Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• You are miss quoting what is a guideline; see section: What is historical scholarship. The question as to the book for evaluation is whether it is considered WP:RS or not; I do not know this work and therefore cannot offer an opinion. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've previously raised concerns about Heaton on the Talk page (Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Unreliable sources tag) as a WP:QS source, due to problematic POV he exhibited in one of his articles. He has called an action of a German commander an "act of humanity". A "daring raid" or "skillful military ruse" would be okay, but "an act of humanity"? That is just bizarre. (See: Talk:2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich#Heaton. Comment from another editor was: "Heaton removed as biased pov and non WP:RS").

A related question, does Heaton indeed cite Franz Kurowski in his work? If yes, how extensively? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"the applicability of WP:HISTRS" Assayer, what applicability? The link leads to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), which is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. Per Wikipedia:Essays: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia related topics."

And this particular essay does not discount works of popular history: "Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I did not bring WP:HISTRS up, but User:Itsmejudith. I did find that comment more helpful than others, though, because it provided at least some kind of guidance. I did not argue, however, that "highest quality commercial or popular works" should never be used. In general the comments during this discussion were contradictory. But how would you determine the quality of sources?

@K.e.coffman: Heaton considers Kurowski's bio of Marseille to be "very good" (p. xiv). Given the number of Heaton's footnotes I would say about a third of them refer to Kurowski. I did not check every footnote, what and how much material he borrowed. Heaton's main source are his interviews. In chapter 4 "Learning the Ropes", for example, there are 21 references, six refer to Kurowski, the rest refer to interviews.--Assayer (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Does the editor consider Heaton to be high quality commercial / popular work? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you mean me, I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality. I just noted that the discussion was using an essay to ban popular history works. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Wikipedia to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. Coffman has opposed the advancement of these articles, namely the Knight's Cross lists and has deleted hundreds of articles about these recipients. It should come as no surprise that their singular agenda here is to degrade and delete portions of the article that doesn't fit with their opinions. Assayer in particular has scoured the internet for anything he can find that is critical of Heaton. The tiny and weak tidbits of those academic(s) (just the one?) that are critical of small aspects of his work is nowhere near enough to decry Heaton. Virtually nothing else.

This attack on Heaton should be treated for what it is: OR and opinion by a pair of anonymous internet users. And they don't get to decide who is admitted to Wikipedia and who isn't. I'm glad at least one other editor can see that. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: "at least one other editor can see that" -- Which other editor is that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I found a review of Heaton's book on Marseille from Aviation History. Mar 2013, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p62-62. 1/2p.. It reads in part:

• "Writing the biography of a 22-year-old, most of whose life remains undocumented, isn't easy. The only way to turn it into a book is lots of photographs (Kurowski's method) or this husband-and-wife team's choice, spending way too many pages reciting the exact details of 158 aerial combats…which in turn requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers. How, exactly, did the authors know which rudder Marseille kicked and what the airspeed read, whether he pulled full flaps or skidded to avoid a pursuer's rounds, just what Marseille saw through his windscreen and exactly when he saw it?"

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Which editor do you think? Or do you ignore posts you don't like?

So? If K.e.Coffman knew anything about Marseille, he'd know that through interviews with his commanding officers, and pilots in his units, Heaton is able to understand how he approached air combat. Marseille shared his knowledge with all those around him. I've seen interviews with Korner and Neumann that explicitly discuss Marseille's unorthodox tactics, some of which are sourced in the article. Simple really. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps K.e.Coffman needs to remember (if he knew, which I doubt), that 109 of the 158 claims filed by Marseille are recorded which included many combat reports with short but vivid descriptions of how he engaged the enemy in successful combats. Dapi89 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Dapi89 state that criticism of Heaton was "nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor". I have provided a 3rd party review of Heaton's work on Marseille, which points out that the work is close to being historical fiction in its depictions of the areal battles ("requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers"). Is this review also wrong? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That says what exactly!? I repeat; the reviewer and it's number one wikipedia fan don't seem to understand that actions, tactics and the subject's point of view are quite easy to record.

And even if this reviewer had something insightful and factually accurate to say, using it to attack and remove another source from Wikipedia shows the agenda driven nature of the attacking editor. It shows K.e.Coffman, you're not interested in researching the subject for its own sake, but scratching around for dirt you can throw at Heaton. It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. Heaton is.

It should be obvious the reviewer, whoever they maybe, is too ignorant to be entertained. Dapi89 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: please see: WP:no personal attacks.

The review is of the work under discussion, it's by "Wilkinson, Stephan" from the Aviation History magazine. Unless the magazine is not reputable, I don't see how a 3rd party review can be dismissed on the grounds that (in the opinion of one editor) it's been shared by "agenda-driven" contributor to "scratch around for dirt [to] throw at Heaton". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It isn't an attack. It's an observation. Understand the difference. I've lost count of the number of editors that have said the same thing.

Once more, you are using a non-expert source to attack the credibility of biographer. That is OR and Tendentious. You can see why a score or more of editors regard you as agenda driven. You've spent the last few months doing this type of thing. Your efforts to destroy the article on German personnel won't be tolerated without exceptionally good reason. Dapi89 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary on Heaton

Summarising, as the discussion has been long and involved:

• this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure via Itsmejudith
• It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable via Richard Keatinge
• He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2 via Only in death
• I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not via Sturmvogel 66
• I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality via Dimadick

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail RfC

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

Survey

• Support prohibition Looking through the archives and talkpages across WP reveals a clear consensus not to use it at all. Many, many editors (and Jimmy Wales) have said over the years that the Mail is not a relaible source in any area. A list of reasons why would be enormous, it doesn't need reiterating, the paper is trash, pure and simple. There may be rare exceptions where a reference may be useful, perhaps when a Mail story is itself the subject – cases could be presented here for discussion. There is little chance anything of encyclopedic value would be lost from such a move, and everything to be gained, not least an end to continual Mail-related arguments. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no justification for the blanket banning of a mass-circulation newspaper as a source. There will be cases where it is a suitable rs source. The problem with the "Mail-related arguments" mentioned, if the latest example here [1] is typical, is just with editors not knowing what appropriate sources to use. Should the Daily Mail be used to support a claim related to astronomy? Well duh, obviously not! The proposer seems to have a longterm pov agenda here, in an earlier comment he actually compared the Daily Mail to Völkischer Beobachter and has been busy compiling [2]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• The Mail should be on the citation blacklist. There's no area of news where it is actually reliable. It can be relied on to accurately report celebrity gossip, but in that case the gossip itself is frequently false and the Mail doesn't check it. Their coverage of medical, science and political topics is a byword for deliberate inaccuracy. It is pretty close to a fake news source in some areas. Also: this: [3]. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  Maybe not a Grammy (it's weak musically) but certainly worthy of a Tubey. I say a 72-to-1 thumbs-up ratio with 2.2 million views constitutes a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  Hilarious. And I notice that Tiptoethrutheminefield conspicuously says nothing about the actual content. --Calton | Talk 11:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• e/c Comment I am totally fed up with seeing this subject come up. Many, many readers are not aware of the disdain with which the Mail is viewed by some editors and then when they try to use it as a source, they are treated as if they are stupid or deliberately trying to get around PAG's. I know this from personal experience when in the distant past I tried to use the Daily Mail as a source - a sharp learning curve ensued. I agree with comments that if it is not in other newspapers, then it should probably not be in Wikipedia at all. However, I also agree with SlimVirgin above that there are others just as bad, and worse. This means we need to be looking at a number of papers. On occasions, I have been editing and used a website source. However, when trying to save the article, Wikipedia automatically rejects it because it has been blacklisted. Can we not set up a similar system for those newspapers we consider to be unreliable sources? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Follow up: For those who wish to stop short of blacklisting, maybe we could flash up a warning message that the source is widely considered to be unreliable and the saving editor should reconsider its inclusion and use other sources instead. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support prohibition I thought it was considered unreliable before I saw this RfC. The worst kind of tabloid spam journalism. Laurdecl ^talk 10:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Editors are supposed to always use judgment when choosing sources. Usually the broadsheets are better than the tabloids but there are circumstances when tabloids provide better coverage such as sports and crime. And if we exclude the Mail, there are a lot of other publications of lower quality that would still be considered reliable. TFD (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Kill it. Kill it with fire. Under NO circumstances should the Daily Mail be used for anything, ever. They have proven themselves to be willing to make up fake quotes and to create doctored pictures, and nothing they say or do is to be trusted. Even in the cases that some of the editors in this discussion believe to be OK (sports scores, for example), if it really happened then the Daily Mail won't be the only source and if the Daily Mail is the only source, it probably didn't happen. Relevant links:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support with reasonable exceptions It should never ever be used for any support for factual content, but there are cases where the DM itself is part of the story, so referencing relevant articles by the DM that are a part of that story is reasonable. And there may be appropriate editorial content where we would attribute those opinions to the author that can be included. Outright blacklisting is probably not appropriate but its use absolutely must be kept away from any type of factual claims. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition with the usual reasonable exceptions as outlined or mentioned by Masem, NorthBySouthBaranof (these would be rare: i.e., IAR exceptions). Neutrality^talk 23:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition though noting that common sense also applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment By coincidence, I have just noted a recent edit to the Cheetah article used the Daily Mail as a source for the maximum speed of cheetahs. I tagged this with "Better source needed" and an editor replaced this with the scientific sources. However, the problem here is that we have gone from a secondary source to a primary source. Many editors object to this, but new or inexperienced editors will see this as good editing until they understand this secondary source is considered non-RS. I am not for one second suggesting the Daily Mail should be allowed for this, but this is a matter of educating editors or simply prohibiting those sources considered non-RS. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• support this RfC is kind of beating a dead horse as the community has rejected this source pretty much every time it comes here. so much time has been wasted explaining people not to use this. It has no place in WP where our mission it to summarize accepted knowledge. so yes kill it with fire Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support with reasonable exceptions per Masem. For news items if it isn't covered in a broadsheet newspaper then it probably isn't significant anyway, but for references to specific opinions or perspectives it may be useful. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• support It is unnecessary to allow for the unlikely scenario that the Daily Mail would both a trustworthy and the only available source. That other tabloids exist that are just as bad doesn't mean we should keep the Daily Mail: It means we should blacklist those too. Mduvekot (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bashing the Mail is fun, and it doesn't look as if anyone disagrees much that it is best avoided, but that there will possibly be rare occasions when it will be a good source, given the context (eg, as noted, something about the paper itself). But that's the point: identifying appropriate sources is all about context, and there are plenty of rubbish websites out there that should rarely or never be used, and plenty of occasions when even broadsheet reporting isn't worth much for an encyclopedia. And even if we accept the idea of effectively banning certain sources – which is fraught with problems itself – this is being done back to front by singling out one newspaper for blacklisting, rather than establishing the principle of a blacklist and then working out what to include in it. I don't see how existing general principles don't broadly deal with the problem – and are there really endless cases of people insisting on using it, such that we need this draconian intervention, aimed at this one paper? N-HH talk/edits 11:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  We don't even have a list that says The Onion isn't a reliable source.[13] That being said, if you look at the recent "fake news" meme you will find that it has been used to label things that are not actually fake news (a fake news site is one that knowingly spreads fabricated content), but rather unpopular editorial content combined with low quality sourcing. See the RfC at Talk:List of fake news websites#Request for Comment - Removal of Infowars from this list also see this:[14] We need to strictly limit any such list to avoid it being used as a club to suppress unpopular opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

