Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

The article Ambazonia doesn't provide verified source

1. Source. http://www.ambazania.org/1024_768/input/SCAPOFormallyProclaimstheRepublicofAmbazania.pdf Ambazania.org 2. Article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambazonia 3. Content ... (b) President Paul Biya is [also] guilty of treason for furthering and completing the treason of Ahidjo by bringing about the secession of the first defendant (East Cameroon) from the United Republic of Cameroon on February 4, 1984, reinstating its name "Republic of Cameroon" which had not been used since January 10, 1961. (c) That the break-away Republic of Cameroon continues, illegally and forcibly occupy the territory of the first plaintiff, which means the first defendant is guilty of an international offence of aggression and annexation, (d) The report made the Restoration of the statehood of the first plaintiff the starting point of restoration of legality.

My Observation: While i reading articles on cameroon actuality, i was redirected on the ambazonia wikipedia page, but, the information provided by the page doesn't provide verified source. i'm a citizen, and think that an encyclopedia must provide right information.

Beall's List resurrected and maintained

See https://predatoryjournals.com

Trying to determine the credibility of these Turkish sources -- for an English Wikipedia page about Ozan Varol (rocket scientist, author)

Sources are as follows. I am unsure of whether or not they would be considered "fringe" publications. These would be making up the bulk of an initial page about Ozan, with some additional English sources that would support.

NOTE: These are currently being translated by machine but I would be verifying them with a natural-born Turkish speaker before using.

1. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2000/01/09/yasam/yas00.html
2. http://www.gecmisgazete.com/haber/mars-ta-bir-turk-var-14148
3. http://www.star.com.tr/yazar/demokratik-darbe-kuraminin-mucidini-takdimimdir-yazi-769551/
4. http://www.star.com.tr/yazar/marsa-ve-darbeye-merakli-bir-turk-genci-yazi-769936/

It was the year 2000 when Ozan Varol was heard for the first time that our country was informed by NASA that he would be participating in a six-member steering committee to direct space vehicles named 'Apex' and 'Athena' to Mars . At that time, Ozan was studying astronomy at Cornell University in the USA . When he was still a first-year student, he learned that he was carrying out a joint project between NASA and the school and immediately said, "Take me, too . " "Mars has a Turkish" titled News January 9, 2000 dated Radical 'den Let us read: " The victory of perseverance - 
Project manager Dr. Ozan , who said he wanted to send an e-mail to Steven Squyres , was given about 500 pages of scientific texts and a period of two weeks. Ozan who read the texts day and night , Squyres ' oral examination was successful. Success 'I'd been' he explains Ozan , so that five had managed to enter the US as the only foreign team members."

5. http://www.vize.bel.tr/Yz-39-Devlet-adamlarimiz.html

Ozan VAROL: Ozan VAROL, born in Istanbul in 1982, is the grandson of retired teacher Şakir KAN. Ozan, who graduated from Üsküdar American High School, was studying in the Astronomy Department of Corneil University in America, where he was going to pursue his higher education, while he was studying two instruments to be sent to Mars as part of a project jointly conducted by the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Cornell University. he took place as the only Turkish student. On January 9, 2000, Milliyet's headline, "Under the Turks on Mars", emphasized that "Ozan, 18 years old, was on the control team of the vehicle to be sent to Mars.

6. http://www.trakyanet.com/trakya/kirklareli/vize/175-vizeli-unluler.html

Ozan VAROL Born in Istanbul in 1982, Ozan VAROL is the grandson of retired teacher and Kızılay District President Şakir KAN. Ozan, who graduated from Üsküdar American High School, was studying in the Astronomy Department of Corneil University in America, where he was going to pursue his higher education, while he was studying two instruments to be sent to Mars as part of a project jointly conducted by the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Cornell University. he took place as the only Turkish student. On January 9, 2000, Milliyet's headline, "Under the Turks on Mars", emphasized that "Ozan, 18 years old, was on the control team of the vehicle to be sent to Mars.

Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you!

Is Yahoo Sports a reliable source?

This edit by Rockypedia removed a reference in the article for Millville Senior High School that was taken from Yahoo Sports. While other sources are available and are in the article, the reference from Yahoo Sports includes details not available in the other sources. As noted by ValarianB in this edit at WP:ANI, "dismissing Yahoo Sports as just 'a sports blog' is disingenuous", noting that contributors to Yahoo Sports "are real, credentialed journalists", a sentiment with which I concur.

Is Yahoo Sports a reliable source? Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation in the very first sentence here: The Yahoo blog post wasn't just "removed", it was replaced with the actual reliable secondary source that the blog post was linking to and referencing. Rockypedia (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo Sports doesn't help its case: I can find other submissions by the Yahoo story's author, but I can't find a bio/credits blurb on him. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the entire premise and goal of this question are incompatible. Alan Sohn is attempting to conflate all of Yahoo Sports with a blog page post that he originally used as a source, and when I replaced that blog post with the reliable secondary sources that the blog post linked to, he didn't like it and edit warred over it and called me a "dick" and told me to "get lost." Of course Yahoo Sports can be a reliable source; that doesn't mean every page under the sports.yahoo.com domain is a reliable secondary source, and this one is not, as it's a tertiary source. The specific blog piece that he wants back in the article is just that: a blog post that was written under the "high school sports blog" section of the overall Yahoo Sports family. He's merely trying to conflate the two in his quest to WP:OWN all NJ-related pages and there's a healthy dose of WP:WINNING in this particular attempt as well. Rockypedia (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This may help: https://fancredsports.com/Profiles/cameron-smith. He looks like a credible writer to me. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The Yahoo Sports blog piece doesn't add any details that aren't in the two sources already in the paragraph. Honestly, this is just another case of Alansohn assering WP:OWN over a NJ- or NY-related page, of which there are many documented instances. The blog itself links back to the sources that it draws upon: "According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer and other sources..." - there's absolutely no reason to include it when the original sources are available, and they are. It's a tertiary source, it's a blog. Alansohn is just fighting over a very stupid detail to have it stay in because I removed it and it turns out that he originally added it. I'm sorry I offended him by changing one of "his" pages, but I feel it's important to take a stand here: I've been emailed by 2 other editors who stated that they didn't wish to get involved because they've had to deal with Mr. Sohn before and it's an incredibly frustrating process. This, and he called me a "DICK" (his capitalization) in his original attack on me and told me to take my "bullshit edit war" elsewhere, as if I was the one who started it. It's really time to take a step back, Mr. Sohn, and ask yourself: are you that involved in Wikipedia that "winning" is all that matters? What purpose does that serve? Rockypedia (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This ain't AN/I part 2. Over half of that wall of blah is about the editor not this posting. Cut it out. Arkon (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This note from User:The Bushranger was left at WP:ANI at this edit and is copied here in full: "Many news sites have "blogs" about sports. This is not the same sense as, say, a Wordpress or Blogspot (or are those one and the same now?) blog, it's the sense of 'we call it a blog because blogs are trendy'. They are, in fact, just as reliable as anything else from those sites; the word "blog" is not a shibboleth for reliability." Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, distorting this particular case and using an out-of-context quote from another editor to try and force your version of the page. The piece in question isn't "Yahoo Sports", which can be used as a reliable source at times (of course). The piece in question is clearly marked as part of the Yahoo Sports "High School Blog" - furthermore, it doesn't have any research of its own in it; it merely links to two other articles, and even states its attribution with "According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer and other sources..." No one is saying you can't use Yahoo Sports as a reliable source, which is the false premise you've started this discussion under. The point is that that particular article is a blog, it's a tertiary source, it adds nothing of value on its own, and the reliable secondary sources are already in the article. Rockypedia (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rockypedia, the post at WP:ANI from Bushranger was quoted in its entirety, word for word; I'm not sure how it can be taken out of context. Both ValarianB and Bushranger have discussed explicitly that this a blog piece associated with the main web site, and both see no issue here. YOU are the person saying that it can't be used here and you are the one who needlessly removed it. All you're doing here by chiming in again is making a false premise and misrepresenting the rather clear consensus here that blog entries from Yahoo Sports are an appropriate source. Maybe it truly is time for you to move on to other battles.

