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

RfC: Taki's Magazine

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Some editors felt that this RfC was unneeded, or otherwise failed to demonstrate issues with the source, however, there is a consensus that Taki's Magazine is an opinion magazine and is thus not a reliable source. There is also agreement that even as an opinion publication this source should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

---

I've seen Taki's Magazine listed as a source a number of times recently and I'm worried by its use, it appears to be something similar to Breitbart. Before I go removing it and related claims from articles I'd like some feedback regarding its reliability. Which of the following best describes the reliability of Taki's Magazine?

1. Generally reliable for factual reporting
2. Unclear or additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable for factual reporting
4. Publishes false or fabricated information

Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Pure opinion, not reporting--and not particularly good at it. It's not as reckless as Breitbart, but that isn't saying much. Opinion is never a reliable source for anything other than the view of the author, and I don't think their authors are notable enough to have views worth including. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely unreliable - it's well-known for publishing racist garbage. Its managing editor was once noted neo-Nazi and white supremacist Richard Spencer, and it counts among its contributors a number of fringe extremist racists such as Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire (fired from National Review once his white supremacist work at Taki's Mag became publicly known) [1] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Taki's Magazine (a.k.a. Taki's Mag or Takimag) occupies a similar niche as VDARE (RSP entry), which was deprecated in December 2018. The site is biased or opinionated, and its published opinions are very likely to constitute undue weight. Taki's Magazine's reputation has been panned by a number of reliable sources:

Quotes about Taki's Magazine from reliable sources

Besides his podcast, Goad’s main platform is Taki’s Magazine, an extreme right-wing publication with an irreverent tone that promises its “only ideology is to be against the junk culture foisted upon us by Hollywood and the mainstream media.” Along with Goad and McInnes, it publishes authors like John Derbyshire, who was fired from the conservative National Review (RSP entry) after he wrote an article for Taki’s about advising his teenage children to “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” It described black people as “ferociously hostile to whites” and is now listed in the “greatest hits” section on Taki’s website. Taki’s contributors overlap with those at the hate site VDARE, including Steve Sailer — cited four times by TRS users — whose writing is largely dedicated to opposing immigration and drawing a false link between race and intelligence. "McInnes, Molyneux, and 4chan: Investigating pathways to the alt-right", Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) The article that got him fired wasn't actually posted at National Review but at Taki's Magazine, an outlet run by millionaire paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos that was formerly edited by outspoken white supremacist Richard B. Spencer and has run articles by Theodoracopulos in support of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn. This has been the trend for paleoconservative writing in the past decade or two. It's largely turned from mainstream conservative outfits to openly racist venues like VDARE, Taki's, American Renaissance, and the Occidental Observer. Admirably, the American Conservative has held the line and resisted crossing over into open white nationalism, but they're basically alone in that. "Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained", Dylan Matthews, Vox (RSP entry) After being fired, Spencer moved on to a new job as the sole editor of Taki’s Magazine, the online vanity publication of Taki Theodoracopulos, the scion of a Greek shipping magnate who was notorious for his racist remarks. In Spencer’s telling, he steadily evolved Taki’s into a magazine aimed at white nationalists. By 2009 he’d published essays by Jared Taylor and was regularly using the term “alternative right” in its pages to describe his youthful brand of anti-war, anti-immigration, pro-white conservatism. "Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power", Mother Jones (RSP entry) Unfortunately, Taki morphed from a harmless snob into a nasty purveyor of alt-right venom. His Taki’s Magazine is regarded as the leading alt-right outlet after Breitbart News (RSP entry). Quite recently he praised the ultra-hard-right party Golden Dawn as mostly “good old-fashioned patriotic Greeks”. "How Alexander Chancellor’s magazine became the home of the British alt-right", Harry Eyres, New Statesman Peter “Taki” Theodoracopulos The proto–Gavin McInnes. An elderly Greek playboy who named one of his dogs “Benito,” once spent three months in jail for cocaine possession, and runs the leading publication for hepcat paleoconservatives and cosmopolitan racists: Takimag, which prides itself on telling hard truths about the superiority of whites without being “boring” about it. "Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right", New York (RSP entry)

