not prevent any editor from citing The Sun as a source.
  2. This RfC asks for The Sun to be deprecated in the same way as the 2017 RfC for the Daily Mail. The 2017 RfC concluded that the Daily Mail's "use as a reference is to be generally prohibited" (not "always prohibited") and also carved out an exception where using the Daily Mail is acceptable: "it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion". If this RfC passes, The Sun would still be usable as a primary source in the same way.
  3. WP:ABOUTSELF allows editors to use questionable sources, including The Sun, for information on themselves. This RfC doesn't change this.

— Newslinger talk 02:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's disingenuous to say that "An edit filter doesn't prevent a source being used". From the Mail, we've seen that this is persistently referred to as "the Daily Mail ban". It's reported by external media as "Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail". More locally, any use of it leads to "discretionary sanction" boxes being posted on your talk page (despite that DS box actually being invalid) and direct threats of blocking from a couple of persistent admins. This is a culture that few editors will persist through, far more than an advisory warning. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  To match reliable sources, the word "ban" should be used in article space to describe the Wikipedia community's relationship with the Daily Mail where appropriate. However, this discussion is in project space, and the word "ban" is inconsistent with how the Daily Mail RfC was closed. Also, could you link to an example of these boxes? If editors are interpreting citations of the Daily Mail as a discretionary sanctions issue, then that should be corrected and any templates used solely for this purpose should be deleted.​ — Newslinger talk 11:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Here's one of the later ones: October 2017, Request referencing WP:RSN List of banned UK newspapers? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Although there isn't (or shouldn't be) a DS template specifically for the Daily Mail, repeated attempts to add poorly-sourced content can fall under other DS areas such as BLP or American Politics. –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The hostile warning on my talk page was rooted in Talk:Manny Pacquiao#Bible Quote Where another editor (I hadn't even edited the article) was repeatedly blocked for adding sources [38] from the BBC, Guardian and others, not the Daily Mail. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Newslinger. The sources like The Sun can and should be used (otherwise some users of readers may conclude Wikipedia is a biased resource), however, they should be used with cautions. In connection to that, I think Morgan Leigh, TFD, Andy Dingley should read the above Newslinger's post, because it seems they have misunderstood what deprecation means in this particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand exactly what the proposal means. and I agree with Andy Dingley about how discretionary sanctions notices are being misused. Wikipedia is becoming more punitive and combative. It's no wonder editors are fleeing in droves. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh>, we are always balancing between Scylla of anti-democratism and Charybdis of obscurantism. Yes, redundantly stringent discretionary sanctions may force some users who rely too much on the sources similar to The Sun to leave the project. However, if too much liberty will be given to this type users, the editors who prefer to use American Historical Review, or Science, NY Times may decide to leave the Wikipedia. And I have a feeling that the second scenario would have more negative impact on the project.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• No-one here is encouraging the use of The Sun, merely encouraging editors to engage more fully in selecting what should be used, rather than relying on automated and rigid controls. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• I am totally not advocating for the use of The Sun. It's shit. What I am advocating for is making Wikipedia more friendly for editors Wikipedia is haemorrhaging editors. I contend it is because there is too much punitive action and not enough encouragement of users. I find it telling that you say the stringent use of discretionary sanctions may force users to leave, because my point is all about force. There is a lot of use of force on Wikipedia nowadays; Let's try to force users to do source checking instead of copy editing, Let's gang up on users we disagree with and call it consensus, Let's use discretionary sanctions to force this type of user to leave. This is the opposite of presuming good intent. It is also lazy. It's way easier to slap a warning notice on a users talk page and hope it will intimidate them into going away than it is to try to work with them to improve their ability to recognise a good source. If we want people to participate we must encourage them, not slap warning notices on their talk pages and label them "this type of user". Don't underestimate how intimidating a discretionary sanctions notice is for a new user. How about deploying a friendly "here's where to find help on recognising reliable sources" notice instead? What kind of source a person uses isn't a good indicator of who will be a good wikipedian. There are plenty of editors who use, and misuse, reliable sources that harass editors. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh&Andy Dingley, I am totally not advocating for the ban of The Sun. What I am advocating for is making Wikipedia more friendly for the users who want to use more reliable and high quality sources. In my opinion, editors should be allowed to use The Sun and similar sources, however, when they do that, they should be automatically informed that these sources are highly questionable. I agree that Wikipedia should be more friendly, but it should be more friendly towards the editors who are using best quality sources. It is really annoying when a user who takes information from the best quality sources, such as American historical Reviews, has to explain, again and again, that poor quality sources, such as The Sun, should not be treated in the same way as good sources. Therefore, it seems you incorrectly understand the problem: the question is not whether Wikipedia should be more friendly or not, or whether Wikipedia should be more friendly to those who wants to write a good quality content (or, at least, to improve their writing skills), or to those who are pretty satisfied with totally amateurish and superficial editing style.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• when they [cite the Sun], they should be automatically informed that these sources are highly questionable.

Lovely. So how are you going to achieve this? Because when it was last attempted, for the Mail, it turned instead into an invitation for a couple of admins to bully and threaten blocks.

it seems you incorrectly understand the problem Well, that's because we're stupid Sun readers, isn't it, and you think we shouldn't be editing at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"the editors who prefer to use American Historical Review, or Science, NY Times may decide to leave the Wikipedia" - I find it telling that the editors supporting a blanket ban (and this is what it is) of particular UK-based media are citing US-based media as examples of high-quality reliable sources. Again: just why is that media in a country with a history of robust freedom of the press going back centuries - the UK - is exclusively the target of this kind of blanket-ban? FOARP (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Newslinger. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support its reputation for unreliability is legendary (in fact at one time it was the trope of bad journalism) (as various satirical names such as the Snu).Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support per this. I can appreciate a counter-argument that The Sun is good for up to date sports results, and that those are pretty reliable - however, WP:BLPSOURCES correctly states, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.". And as Newslinger says, this proposal is simply putting up an "are you sure you want to cite the Sun" message - if it's to put the latest football stats and it's the only one online, then you could click "yes I am sure" and do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support provided that it's of the "are you sure?" variety and not a blanket ban. Comparisons to the Daily Mail are misleading; the Mail has a professional-looking website with the trappings of a legitimate newspaper, so readers (particularly those outside the UK who aren't familiar with its questionable accuracy) understandably don't realise that it's not a credible source and try to cite it. Nobody seeing the wall of tits-and-celebrities that constitutes the Sun website would be in any doubt that it's a ropey tabloid. ‑ Iridescent 21:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen the DM website? Its wall of tits-and-celebrities has become known generally (Private Eye) as the "sidebar of shame". Any publication that is seemingly required to use the phrase "peachy derrière" at least twice a day is a long way from a professional-looking website with the trappings of a legitimate newspaper. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Oppose Not just this motion, but the entire concept of blanket-banning sources that are actually media organisations with editors and professional reporters overseen by (and answerable to) a regulator. This appears to be yet another example of people who hate a publication because of its politics trying to get it banned (and let's be honest with ourselves, that's what is being proposed - if you include a DM reference, you get a warning and then another editor automatically comes in and deletes the reference with an edit summary saying "Daily Mail"). We should never have banned the Daily Mail completely either, just covered it with a general policy for tabloids. Meanwhile there's still no consensus on Russia Today, PressTV, China Daily, Global Times, Fox News, etc. not being reliable sources since they all have their partisans on this website. Why is it just UK media sources - that is sources from a country that has a history of a robust freedom of the press going back centuries - that get this treatment? FOARP (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Because press freedom and press reliability are not the same thing, and we can see the difference. This is not restricting press freedom in any way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The effect of banning a source (and again, that's what the effect of this will be since that was what the effect was on the Daily Mail) is saying that it won't be included on Wiki which inevitably serves to deprecate that source. It was not justified for the Daily Mail. It is not justified for The Sun. Both are news organisations that also include tabloid content and have politicis that I disagree with. As for why press freedom is relevant, it is relevant because the reliability of the press in countries where the press is government-controlled and government-censored will inevitably be lower since it cannot be independent of government policy. Why, then, is it the media of a country which enjoys robust freedom of the press that gets almost exclusively targeted by these blanket, automated bans? FOARP (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it is because we have freedom of the press, so no one source represents an official (and thus POV pushing) agenda. Maybe it is because we do not worship out press (or press freedom) but rather see it as a privileged (and not a right) to publish a newspaper (or have it respected). Because we can speak our mind without some big brother telling us what to do. It is not about their politics, I have said many times we should ban all tabloid (using the UK definition) journalism, anbd in fact have gone further and said we should ban all press reports as RS until a certain period has elapsed between the report and the event. If "lie papers" what to be taken seriously as sources maybe they need to change their act, rather then expect us to try and shift through reams of lies, decent and gossip to find one reliable fact.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Tabloid journalism =/= everything that appears in a tabloid. Let editors decide what content within a tabloid paper is and is not suitable for use. Let's trust editors rather than blanket-banning things using automated system that promote unthinking obedience. If the piece is "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" then it's clear that you shouldn't just rely on a single report in a tabloid paper to substantiate it. If the article is about Hydroxyl and you want to use quotes from this DM article, then why the hell shouldn't you? FOARP (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it takes up huge amounts of time on talk pages and articles trying keep out the chaff, time I (and others) are not being paid for. It means that "but its an RS" is not rallying cry to include every bit of dishonest tittle tattle that appears in a newspaper that we then have to fight tooth and claw to keep out. You only have to look at the fact this (and what happened to the Daily Myth) is not in fact a ban and see how much effort has been put into promoting that particular myth here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Not being paid for editing Wiki is NOT a valid reason for doing anything, other than not editing wiki because you should focus on your job. Since the only times I've seen DM references being deleted is when it was being used to substantiate something that was already covered in other sources anyway, I'm not sure whether most of the aggressive policing of DM references was necessary anyway, and not just editors choosing to waste their own time in a vendetta against that publication. As for not being a ban, well, it has been treated as exactly that in pretty much every discussion I've seen and that's no surprise when there are automated systems for stopping and deleting DM references. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the key issue: there are not enough editors or admins on Wikipedia to keep it running properly. These kinds of bans are being proposed to try to deal with the fallout of this problem. Rather than doing this we should be addressing the cause of the problem. I contend that editors are leaving Wikipedia because it is too punitive and combative. These kinds of bans create that impression. Rather we need to develop tools to help users recognise reliable sources. Wikimedia is rolling in cash, why can't it spend some one developing useful tools? Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• We should never have banned the Daily Mail completely either We didn't. Although you'd never know that, from how it's handled afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It was basically an enabling act for people who wanted it gone from this site. FOARP (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is The Sun a good source? No. Should it generally be used? No. Should it be banned outright? No. It is better than RT and Press TV for instance. For some items it may be reliable - for instance, it probably is reliable for sourcing page 3 appearances. It probably is reliable for an attributed quote. For most content in the UK there are definitely much better sources, but this doesn't mean that banning this all together is the way to go. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well it currently gets only a single use at Page 3. But great to see you taking a more cultured stance here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support it makes many dubious claims and is a poor source to use, especially for any contentious claims. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the arguments put froward by User:Collect. I do not think we should have effectively banned the DM either. Their record for inacurracy is not particularly shocking. Over the 4 year period since its existance IPSO received 4008 complaints of inaccuracy concerning the DM, 2/3 were rejected 10% were not pursued and there was a breach of rules found in 7 cases or 0.17% of cases, the Sun's figures are similar, 0.2% of 6047 cases. I have never read thes 2 papers as what they have to say does not interest me but I do not like the idea of a vote on banning them for inaccuracy without objective and non anecdotal evidence that shows they should be singled out as exceptional cases. They represent a popular culture that I do not associate myself with but that I respect. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support as per the nominator and others. Unreliable UK tabloid, which i am surprised does not already have warning to editors attempting to use it as a reference like the Daily Mail. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppopse per Collect. It is fine to list the Sun on some RS list as a questionable source to be avoided, but not on WP's blacklist. The blacklist should be for sites that should never be used, not even for RSOPINION, unless that site is actually part of the story. That hasn't been demonstrated for the Sun. It's not an RS for fact, but I'm not seeing the issues with its opinion pieces as their was with DM (where we learned they rewrote some opinion pieces), so still a valid RSOPINION work. --Masem (t) 20:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't care about public perception, and I see no evidence for publishing fabricated articles, which should be the bar for these bans. The oppose !votes above are convincing. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 06:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Most people may be distrustful of the Sun, but then again half the people in the West have IQ of below 100 and the wast majority wouldn't be able to calculate an integral or pinpoint the location of Djibouti on the map, so who cares about what these kinds of "people" think?
• Support Primarily because I'm not seeing a lot of compelling reasoning from the oppose !votes so far; there's a lot of "let's not blacklist this website" (something that, per the RFC question's specific wording, isn't being proposed) and "don't treat editors like idiots, even if this source probably should be deprecated because it's trash" (which seems counter-intuitive). As an aside, maybe if this proposal passes we'll get a fun editorial in The Sun complaining about how Wikipedia isn't reliable either, and how Sun journalists have not been allowed cite Wikipedia since such-and-such date (that literally happened with The Daily Mail -- I can fetch the link if anyone needs it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons listed by Collect. Oppose doesn't mean I (or other editors) think the source is generally reliable but we should use some common sense when evaluating articles from various sources. Do we think the average editors are so stupid as to need this sort of warning before using a source like The Sun? Where does it stop? No, this is something that should only be done in extreme cases. Let the existing policies and guidelines do their work. Springee (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support based on the arguments brought up by other supporting editors above. livelikemusic talk! 18:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per collect. Given the surveys feminist cites, the case to ban the Sun would be compelling, except it rests on the assumption we were correct to ban the Daily Mail. Like others, I see that as a mistake, and not just due to Collect's slippery slope argument. The DM may be less reliable than the best papers such as the FT, but I don't see the difference as that great. My mother takes the DM & I often read a few articles when I visit; many of them seem perfectly accurate. I also regularly read FT, and occasionally find statements which I know to be false. Granted, FT is overall more reliable, hence it's the source I most frequently add to articles. But the difference doesn't seem great enough to warrant banning DM. Some of you don't like what I'm saying and I can hear your thoughts. "Even if you're right about the FT vs DM Feyd, which we doubt, even FT is only a newspaper. We like to use much more reliable sources here on Wikipedia." Sadly, sources such as 'systemic reviews', listed at the very top of the hierarchy suggested by guidelines like WP:MEDS are in fact less reliable than FT. (See for example The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses by arguably the world's most respected authority on the subject, John Ioannidis Much of the top tier sources Wikipedians value so highly are now near worthless in terms of accurately reflecting knowledge, as they say exactly what Biotech paymasters want them to say.).

