Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RfC: Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series

Is the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A recent RfC determined that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht WWII-era German propaganda broadcast may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour. Two of these mentions are sourced to the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series by UNITEC Publishing:

• Schumann, Ralf; Westerwelle, Wolfgang (2010). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – Der Jäger von Malta [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – The Hunter of Malta] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 706989728. ASIN B003ZNZTGY  (18 May 2014). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used at Joachim Müncheberg)
• Steinecke, Gerhard [in German] (2012). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 802538281. ASIN B008AIT9Z6  (4 January 2013). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used at Hans Philipp)

The series was previously discussed at RSN and is currently under discussion at MILHIST. –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Most people who took part in discussion had no idea what is the Wehrmachtbericht and whether it was on honor or not. What K.e.coffman wrote is original research and misleading. Wehrmachtbericht was a honor. There are 1,182 individual soldiers mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, out of millions of soldiers who served in the German Army.

I quote from a research paper who deals with the Wehrmachtbericht and the German fighter pilots[1]:

’’To examine the effects of public recognition, we focus on mentions by name in the German Armed Forces daily bulletin (Wehrmachtbericht). This is for several reasons: Mentions were rare, and reserved for recognizing spectacular accomplishments such as a particularly high number of enemy ships sunk or fighters shot down. Second, mentions became known instantly over a wide area, being broadcast on the radio, published in the press, and distributed at command posts throughout German territory. Third, mentions in the daily bulletin were largely unexpected. There was no mechanical rule that entitled a pilot to being mentioned. Fourth, mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht are a fleeting form of recognition, providing the recipient with no tangible token of appreciation beyond elevating his status in the eyes of others. For all these reasons, we consider the mentions in the daily bulletin an ideal source of identifying variation for analyzing the effects of status competition.

Mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht were embedded in an elaborate system of awards and medals operated by the German armed forces.’’

My view on this is clear that for all mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht the Wegmann, Günter, ed. 1982. “Das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Gibt Bekannt‐‐”: Der Deutsche Wehrmachtbericht: Vollständige Ausgabe der durch Presse und Rundfunk veröffentlichten Texte. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag should be used and is very reliable as is used as a source for K.e.coffman favorite book The Wehrmacht By Wolfram WETTE which deals with war crimes and propaganda (see chapter 5 notes The Legends of the Wehrmacht’s “Clean Hands”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.46.144 (talk • contribs)

Comparable to Mentioned in dispatches? - Donald Albury 22:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

In some respects, Donald, I would agree. Especially in that they were named in widely distributed official government bulletin as MiD recipients were in the London Gazette. It also appears that they were in fact treated as an honour per the research paper linked above and other sources already discussed at WT:MILHIST. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No, not comparable because the available sources do not make this connection. If such sources exist, this matter can be raised at Talk:Mentioned in dispatches#Question on the Wehrmacht Report or Talk:Wehrmachtbericht. At present, neither article mentions the other. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, that they were similar is BLUE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to provide sources attesting to such. This can be done at Talk:Mentioned in dispatches#Question on the Wehrmacht Report, as this discussion is somewhat off-topic. The RfC is about Ritterkreuzträger Profiles from UNITEC-Medienvertrieb, not the Wehrmachtbericht itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• I see no reason why not. Nothing has been produced here so far to make me question the reliability or accuracy of the content of the books themselves, the reliability of the authors, or of the publishing house, and I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty. Perhaps others with better German skills can find something, and I would be happy to revise my position if such was forthcoming. The publisher has about 180 different titles on specialist military subjects including the French Air Force and Cold War military exercises as well as this series. Titles from this press (and from this series) are held by state and university libraries in Germany including the Bundeswehr University Munich, and it seems to be a publisher similar to the Bloomsbury Publishing imprint Osprey Publishing, a specialist military publisher, not academic quality but nevertheless reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• As this research paper says[2][3]: “Mentions in the daily bulletin were amongst the highest form of recognition used by the German armed forces. A typical report would only mention major events at the different fronts, listing gains and losses of territory or individual battles. Mentions were rare. During the entire war, fewer than 1,200 men were recognized in this way (Wegmann 1982), out of 18 million German men who served. Mentions by name were introduced in April 1940. One of the first soldiers receiving this recognition was Erwin Rommel for his role in leading the German armored thrust into France in the spring of 1940. A typical example of Wehrmachtbericht mentioned in dispatches is Hans‐Joachim Marseille’s mention on June 18, 1942: First Lieutenant Marseille shot down ten enemy planes in a 24 hour period in North Africa, raising his total score of aerial victories to 101. (Wegmann 1982)”

The principal awards for valor were the Iron Crosses and the Knight’s Cross. In addition, soldiers could receive a mention in the daily bulletin. This was one of the highest forms of recognition available in the German armed forces. Like Meintioned in Dispatches wikipage it differs from country to country. In Wehrmachtbericht some soldiers were mentioned multiple times, not necessarily because of receiving the highest award for valor the Knight’s Cross, but also by spectacular accomplishments such as a particularly high number of enemy ships sunk or fighters shot down (see the example above). Then there were also units and ships who were mentioned. Wegmann, Günter, ed. 1982. “Das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Gibt Bekannt‐‐”: Der Deutsche Wehrmachtbericht: Vollständige Ausgabe der durch Presse und Rundfunk veröffentlichten Texte. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag had been used as a source for The Wehrmacht By Wolfram Wette and in the research paper above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiorandI (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Who is the publisher, do they have a good reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Using sources that are beyond reproach is the best option. Misterbee1966 has already provided sources of this kind to show the report was an award. That is enough. The editors of MilHist chose to disregard those sources, despite advocating the exclusion of such mentions on the basis that reliable sources are lacking. It is a strange stance. Dapi89 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that its a good idea to re litigate the long-running RfC on the Wehrmachtbericht here, not least as it ended in a fairly clear consensus and this it isn't an appropriate venue for the re-litigation to occur. The question asked at the top of the thread is whether some German-language sources are RS. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment on author de:Gerhard Steinecke who wrote Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many]. According to his German Wiki article, Steinecke studied history in Berlin from 1965 to 1970. He was the museum director of de:Schloss Kuckuckstein and later in Nossen. In 1984, he was released out of politcal reasons (not stated which) by East Germany. Following the German reunification, he wrote a variety of books about the history of Meißen, Philipp was born in Meißen, and other history related topics, see also Literature by and about Gehard Steinicke in the German National Library catalogue. Professor Jonas Flöter, in his book Eliten-Bildung in Sachsen und Preussen: die Fürsten- und Landesschulen Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal und Pforta (1868-1933) [Elite Education in Saxony and Prussia: the Prince and Country Schools Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal and Pforta (1868-1933)], thanked Steinecke for his contribution, see pages 11, 470, 471. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Has the content of the de.wiki article been verified? It appears to be entirely unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Cheap military pulp serial with an emphasis on images. These works are popular history, directed at a certain audience. Editorial oversight is completely unclear and unlikely. If there is virtually no reference to these publications, neither critical nor endorsing, that does not speak for their reliability, but for their neglibility. --Assayer (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable - Editors wishing to attribute Wehrmachtbericht references to these sources have failed to demonstrate their reliability or compliance with the inclusion requirement. "I don't see why not" is not a strong argument, particularly for a source that was added before the more stringent criteria were established. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable: obscure, dubious publications. I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty is not how Wikipedia establishes reliability under WP:IRS. Being so obscure, such publications do not attract attention from reliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable: obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS. buidhe 08:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945

Is Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? –dlthewave ☎ 05:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A recent RfC determined that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht WWII-era German propaganda broadcast may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour. Three volumes of Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 appear as sources for mentions in a number of articles:

• Stockert, Peter (1996). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 1 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 1] (in German). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-9802222-7-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Hermann-Friedrich Joppien and Josef Priller) (Amending to add Heinrich Bär) –dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Stockert, Peter (2012) [1997]. Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 2 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 2] (in German) (4th ed.). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-9802222-9-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Friedrich-Karl "Tutti" Müller and Friedrich Geisshardt)

• Stockert, Peter (1997). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 3 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 3] (in German). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-932915-01-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Theodor Weissenberger)

–dlthewave ☎ 05:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• As in the above RfC, I see no reason why not. Nothing has been produced here so far to make me question the reliability or accuracy of the content of the books themselves, the reliability of the author, or of the publishing house, and I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty. Perhaps others with better German skills can find something, and I would be happy to revise my position if such was forthcoming. Stockert's works on Oak Leaves recipients are held by state and university libraries in Germany, as well as the Bundeswehr University Munich library, and Friedrichshaller Rundblick appears to be a small publisher of historical books, with about 80 titles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you confirmed that the source describes the mention as an honor? This content was added before the new sourcing requirement was in place, so we cannot presume that it complies. –dlthewave ☎ 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• These books are very reliable especially for awards including mentioned in dispatches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DioandI (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Again same question as above, who are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable - Editors wishing to attribute Wehrmachtbericht references to these sources have failed to demonstrate their reliability or compliance with the inclusion requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 18:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable: obscure, dubious publications. I see no reason why not is not how Wikipedia establishes reliability under WP:IRS. Stockert also publishes in Pour le Merite-Verlag known for is historical negationist, xenophobic and pseudo-scientific publications. Being held in university libraries is not an indicator of reliability. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable: obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS. buidhe 08:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Daily Caller

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.

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Daily Caller?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

— Newslinger talk 11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

— Newslinger talk 10:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: If you support option 4, then you are also supporting option 3. Option 4 is a subset of option 3, since all deprecated sources are also considered generally unreliable. If I had the chance to rewrite the RfC statement, I would have renamed option 4 something along the lines of "option 3A". — Newslinger talk 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• 4 [shifi] $ A personal preference for facts over personal profit. cygnis insignis 12:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

*Option 4 give some of the stuff I have read they are deeply problematic.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 for the issues regarding preference for profit over fact, for the issues of the obvious extreme right skew and for bordering on WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS territory tbh. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 I'd place them somewhere between HuffPost and Breitbart, which means that it should generally be avoided for facts, but its opinions fall under WP:RSOPINION. This means a blacklist is inappropriate. feminist (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Blueboar's point that context matters. feminist (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'd go with Option 5 as well. feminist (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and if you insist that we have to pick one from Option 1-4, I'd still say Option 3 is closest to my view. feminist (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5: Context matters. How a source is used, and what it is used for has to be considered. The Daily Caller is primarily a news analysis and opinion outlet (as opposed to a news reporting outlet). As such, it should be treated similarly to the way we treat op-ed pages in old fashioned "dead tree" (print) news outlets... it is certainly reliable when used as a primary source - supporting attributed statements as to the opinion and analysis of its contributors.

Whether it is reliable for some specific fact ... a lot depends on the reputation of the specific contributor (some have a better reputation for fact checking than others). Yes, the Daily Caller does make mistakes (as do all news outlets)... however, it has a fairly good reputation for acknowledging those mistakes and issuing corrections - and issuing corrections is an important factor in determining whether a news source is "generally" reliable (or not). Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

For the purposes of the perennial sources list, "option 5" is equivalent to option 2 (unclear or additional considerations apply). Context always matters regardless of how The Daily Caller is assessed. WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of questionable sources for uncontroversial self-descriptions even under option 3 (generally unreliable for factual reporting) and option 4 (publishes false or fabricated information; deprecated). — Newslinger talk 01:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 I can't think of a specific case where having this as a source is worth the trouble it's caused and will probably continue to cause. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  Can you give some examples of the “trouble” it has caused? Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: My pleasure. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

And how did this “cause trouble”... were editors trying to cite these reports? Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'm not PeterTheFourth, but I imagine Peter was saying the Daily Caller was essentially the trouble. I know I believed the Caller's reporting on Imran_Awan was accurate until recently, so there is that. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 01:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• 1 In fact, this is my opinion on a great many sources. Opinions must be cited specifically as opinion is the corollary to this position. The main problem is that most journalists now rely on press releases for almost everything they write. Indeed in a study of "medical articles" almost every newspaper used press releases for a vast majority of their articles, and I doubt that this is then untrue of almost any topic where press releases exist. Factcheckers on articles being written are virtually non-existent any more. For any publication. Ask Der Spiegel. Collect (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  "Factcheckers on articles being written are virtually non-existent any more." is an extraordinary claim. Do you have evidence supporting this claim in its entirety? — Newslinger talk 16:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 based on the usual source. This does not contradict Collect's point that churnalism is a huge problem in all media these days. Michael Marshall lists a number of tells, the most obvious of which is the prominent naming of the article's source in the third paragraph, with a lack of any other obvious corroborating or independent source. "Your house is in danger from zombies!" with, in para 3, "According to Fred Undead, marketing director of Undead's Zombie Insurance Policies Lts, the risk has been recognised by a large increase in policies against zombie apocalypse". But Daily Caller is not just doing that - churnalism certainly makes vast swathes of the Caller's not-obviously-bullshit content actually bullshit after all, but the core issue is the usual right wing bubble problem of positive feedback and ideology being given greater precedence than factual accuracy. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's one thing to consider Ad Fontes Media while determining the reliability of a source, another thing to be completely reliant on it. You're going to have to provide more evidence than that. feminist (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not completely reliant on it. I use it to inform a single question: is this source unreliable because it is slapdash, or because it is propaganda. Daily Caller is propaganda. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Bad question. No reason was presented for bringing this up. It's an established news source and overriding WP:RS policy for yet another ban should not be the result of an out-of-nowhere RfC with zilch evidence of a problem or dispute that affects Wikipedia seriously. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The above is a valid point, is there any evidence this is causing problems here that need to be solved?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The most recent discussion of The Daily Caller on this noticeboard is a 2018 RfC that was closed without extended discussion (possibly because it asked for a general assessment of 3 very different sources). In that RfC, most editors asserted that The Daily Caller is unreliable. The second-most recent discussion is from 2013, which is stale under WP:RSP standards. The purpose of this current RfC is to gauge current consensus, as there is reason to believe that past discussions are out of date. Note that the current RfC's opening statement links to the WP:RS guideline, and asks editors to express opinions according to that guideline. I didn't explain my reason for starting this RfC in the opening statement, because it is supposed to be neutral and brief. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 5 While I can find examples of inaccurate reporting and controversial backgrounds for some of its editors, I cannot find any informed commentary about the general accuracy of their reporting. So why not say there is no evidence that it is a reliable source? In that case each time it was used would have to be evalutated on a case by case basis. I cannot think of any reason why it should ever be used. If it is the only source for a story, the information lacks weight. And there are obviously better sources when stories are well covered. TFD (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Not quite as loopy as Infowars or Worldtruth, but their bias is massive and their lack of respect for accuracy not far behind. This is one of those sites that makes me wonder why we're always selecting out the Daily Mail for criticism and letting these even worse ones through. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5. It is not well-established so context matters. BLP considerations apply to all sources so we shouldn't be emphasizing it for TDC. The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young. I'm not convinced by the above comments and I especially oppose the horrible option 4. wumbolo ^^^ 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose option 4. The DM RfCs do not set a specific precedent and we have to look at each source individually. While the DC has published false information, it doesn't seem serious enough to blacklist it. Headlines shouldn't be examined at RSN. wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  For clarification, The Daily Caller has not been awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and it has published opinions/columns attacking Pulitzer Prize winners (e.g. "Credibility Of Pulitzer Prize Takes A Hit By Rewarding ProPublica’s Liberal Bias", "Will WaPo Have To Return The Pulitzer For Wesley Lowery’s Ethical F**kup?", and "Wesley Lowery Brags At A Party: I’m Getting A Pulitzer!"). — Newslinger talk 02:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I did not say that it did. I compared TDC and Vox, which are similar at a glance, but differ in reliability because of the high-quality journalism at Vox. wumbolo ^^^ 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't think you would say that, but your sentence could be read that way because the word "it" could refer to either publication: "The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young." versus "The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young." Just a clarification, not an accusation. ​— Newslinger talk 09:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I also can't find any information about Vox winning a Pulitzer. Did you mean something else? — Newslinger talk 09:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I misremembered this Vox discussion, sorry. Also, I believed that "e.g." worked as a comma and I apologize for the ambiguity. I have striken my !vote because it was based on a false premise, and I have written just a !vote opposing option 4 until I can decide to support a specific option, after more evidence is presented. Thank you very much for understanding and checking my !vote. wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  Clarification that my !vote is basically "option 2". I can't decide between 1 and 3 because TDC has quite a bit of fact-checking controversies on one hand, but it never fabricated a story like The New York Times or Der Spiegel on the other. wumbolo ^^^ 09:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 The Daily Caller is hot garbage. See below. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 4 Perhaps I have missed something but I see nothing here that has shown an issue on Wikipedia. I see instances where they are unreliable and others where they are fine. Without evidence of an issue what is the point of this RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 If it wasn't enough before, their story about a nude selfie of a new member of Congress they don't like, that was fake, convinced me to !vote. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000, At what point was that story unreliable?... was it their initial version that reported how other people (not them) thought the photo was real... or was it the subsequent (clarified) version where they explicitly make it clear that the photo is fake? Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they did have to reverse it after criticism, so quickly that they goofed the first time and broke links. They have been attacking this person and ran this story with the typical “some people say” language found in bad sources. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

To stress what is discussed below, the problem text that was changed was strictly limited to the headline that was used. And headlines are not considered in any way an RS regardless of the source behind it. --Masem (t) 22:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood. But, if they’re willing to include the photo, and put that in the headline (which is as far as some folk read); that appears well over the irresponsibility line. I was wavering between options 3 & 4 and was pushed over the line by this, even though we don’t use headlines. O3000 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should judge the reliability of a media source by its headlines... regardless of how accurate and reliable the actual reporting is? Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 I thought it was obvious that this website is extremely unreliable due to its unmitigated devotion to being unethical and flat-out lying. Somehow they make Fox News seem reasonable and measured. Trillfendi (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Routinely falsifies claims, see https://www.politifact.com/personalities/daily-caller/

  Only two false statements in total? That is impressive. wumbolo ^^^ 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

100% of statements evaluated are false? That is indeed impressive. Just not in a good way. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 Pretty much the antithesis of a reliable source. Their extreme and unabashed political slant aside, it's not a great sign when most of the article about them is devoted to well-sourced instances where they deliberately published falsehoods. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 By my reading, there's no real difference in option 3 vs. 4 in terms of reliability, but that generally unreliable sources are WP:DEPRECATED when there's a real risk that editors might cite them. I think that risk might exist with the DC partly because of its popularity and partly because they once had pretensions of doing serious reporting. Still: I actually haven't turned up a lot of instances where they've been cited improperly, and I'm worried that we're venturing down the path of creating a sort of endlessly contentious media shitlist when we don't need one. Nblund ^talk 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4, or, failing that, option 3. They clearly present intentionally false and misleading stories; the only real question is whether people are actually trying to cite them enough to make the red tape of overt depreciation necessary. Personally, I've noticed a recent uptick in people trying to cite them, which suggests that sort of measure might be needed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4', without a larger consensus on this "deprecated" system. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Racist, white supremacist, science-denialist publication that churns out outright false or intentionally misleading information to smear opposing movements and public figures. Their history of (un)reliability is self-demonstrative, with the latest example being claiming that they have a nude photo of an active congresswoman. They have absolutely no problem with going out of their way to violate the basic tenets of journalism and they clearly know what they're doing. Worse than DailyMail in a sense, since at least DailyMail doesn't publish material that encourages political violence. Outside of ABOUTSELF, it should not be used to cite anything. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  So you'd support banning the New York Times for publishing material encouraging the murder of 100,000+ civilians? wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Remind me again that some irrelevant whataboutism is absolutely helpful and encouraging. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1 The Daily Caller is right wing biased in the same way that Washington Post and New York Times are left wing biased. They are just as reliable as WA PO and NYT, but offer a different perspective. A lot of people here are misinformed and obviously biased against the Daily Caller, I have never seen anything remotely racist or "white supremacist" in any of their articles. But it seems from the voting here so far that this will be a political judgement with left wing editors voting them down, and not a real judgement on their reliability at all. BreakingZews (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  The Daily Caller (RSP entry) is not "just as reliable" as The Washington Post (RSP entry) or The New York Times (RSP entry) – not even close. The latter two have 47 and 125 Pulitzer Prizes, respectively, while The Daily Caller has none. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. Clearly you would never rely on it for its opinion content, but the news reporting is just as good as anything else. Has it ever erred on factual reporting? Possibly. However, don't forget the New York Times won a Pulitzer for collaborating with the Russians (in the person of Stalin) to hide the man-made genocide that killed of hunger 7.5 million people in the Ukraine in the time of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Do I hear anybody wanting to blacklist the NYT for this complicity with the Russians? Anybody? Of course not. Likewise, the Daily Caller is just as good for factual reporting. XavierItzm (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Separate entries. I regret not noticing this earlier, but as described in The Daily Caller § Allegation of non-profit abuse and "Charity doubles as a profit stream at the Daily Caller News Foundation" (albeit negatively), The Daily Caller is affiliated with a non-profit news agency called The Daily Caller News Foundation (dailycallernewsfoundation.org), which publishes news articles that are then syndicated at no cost to publications, primarily The Daily Caller itself. Ignoring the legal ramifications of this arrangement, articles published by The Daily Caller News Foundation appear to be of a higher quality than the rest of The Daily Caller's reporting. (This excludes the foundation's video content, which is of an extremely poor quality.) Stories on The Daily Caller that are sourced from the foundation can be identified by a small disclosure at the bottom of the page, which states: "Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org." For example, the foundation's current headline story, "‘A Governor Who Has Achieved Many Important Goals’: Virginia Democrat Says Ralph Northam Should Stay", was republished in The Daily Caller here with that disclosure. Since these syndicated articles can be clearly identified, I think it's worth creating separate entries in the perennial sources list for foundation articles and non-foundation articles. Additionally, citations to foundation stories should preferably point to The Daily Caller News Foundation (and not The Daily Caller), as this is how we treat syndicated articles from other news agencies. — Newslinger talk 10:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  After reviewing samples of foundation and non-foundation articles, I am going with option 2 for articles from The Daily Caller News Foundation, excluding their videos (which should be classified as generally unreliable), while noting that the source is biased or opinionated, and that editors should attribute their statements, especially if they are controversial. The Daily Caller News Foundation can be compared to CNSNews.com and other publications of the Media Research Center (RSP entry), a conservative advocacy group. In my opinion, non-foundation articles from The Daily Caller fall under option 3 or 4, and should also be designated as biased or opinionated. Ideally, few or no citations should point to the dailycaller.com domain, since the content with any redeeming value is also hosted at the original source (the dailycallernewsfoundation.org domain). — Newslinger talk 12:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: This would be an acceptable approach unless there is proof that DC foundation's content are also unreliable. This discussion is becoming a protracting timewaste. If we're extending this we'd have to ping everyone above. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Note on procedure: The RfC was extended using instructions from WP:RFC § Length. I didn't ping anyone because the RfC statement was unchanged. — Newslinger talk 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4: Looks like they have a history of fabricating stories and just reading through their articles makes their reliability appear questionable.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5 or 3: They've been known to retract errors and make corrections. But even if we can always trust them to do that, the quality of reporting is simply not very high. Connor Behan (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 -- I acknowledge that I tend to be on the harsher side regarding what I see as systematically problematic sources, but really, the Daily Caller has had many strikes, and they are out. What sort of professional outlet with any sense of dignity or ethics (or even a pretension of them?) posts fake nudes of a female politician [[4]], and then when they are easily demonstrably fakes? This is just one example of a pattern of failure to even feign journalistic ethics. I'll go on a limb and say if it weren't for the current scenario of political polarization in the West, their following would be considerably less. Most of what they are reporting on is reported on much better by other sources anyways. We can, and should, do without? --Calthinus (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4: Ample evidence to justify this. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 Generally reliable but WP:PARTISAN considerations apply. WP:PARTISAN: Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific contex. There is no evidence of intentional falsification, and the controversies are political. I would consider Salon (website) a very similar left-wing source. --Pudeo (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

We need evidence to support option 4. (Which was there in the Daily Mail RFC). Having a far-right bias is not the same as fabrication of material. --Masem (t) 16:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Senator Senator Bob Menendez rape allegation, turned down by multiple RS as being dodgey?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Snopes provides plenty of examples. The problem though is that this is anecdotal evidence. No one expects that any reliable source, except holy writings, to be 100% accurate. You need to determine the inaccuracy rate and compare it with a similar publication we consider reliable or find a journalism textbook that evaluates its reliability. TFD (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I can accept that a source can be considered dodgey or generally unreliable based on the impression that other sources give to it, as part of determining whether to select from options 1-3 above. Jumping on a few words of text from an internal memo to blow that into a full-blown controversy, that's a good reason to call something unreliable - but let's not pretend that other sources don't do that. Just that most other good sources try to back it up with as much evidence as possible before making the accusation, whereas the DC in the case of Menendez jumped immediately. But that's all reason to keep the source unreliable particularly for contentious topics, but not unusable where they are reporting on less contentious material.