}While consensus here so far after more than a week of discussion is rather clear that the site and the author are reliable sources -- no one has indicated otherwise -- I will wait another 24 hours before reinserting the material. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure ValarianB and The Bushranger were both speaking in general terms about Yahoo Sports, and not about this specific blog piece that was just basically a link to two legitimate articles. There's no battle, because the page is fine as it currently stands, with good reliable secondary sources, and there's certainly no consensus that a tertiary source should be used in place of two secondary sources. You're not re-inserting anything without consensus, which you don't have. "Maybe it truly is time for you to move on to other battles" sounds like sound advice that you're giving yourself. I'm also waiting for you to apologize for calling me a "DICK" (capitalization yours); when's that coming? Rockypedia (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"But actually, Jingles..." I would consider that "blog" to be as reliable as the rest of Yahoo! Sports. That is a case of "Blogs are trendy. Millenials love blogs, right? We're going to call our columns and features blogs!" They have a regular high-school sports column, that, because it's The In Thing, is called a blog because blogs get more clicks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

But, The Bushranger... in that particular link, you can see that it's literally just a blog post pointing to two articles that are reliable secondary sources. There's no independent research being done there, and no additional info added, true? In my view, that makes it tertiary, and not as good a source as the two actual secondary sources. I was only referring to that one article, not all Yahoo Sports blogs in general. It was Alansohn that decided that since he'd added the blog post originally as a source, he needed to keep the page the way he perviously had it, despite the sourcing being obviously improved. Rockypedia (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I really do not understand why this is still an active discussion. Between the ANI and this, the complaint goalposts seem to be shifting from citation styles to civility to accusations of tit-for-tat following some AFD to the reliability of Yahoo Sports. As I noted at the ANI, I see no reason why this blog is unreliable, as they have real journlists who have written for newspapers and othre media employed there. It's not guy-on-couch-with-tv-remote. ValarianB (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

to ValarianB: Well, if you notice, it was Mr Sohn who kept "shifting the goalposts." First he claimed his reversion of my addition was a problem with citation style. I modified my reference to satisfy his complaint about citation style, and now he's saying the blog piece (which is nothing more than two links to reliable secondary sources and contains no new information or research on its own) is a better source than the actual reliable secondary source that it links to, which is ridiculous. Again, I'm not saying Yahoo Sports is unreliable - I'm saying that the blog post is merely a rehash of two pieces in reliable sources, and we should use those reliable sources in the Millville article rather than the blog post, in this case. The reason it's still a discussion is that Alansohn, after bludgeoning the WP:ANI (which went unresolved) with his shifting claims, decided he still needs the page to revert to his version, and started a discussion here to try and justify it. He's exhibited this WP:OWN behavior across hundreds on NJ-related articles, where his version is always the "best" in his opinion, and apparently will stop at nothing, even in the face of basic logic, to try and get his way. I do feel it's important to not give in to this bullying behavior. As I mentioned before, I was emailed outside of Wikipedia, and here's the salient points of that email:

I'm not commenting publicly, because I try to stay as far away from this editor as possible, but *all* of the behaviors you describe in your AN/I report are typical for him. He basically acts as if he OWNs all New Jersey articles, and a lot of NYC ones as well. He's a demon about CITEVAR, and has more than once undone hours of my editing when I cleaned up an article's references by putting them all in the same style where they had been a mish-mash of styles beforehand.

Ever since I expressed the opinion that he was in the wrong in a long-running battle with (name redacted) he's gone out of his way to make edits that he knows (or hopes) will annoy me.

Anyway, this is just to say that I understand what you're going through, and I both empathize and sympathize, but saying so publicly would ultimately be bad for my blood pressure.

Since I was emailed through the Wikipedia system, I assume an admin could verify this. I'm clearly not the only one who has had this experience with Mr. Sohn. Looking at his edit history, block history, and talk page history, it's pretty easy to see a pattern. Rockypedia (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I really do not see a reason to change the source from Yahoo to another, both provide the reader with the same information. As to the rest of what looks like stuff about bullying and the posting of some purported, anonymous e-mail, that has no relevance to a Reliable Source discussion, and that complaint should be filed elsewhere. ValarianB (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I do see a reason, and it's in WP:SECONDARY. The secondary sources are most preferable, and the blog post merely links to the secondary sources, making it a tertiary source. That's not to say it's unacceptable, but since the secondary sources are available (and more reliable, as they are not blogs), they are preferred. Rockypedia (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe that Yahoo sports is a tertiary source, which is usually defined as an encyclopedia or similar compendium. A source citing another source for its own story does not make it tertiary. ValarianB (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Again... not Yahoo Sports in general. That particular page, which is part of the Prep Rally blog, which itself is part of Yahoo Sports, is a tertiary source. There's a huge difference between saying "This website is a tertiary source" and "this one blog post, which is part of that really huge website, is a tertiary source." Rockypedia (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail - dailymail.co.uk

One of my edits was reverted as I'd used dailymail.co.uk as a source. I learned about WP:DAILYMAIL which links to an RFC and also Talk:Daily Mail#RFC. I'm confused about where we are at with respect to this as there are no edit notices or warnings to editors that use that source and it seems the use of dailymail.co.uk is increasing at a rapid pace.

• On 2014-06-14 User:Emijrp/External Links Ranking notes there were 26,251 external links to dailymail.co.uk.
• As of today 2017-12-04 there are 52,929 external links to dailymail.co.uk. In 1,269 days 26,678 more links were added or roughly 21 new links per day.
• Note there's a confusing aspect in that the RFC mentions 12,000 links but does not provide a source for this.