— Newslinger talk 09:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course, WP:ABOUTSELF allows us to use questionable sources, including this site, as a primary source equivalent for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that the claims are due and covered by reliable sources. Outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, there is little to no reason to use Taki's Magazine. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• We should not be using this. I am loathe to option-4 this without clear indication of fabrication - however it is fairly obvious we should not be using a far-right publication - mostly UNDUE for opinion, and lacking a reputation for fact checking.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. The claim is it was "isted as a source a number of times recently" but not a shred of a hint of where or how. No evidence that there is a dispute requiring an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Not claiming anything, I'm asking about the general reliability of a source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You did indeed claim to have seen it used, or you wouldn't have been considering this post. But here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims. A research study on the efficacy of aspirin is not "generally reliable" for the miracles of Jesus; the Gospel of Luke is not "generally reliable" for the efficacy of aspirin to treat headaches (despite Luke being a physician.) So this gives rise to the perennial objection to these generalized and context-free RFCs about "general reliability" of sources - yes, some sources like the Daily Mail are "generally unreliable" but we can't claim the converse: we need context about what type of claims are being made, in order to correlate them with the purview of the source in question. Only then can we evaluate reliability. So I hope you will understand the necessity of you producing some context, such as where this source was cited, and for what types of facts it is being invoked. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so what if I never saw it used, what difference would it make? I want to know if other editors think it's reliable, it's called seeking consensus...What on Earth could possibly be wrong with that? Bacondrum (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't see how it makes any difference - if the source is unreliable, then that's what it is, but here's the version of the page that I first saw it on. I removed it as it was obviously not even close to good enough. Upon reading the source I was shocked at the quality of the publication (or lack thereof), I then noticed the same crappy source used on related pages (all of which appeared to have suffered from extensive tendentious editing), so I made the request, to see what other editors thought of the thing. Bacondrum (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims" Obviously false, as demonstrated here and here. Yes, context absolutely matters, but we do have standards for general reliability, claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. Bacondrum (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I was going to respond here, but my response is better suited for the RfC below (RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs), which focuses on this matter. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse RfC. The domain takimag.com   is currently used in 69 articles. A number of these citations should be removed because the referenced articles are used for factual information, for which Taki's Magazine is generally unreliable, e.g. the citations in Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, 2010s in fashion, and Tropicana Casino & Resort Atlantic City. Some of these citations should be removed because they constitute undue weight, e.g. the citations in God Is Not Great, Death Wish (1974 film), and The New Art Gallery Walsall. This RfC addresses all of these uses, including the six citations I mentioned. — Newslinger talk 02:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A week ago I removed takimag.com cites for "Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23" and "2010s in fashion" and Tropicana Casino & Resort Atlantic City" and nobody complained, indicating that there is nothing controversial there requiring an RfC. The cites for "God Is Not Great" and "The New Art Gallery Walsall" are of a book review and an architecture review, i.e. opinion pieces, so this is an attempt to prevent cites of opinions not cites of facts. Read WP:NOTCENSORED. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the citations. Opinions published in questionable sources (including Taki's Magazine) written by non-notable people are almost always removed as undue weight when they do not qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF. Taki's Magazine's opinions in God Is Not Great should be removed if consensus in this RfC determines that Taki's Magazine is generally unreliable, questionable, or worse. — Newslinger talk 22:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Terrible source that shouldn't be used for anything, except limited primary source use, e.g. the article in Takimag that got John Derbyshire fired from National Review - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Use only for attributed statements of opinion, with in text attribution per David Gerrard. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Question Is there any evidence they have A reputation for poor fact checking?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Slatersteven, not that I have seen. It looks like the reasons that this source is being considered unreliable is due to some editors not liking the views of some of the sources contributors, it occupying a similar niche to sources widely considered unreliable, and due to being "far-right". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at the articles, mostly opinion, much of it is overtly racist. It's clearly a highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. If this is the standard for a reliable source then anything and everything should be considered a reliable source, including editors personal opinion, YouTube and Facebook. It was edited by out and out Nazi Richard Spencer. You'd be setting your standards very low to callthis anything but completely unreliable, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So no then apart form its POV (and no the reason we do not allow YouTube and Facebook is because they are full of out and out falsehoods, So then at worst its RS for its own opinions, and at best it in fact does not have a reputation for poor fact checking. So I have to go with Unclear or additional considerations apply.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Being "highly-partisan" is not evidence that a source has a reputation for poor checking. If you are claiming it ignores general journalistic principles then please provide evidence, otherwise it will come across as you trying to say this source is unreliable because you disagree ideologically with it. YouTube and Facebook are completely different. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Don't you have that backwards? WP:RS requires that a source have reputation for fact-checking an accuracy, not that nobody can prove they're inaccurate. If you want to defend the use of a source, you are the one who has to present proof that they have the fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires - eg. descriptions in other sources, or use in high-quality sources in a way that clearly reflects a trust in their content. I'm not seeing that here; if the best people can say in its defense is "you can't prove it's unreliable!", it probably doesn't pass WP:RS. I think that partially this discussion might be confused because we usually discuss sources that might otherwise pass WP:RS if it weren't for evidence they were intentionally publishing falsehoods (eg. Breitbart, the Daily Mail, etc.) - but this source is different. It doesn't pass even the baseline. A source with no reputation for factual reporting at all fails WP:RS completely, so you have to prove it has some sort of reputation before you can demand that others find evidence it's screwed up. --Aquillion (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove anything, I just am not sure that "its biased" is a valid justification (and in fact " However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."). That was my pointSlatersteven (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's the quotes again regarding Taki's as provided by Newsliinger if you need more:

Quotes about Taki's Magazine from reliable sources

Besides his podcast, Goad’s main platform is Taki’s Magazine, an extreme right-wing publication with an irreverent tone that promises its “only ideology is to be against the junk culture foisted upon us by Hollywood and the mainstream media.” Along with Goad and McInnes, it publishes authors like John Derbyshire, who was fired from the conservative National Review (RSP entry) after he wrote an article for Taki’s about advising his teenage children to “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” It described black people as “ferociously hostile to whites” and is now listed in the “greatest hits” section on Taki’s website. Taki’s contributors overlap with those at the hate site VDARE, including Steve Sailer — cited four times by TRS users — whose writing is largely dedicated to opposing immigration and drawing a false link between race and intelligence. "McInnes, Molyneux, and 4chan: Investigating pathways to the alt-right", Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) The article that got him fired wasn't actually posted at National Review but at Taki's Magazine, an outlet run by millionaire paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos that was formerly edited by outspoken white supremacist Richard B. Spencer and has run articles by Theodoracopulos in support of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn. This has been the trend for paleoconservative writing in the past decade or two. It's largely turned from mainstream conservative outfits to openly racist venues like VDARE, Taki's, American Renaissance, and the Occidental Observer. Admirably, the American Conservative has held the line and resisted crossing over into open white nationalism, but they're basically alone in that. "Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained", Dylan Matthews, Vox (RSP entry) After being fired, Spencer moved on to a new job as the sole editor of Taki’s Magazine, the online vanity publication of Taki Theodoracopulos, the scion of a Greek shipping magnate who was notorious for his racist remarks. In Spencer’s telling, he steadily evolved Taki’s into a magazine aimed at white nationalists. By 2009 he’d published essays by Jared Taylor and was regularly using the term “alternative right” in its pages to describe his youthful brand of anti-war, anti-immigration, pro-white conservatism. "Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power", Mother Jones (RSP entry) Unfortunately, Taki morphed from a harmless snob into a nasty purveyor of alt-right venom. His Taki’s Magazine is regarded as the leading alt-right outlet after Breitbart News (RSP entry). Quite recently he praised the ultra-hard-right party Golden Dawn as mostly “good old-fashioned patriotic Greeks”. "How Alexander Chancellor’s magazine became the home of the British alt-right", Harry Eyres, New Statesman Peter “Taki” Theodoracopulos The proto–Gavin McInnes. An elderly Greek playboy who named one of his dogs “Benito,” once spent three months in jail for cocaine possession, and runs the leading publication for hepcat paleoconservatives and cosmopolitan racists: Takimag, which prides itself on telling hard truths about the superiority of whites without being “boring” about it. "Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right", New York (RSP entry)