I'm specifically looking to find a case where they have publish outright factually wrong information, fully mis-reported people's words, or other true fabrications of the news (and without the editorial responsibility of correcting their mistakes), as was shown in the previous DM RFC, as to make the work as a whole untrustworthy. --Masem (t) 18:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

For persistence, their climate change denialism would seem to be the longest running. Any meta-commentary I've read also seems to mention US politicians and their mix of whitewashing those they like and simply making up stories about those they don't, but I'm no follower of US political infighting. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I really really don't feel comfortable blacklisting a source (aka effectively Option 4) based only on their bias or POV. If they are outright making up/fabricating stories (in contrast to exaggerating on trivial but truthful events as with the Menendez story) that's one thing, but that should be shown. --Masem (t) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Today provides evidence of The Daily Caller presenting false info. They shared a fake nude photo purporting that it was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. See here for more. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't read that Vice article that way at all. First, its a headline, which for any source we have determined should never be treated as RSes since they are often written by a completely different person. Secondary, as Vice points out, they replaced the headline when it was called out to them, which shows a minimum of journalistic integrity. The body of the DC article never made the claim, as Vice points out. So no, that's not evidence. (And further, I read the original DC headline that it has used cautionary language, not claiming it as fact in DC's voice as being such a nude, but that it was what a online user claimed.) --Masem (t) 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Masem: So, at best, DC passed along a nude photo from an online user claiming it was AOC after it had been debunked by Reddit, titling the photo with her name, and adding the headline "Here’s the photo some people described as a nude photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." "Some people"? That's how they do journalism? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That's tabloid style, and that's a good reason to already slot the DC as generally unreliable especially around BLP articles, but I'm specifically focused on trying to identify why it should in Option 4 that would effectively blacklist it if we're mirroring the 2017 Daily Mail RFC. Sleazy presentation and reporting is sleazy, but it is not creating false information that shows that we should bury DC from any use. --Masem (t) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Caller article says, "New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has enemies, and they’re not shying away from releasing a phony nude picture of the newest, youngest member of Congress."[5] (My emphasis.) Sure it's bad taste and the original headline (“Here’s the photo some people described as a nude photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”) uses weasel-wording. But headlines and photographs are not reliable sources regardless of the publication.

Here's a recent misleading headline from the New York Times: "Veselnitskaya, Russian in Trump Tower Meeting, Is Charged in Case That Shows Kremlin Ties." The headline in CNN is "Russian lawyer at Trump Tower meeting charged in separate case." The NY Times article falsely implies that she was charged in connection with collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

Note: at the bottom of the CNN article it says, "CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to reflect that Veselnitskaya was charged in connection with the money-laundering case." So apparently they too originally published a misleading headline.

TFD (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

So... regarding the supposed AOC story, the DC reported it accurately (explicitly saying it wasn’t AOC)... but Vice reported inaccurately (by claiming that the DC said it was AOC, when the DC didn’t actually say that). Good case for perhaps saying Vice is unreliable... not a good case for saying DC is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar: the DC changed its headline. The original said that "some people" said it was AOC, without acknowledging that it was fake. DC's explanation for the AOC headline is that “eager editor made a misjudgement as to the framing.” (emphasis mine) - which doesn't speak very well for their editorial process. On a similar note: The Daily Caller also claimed Alica Machado was a porn star. The Bob Menendez story was apparent fabrication which DC still appears to have never recanted. They also employed Charles C. Johnson, who almost exclusively traffics in nonsense. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where they would be a usable source for news. Nblund ^talk 22:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The original headline never acknowledged it as fake, but never acknowledged it as real. I agree that there's much better ways they could have presented that initial headline, but the headline wasn't declaring the photo was real. And again, headlines should never be touched or considered in context of RSes; they are written by people at these place to grab your eyeballs, not to necessarily fairly summarize the story. So this is really not a strong piece of evidence that shows fabrication of news stories. --Masem (t) 22:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand that - I was specifically responding to Blueboar's claim that Vice mis-characterized the headline - they didn't. Headlines shouldn't be cited, but it's worth noting that the "editorial process" appears to have made the article less factual, rather than more factual. I don't believe the DC has been caught red-handed in the process of fabricating a quote (is that the consensus standard?) but they've got a long history of "reckless disregard" sins against journalism: Charles Johnson's claim about David Kirkpatrick were based an obviously satirical source - and the DC's "corrected version" only half-assedly says the claim "appears to be a fabrication". The discussion of DC's work in this report, especially the article discussed on page 120, seems to indicate that it the outlet is actually involved in creating fake news, rather than just passing it along. I'm dubious about the usefulness of deprecation all together, but I have a hard time imagining any scenario where we would consider them trustworthy for anything of note. Nblund ^talk 23:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

My primary concern here, in the wake of the 2017 Daily Mail RFC, is that we have editors jumping to want to blacklist (spam filter) sites that should absolutely be treated as unreliable sources in cases of BLP or contested topics, but where they still may have some, possibly yet identified, utility for other features, such as being a fair RSOPINION source. DM was blacklisted because of clear evidence showing they were altering opinion pieces, eliminating even RSOPINION uses, but since then, I've seen people use the same logic that because a site is on the blacklist that RSOPINION can never apply and strip these sources out when they are only being used for RSOPINION (eg like Breitbart). Identifying DC as a highly unreliable source per Option 3 seems like a no brainer, but before we take Option 4, making sure that is fully justified if they are truly fabricating material to make it wholly unusual to blacklist them for all of WP. --Masem (t) 23:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RSOPINION is more limited than most people think it is. It says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. The final sentence is pretty important. My concern is that I feel a lot of people read WP:RSOPINION as saying that you can use absolutely any source as long as you slap an in-line citation on it, even if it's otherwise worded as fact (ie. "Joe Schmoe of the Daily Caller says that John Doe is a serial killer.") That's not how it works - even for an opinion piece, we rely on them being published in a reliable source to provide a degree of fact-checking; it is their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that gives an opinion piece cited to eg. the New York Times op-ed page more weight than random uncited musings by a Wikipedia editor. The last paragraph of WP:RSOPINION (which unambiguously bans sources that fail to provide reliability from being used in a WP:BLP, even for statements of opinion) makes this even more clear. I feel that if an opinion piece in the Daily Caller or the Daily Mail is notable, worth citing, and passes the bare minimum of fact checking necessary for us to cite it, then it ought to have been referenced in a secondary source, and we can cite it indirectly through that. Beyond that, weakening the WP:RSOPINION limits to allow absolutely anything to be cited for opinion invites editors to essentially argue by proxy (dropping whatever op-eds or unreliable sources they agree with into the article), which makes for unreadable walls of text cited to terrible sources. Requiring that opinion pieces be published in things that generally otherwise pass WP:RS (as WP:RSOPINION suggests with its example) ensures a level of WP:DUE - simple publication in an RS can be taken to mean that that source is putting the weight of its reputation behind the idea that this is an opinion worth considering. The Daily Caller has no relevant reputation, its endorsement carries no weight, and, therefore, I would argue that citing an opinion piece from it is no different from citing a blog or forum post - or allowing an editor to write their opinion into a Wikipedia article themselves. What, in other words, does a cite to the Daily Caller add that signing the same opinion with four tildes does not? WP:RSOPINION must clearly require some criteria or there's no meaning to providing a source at all. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• For the sake of getting some third party criticism of the DC in here... The Columbia Journalism Review has written about it several times. In several places it notes how The DC tries to take itself seriously and talks up its own journalistic integrity/rigor, but CJR tends to undercut that kind of claim (my sense is it CJR might be a little more forgiving if not for this). Some of CJR's critical quotes:

• July/August 2011: "But when The Daily Caller has reached for the big scoop, the results have been less impressive. Headline-grabbing exclusives—mostly intercepted e-mails and tweets and attacks on media rivals—have exploded across the web before fizzling under scrutiny. Sexed-up headlines burned above stories too twisted or bland to support them. Quotes were ripped out of context, corrections buried, and important disclosures dismissed."
• July 9, 2014: "The Menendez “scoop” isn’t the first instance in which the Caller has seemingly strayed from its stated journalistic mission. In 2011, the site reported that the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing to hire more than 230,000 new employees, which would amount to a mind-boggling 1,300-percent growth in its workforce. It did not walk back the claim, even when it was shown to be untrue. The next year, proving hyperbole plays online, it called President Barack Obama “a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble.” Employees have tweeted racist and sexist remarks, for which the Caller has subsequently apologized. This doesn’t mean that all the Caller’s journalism is suspect, but it does suggest that the site isn’t what Carlson said it would be."
• September 8, 2018: "...the dream of a rogue outlet of hard-hitting, conservative journalism was never realized. And the site withered from there. Right now the site highlights sensationalist stories about “illegal aliens,” justifiable homicide, and a hit piece on Beto O’Rourke."
• Then there are a number of articles on specific stories, like this one about Obamacare from 2012. And this one from 2011, with the subheadline "Daily Caller mistakes opinion for fact." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

{Note that these articles were not written by the Columbia Journalism Review, but by individual contributors.) Reliability is not a bipolar dichotomy, but a continuum. These articles have a similar theme: Tucker Carlson has failed to achieve his goal of combining the reliability of the New York Times with a conservative editorial position. No one questions that. I think though that David Uberti's comment in the Columbia Journalism Review is probably a good description: "This doesn’t mean that all the Caller’s journalism is suspect, but it does suggest that the site isn’t what Carlson said it would be." Ironically, his story itself contained an error, since corrected, that the sources used were Cubans. That would seem material, since Uberti said he thought they were working for Cuban intelligence. Incidentally, most of the problem reporting at the Daily Caller dates to 2011-2012, just after it was founded in 2010. There were similar problems in other online news sources when they were initially founded. TFD (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Menendez story happened in 2014, the Machado story happened in 2016, and the AOC story happened today. I don't see anything that indicates that they have a long-term trajectory toward reliability: in 2017 they published a piece by Jason Kessler without noting his connections to the United the Right rally, and they kept another white supremacist on the editorial staff until just a few months ago. Nblund ^talk 02:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: without disagreeing with most of what you've written, I'm not sure what you mean by these articles were not written by the Columbia Journalism Review, but by individual contributors. Are you saying they operate like Forbes "Contributors"? Or that they are on the website rather than the magazine? If the latter, that's not true of the first of the three. For the other two, is the CJR website considered less reliable? (actually asking, not rhetorically). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In journalism, publications invite writers to present opinions. For example, they may ask pro-Clinton and pro-Trump writers to explain the last election. Those writers express different opinions and do not represent the opinion of the publication. You might for example read an opinion piece in the New York Times by John Bolton that says the U.S. should remain in Syria until the year 3030 and another opinion piece by Rand Paul that says they should leave next week. That does not mean that the esteemed paper says they should leave next week or in a thousand years but that they have published articles by two different writers who disagree with each other.

Nblund, a lot of horrible people are reporters. It has no relevance to whether or not they are accurate. Newton was eccentric, but I am not tempted to test the laws of gravity.

What worries me is that the criterion for banning news media is not reliability but ideology. The Daily Caller, the Sun, the Daily Mail are not great news media but they meet Wikipedia's criteria. If we want to ban right wing publications, let's put that into policy. Because using anecdotal evidence can be used and will be used against any publication. Let's not forget that the most reliable media promoted the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. That fake news story was used to justify a war that led to over one million deaths and cost the U.S. trillions of dollars.

TFD (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Should we ban The Washington Post because Muslim Brotherhood supporters contribute opinion pieces to it and aren't properly described in the byline? Not to mention that Jamal Khashoggi worked for them. wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Muslim Brotherhood Supporters"? And blaming newsmedia (which issued corrections and followups as soon as the falsehoods became known) for the false pronouncements of the Bush administration, when Colin Powell has even admitted that the administration lied to him and fed him false information so that he would appear genuine by saying things he believed true based on them withholding the full story from him? (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/colin-powell-u-n-speech-was-a-great-intelligence-failure/) TFD, Wimbolo, I am getting the feeling that you're not really describing things in accuracy here and I can't help but feel that you're doing so deliberately. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, considering the tendency of Wikipedia to ascribe reliability to media ventures that make profit and the consequent tendency to treat far-left media (eg: itsgoingdown.com, newsocialist.com, rabble.ca) as unreliable, I'd suggest being stricter about far-right sources isn't outside the bounds of current policy at all. However I've also been quite clear that I'd like to see WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS adopted as policy, and that would as a side-effect make the vetting of racist and nationalist far-right news sources much stricter. Also, I've often mentioned that I feel Wikipedia is nowhere near strict enough about newsmedia content in general. In particular I find the dependence on news for recent political articles creates WP:RECENTISM and constant WP:NPOV problems; often we'd be better off saying nothing, or expressing only a brief summary about current political events until such time as they become matters of historical record. Whereas, the tendency to treat whichever preferred news source's 24 hour news cycle churnalism as fact is the current de-facto political method. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This, exactly. There's a unsettling trend that editors want to outright ban sources with extreme views because soley of extreme views. That should not be the case, though one can argue and demonstrate how extreme views generally may points towards fabrication and outright lying to get their view to work. To say we should blacklist a work because their viewpoint is so far off center is not really acceptable while at the same time editors routinely ignore RECENTISM and write about the current public opinion. It creates a feedback loop not geared towards the long-term. Hence why my concern on DC here is if they have actually falsified or faked stories that makes them wholly unreliable to be blacklisted. --Masem (t) 16:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is the intent, but the kinds of "NotosourcesIhate" (why not "NoCommieSources" or "NoIslamistsoruces") attitudes tends to turn me off their arguments. I have no issue if we can all extremists sources of any political persuasion, but not if we single out one side for being "FeCKNGGGG!wrong", and indeed resorting to such language tends to turn me off as well. If you cannot argue without getting angry and shouting "Semprini!" I really start to wonder how much validity your argument really has.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty clear that my objection was with news media in general being a snake pit of WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM problems such that anything that isn't a top-shelf source shouldn't be used. And the DC is definitely a bottom-shelf media source. However credit where credit is due, that was a great Monty Python callout there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

And that is my point, you started off "TRUCKINGNAZIS" then said something I agree with, but it looked like your main point (the one you started of with) was "FundingNAZISLIKETHIS". If you had just made your point about the press in general I would have agreed. Your argument read more like "I hate their politics, but better make it sound like I am being all reasonableness" then "They are unreliable". This is why tone, attitude (and language) are so important (I suppose I could write an Essay "no Fucking fucking" about it). Note I am not being clever, but this is what spell checker wanted, so why not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about the ideology here: The Daily Caller paid someone to report on an event that they themselves were organizing, without disclosing the connection. When they were caught, they initially kept the articles up, and then scrubbed his byline without explanation.

Here's my question: is there any scenario where we would look at original reporting from the DC that isn't covered elsewhere and conclude that it is reliable enough for inclusion on WP? Original reporting like this article, where a journalist heroically struggles to work "George Soros" and "Fusion GPS" into the same sentence, or this, where an anonymous source reports that David Malpass is a great guy? Would we ever trust any of this? Right leaning outlets like the National Review and Washington Times employ journalists who do some worthwhile reporting in niche areas - which I think is what distinguishes them from outlets like the Daily Caller that really have no apparent interest in actual news. Nblund ^talk 17:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Every major news outlet does original reporting. Here's TDC's exclusive interview with Trump about Brenda Snipes [6], and here's CNN summarizing it [7]. What if CNN didn't mention the interview? We would have to cite TDC. wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any scenario where we would look at original reporting from any source that isn't covered elsewhere. If it isn't then it lacks weight for inclusion. Something that Trump said which was ignored by CNN and the rest of the mainstream media would be too insignificant to mention. In this case we would only report the parts of the Daily Caller interview that mainstream media carried. Banning the Daily Caller will not keep out material, allowing it as a reliable source will not introduce material. IOW whatever we do will have no effect on article content. TFD (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 Biased, but not fake news. It should be used with caution. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"There's a unsettling trend that editors want to outright ban sources with extreme views because soley of extreme views." says Masem. I submit that this is incorrect, multiple people in multiple discussions on this page have described their objection not in terms of "soley of extreme views" but with regards to real concerns about the reliability of information provided on sources like the Daily Caller and Fox News. Mastcell and I provided detailed lists of reasons why we found Fox News to be problematic in terms of RELIABILITY issues, and each accusation that editors like us are merely engaged in some sort of "I don't like it" on the views is the definition of strawman tactics and incivility. Please treat us with the respect we deserve for discussing in good faith the FACTS involved rather than just blanket accusing people of viewpoint bias to shut down discussions with a heckler's veto. But to quote Mastcell directly from his comment (emphasis mine), "I and an IP editor both presented evidence, above, that FoxNews is both politically biased and unreliable. My hope was that we'd have a discussion about that evidence, but I've gotten used to disappointment." 73.76.213.67 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Also many of us have argued that all news media should be be seen as not inherently reliable, its just that we have to start somewhere. Personally I would like to see all news media depreciated for a given period after an event (and by that I mean no news stories released before a given time period).Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments: The above is a suggestion that make too much sense but politics (of this supposedly neutral board) would likely not favor. "All news media" can be unreliable and end up giving retractions and redactions all the time. On this board I am seeing attacks, even sort of masked as satirical or "jokes", See: Why are more right wing sources considered unreliable than left-wing sources?" and "The liberal bias of facts", and we are considering if "right" or "right-leaning" (see Fox below) media should be "censored" depreciated. I can see discussions that portray someone leaning "right" as being uneducated or less educated, for the wealthy, and smears in that direction. That should likely be on a user page or essay and not here. I don't mind getting into these types of discussions but this is where serious consideration should be centered on the general "reliability" of sources brought here regardless of politics.

Unless the name is changed to something like "Liberal political news reliable source noticeboard", or consideration of "suggesting" two political type sources be used on every instance (classifying the political stance of sources), then the actual "reliability", "depreciated", or "unreliability" is far less confusing than a multi-tier RFC with "options" that seemed to be considered. All news sources will be biased: This is argued because it is true. Trying to make a determination of reliability based on the political stance of editors here is paramount to censorship. If a site gives "fake" news it should be blacklisted. Since we are likely not going to discuss "suggesting" The Wikipedia Breaking News Department to wait for sources to be vetted, before reporting breaking news, then "cleanup" after the fact would be the only option and not a topic of this board. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia really want to be a platform for the same organization that gave Jason Kessler a platform to promote Based Stickman and only pulled it after somebody died? [8] - as well as inaccuracy this isn't a run-of-the-mill conservative media source. It's the shallow end of the neo-fascist pool. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, I agree it should not be an RS, but the issue should (and only) be reliability, not POV.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because a source is deemed reliable or in this case, not deemed wholly unreliable, does not mean WP is committed to repeating everything that work publishes. If we know a part of an RS is bogus information, we can overlook it. --Masem (t) 15:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

My comments were about using "political bias, one way or the other, as a means of classifying the "reliability" of a source. Most news media declare that the opinions of the reporters may not be the opinion of that media vehicle. Yes, that is just legal mumbo-jumbo to mitigate possible lawsuits, and no, we don't want "fake" news advanced on Wikipedia. To me, tearing down any historical statues or monuments is a mistake. I can't even imagine why there would be a need for a "white civil rights" group or rally, and think words like "white supremacist" should only be used to denote some historical context, and has no place in our society as well as "white nationalists". All of these conjure up meanings of a person or organization that does, or may, promote (or agree with) some possible genocide. That is why any Wikipedia editors that check sources should at the very least be given an "atta-boy" and a very good reason to have this noticeboard. However, since not one person on here can claim with credibility that certain sources are always unbiased, then trying to take a Wikipedia political stance as reasoning for excluding or deprecating (spelled it right this time) a source, because of a political stance or leaning, can lead to censorship.

I didn't vote for Obama and so far survived. I also didn't vote for Trump and hope to survive, but I support border security, as did Congress during Obama's term. This means I am for border security regardless of the political arguments being left-wing or right-wing, though I pretty much stay away from "political" articles and don't care for "breaking news". Where does that politically place me and maybe others just wanting to source content? The way I see it, this does not matter because unless content provides undo bias, that would be article content concerns and not reliability of a source. My question would be, when a source is "deprecated" do editors go about removing all these sites "per consensus at AFC discussion" or seek to replace such sources or tag them? If a source shows bias but is otherwise reliable is that not an indication of needing balance over "permission" to remove a source by using a "maintenance" scheme? I have suddenly become bored of apparently trying to crusade for "equal treatment" of sources from a political point of view. Have fun, 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)

I'm suggesting that the extremity of the position DC holds, combined with its history of falsification both point toward unreliability. Fascism is not a doctrine known for truth and honesty. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

And this kind of argument will put people off of your stance. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to fight the great fight.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

But their positions do matter, both in terms of assessing their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and in terms of assessing whether the false or misleading stories they've published in the past were deliberate. Bias or the politics of a source alone are not a reason to depreciate them; but when a source has a pattern of publishing false or potentially-misleading stories, it's reasonable to look at their politics and biases in order to determine whether those were accidents or part of an intentional effort to mislead readers and manipulate the public by publishing untruths. Everything about the history and politics of the Daily Caller implies the latter. Outlets like Vox, Slate, the The Economist, or The Wall Street Journal, for instance, have a clear point of view, but nothing about their politics implies that they wouldn't be committed to the truth as they see it; and their errors (which are far more rare) don't really form a clear pattern based around that point-of-view. By comparison, the Daily Caller absolutely adheres to a bare-knuckle, politics-as-scorched-earth culture-war perspective, which is something we have to take into consideration when evaluating them - and, more importantly, they've published false or misleading things in a specific pattern that seems intended to advance that ideology. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Daily Caller is politically biased and favors right wing narratives, in just the same as NYT, WA PO, CNN, MSNBC are politically biased and favor left wing narratives. A few years ago I would have said that the Daily Caller was more biased than most news sources, but that is not true today. Since the election(or beginning in the election campaign) many of the mainstream medias have gone quite dramatically to the left, with the major news sources having a 92% negative coverage of the President(for some, like MSNBC, that percentage is closer to 100%). If you are left wing yourself, then you will perhaps not mind that. But for anyone who has an balanced or a right wing view, it is pretty obvious that there is no reason to treat the Daily Caller or other such large right wing publications any different than biased left wing publications like Washington Post and New York Times. This should not be about whether a source is a part of the "establishment" media, it should be about whether a source is reliable. And the Daily Caller is absolutely reliable. They are not flawless, but neither is the Washington Post or New York Times... BreakingZews (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The "92%" figure that you cited is from a study published by the Media Research Center (RSP entry), which is a conservative activist group whose stated mission is to "expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media". The study only included evening TV news coverage (on three selected channels), which is not representative of the online news sources that make up the vast majority of Wikipedia's citations for modern politics. Additionally, the President of the United States is expected to receive a higher proportion of negative coverage when he has a lower approval rating; it is not reasonable to conclude that negative coverage implies media bias. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Daily Caller. — Newslinger talk 11:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I withdrew the request for closure to extend the discussion for 30 more days. Any editor may submit another request for closure if they believe that an immediate closure is warranted. Otherwise, I'll submit one after the current RfC tag expires. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion and Simonm223 in that the past pattern of Daily Caller's false and misleading publication transpires into a clear, extremely ideology-based, "politics-as-scorched-earth culture-war perspective". To suggest that WaPo or NYT or similar publication's perceived POV slant is equivalent to the Daily Caller's history of promoting known neo-fascists - would be a gross false equivalence. The Daily Caller should be deprecated as it is grossly inappropriate as a source. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your comment is extremely inaccurate. See The New York Times talking about Mussolini as if he's the savior of Italy, with the headline "MUSSOLINI, HOPE OF YOUTH, ITALY'S 'MAN OF TOMORROW' " [9]. For a modern example, see a NYT journalist soft-pedaling a neo-Nazi [10]. I'm not sure if you're talking about TDC publishing a piece by Jason Kessler or not. If you are, then we are finished as TDC has "nuked" his articles from their website [11]. There isn't any other example of TDC being explicitly fascist. You may argue that some article in TDC is slanted toward a "fascistic" perspective, but look at this Washington Post article slamming Antifa (United States), a supposed antifascist organization, here [12]. wumbolo ^^^ 22:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your whataboutism does not resolve key points raised against the accuracy and reliability of The Daily Caller, which is the subject of this discussion. Sure, NYT and WaPo's bourgeois journalists and their owner capitalists has always been against progressive movements - that's not the same as showing a pattern of deliberately smearing public figures and movements they don't like with outright falsehoods and misleading syntheses. Else you might as well say that NYT and WaPo was awarded Pulitzer and other prizes not for their investigative journalism and largely consistent factual reporting but for their blatant violation of journalistic principles and ethics, because that's what the hot garbage Daily Caller did. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not participating in any whataboutism. You yourself said that it is a "gross false equivalence" to compare the fascism of TDC to that of NYT and WaPo. I was merely providing evidence to oppose the notion you presented. At least now you're finally talking about the actual reliability of TDC, although with no evidence. wumbolo ^^^ 09:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've looked at controversies listed at the article The Daily Caller, and what caught my eye is that the 2011 story about the NPR executive wasn't false or misleading. Here is Brian Stelter reporting: [13]. wumbolo ^^^ 10:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Except it was. As stated in the source cited in our article, the edited version posted by the Daily Caller was later found to have been deceptively edited to give false impressions as to its content. Not the behavior of a reliable source. This is not mentioned in the article you cited because that information came out after it was written. That's why it's important to pay attention to when an article is written, and make sure that there haven't been more recent developments, as there were in this case. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2019 (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.