  CNN is also identified as fake news sources by a reliable independent source[15][16][17] Seriously, please read this editorial[18] and give careful consideration to the possibility that the "fake news" label is being used to try to silence opposing views. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  Agree about headlines, but the DM has been shown to be unreliable in other matters many, many times, far more than other publications. Remember the Amanda Knox guilty verdict? [19] --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  Sorry but that's utter bollocks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  IPSO does not regulate the Independent or the Guardian. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Or treat it like any other fake news site, how do we deal with those normally?17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

  The Daily Mail should be banned from that page most of all. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources[22] that describe the actions of TDM in that case, and we should use those sources rather than trusting what the known liars at TDM say happened. Again I say, kill it. Kill it with fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Oppose prohibition The paper carried useful material at the time of World War I (though even then considerable caution is required) and it would be very sad to lose pictures such in St Paul's Survives which require attribution. Maybe something about requiring need would work but I'd want to see the wording to decide. Don't we effectively require need for challenged material anyway? With historical newspapers very different considerations are needed always. Thincat (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a very important point, Thincat, and one so far wholly overlooked here, I think. Would it be feasible, or even possible, to provide some kind of year-based restriction/ regulation? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That "heavily retouched" photo wouldn't necessarily be affected as the DM is part of the story there. There will always be exceptional cases when using the DM is necessary/desirable -- editors can demonstrate need here, and as long as their edits gain approval by consensus in the usual way, there's no problem; I really don't think it will come up too often. An edit-filter would, I assume, look for any new additions to WP which contain dailymail.com and thus pick up the more recent "stories". These are a real problem, and given the immense online presence of the DM, something that regularly comes up. A default position of the DM is barred as an unreliable source with the onus on the editor to justify its use would prevent a great deal of misinformation/lies/inaccuracies from creeping in, and would benefit those editors who currently have to make the same old arguments on talkpages across the project. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Be very careful: few newspapers of combatant countries are solid in wartime. For the DM in WWI, consider the effect and circumstances of William Beach Thomas. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Be very careful also: The photo was taken in December 1940 which was actually part of World War II (1939-45) not World War I (1914-18). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition per JzG. The Daily Mail is demonstrably unreliable in comparison to other publications. Obviously there are exceptions, as Thincat demonstrates, but the presumption should be that DM isn't a reliable source. An edit filter would be a good solution. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There is an elephant in the room here. Despite comments by some editors, it appears there is currently no blacklist, greylist or edit filter that would prevent an editor using the DM or warning them about its use. I have no doubt whatsoever that if this precedent is set, editors will be suggesting other newspapers (nobody has mentioned the Daily Star yet!). How will these be decided? An RFC for each newspaper suggested? I have tried in the past to fathom how editors reach their decisions on deciding whether a newspaper is RS or not, but all I have been met with is "It depends on the case". I am not opposing the formation of grey/blacklist/edit filter, rather the opposite: I believe editors should be made aware immediately that consensus is that a source should not be used. Currently, this is opaque and has led to massive time sinks and a certain degree of animosity from some editors. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  Thanks very much for this Sam, but this spam-list appears to only restrict URLs. As far as I know, there is no blacklist of physical newspapers, so, I could cite using the {{cite news }} template "The Daily Mail" but receive no feedback on this except from vigilant editors. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Also, see this quote:

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

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

• Support. Any sources that demonstrates a willingness to make shit up just to sell papers does not meet our definition of reliable source. If there are other newspapers that do this they should not be used either. Bradv 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support A bunch of people have made "but sometimes there's no other source" comments; well, in those cases, then, there's no legitimate source at all, and the material shouldn't be believed, much less used in Wikipedia. We waste too much time on the DM, and we aren't going to lose anything worthwhile by utterly excluding it as a source. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support? "Prohibit" seems like an imprecise word in the context of wikiguidelines, especially when combined with "just short of blacklisting". In general I like the idea of making "formal" that there is consensus that one should almost never use a given source, to avoid having those discussions or pointing to a smattering of RSN threads, often with unclear outcomes. Like others, I would oppose blacklisting this, but support an edit filter and certainly support the notion that this should almost never be used in articles. That seems like it would largely support this? But I see people opposing who have the same opinion. This makes me think what probably needs to happen is a more specific question within technical parameters (e.g. once an edit filter is established, an RfC to add this [and others] to it). Fun fact: in 2014, as listed in User:Emijrp/External Links Ranking, Daily Mail was our 86th most used external link, with more than 26,000 uses just in the article space. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support its classification as a non-reliable source; it simply cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 18:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support except in the exceptional circumstance of where something appearing in the Mail is itself the topic ("after he was accused by the Daily Mail of…"). Any legitimate story will also be found in a genuine newspaper; anything only appearing in the Mail can usually safely be assumed to be made up. (FWIW, as I write this the Mail front page is currently informing the world that "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens".) ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Read the second sentence: "At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters ..." Context matters, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, I noticed that too. It is repeated in the caption. So we are faced with the Daily Mail reporting that a group (easily debunked - [23]) is making a "wild claim", but it is not the newspaper itself making the claim. Is the Daily Mail a RS for this statement? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Never use for a BLP or anything contentious. A minority of the Mail's reporting (notably its sports, which is award winning) is absolutely fine, but its news reporting is on the level of the Sunday Sport (or for our American cousins, the National Enquirer); not only does it misrepresent stories, but it makes them up completely. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as Tiptoethrutheminefield "There is no justification for the blanket banning of a mass-circulation newspaper as a source. There will be cases where it is a suitable rs source. " The Mail is editorially heavily biased, but that's not the same thing as unreliable for reporting of simple objective facts. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If you say so. Pop us up a wee list, will you? Of things it is essential to cover on Wikipedia, for which there is no other source but the Mail. --John (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You've already seen one -- brought to BLPN, closed by admin User:Number_57 with the closing sentence "There was clearly no consensus to blacklist the Daily Mail, as consensus was that the DM was an acceptable source for the material in question." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I reread that and I am not seeing the list. Perhaps you could copy and paste it here when you do. Thanks. --John (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

        • A tumbleweed (Lechenaultia divaricata)