Here's a summary of the current external link counts:

• 4 links for dailymail.co.uk with no subdomain name prefix before dailymail.co.uk.
• 52,487 links for www.dailymail.co.uk
• 3 links for www.dailymail.co.uk:80 with the protocol number included
• 290 links for i.dailymail.co.uk
• 57 links for img.dailymail.co.uk
• 88 links for *.dailymail.co.uk style links where * is a subdomain name other than www, i, or img which are listed separately above. There are 40 subdomain names linked to with none of them having more than 7 links. The full list of subdomain names is: bazblog, benedictblog, blakesmalltalkblog, broganblog, chapman, countycricketblog, dooleyblog, duncanblog, explore, footballleagueblog, golfblog, grayblog, gyngellblog, hanlonblog, hickleyblog, hiltonblog, johnsblog, kaysblog, leablog, leslieblog, lizjonesmaghag, m, pandyablog, phillipsblog, poshproperty, poultonblog, richardsblog, singletonblog, skezza, synonblog, travelblog, travelchatter, wilson2012blog, wolfblog, worldfootball, worldoftennisblog, wrightblog, ww, wwopw, www.wc2010
• 52,929 total links to *.dailymail.co.uk with the http: protocol
• 7 links for *.dailymail.co.uk with the https: protocol

--Marc Kupper|talk 20:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no established process to review existing DM links and replace if needed. Further, it is not all DM links that are bad, only those from the most recent years, and there are still valid cases of using a DM article for sourcing (if, for example, DM is part of a controversy). Why we are still getting more DM links is anyone's guess. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is this a good edit? Long-term stable article, uncontroversial topic far away from the problem DM biases, removing three several-years-old DM refs in favour of no refs and some added {{cn}} tags. I can't support edits like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Outright removal of sources and leaving just a CN tag is not helpful (without removing the text in question too) is not helpful. DM is not reliable, but they're going to have at least key names and terms that would help with searching for better sources. I would recommend that instead we use {{dubious}} to tag DMs that have to be replaced. Of course, if it is a BLP issue, then both source text and DM ref should go away until that can be satisfied. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• The Anti-DM RFC was good for clarifying when it is inappropriate to cite the DM, but I think we may need a follow up RFC, to clarify what types of information the DM is appropriate for. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• FWiW editors for quite some time have removed DM without replacing it - Not something I agree with but anyway from my understanding of it all the DM shouldn't be used at all regardless of what article it's being used on, There should be edit filters etc which I assume should point to the RFC ?... dunno but that's my unhelpful 2c. –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The DM is not a reliable source, so any reference to the DM is the same as having no reference. It is correct therefore to remove the reference and note the passage is unreferenced. In the example provided, I would not use a current news reference for something that happened over a century ago. Newspapers are good sources for what happened yesterday, not for history. It seems bizarre to me that while the DM is not rs, the Express, the Mirror and the Sun are fine. But it's not really a problem because we would generally only add information to articles if it was covered by every newspaper. TFD (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think that the Daily Mirror and the Sun can be described as "fine". Ok, they may not be subject to a wide-ranging ban, like the Daily Mail, but editors should always try to avoid tabloids and search for a better source elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• After the RFC ... February there was some discussion whether some old material was acceptable; two of the closers participated in the discussion but didn't rule; the OP concluded that the references didn't need to be removed. In May three of the closers agreed that the ban didn't apply to some Daily Mail opinion articles. In September the same thing was re-discussed. So we know the ban wasn't supposed to be total but that could have been clearer, as we can see from the periodic confusion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Question Does this guideline include the Mail on Sunday? It's published by the same company, and their articles appear on the Daily Mail website, but they have a separate editorial staff. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's another thing that's unclear. Two editors brought it up during the RfC ("And there are other publications like Metro and the Mail on Sunday. The proposal seems unclear.") ("The Mail On Sunday and the web site have been winners too, but maybe the ban proposal isn't about them (there's some "muddle" about what the ban proposal is about.") But one of the closers said later "About the Mail on Sunday, I don't see any differentiation or discussion of that newspaper in the RfC.". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that blanket removal is not a good idea (unless this is potentially damaging content in a BLP page). This is for the same reasons why blanket removal of unsourced content is not a good idea. Instead of removing something one should evaluate the statement and try to replace it by better sources or mark as "sourcing required". My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Indiaonlinepages.com derived population figures

Are the population figures from Indiaonlinepages.com sufficiently reliable to use for international comparison? Specifically at Megacity#Largest cities, in the table under column "population" (my bolding):

33 Hyderabad (image) India Asia 12,977,784

...

37 Bangalore (image) India Asia 12,339,447

When Indiaonlinepages simply quotes census figures there is no issue. But metropolitan area populations (not produced by the census) and estimates of current populations require analysis and extrapolation. Some of Indiaonlinepages' stats are surprising:

1. Its Population of Hyderabad has a 12,977,784 figure for Urban Agglomeration, up 67% on the 2011 census figure of 7,749,334.
2. Its Population of Bangalore 2017 puts Bangalore's population at 12,339,447, up 46% on the 2011 census figure of 8,443,675.(here).
3. (Also its Population of Delhi 2017 says "Population of NCR in 2011 was 21,753,486", which the NCR itself (correctly I think) puts at 46,069,000.Annual report page 6.)

While I accept that Indian cities can show very high population growth rates, my concern revolves around Indiaonlinepages not saying where recent figures come from (eg "Greater Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad recorded a population of 11,723,548 in year 2016""), or explaining the basis for current population estimates. Batternut (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Stockfish versus AlphaZero

Do the claims made at Stockfish (chess)#Stockfish versus AlphaZero meet our sourcing requirements? I am especiallyb concerned with "The research also has not yet been peer reviewed" and "the AlphaZero algorithm was allocated more computing power for the games". The lack of details on methodology (clock speed, memory, etc.) and the publishing in the popular press before peer review reminds my of when cold fusion was first announced. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"Not peer reviewed" is fine--it's a simple statement of fact and is present in the source, though it will be obsolete at some point in the presumably-near future. with no access to opening books or endgame tables, but with superior computing power allocated to AlphaZero and the AlphaZero algorithm was allocated more computing power for the games are not verified/original research from what I can tell--and are rather naive assertions of how the computing hardware works for the two different programs also (from my reading these past couple days). All of those should be removed based on the citations present in the article, or new citations found for them which directly make those statements. --Izno (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

When reliable sources publish fake news

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

---

Article in The Intercept: The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened

Key Quotes:

"By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened."

"But what one should expect with journalistic 'mistakes' is that they sometimes go in one direction, and other times go in the other direction. That’s exactly what has not happened here. Virtually every false story published goes only in one direction: to be as inflammatory and damaging as possible on the Trump/Russia story and about Russia particularly. At some point, once 'mistakes' all start going in the same direction, toward advancing the same agenda, they cease looking like mistakes."