RfC: Notable Names Database

Should the Notable Names Database be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. This might be stale according to WP:RSP but I am convinced that this should be deprecated; I'd like to point to a comment here from exactly ten years ago by DreamGuy: As far as I am concerned, that one should be in our black hole list (emphasis mine), seemingly predicting the deprecation of the source. As for the arguments, there is no evidence that NNDB does any fact-checking of its content. It is full of gossip like suicide attempts, drug use and criminal records, and it is connected to notorious gossipers [14] [15].
  I don't know what Jack Schofield meant with this article in The Guardian [16], but it kind of shows ironically that this is not a good website and should be avoided. It also mentions its feature to generate "lists" of people with various attributes, e.g. lists of alumni, which I do not want to see used on Wikipedia. NNDB also has a feature to generate "maps" of people's connections, a well-known tactic by conspiracy theorists.
  This website is like IMDb but much, much worse. There are many Wikipedia biographies (I think thousands) that cite this website and I believe that an edit filter would help new users to avoid this website. While there may not be much evidence of fabricating facts, this source has almost zero WP:USEBYOTHERS and it has an unknown way of getting its information [17] [18]. Note that I'm citing blogs because no serious reliable source bothers to talk about this website, even though I've found a handful of articles in Adweek, Los Angeles Times etc.
  I would not oppose adding this source to the spam blacklist as well. This website has a Wikidata property, but I don't know if it is relevant here. There's also a forum thread about the reliability of NNDB [19], which unsurprisingly does not find any evidence of reliability or a measure of accuracy. wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. NNDB (RSP entry) is a tertiary source, and some of the sources it draws its information are questionable. From a cursory search, it looks like most of the biographies on the website cite Wikipedia as a source (e.g. Mark Hamill, Patti Smith, Jesus Christ), which makes NNDB an unacceptable circular source. This was previously brought up in a 2007 discussion. NNDB also frequently references IMDb (RSP entry), which mostly incorporates user-generated content. Altogether, NNDB is not usable as a source because it's based on sources that would not be acceptable in Wikipedia. The fact that NNDB is used to support claims in numerous biographies of living persons (uses of nndb.com  ) leads me to support its deprecation. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes because there is actual evidence of harmful use of NNDB as a source. feminist (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Editors may use the site to identify info on a Bio page but they absolutely must collaborate that with a known RS ad use those RS for the citations. --Masem (t) 04:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak yes only because by nature it focuses on people, otherwise I would have preferred it to remain discouraged but not deprecated. @Wumbolo: This website has a Wikidata property, but I don't know if it is relevant here. (NNDB people ID P1263) It's not relevant; Wikidata is using it for authority control. They also have a property for Quora. @Feminist: What harm are you talking about? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  The main problem is that this source is mainly used on BLPs, which generally require more stringent sourcing standards. feminist (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. It is too weak a tertiary source, and its lack of fact-checking (editorial controal) basically makes it a form of WP:UGC, rather like IMDb except with serious BLP issues that push it across the line.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional Yes - If the statements made by the other editors are correct, it should be deprecated. I haven't researched the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes there has been prior consensus it's a subpar reference, and the WP:CIRCULAR issues are also quite concerning if they use Wikipedia as a source. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes – Like other online databases, this has no editorial oversight and it cites Wikipedia itself in some instances.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm

Should the user-generated music databases Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

None of these should be cited as sources, but discogs.com is a reasonable external link. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, sorta, as it's debatable whether we really should be linking to Discogs. My opinion is that links to RYM and Lastfm should be banned on all articles (with some reasonable exceptions), and that links to Discogs should simply display a warning as such. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No user generated content should not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Remind me: does an edit filter flag all instances of external links being added to articles, or only those contained in references? If it's the latter then I'm fine with this proposal. feminist (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  The daily mail filter checks for all links, but a filter could be created that checks only links within references. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support, but only if the edit filter is restricted to references, and does not cover external links. Discogs is similar enough to IMDb, which is allowed for external links at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. — Newslinger talk 08:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I imagine that might be difficult to implement on a technical level. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The ideal solution would be to implement a regex-based filter rule, as documented at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format. If this isn't practical for some reason, we could add these domains to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList as an alternative. — Newslinger talk 11:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I did think that regex could be possibly used for this, but how exactly would it determine what a reference is? Usage of ref tags? How would we avoid false positives? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

​User:XLinkBot uses <ref> tags for this, and it works quite well. It would be difficult to parse wikicode with regex, so User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList might be the best solution. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support for Rate Your Music and Last.fm, but not for Discogs, in light of technical restrictions. — Newslinger talk 12:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for Discogs, which is, per Michig and Newslinger, a useful external link; it's not clear that we have a problem with Discogs that needs to be solved with warnings (let alone banning). Treating it equivalently to IMDB (user-generated and so unsuitable for formal citation, but high-quality and so valuable in other capacities) is advisable. Support for RYM and Last.FM, neither of which contribute much in the way of valuable content. Chubbles (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support for RYM and Last.fm and Oppose for Discogs per Chubbles. feminist (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support none of these are trustworthy publications to begin with given their user-generated content and we shouldn't let them be used more than they already have been. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Telesur

Being involved in Venezuelan articles for some time, I will often encounter Telesur as a source. My question is, is Telesur reliable? ----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

In past discussions, Telesur has been discussed as "propaganda" of the Venezuelan government and has been more recently described by a reliable source, Newsweek, as "routinely criticized as a biased media outlet that promotes unfair and incomplete reporting" and "has also been charged with being pushing favorable propaganda for its government sponsors, particularly Venezuela".[Newsweek] The founder Aram Aharonian initially predicted Telesur's "multinational backing will be reflected in its direction, which will make it impossible for one interest to dominate" though a decade later, Aharonian says "I think that this initiative was burned. Because instead of being a Latin American channel, as it had to be, it ended up being an external channel of Venezuela".

The Venezuela Conspiracy Theories monitor (yes, it has been cited by BBC) has endless amounts of conspiracy theories linked to Telesur, including several 9/11 conspiracies 12, how Obama created ISIS, links between "Masons" and "Zionists" with the Venezuelan protesters, Nutella bribery and that Hugo Chávez was assassinated. Telesur has also spread conspiracy theories about potential state bans of conspiracy theories. The Telesur page has been deleted twice by Facebook (Sputnik trying to defend Telesur) in a similar manner to that of Infowars and other conspiracy sites.

Hopefully some of these links are helpful and we can determine how reliable Telesur is. Thanks for your thoughts in advance!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have said not very reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I will add that RFCs are supposed to be neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Just noticed this after I performed the edit. Sorry!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I would also want to apologize if this RfC entry does not seem neutral (I just realized this upon this entry). This is information that was available and I am not familiar with RfC procedure, so again, sorry.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• As reliable as any other newsmedia outlet Either we accept that ownership of media implies a specific bias, in which case Telesur is biased, but so is the NYT or the BBC, or we don't accept that premise, in which case the ownership of Telesur is irrelevant. Now I'll preface this by saying, as always, that I feel we should not have as much dependence on newsmedia in general in current affairs issues, however the refusal to accept Venezuelan media sources as reliable while unquestioningly accepting American and British news sources as reliable is, in fact, a massive failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. So while my preference would be for us to slow the rate at which Wikipedia updates articles about recent events, any attempt to exclude a newsmedia communicated perspective on a political conflict on the basis of blanket reliability of a class of media (ex: state owned by states that we don't like (you'll note that few people are pointing out that the BBC is state-owned)) should be treated for the hegemonic propagandizing it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Valid point, is there any evidence they actually falsify stories, or are just biased?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any evidence of falsification of stories, and that goes double for the specific context of this RfC - which challenges their use as a source for information regarding the evolving political situation in Venezuela. And again, I'm not suggesting that they aren't biased. I personally subscribe to the notion that all newsmedia has an implicit bias described by their ownership. CBC has a Canadian state bias, BBC a British one, China Daily has a Chinese state bias and Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, and all the rest of the corporate owned news organizations have a clear and pervasive pro-capital bias. This is why I feel, on a general note, that newsmedia has become too pervasive on Wikipedia as a source. It's true that sources don't have to be neutral but we depend far too much in general on news as a source of truth regarding disputed current events. Now with that said, I think that as long as we allow the treatment of capital owned newsmedia as reliable, we should also allow the treatment of state owned newsmedia as reliable, even when we, as wikipedia editors, are not aligned with or fond of those states. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that BBC is actually public owned (yes, it does receive some state funds... but so do organizations that exist to investigate the UK government), and both CBC and BBC will frequently challenge their own country. And we can accept some state sources and not others - we can easily determine reliability and neutrality based on how a state source presents their own country. Does it ever challenge its government when something sketchy comes up? The amount of criticism the BBC gives British politicians and Brexit proves its NPOV and RS because of how it does not just unwaveringly promote the stance of its nation's leader. Comparatively, TeleSur will spin every report into making Maduro look good, including blatant lying. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think they meant bias towards their country not the government specifically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The argument seems to be based on abstract generalizations. Telesur and the BBC or NYT are not similar, not if we compare their actual editorial behavior. Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable; they don't just bias, they lie to cover up the humans rights violations of the dictatorship. There is evidence of falsified stories on our own Wikipedia page. When even Rory Caroll and Nikolas Kozloff call it propaganda, that's pretty bad. And it's propaganda from a regime widely known and sanctioned for narcotrafficcing and other criminal activities and human rights abuses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I might be missing it, I can see a lot about not saying stuff, nothing about outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Security and intelligence officials have been afraid that Telesur may be used by Russia for "fake news" and electoral interference. (Spanish) Allegations of "fake news" about Ukraine (Spanish). Alleged cooperation between Russian media and Telesur to disseminate misinformation. (Center for International Media Assistance) Telesur began rumor that El Chapo had placed bounty on Donald Trump. (Snopes) Just some information regarding Telesur and alleged false stories.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Except Telesur did not start the El Chapo rumour, they repeated it as fact (but then so did others). The others are better, but I am not sure I trust government bodies or statements any more then government run news organs. Can you give an example of then making up a story?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Except they did. The original "story" was part of "a satirical article". Telesur either repurposed the "story" or had some issue with fact-checking a self-described website used for "satirical purposes only".----ZiaLater (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That just makes then no worse then the other sources that repeated it blindly (as they did).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This from the last RSN discussion: "Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda")." Gregory Wilpert is an ardent chavista, and even he is calling it propaganda.

"Employees treated as if they work for a political party" (eg chavismo); is not a reflection of journalistic standards we expect from a reliable source. This is a pattern of not just mistakes, but intent.

Errors of omission when consistently contrasted with errors of commission show a deliberate pattern-- that is, lies. The difference in reporting a situation in Argentina vs in Venezuela (promoting peace) is a lie.

The incident with the Miami reporter was a propaganda designed to deceive: is that not called a "lie"?

Random google, first hit, here. Propaganda= they lie about something everyone who follows Venezuelan reporting knows: "shot by unidentified assailants on motorbikes", means shot by colectivos, which are the government's armed thugs. That entire article is a lie, to distort who is doing the killing. Here's another way they can lie in a report like that: saying someone is "under arrest for the murder". Under arrest has no meaning in Venezuela, where human rights violations, including throwing people in prison with no trial for crimes they didn't commit, are thoroughly documented by humans rights organizations. And, the person "under arrest", if they shot the right kind of person (anti-government) is released or never charged as soon as the hubbub dies down. "Possible paramilitary activity", well, yes, the paramilitary armed by the government: just another way of saying colectivo. Armed paramilitary thugs doing the government's enforcement.

Just some samples; I could read more articles and give you more if you want. Yes, they lie, but with relative ethics and morals, we call it something else. This is not just bias, like say the difference between National Review and The Nation. It is propaganda designed to further a criminal regime, human rights violations, and a dictatorship. IF you really want outright lies, then you don't understand the nature of propaganda, which is to take a less-than-half truth and twist it into something you can use to dupe people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This comment also touches on something that can be used as a comparative: I would, for the right info, use Venezuelanalysis as a RS. Yes, it's owned by a Chavista. But is it at least vaguely neutral and accurate on protest news for both sides? Yeah. Not trusting TeleSur isn't merely because it's a state source or because it supports Maduro. It's because it breaks all the rules of journalism to be Maduro's personal cheerleader, which any outlet could do, it just happens to be this one - and whether accurate or not (most likely not) we can't accept an outlet that we have no faith in to even try acknowledge the full picture. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. I knew the BBC comparison would be drawn, so I would like to quote an excellent book that I've read: La devastación chavista: Transporte y comunicaciones, by Antonio Pasquali (ISBN 9788417014148). Pasquali precisely explains the difference between the state-owned/state-funded television networks in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela, explaining the concerns of bias that existed when it was founded, and that it could favor a government or another. He continues saying how currently the BBC is praised because of its journalist integrity and impartiality, quoting as one of the reasons that it relies on public resources and not advertisement. What's the point that Pasquali makes? The difference between a government and State, which at least in Venezuela are terms usually confused. The BBC was founded in 1922, 96 years ago, while both Russia Today and Telesur were founded in 2005, only 14 years ago; reading through Wikipedia:Perennial sources, it doesn't seem there are doubts about the reliability of the BBC. Telesur has not operated in Venezuela with a different funding other than from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, while I understand this is the same case with RT. I think it has also been discussed how former directors and journalists regret how Telesur has turned into an unreliable channel; when Argentina changed from government, the state retired its funding. Most important of all, I wanted to say this but not before explaining all of this: naming the CBC, the BBC, China Daily, Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, among others, only distracts from the main topic in question: Telesur, and it does not answer whatsoever on the question regarding its reliability.

Last but not least, I wanted to give my two cents on some of the lies and fake news published by Telesur: Progovernment protest in the Yaracuy state near a Metro station, where there isn't even a subway; quoting a White House official that doesn't exist (more information here); US military bases in Costa Rica; Student killed by security forces was killed because of antigovernment protests; Worker hit by tear gas cannister "fell" in a construction camp; Brazilian football team supports Lula da Silva. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Depends My general impression is that Telesur is not reliable for news about Venezuela (with the exception of reported statements of opinion from PSUV officials), but that their reporting outside the country is generally as reliable as any other mass media station. Before we toss aside the BBC comparisons, let's not forget that the BBC has admitted to using the British secret service to vet employee candidates and keep out "subversives", after lying about it for decades. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That note about the BBC had no relation to the rest of your argument, as well as misrepresenting the actual facts which were trying to exclude 'radicals' - they take people from across the political spectrum, but not extremists who might put their own bias into reporting. Damn, you must really not like the BBC to bring them up for no reason other than to shade. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• • See the section Telesur (TV channel)#Political bias. They are not biased just in Venezuela's own politics, but also in foreign countries according to their political relation with Venezuela. Macri, president of Argentina, is a vocal critic of Maduro, and they do not treat him any less harshly than they would with Guaido, Capriles or López. Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. This is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet, as is widely acknowledged. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). This not the kind of thing to build an encyclopedia from. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • • Comment Then by such standard we should't rely on BBC, VOA, F24, etc... Lets not forget that CNN, NYT, Fox News, etc... are too guilty of propaganda, if you want to remove TeleSUR then you should do the same for other media outlets or do you have double standards and want to force such onto Wikipedia? Its not that wasn't already enough for Sputnik and RT, say what you want, but hypocrisy is evident. Just look at media conduct for support of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, remember the Gulf War? TeleSUR is not reliable according to people who don't like their reporting regardless if its true or false, lies or facts. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet. News has bias. See my statement above. Unless we're going to blanket bar news sources as an RS (something I actually could get behind) having a bias should not preclude reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This is so ludicrous I'm not even going to attempt to respond. Neutrality^talk 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Because you can't, that is the truth and you can deny it. Their coverage is biased and propagandish. Lets not mention other media outlets like CNN nor American government being selective about journalists to have some or all control of the narrative. Media coverage of the Gulf War RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

      It is certainly not a very convincing argument for his case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

      User:Simonm223 So why did you oppose Epoch times? --Shrike (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

      • Neutrality has it right; if you start from the place that the NYT is propaganda, there is no place else for the discussion to go. (And I'm no fan of the NYT.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        • We can start from BBC of all, look at their disgraceful coverage of Corbyn from supposed neutral unbiased news outlet. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• Comment. The Economist and Reuters, two allegedly reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, doing some unbiased reporting on Venezuela. emijrp (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Now I wonder how will people in here that assert TeleSUR is unreliable source are going to explain why Reuters and others are neutral/unbiased despite having Guaido prominently on their page and lets not forget that in many many media the prevalence of Pro-Guaido articles shows extreme bias, let alone when anything neutral or "pro"-Maduro gets only published in opinion sections like Bloomberg when experts in law like Noah Feldman are brushed off which is like brushing off Stephen Hawking when it comes to physics. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

    Please see the False balance article (and the corresponding policy for Wikipedia articles at WP:FALSEBALANCE). Not all views deserve equal publishing space. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • They did not place an image of Guaido because they endorse him in some way, but just because he's in the news. There's no conspiracy. Cambalachero (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Not only is it the fact that they are not reliable, this is not a debate of the likes of New York Times against Fox News, it's not that simple. Telesur is known for the fabrication of news for political gain or to divert attention to factual news, regarding the economic crisis (according to them, an economic war), the scarcity of public goods (a conspiracy of the few private companies left in the country with the help of the US), the murders of students during protest by the police (allegedly they were killed by "right wing" paramilitaries), and so on. Their job is the misinformation of the public, and to no matter what, present the Venezuelan government and their allies as the good guys fighting a long standing battle against bogus enemies. --Oscar_. (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics — Newslinger talk 02:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• • The false analogy fallacy is a common trick of left-wing supporters. When someone points to them something that is wrong with their stuff, they select a reputable and superficially similar item, and claim that "if you say that about us, you should say the same about them". Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Options

As seen above in other RfCs and to keep my entry more neutral, which of the four options do you consider for Telesur's reliability?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Pinging users previously involved: @Shrike: @Simonm223: @Neutrality: @Rosguill: @Jamez42: @Kingsif: @SandyGeorgia: @Slatersteven: @Newslinger: I expect these options will give a more definitive answer regarding Telesur's reliability. Choose an option and share it below. Thank you for the good discussion!----ZiaLater (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2: Telesur seems fine to me for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its allies/supporters. I do not see what the issue with using it as a reliable source for those particular statements would be.Simon1811 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think Option 3 Option 3 or 4 is the description that suits Telesur the best, given its history and the discussion above, specially on topics regarding Venezuelan politics and its allies. The arguments so far in favour of Telesur have addressed only bias or editorial line, but has not answered the concerns regarding its reliability. It has been established in the discussion that not only Telesur is biased, but usually misrepresents, omits or fabricates important information. However, it's also the case that Telesur has deleted erroneous news or corrected themselves in the past, which is why Option 3 is probably the most accurate. Pinging users involved in previous discussions: @Rsheptak: @Squidfryerchef: @SashiRolls: @E.M.Gregory: --Jamez42 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 Telesur is generally reliable for coverage outside of Venezuela, and for statements of opinion from the PSUV. It's also worth noting that Telesur used to be more reliable on all issues (including Venezuela) in its earlier years, and that it has become less reliable as a consequence of changes to its board of directors and advisory council, as well as Argentina's exit from funding the network. However, I'm unaware of a strict cutoff date at which point Telesur became less reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 Honestly, TeleSur is by and far worse than the Daily Mail, though I think the description in 4 is inaccurate for both of them. The Daily Mail is somewhat reliable for factual information - it's when it reports things that other news doesn't that you know it's lying. The same can be said for TeleSur except that it's less reliable for facts and may publish lies about a story that is told correctly in other news, making it Generally Unreliable (3). Note that generally, of course, means in general/for most things. The verbatim reports of half of Venezuela politician's words is an exception, not the rule, here. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 (first choice) or Option 3 (second choice). As I noted above, Telesur is widely acknowledged as a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). Neutrality^talk 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 We shouldn't use state media in countries that there is no freedom of press --10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)
• Option 4 --Oscar_. (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 for the reasons I've already stated in discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 If BBC, F24, VOA and other government news outlet are considered reliable so should TeleSUR. RBL2000 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

— RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Shrike (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3. The numerous unfavorable descriptions of Telesur in established reliable sources (from the section above) show that Telesur is a state-owned propaganda outlet similar to Sputnik (RSP entry), and should be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. In addition to my above comment: Telesur is unquestionably partisan, and all of its statements should be attributed. Editors should take care to avoid using Telesur to add content that constitutes undue weight, especially when more reliable sources are available. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. This is akin to Press TV. Per RSF, in the very low ranked Venezuela - "Arbitrary arrests and violence against reporters by the police and intelligence services reached a record level in 2017." - which is extra-legal. In terms of legal framework - "A 2010 law provides for sanctions in the event of any content “calling the legitimately constituted authority into question.” This has led to arbitrary arrests and defamation prosecutions.". Any factual un-biased reporting from within Venezuela is close to impossible - and is surely impossible for this state-funded propaganda outlet. I will note one significant exception - Telesur is probably reliable (as Press TV and RT/Sputnik respectively) for the views of the current (and contested) Venezuelan regime. Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Propaganda arm of the government, notable for slanted and false reporting about Venezuela. (Note that option 4 as written is unfair to the Daily Mail, a for-profit British tabloid that is not the propaganda arm of a government and which operates in a country with a free press.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 It is correct that bias is not, in and of itself, a reason to consider a source unreliable. But when that source distorts info, makes up facts and slander people to serve that bias, then it's not reliable. Not because of the bias, but because of the things done to serve that bias. And Telesur has crossed that line and burnt the bridges several times. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 I am still to see definitive proof they actually make up stories rather then repeat stupidity created by others. Until we decide (on a Wikipedia wide level) that biased alone if a valid reason to reject a source I cannot accept it as one to reject this source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I found this article explaining how Telesur's reporting of Argentina's problem has not been only ideology, but also plain false information, problem that worsened with Macri's decision to stop Telesur's funding. The examples of these news includes reporting that Mauricio Macri increased gas and tap water tariffs threefold, that his administration was releasing repressors from the military dictatorship and mistaking two important historic dates. This may not be precisely the proof you may look for, but I think it helps to show a pattern and that problem not only goes with Venezuela, but also Argentina possibly other countries; not only because of bias or omission, but also because of false information. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 Seems pretty clear that they routinely publish misleading/false information. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Burrobert (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 emijrp (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Pamrel (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• The closing administrator should assign zero weight to the three posts above, which give no rationale whatsoever. Neutrality^talk 17:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 It would be a mistake to blacklist TeleSUR when the need for Venezuelan-sourced news is at an all time high. Given the crisis, I'm amazed that their reporting has suffered relatively little. The comparisons to BBC and CBC seem apt. Connor Behan (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• "the need for Venezuelan-sourced news" has zero bearing in determining reliability of a source. We assess a source's reliability on their reception/acceptance in the real world, and especially by whether they have a reputation for accuracy (or inaccuracy) and strong editorial controls (or lack thereof). We don't make decisions on the reliability of sources based on subjective/arbitrary considerations about our "need" for them. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 - It's the state media of a dictatorship. Not independent. Echoes state propaganda. Examples of this are legion, to choose one here's this piece on how food shortages are really the fault of "Venezuela's traditional elite". Infamously, when Venezuelan branches of McDonald's ran out of french fries they published an article accusing McDonald's of making "economic war" on Venezuela. The only reason I'm not proposing this as a Option 4 vote is that i don't think a special category for the Daily Mail should exist, but if you want to count this as an Option 4 vote, be my guest. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 Richard Stallman left the TeleSUR advisory board in 2011 calling it a "boring propaganda machine"[20] and TeleSUR has only went more extreme after the current crisis in Venezuela. However, I don't think edit filters should be added that easily and the source might be useful in attributing the official Maduro position. --Pudeo (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Reading through StopFake, I found that they contacted UNICEF about Telesur claims surrounding the Donbas conflict, with the UN office in Ukraine criticizing Telesur saying that their statements in their work "do not correspond to reality".----ZiaLater (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

To be checked

These need to be checked. It is particularly troubling that Telesur is used to source many BLPs. This is way too many, and suggest that we may need to blacklist Telesur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telesurtv.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telesurenglish.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

Is Bigleaguepolitics.com a reliable source for an accusation against Rashida Tlaib?