Like Accademia at large, Wikipedia is in several ways over a decade behind rest of world. Probably most know that this past 10 years, there has been a substantial decline in the trust regular people have in experts. What you might not know is that it's not just the masses who have lost faith– the top 0.001% have too, e.g. the policy making elite. 15 years ago, if an expert was called to address a HoC committee and started talking about the scientific consensus or 'the literature', that would have been fine. Nowadays, (with some exceptions like global warming), we just humour the person, raise a few eye brows and make sure they don't get invited again. At least in my admittedly limited experience, instead of paying attention to things like meta analyses or those who still have faith in them, policy makers instead listen to individuals who we trust to provide an objective summary. Essentially scientists of marked integrity and intelligence, as close to someone like good Ioannidis as possible.

Just in case someone with rare discernment reads the above and takes it to heart, on a balancing note, it's not as bad as it sounds. MEDS may be flawed, but a bad tool is often better than none. Despite the millions Biotech spends each year on distorting science & it's public perception, the fact is massive reductions in infant mortality and relative flourishing of human life in many parts of the world would have been impossible without biotech. Also, as has long been the case with global warming, the best PR agencies are increasingly refusing to work for Biotech, so they only get 2nd rankers at best. They may succeed in getting hundreds of our science articles to say exactly what biotech firms want them to. But in the wider info wars theatre, it doesn't really matter. The poor shrills aren't even fighting with the right weapons. Hence for example even conservative administrations banning various pesticides this past year, despite the apparent mainstream scientific consensus that they are relatively safe. Probably the more serious consequence of Wikipedia's unsophisticated views on reliability is the way it empowers overzealous quality control types to waltz about the Wiki undoing hours of other peoples hard work with a flick of the revert button. And then if the other editor objects, slapping unwarranted DS tags on their talk page, and using a weaponised concept of Fringe to get them permabanned. I guess the point Im getting to is to echo Andy Dingley's point about editors not being idiots. If we want to be the best possible encyclopaedia we must rely partly on editorial discretion, not solely on a flawed hierarchy of sources. All that said, only opposing weakly as there's quite a bit of sense in feminists proposals and the arguments from Ritchie and other supporters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. Why? There is no case made here of a shown need or purpose. Nor a basis for this in policy, guidance, evidence, or organised approach. This just looks like one of these proposals randomly made by someone on a whim. I don’t see any mention of actual problems or links to past RS/N talks. Looks like no need, no benefit, and no reputable approach so ... do not do it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. All newspapers are much the same as, nowadays, they all tend to copy the same stories from each other. Having a blacklist of this sort is not a sensible approach because it would either have to be unworkably immense or absurdly arbitrary. For uncontroversial facts such as the result of a football match or the director of a movie, The Sun would be reasonably reliable and we shouldn't discourage such use when so many periodicals are putting up pay-walls. Andrew D. (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support lets endorse the popular decision by the City of Liverpool, and the nomination by OP. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (The Sun)

• Are there any newspapers in England other than the Times of London, The Daily Telegraph, and the Manchester Guardian that are considered reliable? I suppose we also have the BBC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Those two don't typically call themselves "of London" or "Manchester" any more, but there are obviously also The Sunday Times and the Financial Times. To those one would have to add at least The Independent and The Observer, and usually also the Daily Express and the Evening Standard. There is no good reason why most of the UK's regional newspapers should not be considered reliable, including of course, for example the South Wales Argus and The Herald (Glasgow) (although not published in England), along with very many more. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: So far, there are 3 other publications that have been deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. They are: Breitbart News (RfC), InfoWars (RfC), and Occupy Democrats (RfC). A deprecation for WorldNetDaily is currently under discussion. Aside from the Daily Mail, all of the other deprecations are for publications based in the US, so I don't really see an anti-UK bias here.

Also, Fox News has actually been contested repeatedly, but there was never consensus to deprecate it, and there also hasn't been an uninterrupted RfC on Fox News since the 2010 one. If you or any other editor have concerns about Fox News or RT (Russia Today), any editor is welcome to start new discussions or RfCs on these sources. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

So you're conflating The Sun with Infowars? Even for The Sun that's excessive! More reasonable comparisons would be to equate the Sunday Sport with the Weekly World News and Metro with USA Today. None of these are good, but they're not InfoWars. I can't think of a UK equivalent to InfoWars, something that only exists to push a single agenda, more than simply being poor and low-brow journalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The closest British equivalent to Infowars I can think of is Britain First's Facebook page (or has it been deleted now)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Where did this "the UK media is unreliable" thing come from amongst (mainly) US-based editors? I mean, honestly.... And yes this is an anti-UK thing since this is our long-established print-media that is being attacked, not random conspiracy theory websites without real reporters, editors etc. like Breitbart and InfoWars. FOARP (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not conflating The Sun with InfoWars. My previous comment contains a list of publications deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail, not an assertion that the publications are equivalent. In fact, the RfC for InfoWars is the only RfC in the list that was approved with a WP:SNOW closure.​ — Newslinger talk 11:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• For convenience, here are the 8 previous discussions of The Sun on this noticeboard:
  1. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Amy Winehouse/The Sun & British tabloids (2008)
  2. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#The Sun/Matt Smith (2009)
  3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 53#The Sun (2010)
  4. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Tabloid Newspapers (2010)
  5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Query (2011)
  6. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134#Is the British tabloid newspaper "The Sun" a reliable source? (2012)
  7. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 156#tabloids (2013)
  8. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226#The Sun RfC (2017)

— Newslinger talk 03:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that the Daily Myth has won awards and the phone hacking scandal I doubt that in fact many of our scandal ragas are that reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Question for the opposers - would you consider a compromise and propose a ban on The Sun for BLPs only? I have kept a link to BLPs that cite the Sun on my user page for quite some time, and occasionally go through and remove the worst examples. There are currently 75, including Olatunji Yearwood ("In September 2018, Yearwood was featured as a contestant on The X Factor UK (Series 15)"), Lee Ridley (comedian) ("I didn't have any friends as a child and my iPad saved me'"), Aylin Nazlıaka ("On 19 January 2017 she handcuffed herself to the podium, causing the first female fight in the TBMM"), Professor Green ("On 18 April 2018 Professor Green split from (Redacted)") and Peter Kay (""Peter Kay fans charged up to 62p per min to call about ticket refunds"). These have all been added relatively recently, and I am certain the additions were made in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, because this isn't about The Sun, it's about editors. Do we trust editors to make competent judgements or not? If we do, then we don't need it. If we can't, then we have plenty more problems with fruitbat.com websites than just The Sun, and we can't expect to auto-filter everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• I would be a lot less resistant to this proposal if it hadn't been for how the Daily Mail has gone. It is "banned" according to common perception, despite the RfC not supporting that. A couple of admins, and several editors, use this as an excuse for outright bullying. We even see ridiculous edit-warring to remove DM sources when they're far away from the problematic areas - just the sort of thing that you otherwise claim is simply putting up an "are you sure you want to cite the Sun" message. The practical effect of such an RfC is far greater.

Quick example - I recently created an article on cranes. About as uncontroversial as it gets. As the DM, in one of its few virtues, often has a large media budget and a willingness to spend it on buying-in photographs, I cited it for Meccano examples of such.[39] This was twice removed, just for being the DM (no question as to the source content itself), and replaced by an incorrect source, to the wrong type of crane. That's the sort of damage that's excused here by dogmatic "thou shalt never link to an unfavoured source" policies which get to the point of actually harming the content corpus. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent example. I would be glad to see a ban on any "celebrity gossip" column from any source at all, but the slope we are on is far from sensible, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, because I am opposed to the principle of bans in general. I know it's not a ban, but I agree with Andy Dingley that it has been used like one, for instance in the case of The Daily Mail. Wikipedia is too combative. We need to make it more welcoming. We need to move away from anything that can be used to harass or intimidate editors and towards things that reward editors. I agree with Blueboar that instead we should craft better resources for people to be able to learn how to recognise a good source. If we go down the road of banning things we will end up having to ban every single dodgy thing on the entire planet. It is just more efficient to teach people how to recognise reliable sources. Moreover it will produce a better result for the world in general. Banning will produce people who feel judged and who retreat into their echo chamber bubble. Helping people to recognise reliable sources will produce more discerning people. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Non-oppose-voter comment We already have an edit filter which prevents the Sun from being used for BLPs. –dlthewave ☎ 16:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• What we need to do is devise better guidance for when and how to news media in general... not specific to any one outlet. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Basically - if the item is "celebrity gossip" in nature, sourced in whole or in part to "anonymous sources" or to "press releases" or the like - we should disallow it. In the first case as being violative of BLP principles in the first place. In the second because press releases are generally not "fact checked" in any way at all, and are therefore "self-published sources" which should be ascribed to the writers of the press release material, not to the newspapers which run them substantially unedited. Collect (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We already have a policy: WP:RS. We should trust in Editors to make good calls on what is a reliable source for a particular subject. However, this isn't enough for some editors who just decided they hate a particular outlet for political reasons and/or like to be able to tell other editors not to use a particular source. The Daily Mail is a news organisation, I know people who have written stories for them. It's also a tabloid with some disgusting politics - let the editors sort the wheat from the chaff on this. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This is why the Daily Myth was (not) banned, precisely because we could not truth eds and it took huge amounts of work police. If it is worthy of inclusion (and if we are going to have to verify what the SNu or the Daily Rant have reported why not just use that source?). We lose nothing by (and lets go all the way) banning these sources other then work having to sort the wheat from the chaff.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

1) We're supposed to be discussing this objectively, but its hard to believe it is really an objective discussion when people use derogatory nick-names for right-wing newspapers taken straight from the comments section of an Owen Jones Comment Is Free article.

2) An automated ban which flags any edit including a DM link to an editor who then goes and (in every case I've seen) deletes it doesn't create a work-load? And in how many of the cases where people 'had' to police DM references was it actually necessary and not just a case of "This is a DM reference and therefore should be deleted", which to be honest is the only time I've seen it applied?

3) Ultimately, if editing time used is the problem, then it's hard to see how the DM ban actually has much impact at all, it being one single EN-language publication of hundreds. This basically adds up to saying "Editing Wiki is hard work, therefore let's just automate deleting sources I don't like, rather than considering whether that was actually a worthwhile thing to be doing" FOARP (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It creates less of a work load then (for example) this discussion (which is the kind we have every-time one of these sources is used). Nor is this deleting anything, it is a warning no more. But (as I said) this is the problem, "BUT ITS AN RS!", well just like smoking in the no smoking compartment if you are going to argue the same old reasons why we have to use it we just wont allow its use in the end. This has been brought about precisely because of the amount of effort it takes to prevent the more outrageous lies making their way onto Wikipedia. And I have considered whether that was actually a worthwhile thing to be doing, and yes it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sold on this being necessary at all. Every time I've seen it applied it's not BLP stuff but articles like Double-nosed Andean tiger hound where the fact that one of the references substantiating notability was a DM reference so, if you chuck that out, the remaining references are supposedly no longer sufficient to meet WP:GNG. And yes, the logic applied is exactly as simple as "DM, therefore delete". We have a way, way bigger problem with random websites carrying garbage information than we do with the DM and other tabloids, but we (rightly) take the time to consider each source on its merits. Finally, if you doubt that the current policy on the DM isn't functioning as a ban, just try editing a DM reference into an article - even as one of a group of references all independently saying the same thing - and see what happens. If editors are wasting their time deleting DM references for absolutely no reason other than its the DM then that's their fault. They choose to waste their time like this. Doing the same thing to the Sun is just going to increase their workload. FOARP (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how not being able to use them (not that this is on the table) prevents us form covering when they are wrong, as surely they are not going to admit it (and thus this would be covered by another source)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Question is there a list of all sources deprecated on wikipedia somewhere? Openlydialectic (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