        • I meant you'd already seen one case. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• OK I note I see a consensus above from basically everyone (no matter their ivote) that there needs to be guidance or restriction on this source (I say guidance because it's not fair to expect the rest of the English speaking world to know much about DM), given that, given the evidenced problems with DM, and given the policy standard for using sources is information that is "challenged or likely to be challenged," then explicitly putting everyone on notice, that the default is never use this source, unless you can convince (and are convinced) a rare exception should be made is the way to go - the proposal says "demonstrable need" - so, ok. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose' does not mean 'Support', there's no such consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is - many of the people opposing a blanket ban on the source do say that there are some circumstances under which the source is not reliable and should not be used. And obviously the people who think it should be banned would agree. The lack of consensus at the moment appears to be the degree of guidance and/or restriction needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It's a dreadful source, and anyone who thinks otherwise should not be editing an encyclopedia. What we are arguing here is whether it should be outright banned or whether it can occasionally be used. --John (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy Dingley above. Awful and biased as the Mail often is, there is also much that may be uncontentious. For example, take e.g. an article that I did some editing on a long time ago, on Mary Marquis, a Scottish newsreader of the '70s and '80s, who is still a much cherished and remembered figure in Scotland. The article contains multiple citations to an 1998 interview / profile piece from the Mail -- all of which, I would submit, are entirely uncontroversial; and (I submit) contribute valuably to giving a rounded-out account of her. Of course there are reasons why one should very often be cautious of the Mail, but IMO a blanket ban is not the way. I would add that, although people like to throw around the word "Tabloid", there can be a distinction between the connotations of that word on different sides of the Atlantic, and I wouldn't throw the Record or the Mirror or the Standard or Metro into the same class as eg the National Enquirer. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And you know that they didn't fabricate the entire interview (as they have done in other cases) ... how? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Guy Macon: Given that I strongly suspect that this edit (diff) may well have been by her husband, I suspect the rest of the text is reasonably sound. It seems highly unlikely that such an interview would be fabricated -- she wasn't in the news at the time, nor particularly newsworthy, so why bother? Jheald (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Why bother getting an actual interview? Surely it is easier and cheaper to simply make up some quotes rather than bothering to interview someone. It would seem reasonable to assume that The Daily Mail choose the cheaper, faster option. Once we have established that The Daily mail fabricates such material on a regular basis, the burden of proof is on the editor who decides that they aren't lying in one particular case, and "I suspect (but do not know for sure) that the quote is sound" isn't quite good enough. Was there any other source for the quotes, or were they only in The Daily Mail? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Guy Macon: It was an interview, with somebody who had already been retired for 10 years. Not a press release, not a cuttings piece, not a news story. Why would you expect anybody else to have replicated the quotes of a random human-interest piece that happened to appear in the Mail ?

  And, BTW, what's your evidence that the Mail routinely fakes interviews with random retired celebrities reflecting on their lives (ie not Amanda Knox, not crusading news stories, not shock stories from foreign websites), just people as human beings for the human interest? Jheald (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  They regularly fabricate quotes and interviews -- one would think that would rule them out as a reliable source -- but if that's not specific enough, here's an entirely fake interview with a random retired celebrity reflecting on his life. (bonus points for also being a copyright violation.) --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  Anyone can get hoaxed, even the New York Times. It seems to me that there is a difference between what is gossipy or sensationalist, which eg WP:BLPSOURCES rightly warns against, and what is more mundane or routine. Extraordinary claims rightly demand extraordinary sources (which the Mail definitely is not); but less extraordinary claims rather less so. For myself, I think User:softlavender wrote a lot of sense above, noting that the Mail can be quite a mixed bag, including (as they put it) a strong team of critics, "accurate and informative interviews of highly respected people like Lord Puttnam, informative and detailed film and television articles, detailed information on various openings, galas, and so on", and that many of these items are exclusives.... I think an intelligent editor can tell the difference. So with this publication it has to always be on a case-by-case basis." Jheald (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Andy Dingly. No need to blacklist a whole publication because of a few opinion pieces that may not be to some tastes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Opinion pieces? Where did anyone mention opinion pieces? The problem is not opinion pieces, the problem is that they routinely make stuff up. --John (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The paper has been around since 1896. Its bad reputation in the first few years of the 21st century speak nothing about the reliability of more than a hundred years of volumes. Clearly a blanket ban is unjustified (per Thincat). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Existing policy is enough. If it is worth adding to a Wikipedia article, it will have appeared in better sources than the Mail and other red top British tabloids. I am not an anti-tabloid snob like some of the people here, and the broadsheets are not perfect either. However, the Mail should be off limits for anything BLP related. This discussion is reminiscent of this tweet by Gavin Phillipson, who is also a member of IMPRESS. I can be hacked off by the Daily Mail sometimes, but not enough to want to ban it outright.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support The Mail lacks sufficient editorial oversight. I regularly see spelling and grammatical errors on their front page, let alone the dubious content of the actual stories.LM2000 (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  God, no, not spelling and grammatical errors! Someone better start a new RfC about the Grauniad... GoldenRing (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  When The Guardian starts printing patent BS on a regular basis, while also failing to check their spelling, an RfC may be appropriate.LM2000 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note The "bad examples" are all pretty much either "headline complaints" or "celebrity gossip" issues. One should actually read the "actual complaints" made to press groups rather than use them as "paint by numbers" proof that the DM is unreliable. I cited an actual research study above which showed that every single newspaper uses "press releases" instead of actual journalism on science articles, and, to that extent, not a single paper is actually "reliable." As for "grammatical and spelling errors", note that even the New York Times has them, as it has no paid proof-readers whatsoever. And I iterate that I know of zero "reliable sources" for "celebrity gossip" at all. Collect (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition. To claim that "The "bad examples" are all pretty much either "headline complaints" or "celebrity gossip" issues" is not true, I'm afraid. These are the lies, damned lies and the even more damned lies from outside the "headline complaints" or "celebrity gossip" issues". It's a trashy paper that cannot and should not be trusted on too many subjects for us to allow any use on any subject. These DM-lies are from "actual complaints", by the way. Take a spin over a Google search of ("Daily Mail" "factual inaccuracy") and ignoring all the websites that we wouldn't generally regard as reliable, and there are still too many sources to justify the use of the DM. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition. This is a good example of the sort of thing the Daily Mail is currently publishing. I rest my case. -- The Anome (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment the article above describes it as "the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters." Silly season stuff perhaps, but not in the same league as BLP violations, or "World War 2 Bomber Found On Moon" which the Sunday Sport really did expect its readers to take seriously.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition (...And I never thought I would say that!). I was leaning towards supporting with exceptions; but I am not convinced that there are any exceptions we could make that would not be available in more reliable sources. After all, if the DM was the only source for an item, we instinctively wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. If you have an actually reliable source confirming something in the Mail, why aren't you using that? If it's just the Mail, you're doing it wrong or it's probably too ridiculously trivial to include anyways. Maybe there are exceptions, but there had better be VERY strong arguments for ANY use of the Mail. Wikipedia isn't losing much, if anything at all, by a blanket jettisoning of this crappy source. --Calton | Talk 11:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment and note to closer Well said, Calton. Although the claim has been made repeatedly, in spite of asking several times I still haven't seen where any of the opposers have actually given examples of what a DM article could best be used for on Wikipedia, other than as a primary source on its own statements. If this is still the case at the time of closure, I recommend discounting those opposes. After all, we are here for facts, not opinions. --John (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Make no mistake, The Daily Mail is a bad source. But in the realm of mass media, most sources of the junk food news variety seem very bad. And these can be published by supposedly reliable news outlets. I would much rather see this more firmly clarified in policy. The Daily Mail is a bad source, and everybody knows it. But other outlets, even "reliable" news outlets, are also guilty of publishing the same kind of churnalism as the DM. (For example, I've seen the DM quoted in a broadsheet source, which editors really ought to know better than to do.) So, if we find ourselves in a position of needing to ban the DM because it's so bad, the problem is not the DM as a source, the problem is our guidelines that are apparently lax enough to allow this to be used in the first place. Also, from the discussion above it appears as thought DM is reliable for some things, and not others. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS might require clarification; the vagueness of that guideline bothers me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Each case has to be judged on its merits because all sources are prone to error. The Daily Mail seems fairly average as journalism goes and should not be singled out when there are many worse sources. The following specific points demonstrate this. Andrew D. (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. The Daily Mail is somewhat unusual for a UK paper as it was the first newspaper specifically aimed at women and is read by more women than men. For example, the word suffragette was first coined in the pages of the Daily Mail and so is naturally cited by the Oxford English Dictionary.
  2. When the singer Lynsey de Paul died, there was some confusion about her exact age. The Daily Mail was one of the few news sources which got this right.
  3. I started our article about churnalism and this can be found in most news media now. One interesting case was a project which deliberately planted fake stories to see whether they would be circulated. The Daily Mail didn't fall for this when many other news media did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs)