See this. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Big League Politics isn't a reliable source about anything, really valereee (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• NOoooooo Not even close. The site traffics in conspiracy theories, including dangerous nonsense like Pizzagate, and it was founded by a guy who was unscrupulous enough to get himself suspended from Breitbart. It shouldn't be cited for anything, but especially not for a BLP. Nblund ^talk 16:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Damn. I should have looked for an article. Still, I guess it's worth having something here as a search of the archives turned up nothing. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I would say that the source is weak. If there were merit to these allegations, better sources would be available. I checked, and so far, I cannot find any. But to play devil's advocate, they apparently were right in at least one case now dominating the news cycle.[21] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Even a blind dog still sometimes pisses on the tree. That doesn't mean anything. The site is in no way reliable, and should never be used for anything. If the story can be verified via other sites, use those with an actual reputation for journalistic integrity. If it cannot, then we cannot trust this site. --Jayron32 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Jeez...relax. I didn't say it was reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. This source has close connections to Breitbart News (RSP entry), which has been deprecated and blacklisted. Big League Politics has been thoroughly criticized by established reliable sources, including The New York Times (RSP entry), which described it as "an obscure right-wing news site [...] which has promoted conspiracy theories and written favorably about white nationalist candidates". NBC News called Big League Politics "a far-right website that often promotes conspiracy theories". The Washington Post (RSP entry) stated that Big League Politics has "reliably boosted Trump, attacked Democrats and liberal figures and written many articles promoting a discredited conspiracy theory popular among far-right conservatives". Big League Politics is clearly partisan, and all of its statements should be attributed. Content from Big League Politics is likely to constitute undue weight, and editors are urged to find more reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 02:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate and blacklist/filter Big League Politics the same way we did to WND, VDARE and Breitbart. 狗屁 is the best I can give to this particular nonsensesource. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable – Like other radical echo chamber sources, this source is just as unreliable as Breitbart.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Didn't they break the stories about Ralph Northam and Justin Fairfax a few weeks ago? It seems they are, at least on occasion, accurate. Smartyllama (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

informationcradle.com

Is informationcradle.com (used in 46 articles) a reliable source? It was the only English-language source I found that mentioned Stella Chung's marriage and subsequent separation [22]. On that page, the information about her marriage is almost the only information which wasn't copied and pasted from this star2.com article. (Almost all of the text in her Wikipedia article is unreferenced.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say it is probably not an RS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Copyright violation. InformationCradle.com copies the content of The World's Healthiest Foods. Compare https://informationcradle.com/health/health-benefits-of-cumin/ to "Cumin seeds" and note the design of the nutrition tables. I assume the rest of InformationCradle.com also uses scraped content. Try to find the original source that InformationCradle.com copied from, and ensure that the original source is reliable before using it in an article. Cite the original source (if it's usable), but never link to InformationCradle.com, as WP:ELNEVER prohibits links to copyright-violating material. — Newslinger talk 11:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Requested blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § informationcradle.com. — Newslinger talk 11:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Additionally, InformationCradle.com copies or closely paraphrases Wikipedia articles (without attribution), making it a circular source. Examples:

  1. Fann Wong: https://informationcradle.com/asia/fann-wong-biography-age-birthday-husband-marriage-sister-son-net-worth/
  2. Wizkid: https://informationcradle.com/africa/wizkid/
  3. MØ: https://informationcradle.com/europe/mo/
  4. Jamie Foxx: https://informationcradle.com/usa/jamie-foxx/
  5. Barbra Streisand: https://informationcradle.com/usa/barbra-streisand/

  — Newslinger talk 13:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Copyright violation – Agree with blacklisting due to the website's copyright violations.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com) for UGNazi

Are Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com, not to be confused with Hacker News) reliable sources for the UGNazi article?

Softpedia was previously discussed at "Softpedia Linux software reviews" and briefly mentioned at "Software review sites" and "Download pages as source for notability?". The site has a list of editors. The articles in question are:

1. "UGNazi Leaks 1.7 GB of Data from WHMCS Servers"
2. "UGNazi Hackers Leak Data from Washington Military Department"
3. "UGNazi Hackers Launch DDOS Attacks on CIA, DOJ Sites to Protest CISPA"
4. "UGNazi Attacks Wounded Warrior Project to Spite The Jester"

The Hacker News has an editorial team and a copyright footer of 2018. The articles in question are:

1. "Web Hosting software WHMCS vulnerable to SQL Injection; emergency security update released"
2. "UGNazi hackers attack on CloudFlare via a flaw in Google"

— Newslinger talk 11:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture — Newslinger talk 12:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Softpedia: Marginal. Softpedia is mainly a software download site, and based on my (limited) experience the articles are intended for users downloading software, which means they probably aren't very high quality. I would likely prefer sites (of a similar or higher tier) with a focus on news reporting over Softpedia's news articles. The Hacker News: Probably reliable. I am less familiar with The Hacker News but they do look like a professional (or at least semi-professional) publication. An Alexa rank of ~9600 and 525K Twitter followers are higher than I expected. Based on my initial impression I would maybe place The Hacker News near The Register in terms of reliability. feminist (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  ​Thank you. However, I'm a bit wary of using Twitter followers as a metric, since purchased followers have entered the mainstream (see "The Follower Factory"). — Newslinger talk 16:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, it's a metric, and I looked at the Alexa ranking first before looking at Twitter. feminist (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  My comment was just a note for posterity. The engagement metrics on their tweets actually look quite convincing. — Newslinger talk 11:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: National Enquirer

Should the National Enquirer be deprecated as a source, with an edit filter implemented to warn editors attempting to use it as a reference? — Newslinger talk 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. The National Enquirer (RSP entry) has a longstanding reputation for publishing false and fabricated information. The tabloid heavily focuses on living persons, and its editorial practices (which are currently receiving plenty of news coverage) show that its interests are not aligned with providing accurate reports. Earlier today, I removed inappropriate citations of this source from seven biographies. An edit filter would eliminate the possibility that a National Enquirer citation slips through undetected, as it would warn the editor who tries to add the citation and record a public log of every edit that triggers it. — Newslinger talk 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• No (ec) While I feel all celebrity gossip should be deprecated, I also note that on medical issues and science articles based on press releases, for example, all media sources rely heavily on press releases, and thus the NatEnq is precisely as "reliable" as the New York Times. The deprecate every source one does not like business should cease, in my honest opinion. Collect (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS sets a higher threshold of reliability than WP:RS, but WP:MEDRS only applies to biomedical information in articles. Although both the National Enquirer and The New York Times generally fail WP:MEDRS, The New York Times generally meets WP:RS, while National Enquirer falls far short of this guideline. Reliability is a spectrum, not a binary metric, and the National Enquirer is far enough on the unreliable end of the spectrum to justify its deprecation. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I am not even sure it really pretends not to tell outright falsehoods.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• It Depends - The problem is that, hidden away among all the sensationalism and outright fabrication, the Enquirer occasionally publishes quality journalism (probably the most well known example was it’s coverage of the John Edwards sex scandle... which was seriously considered for a Pulitzer). So... even if the consensus is to (generally) depreciate, we are going to have to allow for (specific) exceptions. Discourage, but NOT ban. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Eh...kinda I'm with Blueboar. The Enquirer has occasionally gotten the scoop on stories that later turned out to be generally true, and their novel investigations did turn up newsworthy stuff. However, absent verification from some other source, I would strongly discourage the use of the National Enquirer as a sole source of record for anything, even the stuff they accidentally get right, I would only use information from the Enquirer that was independently confirmed elsewhere. I don't find that they are terribly concerned with truth, but will publish true things if it serves their goals. I think the sort of outright ban is a bad idea here, but I would use them very sparingly, and only when other sources are also cited that confirm their findings. --Jayron32 20:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes The current news cycle has provided us with a story of AMI, the company that owns the National Enquirer, attempting to blackmail Jeff Bezos over the Washington Post's coverage of the political biases (pro-Trump and pro-Saudi) of the National Enquirer. Ronan Farrow says they've also tried to blackmail him. The National Enquirer did get the John Edwards thing right, but I attribute that to a stopped clock being right twice a day more than good journalistic ethos. And remember, Edwards is (was?) a Democrat. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes If we have a similar filter for the UK's Daily Mail, we certainly need one for this "news publication." I never thought I'd have much sympathy for the worlds's richest man, but I do now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I've always thought it was barely two steps above Weekly World News, which we shouldn't have to depreciate because, well, it's Weekly World News. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, but... - It's clearly not a generally reliable source and is already de facto deprecated. While the essay WP:PUS says "The more extreme tabloids such as the National Enquirer should never be used, as most stories in them are intentional hoaxes", I'm not convinced never is justified. While a warning would be reasonable, it should make it obvious that deprecation isn't an outright ban on use but that its use is generally discouraged. The note in the Daily Mail warning is pretty reasonable: Note: There may be occasional exceptions to this rule (such as when the Daily Mail itself is the topic being discussed). If you do believe that your edit is an exception, then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again. Sometimes one may want to be able to say "the National Enquirer said x" and reference the date, issue, page and so on, but the number of times one is going to justified in doing that is low. --tronvillain (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, I'll echo the comments above. At this point, if the National Enquirer somehow gets something right, we need another reliable source discussing it. This "source" simply cannot be trusted and this proposal is a wise move. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes they publish obvious and not so obvious hoaxes and have for years. A good hoax contains elements of truth which explains why some of what they wrote is true. They are entertainment and about as reliable as General Hospital would be for medical advice. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  At least General Hospital doesn't outright fabricate most of its stories or extort Jeff Bezos. Alexa, play Despacito — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes It's already deprecated as unreliable, no point not telling people that in a filter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. It's worse than Breitbart and the Daily Mail. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: National Enquirer is entertainment, not news medium. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes Enquiring minds want to know why we wouldn't. (I was thinking about starting a deprecation RfC on The Sun (United Kingdom) (NA version) for some time, so I'm not surprised someone else did) SemiHypercube 03:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. The National Enquirer is only used in 13 articles as of now (see Special:Search/insource:"nationalenquirer.com"). I see no evidence that editors are adding it to articles. A filter is unnecessary as it would rarely be triggered. feminist (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I've removed or replaced the citations that are obviously inappropriate ([23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]). While I expect many National Enquirer citations to be reverted by recent changes patrollers, some do slip through, and the edit filter's logging feature would be useful for future maintenance. — Newslinger talk 06:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  And even if you included these uses, that's only 20 articles citing National Enquirer as a source. Hardly a number which warrants an exceptional filter. feminist (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The low current usage is not necessary a reason to stop the filter being applied, the filter works happily if its busy or not. I can see no harm adding another well known mostly always junk source to a pile of equally rubbish sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC) i just read Peter Gulutzan's comment below

I've published a query on Wikimedia's Quarry tool that returns all of the edit summaries mentioning the National Enquirer, which shows that the National Enquirer has been cited in many more articles, but most of the links have been removed by other editors. (Note: Don't rely on the number of rows in the results. Not every result is related to a citation of the National Enquirer, but many of them are. Also, this query doesn't include edits related to citations of the National Enquirer that have edit summaries like "Remove unreliable source" that don't mention the National Enquirer.) Ideally, I would have preferred to run a search on the actual contents of article edits, but the text table is not available on Quarry. A more precise query using the revision table also timed out after hitting the 30-minute execution time limit. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Paging through those results it is far from clear that the majority of them are related to NaEnq, still less to deleting NaEnq references. Many of them are simply using NaEnq as a derogatory ("this is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer"), or describing edits about NaEnq that are not clearly deletions ("←Redirected page to National Enquirer"). Without evidence of a significant problem warranting the drastic solution of a filter, how does this ban pass WP:CREEP? FOARP (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Many of the results do indeed show removals of National Enquirer citations ("rv, this saga includes the naming of the alleged couple by the National Enquirer", "rm National Enquirer ref per wp:blp and wp:rl; ce", etc.). The query demonstrates that there were more citations of the National Enquirer than the ones that are currently present in articles. It is not comprehensive and not precisely scoped for reasons I mentioned above. This RfC does not propose a "ban" or any changes to the policies and guidelines, as I have explained in my response to your comment below. — Newslinger talk 11:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• No. Where else will I get quality sourced news such as "Lee Harvey Oswald’s Secret CIA Contact After Assassination"? 06:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  Note to closer: This is a Wikipedia:Humor.. okay? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly No. The damn National Enquirer is a strange yellow bird. It indeed serves a diet of sensationalism sprinkled with doses of pure fantasy (so pure, that it's difficult to imagine someone that takes items such as Elvis sightings as true). But it occasionally serves up a dish of extraordinary journalistic investigation that scoops all the rest of the media and has wider and serious implications. Such finds include not just the John Edwards extramarital affair that effectively ended the senator's presidential aspirations or the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter that forced events in her campaign, but the discovery of O. J. Simpson lying about never owning Bruno Magli shoes, and many other similar finds. We must make a distinction here between the Enquirer and similar yellows, such as Weekly World News or The Sun in the UK which have yet to publish one single item worthy of reproduction except for humor or irony and the Enquirer. (I find it strange that there is no deprecation yet of The Sun.) It is sufficient and, of course, necessary to have the Enquirer placed under a formal warning about its unreliability in general but we should permit its use at the discretion and consensus of editors. To effectively ban it outright as a source would be like throwing out the proverbial baby along with the bath water. -The Gnome (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• The Sun was deprecated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 254 § RfC: The Sun. This RfC is not advocating for a ban (i.e. blacklisting), but "a formal warning about its unreliability in general" as you have recommended. The format of the warning is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources, and you are welcome to submit your opinions and proposals. — Newslinger talk 09:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd support a a formal warning about the subject publication's unreliability in general, as I already said. If this is the only purpose of this RfC I'd support the proposal. Otherwise, no. And thanks for the heads up about The Sun. I was not aware of its deprecation with which, as it happens, I very much agree. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting to see people defending the National Enquirer by saying "it sometimes does useful work", whilst condemning newspapers which have also done about the same amount of useful work that they apparently just aren't aware of. It was the Mail that originally broke the story about Chris Huhne. It was the Sun that broke the Plebgate story. I get the feeling that North American editors are only vaguely aware that UK tabloids do actually have real journalists working for them and -shock- don't just make everything up, with the same issue vice-versa for UK-based editors and US-based tabloids. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No per Feminist. There are no convincing arguments that we should make an exception here, and there is no broad consensus on this "just in case" trend. I have opposed (and still oppose) deprecating Occupy Democrats for the same reason, as all the time spent on this RfC could've been spent removing references to these sources. I am also of the opinion that these edit filters ought to be temporary, and support repealing each ban when a source's usage (edit filter hits) becomes extremely rare. As new users become more and more aware of WP:RSP, these edit filters will become less and less useful. That's a good thing. wumbolo ^^^ 17:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  Having edit filters be temporary sounds reasonable to me. If this proposed edit filter does not receive enough hits on a trial basis, I would support removing it. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  In WT:RSN § Option 1: One template for all sources, there is emerging support to handle all deprecated sources with a single edit filter, which would make the performance impact and maintenance overhead of each individual deprecation negligible. The only remaining question is on the National Enquirer's reliability. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• No on reasoning of Feminist and Wumbolo. We should only be seeking blacklist/filters if we have a routine problem with editors trying to add that source repeatedly. We did (and still do) have that with Daily Mail, but I think even most IPs recognize the NE as pure tabloid and avoid it as a source. This is a solution seeking a problem. --Masem (t) 18:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• WP:AF "Because edit filters check every edit in some way, filters that are tripped only rarely are discouraged." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that many editors don't consider the time and resource costs of an edit filter. Is there a way to quantify this?

The deprecation process could be refined to allow a filter for these sources on an as-needed basis instead of applying it permanently. In most cases the reliability of the source will not change but the need for a filter will come and go. –dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That "discouraged" wording is due to this edit by Samwalton9. I don't know whether it refers to costs. All I know is that essays or information pages or RfCs override guidelines more often than seems necessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes very subpar publication that we already should avoid citing in the first place. Dubious tabloids like this have no place here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Heck Yes - Do we give excuses to any rotten-rag tabloids any chance for being inserted into articles? The answer is No. Also, Don't worry about performance. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes -- articles should be built on quality sources, and the evidence shows that this source is far from quality. MPS1992 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Given the way this tabloid has been thrust into the limelight with recent events, there is a real possibility that attempts by editors (particularly new editors with little to no knowledge of RSP) to use it as a source will substantially increase. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Save the editors here some time and effort debating over the reliability of a tabloid...DN (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes – There are plenty of better sources available for "scoops". If a "scoop" by the National Enquirer amounts to anything, you can be sure that there will be a more reliable source to cover the story.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• No They just demonstrated an ability to get stories that no one else would get and now you want to ban them? Complain about their allegedly unethical method all you want but CNN did the same thing. Connor Behan (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes the practice of deprecating perennially unreliable sources with an edit filter that produces a warning cannot possibly harm the project, and stands to improve it significantly. As with all such sources, exceptions may occur, and this proposal would not impact those cases where using the Enquirer as a source is permitted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• No No WP:NEWSORG should be the target of blanket deprecation that functions essentially as a ban on using it. This also goes for the Sun and the Daily Mail. Are they great sources? No. Are they potentially useful sources in some cases? Yes. Editors protesting that the sources that have been blanket-deprecated can still be used need to see what happens if you try to use them (DS notices, apparently-automatic deletion without even bothering to read the article, etc.). Finally, all these deprecations brought lately fail WP:CREEP, which is an actually policy (or explanatory supplement to a policy) and therefore ought not to be ignored (but is again and again) - specifically it requires that the proposal be a solution to an actual existing problem ("not a hypothetical or perceived one") and that the proposal if implemented is "likely to make a real, positive difference", and neither of these have been shown. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  "News organization" is a very charitable description of a supermarket tabloid like the National Enquirer. WP:ABOUTSELF permits all deprecated sources to be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and in my experience, editors have honored this exception for questionable sources. Discretionary sanctions boxes were discussed in The Sun's RfC, but no such template for deprecated sources actually exists. This RfC does not propose any modifications to existing policies and guidelines, and every RfC seeks to establish some form of consensus that editors are expected to reference and follow in the future. — Newslinger talk 12:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As was pointed out by User:The Gnome above, National Enquirer has uncovered stories that "include not just the John Edwards extramarital affair that effectively ended the senator's presidential aspirations or the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter that forced events in her campaign, but the discovery of O. J. Simpson lying about never owning Bruno Magli shoes". However, under this blanket deprecation, we should not cite the National Enquirer as sources for articles about these subjects. WP:ABOUTSELF is not a cure-all, not even nearly. And this still leaves the WP:CREEP issues (which, again, is an actual honest-to-god supplement to a policy) which everyone keeps ignoring in these deprecation proposals - what is the real problem that this ban is directed to addressing? How is this proposal "likely to make a real, positive difference"? We already have policies in place regarding reliable sources, why aren't those enough? FOARP (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This RfC does not propose a "ban". In this discussion, you and other editors have made multiple comparisons between the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail. The community has decided in two separate RfCs (in 2017 and 2019) that the Daily Mail should be deprecated. This proposal seeks to apply the same treatment to a similarly unreliable source. WP:CREEP applies to text in policies and guidelines, and not to their application. — Newslinger talk 02:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK, this is a ban because the effect is to notify patrolling editors that a reference to the NaEnq has been made, and the response is almost universally to delete the reference - hence, a ban. The previous DM RfCs were wrongly decided in my view and per WP:KOOLAID I don't see any reason to stop saying so though I don't intend to belabour the point. Finally, stating "WP:CREEP applies to text in policies and guidelines, and not to their application" is practically the definition of a formalist argument - the text decides what the application will be. It's also wrong because WP:CREEP is about creating new instructions, and most definitely about whether a filter (i.e., a new instruction) should be put into place at all. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, not because I think the NaEnq is a worth while rag but instead because in general I am uncomfortable with the widespread deprecation of sources. It seems like as soon as the Dailmail was deprecated there has been a huge push to wholesale ban sources. We already have a process where editors can challenge particular RSs. One of the issues I see is that occasionally these sources might actually get something right but rather than letting the editors involved in an article decide we are going to use a generalized discussion that hasn't reviewed the particular article in question. Are we really solving a problem or risking throwing out babies in bath water. I would personally be very likely to challenge any controversial claim attributed to the NaEnq but because I'm uncomfortable with this deprecation process in general I oppose this one (and likely almost all other examples as well). Springee (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The DM should never have been deprecated in this way and proposals like this one were exactly what was warned about when the DM ban was proposed. There is no essential difference between the DM in the UK and NaEnq in the US. Both are trashy rags that also do real journalism occasionally. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate. Add filter if standard practice Newslinger, you ask the tough questions... The strongest argument against deprecating this source, made by The Gnome, is that the National Enquirer occasionally produces factual material, unlike other similar publications that almost exclusively produce non-factual/non-supported stories. That sounds like a very compelling reason to not trust this source because they have a temperamental disposition towards verifying correctness. As far as the edit filter, I support if it that's how other such deprecated sources are treated. Ender and Peter 20:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. For decades it has been a definitive example of an unreliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Modern Mogul

• modernmogul.co.uk: 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

Someone spammed the webpage from the website to the articles. It seem a well designed website, but is that a reliable source, a self-published source (a well designed personal blog) or some sort of echo or mirror site to content of other web. For the attempt to spam the site to Federico Marchetti , certainly it fails verification. But i am not sure on Scan (company) and Spectacular Smith. Matthew hk (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW the same user had also used http://www.londonexaminer.co.uk, did it seem not appropriate ? Only http://southernbusinessreview.com seem runs by company that did not wish to disclose their name. Matthew hk (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

He also spammed http://cloutbeat.com all look likes newly set up "new media" that have no google hit. Matthew hk (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Copyright violation. A spot check of articles on Modern Mogul's home page reveals numerous copyright violations, including:
  1. "Ritesh Agarwal in 5 years turned is dream into a $5 Billion dollar Hotel Start-UP" (http://www.modernmogul.co.uk/2019/01/ritesh-agarwal-in-5-years-turned-is.html) is taken from Fortune's "This 24-Year-Old Built a $5 Billion Hotel Startup in 5 Years".
  2. "John Holdsworth Founder Of Tautona AI Talks Insurance" (http://www.modernmogul.co.uk/2018/12/john-holdsworth-founder-of-tautona-ai.html) is taken from Entrepreneur (South Africa edition)'s John Holdsworth Founder Of Tautona AI Shares 4 Disruptive Strategies That Are Changing The Insurance Industry.
  3. "Lockheed Martin’s Marillyn Hewson" (http://www.modernmogul.co.uk/2018/11/lockheed-martins-marillyn-hewson.html) is taken from Chief Executive's Lockheed Martin’s Marillyn Hewson: 2018 CEO Of The Year.