An unofficial list can be found here Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. Not sure how correct or up to date it is. It already lists The Sun as a sensationalist tabloid, and often compare the publication unfavourably to the Daily Mail. Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases.Outside of specialized circumstances, the source should not normally be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that the list functions quite well as a repository of previous discussions that can be referred to to show pre-existing consensus. It is not necessary - AT ALL - to add an automatic block on top of that. The only sources that have these automatic blocks are the Daily Mail, Breitbart, and Infowars. The Daily Mail really stands out from the other two since it is a long-standing media organisation with professional editors, reporters, and fact checkers, and has to answer to a regulator whilst Breibart and Infowars are purely internet-based conspiracy theorist sites. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Not very independent regulation [[40]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously using a legal challenge to the decision of a tribunal as evidence of it being biased? Show me one tribunal where no-one appeals their decisions and I’ll show you a country without the rule of law. FOARP (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Lets say this again, it is not a ban, so lets lay of the tabloid style hyperbole. If you want to (if it is so important to you) still use the SUN as a source, you are just going to be made aware of its poor reputation and that it may not be wholly reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Is that what happens currently with the DM? No, it isn’t. Instead any usage of the DM - however uncontroversial - leads to a warning and then someone coming in to delete the reference citing the “DM ban” as their justification for doing so. Per WP:DUCK, it it acts like a ban, is implemented as a ban, was clearly intended as a ban in the RfC, then let’s not pretend that it’s not a ban. FOARP (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The DM RfC doesn't allow for "uncontroversial" uses, though. "Its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited." The closing statement says that although some editors argued that DM is actually a reliable source for some subjects, "This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead." DM may be cited in rare instances "as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion." –dlthewave ☎ 16:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think you are right. An addition filter is a bit one-sided. Ideally whenever an editor removes a DM source they should also be prompted to "find something better"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's high time that the DM block was put back to RfC. January of next year marks two years of it operating so is a good point to review it anyway. The block should never have been implemented without a time limit. No real evidence of general unreliability as ever submitted to substantiate the idea that it was generally unreliable - just anecdotes that could be compiled about any publication, particularly a tabloid. The change in the editorship of the DM is also a good justification to review it. An awful lot of the !votes in favour of the ban were WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes anyway. FOARP (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you please show what was lost as a result of not being able to cite the Daily Mail? Stories that only they covered that didn't skew isolated studies, or make questionable claims about living people, or consist of obvious propaganda? Just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an invalid reason does not validate WP:ILIKEIT as a reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The entire corpus of work of a publication that has been published for more than a century seems like a pretty significant source to say that you can simply do without because "other sources exist". The cranes example cited above was one where a DM reference was pointlessly removed. I've seen AfD discussions (e.g., the one for Double-nosed Andean tiger hound) where the fact that one of the two references substantiating notability was a DM reference was used as a grounds for deletion. Often works of art/books etc. are considered to require at least two articles covering them in a significant way to be able to avoid deletion and if one of those is a DM reference, this appears sufficient to get them deleted. Most articles on this site are uncontroversial, most uses of the DM are uncontroversial, but this doesn't seem to stop editors using the "ban" as grounds for deleting references to the DM.

Oh, and PS - what are you doing trying to imply that people who oppose this ban must necessarily like the Sun or the DM? Who has made an WP:ILIKEIT argument here? FOARP (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

[[41]] So we are in fact in the Sun (but not for this thread). There is no evidence this account was Ms Osamor but it does not stop the Sun claiming that (ohh and guess what [[42]], the DM dutifully following along). This is why they should not be RS, opinion and rumour as facts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That is (at most) grounds for being careful when using the Sun (or any other tabloid - and yes that includes the Mirror - or is this only about right-wing publications?) for BLP. Not grounds for the blanket !ban being discussed here. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

What the heck does "deprecated as a source in the same manner as the Daily Mail" mean, anyway?

We've had a string of proposals to "deprecate (source) in the same way at the Daily Mail", but there seems to be disagreement over what "deprecated" actually means. This seems to be a process that just sort of "happened", with no policy or guideline outlining when and how a deprecated source may be used. The DM RfC states in no uncertain terms that "...the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited." The only exception mentioned in the closing statement involves using DM as a primary source for statements about itself. Is this how other editors understand it, and is this the intent of the "Support" votes? –dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail RfC deprecates the publication in five ways:

1. The publication is designated as "generally unreliable".
2. Citing the publication as a reference is strongly discouraged ("generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist").
3. The publication is no longer used to determine notability.
4. The publication is no longer used as a source in articles.
5. An edit filter set to "warn" is to be implemented, which displays a message to editors attempting to cite the publication as a source, and asks them if they want to proceed.

The RfC notes two exceptions to the above:

1. If the publication is determined to be more reliable historically, its older articles may be excluded from deprecation.
2. The publication may be cited as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion.

Finally, as I mentioned before, the RfC doesn't override WP:V, which provides an additional exception:

1. The publication may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF.

​— Newslinger talk 12:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Note also, that the Daily Mail RfC proposal !voted on, and then adopted said: "its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources." (This would seem to be the general meaning of "generally prohibited.") Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to revisit Daily Mail ban

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

---

I am amazed by the fact that the DM is considered as being Generally unreliable. The exemples brought to the discussion were chosen to show the unreliability but how can we say it is generally unreliable. I would have understood better if it was said that certain cases were considered too serious to allow it to be used as a reliable source. I think that the effective blacklisting of a national daily paper is not something we should be voting on. To say that the DM is not banned is quite ridiculous when the WP:RSP says "The Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Some editors note that the source may be used in rare cases where the newspaper itself is involved. The restriction is often inappropriately interpreted as a "ban" on Daily Mail." The phrase nor should it be used as a source in articles is without a doubt a de facto ban as as a source. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a national daily newspaper with professional editors and reporters, regulated by a watch-dog, in a country with very strong defamation laws (much stronger than, say, in the US) and a history of having a robust free press going back centuries. A general de facto ban is simply ridiculous. The tabloid nature of the publication warranted caution when using it for BLP but the complete ban was never, ever justified. The people saying "but the automatic ban saves me the work of manually removing all the references to it" need to explain why that was something worth doing in the first place since so much of the removal of DM references seems to be occurring where it is simply being used to support uncontroversial statements. FOARP (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

And it's been repeatedly sued (and successfully) under those defamation laws. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You need evidence that it is sued considerably more often that sources considered not generally unreliable to even partly justify this ban. This has never been produced. FOARP (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"this study demonstrates how sensationalism is instantiated through specific illocutions, semantic macrostructures, narrative formulas, evaluation parameters, and interpersonal and textual devices. Examples are drawn from a corpus of headlines of the ‘most read’ articles in the online outlet of the British mid-market tabloid Daily Mail compiled in early 2012"

"The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication."

"The Mail exhibits a political bias, is often guilty of sensationalism and deliberately drives a jingoistic agenda in order to be a rallying point for disaffected Leavers."

Even before the ban, it was already at the level that it could only be used when there's another source affirming the same material -- which makes it pretty pointless to include anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... a study of headlines, an article by a former employee in the Dailymailonline.com New York office, and a piece on its stance on Brexit. Notice that none of these are actually evidence of general unreliability. For that we have IPSOS complaints and the ratio of them which are unheld which is ... only about as bad for the DM as they are for other publications. Yes, the DM does get successfully sued for defamation, as do other publications - what you need is evidence that the DM is more often successfully sued, and this is lacking. So, again, no evidence of general unreliability. FOARP (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So, do you fancy organising a re-run of the RfC? I assume you've reviewed all the evidence of unreliability that was presented there? Maybe, a couple of years on, everything has suddenly changed for the better? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We're not here to relitigate the DM !ban. I'm just trying to clarify the meaning of what we're discussing, since editors are bringing up various situations in which (in their opinion) it would be appropriate to cite a deprecated source, which seems contrary to the outcome of the DM RfC. –dlthewave ☎ 18:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The logic of Feminist's proposal rests on the assumpption that the DM RFC reached the correct outcome. So re-examing said DM ban is entirely valid here. I agree with FOARP. Perhaps now there seems to be a few editors about with a talent for weighing evidence, this is indeed a good time to revist the flawed DM ban? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I recently wrote an article about a poem The Horse (poem) where I added in the legacy section different uses and references to the poem by writers and journalists. On of the people I mentioned was Alastair Stewart who is I think a pretty well respected journalist who also happens to contribute to the Daily Mail. He wrote a long piece about horses poneys and cited the poem as capturing hos sentiments perfectly. This reference was removed [43] with the edit summary "Rm non-RS". Luckily there was another quote from him in another source saying something similar so I didn't fight it. This is the most uncontroversial use of the DM that I can think of it was a source to support what someone said written by himself. I doubt very much that the editor who removed this reference read what was written in the article or the source we are in a "kill it with fire" scenario which was the !vote made by one of the supporters. I think that we have gor to a point where this rfc should be revisited. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it’s time to reopen it, however I also think we need to develop our arguments a bit more before doing so. Going off half-cocked and making sweeping assertions without evidence is what led to the ban (would people be happier if it was referred to as a “!ban”?) in the first place. We can discuss on our talk pages what the proposal should be before doing it closer to the two-year anniversary of the !ban. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• So when we revisit the DM ban RfC, we should also be clear to distinguish between the DM on paper and the DM online website. There is some crossover, but particularly within the DM's own staff there is seen as a gulf between the two: a newspaper with some obvious problems, and then the web-specific content which is dominated by its celebrity fluff.

Is WP's issue for the DM with either: editorial bias, factual accuracy, or subject triviality? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

So when we revisit the DM ban...

WHEN? It'll take a more than a few disgruntled WP:IDONTLIKEIT malcontents to do that. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Professional means you are paid, not dishonest or incompetent, and it is part of a self regulation body that had (even in its few short years of existence been accused of bias). But I have no objections to revisiting the discussion (though would rather it was longer then about a year). I suspect that much the same will be said as we did at the time (as well as pointing out how the DM's coverage of it s "banning" is a prefect example of why we need this was put in place in the first place (OH Crikey DM!).Slatersteven (talk)

How some in the outside world see Wikipedia's decision - theguardian.--Moxy (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I would start with Enemies of the People (headline) and work from there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This amounts to declaring the DM unreliable for statements of fact (even uncontroversial facts) based on its political views. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• The key part about the Daily Mail is that is has repeatedly been caught completely fabricating material. Unlike biased sources (which are perfectly well allowed) the DM is generally unreliable because its editorial process deliberately encorporates dishonesty. Unlike many other tabloid-news with dubious reporting (Fox, Express etc) who while not having a particularly high reputation, do at least not have one for blatant falsity. So unless there is evidence the Daily Mail has somehow become more ethical in the intervening time, any re-consideration is a waste of time. Anyone who is surprised that the *current* Daily Mail is generally unreliable either lacks the required ability to judge what is a reliable source, or has spent the last 20 years under a rock. (Or has zero knowledge of the Daily Mail which would be acceptable for anyone outside the UK) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented, either then or since then, that actually backs this up. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

And no evidence or anything other than a delayed WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been presented that contradicts the strong consensus that emerged from the original discussion. Don't like it? Too bad. That's not a valid argument. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A significant number of instances of it leading to disruptive editing has been cited above. Also the failure of any evidence of actual general unreliability being presented during the RfC has also been raised. These go a long way beyond simple dislike of the !ban. Let me point out that "it was decided, therefore it's been decided" is a circular argument and thus invalid. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Lets leave the actual "unbanning" discussion for a new thread.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Move to close this discussion regarding the Daily Mail ban. The reliability of the DM is not germane to the current proposal to deprecate the Sun; if the DM decision were to be overturned, it would not affect any other !bans or proposals that are based on it. Interested editors may open a new section regarding the DM if they so desire, preferably as an actionable proposal instead of a forum-style discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with closing - I think the DM ban was wrongly decided, and it is germane to this debate that it was wrongly decided since that decision is being used as a justification for this one. However, the counter-arguments to banning the Sun do not require reopening the DM ban directly, merely discussing the fact that the DM ban was on unsafe grounds and that it will likely be reopened in future and therefore should not be treated as a settled issue is sufficient. Furthermore, as dlthewave says above, re-opening the DM ban requires a properly-prepared proposal and supporting arguments. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with FOARP on all points. As you wish, so be it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Sources possibly tainted by citogenesis

What is a proper source for a name? The dispute is over the 2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict article which you can read about here: Talk:2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Waves

The article claimed that the event was known as the Wave of Terror but since none of the sources confirmed that, I removed it. A new name, 2015-2016 terror wave was inserted by user Icewhiz, but that source cited the article itself (citogenesis) and could therefore not be used. The user then inserted another name, Terror Wave, using a new source.

My claim is that, for this purpose, the source should not be deemed reputable. My arguments are:

• It is a psychology article and the authors claim no authority over the naming of historical events.
• It contains a block of sentences which appears to have been copy-pasted from Wikipedia: "a recent increase in the violence occurred in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict starting early September 2015 and became known locally as the “Wave of Terror.” Some have attributed the increased violence to a social-media campaign inciting terrorism that may have influenced the Palestinian attackers or ongoing frustration over the failure of peace talks to end the decades-long occupation and the suppression of human rights. The attacks have generally been carried out by young lone attackers."
• The article's cite goes to a web page not backing up the claim. Though I can't tell how the page looked in 2016.
• The only occurrence of "Terror Wave" (capital letters) in the text of the psychology article is in "A summary of the key statistics during the Terror Wave reports that between September 2015 and February 2016, 30 Israelis were killed and 301 wounded with 27 sustaining serious injury." In my opinion, in this text "Terror Wave" is likely written with capital letters because the article authors are unfamiliar with the English language.

So far, this is the only source supposedly showing that the period was known "locally" as "the Terror Wave".