  • I am not sure that inventing a word over a century ago makes this a reliable source, nor do I think it germane what the target market was 120 years ago. - The Bounder (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a historical perspective and so recentism should be avoided. The Daily Mail has had some particular interests over the years which may make it a good source for certain periods. For example, it started the Ideal Home Exhibition which was influential in changing households in the UK. And it supported early aviation with prizes and coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • That is an different point to the one you raised earlier, so thank you for your clarification. (Although starting a sales exhibition is, again, no guarantee of being a reliable source). - The Bounder (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Does citing any of those require a link to the daily mail website? Because the daily mail website is what we are talking about banning here, not citations to material that was published long before computers existed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The Daily Mail was a newspaper for most of its history. Its website is a new thing with a different editorial team. And there are other publications like Metro and the Mail on Sunday. The proposal seems unclear. Andrew D. (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Is it clearer if we change it from "Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source?" to "Should we prohibit the use of DailyMail.com as a source?" --John (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It would be clearer but it's not clear if that was the original proposal. Some people here seem to be Americans who may only be familiar with the website but the orginal proposer seems to be British and so have meant the newspaper proper. It's a muddle. Such issues are best sorted out on a case-by-case basis as is our usual practise. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• And just in today [24].Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Support prohibition': Although Daily Mail isn't always incorrect, many of its stories are dubious, do not have proper journalistsic standards and are meant for sensationalization. Although not everything is false, it still cannot be regarded as trustworthy or reliabile because of what it does. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support prohibition with the exception mentioned in the proposal (and possibly with a restricted date range; I am sure it is a useful source for some things in the past). The Daily Mail of today contains too many (probably deliberate) factual errors to be used as a source. —Kusma (t·c) 11:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note that many of the examples cited here and elsewhere on Wikipedia are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here. The actual article clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS. In short, the DM is accurate on the topic. When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. I suggest any closer deprecate !votes made with clearly errant "examples" or which are clearly based on political or other opinions, and not on the use of one of the world's most-read journals. Collect (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• .... I suggest any closer deprecate !votes made with clearly errant "examples" or which are clearly based on political or other opinions Huh, you mean like the statement where you made the blatantly false statement the DM's record is akin to the record of The Guardian and other broadsheets? --Calton | Talk 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And when you quote others, kindly quote them accurately. As you elided the rest of my statement so cavalierly, I suggest you seek employment as a journalist. [25] lists the salient facts, and you manage to elide my clear statement

In fact, moreover, other than in the area of celebrity gossip (where no paper should be trusted in the first place),

and the elision of that part of the sentence might appear to neutral parties to excise a key part of my position. Did you actually read the scholarly study about blind use of press releases, by the way? Collect (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

...except that that by no means are the false stories all related to celebrity gossip. There's the slew of fiction about the hordes of Eastern European immigrants invading Britain (including a story with twenty-six falsehoods in it which was even discribed as nonsense by the Conservative government), the one where they said Israel was opening dams to flood the Gaza Strip and get rid of Palestinians (the Mail showing it hasn't dropped its WWII anti-semitism), the one that said women working full-time caused autism in their children, the one about semen being an anti-depressant, the one about the giant hedgehog ... etc. You do realise that the Mail does this purely for clickbait for its website, don't you? Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid Black Kite is right, Collect. As I said at AN, your mistake seems to be to buy in to the Mail's world-view in which any newsworthy person is treated as a "celebrity" about whom lies can be told, with the expectation that most will not sue. Wikipedia cannot afford to follow this line for ethical and possibly legal reasons. --John (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite gave no URLs but I think I see some of the articles. The "Gaza flood" story was corrected, now it's Gaza Floods: Dispelling the myth about Israeli 'dams'. The "autism" story is merely a report of what a theorist said. The "giant hedgehog" story is clearly about a sculpture. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support prohibition with edit filter, with exceptions for when it is actually indispensable. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 13:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Hope is today's featured article. I read through this just now as it is an interesting and topical article. At the end, notice that it cites the Daily Mail. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "according to an unverified report in the Daily Mail". In any case the DM is a primary source there and the statement is also supported by a secondary source, so it doesn't really matter if the DM citation is removed. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 14:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support It's not a good source, and it won't be useful in the vast majority of cases, so it shouldn't be used. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This publication has a poor reputation as many others have already shown. In the rare event that they are the only source that covers something of encyclopedia value, unrelated to living people, exceptions can be made. As a side note, I think we should have a subpage that lists sources that should be avoided such as The Daily Mail, Breitbart, and WND.- MrX 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support, anything that actually cites it will probably be removed anyway, so banning the source itself is a easy solution. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support rational prohibition According to the Daily Mail, this is an oppose vote. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support as it is not a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail RfC Survey, continued

• Oppose total blacklisting References are used to verify facts, and perhaps the Mail is not reliable for this. However, they are also used to demonstrate notability. I would use a Mail reference as a second source for a fact that was also verified by another source. For example: I work on a lot of articles about musical groups. Often quite a bit of information can be verified by articles in local press or online music magazines, but coverage in a national paper carries more weight when deciding if a band meets notability requirements.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Anne Delong. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources should be verifiable, so if as you say, the facts in the daily mail are not verifiable, then they are not a reliable source. Only reliable sources can be used to establish notability, per WP:GNG. Therefore the daily mail is not a reliable source nor can it be used to establish notability, so this oppose seems to be misguided. I would also note that in practice I would never consider the daily mail to be a source that establishes GNG over at AfC, or when patrolling new pages.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't consider, but I consider it as a reliable source. We are opposing "total" blacklisting. Daily Mail is very reliable source for entertainment and sports. Daily Mail haters can keep Daily Mail out of Science, Religion, Race, Astronomy, Economics, British politics and American politics related articles. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily mail has printed a large number of factual inaccuracies, in some cases blatant lies in 'entertainment' articles, so I don't think they should ever be considered a reliable source there (a quick scan of this RfC will reveal several of the best examples). As for sports, while their reporting in this area seems relatively verifiable, very rarely does the Daily Mail ever report anything that is not also covered in other, more reliable, sports sources. Therefore they are not essential for this category, and it should not be the reason they are not blacklisted.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

And Wikipedia also has many notable hoax articles. Do we need factual and scientific accuracy for tooth fairy, dragons, wizards, bigfoot articles? If Daily Mail is used in these articles about mythical and urban legends, what is so wrong about it? Marvellous Spider-Man 05:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking here, factual and scientific accuracy is always essential for all articles, as is not applying undue WP:WEIGHT to extraordinary claims. I do not see how the Daily Mail's coverage can help anything with regards to fringe, pseudoscience, myth or hoax articles. On the contrary, as an editor in many fringe areas of the wiki I, and many others, delete Daily Mail citations on sight.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support prohibition -- because this will improve the encyclopedia. Any losses are outweighed by gains. It's more of a problem to include a crappy claim (sourced to the Mail) than it is to leave something out. Moreover, the likelihood of leaving something out simply because of a probation on the Mail seems quite low -- if it's worth including, then we'll likely find other sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I share the opinion that the Daily Mail is not remotely trustworthy in many respects - certainly not in a lot of its news and politics coverage. But I think a blanket prohibition on citing it is overkill. For one thing, its financial coverage is often very good, and I'm also told it does sports just fine too (I never read about sports so I wouldn't know myself). Then there's the thing about notability - even if a DM story might not be good enough to support a factual claim on its own, it can be useful for adding to the sources that demonstrate notability. I think we do fine as we are, judging each use of a DM source in its own context, and I see no need to change that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've said it before, I'll say it again, how can the Daily Mail establish notability if it isn't considered a reliable source? The two are mutually exclusive. Moreover, if it is not trustworthy, then surely far less damage is done by banning it than by allowing it, especially as the areas you pointed out. Even where the DM are mostly reliable, we have plenty of good reliable coverage elsewhere and these areas are not even the primary areas of interest for the Daily Mail (they cannot be considered to be experts on financial matters, nor is this their primary focus).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Re" "Even where the DM are mostly reliable, we have plenty of good reliable coverage elsewhere", I would add that those very few times when we have no reliable coverage elsewhere are almost always the times when The Daily Mail decided to simply make things up. If there is a better source, use that source. If there isn't a better source, then the rational assumption is that it didn't happen the way The Daily Mail said it happened. Remember, The Daily Mail doesn't just fabricate things to make a point. Sometimes they fabricate things because they are too lazy to get the facts and because to a Daily Mail reporter there are never any negative consequences to telling lies. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere:I've said it before, I'll say it again, how can the Daily Mail establish notability if it isn't considered a reliable source? To be perfectly fair, I could point to a number of conspiracy theories that have never received much coverage in reliable sources, but their widespread attribution in popular-yet-unreliable sources demonstrates their notability. As a general rule, I would say an unreliable source can still be used to establish notability, though with far (FAR) less weight than a reliable source. And only when said unreliable source is fairly popular, like the Daily Mail. I'm not going to argue this point, though. I wouldn't hold it to be unreasonable for an editor to insist that only reliable sources can evince notability, it's just not my interpretation, and it's one to which there are exceptions on WP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants Far be it from me to insist that editorial judgement isn't necessary, I've seen plenty of AfD discussion similar to what you've been talking about, where a cobbled together group of -ish sources are used to demonstrate notability. I've even agreed in some cases. There is always room for a little WP:IAR. However I must point out that my comments above are in line with WP:GNG. According to WP policy, only reliable, independent, sources demonstrate notability. There are good reasons why these restrictions exist, and in the case of the Daily Mail, they apply rather aptly in my opinion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