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And this story itself is an exercise in what it calls "false news". CNN (the only news media actually named in the article) published a correction. That is the key difference between "real" fake news sites, and sites accused of publishing fake new. But this is why I have argued that Wikipedia should not act as a live news feed and should wait (I would argue for 48 hours) before publishing any news story.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankly (per my own 2 cents) - the entire US media is close to useless regarding Trump/Russia (and Clinton/Russia (i.e. Uranium one)) reporting - it is 99% editorializing - from outlets on both sides (TV (FOX / CNN in particular) is probably the worst in this regard, but also print is pretty bad). This whole topic area might be encyclopedic in the future, but at the present it mainly editorial opinions and not much beyond this.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and argued sometime ago that pretty much all news media should not be regraded as RS any more. But as evidence of being "fake news" this fails (to my mind) completely as it actually does acknowledge they made a mistake, and they corrected the story.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This has been my point for a loooong time and why I've been trying to see where we sit community-wise per NOT#NEWS. At least, WP:RECENTISM should be used a lot more. When a story has any type of controversial elements, we shouldn't be rushing to add just because we can do that generally safely with non-controversial stories (like natural disasters or terrorism-like attacks). --Masem (t) 14:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• The question I have is this... how did all this play out here on Wikipedia? Did we cite the bogus story in any of our articles? Did we join the media frenzy by repeating the report and did we present it as fact? And, now that we know it is bogus, have we corrected/removed what we say? Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I added the CNN story to the Wikileaks page[3], but opted not to add it to Don Jr page, because it's a BLP and the story was recent and had yet to be examined by multiple RS. The story was later promptly corrected by another editor after WaPo's correction of the original CNN story[4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

(1) This is not fake news. This is one news outlet making an error and correcting it. News outlets make errors, just as top scientific journals make errors. That doesn't make all news fake news or all studies pseudoscience. (2) Greenwald is totally wrong in saying that mistakes only go in one direction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It was more than one outlet making an error and then correcting it... it was one outlet making an error, and then a WHOLE BUNCH of other outlets immediately accepting the erroneous report and repeating it. And when these other outlets started to claim that they had “independent confirmation”, it crossed the line from simple “error” into the realm of “fake news”. Any one outlet can make a mistake, but it stops being a mistake when others intentionally repeat it without due diligence and fact checking. And when Wikipedia unquestioningly repeats the mistake, it call into question OUR OWN neutrality, credulity, and credibility. It’s not about whether any one outlet (be it CNN or FOX) is reliable... it’s about the reliability of the news media as a whole. We need to be much more skeptical than we are. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Some RS made a mistake, corrected it, apologized. They're still RS. What do you expect to come out of this post except a bunch of WP:NOTFORUM bickering? Fyddlestix (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What I hope will come out of this thread is a re-evaluation of how we (the editors of Wikipedia) react to news reports... a greater awareness that the media does indeed make errors. And that they are more prone to error when it comes to reporting on politics and scandals. I would like to see a much stronger caution about HOW and WHEN to use news media as a source. When dealing with reports on controversial or salacious topics (such as potential political scandals) we need be extra critical. While news media is reliable for a lot... When it comes to political topics and scandals we need to assume a degree of unreliability.

We don’t want to “throw the baby out with the bath water”... but we do need to account for all that “bath water” in the tub. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was primarily directing that at Guy, since I think posting a 2 paragraph block quote with no context, and without actually making a proposal or referencing any edit(s) to the encyclopedia is both a) spectacularly unhelpful and b) not what this board is for. That said: I've long thought that NOTNEWS needs to be applied more broadly, so I basically agree with you that a lot of editors need to be more cautious with that than they are. You lost me at we need to assume a degree of unreliability though, seems like the RS policy exists, in large part, to stop us from engaging in that kind of OR hair-splitting. I also question why this comes up here now, and not when people are rushing to create and bloat up articles on the latest airline crash, terrorist attack, etc (which is where we have much more serious NOTNEWS problems, if you ask me). Fyddlestix (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:RS: One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Having occasional corrections is normal and acceptable (and, in fact, desirable to an extent, since our policy is written to assume that all news media will sometimes make mistakes - meaning that the ones that don't issue corrections are the ones who don't actually care about accuracy.) The sources we don't consider WP:RS are the ones that make mistakes without corrections. Regarding your insinuation about mistakes "all going in the same direction", I don't think that is actually demonstrated - there were numerous errors in the mainstream media that hurt HRC during the election, for instance, such as false reports from the FBI saying that Trump would be cleared, which were uncritically repeated in the Times. But beyond all that, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to reflect the consensus of mainstream reliable sources; we are not a research organization. When a major mainstream news outlet gets something wrong, and it gets widely reported there is no shame in us reflecting their mistake, so long as we correct it afterwards. For us to be unduly skeptical of the news media as a whole would make us look unreliable and harm our credibility every time they report something accurately (which, after all, happens far more often when talking about WP:RSes.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • We should reflect the consensus of reliable secondary sources written a distance from the event. Newspapers may be reliable, but in terms of breaking news, they no way are secondary (moreso not now, but also not then). We do much better articles on controversial news writing from the POV of looking back at the story after it has been completed, so that we're not a the whims of a 24/7 "get it out as fast as possible" news cycle. --Masem (t) 16:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Re Fyddlestix's question "What do you expect to come out of this post except a bunch of WP:NOTFORUM bickering?", I expect a reasoned discussion about clear evidence presented by The Intercept showing that in the US certain otherwise reliable sources tend to be unreliable when reporting late-breaking political news. The comments above show that I am indeed getting the calm, thoughtful discussion I expected.

Clearly Fyddlestix, as evidenced by his "Way to waste time/rabble rouse" edit comment, disagrees. My reply to Fyddlestix is thus: Might I humbly suggest not reading and replying to things that you believe to be of little value? If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor showing a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard feed with The Wikipedia Song blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but an opinion piece by Greenwald, which discusses a single incident (which all of the involved news outlets have since corrected) does not demonstrate that certain otherwise reliable sources tend to be unreliable when reporting late-breaking political news. That's Greenwald's (and apparently your) opinion, not a fact. As others have already said above, one error (or even set of errors) does not make a source unreliable. And I stand by the assertion that this isn't the place for general discussion (reasoned or otherwise) about this. If you want to have this conversation, point out some pages/edits where it's actually relevant, or propose a change in policy. This isn't reddit or Facebook, you can't just post a link and say "discuss!" And if you do, you should not be surprised that people suggest you're wasting editor time. If you were trying to be funny with the rest of that comment the joke went over my head, so I'm just going to ignore that if you don't mind. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the editors here are having a productive conversation about an issue that is well within the areas we are allowed to discuss at the RSNB. You don't get to shout down a topic that multiple editors are discussing in good faith. Also, your claim that the article "discusses a single incident" is demonstrably untrue. From the article:

"That’s just the last week alone. Let’s just remind ourselves of how many times major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump/Russia story, always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be corrected, walk-backed, or retracted – often long after the initial false claims spread, and where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial false stories are lavished:

• Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post)
• An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post)
• WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
• A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
• RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
• Crowdstrike finds Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
• Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security)
• Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN)

That really is just a small sample. So continually awful and misleading has this reporting been that even Vladimir Putin’s most devoted critics – such as Russian expatriate Masha Gessen, oppositional Russian journalists, and anti-Kremlin liberal activists in Moscow – are constantly warning that the U.S. media’s unhinged, ignorant, paranoid reporting on Russia is harming their cause in all sorts of ways, in the process destroying the credibility of the U.S. media in the eyes of Putin’s opposition (who — unlike Americans who have been fed a steady news and entertainment propaganda diet for decades about Russia — actually understand the realities of that country)."

I am going to stop responding to your criticism now. I find it without merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

What actions should Wikipedia take?

Are there any further actions (changes in policy) that we should/can take to caution editors about the dangers of erroneous media reports? We do want Wikipedia to be factually accurate... but this goal is hard to achieve when (normally reliable) sources present factually inaccurate information. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The seemingly obvious answer is to use NOT#NEWS as a policy basis to have editors wait a short amount of time - 3 to 4 days - before rushing to create articles/add controversial information to articles - any mistaken news reports usually get fixed within 24hr - but per a straw poll I offered WP:VPP there is no real consensus towards alternating the nature of NOT#NEWS (that is, the poll was inclusive/not sufficient majority to consider a policy change, even if by numbers it tended to favor stronger enforcement). However, everything in policy and WP's approach says this is the right way to do it. The state of the media (both its 24/7 nature and issues like spread of mistaken news around RS) seems to require us to do more. --Masem (t) 19:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment... but I see no way to enforce it, short of blocking editors for “not waiting”? (And if we did that, ANI would be swamped). Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The reader should not be trained to expect an encyclopedia to contain the latest late-braking news. We should train them to go elsewhere for that (Making Wikinews be a proper late-breaking news site would be a great start.)

As for specific policy changes, I think we should modify Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources alongt the lines Masem suggests, bringing it to be more in agreement with Wikipedia:Recentism and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sadly that may be necessary. We need a policy statement that makes it clear that 3-4 days before posting a story is a policy, not a guild line. It should be no more of an issue then the rules against OR.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Masem's suggestion, I'd actually support this if it was consistently applied (including, for example, to naming and giving details about the alleged perpetrators of terrorist attacks, reporting media speculation about the causes of planes crashes & similar disasters, etc.) You know how that will go over in practice though... a lot of editors are very keen on reporting stuff like that immediately. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It was just this that caused me to suggest something similar a while ago. Pages that are (literally) updated every few seconds ans new news sources publish more speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, y'all. Reputable news outlets sometimes get things wrong, this isn't a new phenomenon, and we've done okay so far without arbitrary embargoes on breaking news. I don't see anything here that can't be solved with existing policies and a healthy dose of editorial prudence. Nblund ^talk 20:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that we AREN’T getting the necessary level of editorial prudence. So how do we achieve it? Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not just about them getting stories wrong, it is that the "on the moment" speculation or reports or whatever you want to call it has no place to be in WP until time has passed (read: a few days) and its importance or appropriateness can be better judged. Just because an RS has published something does not make it appropriate to include, particularly when it is something that is controversial or cannot be collaborated easily. --Masem (t) 23:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

While I agree, you said it yourself... there is no consensus to support a “No citing news for X days” rule. So, we have to take a different approach. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It is very rare that a real news outlet gets a story wrong (in terms of the ratio of inaccurate stories to accurate stories, I'd say that scientific journals - "usually, the most reliable sources" - publish more papers with corrections, retractions and severe rebuttals than news outlets publish false stories). The only problems are usually just editors misinterpreting breaking news stories (usually gets quickly fixed) and something being added that doesn't have lasting importance (usually gets fixed when it becomes blatantly clear that the story isn't important enough in the grand scheme of things). Neither problem is consequently big, and neither problem is unique to breaking news. As someone who both adds recent content myself and who follows pages where extremely recent content gets added in by others, it is astonishingly rare that just plain false content gets edited in. This is a non-existent problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What, not even a small “mea culpa” Snoogan? Face it, you rushed things, and ended up adding material that turned out to be inaccurate. I understand that you acted in good faith, I don’t accuse you of wrongdoing... but you could have avoided that had you been more cautious to begin with.

My point is that we ALL need to be more cautious. Errors in reporting are more common than you think. Yes, the reputable outlets acknowledge their errors and issue corrections, but how many of our fellow editors bother to CHECK for those corrections? Not many. And of those that do, how many have the integrity to actually go back and remove what they added once they discover the error? (I note that you didn’t).