• Avoid. Only as limited primary source may be of some help. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Bad RfC as per Peter Gulutzan. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Terrible source - unreliable Autarch (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unusable for statements of fact (3) and not generally great as an opinion source, either. There's no evidence (as far as I'm aware) that it engages in outright fabrication, but that alone is not enough to get a source past WP:RS, which requires an actual reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this source lacks. It's clearly a WP:FRINGE outlet that posts entirely opinions; there's no evidence they do any investigation or fact-checking at all. It also lacks the reputation that would make opinions posted there automatically notable (it was difficult to find sources for its article, and the ones that came up were often critical or only mentioned it in passing), so it doesn't have much use as an opinion-piece outside of places where the author is directly the subject of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unusable for statements of fact (3) - only because even a broken clock can be right every once in a while. It's putrid garbage, and should probably be blacklisted from Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Bad RFC - No concrete instances of this source actually being at-issue with relation to article content have been raised. This is simply a WP:FORUM discussion. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Taki's Magazine. — Newslinger talk 17:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support referencing opinion pieces. The subject magazine is quite clearly a publicationn of opinion and not reportage. (And, by the way, whether we disagree or agree with the opinions expressed in it is entirely irrelevant.) Therefore, options #1, #3 and #4 simply do not apply; they cannot even be considered. The publication cannot be used as a source for facts. But it can be used as the source of an opinion that is added to an article. For example, if commentator Pat Buchanan writes a piece in Taki's Magazine attacking certain ideas or a politician and Buchanan's stance is assessed to be carrying value as information, there is no reason whatsoever not to use that. In so many words, we are in #2, with the subject to be potentially used exclusively as the source of original opinion material. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

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

RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs

• Should we agree to halt the use of RFCs containing four options for "general (un)reliability" of a source, particularly when said RFC contains no specific instances of claims or citations?
• While it may be useful to deprecate heavily-used and clearly-unreliable sources, the corollary is not true: Wikipedia is unable to promote a source to "reliable for any assertion about any topic whatsoever"; reliability is always assessed based on the nature of the claims being made.
• With these parameters in mind, is it futile for us to continually open RFCs here on WP:RSN if an outcome of "generally reliable for everything" is counter-productive and misleading?
  • Sub-question: should such RFCs be permitted as long as they include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact, such as one which is currently in dispute on an article's talk page?

Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey (moratorium)

• @Elizium23: Could you provide a couple of examples of the types of RfCs you think should be halted? 01:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs)

  Sure: WP:RSN#RfC: Quadrant Magazine, WP:RSN#RfC: Daily Graphic and wgraphic.com.gh, WP:RSN#RfC: The Herald (Glasgow). I didn't even have to visit our archives for them. I am not sure where this template originated, but it has rapidly become the de facto method for opening discussions here on RSN, and I do not like it, no sir, not one bit. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: This RfC is related to the RfC at WT:RSN § RfC: Header text, which affects the header text of this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose halting RfCs. By generally reliable, we're referring to sources that have a strong reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. They usually have a reputable editorial team, and tend to be endorsed or used by other reliable sources for factual information. Context always matters, and the consensus shown in some discussions on this noticeboard restrict the scope of what a source is generally reliable for (e.g. The Verge RfC).