WP:ELNEVER prohibits links to copyright-violating material, including the content on this website. — Newslinger talk 03:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § modernmogul.co.uk, southernbusinessreview.com, londonexaminer.co.uk, cloutbeat.com. — Newslinger talk 03:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Is there any tool to check copyvio between external sites? I am not sure the other site that spammed by the same user, was also set up like that (copy genuine content from other site/reliable source, and then spam their sites into wikipedia). Matthew hk (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

​The other sites (southernbusinessreview.com, londonexaminer.co.uk, cloutbeat.com) are also copyright violations and/or extremely questionable per the evidence I presented in the blacklisting request. I just manually checked the articles with a web search engine by copying and pasting in a paragraph. I'm not sure if that counts as a "tool", but it works well enough for me. — Newslinger talk 17:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Blacklisted by JzG. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

W. Tate Brady

I am unsure of how to handle pages that use sources that directly misquote primary resources, misrepresent quotes out of context or make unsupported claims. In the past I have used the WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD to highlight the misunderstanding that primary resources are invalid as many editors believe. In this case i crawled through tens of pages of correspondence, a small snippet of which was used as a source by an unqualified researcher with no CV relating to historical research for a small independent local magazine. as a result of this periodical, a misunderstanding has arisen within the historical understanding of Tulsa that there is any evidence that W. Tate Brady participated in the tarring and feathering of I.W.W. members in 1917. I have been unable to locate any proof of this and so removed the reference and replaced it with a reference for the primary resource and added a dubious tag and talk section to explain why i find it dubious. I expect some would take offence to its removal and revert any edit that removed the reference to the 1917 incident so i would like to appeal to the community to decide on its merits.

I draw attention to this article which started the fiasco, http://thislandpress.com/2012/04/18/tate-brady-battle-greenwood/. In particular I draw attention to the reference given in the ThisLandPress article, "Papers of National Civil Liberties Union investigator L.A. Brown, New York State Library, March 25, 1918." The NYSL does not hold a collection by this name. I contacted them to request a copy. They did not hold the collection in which i found a copy of the poorly photographed computer screen showing the misrepresented section of the collection. I ended up finding that it was held by Princeton University's Mudd Library under the name of a different collection which i understand to be an intentionally deceptive attempt to conceal the primary resource they quoted.

I am unsure of how to proceed in editing this paragraph and would like to request comment from the community,

"A contracted Investigator hired by the NCLU accused Brady, in internal documents, of being one of the organizers behind the Tulsa Outrage of 1917, in which members of the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.) were tarred and feathered by the black-robed Knights of Liberty.[4] According to the investigator, All 17 members of the I.W.W. identified Brady as the man who applied the tar and feathers. The investigator stated that he did not have sufficient evidence to prove this in a court of law.[5]"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.21.145 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

THe issue I suspect is not primary sourcing by both wp:or and wp:v. You need an RS to say something is wrong, it is not good enough for you to be able to see it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, and thanks for spending time and effort into researching this issue. Have you considered uploading the primary source documents to Wikisource or Wikipedia Commons, as it should be in the public domain? The Resource Request page can help you with this if you're unable to obtain the documents on your own. I agree with Slatersteven in that it's important not to interpret primary sources with original research, but having the full document available would help add context. — Newslinger talk 13:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I can upload a copy of the full reel as it is public domain as it is for non-commercial academic use and out of copyright. however im not sure it meets the requirements for wiki commons as the copies i have are from cengage which in some countries may constitute a copyrighted document as the copies were created more recently. some libraries argue that they maintain ownership of the copyright of copies of documents. it's in a collection of letters between investigators and I.W.W. headquarters covering every prosecution of union members in the united states. I have uploaded the folio to this link. https://ufile.io/4w9y0 it is a winrar archive with a pdf file containing part of the folio and then jpegs I saved of the remaining pages which wern't completely digitized. mudd library stated that the documents hadnt been digitized completely yet at the time of the creation of that particular PDF. The tulsa affair letters begin at about page 60 of the pdf through to the end, with the remaining letters in jpeg format. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

MMMM! the more I read the less I like. I am not sure that documents you do not own but have copied can ever be used as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And now I have checked the link it does not appear to be a set of letters, but a copy of some part of a Wikipedia article (complete with cites).Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry i accidentally must have uploaded my notes on the letters. https://ufile.io/4w9y0 I have reuploaded the rar file here and changed the above link to avoid confusion. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

dai-sport.com

I'm hoping to get some help in discerning whether dai-sport.com could be considered a reliable source. The about page on the website doesn't provide much further information on who runs the website. However, Terry Phillips who is (formerly?) the chief football reporter for Media Wales, whose publications include the South Wales Echo, Western Mail and WalesOnline, is a regular reporter for the site which seems to suggests a degree of professional journalism. Small profile for Phillips. Kosack (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Sport in Wales, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales — Newslinger talk 02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Often, I treat sources differently depending on what they are being used for. The difficulty is that even experienced journalists are now copying dates, etc, from Wikipedia, so an independent website like this is probably not reliable for that kind of detail. Deb (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Most reliable news websites would at least list an editor and have profiles of their contributors or explanations of how the content is received. If this is simply a website that publishes user-submitted material, I'd tend to treat it as a bit suspect. Sionk (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both, you seem to confirm my worries. I'll avoid using this source. Kosack (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News downgrade?

Our list of perennial sources correctly differentiates Buzzfeed from Buzzfeed News, however the latter is listed "green" as "generally reliable", which in the light of recent controversies seems to be a questionable assessment. Should it now be moved to the "yellow" level instead? — JFG ^talk 18:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It would be bizarre to downgrade Buzzfeed News' status[30]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Buzzfeed appears to have substantial ongoing economic woes. https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2019/02/08/buzzfeeds-minneapolis-headcount-cut-by-over-25.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-buzz-feed-digital-media-layoffs-20190203-story.html and so on, reducing its actual editorial staff greatly. https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/buzzfeed-layoffs-national-news-desk-1203118080/ Its "national news team" is gone. Future "news stories" from "Buzzfeed News" thus are not the product of a genuine journalistic staff with any fact-checking in future. https://www.businessinsider.com/2019-media-layoffs-job-cuts-at-buzzfeed-huffpost-vice-details-2019-2 "In a memo published by Digiday on Tuesday, Peretti said the company would refocus its efforts on BuzzFeed Originals (home to quizzes and viral videos), commerce content, branded content, and branded production and publishing." Not News. Collect (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(1) "Future "news stories" from "Buzzfeed News" thus are not the product of a genuine journalistic staff with any fact-checking in future" [citation needed]. (2) The final quote has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. (3) It's strange how an outlet which is "not news" gets nominated for and wins prestigious journalism awards every year. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I am attacking no one -- but "getting journalism awards" in the future with no employed journalists would seem an interesting concept. Mu point was that Buzzfeed News is in a major transition state, at best. The point about their national news bureau was cited above, but it appears it was not noted.

" New details trickled out about the layoffs across BuzzFeed’s news division Friday, and the picture hasn’t been pretty: The publication’s entire national news desk has been laid off, as has almost the entire national security team, according to a source close to the company as well as tweets from affected writers and editors." From Variety as linked above. Collect (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"with no employed journalists" - what are you talking about? One fifth of the news division has been laid off.[31] It's not the entire news division. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No. All serious news publishers screw up from time to time (even first-tier sources such as the New York Times and BBC have had to apologise for serious errors in coverage), and Buzzfeed News is no exception. As noted above, it is a well regarded news source. Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• No... but... Buzzfeed was a real journalism site, but is it still? I think it likely that the recent changes in staffing and direction will greatly impact how we look at the site and it’s reliability. It may help to distinguish between “pre-2019 Buzzfeed” and “post-2019 Buzzfeed”... considering them as two distinct entities when it comes to reliability. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I'm honestly surprised this was ever considered usable to begin with when often conflated with the user-generated content that Buzzfeed is known to often post. Sure there are journalistic publications held in high regard that make mistakes and still are overall trusted for their general accuracy (as noted above), but I can't say Buzzfeed was overall ever as respected as NYT, BBC, or anything of that nature. Something we could ask ourselves is this: would any of us use Buzzfeed or Buzzfeed News as a source for any academic or work-related project? I know it wouldn't go well if I did that, and try to uphold the same standards in Wikipedia articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  "would any of us use Buzzfeed or Buzzfeed News as a source for any academic or work-related project?" Absolutely. To the extent that "it wouldn't go well", it would be because people are generally unaware of changes in journalism and media in the last five yrs. Nobody who knows journalism disputes that Buzzfeed News is a legit news outlet - the fact that it gets nominated for and wins prestigious journalism awards ever year should be sufficient. Wikipedia editors who argue that it's not a RS should really explain how this "not news" outlet manages to win and get nominated for these awards - what precisely do these Wikipedia editors know that the Pulitzer Prize people do not?[32] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• You do have a point with the awards. To be fair, most of them came after I had finished my education entirely, so perhaps my professors would have different thoughts today than they would have when teaching me and my current bosses wouldn't have such reservations as they would have in the past. One possible solution that comes to mind regardless is handling it in a way similar to Forbes, whose staff is trustworthy while its guest contributors are often questioned if not flat out rejected. I'm not saying we should simply call Buzzfeed News entirely bad these days, only that we should be cautious with it, especially given the recent layoffs mentioned in this thread and how people can (understandably) confuse it with Buzzfeed's user-generated content. We can also use the idea of making distinctions for pieces used prior to 2019 and those used in 2019 onward that Blueboar brought up. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• BuzzFeed News acquired a better reputation after their news articles were moved from the buzzfeed.com domain to the buzzfeednews.com domain in 2018. At that point, there was a clear separation between BuzzFeed's entertainment content (which should be considered generally unreliable) and their news content (which has previously been well-received). The BuzzFeed News staff layoffs are unfortunate, but I'm refraining from making a judgment until there is enough post-2019 content to evaluate. This looks like a "wait and see" situation similar to the Daily Mail's editor change, which was discussed in its second RfC. As Blueboar mentioned, we may need to split the entry at WP:RSP again or at least make a note of the staff changes. — Newslinger talk 01:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, mostly per Collect. With such staff cuts, Buzzfeed would probably be more comparable to Daily Beast, Business Insider, IBTimes etc. than any widely reputable news outlet. Which is to say, generally usable for uncontroversial statements, but not particularly a good source. It's fair to say that Buzzfeed News at its height was at the same tier as a publication like Mother Jones (warranting a "generally reliable" rating), but I don't think anyone has ever considered Buzzfeed (news or not) to be comparable to, say, NYT or the New Yorker. feminist (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  "I don't think anyone has ever considered Buzzfeed (news or not) to be comparable to, say, NYT or the New Yorker." Except, you know, the Pulitzer Prize folks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  Your referring to the non win? Or Chris Pulitzer before he's there?--Moxy (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm referring to being a finalist for Pulitzer Prizes in the last two years. You can clink this link[33] if you are unfamiliar with the Pulitzer Prize. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  OK just making sure you were not imply they wow. Yes being one of the 10,000 is a good thing..... but does not negate the public's view of the site.--Moxy (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  AFAIK, there are 3 or so finalists (incl. the winner). Many of the news outlets firmly considered RS here haven't been finalists for a Pulitzer in ages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait It is a worthwhile question, but it is better to see how that shakes down in the next month or so in wake of these layoffs. Also, we should keep in mind BFN's archives, which still wholly remain valid sources. If we have to makr BFN differently, we need to set a date where its reliability changed. --Masem (t) 15:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact our readers may question the reliability of the site should make us realize we should use it sparingly and try to find better sources. But no need for a ban.... just need to cut down on the clickbait from them.--Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wait - the staff cuts probably mean that Buzzfeed News will be scaling back on the ambitious original reporting that they've been doing recently, but that might well mean less risk of inaccuracy, not more. It's worth noting that widely accepted RSes like politifact.org do very little original reporting, but their editorial standards remain quite high. Nblund ^talk 20:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• No/Wait per above...DN (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Wait – WP:CRYSTAL states that we should not use Wikipedia for speculating. Assuming anything regarding future reliability is not appropriate.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes for the time being. There is enough of a question that we should hold off using them for contentious claims until the effects of the reshuffle are known. I am not saying they could not be reliable but it is better to be safe than sorry. PackMecEng (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• No per Snooganssnoogans and ZiaLater Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• No Such blacklisting or downgrading of status is only appropriate where the source is completely unacceptable. We don't know that the layoffs are likely to affect the journalistic integrity, and we also have no problem with their reliability before the layoffs. And we probably won't have a problem after. Layoffs happen all the time, it doesn't mean all of the existing citations suddenly become unreliable, nor does it mean they will turn into the Daily Mail instantly. --Jayron32 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Hell No They've been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize the last two years. The fact that the Pulitzer committee considered them one of the three or four best media sources in that category makes me question how anyone could seriously believe they are unreliable unless this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Smartyllama (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• The general argument is with the layoffs and reshuffles of staff. PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't wade into many of the Wiki articles where Buzzfeed is going to be a factor but I would be concerned about the bias of the reporting and the associated spin. Consider the examples raised in this Quillette article [[34]]. It seems that BuzzfeedNews (they call it Buzzfeed but the link goes to BFN) looked for inflammatory comments and quoted them out of context as a way to generate a controversy. A news source that tries to spin information to remove context or present what might be seen as reasonable to many in context as desirable should be concerning to all of us. If this is an isolated example so be it. But, it certainly doesn't speak highly of the source that they, based on the Quillette article, tried to magnify the controversy rather than try to explain the subject's original logic/thinking. That falls into advocacy rather than reporting. Springee (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  I think this sounds like more of an WP:UNDUE issue than one of reliability. feminist (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  There's nothing in that Quillette piece about Buzzfeed News taking anything out of context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• You should read it with a more critical eye. Springee (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Venezuelanalysis

While we are at it, is Venezuelanalysis a reliable source?

Again, I will suggest the four options:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Thank you. ----ZiaLater (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1 My impression of this source is that it's a reliable left-wing source. It's sympathetic to the Bolivarian Revolution, but it is more than willing to publish stories that paint the government in a poor light,[35] and I don't see any evidence that they've ever intentionally published false information. I see that the Wikipedia page for them has claims that could imply that a significant amount of content on the site comes directly from the Venezuelan government, but the pages that the citations go to are pages on Venezuelanalysis that 1) in some cases don't appear to exist anymore 2) were clearly labeled links to specific pages on the equivalent of a FAQ page and are completely separate from its actual factual reporting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2: Bias or political leaning it not enough, does it have a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4. As, per their about, much of the team is based in Venezula itself and since Venezula uses violence and legal intimidation against journalists operating inside Venezula to produce pro-regime pieces - RSF Venezuela - it is impossible for this site to accurately publish anything about the regime. Furthermore, the site itself does not appear to be much beyond a WP:SPS - it is a collection of pro-Chavez activists publishing their (+ pitches, which they state they accept) views on Venezula. There no indication that this little referenced website has a reputation for accuracy, and their openly stated aims (essentially - Chavez propaganda) would seem to be rather against such a reputation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 per similar reasons as Telesur. Venezuelanalysis consist mostly in opinion articles, like Aporrea, meaning it is mostly a blog. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• NOTA See my TASS reasoning below. Collect (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3, unreliable except for reporting on positions taken by Maduro/chavismo, except that even there, the reporting is distorted or they lie. Here is an very recent example (very similar to Telesur tactics, also Venezuela-controlled propaganda) of a blatant distortion/lie.

  Distortion #1. On 6 February, Venezuelanalysis published this piece, which (among other distortions) includes a map claiming that most of the world supports Nicolas Maduro in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. That map includes all of Africa in support of Maduro (something claimed by Venezuelan officials on 31 January). That is not only not true, but the African Union was so troubled by the Venezuelan misrepresentation of their position that they held a protest in front of a Venezuelan embassy, well before the Venezuelanalysis piece was published.[36][37][38] Note that their map also includes countries like Norway, Switzerland and India which have most decidedly stated their neutrality. Contrast the Venezuelanalysis claim to the scrupulously maintained and well sourced map and country list on Wikipedia. Venezuelanalysis furthered this lie/distortion even after they must have known it contained falsehooods.

  I will add more as I find time-- this is merely the most recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 per User:SandyGeorgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 Clearly unreliable, per others. I am undecided whether a filter is necessary or not. 252 uses is not a lot, but not insignificant either. feminist (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: TASS

Sorry for the multiple posts. Came across TASS lately as well. Only a small comment; I've seen in past discussions that TASS has been used only when attribution is used.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Again, thank you and this will be my final RfC for some time.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3: But I am not sure bias alone is enough for deprecation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3: They've promoted Russian spin during MH370MH17 and the conflict in Crimea and Donbass (as well as in other times). This is owned by the Russian federal government. They generally should be avoided as a source, with the sole exception that they are quite reliable for reporting Russian government views - which should be attributed of course. Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Corrected wrong MH flight.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• This seriously needs to stop. A Russian government-owned news agency is more likely to present the Russian narrative on international crises involving Russia than your average non-Russian news agency. There's nothing particularly revealing about this.

I assume you meant MH17? If so, here are the first two TASS reports showing up on Google that have covered the affair: [39] and [40]. Do you see anything out of the ordinary in these? And by "ordinary" I'm referring to the mainstream news sources that are considered reliable on Wikipedia.

Here you'll find all the TASS reports on MH17 published between 16 July and 31 December 2014, and here is the Crimea-related material. The stuff that I've found, on my part, was well attributed to senior officials and people with a certain level of expertise on the subject. But I don't mind being proven wrong, so you (and anyone else here) are more than welcome to do so. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

TASS, for instance, spread the Carlos/SU-25 conspiracy theory regarding the MH17 shoot down.Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media, edited by Samuel C. Woolley, Philip N. Howard, page 55. Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. This appears to be the TASS report in question, at least according to RFE/RL.[41] First of all, does the TASS article have an English language version promoting this theory? I'm genuinely asking, because tass.ru is probably not the same as tass.com, same way Al Jazeera's Arabic and English services are not the same in terms of content.

And secondly, this is how the tass.ru article translates on Google: "Currently on the Internet, users are actively quoting a Twitter post that was made by a Spanish air traffic controller. From the profile of the author in the social network, it follows that he works at the Kiev airport Borispol." There appears to be no attempt in the article whatsoever to present the conspiracy theory as a statement of fact. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding (based on when I was really reading TASS quite a bit - which is dated - haven't done TASS real-time since 2015 or thereabouts - for the Donbass it was interesting, for Syria less so most of the time) is that the English TASS is a selective (not all items) and delayed translation (a few hours) of the Russian TASS. Back when I consumed TASS - I mainly did so for real-time releases and read the Russian original. Real-time obviously isn't a concern for Wikipedia (though the main reason I really see for looking at TASS is for real-time same-hour releases) - and the translation quality to English (of those pieces they translate) is (or was) pretty good.Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As another example of 2014 Donbass reporting - most outlets viewed (and still view) the Russian "aid conveys" rather suspiciously - e.g. [42][43][44][45][46][47]. TASS, on the other hand, was reporting breathlessly on each stop the conveys made and on the humanitarian aspect - e.g. [48][49]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• NOTA Tass has been an official arm of Russia in the past - thus is fully reliable for statements of fact as stated by that government, and usable for opinions presented, attributed and cited as opinions. Same as p[retty much every source. Collect (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1, per my above reply. I have yet to see evidence pointing to a clear pattern of wrongdoing by TASS. IMO it's far more tolerable than Sputnik and even RFE/RL (which is considered reliable here). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 or Option 3: in my opinion sources that are not independent of government in countries with law rank in freedom of press should not be used --Shrike (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 TASS has been widely discussed -- by plenty of RS in fact-- as part of the Russian dezinformatsiya network, coordinating to spread malicious falsehoods in the West. Some sources:
  • here's Kruglak at U-Minnesota [[50]]: the two faces of TASS - one, that of a bona fide news enterprise and the other, that of a propaganda and espionage service.;
  • Watanabe from LSE's paper [here] : A longitudinal content analysis of over 35,000 English-language newswires on the Ukraine crisis published by ITAR-TASS and Interfax clearly showed that ITAR-TASS’s framing of Ukraine was reflecting desirability of pivotal events in the crisis to the Russian government. This result reveals Russia’s strategic use of the state-owned news agency for international propaganda in its ‘hybrid war’, demonstrating the effectiveness of the new approach to news bias.
  • ... I could list more. In summary the RS conclusion is pretty clear : TASS is not a news source, but a tool wielded by a state actor. We should not perpetuate propaganda. No TASS, until it cleans up its act. --Calthinus (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems to fall squarely under WP:BIASED. Prominent government-controlled news agency. Plenty of spin, but apparently not known for fabrication. Eperoton (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 This has been discussed a lot, it falls into the same bracket as other state-owned media of dictatorships (CGTN, Xinhua, PressTV, Granma etc.). It is not independent and thus not reliable. Particularly, the coverage by TASS of the invasion of Crimea echoed the Russian government line that the soldiers there, who we now know (not least because Putin admitted it) to have been Russian soldiers, were "local militia", and it has repeatedly carried the various contradictory conspiracy theories about the shooting down by Russian-backed rebels of MH17. The reason I'm choosing Option 3 here is because I don't think the special category for the Daily Mail should exist (there's no reason why anyone should regard the DM as worse than the state media of a dictatorship), but if you want to count this as a Option 4 vote you can. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Evidence shows that TASS has engaged in disinformation and thus must generally be avoided as a source. A filter does not prevent legitimate use (such as citing the official Russian position) as editors only need to click Save again. feminist (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 – Many editors use TASS as a factual and timely news source regarding information on the Russian space program. Just because, as a government agency, it reflects political views of the Russian government (properly attributed), does not mean it should be deprecated as a WP:RS. Indeed, it would be quite difficult (and biased) to cover events happening in Russia without allowing any reporting by Russian media. Is Agence France Presse next to get axed, because it reflects viewpoints of the French government? Xinhua, because it reflects viewpoints of the Chinese government? PAP because it reflects views of the Polish government? — JFG ^talk 08:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:JFG Do you think there is no difference between freedom of press in France and Russia?Also AFP have independent from government editorial board --Shrike (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of the press in country A or B is not the issue being debated here (although, if you're interested, France does not have a stellar reputation in this domain; ask any French person among your acquaintances). We are examining a particular news agency and trying to ascertain whether what it publishes can be accepted as RS per Wikipedia's own definition at WP:NEWSORG: News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). The policy even quotes the Russian Interfax as a typical reliable news agency. WP:BIASED states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, as long as editors attribute statements coming from ostensibly biased sources. I'd rank TASS as vastly more reliable than outlets like BuzzFeed News or The Daily Telegraph that get top billing in our WP:Perennial sources catalog. — JFG ^talk 21:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Regarding your concern with sources like BuzzFeed being listed as green, I've previously suggested adding more levels of reliability assessment for RSP, see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Add more levels of reliability?. This proposal did not receive a lot of support. feminist (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3. In addition to examples from Icewhiz (above), Forbes 2015: "authors of many articles and comments are unknown or publish under various pseudonyms", and "they tout fabricated claims from history, which they present as new sensational discoveries". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

youcontrol.com.ua

• youcontrol.com.ua: 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

A user spammed the webpage from the website to articles of Ukrainian companies and now Crédit Agricole. It seem scrapper of the database from the data of the Ukrainian chamber of commerce or local company registry. Is it reliable source? Certainly it fails for external link section as it is partially a pay to view source. Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Off topic, but the user seem totally spammer. None of the edit (excluding minor edit to fix himself) were related to spamming link. He also spammed https://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com Matthew hk (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Spam blacklisting done. Spammer blocked. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

Is Middle East Monitor (MEMO) considered reliable for factual reporting? The subject recently came up here. It is generally understood by observers that MEMO is a pro-Muslim Brotherhood website.
Here are some of the bizarre MEMO articles that have caught my attention over that past few years:

• Egypt can invade Algeria in three days, Al-Sisi warns (May 4, 2014)
• Algeria ready to defend Libya from Egyptian invasion (May 18, 2014)
• UAE-backed Egyptian forces arrive in Eritrea (January 4, 2018)

The above stories, which are based on questionable Arabic sources, have never been thoroughly investigated, but are clearly far-fetched and MEMO was their original English language publisher. I'd like to hear some third opinions on this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

From About us There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination.Reads like propaganda site --Shrike (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't expect their Palestine coverage to be any less problematic. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment — in the dispute discussion at Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état that Fitzcarmalan noted at the outset of their post [51], I strenuously objected to the use of a MEMO Op-Ed intended to demonstrate that Israel secretly backed the 2013 coup in Egypt. That Op-Ed contained statements that were almost certainly false — for instance suggesting that Israel participated in the August 2013 Rabaa massacre — and also referred to reports in Haaretz from 2014 that may exist, but that I have not been able to locate.