InsertcleverphrasehereYou may be exactly right about the policy pages. I've never spent much time reading those particular ones (on notability), because discussions of notability are so hairy anyways, and can go either way, with both sides accusing the other of clear policy violations. Generally, I've only ever read them to verify that what an editor put in quote marks as coming from that page actually did (it shocks me how often it doesn't...) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. The Daily Mail is reliable for general news. They are under much tougher libel laws in the UK than US papers, so they do check their facts. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It is exactly their reputation for not fact checking that is the problem. I don't know much about libel laws in Britain, but the consequences can't be that strict given the stuff that the DM has printed, and gotten away with (here are 10, with a surprisingly varied list of subject matter --note that i found this in 5 seconds, there are FAR, FAR more. ). I find this Oppose to be rather odd, as if he/she has not read the above section, as it is clear that the DM has the opposite reputation from the one implied in this comment.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly the more I look the more their behavior disgusts me. in this story they got sued, but they just keep continuing to print false made up shit. The libel laws might mean they get sued, but they make money from the carnage anyway so what do they care for the truth? Blacklist it already, at a certain point we need to have some professional integrity.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Tepid support. I do fully support the idea the the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for anything because it does not have a reputation for fact checking. If there is something that would maybe considered from the Daily Mail for sourcing, mention of that content should be found in a different source. Otherwise, it isn't of sufficient weight. Regardless of blacklist or not, this RfC should be closed with this idea either way. I'm hesitant to blacklist a source in general, especially since anyone should be able to link to this RfC's close to demonstrate it's not a reliable, end of story, but I haven't seen an example above that would indicate blacklisting would harm anything either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Question: Wire-service stories. As well as its own internally rewritten stories, Mail Online also carries a lot of wire stories verbatim, often from AP, and often at greater, more complete length than other sites -- see eg its "wires" main page, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/index.html . Such stories can be distinguished by the "Wires" strap at the top, the lack of a comments section at the bottom, and perspectives that can often seem somewhat at variance to the Mail's usual obsessions / imposed editorial lines. Is there any objection to continuing to use wire-service reports, identified as such, that happen to be being distributed via the Mail site -- since the reporting for such stories will be AP's, rather than the Mail's own? Jheald (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wire stories are, by their very nature, generally available in other publications. It's back to the point of 'if it's a reliable and newsworthy piece of information, someone else will also have published it'. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Remember the Murder of Meredith Kercher? Remember the dramatic end to the court case? Let us recall with the aid of a Daily Mail article.

  As Knox realized the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears.

  A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family.

  Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done' although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'.

  Sources: PoliticalScrapbook, Guardian, Journalism.co.uk

  What a colourful bit of reporting. Makes you feel like you are right there in the courtroom, watching Knox be carted off to jail. It makes you feel the stoic suffering of the Kercher family too. Exactly the sort of human interest one would wish to inject into a courtroom story.

  Just one minor problem. It didn't happen. Knox wasn't found guilty. All that colour reporting was made up. The quotes were made up. This wasn't just a prepared background story they published by accident. This was an article purporting to present direct on-the-ground reporting and quotes from involved parties. With this record, why should anyone trust a word they say on anything? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. This is ridiculous that you even consider to ban such a large newspaper. It reminds me of a witch hunt or collective responsibility (good articles banned by default, because someone else did something wrong earlier). Someone reverted DM as a source, even though DM was the only source, which actually bothered to interview the authors of the paper, therefore it was a better source than all other sources. There was nothing wrong with that DM article the only reason for removal was actually this discussion here. That can't be right. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That removal was me, you've steadfastly ignored me in the past when I informed you that the DM is not appropriate for fringe articles. The problem is that the DM has outright fabricated interviews before, and it is impossible to verify if they have done so again. The issue is one of verifiablity; facts found only in the Daily Mail are not verifiable, therefore they can't be used as a sole source for content, especially contentious content like the instance you are talking about.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not "impossible to verify if they have done so again". It is easily verifiable in this case, just ask the authors of the paper, if DM interviewed them and if they confirm that the quotes in DM are true. Their e-mail addresses are in the paper. Also, please note that other massmedia often quote DM, so if they do it why shouldn't we? They should know better after all. Journalism is their profession. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That would effectively be original research. The reason why we rely on published *reliable* sources is precisely to avoid doing that sort of leg-work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you cant trust a source to print truthfully, and have to contact the authors to verify that the haven't lied *this time*, then the source is of no use at all. Also, the act of verifying with the authors directly can't be used on wikipedia as it would constitute original research (and now we have to take your word for it--and so-on ad nauseum). Reliable sources must have a reputation for reliability (within reason, everybody makes small errors from time to time), if they don't, they are no use at all to an encyclopedia. The DM has shown a reckless disregard for truth.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As for other media outlets quoting the DM, many have been caught out by doing this, republishing false stories. As a result, the republishing of DM stories is now rare, except in cases where the other sources are either just as unscrupulous as the DM, or else where the other authors have done the legwork necessary to verify that the quotes are true themselves.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support, but allow on a case-by-case basis. The default should be to exclude it instead of include it. Some people have argued that it is reliable for sports or entertainment reporting, and they can make their case on the article talk pages. For everything else, it appears to be wildly unreliable. Editors, including people on this page, shouldn't have to re-litigate the issue endlessly. Felsic2 (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Guilty until proven innocent. We should begin with a straightforward recognition of policy as codified in WP:V; i.e., the Mail does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Nevertheless it is possible for things to be true even if the Mail prints them. Thus while we should presume that the Mail is an inappropriate source, there may be specific circumstances where it would be appropriate to cite the Mail. The burden of proof will lie on editors wishing to use material cited to the Mail. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Time and time again the DM shows that it absolutely does not have a reputation for accuracy. If there is a demonstrable need to cite it, that can be argued on a case by case basis, but for the most part I think it's time we put our foot down and admitted that the DM simply isn't reliable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support The DM has been caught misrepresenting and outright fabricating stories far too many times to be considered reliable for anything. Capeo (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Impact assessment ?

It's increasingly common for real-world legislatures to be required to consider impact assessments when considering new regulations or legislation. In that spirit, do we have an idea of an impact assessment for the proposal under discussion? How many citations do we have in all to the Mail at the moment, and quantitatively what sort of things are those references for? Jheald (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There are just under 12,000 links to the Daily Mail. Not all of them are links to footnotes but then not all footnotes for the DM are linked to the article. So my guess it is in the thousands, and mostly source non-controversial facts. I have no idea how much of this can be replaced. The DM provides detailed coverage of crime, celebrities and sports which may not be in other sources. Also, we need to establish what sources are acceptable. It would be wasteful to change all the references to the Daily Express, which is almost identical to the DM and find it is banned as well. TFD (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The DM should not be used for coverage of crime or celebrities, period, they have been known to outright fabricate facts/quotes/even whole interviews. As for sports, any coverage they have made will invariably also be covered in other sources, unless it is gossip claptrap which has no business being on wikipedia. There will be some adjustment, but almost all of it will be for the better.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you name any source at all which is reliable for "celebrity gossip" in the current universe? Note also that most of the complaints are about the content of headlines, and not about the content of articles otherwise. As I have iterated, on science and medical stories, every single newspaper studied relies on press releases, and errors are invariably found in those press releases. No major newspapers even have proofreaders any more. Ruling out the DM for using those same press releases is thus inane. Headlines are not part of an actual article, and the fact is that Guardian headlines are just as apt as DM headlines to be inaccurate. And note finally that blacklisting one source will absolutely result in blacklisting many sources, and one ought to anticipate the furor over dealing with politicized sources on the I-P conflicts, etc. Better to not open that can of worms, in my considered opinion. Collect (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"Note also that most of the complaints are about the content of headlines, and not about the content of articles otherwise." I'm afraid that is just not true. Many (most?) of the examples given in this thread are about the content, not their titles. You've made this claim more than once, and it's been dismissed more than once. – The Bounder (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Is a medical source unreliable if the authors are from China?

A source was recently added at the article spinal manipulation, it has been reverted for being an unreliable source. I am looking for the opinions of other editors.