• Source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5152121/
• Article 2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• Content known as the "Terror Wave"
• Quote "A summary of the key statistics during the Terror Wave reports that between September 2015 and February 2016, 30 Israelis were killed and 301 wounded with 27 sustaining serious injury"

ImTheIP (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Hoffmann's article says "Exposure to non‐ISIS terror events refers to the recent escalation of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict (known by Israelis as the “Terror‐Wave”), starting from September 2015 to April 2016", which means the only problem is that, instead of describing it as a "local name", this edit pretends it is a universally accepted name. Regarding "authority over the naming of historical events", this is a relatively recent event, and I am not sure who can and who cannot claim authority over its naming (this event has not become historical yet). In general, I think there is a common problem with all recent events: the amount of good and balanced sources is too small to write anything reasonable about them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hoffman's article isn't used as a source in the Wikipedia article. As a source for the cite from Hoffman's article, Hoffman cites the Wikipedia article Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present). Therefore it would clearly be absurd to use it as a source. Shoshani and Slone's article similarly copy-pastes from Wikipedia, and suffer from other faults enumerated above, so it is in my mind questionable if it should be used as a source here. As you say, the event is recent, so I think Wikipedia should be extra conservative here, to avoid coining names that never existed. ImTheIP (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think that Wave of Terror is obviously an emotive, value-laden title that would raise WP:NPOV issues if we lack a strong source showing it falls under WP:COMMONNAME or something similar. These sources are nowhere near close enough to justify it. The citogenesis issue is also a concern, but honestly I wouldn't accept these sources for a heading like that even if they were independent - using a potentially POV or value-laden heading requires strong sourcing showing that it's the most common term, not a handful of weak sources showing scattered usage. --Aquillion (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• The WP:COMMONNAME in Hebrew is quite obviously "גל הטרור" ("terror wave", or "wave of terror") - multiple news items in English and Hebrew use this. In addition - there are a number of academic articles that use this. Sourcing for this particular name - is stronger than any of the other alternatives presently in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That is not reflected in any source. The name used on the Hebrew wikipedia is "(גל הטרור הפלסטיני (2015–2016" meaning "wave of Palestinian terrorism (2015-2016)" or "the Wave of Palestinian terrorism (2015-2016)" [44] The intro paragraph does not contain the "Wave of Terror" name that you insist on inserting in the article. Not that the English Wikipedia has to follow the Hebrew's lead, far from it, but it indicates that the name isn't as prevalent as you perhaps thought. ImTheIP (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Blacklist Chartmasters.org

Hi all, I am coming across this website, Chartmasters.org which has been used across multiple music related articles and lists across Wikipedia. A simple perusal of the website it is clear that is a gross unreliable site with no authoritative representation for sales of records. They estimate and then publish it as facts. Its a Wordpress website run by an user who has deviced his/her own method called Popularity analysis. I strongly suggest that we WP:BLACKLIST this site. I have already started removing the usage of this url from articles. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Harout72:, @Ss112:, @SNUGGUMS: etc for their opinion also. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with blacklisting this site. It is used so widely and I remove it wherever I find it too. It is astounding how undemanding some inexperienced and new editors are of the reliability of information—anybody can claim they're an authority on a blog, buy a .com or .org domain and editors will attempt to add it here and pass it off as fact. I don't think its listing at WP:ALBUMAVOID is doing enough—attempts to add it should be filtered. Ss112 14:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed also with blacklisting this site. While the folks at Chartmasters seem to be working hard gathering sales data, it's clear that this is not yet a professional site to rely on, perhaps will never be.--Harout72 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Fully support blacklisting Chartmasters. This dubious site should be removed from all articles if it isn't already. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• support Not a lot to say that has not already been said.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Guys I removed Chartmasters.org across the encyclopedia, but how do we blacklist it? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 21:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Well done on that. Not sure how something officially gets blacklisted, but I would also like to know. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not support blacklisting or blanket bans of any site. Each instance of using a source should be scrutinized, otherwise we will end up having to ban every dodgy source everywhere. We need to educate editors instead of instituting bans. Bans promote combative behaviour. Resources promote discernment. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No, some websites are just a bloody headache. We have many instances of blacklisting websites which any user add (especially in the music articles) such as UKMIX .com (i removed the period by a space so that you can see the actual website). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• OPPOSE. No shown actual problem or prior discussion, no orderly process, policy, guidance, evidence,... A literally just casual look and went IDONTLIKEIT is not a reputable way to pick bans. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh really? You see WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of the number of reasoning given above? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This self-published source doesn't meet the suitability standards of WP:CHART. Citations from this blog are introducing incorrect information into articles. Additions to the spam blacklist can be proposed at WT:SBL. — Newslinger talk 03:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Titanica

Is Encyclopedia Titanica a reliable source? It's used extensively in Titanic-related articles such as Passengers of the RMS Titanic, Margaret Brown and RMS Titanic. My concern is that the site is based on user-generated content [45][46] and their editorial/fact-checking policies are unclear. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What editorial, controls are there?Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

No, in history related articles, we desperately need quality sources, checked and placed in the right historical context, by credible, well-cited historians. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• They don't list their editorial controls anywhere obvious - but it is not an open-wiki (you can send an e-mail or fill out a webform with a request) - and it seems from their description that there are editorial controls. If we had a description of their controls - they'd probably "tick our boxes". They are cited in an academic context, and it seems that their lists are even used as a main data source (cross-checked vs. others) - e.g. Frey, Bruno S., David A. Savage, and Benno Torgler. "Behavior under extreme conditions: The Titanic disaster." Journal of Economic Perspectives 25.1 (2011): 209-22.. This Liverpool University Press book refers to them as "superb" major source for biographical information. I would consider them as probably generally reliable, though a stronger source would be preferred. I don't think that inclusion in Encyclopedia Titanica should count towards notability of subjects much - as they cover just about absolutely anything Titanic related - i.e. their (Titanic-specific) notability standard is lower than Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, RS for information not for notability. Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would say not reliable until demonstrated otherwise. Icewhiz's links above are a bit problematic: the LUP book, for instance, describes the website as a "superb" source for primary source material and photographs, but Wikipedia is supposed to use secondary scholarship, and the LUP book makes no reference to ET having excellent editorial standards. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• It seems borderline to me. About page and the "Add to ET" box raise a few alarms - they emphasize that they're built by contributions from users, and the submission form says Only add something you have permission to add, wrote yourself, or is out of copyright, which is common sense but shouldn't be something they're so concerned over if they're doing due diligence on submissions themselves, ie. it gives the impression that they're taking submissions and throwing them up with little oversight. So I'd probably say they're dangerously close to WP:USERGENERATED. That said, it's borderline enough that if it's being cited for uncontroversial things, it's all right to leave it there while we search for a better source - but it's definitely worth replacing it with a better source when possible. Also, some of the stuff there is WP:PRIMARY material hosted on that site, like contemporary news articles, which we can cite as long as we have no reason to believe it's been edited or falsified - that host contributes little or no reliability, but doesn't take it away, either. Finding secondary sources is better, but, again, for uncontroversial information it doesn't have to be remove-on-sight. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously a good and useful source for historic photographs and for identifying relevant primary sources. No indication that the written text is anything other than user-generated content or any more reliable than any other wiki. In the absence of clear evidence of competent editorial control, not a reliable source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Paper presented at a municipal function

Looking for additional opinions on whether the following source is reliable for multiple historical statements in Cincinnati Time Store. See Talk:Cincinnati Time Store#Reliable source.

Kemple, Steve (March 19, 2010). "The Cincinnati Time Store As An Historical Precedent For Societal Change". Cincinnati Ohio: Cincinnati Public Library Presented at CS13. pp. 1–3. Retrieved November 29, 2018.

(not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Crunchbase a reliable source?

Recently, a user named Somedifferentstuff removed[47][48][49][50] Crunchbase references from the Sam Kazemian wikipedia article, arguing that it is not a Reliable source. The reliability of Crunchbase has been discussed before[51][52], but there has not been a clear consensus as to whether or not it is reliable, so I think it would be best to decide now if it is a reliable source or not. 344917661X (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• It is perhaps the leading DB for the VC industry. It is vetted. I would say yes, but much of it is PRIMARYish. Some of the content is PR releases by the company/funds (e.g. funding rounds) - which is reliable for attributed use only. Having a profile on crunchbase is not an indication of notability (anyone and anything in the industry is lisred).Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Crunchbase profiles are also self-published as anyone can create an account and edit them. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• It's primary sources or UGC. It's not an RS, and it's too trusting of the contributors. I've had to remove these as content sources repeatedly on spam articles - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Since one of the past discussions was started by me: Looking over it again, at best it should be used with great care, shouldn't be used when there's something better, and shouldn't be used for anything in dispute. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Rather than just asking if an entire site is unreliable for everything Wikipedia's policy encourages us to examine each source for each statement it is being used to substantiate. Bearing this in mind, consider each of the things Crunchbase is being used to source. Did he speak at Cointalks? Yes, and the Cointalks site shows this clearly and could be used to cite this. Did he speak at BlockCon? Likewise this is shown on the BlockCon site. Look for other references for the bio stuff and then you won't need to try to decide if an entire site is reliable or not. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Crunchbase uses enough user-generated content that it should not be relied upon as a direct source for Wikipedia articles. Crunchbase's three data sources include investment firms who submit updates on the companies they're investing in, "active community contributors", and hired data analysts. I believe most of these contributions come from "active community contributors", since Crunchbase's content guidelines note that "Everyday, thousands of high-quality edits are made to the Crunchbase dataset and we encourage everyone to contribute content". Of course, Crunchbase is still a good starting point for research. — Newslinger talk 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Acupuncture - Source Used Correctly?

Please note: This has been revived here from the recent archive as no consensus has been achieved and there is still active discussion on the talk page. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The article Acupuncture contained this sentence, "The evidence suggests that short-term treatment with acupuncture does not produce long-term benefits." and cited this source Wang SM, Kain ZN, White PF (February 2008). "Acupuncture analgesia: II. Clinical considerations". Anesthesia and Analgesia. 106 (2): 611–21 doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e318160644d

Having read the source I felt that the text didn't represent what the study found, which was that acupuncture does effectively manage some conditions in the short term. Accordingly I edited it to say "A review of randomized, sham-controlled clinical investigations found that treatment with acupuncture is "effective in the short-term management of low back pain, neck pain, and osteoarthritis involving the knee" but that it does not produce long-term benefits." However this was reverted with the claim that my edit is a POV edit. I think this is an issue of the source not being used correctly and not an NPOV issue which is why I am posting here.

Is this source used correctly in my edit? Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Acupuncture doesn't work. It doesn't matter where you put the needles, or even if you actually insert them. All positive results are small, transient, and can be safely ascribed to bias and/or p-hacking. The source fully establishes this: "However, the literature also suggests that short-term treatment with acupuncture does not result in long-term benefits". The earlier version was more accurate, yours is less accurate. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a quote that supports that text?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's an often-overlooked bit of WP:RS that applies here. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. People treat peer-reviewed papers as top-quality sources, but this isn't really the case. When dealing with many topics, one paper is really just one data-point - the best sources are ones that draw on and summarize many papers, or secondary studies that show that a paper has had substantial long-term impact (which implies it has been replicated and not debunked or led nowhere.) I would avoid placing so much weight on one line from one study, and instead search for some additional sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That is true. But it doesn't answer the question of whether this source has been used correctly. However it does speak to another issue on this page which is where this edit removed a number of references including three meta analyses, claiming they are POV. This content was removed again here, also with an allegation that they are POV.

Can anyone please comment on if the removed sources are reliable for the text they support? The sources are:

Vickers, Cronin, Maschino, et al, (2012), Acupuncture for Chronic Pain:Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis, Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(19):1444-1453. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3654

Hopton, MacPherson, (2010), Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Is Acupuncture More than an Effective Placebo? A Systematic Review of Pooled Data from Meta‐analyses, Pain Practice, Volume 10, Issue 2, March/April 2010, Pages 94-102

Kwon, Pittler, Ernst, (2006), Acupuncture for peripheral joint osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Rheumatology, Volume 45, Issue 11, 1 November 2006, Pages 1331–1337, https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kel207

The text is "One systematic review found little evidence of acupuncture's effectiveness in treating pain(sourced to Ernst E, Lee MS, Choi TY (April 2011). "Acupuncture: does it alleviate pain and are there serious risks? A review of reviews" (PDF). Pain. 152 (4): 755–64), while others have found it to be effective(Sourced to the three abovementioned sources). Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I notice that the phrase "the evidence suggests" is used four times on the Acupuncture page. Such phrases are not great and should be removed. Evidence never suggests anything - researchers interpret the evidence and suggest things. Your phrasing is better because it attributes the claim "A review of randomized, sham-controlled clinical investigations ... " I don't know enough about acupuncture to say for sure, but it seems to me like your sentence accurately reflects what the source say. ImTheIP (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that the original sentence does represent one of the most important findings of the study, but the entire review seems somewhat problematic, as the lumping in of electrical stimulation with acupuncture is a huge red flag. The lower back pain section concludes: "In conclusion, although data from sham-controlled clinical studies indicate that acupuncture and alternative forms of electrostimulations (PENS and PNT) can serve as a short-term adjunct treatment for LBP management, no study has proven any long-term benefit of acupuncture and/or any other related interventions as a treatment for LBP." Lumping in electrostimulation with acupuncture is a red flag. The neck pain section says "Analogous to the studies in patients with chronic LBP, studies indicate that PENS and PNT are effective short-term treatments for chronic neck pain" - it doesn't even include standard acupuncture in that statement. The osteoarthritis of the knee is at least has a conclusion on acupuncture itself, concluding (based on two RCT): "the use of acupuncture stimulation is an effective short-term treatment of OA of the knee. Unfortunately, long-term benefits from acupuncture treatment have no been demonstrated." --tronvillain (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the original sentence does represent one of the findings of the study. It includes the finding that treatment wasn't effective in the long term, but it omits the finding that short term treatment was effective. Which is the point of my edit.