My concern isn’t actually about the sources... it’s about OUR behavior, and OUR responsibility as editors. Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This is definitely part of the problem. Taking the Trump situation specifically (but this can apply to any politicized topic), there are editors that clearly do not like Trump and want him out. That's fine, that's one's opinion. But it is very easy to see breaking news like this story that clearly supports your view, and because it is from an RS, its very easy to go "Of course this is fine", failing to ask the key questions whether there's a BLP issue, whether this is contentious information that should be held off until there's more details about it, does it fail RECENTISM, etc. And then these editors get defensive when other editors question the inclusion, because "but so many RS reported it!" Our goal is to write for permanence, not what just came hot off the press, and we need more editors to separate their personal opinions about these topics from proper review of the sources and type of news they are reporting. --Masem (t) 02:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've also added studies that turned out to be bad[5], and promptly corrected them[6]. When you mean that I should "been more cautious to begin with", I'm unclear what I should have done precisely. It seems like you're just saying that I should sit on WP:DUE information for an unspecified amount of time because 1/500 stories contain important inaccuracies. This is virtually a non-existent problem. Also, the inaccurate text on the Wikileaks Wikipedia page was promptly corrected by someone else and would have been fixed by myself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether that information was DUE/UNDUE is something that needed the hindsight that comes with the passage of time. Just because some story or facet of one is reported (even factually true and accurately) by hundreds of RSes doesn't necessarily make it encyclopedic information; per NOT#NEWS we're supposed to be looking at how these events would be seen 5-10+ years after they have happened, not what's happening now. Taking the Russian interference topic, every little twist and turn in the situation is not necessary for an encyclopedia; we should be waiting to see if and what legal actions end up happening and write based on that point, rather than trying to be documenting the situation better than RSes. That's a general approach regardless if the media is objective or not. --Masem (t) 14:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that would have a severely adverse impact on Wikipedia. A 5-10 yr rule would reduce the quality of the sources and the quality of editors' write-ups. It's actually easier to accurately write up text and add thorough sourcing in the now than later. It would be a complete hell to write up the history of, say, how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (or any event) came to be 5-10 yrs after the fact rather than do it at the time. I don't patrol the Russian Interference page, so I can't speak for what's happening over there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying we have to wait 5-10 years to add information on breaking news, but be aware of what type of information is most relevant in such stories that adding it will still be relevant in 5-10 years. That's the whole point of WP:RECENTISM. We shouldn't be trying to write as detailed (per our purpose as an encyclopedia) and that's why waiting for some time for sources that are more reflective of past events rather than from the midst of it would be better sources in the long term. --Masem (t) 14:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Recentism is about WP:UNDUE focus on recent events. Nobody is seriously arguing that we can leave recent events out of an article entirely, provided they have reasonably broad coverage; the risk of recentism is when we place more emphasis on a recent event than it objectively deserves simply because it's recent. But when people come to Wikipedia in response to breaking news, they should absolutely see it reflected on our article. The risk that breaking news will sometimes change as a result of retractions and similar events is adequately covered by our breaking-news templates, which belong on top of any article affected by a recent event and are used precisely because situations like this are normal and expected. --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing that mandates us to serve people coming to an encyclopedia for news, especially when NOT#NEWS remains a policy. We create our own Catch 22 problem when we do this, because writing for breaking news requires a very different approach and mentality than writing for an encyclopedia. I'm certainly not saying we can't cover recent events - we do quite well when it is an event devoid of endless streams of analysis, such as natural disasters, the results of elections, sporting events, etc, because from an encyclopedic view, we know what information is going to be necessary to include and stands the test of time. It's when we have controversial events where there is more analysis and speculation going on from the media than factual documentation. That's where this approach that's currently being used breaks down, highlighted by incidents like this. Thats's where editors need to put more careful control of how fast they add things to an article. Our goal should not be to mirror up-to-the-minute news, but figure out how best to reflect on that in the wake of the story, something that won't happen for at least a few days. --Masem (t) 15:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We have a responsibility to maintain an up-to-date encyclopedia; leaving out breaking news, when it is clearly high-profile and attracting a lot of coverage, is flatly not an option (and I think most of the people writing here realize this - we cannot realistically prevent people from adding it.) I think the best we can do is sometimes wait when something is only covered by a single source. When multiple reliable mainstream sources are reporting on something, though, it absolutely belongs in an article; I feel the damage to both our reputation and our reliability would be severe if we were to wait on things like that, since people come to Wikipedia expecting it to be up to date. There's no shame in getting something wrong if the reliable sources were wrong, and if we reflect them and rapidly update to reflect changes to the story when available - but it would badly harm our reputation if something were receiving massive coverage and was clearly relevant and yet have no reflection in our articles at all. The best we can do is to apply breaking-news banners in situations like that, which provide adequate warning to readers that the article is using very recent stories that may change rapidly (including, yes, potential retractions.) But intentionally keeping our articles out-of-date is flatly not a realistic option and would take away from one of the main reasons people use Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Who told you "we have a responsibility to maintain an up-to-date encyclopedia"? Nobody asked me whether we should attempt to do such a stupid thing. An encyclopedia that is "up-to-date" as of three days ago -- but accurate -- would be a far better encyclopedia than what we have now. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

From WP:NOTNEWS: As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Those two requirements conflict. First we would have claimed that no strongly hyperbolic objects had been observed when they had and that 1I/'Oumuamua was a comet when the VLT had already shown it wasn't. Outdated is inaccurate.©Geni (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they do conflict, but that's why WP:RECENTISM exists. It is to help bridge the gap between no deadline and keeping current.

However, there is a difference here in the type of information, and for purposes of example, let's remember what happened with the media and the death of Tom Petty. There is information that is of fundamental encyclopedic value for a topic. For a person, the date and cause of death is critically high. For a notable celestial object, its nature and uniquenes are of high value. We have long histories of these types of articles, including going through the whole GA/FA, to know what elements are high value aspects. When an RS reports on one of those high value aspects, immediate inclusion is completely appropriate, even if that turns out to be wrong (ala Petty).

But when we talk about someone involved in politics or a topic related to that, the latest news on a controversial element is of unknown value. It may be super important, it may not be in the long term (Take all these people called out in the Metoo movement - mostly all accusations - which we don't know will go anywhere or affect those people at this point). Because we don't know that encyclopedic value, we should not be adding it in a rush but take time to let the information distill and process through the news cycle to know if it is important. That's the fundamental difference here between an encyclopedia and a newspaper - we're not running our articles unfiltered, we're carefully writing summaries, whereas news media, in generic, publish anything they see fit to print. --Masem (t) 22:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