That said, as an Op-Ed, the piece contains a disclaimer at the bottom: the information in this article doesn't necessarily reflect the views of MEMO.

Furthermore, I think we absolutely cannot exclude a source because it is "pro-Muslim Brotherhood." The MB was elected in Egypt and then toppled by a coup, and the resulting military government has imprisoned dozens of journalists [52][53][54][55][56].

The first article [57] used as an example of dubious reporting attributes the claim to Algerian outlets, and that was correct: [58][59].

I can find no evidence to substantiate or refute the second article [60]. The third article [61] has been the subject of this critique [62]. The MEMO article cites this report [63] which does appear to say what MEMO claims it says. Other claims made in the MEMO article are true [64].

What do you think, Fitzcarmalan? -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not call for the exclusion of MEMO as a source, nor did I start this thread in the form of an RfC. The "pro-Muslim Brotherhood" part was meant to point out the outlet's potential bias so that it be taken into consideration. The reason I initiated this discussion is to encourage third opinions about the subject. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And I'm not denying that MEMO had sources to back up those claims. My point here is that the original sources themselves (al-Chorouk, al-Quds al-Arabi and al-Sharq respectively) appear to have made up those stories. If it turns out that MEMO intentionally promoted hoaxes, wouldn't that put their reliability into question? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not to endorse this source without really knowing much about them, from the examples at least they're reporting that other outlets said XZY - the statements are attributed - that's their job. And while trying to fact check these today it does seem that Egypt has military deployments and corresponding ambitions in the wider region. -Darouet (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - should generally be avoided unless sourcing the Muslim-Brotherhood POV, they do not have a reputation for fact checking. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Um how are any of those articles bizarre? Al Jazeera reported on Egyptian troops in Eritrea, see here (Google translate if youd like, but the gist of it is Egyptian forces were deployed to a base in Eritrea]. To the point, an op-ed in MEMO should not be used unless the author is an expert on the topic of the op-ed. Their news reports should be fine however. nableezy - 02:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How are any of them bizarre? I mean, I'll give you the Eritrea story, despite the fact that it was denied by officials from the relevant governments. But are you seriously telling me that there are no issues whatsoever with the Algeria stories, which are most likely fabrications or (at best) gross misrepresentations of official statements? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

thetruthaboutguns.com

• thetruthaboutguns.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

I can't see any evidence this is a reliable source, and I propose to remove all references. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that this advocacy-based source should not be used. Neutrality^talk 21:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Truth About Guns It's a group blog. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose a blanket ban on any site that purports to provide The Truth™. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oooooh, I found my favorite page on that site. It's this one. You see? They really are coming to take your guns! And replace them with goddamn katanas! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• They appear to have editors and writers that could be considered subject experts.[65] That said they should be treated like any other advocacy group I suppose similar to Hope not Hate, The Epoch Times, and Southern Poverty Law Center mentioned in WP:RSP. PackMecEng (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with PackMecEng. Generally reliable for technical content with respect to firearms. A notable opinion source with respect to firearms policy (thus not in wiki voice). Springee (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This joint is hardly like the SPLC. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Well... Just that they are listed as advocacy groups. I was wondering if anyone would notice I put them in there. PackMecEng (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable based on what? I can't find any reason to consider them RS as per WP:IRS. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable; it's a blog with a partisan agenda, and they engage in doxxing and harassment of their targets, so anyone who's genuinely interested in writing a serious reference work wouldn't touch a source like this with a 10-foot pole. The arguments in favor here are creative, but speak poorly for the people making them. They have editors and writers! Who like guns! What more could anyone want in a reliable source? MastCell ^Talk 01:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes things required to be a RS. I have not heard the doxing or harassment, do you have a source for that? Also discuss content not contributors. PackMecEng (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Your argument speaks poorly of you" is a comment about your argument, not about you. It would only be about you if it were followed by "And I believe your argument" or something to that effect. Also, having people whom you refer to as "editors" doesn't make them real editors, any more than my handle makes a certain part of my anatomy a mythical weapon wielded by the gods. Let's go to their About page and take a look at the qualifications of their editorial staff.

• Dan Zimmerman – Managing Editor "He’s been shooting guns for the last 25 years and writing about them for the last eight or so."
• Jeremy S. – Testing & Reviews Editor "His safes are full, his ammo shelves are sagging, and he’s coordinating much of TTAG’s gun and gear reviews while attempting to hold down a “real job” as well."
• Kat Ainsworth – Associate Editor and Hunting Editor "Kat is a seasoned hunter and somewhat zealous tactician with a penchant for big bores."
• Jenn Jacques – Gun Rights Editor "Jenn is an active and ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, an outspoken concealed carry advocate, avid outdoorswoman and if you can’t find her on a lake fishing, in the woods hunting, or running like a mad woman on any number of Badger State nature trails, she’s prolly at the gun range."

In all truth, one of their writers, Logan Metesh, looks like he might be a credible source. But that credibility would depend heavily upon the publisher. I don't think this website has anything like the sort of editorial expertise and oversight we generally expect when we say a source has editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I think that it's very likely that any technical information about guns found on this site would be accurate and possibly even subject to fact-checking prior to publication. But the truth is, we can't really get a handle on just how likely that is. So in my day-to-day life, I'd take their word that -for example- the factory firing pin on an original Marlin Glenfield model 25 has a face of 0.2cm², I don't feel comfortable citing them for that when writing a WP article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Still a shit way to make an argument. It's okay because I'm talking about his argument, not calling him shit. I could still see it as useful for review information on things I suppose. Something like according to so and so they liked or disliked whatever for whatever reason. PackMecEng (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. If you unpack the meaning, it's functionally synonymous with "I know you are better than your argument makes you appear to be." If anything, it's a compliment. One cannot possibly engage in reasoned debate without criticizing one's opponents' arguments, as criticizing your opponents arguments is what debate is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree to disagree? I was not very appreciative of it. But anyhow, I could see it used in the manner I described, for reviews of products. What do you think? PackMecEng (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Argh, I edit conflicted while adding a response to that very question. Yes, I think it's fine for attributed statements. I don't know if they're notable enough to include such statements in other articles (I've been a gun nut for going on 30 years now, and this is the first I've heard of them for whatever that's worth), but I'm not convinced they aren't, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Kind of the same here(wont say number of years but around there). I had not really heard of them before now either but who knows. That is why I was curious if there was a source for the doxing or harassment. PackMecEng (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious as to that, myself. MastCell, got a source for that? It might even be worth adding to their article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was already in the article. PackMecEng, see here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup I see it now, someone left a comment with her address on a post there and they did not take it down.[66] Pretty messed up, and its still up. WTF PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Do any RS treat them as a go to for facts?Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Only found a couple mentions with stuff like newsmax.[67] They seem to be linked a decent bit by stores and manufactures.[68][69][70][71][72] USA today apparently lets them post there as well for opinions on gun control.[73][74] A mixed bag all around. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. If that is representative of it's use, then it shouldn't be used as anything other than a source of opinions, which probably means it shouldn't be used at all given the subject matter. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So no then they are not really being uses as a source for facts, but for opinions. Not sure then they are overly useful as a source, better to use the people who quote them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Question, do you think it would be a problem to use TTAG for non-controversial facts? Such as, "X was publicly released for sale in 199x", "The Colt Model X was released with a 5" barrel and later in a 3" version", "The S&W Model Y is no longer legal for sale in California because of ___ feature/because it is no longer on the state's list of pistols for sale"? I would think at least the first two statements would be reasonable as statements of non-controversial facts. The last one might be more problematic. I think it would be a non-controversial claim that a particular pistol is/isn't on the CA approved for sale list. Why might be considered a controversial claim and perhaps would need either a stronger source for wiki voice or attribution. Springee (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think those links answer my question about notability above in the affirmative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK for RSOPINION so we probably shouldn't remove references to it indiscriminately. feminist (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment All of the current TTAG cites are factual statements, for example "The Savage Model 42 combo-gun was introduced in 2012, as the successor to the Model 24" and "The Chiappa M6 comes with "X Caliber" adapter sleeves". –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  These don't sound like controversial statements to me. I would prefer keeping the citations (but tagging them with {{unreliable source}}) than removing them entirely. feminist (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are exactly the sort of claims that I think we should have no issue with sourcing to TTAG. I'm not even sure it should have an "unreliable source" tag in such a case. Springee (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those sorts of claims can be sourced elsewhere. And the problem isn't one of accuracy, but of reliability. We simply don't have enough evidence that we can trust TTAG to do fact checking, even on the technical stuff. Those claims may very well be true, but an organization which is essentially a shared blog is very likely to publish common misconceptions or simple errors on a regular basis. I agree with Feminist. Tag them as unreliable, and then either find better sources or trust in our fellow editors to do it for us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• If those claims are true (and I absolutely would not trust that they are if this is the only source), we can cite them to an actual WP:RS; but citing a blog with no reputation adds absolutely nothing and hurts the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole. You could put "I, as an editor, affirm this to be true" in the ref tag and cite it to four tildes and it would be just as valuable as a cite to this blog. It should be removed on sight without hesitation and replaced with a fact tag if you think whatever was cited to them happened to be accurate. My general standard for remote-on-sight / "fails WP:RSOPINION" is "does this citation provide anything beyond 'citing' something to four tildes?" In this case I don't think it does. They have no reputation, so the only thing accomplished by citing them is to make it harder to notice that a statement functionally has no citations. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove on sight levels of not reliable. Does not pass WP:RSOPINION. No reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, no evidence of serious editorial controls. A blog without those things falls under WP:UGC / WP:RSSELF and is not usable as a source even for statements of opinion - citing a blog like this is equivalent to citing a Reddit post or YouTube video and should never be done. In cases where their opinion is worth citing, we should be able to find a reliable source that quotes them; but throwing your opinion up on your blog doesn't make it pass WP:RSOPINION, no more than posting it on Reddit or Twitter. I'm baffled by the arguments above that this could ever be used for statements of fact; this is one of the more clear-cut remove-on-sight sources I've seen here recently. Realistically, a blog with no reputation should only be cited as a primary source in situations where it is unambiguously the focus of the sentence being cited, and even that should always be accompanied by a secondary source. The idea that the authors posting the blog could qualify as subject matter experts is similarly absurd; that is an extremely high bar - Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, and there's no evidence of that here. These feel more like they fall under the SPS warning that anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field, which specifically warns us not to trust puffery from sites like these. Especially considering that their 'expertise' seems to be that they tell us they've been using guns for a while - really? This isn't a usable source for anything but its own article, at best. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The website Mediabiasfactcheck doesn't support the idea that this is just an opinion blog that should be removed on sight. [[75]]. Strong factual reporting:

The Truth About Guns also has a section dedicated to facts about guns. While we found this well sourced to mostly credible information and institutions, it is very apparent that the aim is to only present info that favors guns and rejects gun control. Although the information is evidence based, it is misleading because they only choose to present one side of this story. We rate this source factual in reporting, but right biased based on its rejection of gun control and somewhat cherry picked information

That supports the view that they are reliable for technical or non controversial facts but biased when reporting to controversies or issues of him rights/gun control. Springee (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

We also need to remember that sources are NOT required to be impartial. The fact that a source presents only one side of an issue does NOT make it unreliable (as long as what it does present is accurate). We can use other sources to support the other side(s) of the issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable free source

• ccel.org: 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

This is a site whose mission is "to build up the church by making classic Christian literature widely available and promoting its use for edification and study". I would suggest that where the works in question are available from neutral free sources such as Gutenberg, then the neutral source would be preferred. Yes? Guy (Help!) 13:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not a source - but an archiving resource of possible sources. I'm not sure Gutenberg should be preferred - are there concerns that the archive here changes the archived manuscripts? Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Its mission is proselytising, that's a problem. They may well nto change the source but there is a wrapper around it that serves their purpose not ours. Exactly the same content is available on Gutenberg, which has no such baggage Guy (Help!) 15:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What evidence is there that their mission is proselytizing? I do not see that on their about page.

The same content is not available on Gutenberg, it does not contain the XML formatting that they have added. I see no reason to replace it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The literal quote I included. It's from their default landing page. Guy (Help!) 02:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Building-up the church is not the same as proselytizing. That's like saying "improving bicycle performance for their owners" is the same as "encouraging everyone to ride bicycles". They're not even remotely the same activity. It's a valuable source and there is no need to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Building up the church by making classic Christian literature widely available and promoting its use for edification and study" is proselytizing by definition. To use your example, they'd have to have said that their mission was to increase the efficiency of church bureaucracy and make it more convenient for followers to attend service, or something of the sort. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So you're equating "to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit" with making classic literature available in formats that are not available at Gutenberg. No. That's simply not going to fly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

...making classic literature available in formats that are not available at Gutenberg That is categorically not what their mission statement says. Not even in the same ballpark. The only similarity what you just said has to their mission statement is that they both reference literature. Do I really need to walk you through a parsing of that sentence? Do I have to show you why "classic Christian literature" is a very different thing than "classic literature"?

You know, I only linked the last part, but the "build up the church" part is pretty obviously referring to proselytizing, as well. I mean, how do you think one builds up a church? By putting a lighter chain on it and fitting it with lower-friction gears? Maybe stick a few baseball cards between the spokes? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for all the reasons stated above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So is there any evidence the alter the documents?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Also (and almost ancillary to the above) is there any evidence they just do not add any old SP rubbish? ] What is their inclusion criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anyone expressing concern over them altering the works they host, but rather concern about how the site presents them, and what we're linking to in addition to the work itself. As an example, see reference #8 in John Chrysostom, in which we cite the work from their archive, but link only to their homepage. Or see reference #83 at Thomas Aquinas, where we actually link directly to the work, which is right underneath a header proclaiming the site to be a Christian org. The last one isn't too much of a problem, but the first one is. We're citing a work, but linking to a site with a statement declaring their intent to proselytize right on the page we link to.

Honestly, I would always prefer secular organizations for this sort of thing, because that secularism is a strong indicator that they don't have any agenda beyond their stated goal. A secular organization may have numerous Christians in their administration (not to mention Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc), but a Christian organization will almost certainly have no non-Christians in their administration. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That then would be a problem with incorrect citing, not reliability. If there is no reason to doubt that they accurately copy the text then (apart from as I said issues of undue due to publishing any old rubbish) I cannot see how they are any different form Guttenburg. I am not aware that agendas or bias is a valid criteria for rejection, only accuracy is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because the second example is less problematic does not make it not problematic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That an archive of religious texts is religious itself - is far from surprising. (Conversely, most scientific journals ascribe to a pro-science POV). If the archive doesn't change anything in the text itself - and there is no indication that they do - there's nothing wrong with linking to a freely available work there. If it is freely available on a better site (based on whatever quality metric) - then that's an acceptable target too. Frankly - the problem with proselytising here (if it is a problem) is greater in the cited archived books than in the archive. Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this source is unreliable per se, I just think that if, for example, we have the choice between this and Gutenberg, we should choose Gutenberg. If ccel.org is the only source for a work, then I'm not particularly happy about using it, but I'm not going to be opposed to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If an archive of religious texts is religious itself, then if project Gutenberg contains those same texts, by your own definition, it is religious as well. Since Wikisource contains religious texts, it is religious as well. Since Wikipedia contains religious texts, it is religious as well. This is reductio ad absurdum and shows your argument to be false. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I started to type "What are you smoking and where can I get some? Wow." but no, I think I'll go ahead and take the time to explain just how fundamentally illogical and ignorant your comment is.

First; anyone with even the most basic education in philosophy can tell you that informal fallacies are not "false" by any stretch. They are frequently indicative of a poor position or a poor ability to argue, but simply because a person makes an informal fallacy does not make them wrong.

Second; reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's an argument. In fact, it rarely is fallacious, and whenever it is, it is only so because the argument contained a separate, actual fallacy, such as a straw man. Hint hint.

Third; my argument -even the absurd straw man you made of it- is in no way an appeal to the ridiculous. In fact, your comment in which you accuse me of that is a textbook example of exactly that argument.

Fourth; the claim that an argument is "false" because it is an informal fallacy is, itself, an informal fallacy. It's called an argumentum ad logicam. See my first point as to why.

Fifth; arguments cannot be "false" or "true". They can only be sound or fallacious. Neither state establishes the truth of the conclusion in a vacuum.

Finally; absolutely nothing I said could possibly be construed by any rational person to equate to the claim that merely hosting religious texts makes ccel.org a religious institution. Did you actually forget our exchange from just last night over ccel.org's mission statement? Your participation here is virtually indistinguishable from trolling at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I concede your argument isn't false, just that your thinking isn't clear and is clearly bias. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not even grammatically correct, let alone a biting insult. Next time you stoop to petty insults, try to make it worth the block you might catch for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

My sorry grammar. My sorry you insulted feel. Watch for block due to NPA I will. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Gawker

Should Gawker.com be deprecated as a source to strongly discourage its use on articles? wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Gawker (RSP entry) is a gossip blog that has no regard for factual reporting, while its opinion articles can still be cited if properly attributed. Even the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal cites only one Gawker article and contains 226 other references. Gawker Media have fired journalists for not being clickbait-y enough, and they have had numerous controversies. The worst of the worst "journalists" were ever employed by Gawker. Since the new owner, the Gawker website had controversies again and is doing very poorly. This gossip blog is cited on hundreds of articles, many of them biographies, making me support its deprecation. I've been through the RSN archives and Gawker was always viewed as generally unreliable, generally unusable for WP:DUE material, and especially inappropriate on biographies (if Gawker has any use, it's on biographies so it doesn't have any use). Some blogs previously operated by Gawker Media are considered thoroughly reliable, but that is not relevant here and Gawker.com's unreliability does not help them. If this proposal fails, I wouldn't be surprised if it generated consensus that Gawker should be identified as generally unreliable (red) at WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is just a gossip site that care little or nothing for fact checking.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Is Gawker even still a thing? As far as I know there hasn't been anything published on Gawker since 2016, am I missing something? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  See "Gawker 2.0 Implodes as Its Only Reporters Quit". wumbolo ^^^ 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Gawker is the Web 2.0 analogue to the tabloid journalism publishers that have recently been unfavorably scrutinized on this noticeboard. While Gawker is best known for Bollea v. Gawker, the publication has been sued numerous times for defamation, as shown in "Here are all the people suing Gawker" and "For Gawker, Legal Issues Beyond Hogan". As Gawker focuses on rumors related to living persons, deprecation is appropriate here. Editors should also consider whether an opinion piece from Gawker constitutes undue weight before citing it in an article. — Newslinger talk 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - If this is a blog then isn't it already covered by the WP:RSSELF? Do we really need to RfC every possible source regardless of whether there is a real problem to be dealt with? What about WP:CREEP, which tells us only to make instructions where there is a real problem? FOARP (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• It (old Gawker.com) is Deceased That is, it was a blog, and ventured into areas which forced its own closure. It is RS for nihil. "Gawker 2.0" is a legally different site, under Bustle Digital Group. https://splinternews.com/here-are-the-media-chuds-joining-fake-gawker-1831782448 which announced the "new Gawker" as an actual editorial project and no longer a "blog" thus we can not judge such future material as a blog. https://guestofaguest.com/new-york/media/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-gawker so, honestly, we do not know more than "the old Gawker is pretty much deprecated" but no solid basis to deprecate the "new Gawker." Clear? Collect (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• No/Moot I can't really imagine many editors digging through Gawker's carcass for its dubious articles to be used as sources on Wikipedia. After all, it's dead, its brand is very tainted, Bryan Goldberg doesn't seem to have much success relaunching the site (good) – I don't see a need for a filter, but won't necessarily be opposed to one. feminist (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - As noted above, its a tabloid blog with little to no editorial oversight or fact checking. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. Let the dead be at peace. There is no use depreciating something long since made irrelevant (under dubious circumstances one might say). Regardless, such circumstances lead me to conclude that it most likely should be an important primary source for articles such as Peter Thiel. I don't see any sense in depreciating it to be honest since it's not like they are going to write new articles like they used to. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes – When a source is junk, we must mark it as junk. "Respect for the dead" has no bearing on Gawker's inappropriateness as a Wikipedia source. — JFG ^talk 08:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: crap sources are crap and just because they're dead doesn't mean that archived versions of them are still crap. SITH (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No'. No evidence presented to put it in the same category as the Daily Mail and Caller. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, Gawker is not in the same category as DM and DC (which still report factual news most of the time, though without the consistency we need). As a gossip blog Gawker is in an entirely different league, and is much worse than either source. feminist (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

JAXenter (jaxenter.com, jaxenter.de) and HTML.it for Draft:Eclipse Theia

Are JAXenter (jaxenter.com, jaxenter.de) and HTML.it reliable sources for Draft:Eclipse Theia? In particular, can these sources be used to establish Eclipse Theia's notability?

JAXenter hasn't been discussed on this noticeboard, but past AfD discussions appear to indicate that it's a marginally reliable source. The English edition has a list of authors, but I'm not sure about the German edition. The publication is owned and operated by the Software & Support Media Group (sandsmedia.com). The articles in question are:

• "Theia: Eine einzige IDE auf dem Desktop und in der Cloud"
• "Theia update – Moving to the Eclipse Foundation and lots of new features"
• "The busy RCP developer’s guide to Eclipse Theia"

HTML.it is owned and operated by Triboo Media (triboo.com). The article in question is:

• "Theia: un solo IDE per Desktop e Cloud"

I am asking about these sources in response to questions from another editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force § Review article. Thanks in advance for your help. — Newslinger talk 13:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software — Newslinger talk 13:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Errors/mistakes in reliable sources

I came across an interesting test case in working on the oft-problematic aquatic ape hypothesis that I'd like to get some feedback on. In this situation here: Brenna, J. Thomas; Collins, Richard; Palmer, Lauren; Nilson, Erika; Leger, Judy St; Ran-Ressler, Rinat; Wang, Dong Hao (2018-05-10). "Sea Lions Develop Human-like Vernix Caseosa Delivering Branched Fats and Squalene to the GI Tract". Scientific Reports. 8 (1): 7478. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25871-1. ISSN 2045-2322. is a paper published in a high-quality open access journal Scientific Reports by a team that is verified (through some interviews elsewhere) to be influenced by arguments made by supporters of said hypothesis. As such, their paper contains a number of interesting claims (some of which are admitted to be speculative). One unequivocal statement made in the paper, however, is "These are the first data demonstrating the production of true vernix caseosa in a species other than Homo sapiens". However, there is a source from the 1930s, unmentioned in the paper, which clearly describes a vernix caseosa on a chimpanzee [76].

This could simply be an innocent oversight on the part of the author, but it's interesting that WP:V makes essentially no mention of what to do when you find a mistake in an otherwise reliable source. Is there some policy or guideline that gets at this fundamental fact-checking issue?

jps (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it we do not get to judge a sources accuracy. One reason maybe the above, what is a "true vernix caseosa " and what about the 1930's source contradicts that claim (and does it say it was "produced" or merely present)? Thus (according to wp:or how you read a source may not be how others read it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea what a "true vernix caseosa" (compared to a "false" one?) is supposed to mean. You are correct that typically Wikipedia does not do accuracy checks, but we aren't hamstrung (see the discussion of the history of this idea elucidated here). In case you're intrigued, the quote about vernix caseosa from the Yerkes and Elder source is as follows: "She was observed to bite one of its feet as if testing its edibility, and she scraped the lower back with teeth and lips so hard that it looked as if she were removing the skin. Actually she took off only a coating of vernix caseosa which overlay the hair." And if vernix caseosa exists, it was produced. To claim otherwise is just inane. jps (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I read it, hence my comment about how it in no way contradicts the other statement. Both could be correct.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, they cannot both be correct... unless you know how to tell the difference between a true versus false vernix. jps (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Both could be correct, I would also point out that a "vernix-like material" appears on seal pubs, so again we go back to what do they mean by "true", and does the 1930 source refer to the same substance, or a similar one. I do not know the difference, and neither do you. But that do explicitly say "true vernix caseosa", so it is clear they are drawing a distinction between it, and some other material.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

jps is correct; they cannot possibly both be correct. The later source claims the "first" discovery of vernix in non-humans, the earlier source documents earlier known existence of vernix in non-humans. That is a direct and unambiguous contradiction.