The inclusion of electrical stimulation is not a red flag. Electroacupuncture is a form of acupuncture. The paper describes all the types of stimulation studied as "acupuncture and its variants". While the paper doesn't mention standard acupuncture in the exact sentence you mention it says, referring to all the types it is studying, "In reviewing the peer-reviewed literature, all these forms of acustimulation appear to have very similar clinical outcomes". But the most important thing here is that the three MDs writing this paper summed up their findings as;

"peer-reviewed literature suggests that acupuncture and other forms of acustimulation are effective in the short term management of low back pain, neck pain, and osteoarthritis involving the knee"

Note it says "acupuncture and other forms of acustimulation are effective", i.e. all kinds are effective. I note that both the quotations you mention say the treatment is effective; "can serve as a short term treatment", "are effective short-term treatments". This is exactly the information I am trying to include in this edit.

This review is not problematic. It was itself peer reviewed and published in the journal Anesthesia and Analgesia which is, according to Journal Citation Reports, a well respected journal. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A reminder that just because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal respected or not doesn't mean that this one study is significant. As the columnist Daniel Engber reminded us in a Slate article recently when talking about the Peter Boghossian hoaxes "We know from long experience that expert peer review offers close to no protection against outright data fraud, whether in the field of gender studies or cancer research, psychology or plant biology, crystallography or condensed matter physics. Even shoddy paste-up jobs with duplicated images and other slacker fakes have made their way to print and helped establish researchers’ careers." Dom from Paris (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that, not in the least because I hear it any time people want to divert the discussion away from addressing exact questions about whether a given source is being used accurately by casting aspersions on that source. I find it odd that a source which has been in this contended article for some time is only having its veracity questioned once citing it in a balanced way that mentions that it says there is evidence that acupuncture is effective is suggested. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Simply being published in a usually reliable journal doesn't mean a study can't be problematic. Electroacupuncture isn't a "form of acupuncture", it's acupuncture plus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and acupuncture proponents have been using that confounding variable to try to get significant results for a long time now.--tronvillain (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It is your opinion that these things are not a form of acupuncture. The paper calls all the things studied variants of acupuncture. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Climatefeedback.org (a climate science fact-checking website)

An editor[53] insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming."[54] Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[55] Columbia Journalism Review[56], Axios[57], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[58]. It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology ([59] [60]), and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Not technically WP:SPS. In order to be "self-published", a website must be under the sole proprietorship of a single person or definable ideological group. This is not the case with this source which is simply a fact-checking website. Compare Snopes, TalkOrigins, or Quackwatch. jps (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Update: I looked for more RS coverage of this website, and apparently the website last week "got several news outlets to correct a false story" (incl. Fox News, which the RS noticeboard for some reason insists is a RS) according to Poynter.[61] The website was also cited last month by CBS News for expert assessments on a recent study in Nature[62]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:BLPSPS says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. so wouldn't this source at least technically be prohibited according to the wording of the policy? ImTheIP (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Depends on what a "group blog" is supposed to mean. I typically think of them as blogs that contain posts published by different individuals rather than those that are curated by a team. YMMV. jps (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ervand Abrahamian - Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin

Is this source (page 220) sufficient to say that there is doubt regarding the perpetrators of the Hafte Tir bombing? Or more accurately, given Abrahamian (who lists a number of different parties (along side MEK) which were accused over the years), should we say that Hafte Tir bombing was carried out by the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) in our voice? One of the diffs in question is this, though Abrahamian is used for other content on the MEK page as well. The publisher is I.B. Tauris, and the author Ervand Abrahamian has a wiki page (historian specializing in the Middle East and Iran - MA Oxford, PHD Columbia, professor at CUNY). Discussion on MEK's talk page is - Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Haft-e-Tir bombing. Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a valid source right?

[[63]] is not a valid enough reference source to cite box office revenue gains for a movie right? I am thinking it is not valid because it is Twitter, but I am having second thoughts as Twitter is being used as a reference source for upcoming movies over at List of Bollywood films of 2018 and List of Bollywood films of 2019. I am asking this because it is a edit request for a Ext-PP. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

​Yes, social media posts like this are considered self-published sources, which are questionable. I would decline that edit request. — Newslinger talk 03:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Thanks for answering my question. I denied that user's edit request. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Inkpot Award?

Hi all! I have a question. A student wants to create an article on a person who has won the Inkpot Award. I know that the award will at the very least give some notability, but is this a major enough award for this to make the individual notable on this basis alone? It looks to be pretty major and is given out by Comic Con, but I wanted to ask here before making any firm judgement. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this noticeboard really the right place to put this question? It doesn't seem to be about whether or not a specific source is reliable for a specific statement, though perhaps I'm missing something. --tronvillain (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose it's in a way a question of whether or not it can be used as a RS to back up the claim of it being an overwhelmingly major award or not. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

News sources as "primary sources" at Sicarii (1989)

The talk page of Sicarii (1989) has had some interesting claims, with multiple users claiming that newspaper reports about terror attacks claimed by this group are "primary sources". Is the JTA a primary source for this material? The LA Times? Are the Daily Mail or the Jerusalem Post articles about these events "primary" sources? I cant imagine how any user with a basic understanding of sourcing can claim that newspapers not involved in the events are primary sources, but that seems to be in dispute so here I am. Are newspapers magically transformed into primary sources after some period of time? nableezy - 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNEWS probably applies here, but primary doesn't mean bad or unreliable - primary sources can be used, with caution. Also, The Daily Mail is often considered an unreliable source. --tronvillain (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The question here is 1989 and 1990 news reporting of events in 1989 and 1990 - which is generally primary. Note that the question raised on talk is not reliability. The reporting itself is on a crime, or series of crimes. In particular much of the reporting revolves around the arrest of a non-notable low-key individual - who was subsequently released and not even charged, let alone convicted (so - lots of headlines and reporting on the suspicions - little reporting of the end result) which is a BLPCRIME issue. In terms of reliability - the reports might be reliable for what police suspected at the time, but they definitely do not reflect their actual findings.Icewhiz (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody claimed they did. nableezy - 03:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The question, and the attempted use made of it (to disqualify sources when no other excuse can be found) illustrates just how useless the primary/secondary distinction is. Zero^talk 05:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We routinely use primary sources in other contexts. For example when describing Abraham#Biblical_account, ample references are made to the Book of Genesis which is a primary source. It seem silly to me to forbid such uses of primary sources. ImTheIP (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There is more about primary sources in the explanatory supplement WP:USINGPRIMARY The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source. - this is where the line gets blurred. There is also WP:ALLPRIMARY. For example, the WP:MEDRS policy is stricter about this. I would note that the main WP:RS policy has some elements of this also, in the section discussing studies under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but with news articles we are usually looking at WP:LINKSINACHAIN which is sometimes detrimental to the balance of articles. But balance is a different question from the reliability of the source, so I don't think it can be removed on those grounds.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Claims about copyright status of WWII photograph

Is this book—Photographing the Holocaust: Interpretations of the Evidence by Janina Struk, published by I. B. Tauris—reliable for the claim that Warsaw Ghetto boy photograph is in the public domain because its author is anonymous? Catrìona (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Does it actually say it is not in copyright?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

2nd RfC: The Daily mail

Is it time to lift the targeted restrictions on using the Daily Mail as a source, thus overturning the Jan 2017 RfC ? 10:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey (Daily Mail)

*No. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Note : !Vote removed due to abuse of process, and subsequent mangling of thread. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Rude. Voting doesn't open until 11 December. You may request an absentee ballot if needed. Please provide documentation of personal hardship and at least seven forms of photo ID. GMG^talk 14:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Will a note from my chemotherapy doc suffice? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Only if submitted in quintuplicate. (Also best of luck on recovery assuming that's not a joke.) GMG^talk 15:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Can a proposer actually restrict voting in this way? I have never seen an attempt to do so here before, and find it odd, which is why I already voted. The chemo is real, and I'm going to be fine. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The proposer has close to zero power to enforce anything, but editors generally abide by reasonable requests like "Please keep threaded discussion in the threaded discussion section and !votes in the !vote section" or "Voting is not due to open until Tuesday 11 Dec. This is to allow plenty of time for both sides to develop arguments". Then again, while dogs definitely have a strong sense of etiquette, their rules are not the same as our rules... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

True - but we also ignore unreasonable requests, like demanding an RfC sit for a week before anyone ventures an opinion either way. RfCs open when posted. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hell no. The Mail is still the archetype of lazy and biased journalism in supposedly serious media. Also we don't do "voting", Wikipedia is not a democracy. They have had a new editor for, what, two months? OK, no editor could be as bad as Dacre but it is way too soon to say if there is any improvement and I will stick my neck out and say we will know it has improved meaningfully on the day the "sidebar of shame" disappears from the Mail online. And not before. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I note that some people are treating this as a relitigation of the original RfC. It's not. The assertion is that the Mail has changed and that the guidance should therefore change. The original consensus that the Mail is unreliable stands, the opinions of a minority notwithstanding, this is about whether there has been meaningful change, and actually we should be reflecting the opinions of third party sources. I have not noticed any independent commentators saying that the Mail has become more reliable, the Mail's website is still packed with clickbait, soft porn papparazzi pics and press releases masquerading as stories,but the print edition may indeed be changing, early signs are that it is beginning to take a reality-based line on Brexit, for example. In time I think we could use the print edition again, though not web-only stories, ever. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, but some of the opposers at the Sun RfC have valid concerns with how the restrictions are sometimes interpreted. These should be addressed. Editors should interpret the Daily Mail RfC in the context of the issues it intended to address, not as a ruling that justifies incivility and/or wholesale removal of non-contentious content and citations. The problem with this proposal is that it doesn't address the concerns raised in the Sun RfC. If some editors are harassing those who add the Daily Mail to articles (as Andy Dingley contended), this is not going to stop even if restrictions on Daily Mail usage were lifted. feminist (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Demur in several ways "Basically - if the item is "celebrity gossip" in nature, sourced in whole or in part to "anonymous sources" or to "press releases" or the like - we should disallow it. In the first case as being violative of BLP principles in the first place. In the second because press releases are generally not "fact checked" in any way at all, and are therefore "self-published sources" which should be ascribed to the writers of the press release material, not to the newspapers which run them substantially unedited." is my stated position, and one which, I suggest, has substantial merit. Collect (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Churnalism should not be used, period. It is advertising copy and it routinely misrepresents the facts of the case (almost always, in fact, in the case of university press releases for research). Guy (Help!) 22:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, and hell no - they need much more than two months with a new editor - they need a track record of not being a worse-than-useless source to overcome a long and extensively-documented history of literally making stuff up - David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, provided it is not retrospective. Most news outlets have published incorrect stories and false facts at some point but the problem as far as the DM went was the editorial collusion in those false accounts. The new editor Geordie Greig was editor of the Mail on Sunday which was not subject to the Daily Mail ban. It is reasonable to assume he will bring the same practices and code of ethics to his current appointment. To make this simple, we should permit DM articles published from January 1, 2019 to be used as a reliable source. Just for the record I supported the previous ban because of the erosion of trust between Wikipedia and the DM, but a large plank of the case against them has collapsed with the appointment of a new editor, especially one with a good track record. The benefit of the doubt has to be given here otherwise Wikipedia is going to look partisan, especially now it has banned Breitbart. Betty Logan (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removing the previous ban and replacing with new guidance - The statement that the Daily Mail was generally unreliable that came from the previous RfC had no grounding in evidence - it was based only on anecdotal evidence insufficient to sustain a general finding. Instead the evidence from IPSOS shows the Daily Mail to have been not substantially worse, in terms of complaints upheld, than sources generally thought reliable (e.g., in 2015 there were only 2 complaints upheld against Associated, owners of the Daily Mail, whilst 5 were upheld in that year against The Times - see here). New guidance should be produced covering tabloids in general, preferably on the basis that tabloids should be avoided for BLP or controversial statements unless there is a clear reason to use them falling within defined grounds (e.g., to quote someone's own opinions). The automatic filtering of the DM should be deactivated as the politically-motivated censorship it always clearly was, there was never any good reason (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT) to pick on the Daily Mail in particular out of all tabloid publications. FOARP (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Without going into the details of this discussion, one should note that IPSO is probably not a good independent source for this since they were founded and are paid by the newspaper industry. Even our own article about them (Independent Press Standards Organisation) reads in parts like an advert. Any decision about the (un)reliability of the Daily Mail should probably be based on sources independent from the UK newspaper industry. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

SoWhy But in that case it should be a good means to compare those papers that do adhere to its guidelines to try and decide if the DM is any worse than any other of the papers that would help support its ban. If IPSO is biased towards the papers that adhere then it should be biased towards all of them. Don't forget that reliable sources such as the Guardian cite its findings and reports. If we can't use an independent watchdog should we just continue to rely on our own bias and gutfeelings about anecdotal evidence? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