On the statement When multiple reliable mainstream sources are reporting on something, though, it absolutely belongs in an article I would reread the Intercept article, as it makes the point that due to the nature of the story (a "smoking gun" if it were correct) and the current bias that the RSes have, that it spread like wildfire through them, and that is harmful when these stories just repeat and make no attempt to corroborate. Political rumors like this are one step removed from celebrity gossip, which generally fall into BLP, and per BLP, just because there's a widely reported bit of gossip, we do not include it just because it exists. Same should be true with political stories like this; yes, there are much more critical impacts of they turn out to be true, but they still present a form of gossip we simply should not be including just because its widely reported. If after a few days it seems appropriate to retain, then it can be added. --Masem (t) 16:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. A three-day waiting period for things that are receiving widespread, credible coverage and which otherwise meet our standards for inclusion would do drastic harm to our core mission and would seriously damage our accuracy by forcing us to maintain an inaccurate article at the point in time when it is likely to be receiving the most traffic. It would also be entirely unenforceable during high-profile events without full-protecting the article and declaring on the talk page that no consensus to include will be respected until three days have passed. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is definitely the monkey-see-monkey-do problem of new editors, seeing experience editors do what they do with breaking stories, and trying to follow suit. Doing something that only stops experienced editors but lets new/anon editors (even if they are editing in good faith) to do the same is not a solution. But we also need to recognize how influential our experienced editors are towards these editing patterns, and encouraging experienced edits to chill out on breaking news would help to prevent potential problems. This is, like several other issues here related to breaking news coverage, a catch-22 problem. And we are not required to be accurate now should aim for this in the short-term. We disclaim we're not to be used for accuracy, and as there is no deadline to get articles right, we can wait on these topics. And in truth, I'd see no problem that if the media dropped a bombshell on a controversial topic that is creating a mass media stir that we know is going to draw editors, that such topics if they already exist should be locked down for at least a few days. I have witnessed breaking news articles that are developed fairly non-problematically, like the Boston Marathon bombing or the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, but I point out that these are all cases where the stories are principally objective ("this happened"). As soon as you get into the area where the story is being driven by speculation and subjective assessment, that's when the edit warring starts. The shear number of ANI/AE reports for experienced editors (not just new ones) demonstrates we as a community cannot write these articles appropriate in real-time. Nor should that be our goal at all. --Masem (t) 19:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem, Guy and Blueboar near the top of this section. WP:NOTNEWS is already policy; it should be more stringently adhered to. If that swamps ANI, well... That's why the symbol for an admin is a mop, not a crown. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTNEWS more carefully. It absolutely does not allow us to disregard anything that would otherwise be suitable for inclusion solely based on its recent nature. In fact, it specifically requires that we maintain up-to-date articles: As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. WP:NOTNEWS concerns things that would not be suitable for inclusion in the long term, even if nothing in the reporting changed, as well as requiring that we wait until it has received coverage from other news sources rather than just relying on the first-hand reporting of whoever broke the scoop (which, in this case, did happen.) Like WP:RECENTISM, it says that we should avoid undue emphasis on breaking news and recent events, but still requires that we cover them - obviously, since the alternative is absurd. Ignoring something that is widely-covered in WP:RSes and which would unequivocally be suitable for inclusion based on current coverage, solely because we are afraid that coverage may turn out to be wrong, is not a position supported by policy. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Read points number 2 and 4 again, please. When you are done, read the essay WP:RECENT, which supplements it and addresses exactly this issue. They key words to keep an eye out for are "enduring" and "timely". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, please actually read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, entirely and in context; it's increasingly clear that you haven't sat down and actually read them, and are just relying on a quick skim supplemented by vague memories. Try to discard your misunderstanding of what you think they mean, and read what they actually say. They don't support your position here at all; nothing in them - not a single word - allows us to discard recent sources based on the fear that they might be incorrect. What they say is While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information, (note, we're not allowed to treat it differently) and Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. The purpose of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM is to say one specific thing - recent events should not be given undue weight beyond what they would deserve in the long term, but should be covered with weight appropriate to the overall topic (note that the "otherwise treated differently" wording forbids us from minimizing recent events as well.) What this thread is about, by my understanding, involves a proposed new policy that would ask the question of "what if the sources are wrong?" That is absolutely not a part of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENTISM in any way, shape, or form; no policy allows us to disregard something that is well-attested to by reliable recent sources purely based on the speculation that it may be inaccurate, or demand that people refrain from putting it in an article for a few days to see if there are retractions or corrections. It's clear that some people want such a policy (although I think it's an awful idea for the reasons I outlined above), but the people who are hammering WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM as if they already provide support for such a position are completely mistaken and only weaken their argument by mentioning them. They provide absolutely no support for your position. At all. They are solely and exclusively about striking a balance between new stuff and old stuff, according to the weight appropriate to each; the only question they ask of us is "based on the current coverage, how noteworthy is this event in the long-term?" If anything, they completely undermine the argument people are making, above, that we can leave sources out entirely based solely on speculation that they may eventually be retracted (because, again, we are required to determine due weight based around the sources we have.) No one is asserting a lack of balance in this case - people are saying that we should deny recent but widespread coverage from otherwise reliable sources the weight it would otherwise be due, solely based around concerns that it could turn out to be false. That is an interesting suggestion (if radical and, I think, completely wrongheaded), but it is not and has never been reflected in Wikipedia's policy or practice at all, and pretending that it can somehow be read into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM based on, I can only assume, nothing more than the names of their links is a mistake. The only rationale I can think of as to why people are under this misapprehension - since the policy pages in question are completely clear - is that editors have sometimes cited WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM to argue against the inclusion of a recent source without providing context or a detailed argument, and constantly seeing them used that way has lead to the misapprehension that they universally prohibit recent sources or some such nonsense. But it only takes a few moments to read them and correct this mistake - they are very specific about the narrow scope they apply to, and were both unambiguously written to allow for recent sources on controversial topics provided the claim in the source is both well-supported in reliable sources and would be notable for inclusion in the long term. For example, "senator has a wacky pratfall" is something they'd require that we leave out (because it is unlikely to be important in the long run); whereas "senator commits multiple knife-murders" would go in their article the instant we had reasonable coverage, even if it had happened mere hours ago. (You might use those policies to argue about how prominently the knife-murders should be mentioned for a bit. But those policies unambiguously wouldn't support excluding it entirely.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have "actually" read them, why don't you do the same? And read my actual fucking comments while you're at it. You've already made some shit up about what you think I'm saying which I'm not going to dignify with a response, so stop with this "why don't you actually read it" bullshit and take your own fucking advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Aquillion is correct that both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM relate more to notability and due weight questions rather than to reliable sourcing questions. WP:RSBREAKING deals with reliability questions and seems like the more relevant policy here. It may seem like an academic distinction, but a lot breaking news is indisputably notable if true. Celebrity deaths, for instance, are probably prima facie notable for any celebrity who passes WP:GNG Nblund ^talk 23:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll point to my comment above made at 22:21, 11 December 2017 as a note: there are types of things that 100% absolutely essential material (the death of a notable person) to include an encyclopedia, and we'd include as long as an RS has reported it, even if that is later shown wrong (as with Tom Petty). The situation from this original story (the Wikileaks reporting claim) is definitely not essential encyclopedic information, and we should use much more care before rushing to include, particularly if it is controversial. --Masem (t) 23:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I see your comment, I was just clarifying why the policy distinction matters. Regarding your suggestion: I'm not sure why that's an improvement over existing policies. Hypothetically, if Bat Boy endorsed Barack Obama, and everyone agreed that this was accurate and obviously notable - if not essential - why not simply include it in the article? To me, offering special dispensation for "controversial" edits sounds like it invites the manufacturing of controversy when no legitimate content dispute exists. I really doubt it would lead to more consensus building. Nblund ^talk 00:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that if there's a strong consensus of editors to add something that is breaking news that is not essential to an article earlier, then it should be added; that approach is generally the core of how WP should function. But part of this is developing editor mindsets to recognize that something like "Batbot endorses Obama" is not encyclopedic content that it shouldn't be likely added at all, before consensus is even made. There's a whole spectrum of what is essential information to any article to what is fluff/indiscriminate, so determining what can be added sooner than later is not a black-and-white determination. --Masem (t) 14:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Other example

Example: [7] – 2017 New York City attempted bombing – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 New York City attempted bombing – List of terrorist incidents in New York City#December 11, 2017

Questions regarding this example:

• Suggested advice for involved editors (e.g. at Talk:2017 New York City attempted bombing)?
• Number of non-lethal casualties seems to differ from source to source: how to figure that out (Wikipedia seems to "lead" with determining its number as five) – what is "fake" news and what isn't?
• Seems illogical to have a separate article about this and not a single mention of the incident in the body of the Port Authority Bus Terminal article (WP:Summary style principle).
• "New York City attempted bombing" does not seem an appropriate name for the incident (as an article title it is at least questionable): "Port Authority Bus Terminal attempted suicide attack" may be more to the point (although maybe a bit longish).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This obviously isn’t “fake” news... but it is an example of rushing to write an article before the basic facts were known.