However, it seems to me that it's more likely that the earlier paper was wrong than the latter. Advocacy issues in the later source aside (which are worth considering), the earlier source doesn't establish how they knew that it was a vernix caseosa, and not something similar or analogous to a vernix caseosa. I think the only way to really settle this is to look for research on the vernix caseosa, to see if it had been established that it was truly exclusive to humans, or is only most prominent in humans.

Note that the Yerkes/Elder (older) source is also an RS; The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine is a well-respected journal. So if we're to presume that once we establish a source as reliable, we must trust it implicitly, we're still at an impasse, because these two sources contradict each other on this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it definitely occurred to me that Yerkes/Elder could be wrong! But I find absolutely no indication that anyone has found their observations to be dubious. jps (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Me neither. I checked out a good chunk of the cites listed at NCBI and none of them say anything about the vernix. Hence why I suggested looking into the literature surrounding the vernix, to see if maybe there was a time when a vernix-like substance which is commonly observed on non-human mammalian newborns was considered to be a vernix, or if it's always been held that the vernix is unique to humans. If the former, then we can safely presume that the earlier source is wrong. If the latter, then... Well, things would get very interesting, and probably require a lot more work, up to and possibly including a write-up about it submitted to a sci-hist journal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For an example of what I'm referring to by reference a write-up in a sci-hist journal, see Roger Ekirch's research into the historical prevalence of biphasic sleep, which was a rather surprising rediscovery of what was, by all measures, common knowledge in the pre-industrial era, but had been lost since. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also point out that the medical literature on vernix caseosa tends to focus on the fact that it is prominent in premature births. Humans suffer from the obstetrical dilemma and so the proposal has been put forward (both in the literature and in pop sci commentary discussing these matters) that the situation could very well be something like a vernix occurs in all mammals in the womb as a protection from pathogens, but it is removed (or much less prominent) by the time most non-human births occur. This subject has not been researched very closely. jps (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's true. Human infants are born much less developed, it may be that the vernix of non-humans typically dissolves in the womb. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

Indeed, the first thing - assuming that we find the first record of nonhuman vernix caseosa worth including in an encyclopedia, which personally I doubt - is to find out the definitions being used. However, if they're all using the same definition, the problem might be solved by some phraseology such as "Brenna et al claim that theirs is the first mention of nonhuman vernix caseosa from a non-human, though Yerkes and Elder reported it in a chimpanzee in the 1930s". Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

+1 to the above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems a bit synthetic for the aquatic ape hypothesis article to me, though clearly not for the vernix caseosa article. Not to mention the proposed text uses a common word to avoid. Nevertheless, it is more accurate than the proposal on the talkpage which was just to report as the Brenna team said -- that it was the first such demonstration ever. jps (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking through what I can access of the vernix literature now. I'm also reading abstracts of papers I can't access. So far, I haven't seen anything, but it's not a small body of work. As jps said, the majority of it seems focused on premature births and, more specifically, necrotizing enterocolitis. If we can't find a resolution, the wording proposed above seems like the way to go. I think it's fine for either article, as we're not drawing any conclusions, merely juxtaposing the two claims. See WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

But Yerkes and Elder's work is manifestly irrelevant to AAH. It just happens to have a sentence about a substance that AAH people get excited about. I feel kinda like it's best not to make much todo over this on the fringe article. I have no doubt that the "common lore", such that it is, that "vernix is unique to humans" is just wrong. But I'm also not convinced from the literature that this "common lore" is really all that common amongst those in the know. There is that pesky Indian Journal of Dermatology article cited in Brenna's paper, but I'm not inclined to give that journal much credit for editorial oversight either. Anyway, let's keep digging. I've read about half a dozen papers on vernix caseosa now with little to show for it. jps (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you've read hard enough. There's this from 2008 (10 years before Brenna) that says "According to present knowledge, vernix production is unique to humans," and there's this from 2005 which says "Vernix caseosa is a fetally derived biofilm unique to humans," and then there's this from 2006 which says "...the uniquely human skin cream 'vernix caseosa'," then there's this from 2017 that says "...the uniquely human fatty substance (vernix caseosa)..."

I don't think you've understood this discussion. People can be wrong. Even lots of people can be wrong. There is, as MPants has pointed out, a possibility (that's looking increasingly unlikely) that Yerkes and Elder mistakenly called something "vernix caseosa" and it later turned out to be something different, but we haven't found any evidence that this is what is going on here (I would welcome it if you had any evidence of this to share). The other (and, I would argue, more likely) alternative is that the repeated claim that vernix caseosa is unique to humans is simply incorrect and that this has been known by biologists (in the literature, at least) since the 1930s or earlier. That others claim that it is unique to humans is immaterial to our discussion unless they specifically deal with the Yerkes and Elder observation and explain why it is wrong (or refer to a source that does so). jps (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I've found a citation that explicitly says that the researchers don't know if there is a vernix analogue in non humans; [77]. I'm also finding quite a bit of older work that makes passing references to vernix in non humans, but nothing that's relevant enough to cite. I've also found a lot of studies comparing vernix caseosa to skin surface lipids in other animals, such as [78] and [79]. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect going on. I've found sources stating that vernix only occurs in humans, and I've found sources making a passing mention of the vernix of animals. It seems to me like the most likely explanation is that many scientists (especially those active prior to the 1960's) used "vernix caseosa" as a shorthand to refer to analogous substances in animals, whereas other scientists (later ones, and ones who work in medical research) use the term more specifically to refer to the human substance. If true, then -by definition if not practicality-, then both sources are wrong, because any such analogue found in animals is just that; an analog. If that's not the case, then it's quite clear that there is an analogue in animals and only the Yerkes/Elder source is correct with respect to the question of whether or not the Hao et. al. source discovered it. The only case in which the Hao et. al. source is accurate about being the first to discover vernix in animals is if vernix is defined exclusively by its chemical composition and presence on newborn skin, which is a rather odd criteria.

The overall impression I've gotten is that the current definition in use in the literature (since the 1960's or so) includes the species, which makes Hao et. al. wrong by definition and explains how their claimed discovery has managed to exist in the literature for almost a year now with no documented citations. IMHO, there's usually a few that spring up very quickly whenever there's a claim as drastic as this being made, usually from critical responses. The presupposition of an arbitrary distinction between a "true" vernix and an analogue with near-identical chemical makeup would explain that, as readers of that claim would simply dismiss it categorically without any need to criticize the work that led to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that this is probably as good as we are going to get. Any species-specific definition for a substance produced by a living thing is going to be problematic. Do only bees make honey? Or do these wasps only make a "honey-like" analog? jps (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That’s probably the reason Brenna specifies sea lions as having a “true vernix,” but if we’re all uncertain we could just email the guy to ask for some clarification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

In this case, you should look for corroborating sources. What do other reliable sources say about the matter? Do they concur? Recall what WP:NPOV says:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

NPOV is about POV, but in my opinion, this also applies to facts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be a lot more careful with applying UNDUE/WEIGHT to things that are considered facts, as the quality of the sources become more important. That essentially is where MEDRS starts (avoiding mainstream sources for facts related to human health). Or as another example, say out of 20 sources reporting a fact, we have only one, the NYTimes reporting this fact as version A, and 19 other sources of the quality of Buzzfeed News or the Verge, all reporting this fact as version B. I would likely believe that NYTimes is right and the others are wrong, but obviously I would try to investigate to see if there are more direct primary sources that avoid the problem. --Masem (t) 03:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

True, the quality of sources is important, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Apoifis 2014 a RS? (Anarchism in Greece)

• Article: Anarchism in Greece
• Thread: Talk:Anarchism in Greece#Dadaoglou, Pantazi, Drakoulis
• Other user that claim that Apoifis is not a RS @Chalk19:
• Dispute: Were Maria Pantazi and Emmanuel Daoudoglou real persons?

Nicholas Apoifis, a lecturer in sociologywrote his thesis on Greek anarchism [80]. His thesis turned into a book [81] (download) by Manchester University Press, part of CONTEMPORARY ANARCHIST STUDIES in 2016, cited and awarded awarded the UNSW Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences Dean's Award for Best Monograph for an Early Career Researcher, 2017]. In his thesis, Apoifis writes This is more than a moot point. If true, the presence of anarchist symbolism in a protest as far back as 1862 highlights the longevity of Greece’s anarchist history, making it all the more significant that it is a history from which contemporary activists are alienated. While we cannot be certain, I suggest that the red banner was probably an anarchist inspired banner, for three reasons. Firstly, in 1862 red was the colour of anarchist flags. Anarchist symbolism had not embraced the more iconic contemporary images of black, or red and black flags and banners (McKay, 2009).67 Secondly, the banner was unfurled by anarchists68 Εμμανουιλ Δαουδογλου (Emmanuel Daoudoglou), Παυλος Αργυριαδις (Pavlos Argyriadis) and Italian Amilcaire Cipriani, who joined other anarchists in the protest (Pomonis, 2004, p.1). This is the same Cipriani who later, in 1871, would fight for the Paris Commune alongside Μαρια Πανταζι (Maria Pantazi) (Pomonis, 2004, p.1). According to Vasili, Pantazi was the first Greek female anarchist, and probably the only Greek female anarchist to fight in the Commune.69

Chalk19's main arguments is that there is no historical evidence of Pantazi and Daoudoglou real persons and Apoifis is not a RS because he is a sociologist. In my opinion, he is published and cited so he makes it as a RS. So we can mention Pantazi/Daoudoglou in the article, and when/if newer evidence is presented that they were inexisted persons, we can attribute. We can attribute now as well. Anyway, is Apoifis RS? Cinadon36 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Apoifis is not a historian. He wrote an ethnografic study on contemporary anarchist activity in Athens, Greece, based in interviews he got from activists. As an introduction to his study he composed a brief sketch of the past of Greek anarchism, drawing mainly from pamphlets available in English, written by activists and published by anarchist groups, not by professional historians (for example P. Pomonis is just a translator of international anarchist, and libertarian communist literature to Greek); he even made extensive use of an unsinged post on Greek anarchist history uploaded in a blog. All these are known in detail to Cinadon36 from the following discussion in el WP, cf. el:Συζήτηση:Κώστας Σπέρας#Ουδετερότητα - Γενική Κριτική, plus this. Unfortunately user Cinadon36 insists in turning the blind eye to these facts, and this is very tiring. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Because I know your position on the matter, that does not mean that I must accept it as it is. The talk at the particular discussion was not a free discussion- but other users do not want to heaρ our whining about the specific article in el.WP which is a disgrace, full of citing blogs and even a site to promote tourism in Serifos[82] - a point I raised in the Talk page but I wasnt allowed to remove the inappropriate sources or tag the article as POV. There is no discussing culture in el.WP- you said it elsewhere. So, as for this particular thread, Apoifis is a scholar and can evaluate primary sources. We -as WP users-can't. Sociology and history arent far away as academic disciplines and there is a chapter on anarchism history in his thesis. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: I am the main editor of Kostas Speras article. I have used a blog of island Serifos to say simply that a statue of Speras was build in the island in 2009! I also used a blog of a well known amateur historian to write about the votes that took the political party of Speras. The article is full of uptodate historians. Not even one of the users of EL:WP in the article discussion didn't support user Cinadon36 objections. I am out of topic. But there are accusations and i had to answer. I won't come back in this matter here. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I removed the two controversial sentences from the article until a consensus is reached. "Most notable, [[Emmanouil Dadaoglou]], a merchant from [[Smyrni|Smyrna]], had probably come across anarchist ideas after meeting Italian political refugees, who first arrived in Patras in 1849 due to the [[War of the Two Sicilies]]. Together with Italian anarchist [[Amilcare Cipriani]], founder of the "Democrats Club", they organized a group and took part in the revolution against [[Otto of Greece]] in 1862. They put up a barricade near [[Kapnikarea]] in Athens.{{sfn|Βουρνάς|1998|p=}}{{Fails verification|date=February 2019}} [[Maria Pantazi]], probably the first Greek female anarchist fought in [[Paris Commune]] according to oral anarchist tradition.{{sfn|Apoifis|2014|p=88}}" I do not feel that the removal distorts the article's narrative. It is kind of trivial knowledge, but yet, I believe that there is a place for it in a 21 Kbytes article, at least attributed. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This is for getting an idea of Apoifis' sources on the history of Greek anarchism. Let's see where he relies when he writes about Dadaoglou and Pantazi. His reference is to Paul Pomonis (a Greek anarchist translator and activist, not a historian of any sort) pamphlet The Early Days of Greek Anarchism: ‘The Democratic Club of Patras’ & ‘Social Radicalism in Greece’, London: Kate Sharpley Library, 2004. Parts of it (or may be all) is available to read from anarkismo.net, see [83], [84], [85] etc. Pomonis is just putting together things that he copies form books of well known historians of the Greek socialist and labour movement like Kordatos, Demetriou, Noutsos et.al. This is what he writes in his booklet on Daoudoglou: [86]; he is just reproducing the story/legend we already now, and -even more- whithout references to literature at all -no question for references to historical sources and historical evidence. So, Pomonis' "book" is totally worthless, it does not have any value at all, it is no better than a student's paper in high-school. This is the kind of secondary sources that Apoifis is using while summarizing the history of Greek anarchism in his book. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Tottaly worthless", these are strong words. It the job of Researches to identify the Primary Sources, or other sources that are of some value. Here are some author authors that have mentioned Dadaoglou: Othon Alexandrakis thesis and Immanuel Ness encyclopedic entry on Greek Anarchism. Chalk19's arguments seems like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and not really supported by any RS. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, well, well!!! A PhD on The struggle for modern Athens by (another) anthorpologist/sociologist, who writes down what "Nikos" told him about Dadaoglou, ant then he added Pomonis as a source! Great! An, then, an essay in The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest based on the well known problematic pamphlets of Pomonis (an anarchist traslator), Kottis (a Greek elementary school teacher) and Sotros (a Greek-Australian anarchist activist). Don't you have anything new to show as? Somenthing that is not circulating the unverified story of Daoudoglou? Any book, article etc. that has moved away from Kostis Moskoff's original remarks about the lack of sources concerning this story, a work that is based in research to the direction of finding historical evidence about him and his wife. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

PS. Cinadon36, why not one of your "favorite" researchers does not mention what the prominent Greek social historian Kostis Moskoff had remarked while writing on Dadaoglou and Pantazi: that their story is "unverified" since all we now about them comes from one and only source, from what Platon Drakoulis, the early Greek socialist propagandist and agitator, had writen in his journal. Cf. K. Μοσκώφ, Εισαγωγικά στην ιστορία του κινήματος της εργατικής τάξης (An introduction to the history of the [Greek] labour movement), 2nd ed., Athens: Kastaniotis Press, 1985, p. 152. ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chalk19: Ok, you might dont like all these RS but, they are all RS and you have provided no RS claiming otherwise. You might enjoy reading this humorous article: The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia PS- I do not have a favourite researcher and I do not know why the didn't mentioned Moskov, I only know that they are PR. Apoifis got published by Mancherster Uni Press. That 's enough for me. Immanuel Ness is also a well appreciated scholar. Ironies against those two researchers wont get you anywhere. Chalk19, when you find a single RS disputing the "myth" of Pantazi & Dadaoglou, please ping. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, not even Apoifis doesn't claim that he wrote history. He continuously writes what anarchists of Athens told him about their view of the past of Anarchism in the country. So it's not something bad about Apoifis, cause his aim was to describe about the Public history of anarchism in Greece, not about the history. So, if in the future will write an article about the Public history of anarchism in Greece then for sure Apoifis will be an excellent R.S. But not now. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, Apoifis does not "continuously writes what anarchists of Athens told him about their view of the past of Anarchism in the country". It is a fault statement. Apoifis does discuss various aspects of anarchist history with 3 radicals, but his book is much more than the 3 interviews. And again, it is not just Apoifis, there 's Alexandrakis and Ness. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Defunct website as a source?

Can a defunct website, which is not archived at archive.org or anywhere else as far as I can tell, and was taken down by it's maintainer be cited as source? Seems to me like it would fail WP:V by definition, but I thought I'd asked here before I challenge it. I am thinking specifically about this citation Screamo#cite_note-SYWh-85--which presumably refers to www.stuffyouwillhate.com, a site that longer exists according to [87], and which is being used to assert that a certain genre of music includes certain bands. Yilloslime (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It makes more sense than citing the card catalogue for the Library of Alexandria only because it could theoretically be accessibly archived somewhere that we've just not been made aware of yet. Otherwise, I'd say no. Now, another source that is otherwise perfectly reliable and could have reasonably been around when the site was up might be an acceptable source so long as there isn't a significantly larger number of similarly reliable sources contradicting it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Altermann Galleries

Hello. Do you think I can cite the Altermann Galleries, specifically this webpage please? It looks reliable, but it is a commercial art gallery. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, the webpage cites "Reference: The American West: Legendary Artists of the Frontier, edited by Dr. Rick Stewart, AskArt.com." I don't think AskArt would be reliable, but Dr. Rick Stewart appears to be the chief curator of the Amon Carter Museum of American Art, and they are citing this book, but not specific pages.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the SPLC reliable? It is reliable

Is the Southern Poverty Law Center really a reliable source? The SPLC called Maajid Nawaz, who is not an anti-Muslim extremist, an anti-Muslim extremist in their "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists", despite the fact that he is a Muslim himself. Nawaz also won a lawsuit against the SPLC for the false claim that he is an "Anti-Muslim Extremist" and they had to publicly apologize because of the error. Also, The SPLC placed a conservative Christian advocacy group called the Family Research Council (FRC) on its "hate map" in 2010 because the FRC oppose same-sex marriage and abortion and as a result of this, a gunman walked into the FRC headquarters two years later and said he wanted to "kill as many as possible" because he saw them on the SPLC's hate map. That's right, the SPLC indirectly caused a shooting because they didn't agree with an advocacy group because of conflicting political views. Lastly, they have smeared many other people they have disagreed with such as Ben Carson and Charles Murray. Source:[88] X-Editor (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

They are an advocacy group as well as being biased and opinionated, but generally fit WP:RSOPINION. That is can be used but should be attributed to them. WP:RSP has a decent write up on them and their history on this board. PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: If the SPLC can only be used as a source for opinion when it comes to hate groups, then why does the Gab (social network) article use the SPLC source against gab as a source for the website's active user base when it cannot be used as fact and only as an opinion when it comes to them reporting on hate groups? X-Editor (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with the Gab (social network) page but looking it over every time they are used it is not in Wikipedia's voice. It is "The Southern Poverty Law Center characterized" or "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported" which is proper attribution. PackMecEng (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: In the infobox of the Gab article, it says there are 19,526 estimated monthly active users, which it gets from the SPLC source, which got those numbers from Storyful. However, Gab said in a January 2019 SEC filing that it has 200,000 active users and Gab has also said that the SPLC's numbers, which they got from Storyful, are wrong. X-Editor (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The body of the article explains where that info came from, attributing the sources there. If I had to guess why the SEC data is not use it is because that is generally self reported. Though the link you gave does not work so I cannot really check. I will say our article is a little misleading giving the active user number and comparing it to the claimed 850k total user number which can give an incorrect impression. PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Here's the SEC filing, I don't know why the first link is a dead one:https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1709244/000114420419003068/tv511217_partiiandiii.htm Also, if you think the Gab article is misleading, then fix the article so it is less misleading. X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

SPLC does good research and many RS report that research. I don't know about the specific piece of data you are asking about. I suggest chasing down the real source the info comes from. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I got the info from this source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1771f5a71b62 X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Note the section that piece is in — "Opinion." Also note that the author is Marc Thiessen, a well-known partisan conservative who wrote speeches for George W. Bush. While we may consider his opinion relevant for inclusion, it is citable as nothing more than another (quite partisan) opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Well if that's the case, then I guess there was no reason bringing up those points in the first place. X-Editor (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC's research into hate groups is widely considered authoritative in reliable sources. Like all reliable sources, they have occasionally made mistakes. What we look for is, what happens when a mistake is made? In the SPLC's case, they have generally admitted the error and corrected it publicly. You misstate the Nawaz case — he did not "win" the lawsuit because the SPLC settled the case before trial, apologizing to Nawaz and publicly retracting the offending statement. The Family Research Council is, indeed, a hate group; terrorism is certainly never an acceptable response to hatred, but your suggestion that the SPLC is somehow "responsible" for the attack is ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, considered reliable and authoritative. The OP is not really asking a question but rather making a lot of opinionated POV claims. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Sorry if I am POV pushing. After hearing arguments from others, I have determined that the SPLC is reliable source. X-Editor (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• The SPLC is reliable for their own opinion which should only be taken from what they say explicitly (their website is confusing, but e.g. maps are useful and easy to understand). Their classifications are widely disputed and it is one of the worst opposition research sources listed at WP:RSP. According to their own financial information, they accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars so they can prepare for lawsuits which they receive by their political opponents who have been slandered and defamed by the SPLC. While the SPLC has inspired an act of terrorism, I would ignore that as the New York Times have inspired 1,000,000+ murders of civilians. I recommend reading this and this before citing some BS from this hot garbage advocacy organization for factual information in an article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• When the SPLC places a group into one of its hate categories, that should be treated as RSOPINION, though they should be considered an authorative voice that is appropriate to include their opinion for on such pages with inline attribution. SPLC has also done other work not specifically calling out any group under any label, but broader examination (for example, a few years ago, the number and states of Confederate statues in the South US), and such reports can be considered as RS, as they show the appropriate diligence and fact-checkng and editorial oversight. --Masem (t) 15:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Crunchbase

Should Crunchbase be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia as per previous discussions[89][90]? X-Editor (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per WP:USERGENERATED. X-Editor (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies — Newslinger talk 12:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes this is most commonly a source or compendium of press releases, or mash-ups or minor alterations of press-releases, from the companies themselves or their paid agents. It is not an independent reliable source. MPS1992 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Crunchbase (RSP entry) is clearly questionable as a source of user-generated content, as I previously argued in "Is Crunchbase a reliable source?", and should not be used as a reference. However, I'm not sure whether it's acceptable to link to Crunchbase in the External links section of an article. It's generally acceptable to link to IMDb (RSP entry) according to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites § IMDb and some editors say it's okay to link to Discogs (RSP entry) at WP:RSN § RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm. Is Crunchbase similar enough to IMDb and Discogs to be treated the same way? — Newslinger talk 09:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I'd be okay with Crunchbase being allowed as an external link in the external link section of an article as per your argument above. That being said, i'm not okay with Crunchbase being used as a reference/citation in articles per previous discussions and per WP:USERGENERATED. X-Editor (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe. The article about Crunchbase says "Crunchbase sources their data in four ways: the venture program, machine learning, an in-house data team, and the Crunchbase community. Members of the public can submit information to the Crunchbase database. These submissions are subject to registration, social validation, and are often reviewed by a moderator before being accepted for publication." Now, this suggests that the content is subject to editorial review, which is a hallmark difference between an unreliable blogging / personal opinions site and a reliable source. Also, beyond the general-public available Crunchbase, there are several paid products, which suggests that this discussion / decision should be limited to the no-subscription Crunchbase and not necessarily things like Crunchbase Pro and Crunchbase Enterprise. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Genius.com

The only previous discussion for Genius.com was in 2016, in which most of the participants opined that the source shouldn't be used because it is user-generated. Points raised in the original discussion:

• A lot of lyrics and annotations are user-submitted, so we wouldn't consider them reliable.
• Most lyrics on the website do not constitute copyright infringement due to agreements with music publishers.

However, the discussion doesn't consider:

• Genius publishes videos on their website and on their YouTube channel. The videos are created by Genius staff and not by users. The videos are usually either interviews (e.g. Luis Fonsi "Despacito" Official Lyrics & Meaning | Verified, The Making Of Lil Pump's "Gucci Gang" With Bighead | Deconstructed) or "news" articles (e.g. Why Is Everyone Rapping Offbeat? | Genius News, Ariana Grande’s “break up with your girlfriend, i’m bored" Explained | Song Stories).
• Genius also publishes articles on their website (e.g. [91], [92], [93]; only the former was written by a staff member, and the other two appear to be press releases).
• Musicians – singers, producers or songwriters – may add their own verified commentary (usually annotations or descriptions) to songs that they performed on or worked on. Sometimes these annotations are transcribed from interviews.
• There is a review process for annotations and lyrics, although to me it doesn't appear stringent enough for Wikipedia's standards ("editors" have various permissions somewhere between those of Wikipedia pending changes reviewers and Wikipedia administrators, but are unpaid volunteers; contributors can be promoted to editor or mediator by moderators, who are also unpaid volunteers).
• There is some degree of Spotify and Apple Music integration (since 2016 and 2018 respectively), although this appears to be quite limited in both cases.