• The source that was added is: Does cervical spine manipulation reduce pain in people with degenerative cervical radiculopathy? A systematic review of the evidence, and a meta-analysis
• The text added with the source was: "A 2016 meta-anyalysis concluded there was moderate level evidence to support the immediate effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation in treating people with cervical radiculopathy."
• The reasons for claiming the source is unreliable seem to stem around the idea that medical sources from Chinese authors are inherently unreliable; discussion can be found at the spinal manipulation talk page here.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:A5FC:56E7:D1A6:3966 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes we should exclude it. 80% of Chinese studies in one review were found to have falsified data [26]. It's not restricted to SCAM: Chinese studies are essentially never negative [27]. It's an open secret [28]. Given the evidence that cervical spinal manipulation is potentially fatal [29], there are all kinds of reasons why we would exclude a weak positive result from a community which is ideologically predisposed to producing positive results regardless of the intervention under test. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The source you provided to support the claim that "80% of Chinese studies have falsified data" is looking at pharmaceutical trials, which might be a problem outside China as well; the source says nothing about rehabilitative sciences and says nothing about mainstream medical journals publishing review articles written by Chinese authors. Your comment looks like some original research, mixed with some personal bias....what I do not see are any policy based arguments for excluding sources from Chinese authors that are published in mainstream medical journals.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:A5FC:56E7:D1A6:3966 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And the other sources make it absolutely clear that the problem also applies to SCAM. It is well known and has been for decades [30]. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Guy on this one. I've been a science geek for years, and the only part of this which is news to me is that it's so extensively covered in the literature. I thought it was still an open secret until basically this same exact question came up a few months ago on this same noticeboard. To be fair, this version is refreshingly free of accusations of racism. So far. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention Clinical Rehabilitation is a low impact journal that even states in its own description that it is "sometimes provocative". Looking through a lot of their articles I can see what they mean. Capeo (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• On second thought, I'm just gonna go ahead and call Guy a racist now, just so we can get it out of the way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Flying out to Stockholm a few weeks back I had an absolutely fascinating conversation with a Chinese medical administrator. She was a cancer surgeon but had taken on a management role, while keeping up some of her practice. Her views on the differences between the urban elite, who prefer "Western" medicine, and the rural poor, who get no real choice, were very illuminating. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting how that relationship get inverted in the US so often, where the urban elites are the ones most likely to seek "alternative" treatments and the poor are relegated to clinics and emergency rooms. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• In short: Yes - medical papers/analysis from China are highly suspect and unreliable. Slightly longer: On rare occasions they may be useable when used in conjunction with other more reliable sources. However if you have non-Chinese sources that can be used, you wouldnt need a Chinese one. I can gurantee your chances of gaining consensus to use a Chinese-sourced study to reference the benefits of a practice (that has been found by the medical profession to be dangerous) approach zero. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not with ethnic origin, but with an academic/political "scientific" culture which does not test hypotheses. That problem occurs to some extent anywhere - would you trust a tobacco company on the dangers of smoking? - but seems to be pretty much universal in some nations, being even worse when matters of national pride are involved. The test for reliability therefore include the academic affiliations and bases of the authors and the journal, and the relevance of the subject matter to points of national pride. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I can affirm that the culture is not conducive to exacting scientific studies, for more than just political reasons. The concept of "chabuduo" (half-assing the bare-minimum and saying "good enough") applies to many parts of life here. I've had students show up to only half of the classes and wonder why they got a 50. Combine that with an education system that crushes original thinking and I get to watch several future engineers take turns doing the same thing to unsuccessfully unlock the door after class. Add in a contradictory combination of extreme pressures to succeed but also to avoid being the least bit different, and students will regularly plagiarize all examples used in class except for the definition of plagiarism. Then there's a refusal to trust outside information. Students keep using Youdao for translation even after being presented with undeniable proof from every foreign teacher they have that it is the worst possible translation software around (it confuses "vaccines" with "HIV/AIDS" and "do" with "fuck"). Students keep asking me why I'm scared of Donald Trump even after I explain things that CCTV wouldn't know to discuss. There's also a completely different ethical background for what constitutes lying: when buying electronics, I'm regularly told that a piecemeal refurb with half the capacity of what I'm looking for must be what I'm looking for because the case is the same and appearance matters more than function -- and I'm disruptive for disagreeing because social order matters more than empiricism. While I'm not teaching medical majors, I have no trouble imagining some students (not all, but enough) doing an experiment and giving whatever results are "successful" (possibly copying the data from a hopefully similar experiment or maybe plugging in whatever numbers get the results they want but maybe just copying numbers from the example in their textbook), regardless of the reality of the experiment. Add in that many of my students believe the earth is flat (that indirectly came up through two questions on my final exam), choice in medicine is treated as a matter of fashion instead of life or death, and that about two-thirds of the country doesn't get the equivalent of a high school education, and there's no reason at all to trust any scientific studies published out of China (regardless of who the author is, because a little editing could get me listed as an author just so they can get a foreigner's name on there).</rant>
TL;DR: Studies by Chinese people in almost any other country? Sure, go for it. Studies done in the PRC? Hell fucking no. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

As the Skeptical Inquirer or Martin Gardner (I forget which) reported once, this is the same country whose exacting scientific standards allowed people to take home sealed, I think cardboard (?), black boxes for the purposes of determining those individual's psychic ability, and apparently didn't think that when the individuals returned later with the boxes damaged or the sealing broken that such might call the results or methodology into question. Ian is being more than generous in his last statement above. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, if nothing else, it is possibly worth noting that multiple reliable sources relating to Qigong fever have attested to the fact that at least during the peak of that era the government of the PRC was actively promoting several forms of traditional Chinese medicine both as, in a sense, an "opiate of the masses" for those who could not afford the more expensive and less readily available, generally considered more reliable, Western forms of medicine, and as a way to promote the Chinese cultural heritage, and thus also promote a "collective mindset" among the Chinese people. So far as I know, the government of the PRC is still, at least to an extent, actively promoting such thinking, and, on that basis, any sources which might be seen as in any way promoting these Chinese traditional practices which lack much outside support but seem to be have in some way linkage to Chinese governmental policies and practices should be considered suspect. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Beall

Beall's list is down. All content appears to have been removed from scholarlyoa.com - is this the result of legal thuggery? Guy (Help!) 21:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

He's not saying.[31] It may have been in response to a suit; agreements to settle typically include a gag order in which the victim is not allowed to comment. Or he may have gotten tired of all the hassle. We just don't know. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

do we have an archived list?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.nature.com/news/controversial-website-that-lists-predatory-publishers-shuts-down-1.21328 Comment in Nature]. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India

Hello all,

It seems the editor User:Sitush feels that the source s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India is biased, or as he says "unreliable". I have found a similar discussion with this editor from a few months ago, where the previous opposition made a few good points (albeit in a crude manner), and cannot find any valid rebuttals by Sitush in that thread before it was derailed. I note that at least one editor asked why the source was unreliable and did not get a reasonable response.

I also note that many of the sources discussed, including the one provided by Sitush himself in the discussion above, all are in general agreement with the text that is being cited in the article Phulkian sardars (Bhati Rao of Jaisalmar was a Rajput [forget the golden fort part for now], and this was the branch responsible for the Sidhu Jats). Since it does seem that Sitush is of a religious denomination that may have some conflict with the legitimate content that is supported by British sources, in no small part due to the history and evolution of British rule in India, I am asking if others can objectively contest whether the Imperial Gazetteer of India is unreliable.

It seems this is a good source used for many articles involving India, and provides us with some confidence that there is corroboration of claims from a non-ethnic source. Is this wrong? I note this source is also on wikisource. Surely the editor has erred? Also, it seems William Wilson Hunter (the visionary behind this compendium) isn't somebody whose life work we dismiss with blanket arguments like "Raj sources not reliable"? I have not seen anything from the opposition that provides strong counter claims to what is provided in the multitude of sources supporting the content he disputes.

Some articles I've found that this source is used in:

• Richard Burn (indologist)
• North≤western Provinces
• Great Famine of 1876-78
• Agra Province
• Imperial Service Troops
• Presidencies and provinces of British India
• Saiyid Khurd

(etc)

It really does seem this is a good quality source that the opposition does not like due to the content, and not the source.

edit: Hello everyone. It seems User:Sitush and User:Bishonen are ignoring Wikipedia ettiquette, where item (3) on What is Wikisource? article clearly states wikisource provides wp:RS, thus refuting alleged bias claimed by these editors. Can we please get some action on this matter? It seems Bishonen was involved previously as well, and as an administrator he is ignoring the established criteria of Wikisource. I also find it very curious that Bishonen called following protocol 'disruptive editing'. I will be posting htis on the administrator's noticeboard as wel. Thank you.

• Wikipedia:Wikisource identifies three categories of sources it holds. It says that, of the many things Wikisource contains, some are reliable sources. And if you head to the original full page of which that is just a summary, here, and from there to here, you'll see that Wikisource contains a lot of sources in various categories. So a source contained in Wikisource might be a (1), might be a (2) might be a (3), or might be something else which is not included in that brief summary. It does not say that everything held by Wikisource is a (3) and that everything held in Wikisource is a reliable source. Also, "reliable source" is not a yes/no option, and what are reliable sources for some things are not reliable for others - they need to be individually assessed in the context in which they are to be used. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, well, nothing stated in that source is disputed by the others in the previous RSN discussion. The source originally used by User:Sitush (given here) to argue that the original content was invalid (on the basis of "Raj source"), was self-contradicting because the "non-Raj" source said the same things as the sources used previously (which are now also supported by the s:Imperial Gazetteer of India, which was not used in the prior discussion).