L we have not picked on the DM, we have also nominated other red tops. It is just that those who are defending these "news" organs have had more luck defending the others. I am sure that all of those who want this "ban" in place would like to see it extended to the Sun, The Daily Mirror and other similar scandal and OUTRAGE!!!!! rags. So not we are not singling it out.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

L If so then the fact that you have failed to spread this ban to other publications indicates that the original ban itself was dubious and probably should never have passed. If people find a ban only palatable when it is directed at a particularly hated publication amongst left-wingers (who are possibly over-represented on Wiki), but not when it is directed at less-hated newspapers that are no better or worse in terms of content, that should surely trigger a re-think. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No, no more then if I charge someone with a crime and they got of it means the person before that was innocent. All it means is that this time the arguments were better (not more valid, just better put), or more support was rallied or... well any number of reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If juries repeatedly refuse to convict, this is a sign that there is a problem with the law. Hey, there's even a name for this. FOARP (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

NO, it means that enough of the jury think the law is wrong in those cases (and no this was not been a universal finding, we have had at least one red tops RFC success). Now this is what this RFC is about, is the law still valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The one success was against a paper that is particularly hated by left-wingers, who may be over-represented on Wiki. The other red-tops were the real test, and it failed on them. Maintaining it now is just discriminatory. FOARP (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

AGF, I think you will find that most of us who voted yes in the first RFC (and are voting no now) have also supported the same treatment for all the red tops when it has been raised.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

CDare to find one example of a user who has not done this?>Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support. Reviewing the evidence for & against, the case to remove the ban seems over whelming. (Weak opinions: Id prefer a simple, retrospective lifting as banning even the Dacre DM seems unwarranted. But I can see the other side here, and if we were to have a cut off point, I agree Jan 2019 would make things nice and simple. Huh, if WP bans arguably questionable sources and reinstates them once they address concerns, this might encourage all sources make more effort to be reliable, which would be quite a pleasing side effect. As for a new guidline against tabloids, this seems rather non inclusive. Both the guideline and practice seem to already strongly discourage weak sourcing of controversial BLP statements, so theres a WP:Creep objection here. It's already ridiculously hard to save moderately notable BLPs from destruction without giving deletionists an excuse to dismiss any tabloid source. But only tentative about this view as I have relatively little experience with BLPs and may be misreading, maybe we really do need said guideline.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• No In 2017 10 complaints were upheld against it. It continues to publish falsehoods and conjecture as if they are facts (even under its new regime, as shown below). It has had multiple complaints held up against it this year. I see nothing having changed since we had our last RFC. Until any figures are released we have no idea if the problems have been fixed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Simply balding stating that 10 complaints were upheld does not show general unreliability, not when other publishers, including publishers of RS newspapers with lower circulation, had even more. FOARP (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Err the fact we allow other "less reliable" publications is not a reason to allow this one, it is a reason to not allow them. The fact it that when we banned it the upheld complaints had increased, I see no evidence that trend has even peaked (let alone declined). The basis of this RFC is that the situation has changed, I see no evidence of that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the DM is no worse that sources we believe to be reliable clearly is a reason to consider whether the reasoning under which it was found to be generally unreliable is flawed. The change in situation is not the only basis of the RfC. The lack of good evidence to support the result of the previous RfC is right there under no. 2 in the arguments. To my mind, it is the strongest point. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What the study of the publishers complaints rate?Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the study showing that the DM was no worse in terms of complaints upheld than other publications considered RS. That one. Associated only have one big publication (the Daily Mail) and they had half the number of complaints upheld in 2015 that The Times did. FOARP (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I oppose such bans (as already noted on this page). I also see the current ban / restriction as deeply flawed, particularly because it's so unclear as to whether it's a ban or not. Even if there is no wish to overturn it, we should improve and clarify our restrictions around it.

• Is this a ban or not?
• There is no current clear distinction between the DM as newspaper (even when reproduced online) and the even more celeb-heavy DM-online.
• There is no statement of the precise problem with the DM, and thus the scope of the restriction. Is this factual inaccuracy or editorial political bias? It has been challenged for both, yet there are many uses where we would require accuracy but bias would not be an issue. We shouldn't conflate both for judging each and every use.
• What are the penalties for breaching it? At present, editors even discusssing it have been threatened with blocks. This is just bullying and needs to stop forthwith.
• Why single out the DM? If indeed (as claimed by some threats) it already goes further (the Mirror / Scottish papers for some). Why are Fox and RT, which are equally challenged, permissible?
• What are the exceptions to its permissible use?
• Should editors patrol new / changed articles and summarily strip any DM citations (the "crane case")?

Even if the ban stays, these points should be addressed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: "There is no current clear distinction between the DM as newspaper (even when reproduced online) and the even more celeb-heavy DM-online", what part of "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited"[64] are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

He's saying the 2017 RfC did't distinguish between the two publications, and you are merely reciting the part of the conclusion of the RfC that stated that this is true: it did not distinguish between the two. As such, it is indiscriminate. You are merely demonstrating the fact of what he said. FOARP (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thankyou. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. The RfC clearly stated that both the print and online sources were unreliable -- because they are both unreliable. Andy Dingley, I have seen enough examples of you purposely misunderstanding clear wording to conclude that you are trolling us. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy, ANI is thataway. If you want to accuse editors personally of "trolling", then do it there, not here.

The restriction treats both paper and online equally. Now many people, including the DM's own staff, see the online platform as much less serious a form of news reporting, and it's certainly fuller of celebrities and their "peachy derrières". Given the ease of searching for and linking to an online platform, we have to be even more careful with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes The only proof that the DM is "generally unreliable" was anecdotal evidence. This is not supported by independent watchdog reports from IPSO. It is a trashy bit of newspaper with editorial opinions that can sometimes be outrageous but it is a newspaper that adheres to control by a watchdog, it was named National newspaper of the year 7 times in the last 23 years, and its journalists have won around 20 British Press Awards. I personally don't like it and would rather use other sources but I cannot support this continuation of this ban which makes Wikipedia editors seem biased. The Guardian article produced by User:FOARP is particularly pertinant and on that anecdotal basis we should see the Times banned as being unreliable too. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• No Needs more than two months to be considered more reliable. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes I think it has changed sufficiently. I never supported the original ban in the first place because it did appear that the original decision was taken with a political view against right leaning sources rather than editorial concerns. Indeed we do still have GAs that are supported by DM sources and yet those ones were strangely untouched when the anti-DM purges were going around so clearly there is tacit acknowledgement of DM being reliable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• No It's far too soon to assess any substantial lasting change in a large newspaper with many diverse and controversial topics. The listed character witnesses for this change so far are politicians and opinion pieces, with a limited short-time view that can only speculate about a possible lasting change. Secondly, I strongly object to the unfounded allegations of general political motivations behind the previous RfC. Such repeated personalizing allegations are a violation of WP:AGF and counterproductive. Lastly, anecdotal evidence - within reason - is a perfectly valid argument for community-internal discussions. Wikipedia is not a court of law. GermanJoe (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The proposer of the 2017 RfC is on the record as comparing the Daily Mail to the Volkischer Beobachter, and there was repeated use of emotive language betraying anger at the publication during that RfC (e.g., "kill it with fire", "fake news", "right-wing propaganda"). It is hardly unfair to say that some of the editors were not voting objectively. Finally, the DM remains the only newspaper censored in this way despite being, according to IPSOS, no worse than any other UK tabloid in terms of complaints upheld. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - Remove "the Ban" on the Daily Mail Reinstate the Daily Mail as Reliable Source. "The IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organization) is the independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK". As the UK regulator they "uphold high standards of journalism".

− The Daily Mail is one of IPSO's member newspapers and follows the IPSO Editors' Code, publishing corrections, and is subject to investigation and enforcement by IPSO. − When any of IPSO's members is found violating their Rules and Regulations the members are subject to publishing corrections, paying fines, paying for the cost of the investigation, submitting quarterly statements, and ultimately termination of the newspaper's membership with IPSO. − In identifying the most complained about publications in the UK in 2017, The Daily Mail had a complaint rate per circulated issue of about 0.32%. This compares to other UK newspapers that were also on the "Most Complained About Publications" list for 2017, including The Sun 0.35%, The Bristol Post 0.21%, The Times 0.14%, The Daily Telegraph 0.08% and The Telegraph 0.006% among others. The arguments put forth to maintain the ban are highly partisan and/or motivated by partisanship. Nearly every argument to continue or to initially propose a ban on the DM could easily be made about news sources considered mainstream such as the New York Daily News or even the so-called venerable New York Times.Wcmcdade (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (Daily Mail)

Suggested conduct for this RFC

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

---

It may be helpful if we conduct this discussion in a deliberative manner, to improve our chances of arriving at a solid, evidence-based consensus. Going straight to voting with little preliminary discussion is good practice for some issues, but it is liable to elicit non reflective, "top of the head" opinions. Voting has therefore been postponed for 7 days to allow deliberation.

• Any editor who wishes to add arguments or evidence is welcome to do so in the relevant 'For' or 'Against' section, to whatever length they wish.
• If any editor wishes to add inline questions or counter points to the opposing side's section, they are encouraged to be as concise as possible.
• Voting is not due to open until Tuesday 11 Dec. This is to allow plenty of time for both sides to develop arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeydHuxtable (talk • contribs) 10:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Arguments For lifting restrictions on the DM

Outline

1) The DM has changed dramatically - it is not the same source we banned in 2017.

2) Relatively little high quality evidence exists asserting DM is generally unreliable.

3) Retaining the ban creates a dangerous WP:creep / slippery slope problem.

4) The DM is sometimes the best available source for certain topics.

5) Retaining the ban is damagingly partisan.

6) The ban is disproportionate to its objectives

7) The consensus resulting from the RfC was unclear

Elaboration and evidence

1) The DM has changed dramatically - it is not the same source we banned in 2017.

The publication Wikipedia de facto banned in early 2017 no longer exists. While it may be true that the DM once had reprehensible operating practices, new editor Geordie Greig is cleaning up shop. Greig's appointment has been such a dramatic change that the Atlantic called him the "man who might change Britain" , John Major said he had "the power and the potential to change the political discourse of our country", and Lord Adonis claimed his ascension was "a revolution in the British media … very likely we will now stop Brexit". as summarised in The Guardian . These predictions seem to be holding true. Abundant sources written in the past few days confirm the DM really does seem to have turned over a new leaf, and is now "kinder and gentler" , e.g. Guardian article As late as mid summer, talk of a second Brexit referendum was widely regarded as fanciful. Since Greig took over at DM, John McDonnell has said a 2nd referendum now seems inevitable, while in the last few days even Gove admitted a second referendum is possible.

2) Relatively little high quality evidence exists asserting DM is generally unreliable.

There seem to be few if any high quality sources claiming DM is general unreliable , especially since the major improvements after the recent change of editor. Outdated opinion pieces from journalists & quotes from disgruntled x-employees, while not worthless, are far from top tier sources. Individual DM articles may contain falsehoods, but misleading info can be found in any type of sources, most definitively in the types of sources Wikipedians tend to consider most reliable. There is no totally satisfactory substitute for editorial discretion.

IPSOS, the media watchdog body, tracks complaints upheld against each publisher in each year. In 2015 only two complaints were upheld against Associated, the owners of the Daily Mail, compared to nine complaints being upheld for Telegraph Media Group and Trinity Mirror (owners of the Telegraph and the Mirror respectively), ten being upheld against Northern and Shell (owners of the Express and the Star), and eleven complaints against News UK (owners of the Times, the Sunday Times, and the Sun). IPSOS also noted that "Associated was the most assiduous group at resolving complaints, having done so on 23 occasions". If the Daily Mail is the horrifically inaccurate source that it has been portrayed as being by some editors, then this is not immediately apparent in terms of complaints upheld or the attitude of the publication to those complaints. Whilst 2015 was a particularly low year for Associated, the statistics for 2016 (see pp. 16-17 here) and 2017 (see pp. 22-23 here) in terms of complaints upheld were also lower for Associated than for their main competitors. Whilst the total volume of complaints for the DM is high, it is not higher than for the Sun, and proportionate to circulation is not remarkable compared to other publications regulated by IPSOS.

3) Retaining the ban creates a dangerous WP:creep / slippery slope problem.

Al Jazeera is ranked less trustworthy and impartial than DM in several (not all) of the datasets reported in sources such as Ipsos Impartiality and Trust Market Content Survey 2017 & BBC trust and impartiality 2014 It would hopefully be unthinkable to ban Al Jazeera, but this example may illustrate how retaining the DM ban helps strengthen the case to ban various other useful sources.

One of the requirements of WP:CREEP is that "The proposal if implemented is likely to make a real, positive difference", however there is no evidence that this ban has created such a difference, unless you consider there being less citations of the Daily Mail as being, in and of itself, a "positive difference". Instead there is evidence that it has created a robotic, non-common-sense approach amongst some editors where references to the Daily Mail are deleted automatically without any analysis of whether this is warranted or an improvement of any kind. If anything, this actually points to the ban increasing editor's workloads since they were actively and explicitly encouraged by the RfC to seek out references to the Daily Mail and remove them - this is not time well spent.

4)The DM is sometimes a useful, even the best available, source for certain topics.