  Note that the word generally means "usually" in this context, not "always". The general classification of a source is only the starting point for evaluating reliability, and specific uses of a source can always be brought to this noticeboard for a more targeted review. If a source frequently publishes articles outside of its circle of competence, like in your example about science and religion, then the source should not be considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  Then perhaps the question we should be asking is: Is there evidence that [source] have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight? If a source meets these criteria, and independence from the topic, etc., then per WP:NEWSORG we may deem it to be generally reliable for statements of fact. But I do not think it is useful to whip up boiler-plate RFCs directly asking whether [source] is 'generally reliable' (and it's interesting that the qualification for statements of fact is, here on RSN, often missing from this question. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, The 3 RfCs you have linked (Quadrant, Daily Graphic, The Herald) do include the "for factual reporting" qualifier after "Generally reliable". If this is not descriptive enough, then I agree that it would be helpful to provide more detailed definitions of each option in RfCs of this type. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  For what it's worth? Zilch. Newslinger opposed directly quoting or pointing to the RfCs, successfully. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  Your reference and link to a discussion on edit filters have nothing to do with generally reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Newslinger: If "generally reliable" is supposed to mean "usually" it should be worded differently, because "generally" sounds like it means in the broadest sense. "In general" is not equivalent to saying "in the cases where this source is applicable as a potential RS". If Scientific American is "generally reliable" then it would be reliable for politics too. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  ​Thanks for bringing this up. I've started a discussion at WT:RSP § "Generally" in search of a less ambiguous word than generally. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  As a result of the above discussion, "Generally reliable" has been changed to "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" in WP:RSP § Legend. — Newslinger talk 14:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  I am neutral on the restriction ("include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact") suggested in the sub-question. While we should encourage editors to provide examples of how a source is being used, a question on the general reliability of a source shouldn't be unduly focused on one specific use of that source. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose halting RfCs. What's wrong with seeking a consensus as to the reliability of a source? I thought we were aiming to have high quality reliable sources? If an outlet is unreliable, it is unreliable WP:SPADE. I personally think it's a very useful means to ensure quality citations and avoid myriad edit wars and content disputes before they happen. Bacondrum (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't the whole purpose of this noticeboard to ask questions regarding reliable sources? Bacondrum (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't this discussion be held somewhere else? This is the reliable source noticeboard, isn't it? Perhaps the talk page would be more appropriate? Bacondrum (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose halting RfCs. It's appropriate to have one big discussion about a source's reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction since this doesn't usually change from article to article. This doesn't prevent us from discussing its appropriateness in a specific instance where things like attributed quotes or scientific/medical claims come into play. –dlthewave ☎ 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, though there are a tad too many of these lately. Generally a RfC here on the general use should be preceded by a discussion on a particular use (here), and also demonstrating that we have a general problem (e.g. We use source X in 100 articles, despite source X being described as Y....). Lately - there have been some RfCs here that jumped the gun on proper pre-RfC discussions. However, we definitely shouldn't have a moratorium on RfCs of these type generally - as discussions sources is exactly what this board is for. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Be more careful Don't reach straight for the RfC unless other options have proved fruitless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. RfCs should only be used in order to cleanly remove/"deprecate" currently in-use sources. For sources where no formal action is envisaged, start with a standard discussion. feminist (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as there ahave been far too many in a short period so that the discussion is often truncated, undetailed, lacking participation and depth of investigation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The four-way question is deceptive and not consistent with WP:RS. It misleads by claiming to be a "deprecation" so people who know this dictionary definition will think it's about "disapproval" but in fact the intent (not necessarily implemented) is that an edit filter will result in a message that references are generally prohibited. It misleads by claiming to be "as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail" but in fact the Daily Mail closers didn't say "deprecating", said the prohibition is of use as a reference, and said opinion pieces are okay. It misleads by causing links to essay-status pages as if they have some sort of authority, when the real authority is WP:RS policy (the one that says to always take context into account). The Herald (Glasgow) RfC is an example of misuse -- an editor included the question about treating like The Daily Mail, not with evidence that serious people might think that but it's in the four-way question. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir, but "misuse"? I felt The Herald belongs on WP:RSP. What is the process if not posting here and getting consensus? It was my first time at this noticeboard. I saw the "four option" query being used here as if it was a template or standard format, so I followed suit. Other contributors even thanked me for the submission or said they thought The Herald was already on the list of perennial sources. And since this is policy currently being voted on, I don't think I was wrong, so I thank you not to characterize my submission as misuse or abuse of the noticeboard. --SVTCobra 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