The question I have whether this failed bombing attempt is really notable enough for a stand alone article. Sure, it was all over the news yesterday morning (“if it bleeds it leads” after all) but by the evening news broadcasts it was hardly being mentioned (the attention span of the media had shifted back to the special election in Alabama). It seems that this failed attack has had no lasting effect or significance... and no sustained coverage. It is worth mentioning the event somewhere in WP (perhaps as part of a list of attacks article), but I seriously question whether it rates a stand alone article on its own. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"five persons injured" obviously *was* fake news (Wikipedia's, while the quoted source, as it happens CNN, object of the discussion here, said "four"). Note that the fake news has been corrected since, but it has been in the article for some time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• What do people here think about this revert, bringing back a number links of apparently not-too-closely related topics (more closely related topics remain unmentioned). This seems to suggest some POV, for which no single source is given. So unless someone thinks we should keep such OR-ish list of links, I'll remove it again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Legacy by Kevin Carter

Hello - I'm working on the article Kevin Carter which is connectet to The vulture and the little girl. I planning to add "Legacy" to the section "Death" - like "Death and Legacy". How I see it, a point of his legacy is: For students at colleges which study Journalism and medias is his picture of the Vulture and girl part of the Topic: Ethic. Example: Schreyer Scholars are required to complete an undergraduate honors thesis. For example: The Thesis by Sara Matulonis.. In her thesis Sara is using as references inline citations from the Book The Bang-Bang Club (book).

Maybe this allone is not working. So I add the review of the book writen by Niranjan S. Karnik as second citation. In his review he wrote: "as a perspective into the dynamics of wartime reporting it is valuable", and "Its overall value is not as much in its use as source of history, but in how it openly exposes the way journalists suffer in the course of their work, and the heavy ethical and moral questions they face on an daily basis."

The book - Marinovich, Greg; Silva, João (20 September 2000). The Bang-Bang Club: Snapshots from a Hidden War. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-04413-1. SELIBR 4962156. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Can I use this two citation for to write that a part of the legacy by Kevin is for to teach about ethics and moral in education of journalists?--Maxim Pouska (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Advanced Aquarium Concepts as a source

Is Advanced Aquarium Concepts a reliable source? I'd like to use it in the airstone article. http://advancedaquariumconcepts.com/air-bubbles-do-actively-aerate/ discusses both the fact that some fishkeepers don't believe that air bubble actively aerate water, and the fact that this belief is mistaken. I think that this is a self published source. Thanks. Antrogh (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Here we go: "I have been in the hobby since 1995. I have worked in the industry since 2000. ... I am a Biologist and have had articles published in Aquarium Fish International, Tropical Fish Hobbyist, and Practical Fishkeeping magazines. I have multiple other articles accepted by and awaiting publication in Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine." Okay, this is textbook WP:SPS, expert exception. Because the writer of this website is generally recognized as an expert in the field (because he's been published in magazines that have editorial oversight), the content he provides is reliable. It's best to attribute any content to him directly, though, as in, "Aquarium expert John/Jane Doe, author of 'Article,' says that the belief that air bubbles do not provide adequate aeration is unfounded because..."

The only reason this wouldn't apply would be if the writer is lying about his/her credentials. If someone challenges this source, the best thing to do would be to supply the writer's real name and provide a link to one or more of the magazine articles he/she has authored. One time, I emailed the author of a website to ask them for information like this, and they seemed flattered and pleased to provide it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPS does say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer," but if all you want to say is "this myth exists" rather than that any one specific person believes it, you're probably in the clear. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Antrogh (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Organic consumers association

• Food irradiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor insists [8] that we should use the Organic Consumers' Association as a source for the following:

Because the nutritional content changes after irradiation and because of the loss of probiotics food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading.

The issues for me are WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and the fact that OCA is an activist organisation with a dog in the fight. OCA is a trade body for Big Organic, they bankroll US Right To Know, a prime mover behind anti-GMO legislative efforts in the US, and are unquestionably not a neutral commentator. Per [9], this editor thinks that OCA are reliable because Codex Alimentarius is funded by the "biotech lobby" and does not use "legitimate science". That is clearly a fringe view. My thought here is that if we are to say that (a) food irradiation changes nutritional content and (b) that is the reason it is opposed by "food advocacy groups", we would need reliable independent sources. As written, this is WP:SYN, I think. Of more concern, the user considers that stating his opinions on my user talk page constitutes a valid basis to assert that he is right and reinsert the content. Is this a case for a DS notice on GMOs? Guy (Help!) 09:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For "the nutritional content changes after irradiation", WP:REDFLAG applies. Obviously the OCA falls well short of the sourcing requirement. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. The statement as written is incorrect as it presents stuff as fact that is not reliably sourced. However it can be reworded to be an attributed claim relatively easily - and it is a common view of organic consumer advocates regarding irradiated food - so as an example of how the organic industry views irradiation there is probably an argument for inclusion. The organic food market is a sizeable share and while their views on food irradiation are wrong (for the most part) it doesn't mean they are not relevant. "OCA claims the nutritional content changes after irradiation and because of the loss of probiotics organic food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading. - Ultimately this is a business push - the organic industry would like to be the only raw food provider and so is seeking to exclude anything else. I remember when organic food was about the impact on the environment, not about the food industry catering to hipsters. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And if we were thinking of including it like this, we should see that industry "view" commented on by secondary sources, to ensure there is sufficient weight to merit inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hence the 'yes and no' bit. I havnt looked into it far enough to see if anyone else has commented on it. You could argue the organic food industry's opinion on food preservation is valid regardless of its factual content solely due to the size of the organic food industry. There is a loud opposition to irradiated food, I cant see anything policy-wise that would prevent detailing briefly the source of that opposition via a primary source as long as its made clear it has no real basis. That there are plenty of studies confirming its safety is indirectly addressing those concerns anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not really a "reliable source" issue. It's more of a phrasing and UNDUE issue. One can phrase the statement as "OCA opposes irradiation due to <give their reasons>". As written, the statement gives the impression that "X is true, therefore OCA opposes irradiation", which is not good. All of this, of course, presumes that the OCA statement is notesworthy enough to be included. I have no idea about the latter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Radiation causing nutritional content changes(called ionization) and loss of Probiotics(called pasteurization) are facts. The references ([10] and [11]) are for referencing "food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading". --Ne0 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The extent to which radiation causes significant nutritional changes is not a simple fact, and evaluation of the data requires analysis by NPOV scientists, not by advocacy groups. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)