Genius is used as a source on about 1,419 articles.

Are Genius lyrics, annotations, descriptions, articles, interviews, videos or verified commentary considered reliable sources? Jc86035 (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians — Newslinger talk 11:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Lyrics: I'd say no, not where it's controversial. Yes, Genius is allowed to display lyrics on its sites because of its licensing agreements, but it doesn't mean that they are necessarily accurate. The site allows users to suggest edits to lyrics, so no. Annotations and descriptions: no, per WP:USERGENERATED, unless a particular annotation does not fall under that policy. Articles, interviews and videos: reliable, like any other music review site, with the usual exceptions for press releases and the like. Verified commentary: reliable as WP:BLPSELFPUB. feminist (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Generally no, per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I concur that their lyrics contribution pages smack quite afoul of WP:USERG, but I have before seen these Genius users cite other reliable evidence for their contributions. So, technically there is a use for it, but we should use the source they cite instead, rather than actually citing Genius. I genuinely did not know that artists themselves can make verified comments, and I would find those acceptable. In conclusion, oppose all obviously user-generated content, support others, including verified artist comments. Basically everything feminist said. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• It shouldn't be used in general. This example from above written by "the News Editor at Genius" shows the author noting a correction to the article in the comments section. While I give him credit for acknowleding an error and fixing it, that approach is amateur. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Does this happen a lot or is this an isolated example? The recent date concerns me. Do you have any comment on the verified artist contributions? Could it be used as a primary source in that capacity? dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• The article states "Correction: A previous version of this article stated that this the first week “Happier” spent in the Top 5. While it is currently at its highest chart position, it previously peaked at No. 3 in December 2018." This seems like a reasonable way of acknowledging an error to me. feminist (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

ReviewMeta, Fakespot, and other e-commerce review checkers

Are ReviewMeta (reviewmeta.com), Fakespot (fakespot.com), and other e-commerce review checkers reliable sources? These sites check any product listing from a list of supported retailers, and then display a set of metrics regarding the "quality" of the customer reviews for that product. The data is generated automatically.

Online retailer reviews, including ones from Amazon (RSP entry), are considered generally unreliable because they are user-generated content. However, it's unclear how automatically generated summaries of online retailer reviews should be classified.

ReviewMeta and Fakespot have received plenty of coverage from reliable sources, and both are notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles. However, my personal experiences with a previous version of Fakespot have been less than stellar, as the site returns returned wildly different ratings when I asked it to evaluate the same product multiple times. The current version doesn't do that anymore, as they've removed the ability to re-analyze a product on demand.

This question is from Talk:Mark Dice § Removed "Amazon reviews" section. — Newslinger talk 12:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Without knowing how they do it I would say not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewmeta does explain their basic process how, but offers caveats faq on the limitations of their algorithms. valereee (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

So how do they "know" what a natural review looks like, all seems very subjective. Reads like those dodgy personalty tests that never seem to be able to predict anythingSlatersteven (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I just went through it and it all looks like bog standard statistical analysis. So to determine a final "Pass" or "Fail" rating, they probably took a sample of known Fails and used those to establish a range of results that would constitute a Fail. Anything that's not in that range is thus a Pass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I did some tests, and got the bizarre situation of a fail based upon suspicious reviews, yet the actual stars and even rating changed not one jot (on a Mark Dice book, by the way).Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That's because they don't discount what they consider to be "legitimate" reviews. The way they work is that they look at a number of statistics on the reviews, such as the average number of reviews made by each reviewer, and the dates on which reviews are made. They then use this to establish a degree of influence exerted by reviews which fall outside of the scope of typically legitimate reviews, and use that to determine the overall Pass/Fail state. But they also use those methods to come up with a statistically likely number of "fake" reviews while noting which reviews are likely to be fake, then they exclude those likely fakes and re-calculate the score.

The purpose of hiring fake reviewers is not, after all, to boost the rating of your product. You could do that by selling exclusively to friends and family, and end up with a perfect 5-star review rating. No, the purpose is to inflate the review count, which is used in a number of algorithms to help determine how much to promote your product, and is a large part of the algorithm used to determine your product's place in the "best-reviewed" rankings.

This is why the "adjusted" score at sites like this are often so similar to the actual score: paid reviewers frequently post both 5 and 4 star reviews, because a wall of 5 star reviews looks suspicious, but a teeming mass of 4 and 5 star reviews with the occasional 3-star review thrown in looks legit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would be very hesitant to cite them. They're not the sort of source we normally rely on, so it shouldn't come up much. But I would never cite them for anything unless an established RS cited them for that exact same thing (and we were citing said RS), and even then, I would always attribute the rating. If they start getting cited regularly by RSes, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• The one thing I'm certain about is that these types of sites cannot be used to establish notability, since they indiscriminately examine every single product listing from their list of supported retailers. I agree with MPants at work in that it's unlikely for information from these sites to constitute due weight, unless the analysis is mentioned in a separate reliable source. — Newslinger talk 15:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

referenceforbusiness.com

I spot checked a few pages on referenceforbusiness.com and there is identical text on Wikipedia. I'm guessing they are just a Wikipedia mirror, but maybe someone inappropriately copied referenceforbusiness.com text into Wikipedia. If it is a Wikipedia mirror, then it definitely should not be used as reference. It's used on hundreds of articles though. Peacock (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say (after a quick look) its a copy and paste site.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's used as a reference on over 500 pages. What should be done? Should all those references be replaced with {{citation needed}}, perhaps? Peacock (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

RS tag.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference for Business notes that it is "© 2019 Advameg, Inc." Advameg, Inc. is the parent company of City-Data, and I would hope that its content is properly licensed. At a glance, Reference for Business republishes content from Gale publications, including Gale's Encyclopedia of Small Business. Since Reference for Business looks very similar to Fundinguniverse.com (which was discussed at Fundinguniverse.com, with an RfC), I'm going to repeat the advice I posted there:

Cite the original reliable source, but say where you read it. Reference for Business is very similar to Answers.com (RSP entry) in that it contains text from established tertiary sources. In this situation, most editors would reference the original publication in the citation, but link the citation to the Reference for Business page, and also include "– via Reference for Business" at the end. You can see an example of this at Hypnales § References ("– via Answers.com"). If Reference for Business contains any pages that do not indicate that they were republished from established sources, then those pages would be self-published sources, which are questionable. However, a cursory search did not find any pages on Reference for Business that weren't sourced from Gale publications.

— Newslinger talk 14:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thought it looked oddly familiar.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It certainly is. One more note: if you can prove that the content in Reference for Business is not properly licensed, then it's a copyright violation and all links to it should be removed under WP:ELNEVER. Considering that Gale is known for licensing its content elsewhere and that Advameg, Inc. owns other legitimate web properties, I think this website is unlikely to be a copyright violation. — Newslinger talk 15:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And there's one thing I didn't address. Can you link to the pages that contain content copied from Wikipedia? Those pages, if they exist, are circular sources and are unusable, but I didn't find any on Reference for Business. — Newslinger talk 15:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Death certificates?

Hello. Would a death certificate be enough to confirm someone's death? Last year, Adán Medrano Rodríguez, a former drug trafficker, was reportedly killed. It wasn't reported in the media likely because Medrano was a crime boss from a lesser known generation (prior to the Mexican Drug War that began in 2006). An acquaintance of mine who knew Medrano's family told me he was killed in 2018, so I was wondering if I could add his death date and cause of death if I'm able to get a hold of a certificate from the government / hospital offline confirming it (I would cross reference his full name, DOB, height, etc.). I'm thinking not, but wanted a second opinion. Thanks, MX (✉ • ✎) 15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought this might well fall foul of primary. Also it is a bit ORy. I would say it would be best not to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A death certificate would definitely be a Primary source... usable but with many limitations. The NOR problem comes in linking the certificate to the article subject... we have to ask whether there is a possibility that the certificate you are using might be for some other person with the same name. I would avoid. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol

Rangsitpol Education Reform

Economic, social, political,environmental and population development in Thailand have created a series of problems that must be addressed addressesed by education.

His Excellency Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol,Minister of Education of Thailand, launched the current education reforms. The main aim of education reform is to enhance the quality of education from 1996 until educational excellence is achieved by the 2007.

The goal of the education reform is to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for a better quality of life and to develop the national into peaceful co-existence in the global community .

The objective of education reform is to create learning individual ,organization , and society. An educated person or the authentic learning outcome should possess the following abilities and characteristics which are based on Thai cultural heritage and appropriate level of education: good physical and mental health,critical thinking, intellectual inquisitiveness ,professionalism, sense of responsibility, honesty,selfsacrifice,perseverance ,team spirit, adherence to democracy,and love for King,Country and Religion.

I am confused, is the source by Sukavich Rangsitpol or Pimpan Dachakupt?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems clear that the author of the source Dachakupt... I am guessing that the OP is asking whether it is reliable for use in our article (or section of the article) about Sukavich Rangsitpol. I will note that the article is currently flagged for having some issues re copyright, so the OP may be trying to figure out what can and can not be used (and how). Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

OP is this the case?Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Sukavich Rangsitpol

Sukavich Rangsitpol (Thai: สุขวิช รังสิตพล RTGS: Sukkhawit Rangsitphon; (born December 5,1935)is a Thai politician ,businessman and education reform who served as the Duputy Priminister of Thailand from 1994 and 1996 to 1997. He had previously served as the governor of the Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (ETA)between 1993-1994

Starting another thread has not answered my question. What are you asking?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright records

Can a document filed with the U.S. Copyright Office, searchable at cocatalog.loc.gov, be used as a reliable source to verify the date of a transfer of a copyright from one publisher to another? Ohnothimagain (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would expect so, yes. I'd be interested to hear any compelling arguments against it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The only minor concern I'd have is that we have sources that at least affirm that at some point copyright changed hands, even if they don't name the date. Then that makes sense to dig into official records and get that exact date. Issue would be to make sure that we know we have the right companies and dates involved. If no source reported on any mention of the transfer nor the copyright existing with the second entity, they our digging into it would start walking into OR. (It would start being like using court records). --Masem (t) 16:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No argument about WP:OR, but I just want to say that I would still consider that information reliable. But without an RS mentioning the transfer, it would certainly be undue for us to hunt down the record and mention it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The transfer of copyright is well documented but the sources are vague about when it occurred. Any idea how to cite this? Ohnothimagain (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd write something like "On [date]^{[copyright office source]} the copyright was sold to [company]^{[secondary reliable source]}." Without knowing more about the subject, I can't be more specific.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ohnothimagain (or others), is there a specific example that you're referring to? –dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's concerning the transfer of the copyright of the Beatles' songs "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You" from Ardmore & Beechwood Ltd., the EMI subsidiary that originally published the songs, to Paul McCartney's MPL Communications. It is widely reported that he owns those two songs—the only Beatles songs he owns—but when he acquired them is either not given in sources or said to have occurred in "the mid-1980s" which is probably a guess based on the fact that he recorded a new version of the two songs in 1987. A simple search of the copyright records shows the assignment of copyright from Ardmore to MPL was executed on March 23, 1978. Ohnothimagain (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That looks acceptable to me. The example text and citations I gave is not WP:SYNTH because it's not drawing any novel conclusions from the two sources, simply juxtaposing them via their obvious relation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

NextShark

reliable source? Not finding an article, not finding it in the archives or perennial. valereee (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It is hard to find info on them in general. It was even a pain to find their about us page.[94] They appear to be a part of the Grateful Lifestyle. Which is then a Gannett company which itself is part of USA network.[95] I am sure we could dig down the rabbit hole deeper as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Their About page is not linked from the main page, even though they have an "About NextShark" blurb at the bottom. That's weird, but what I'm seeing there looks pretty small time. They seem like they might be reliable enough, but I have serious doubts as to whether them writing about a subject established due weight for us to report it. If they're the only source, then I'd say not to use them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Erratum and Template:Retracted

See

• {{Erratum}}
• {{Retracted}}

I've just created {{Erratum}} to offer simliar functionality to {{Retracted}}. Enjoy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Bustle

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Bustle?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

— feminist (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3. Bustle is a content farm that employs interns to write articles for $10 an hour (see Business of Fashion article). That doesn't bode well for reliability. feminist (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2: Do they have an editorial policy, and how robust is it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Context needed - In which articles is Bustle being cited, and for what specific statements? There is no such thing as a 100% reliable - or a 100% unreliable - source. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3. Bustle is owned by Bustle Digital Group (bustle.company), which was founded by the co-founder of Bleacher Report in 2013. Bustle Digital Group acquired Mic in a 2017 bankruptcy auction and Gawker (RSP entry) in a 2018 bankruptcy auction. The company's journalistic reputation has been poor:
  1. "What Was This Bro Thinking? Bustle.com's Bryan Goldberg Explains Himself" (2013) from Forbes (RSP entry)
  2. "From Mars" (2013) from The New Yorker (RSP entry)
  3. "Is Bustle the Next Condé Nast?" (2019, archived) from The Business of Fashion, per Feminist

The article from The New Yorker explains that Bustle's writers are not "seasoned professionals", but "hundreds" of "writers from the group of young women that is Bustle’s intended readership, those aged eighteen to thirty-four" who "are paid, but only part-time rates. (Interns get fifty dollars a day, while more established freelancers receive a hundred.)" The article from The Business of Fashion shows that Bustle is based on a non-staff "contributor model" similar to the ones used by Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry). After acquiring Mic, Bustle Digital Group laid off Mic's "entire editorial staff" and replaced them with freelance contributors. Bustle emphasizes quantity over quality, and should be considered generally unreliable. Additionally, I would avoid using Bustle for information related to living persons or for establishing notability. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Bustle Digital has editorial policies and Mic has editorial standards. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. It's not a great source, but see here - their reputation isn't great, but isn't terrible, either (and a lot of the complaints focus on stuff unrelated to the accuracy of their reporting, like underpaying their writers or heavy-handed editorial controls.) I'd decide on a case-by-case basis and would generally try to find a better source when possible, but it's not a kill-on-sight source or anything like that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Dravidian ethno-linguistic group in ancient Assam, India

The statement is The Dravidian people (Bania, Kaivarta/Kaibarta people) are part of ancient Assam, India and The principal migrants in Assam have been the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burman and Aryans. The relevant sources are Talk:Assamese_people#References and the contradicting source is Talk:Assamese_people#References_by_Chaipau. The recent discussions are Talk:Assamese_people#Dravidian_element_in_Assamese_people and Talk:Assamese_people#RfC - Are_Dravidians_a_component_of_the_Assamese_people?. My question is how Wikipedia deals with this situation @Aquillion,feminist,MPS1992,Ronz,MPants_at_work and others.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of POV pushing at those talk page discussions, so it is a little hard to parse what the exact reliability question is ... The debate appears to center on whether we should accept certain linguistic studies (or not). Is this an accurate restatement of what we are being asked to examine? If so, it would probably help to examine them one at a time. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a cultural battle, the kind that often goes to ArbCom.

Please provide a ton more detail. Are you saying that there are multiple sources with different opinions, and you're unsure which may be reliable/unreliable? --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Blueboar and Ronz, thank you both for prompt replies. Concisely the disputed statement is the principal migrants in ancient Assam have been the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burman and Aryans. The sources as mentioned above includes Dravidian people in said migration chronology, one excludes it. My question is how to use citations in Wikipedia when there is disagreement among sources ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Does the source just exclude it in the list, or say they never did it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Bhaskarbhagawati - When we ask for “sources”, we are referring to the books and academic papers that are cited to support the statement in question. In order for us to determine reliability, you need to tell us which books and academic papers are being cited, and what these books and papers say about the history of Dravidian people in Assam. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven the source Mohd. Taher wrote a chapter named 'Assam: An Introduction' in 'Geography of Assam (2001)' by Abani K. Bhagabati, Bimal Kumar Kar, Ashok K. Bora, where he not covered Dravidian people.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I would say it does not dispute the others, not saying something is not the same as disagreeing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I would agree... omitting is not the same as disagreeing. Next source? Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven thanks, Blueboar sorry for delayed reply, i am reproducing all the sources involved below:

• Taher, M (2001). Assam: An Introduction", in Bhagawati, A K, Geography of Assam. Rajesh Publications, New Delhi. p. 12. The first group of migrants to settle in this part of the country is perhaps the Austro-Asiatic language speaking people who came here from South-East Asia a few millennia before Christ. The second group of migrants came to Assam from the north, north-east and east. They are mostly the Tibeto-Burman language speaking people. From about the fifth century before Christ, there started a trickle of migration of the people speaking Indo-Aryan language from the Gangetic plain.

• Baruah, Roy Choudhury, Amlan, S. B. (1999). Assam state gazetteer - Volume 1. Editor-in-Chief, District Gazetteers, Govt. of Assam. Thus the antiquity of human civilization in Assam has been established beyond doubt by the discovery of stone celts used by the neolithic people in various part of it. These neoliths as well as linguistic and morphological evidences prove that the ancient inhabitants of Assam were of the Austric stock and not of the Dravidian as it was once supposed to be. The next wave of migration to this country brought the Dravidians, whose history is at least as old as the Austro- Asiatics. They were cultured people belonging to the Chalcoiithic age, who, in the remote past, inhabited Northern India supplanting the Austric races. The Aryans adopted many elements of Dravidian culture and religion, including the cult of linga and yoni. The antiquity Of this cult in Assam is proved by the temple of goddess Kamakhya. The Dravidians got so mixed up with the Mongoloids, who came to the Brahmaputra Valley a little later after them that as a result of their inter-fusion, a new type called Mongoloid-Dravidian originated. The Mongoloids belonging to the Tibeto-Burman family of the Indo-Chinese group, who now predominate the indigenous population of Assam, migrated to this country from their original home in western China.

• Kunda, Bijan Kumar (2007). Politics in the Brahmaputra Valley, since the Assam Accord. Om Publications, Assam, India. p. 72. Before embarking on the discussion on demographic change during the post colonial phase it may be mentioned here that different races of mankind - Austric, Mongolian,Dravidian and Aryan had migrated into the region - particularly in the Brahmaputra Valley since the ancient time which made Assam a multi-racial region.

• Kalita, Bharat (2006). Martial Traditions of North East India (edited by Sristidhar Dutta, Byomakesh Tripathy). Concept Publishing Company. p. 228. Assam or in broader term present North east frontier region of India has been a museum of anthropology due to presence of multiple races of various ethnic stocks. Besides Austric, Dravidian, Aryan and Mongoloid, there emerged scores of sub-races both in the hilly tracts and Brahmaputra and Surama valleys. Intermixing of blood between the main stocks perhaps resulted this multiplicity of sub-races developing into a political and territorial sectioning of the area.

• Mali, Dharani Dhar (1989). Economic problems & planning in Assam. Omsons Publications. p. 44. Since time immemorial Assam has been the meeting Ground of diverse ethnic and cultural streams. The principal migrants have been the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burman, the Mongoloid and Aryans.

• Barua, Dasa, Harendranath, Yogesa (1992). Reflections on Assam, 1944-1983: a collection of writings. Harendranath Barua Memorial Society. p. 72. The Assamese language is like the population of Assam proper a mixed product of diverse elements of different languages — Austric, Mongolian, Dravidian and Aryan etc.

• Deka, K. (1978). Assamese Society During the Early British Period (in North East India: A Sociological Study). Concept Publishing Company. p. 27. Assam, the frontier outpost of Indian civilisation, is the meeting ground of peoples of different origin who have entered into the province at different periods of history. These people of various races, namely the Austrics, the Dravidians, the Aryans- and the Tibeto-Burmans, after being confronted with each other, have gradually transformed themselves into a plural society with a composite culture. Though, the Aryanisation of the land of the remote past developed a society fundamentally based on Aryan ideas, the other non-Arya tribes, who existed there and who came since, were readily absorbed or got themselves assimilated in this general pattern of the social structure.

• Barua, Hem (1956). The Red River and the Blue Hill. Lawyer's Book Stall. p. 42. This, in a nutshell, is the history of races and peoples that makes the ethnological map of the country and weaves its distinct pattern; Assam is a virgin soil for the Verrier Elwins. The principal races of peoples that have migrated into it are : the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burmans, the Mongoloids and the Aryans. The earliest wave of people to migrate into it, as morphological and linguistic evidences pointed out by philologists like Dr. B. Kakati show, is supposed to be is supposed to be the Austro-Asiatics. These were the principal races of people in the distant most loom of history that built a culture of their own, and dominated a major portion of south-east Asia as Cambodia, the Nicobar Islands, Upper Burma,- and some parts of Australia. In India, races of these people are found to some extent in Chota Nagpur and the Khasi and Jaintia Hills of Assam,  as pointed out by scholars like Dr. B. Kakati.'

• Barua, Hem (1956). The Red River and the Blue Hill. Lawyer's Book Stall. p. 44. The history of the Dravidians here is supposed to be as old as that of the Austro-Asiatics, if not older. The Dravidians, according to the Early History of Kamarupa, “were a cultured people belonging to the Chalcolithic Age, who in the remote past inhabited the whole of northern India supplanting the Austric races”. It might be that the Dravidians were the principal group of people in this country before the civilisation of the Mahabharata time spread ; yet it is taken on authentic grounds that the Aryan civilisation spread into Assam even in the pre- Mahabharata Age. In support of this, it can be pointed out from the Ramayana that Amurtliaraja, son of an Aryan king Kusa by name, who ruled in Madhyadesa, migrated into this land with some of his Aryan followers, and founded the kingdom of Pragjyotishpura. This shows that Assam came within the pale of Aryan civilisation at a very early time. Kamarupa or Pragjyotisha was recognised as a centre of Brahmanical (Sakta) and Buddhist tantricsm by the Aryans at a very early date ; it was probably done sometime during the second half of the first millenium A.D. The Dravidians might be regarded as the next group of people in relation to the Austro-Asiatics, in point of time, to migrate and dwell in this land. There are ethnologists who suppose that the Bania and the Kaibarta communities here are the remote survivors of this great race of people. There is a belief that the early Dravidian stock got so mixed up with the early Indo-Chinese people here that it inevitably led to a chiselling of the edges of both the races.

• Assam, Land and People. Janasanyog. 1989. p. 44. The principal migrants have beeen the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burmans, the Mongoloids, and the Aryans. The Austro-Asiatics who constituted the earliest wave initially dwelt in the Brahmaputra valley but were later made by subsequent waves to find alternative homes in the hills. The Khasis and Jaintias of present Meghalaya are said to be their modern descendants. The Dravidians came next and ethnologists conjecture that the Bania and the Kaibarta communities of modern Assam are their modern descendants.

• Goswami, Kali Prasad (1998). Kāmākhyā Temple: Past and Present. APH Publishing. p. 39. The Dravidians might be regarded as the next group of people in relation to the Austro-Asiatics, in point of time to migrate and dwell in this land. There are ethnologists who suppose that the Bania and the Kaibarta communities here are the remote survivors of this great race of people.

• Bhushan, Chandra (2005). Assam: Its Heritage and Culture. Gyan Publishing House. p. 77. To call Assam a museum of variety of caste and tribes would not be a overstatement. History is a witness to immigration of numerous caste and tribes into the region. The Austrians, Dravid, Tibetan-Burmese, Mongols and Aryans came from many directions and seamlessly blended into one. The Austrians were the first to inhabitant the Brahmaputra valley, but after a while, were driven into the hills by invaders. It is said that Khasi and Jayantia living in Meghalaya belong to the same Austrian community. Subsequently people of Dravid community known as 'Kaibarta' and 'Bania' in modern Assam arrived and the Mongols followed them.

• Sharma, Deba Brat (1995). Changing Cultural Mosaic of a Village in Assam. Punthi-Pustak, Kamrup. p. 55. Several inscriptions and early literature make references to the 'Kaivartas' and they are considered as one of the early non-Aryan inhabitants of Assam. It is believed that they were of Dravidian origin.

Does above mentioned citations are reliable to use, how we can use them in current context.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)