SVTCobra Indeed, all this talk of misuse and dishonesty is way out of line, what happened to the assumption of good faith? I too saw that NEWSLINGER had used that format and I thought it was a clear and efficiant way to get feedback, I never asked for anything to be depreciated. Isn't this notice board precisely for asking about the reliability of sources? I've seen very little reasoning used here, just claims that too many people are asking questions or that those who ask are being dishonest. Should probably get rid of this noticeboard then, why have it if you aren't allowed to ask too much or your going to be accused of dishonesty. Bacondrum (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither of the Daily Mail (RSP entry) RfCs (2017 nor 2019) concluded that "opinion pieces are okay". See Wikipedia:Citing sources for what reference means.

Even deprecated sources qualify for the WP:ABOUTSELF exception, which allows their use for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that they are WP:DUE and covered by reliable sources. The reliable sources guideline is being honored in all of these RfCs, because context matters in each of the four options. (The only exception is the CoinDesk RfC, and I opposed the proposal in that RfC's statement because this criterion was not met.) WP:DEPS defers to WP:RS and explicitly states, "reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others". If there is any confusion about what deprecation means, a link to WP:DEPS will clarify.

When an editor asks about a low-quality source, we should be able to say that it is questionable, and that it generally shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Repeatedly debating the inclusion of poor sources that have earned abysmal reputations for repeatedly publishing false or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, or pseudoscience is a waste of the community's time. RfCs of this type allow us to make decisive evaluations resulting in consensus that endures until there is evidence that the source's reputation has changed. Consensus is a policy. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I said "misuse" correctly but should have emphasized it was innocent misuse, which is obvious. I said "and [Daily Mail RfC closers] said opinion pieces are okay" because despite Newslinger's irrelevancies it is a fact, see the NPOVN archive of a May 2017 discussion and look for the words "Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here." Nobody said anything against "we should be able to say that it is questionable" because that's not the topic. Consensus is not a policy that allows overriding WP:RS because WP:CONLEVEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65 § Daily Mail, the full statement from Tazerdadog (one of the 2017 Daily Mail RfC closers) was:

Attributed opinions of people other than the author were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here.)

The attributed opinions of any article's author are covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, which applies to all questionable (and deprecated) sources, although due weight should also be considered. If you don't like the results of the two Daily Mail RfCs, you can try to convince the community that "its use as a reference" should not be "generally prohibited". Overturning the current consensus would require a third RfC on the Daily Mail, which is not advisable right now because it's highly unlikely to succeed.