For an example of the DM being a useful source to improve a poetry article, see this diff The example I most remember where DM was the best available source was for the actress & former model Teresa May. One of the leading glamour models of the 90s, she worked with The Prodigy, stared in several B movies, appeared in numerous tabloids and mens magazines, appeared on TV shows like Men & Motors, GMTV, etc. She wasn't just important in entertainment – starting from the late 90s, she played a major role in the long process of rehabilitating the Tories image as the "nasty party". The single best online source for recording this was the DM. Due in part to said source being dismissed thanks to the ban, our article on this historic figure was destroyed. There must be thousands of other examples. With DM being the only large UK paper with a majority female readership, many may relate to articles of interest to women. Lifting the ban on the DM could help address our embarrassing lack of coverage on such topics.

5) Retaining the ban is damagingly partisan.

Many of the original RfC votes to ban DM were undoubtedly driven solely by the admirable and scholarly desire to avoid possible untruth being included in our articles. Yet given that at least until Greig took over as editor, the DM was regarded as a hugely powerful outlet for right wing opinion, and that several editors call it 'repulsive' , 'repugnant' etc, it does seem likely partisan sentiment played at least some role. In fairness, wikipedians commitment to NPOV makes us on the whole less partisan than most of the rest of the world. Still, our banning of DM is seen by many as a partisan act, adding fuel to the partisan inferno raging elsewhere.

To elaborate on why inflaming partisanship is so bad. Partisanship is maybe the primary reason why suffering is increasing for a substantial proportion of the world's population, despite what should be the fruits of ever improving technology. E.g. Hunger increasing both globally and even in several advanced economies, mental health issues increasing across the world, suicide rates increasing & life expectancies falling in several advanced economies. Societies are dysfunctional when populations separate into mutually suspicious halves on the left right spectrum. A fair view of said spectrum is that almost all on both sides genuinely want the best for everyone, just with different priorities. In relatively bi-partisan times, like the 50-60s, there can be vast improvements in living conditions for all sections of society, not regression for the poor like we have today. It may be satisfying for us lefties to win great victories against the right, as they can in various arenas of public opinion like Wikipedia or the twitter sphere. But perversely, it's left wing causes that suffer the most when we do so. This is why Hilary Clinton came to deeply regret her "deplorable" remark, and why Obama came to see his "guns and relgion" speech as one of his worst mistakes. Lets find it in our hearts to treat the political right with respect, if not out of genuine love for them, then as it helps the cause, and for WP:NPOV!

6) The ban is disproportionate to its objectives

The objective of the ban was to discourage the use of a source alleged, based on largely anecdotal evidence of recent behaviour, to be generally unreliable. To achieve this the entire corpus of work of a newspaper published daily for more than 122 years was subjected to blanket deprecation without a time limit or even scheduling a review after a particular time-period. A permanent ban, covering the entire history of a newspaper, for perceived recent behaviour, is clearly greatly in excess of the wrong that it is supposed to address.

7) The consensus resulting from the RfC was unclear

In previous discussions it has been pointed out that the result of this ban was not a "ban" per se. However, the fact that it has been reported as a ban outside Wikipedia in a source normally thought reliable, that it is commonly referred to as a ban by editors (or even jokingly as a "!ban"), and has functioned exactly as a ban since all new references to the Daily Mail are deleted, shows that the instructions resulting from the RfC were unclear since they have resulted in a sitaution which they were supposed to avoid - a blanket ban on references to the Daily Mail.

Credits: Most of sound arguments in the initial posting here were originally put forward by others, including Collect, Andy Dingley, DomFromParis, FOARP and the Colonel. Possibly foolish elaborations like contrasting DM with the sort of sources held up by WP:MEDS are mine alone. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Arguments Against lifting restrictions on the DM

Many many of us in fact argued against it solely on its tendency to present opinion, speculation and out right misrepresentation as fact. I dislike the way this RFC has been framed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Outline

Nor do I think this has changed (as certain recent discussion at the DM about Wikipedia have shown). As nothing has substantively changed, and in fact they continue to be (quite literally in the UK) a joke means to my mind undoing the "ban" (as the DM put it) will in fact do our reputation for using only the best sources weakened not strengthened. I think our taking a stand over this issue did our reputation (expect among the Red Tops) no end of good as we had started to take a real meaningful stand against fake news (by which I mean news organs that have a willingness (and knowingly publish) pure speculation and opinion as fact).Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Elaboration and evidence

[65], not only is this not usable as a BLP (but try saying that if we do not "deprecate" the DM "but its an RS" will be the plaintive cry) but is a prefect example of why it should not be considered an RS. Speculation masquerading as fact, but they even (and have to have used) Wikipedia as a source despite (after the earlier spat with them) claiming (categorically) they do not use Wikipedia as a source. The dishonesty and representing opinion as news continues unchanged.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

In an independent report by campaignlive.co.uk, the Daily Mail was ranked the second most untrustworthy newspaper in the UK behind The Sun. When asked "I trust what I see in it", 46% of readers said "yes" (against 39% for The Sun). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As to upheld complainants, well lets look at this year (as this is then one that has supposedly seen a change), well they will not have released the figures yet, so how about last year? [[66]], 10 up held complaints, a five fold increase.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"The DM has changed dramatically - it is not the same source we banned in 2017". There has been a change of editorship to Geordie Greig, but only for the last two months. Hardly enough time to properly judge if there has been any change. But are we seriously suggesting that all news previously published by the Daily Mail has been re-assessed by the new editor and taken down or amended if necessary? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. There may be grounds to lift the ban, but with a side note that consensus remains generally against including the DM articles when they predate the change of editor. At this point I’d prefer an unconditional lifting, but this is something to reflect on. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven there were 10 upheld complaints for the group but only 3 for the Daily Mail and only 2 for accuracy for the Daily Mail for 1456 complaints in total = 0.13%. In 2015 there were 402 complaints for accuracy and 2 complaints upheld = 0.50%. This means that instead of being multiplied 5 fold as you suggest the percentage of upheld complaints was divided nearly four fold. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In 2015 there were 44 complainants against Associated (of which 19 were dismissed), in 2017 there were 73, of which 24 were not upheld. So almost double the complaints, and 5 times the number sanctioned (for comparison in 2016 it was 64 of which 20 were found to not be a breach).Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven Are we talking about associated or Daily Mail? Because if we are treating all publications from one owner in the same basket please don't forget that The Sun and The Times are owned by the same group. This is not about Associated Press but the Daily Mail from what I can gather. What we are talking about is accuracy here and the Daily mail. I have checked and double checked the figures and I stand by what I said, 2 upheld complaints for each year 2015 and 2017 and a multiplication of 3.6 times the number of complaints made 402 to 1456. Try using this to check them and you will see what I mean. [67]. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In 2016 there were also 2 upheld complaints for accuracy for a total of 1895 complaints sent in. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Err, I was not the one who used the Associated press as the example to start with...look at the opening salvo.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ohh and it was not 1895 complaints in 2016, it was 3140. In 2017 there were 4847 received, but they now only list findings by company.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(you need to filter for accuracy which is the subject of the ban) I know you chose associated press and that is why I replied because I am just trying to understand why you have chosen to lump them all together rather than just deal with the subject of this discussion which is the Daily Mail and accuracy. (we can also add the mail online I suppose but this changes very little in terms of percentages of complaints received upheld.). you have knowingly chosen to take the Associated Press rather than just the Mail. You might be interested to know that The Times had 4 complaints for accuracy upheld in 2017 for 385 complaints = 1.04% which is twice as many complaints or 8 times more in percentage of complaints compared to the DM. In 2015 the Times had 3 complaints upheld for accuracy for 159 complaints in total = 1.89% (the Sun from the same group in the same period only had 1 complaint upheld for 1618 in total = 0.06%, 31 times less in percentage terms than The Times.) Dom from Paris (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not choose AP "IPSOS, the media watchdog body, tracks complaints upheld against each publisher in each year. In 2015 only two complaints were upheld against Associated, the owners of the Daily Mail," the nominator did, I just looked at the same set of statistics but for following years.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Obviously numbers of complaints is a function of circulation (the more people read who read it, the more complaints are made, and often multiple complaints are tendered on the same issue). The real measure is the number of complaints upheld since these are the ones where actual wrongdoing has been found, which is not remarkably higher for Associated than for the publishers of news sources considered RS. Every paper has had instances where stories have been fabricated - even some of the ones considered highly reliable like the New York Times (see Jayson Blair) and the New Republic (see Stephen Glass). Anecdotal evidence cannot support a general finding. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Closure proposal

• Procedural close. Not a neutrally-presented RfC. ——SerialNumber54129 13:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Serial numbers above. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with SerialNumber as well. The editor who opened the RfC stated "Worse is when editors colludes in advance and open voting after posting detailed but one sided arguments" and then proceeded to posted a long string of one-sided arguments apparently compiled from a number of editors. –dlthewave ☎ 13:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree a non neutral wall of text, that poisons the well by (off the bat) questioning the motives of other eds.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Biased RfC. Needs to be re-framed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural close- this RfC is an immense, partisan wall of text. I would suggest suggest waiting at least a few months to evaluate whether Geordie Greig's reforms have given the Daily Mail the status of a reliable source. Two months after his appointment is too soon to know whether this has had a lasting effect. Any future RfC would need to be presented neutrally, instead of poisoning the well right from the outset. Reyk _YO! 14:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Do not close - This is the section was intended as the section for arguments against, so I have separated out the closure arguments from the arguments against the proposal. It is simply an abuse of process to try to close this discussion at this point, rather than argue against the point being made. The proposal at the top of the discussion is clearly neutrally framed, it states only "Is it time to lift the targeted restrictions on using the Daily Mail as a source, thus overturning the Jan 2017 RfC ?". Would it make any difference if, as in the case of the 2017 RfC, the proposer had simply posted their arguments directly under the proposal in the form of a "support" vote? Finally, as for it being a wall of text, this is because there are significant arguments in favour of removing the ban. FOARP (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this was part of his pitch on the RFC, so yes it should have been in the vote section and not party of the RFC launch. Moreover it (essentially) questioned the motives of other eddds and thus poisoned the well before anyone had even responded. Nor is a wall of text needed, much of what he said could have been said on one sentence (not, in some cases, two paragraphs).Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

IN fact this derail is a good example of why it should not have been done.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

What on earth is the actual, functional difference between an editor putting it in the first support vote of their own proposal, and an editor putting it into a "arguments in favour" section? These are literally the same things just given different names. This is an example of the kind of Wikilawyering that is doing this site to death. FOARP (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is it is a huge wall of text that you have to read, aft er having been told this is a problem (see below). He says this givers one side an advantage, on he then takes advantage of.Slatersteven (talk)

You're objection here is literally that the arguments in favour of the proposal are so substantial that they take a long time to read? FOARP (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No it is (literally) that it contains too many (as it a lot) of words, an unessential and unneeded verbosity that conveys no real information that a one sentence comment could not have done (or to put it another way, I can make this reply last for ever and just say the same thing 15 different ways).Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:TLDR is literally a bad argument, and you're literally making it. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• As long as the "Arguments in favour" section is clearly separate from the opening RFC statement, I don't see a problem. It's only the statement of the RFC itself that needs to be neutral - obviously the arguments don't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Except it followed the initial question with this "Worse is when editors colludes in advance and open voting after posting detailed but one sided arguments . This gives the opening side a framing / agenda setting advantage, which at worst is manipulative, and at best reduces the chance of arriving at a fair, evidence based consensus."Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hasn't that been fixed now? As long as it's addressed quickly, I see no need for being excessively bureaucratic and forcing this one to close and then open a new one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

In what way fixed, it still says it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It has now been fixed, by another ed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural close per above - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Part of the issue may be the structure of this RFC, which puts the opening comments in favour immediately under the proposition (thus making it harder to tell one from the other), looking at the Sun RFC (for example) we have the survey first, not the comments.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, god forbid that people read the reasons for the proposal before going straight into the voting section, which is anyway delayed to allow for deliberation and won't even open for 7 days. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No they should read all the arguments for and against, but neither side should have been given an advantage (as the OP puts it) of going first.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

To point out the obvious, in the 2017 RfC the proposer did exactly that, they just did it in the guise of a support vote, which as the proposer they were in the position to post straight away. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

They voted with a one paragraph comment.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And this is better because......FOARP (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well for a start it means you can get to the counter arguments quicker, and thus get a more balanced view. As this RFC originally said, going first is an advantage, if you then present a wall of text you increase that advantage (which it also said). If the OP thought that then doing it was clearly something they would not have considered unacceptable if done in reverse.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