I also find it curious that User:Bishonen attacked my english here, when he deemed the previous editor's concerns over Sitush's ethnicity as a personal attack even though it seemed more about conflicts of interest.

Such a conflict is apparent here, where User:Sitush and User:Bishonen claim the sources are not reliable, yet have been supported by a multitude of references.

User:SageRad suggested that criticising others' English comprehension was a personal attack, and the previous editor was banned as a result. As an administrator who was intimately involved in the previous situation, User:Bishonen should know better than to use the same tactics as the previous editor, especially when others deemed it as a personal attack (I do not, but a violation is a violation).

Is this not a double standard, where the perpetrators are now behaving in the same manner as their previous opposition? Sitush wastes no time attacking other authors, and I have yet to see any body of work that he has produced that validates his stance. He seemingly disregards any source that is British, even though for this specific tribe (Phulkian), the most reliable of sources would be British (given their alliance as early as 1803&endash;predating the cis-Sutlej states by two years)

I think what you need to decide is whether you want to use this noticeboard to try to get a consensus on the reliability of this source for the context in which you want to use it, or whether you want to use it to attack two other editors. The former is what this board is for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for engaging.

I disagree that I am attacking anyone. I think if anyone is being attacked, it was User:Bishonen attacking my english comprehension (as the other editor did towards Sitush, resulting in him being banned) instead of demonstrating the insufficiency of the source.

• Now I will get back on point regarding reliability of the sources.

It is simple, really. One day, User:Sitush decided to delete legitimate content using "Raj sources unreliable" (a recurring theme if you inspect his edit history). Someone obviously took offense to that, as it is an attack on the reliability of the documentation of their family history.

As stated above, User:Sitush was originally challenged on this point (re: what made the cited content unreliable) by User:SageRad, and he did not muster an acceptable response, which presumably frustrated the (now banned) editor into asking about his english comprehension.

I think it is being charitable to say that Sitush's response to User:SageRad was arrogant, as it attacked prominent authors (among them James Mill, who fathered one of the greatest liberal philosophers of our time John Stuart Mill), but never answered the original question about what made the content of the source insufficient.

• Was the (now banned) editor's response arrogant, as well? Sure, but it seems they correctly point out that the source Sitush provided to demonstrate the (removed) source's purported unreliability actually contradicted his point, as it contained support for the content that he removed

I find it hard to believe that the British would sacrifice the high quality of s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India (evidenced by its archival as a wikisource) by exercising bias (and thus being "unreliable") on this specific matter, especially after reading the source User:Sitush provides as evidence for the unreliability.

Secondly, I want to say, as the previous (now banned) editor also did, that this entire fiasco does feel like an embodiment of the history cited in s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India is on display here. Simply put, there were a select group of people who were fortunate enough to be allied with the British:

But the British Government, established at Delhi since 1803,

intervened with an offer of protection to all the CIS-SUTLEJ STATES;
and Dhanna Singh gladly availed himself of the promised aid, being

one of the first chieftains to accept British protection and control.

To suggest that the Phulkian sardars' alliance with the British did not result in the majority of their history also being told by the British isn't reasonable. This alliance resulted in the Phulkians fighting Muslims, Hindus, and even Sikhs! (see below)

This clan did not like Maharaja Ranjit Singh (an alleged Sikh), and were suspicious of his plans after his friendliness with Muslims (whose history of griefing Gurus was still fresh at that time).

Thus, it is not a personal attack to show concern for removed content that is rigorously and multiply-sourced when the opposing editors are (likely) of faiths who are still sensitive about the events that occurred during the times documented by the s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India.

Lastly, and at the risk of belabouring the main point: the content unjustifiably removed by Sitush has multiple sources (the most recent of which is a wikisource).

After analysing the source provided by Sitush provided in the previous RSN, it is difficult to fathom that multiple "Raj sources" are all incorrect on this matter when they are consistent with what he originally provided.

In light of this, how can a reasonable person not infer the editing behaviour surrounding this content as a "Sitush knows [the] best [legitimate sources]" attitude? I feel I have taken a measured response that addresses the faulty criticism levelled by Sitush against s:The Imperial Gazzetteer of India.

This is not an attack on Sitush or Bishonen. Rather, it is an assessment of former & latter's behaviour on the earlier and current RSN respectively.

This response is simple Baconian induction of what they've provided.

I believe what was added originally was impartial and stuck to reliable sources, which are only disputed by those of religious denominations that were at conflict with the British (and consequently, the Phulkians) at the time.

I felt that what was added yesterday only emphasised the correctness of the content originally removed by Sitush and Bishonen approximately three months ago. Thank you for your time— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.118.151 (talk) 16:36, January 22, 2017

References

• In general 'historical' sources are unreliable in some areas due to the changing culture, further research, distance and time from events giving a more accurate and broader view, classified documents may have been released etc etc. For historical India, most contemporary sources have been superseded by newer ones. A historical source may be accurate for the opinion at the time, but not necessarily for facts (in fact more than likely to be not, given the historic bias in most publications). This is why RSN requires three things: Article, reference, content supported by reference. Please provide these three with a short explanation of why you think the source is reliable for the content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The OP has been blocked for three months. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• They've been using a number of IPs, only one of which is blocked as a proxy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Only in death. I believe all three have been provided above, and while I respect your decision to not read it all (for whatever reason), I can only do so much I'm essentially repeating the above..

• Article: Phulkian sardars
• Reference: s:The Imperial Gazzetteer of India
• Content supported by references, using the article modified by Sitush on December 2015 (commentary: if it was so "unreliable", why did Sitush not remove it all in December 2015, instead of inexplicably deleting it entirely in September 2016 when someone added a source?) :

1. Rawal Jaisal's descendents were of Sikh origin, and were Sidhu Brars: Here are four separate sources (note, again, s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India is a wikisource).

I feel it is completely reasonable to hold User:Sitush and User:Bishonen accountable for their deliberate misinformation. I have shown four separate sources supporting the claims that Sitush left alone after his massive December 2015 edit, which he inexplicably deleted entirely in September 2015 after a single source was provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.109.239.64 (talk • contribs)

Accusing User:Sitush and User:Bishonen of deliberate misinformation is another personal attack, and I have already warned you about that. So you are now blocked, and you will be blocked for longer should you repeat it when your short block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• I would be highly unlikely to trust those sources for statements of fact about geneology, descent, or any other ethnic/race/caste/dynastic related facts - given the time period and biases (cultural as well as literal). Personally I would also exclude the information if they were the only sources available and look for better more modern ones to replace it with. If none are found, I would think a bit harder about if this material is worth including at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of Information requests

Would the response to a freedom of information request be considered a reliable source? For example, a WP editor has made a FoI request to a local governmental authority to ask about a certain piece of information or data; the response to that FoI request is published on [www.whatdotheyknow.com this website]. Is the information contained therein allowed to be used as the solitary source for content on WP? --TBM10 (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say yes as they are official public documents released by UK government departments, councils or police forces. Responses to FOIs are given in the knowledge that they will be published publicly if they are submitted via that website. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Such document usually will be primary sources. As such they should be used only for straightforward facts, e.g., "as of 2016 the population of Upper Rathole was 6." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, from my (limited) experience with them, they are generally raw data. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but with a proviso. Freedom of information act requests are sometimes sent in order to make a point. A journalist or campaign group will often send an FOI just to cause a stink. Similarly, the people who answer FOI requests often do so in a way that is extremely literalistic. If someone asked a question in a way that could be interpreted in two ways, and one of those ways gives the actual answer they are looking for, and the other way allows the public body to provide the illusion of an answer but without having to put too much effort in, FOI requests are often answered in the latter way. Not always, but quite often. In general, if an FOI request contains a straightforward and unambiguous statement of fact (e.g. the number of times that a particular hospital has had to close a ward due to a superbug), we should include it. But we should be careful not to use articles as WP:COATRACKs for random FOI "clutter". If someone sends an FOI to their local police force asking how many chicken tikkas they've consumed, that is of no relevance and should be excluded as trivia. FOIs are potentially useful but should be used with care, in my humble opinion. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Question: Are the comments relative to India supposed to be under the previous headline?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Side Effect Source?

In the article Hydrocodone/paracetamol, it has Euphoria listed as a side effect, with source 2 confirming that. However I have read over the documents and did not find sufficient evidence to uphold this. I am looking for feedback on my analysis, and willing to work with someone who is more experienced in helping newbies like me. Thanks!