So if you're not allowed to go first, who goes first? Or are you saying it's OK if your side goes first? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying someone should not go first, but it should not be with a massive wall of text *much of which does not seem to be about the DM's reliability and some of it , irrelevant, soap boxing) that appears (at least on quick inspection) to be part of the RFC's opening statement. The whole point is the OP said we should not do what he then when ahead and did, the fact this has been removed now just (to my mind) emphasis the fact the RFC was meant to be biased (and was as much as it could be).Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so what you want to do is censor what and how much the opposing side can say? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying that bating straight off with bad faith wall of bludgeoning text make the RFC poisoned from the off. I am saying that making a one paragraph post criticizing the source is not the same as a multi paragraph lecture that flies of at wild tangents that have nothing to do with the reliability of a source, but rather wider issues in both society and alleged bias among fellow eds. I did not raise the issue of the other RFC, I did not use it as an example of what should be done here (nor did I post the original point about the side that goes first getting an advantage).Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You do know that WP:TLDR is not actually a good argument, right? As for a "bludgeoning wall of text", I mean honestly, you position here is that it's OK for the proposer to make a vote including arguments right after the proposal - presumably of arbitrary length - but when using a process that delays voting it's not OK to put the arguments in a section two paragraphs below the proposal that is clearly marked "arguments". FOARP (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I was not the one who made a point about "posting detailed but one sided arguments" (not that the arguments are detailed, they are just verbose, a sizable chunk having nothing to do with the actual question raised).Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural close - Unacceptably-biased structure and wording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep open, do not close The opening statement "Is it time to lift the targeted restrictions on using the Daily Mail as a source, thus overturning the Jan 2017 RfC ?" is not problematic. I may change "Is it time to lift" to something like "Should we lift", but I like how the arguments are presented in its own section as it enhances discussion. It's no different from other RfCs with separate "Survey" and "Discussion" sections, except that this time the position of the two sections are swapped. feminist (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  Note that if this is to run as a proper RfC, the survey should start now. Either that or the RfC template should be removed. It's common to present your arguments in a separate discussion before starting an RfC, but why include the RfC template if you don't want to start it yet? feminist (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  I have removed the RfC template for now. Feel free to restore it if any editor wants to start the survey. feminist (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural close, encourage the proposer to start over with a neutrally-presented RfC. The basic plan should be to make the actual question completely neutral, then put your arguments in a "support as proposer" !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Which would be different to putting the reasons for the proposal in a section clearly marked “Arguments” because.... Furthermore opening the voting straight away prevents deliberation from both sides before voting. FOARP (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you are still asking this question after a dozen different people have explained what is wrong with what you are trying to do tells me that you have no business posting RfCs. WP:CIR. Furthermore I have not commented on "opening the voting straight away". Please stay on-topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You're asking that the proposer puts their arguments in a !vote, which logically requires that voting already be open right from the start. It is not clear - AT ALL - why this is different in any way - AT ALL - to putting the arguments in a section marked "arguments". It is not clear why one is neutral and the other not. FOARP (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural close - Certainly no opposition to having an RFC on reinstating Daily Mail as an RS, but this has to be rewritten to be suitably neutral first. As it is right now, it's not.--WaltCip (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is it about the proposal that you believe is non-neutral? It’s a one-sentence statement at the top of the proposal which does not advocate either way. The supporting arguments follow two paragraphs down in a section cvlearly marked “arguments” FOARP (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand what a neutral RfC question is, as evidenced by your believe that inserting a large chunk of non-neutral material at the to is somehow magically made OK if you add the word "arguments". You should voluntarily withdraw this RfC, post a new one in your sandbox, and invite comments on how to make it neutral. If you aren't willing to do that, an uninvolved editor should close this RfC, based upon the strong consensus for a procedural close. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that I do not understand what the difference between stating the reasons for a proposal in a section called "arguments" and stating the reason for your proposal in a !vote posted right at the top by the proposer as was done in the 2017 RfC. FOARP (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural close. RfCs are not supposed to be extended soapboxes with demands for a week's wait before anyone ventures an opinion. This proposal is essentially the proposer's first significant activity on-wiki since July, I question whether this is a good-faith exercise. I'd expect, at a minimum, an increasing number of discussions at this board with consensus for individual links to the DM as evidence that standards have increased (which is also the way sites get deprecated, after multiple consensus "unreliable" debates). Guy (Help!) 18:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a week's wait until expressing an opinion. It's a week's wait until voting. This procedure has been used elsewhere on Wiki. FOARP (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to question other editors good faith! I am an editor with over 10 years experience. If you read the Sun RfC above , both pro & anti DM ban editors were requesting a dedicated RfC for the DM. I thought I'd step up as I was fresh from my wiki break, and have some experience with RfCs where a little innovation seems called for. See here for example, a RfC I opened in a quite similar manner - it was well attended and a very cordial discussion. In this case, my efforts don't seem to have been so well receivedand I apologise for being the source of objections thanks to the way I framed this. Still, no need to ABF! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Would anyone mind if I refactor this discussion to have the survey on top? feminist (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Not me, whatever ever changes you think would help are most welcome. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it will change anything since this just seems to be an abuse of process designed to stifle debate, but you can give it a try. FOARP (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This process has become a joke. The thread itself has been mangled unrecognisably overmynight, such that it is pointless. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Let's break it down:

1) Someone proposes a procedural close objecting to wording under the RfC proposal, the wording is then removed.

2) More editors propose a procedural close objecting to the formatting of the RfC, the formatting is then changed.

3) Editors then propose a procedural close on the basis that changes have been made.

The only consistent thing here is the demand that this discussion be closed before it even begins.

Can an Admin please come in and assess this closure discussion? FOARP (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The wording was removed after many eds had asked for a close.

As far as I can tell not votes for a close have been made after the reformatting.

There was no request to close this before the discussion had begun, the request to close it was made after at least two eds had responded. What eds have asked for this to be close because changes have been made?Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The comment from User:Roxy the dog directly above mine, in a discussion about closing, states that the discussion is now pointless due to changes (i.e., it should be closed). This statement came after the reformatting and obviously in response to it. As for "before it even begins" this is a common turn of phrase or colloquialism in the English language - which I believe (correct me if I am wrong) is the correct language of proceedings for this particular forum - to indicate that something is being done very early in a process (example).

You know it might help if you actually stated a ground for closure at this particular point, or withdrew your original proposal in order to expedite proceedings. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It might help if you read my comment with the grounds for closure (translated helpfully by me here as - "fucked up proposal") in it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Which ultimately adds up to asking that the discussion be closed because the issues that other editors objected to in their closure proposals were addressed. FOARP (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I may be wrong it it can just as easily be read that there is no point in restructuring the RFC as it is already FUBAR, not that is her grounds for closure, just that she no longer see's any point in trying to fix something that is broken beyond repair.13:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You may well be wrong. They stated specifically that "The thread itself has been mangled unrecognisably overmynight", that is, the modifications made after posting to address the concerns raised by other editors are the cause of them supporting closing. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know that, that is what I was referring to. And no it does not say "that is why they support the close", it is response to a suggestion to re-structure it. Maybe you need to start AGF?Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

They also stated that their was comment was "with the grounds for closure". Can we stop playing this silly game? All the things that were objected to above were changed within hours of the proposal being posted and yet no-one withdrew their closure-proposal, and now the latest grounds for closure are that changes were made. I really don't see how this closure can be justified. This is a clear abuse of process just directed to shutting down debate. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Do not close I don't believe this is non-neutral as the mover of this motion asserts. To me it looks like the RFC proposer is just outlining the common pro and con arguments that can/will be made but has included spaces beneath each one for people to include their pro/con arguments if he has omitted them before the opening of the RFC !vote. I would support keeping this open and running the RFC as proposed because this will be a intense discussion and it seems only fair that everyone can view all arguments in summary form. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural close - for the reasons I've already given. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Re "...two complaints were upheld against Associated, the owners of the Daily Mail", The DM is owned by Daily Mail and General Trust. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"DMG Media, formerly Associated Newspapers, is a national newspaper and website publisher in the UK. It is a subsidiary of DMGT." FOARP (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, in that case I suggest changing "Associated" to "DMG Media" above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• The nuclear option of blowing prior consensus-up seems extreme, when what it seems your arguments point to is refining the editing guidance. Because blowing the consensus up entirely is not going to lead to less arguments about this source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we agree that there should not be no guidance on the DM after this RfC closes. The DM will still be a tabloid newspaper and under similar guidance to other tabloid newspapers. It just won't be the subject of an unjustified and unhelpful automatically-enforced ban. Getting to that point requires overturning the previous consensus FOARP (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Who is we? At any rate, your (singular) desire for no guidance actually makes little sense, as a matter of practice. It actually seems anti-consensus, because your desire seems to want to return to the days of multiple fights over this source, and it doesn't change the earlier practice of regularly deprecating this source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For certain highly restricted values of "we". Guy (Help!) 22:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm, I think you misread my comment. “We” means me and you and I was stating that I at least thought we were in agreement that there should be guidance. This proposal is simply that the blanket, automatic filtering that takes place now be ended. The DM will then just be treated like every other tabloid newspaper is at present. FOARP (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"This proposal is simply that the blanket, automatic filtering that takes place now be ended." As written, this is not a proposal to simply remove the edit filter. The proposal is to overturn the entire 2017 RfC which would include the general prohibition on using it as a source. –dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's probably best you not try to speak for me. You say it is a tabloid, what do you mean by that besides it being generally unreliable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to speak for you, merely understand your position. Hence my stating "I think....". I don't think Tabloids are generally unreliable as I don't think the evidence exists to substantiate that (anecdotes do not count). I do think great care should be taken when using them as sources for BLP or controversial subjects and the guidance should reflect that. Automatic deletion of the kind practically mandated by the present ban is unhelpful, unwelcoming to new editors, unbalanced since of the UK papers it is only applied to the DM, and censorious. FOARP (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: "...unbalanced since of the UK papers it is only applied to the DM", show me evidence that any other UK newspaper does what The Daily Mail does, which includes:

• Completely fabricating direct quotes
• Photoshopping news photographs
• Stealing work from lesser-known publications, changing a few things to make the story more salacious, and publishing the resulting copyright violation under its own byline.

That last one is, by itself, reason to never allow The Daily mail as a source. And despite me asking over a dozen "all UK papers do that!" Daily Mail fanboys for evidence that any other UK paper does that, they have never given me am example -- and neither will you (Please prove me wrong with a documented example).

This last one was documented at [ https://gizmodo.com/that-viral-story-about-a-japanese-man-crushed-to-death-1792986533 ] several other examples are documented at [ http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286 ].

Key quotes:

"The Daily Mail seems to have taken a sad story of a man’s death in Japan and added a few lies to make it more sensational."

"The Daily Mail story doesn’t link out to Nikkan Spa, or acknowledge at all where its information came from. The average reader would assume that all the information presented in the Daily Mail story was collected by the Daily Mail alone. It appears that nothing in the Daily Mail’s version contains original reporting, aside from the sensationalist errors that it introduced.:

Despite me asking over a dozen "all UK papers do that!" Daily Mail fanboys for evidence that any other UK paper does that, they have never given me a single example. I also searched for one, but only found more examples of The Daily Mail doing it.

Even if The Daily Mail had no other problems as a source, this alone would prevent us from ever using it as a source. We don't link to any sources that we know have a high probability of being copyright violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Every major paper has had instances where stories have been fabricated (see Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass for examples in publications general considered reliable). Anecdotes cannot support a general finding. Only statistical evidence can do this, and the evidence form IPSOS is that the DM is not remarkable in terms of the complaints against it that are upheld. FOARP (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Evasion noted. You have, as expected, failed to provide any examples of any papers doing what I documented The Daily Mail as doing. The examples you gave were both of individual reporters plagiarizing and fabricating and being fired for it when the publications they worked for found out about it. The Daily Mail tells their reporters to plagiarize and fabricate. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon you might try and avoid the ad hominem "Daily Mail fanboys" to try and discredit those who do not agree with you. I for one detest the Daily Mail but I do not agree with its ban for objective reasons and I am not sure that there are many who have commented that have expressed any support for the paper. It is similar to those that treated me as "a warmongering fascist" because I was an army officer I would reply that I was not one but I was willing to fight and die to defend their right to call me one. There is no objective reason to ban the DM even if I hate it so I defend the right to use it as a source. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

And just to be clear I am a remainer (I live and work in France) and the DM did me a lot of personal damage when they supported the Brexit. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

And that is why some of us said this RFC was broken, that horse has long since bolted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we have to many "ye...but" votes. Can we please either vote yes or no? I would not object to another discussion about modifying the results of the RFC, but this is not it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There was also the Nightstalker case involving The Times, which involved a reporter hacking into the emails of an anonymous blogger, allegedly with the sanction of his superior, and, infamously, The Mirror's fabrication of photos of British soldiers abusing detainees in Iraq. The Times is considered an RS, The Mirror is not considered generally unreliable. But all of these are still, only anecdotes, and not statistical evidence of the kind required to substantiate a finding of general unreliability - for that we have the IPSOS statistics of complaints upheld that do not show the DM to be remarkably worse than any other UK publication.

Finally, can you please lay off the "Daily Mail fanboys" talk? I personally do not like the DM. I think that the 2017 RfC was very poorly reasoned and politically motivated, and has resulted in harm to the Wiki project. FOARP (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not all editors who disagree with the ban are daily mail fanboys, but all daily mail fanboys disagree with the ban. The way to tell them apart is that the first group posts thoughtful objections based on evidence and reason, while the second group just makes shit up and throws it against the wall hoping some of it will stick. Disagreeing with me is fine. Claiming that other papers do stuff like this[68][69] without providing any evidence is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we keep it polite please?Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. Swearing and insults are not the hallmark of informed debate. I've already provided an example of another UK newspaper fabricating pictures of British soldiers abusing detainees - however there is no consensus against use of the Daily Mirror, because to make a finding of general unreliability requires more than anecdotal evidence. FOARP (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

TechPowerUp

Is TechPowerUp a reliable source for topics relating to computer hardware?

Context: I am responding to an edit request on Western Digital. The COI editor suggested using Myce to complement or replace a reference to TechPowerUp currently in the article. I'd say TechPowerUp is generally reliable for its reviews and news of computer hardware. Their writers are paid staff and they do issue corrections. Whereas Myce looks more questionable, though I am less familiar with Myce. Alexa shows that TechPowerUp is much more visited than Myce. Thoughts? feminist (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)