--ExpertListener95 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

I think you're right and this can come out. Euphoria is quite close to light-headedness and it doesn't seem impossible that it could happen with an opioid, but it would need a good source. This source doesn't have it, nor do others that I have briefly looked at. Have you seen WP:MEDRS? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Scrum (software development)

I came to this page as I knew nothing about the product and wanted to learn more. As I laid out on the article's Talk page, I could not tell the difference between the Wikipedia article and the sales pitch I had received in an email. The whole article seemed liked a combination of a manual on how to use the product as well as a pitch on why to use it. A seeming majority of the sources appear to be from Scrum or Scrum-affiliated websites and have Scrum in their URLs. Throughout the article regular common nouns are Capitalized The Way A Marketer Would Capitalize Common Nouns to make references to the product seem more important and proprietary. The maintenance tags were repeatedly taken down without any conversation about their merit and just out-of-hand dismissed despite some good-faith efforts on the talk page, but refusal to go into specifics. It's possible all the involved editors are adherents/users/subscribers of the article's subject and therefore do not have the partiality to discuss it in a neutral manner, but I really think the article needs better sources as well as disinterested eyes. JesseRafe (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

JesseRafe: Scrum is a product? Heh. There certainly are plenty of snake oil salesmen associated with the software development methodology business. Looking at it now, it's okay. Probably a bit too long, though there's plenty of good sourcing. The use of capitalised nouns isn't quite as big a sin as you make it out to be. If a term is used in a way that is different from common usage, it is common enough to capitalise it to draw that distinction out. Consider how in British English we talk about "small-c" and "big-C" conservatism (and indeed "small-l" and "big-L" liberalism) to distinguish between adherence to the political ideology and membership of the specific political party. That isn't just a practice of marketers or salesmen; alas, jargon is common in all walks of life.

I'd suggest that the best way to solve the problems with the article are to try to engage in good faith with other contributors and point out specific issues with the article. Suggesting that they are failing to be NPOV, or that the article is automatically not neutral because it uses terms of art in a way that marries up with some junk mail you received is not that productive.

Looking at the article now, some of the sections seem pretty well-sourced. The History section is a trifle pedantic but otherwise reasonably sourced. Most of the article seems pretty neutral and as far as I can tell, reasonably accurate. It definitely could do with more sourcing. I'm no fan of cultish agile practitioners but even as someone who is extremely skeptical of some agile practices including Scrum, the article doesn't seem egregiously bad. There's some bad writing, some stuff that needs sourcing, some tidying up, but nothing that gives me cause to suspect it was written by people dastardly trying to push an agenda, or a "product". I've added a couple of sources and I might add some more. I'd prefer it to not be fully protected so non-admin editors can collaborate on it. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, JesseRafe did not lay it out on the article's page and that's the problem. Of course authors who understand the subject will be consulted when attempting to discuss it. We don't expect general media to discuss a highly technical topic such as scrum. Sports historians and experts are quoted at length on association football articles, gridiron football articles, basketball articles, baseball articles and any other sports article. Mathematicians are quoted on technical articles related that subject. Scientists (physicists, chemists, biologists, zoologists and geographers) are consulted on those articles. Why should we expect that a topic discussing Scrum development should be any different? I agree that capitalization is an issue, as with other software development articles, as those terms generally follow a different style of capitalization than Wikipedia uses in MOS:CAPS. The real problem is not that we're adherents to the methodology, it's that we have asked, per WP:BRD, that you make the case for inclusion of the templates and you have failed to do so. I have even offered that you tag specific statements rather than the whole article and you have elected not to.

Please don't forum shop. Discuss this at the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Scrum is not a product, it's a religion. Have you accepted Jesus as your scrum master? You won't get into heaven without a user story. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If I could extract one tooth from every person who claims to have used Scrum without even a rudimentary understanding of agile principles and why they sometimes work, I could keep the tooth fairies of the galaxy supplied for a significant time. Apparently, the important thing in their "Scrum" is to have both daily meetings and weekly meetings, in which the developers are told by the product owner what to do while the scrum master micro-manages everybody. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• There's a backlog anyway. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Correspondent's Club video on Youtube

Would this piece be considered a sufficiently reliable source or external link for the article on Soka Gakkai? John Carter (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you say anything more about the provenance of the video, who the participants and hosts are? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

deagel.com

• deagel.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

This site seems to get used for two things. First, for news; it acts as an aggregate for articles published elsewhere, and since Deagel provides links to those it seems superfluous to use Deagel in this manner.

The second is for technical details for particular weapon systems; the site is like a mini-encyclopedia. However, like a lot of sites that do that, it doesn't show where it gets its information from.

I also have not been able to find much about the qualifications of the person(s) who run the site. http://www.whois.com/whois/deagel.com seems to suggest it's a one person operation (it's registered under "GAS DEAGEL".) My wariness is further increased by the country forecast for 2025; the view it takes seems very fringe.

Would this site be considered reliable/useful for Wikipedia purposes? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 09:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

From a quick look, it seems unlikely it would be a useful reference. However not all sources are unreliable for all things. As it says at the top, to correctly assess reliability we need the source AND the material it is being used to support (including the article). Is it in current use on wikipedia or do you intend to use it for something? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw Deagel's JL-3 page used as a source for Wikipedia's JL-3 article. There's so little concerning the topic from professional sources that is makes me wonder where Deagel is getting its information from. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 10:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

http://www.mdc.idv.tw/

On the Type_039A_submarine, the webpage http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/039ab.htm is used as a source. From what I can tell from a Google Translate, the page draws information from amateur sources, while other parts are apparently drawn from news and reports (names and dates of sources are given, but no links.)

The editors don't seem to have any particular qualifications; the site seems to be for a military history hobby group ([32], [33]).

Is this site reliable/useful for Wikipedia purposes? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A Biography of the Australian Continent

At History of Indigenous Australians, the website 'Australia: The Land Where Time Began / A Biography of the Australian Continent' (specifically http://austhrutime.com/malakunanja.htm) is used to source the statement:

The rock shelters at Malakunanja II (a shallow rock-shelter about 50 kilometres inland from the present coast) and of Nauwalabila I (70 kilometres further south) show evidence of used pieces of ochre – evidence for paint used by artists 60,000 years ago.

The wording is a bit of a mess, but I'm looking for comments specifically on the source. It looks a lot like a self-published more-or-less-blog to me, but wanted to get a second opinion. I don't think the content itself is particularly controversial. The source itself cites further sources, and it would probably be more appropriate to use them, but I don't have easy access to them and I'm guessing this is why someone used the web source in the first place. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources for articles on railway vehicles in Victoria, Australia

Hi all,

Having trouble with some other editors about whether or not I'm allowed to use certain sources as references in my articles.

Sites:

• Peter Vincent's site - One of three authors of a series of books on the wagons and carriages, culmination of decades of research and transcribing of records kept at the Public Record Office Victoria. Homepage doesn't seem to be working at the moment, but everything else is fine.
• Norm Bray's flickr account

A series of books were written by Bray, Vincent and Daryl M. Gregory over the period 2009-2014 listing most but not all of the details on Vincent's site; and Vincent also hosts a plethora of official Victorian Railways diagrams and detailed photographs not included in those books. Similarly, Bray's site has dated photos that can be used for locating individual vehicles; and Daryl Gregory has a limited presence on Facebook, identity confirmed within private groups like Victorian Railway Enthusiasts. The fact that the group(s) is/are closed isn't a problem according to WP:IRS's talk page:

   Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?
   No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy.

Additionally, the vast majority of people likely to read the relevant pages will already have (or will easily be able to get) access to the relevant forums.

To a lesser extent, these sites, which host personal photos but also content scanned directly from archives, i.e. diagrams.

• Mark Bau's site - diagrams, photos and scans from publications; the text content on the site is not always accurate. Examples could be the last four images here, for use in Diesel Electric railmotor (VR).
• Rob O'Reagan's site - diagrams and photos
• Les Brown's site - photos
• Weston Langford's site - photos

These are for most/all of the articles listed in the VRLocos template, about half of which I've written and nearly all of which I've contributed to.

• Specific Railpage forums & posters - limited to certain posters who are recognised authorities on specific sub-topics, for example user Kuldalai 1, 2, 3 & 4 in the context of this article: VicRail R type carriage (old copy), as he was directly involved in the procurement process. Note I intend to get copies of the other references mentioned in the article and include inline citations at first opportunity, so the forum references would not be the only sources.
• Specific Facebook forums & posters - posts by Brett Leslie in the closed group Victorian Railway Enthusiasts, who is directly involved in organising carriages within train sets, and one or two other people who report sightings, exclusively in the content of tables like the one at VicRail N type carriage#Set history.

In both cases, this is based on the reliability of the individuals' posts and printed/published works (i.e. in the magazine Newsrail) over more than a decade.

How do I get these people individually approved as sources, and then how do I make them immune to future deletion by editors who don't see this thread? One solution might be to add an entry on the Template linking to a list of reliable sources applicable only to those articles? Anothersignalman (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Rai al-Youm

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

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

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

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

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

What our Wikipedia article refers to as a London-based online newspaper looks to me like a propaganda website run by an expat. I don't speak Arabic but I don't get the impression there's any real fact checking or editorial oversight involved. The article is a GA nominee so I need an answer for the source's appropriateness. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I also don't speak arabic so i'm going only on what google translate gives me. From the get-go it seems pretty POV, unless its absolutely critical for GAN, and you think it will stand up there, then I would remove it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)