Nobody is suggesting that WP:RS should be overridden; the type of RfC being discussed here uses WP:V and WP:RS to identify questionable sources for what they are: "generally unreliable". — Newslinger talk 08:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is "about self", an honest title that has nothing whatever to do with Newslinger's assertion. But that doesn't matter since now there's no dispute that the closers said attributed opinions are okay, which is one of the reasons the question is misleading. I said nothing in this thread about overturning WP:DAILYMAIL, perhaps Newslinger mixes that up with my remarks that one shouldn't say something is like The Daily Mail and its RfC when it's not. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:ABOUTSELF. Using the example from the NPOVN discussion, the article that Katie Hopkins published in the Daily Mail qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF as an uncontroversial representation of what Hopkins's own opinions are. However, this is only due in the article on Katie Hopkins (and if it were more prominent, it would be due in the Daily Mail article). It is not due anywhere else. Claiming that "the closers said attributed opinions are okay" is extremely misleading, since it conflates WP:RSOPINION (which the Daily Mail does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with WP:ABOUTSELF (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all questionable sources and self-published sources). — Newslinger talk 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The closer remarks that I pointed to made no mention of WP:ABOUTSELF, Newslinger while claiming to quote "the full statement from Tazerdadog" quoted only one full statement, another was "However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close.", the point at issue wasn't secretly WP:ABOUTSELF unless one believes that when Katie Hopkins wrote "Britain is faced with some hard questions ..." the word Britain was a synonym for Katie Hopkins. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, because the claim is that Hopkins wrote the statement in the Daily Mail, not that the statement is true. It is used in the Katie Hopkins article as a primary source equivalent, but is not due anywhere else. Since WP:ABOUTSELF covers this situation entirely, no additional exceptions were made for the Daily Mail beyond what is normally allotted for questionable sources. The 2017 Daily Mail RfC does not support the use of the Daily Mail for all "opinion pieces", but the ones eligible for WP:ABOUTSELF "were not considered in the RFC". — Newslinger talk 00:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I asked a closer, Primefac. The reply is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying with Primefac. The Katie Hopkins case was not the ideal example, since it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF in the Katie Hopkins article. I will defer to Primefac's explanation for attributed opinions of Daily Mail authors in articles other than the article of the author, although due weight still applies. — Newslinger talk 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If the term deprecation is an issue, anyone can submit a requested move from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to Wikipedia:Highly questionable sources or some other name. The name makes no difference to me. However, I get the impression that you're not objecting to the name, but to the adoption of edit filters and other mechanisms that discourage the use of highly questionable sources. There is consensus that RfCs are the preferred process for determining whether these mechanisms should be implemented. You can verify this through the 18 successful RfCs that deprecated 17 different sources, and you can also read this paragraph from the closing statement of the 2019 Daily Mail RfC:

Finally, a number of editors argued that other publications were similarly, or more, unreliable than the Daily Mail. We note that the unreliability of a different source is a reason to remove that source, and is irrelevant here; regardless, these other publications are outside the scope of this RfC, and if there are lingering concerns about other tabloids or tabloids in general, a separate RfC is necessary to assess current consensus about them.

— Newslinger talk 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There was absolutely zero "lingering concern" that something like The Herald (Glasgow) is a tabloid meriting removal, but there is concern here about the misuse of a misleading 4-way question that was never suggested in WP:DAILYMAIL closing remarks. As for "identifying questionable sources" -- great idea, because it's normal behaviour following instructions at the top of this WP:RSN page, i.e. it's not an RfC with four fixed questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

As of right now, nobody in the RfC for The Herald has claimed that it is a "tabloid meriting removal". WP:RFC lists a number of accepted uses for an RfC: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content." The type of RfC under debate solicits input on whether a source generally meets the requirements of WP:V (a policy) and WP:RS (a guideline). Outside of the instructions in WP:RFCST, declaring whether an RfC format is or isn't "normal behaviour" for other editors is excessively bureaucratic, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You brought up "lingering concerns about tabloids", I observed there was no lingering concern, so the excuse that you brought up doesn't hold. You brought up how good identifying questionable sources was, I said that's normal and in keeping with WP:RSN, I don't think I need to excuse that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

These 18 RfCs, some of which you participated in, show ample "lingering concerns" regarding a wide variety of sources, including tabloids. One of the goals of these RfCs are to identify low-quality sources like InfoWars (RfC), Breitbart News (RfC) (which you defended), and Occupy Democrats (RfC) as sources that should be discouraged from use. — Newslinger talk 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I assume the closer of this RfC will be capable of noticing that Newslinger changed the subject instead of addressing the point. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You're ignoring the 18 RfCs that showed consensus for deprecating the source (including two tabloids, The Sun (RfC) and the National Enquirer (RfC)) and cherry-picking one RfC that doesn't. I've addressed your point. — Newslinger talk 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as per dlthewave. François Robere (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose also per Dlthewave. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - those kind of RfCs are appropriate for sketchy sources which are widely used. Like Daily Mail or Fox News kind of stuff. They are not appropriate for more narrow topics or sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Newslinger and others, with the added notes that 1) this should probably take place on the talk page for this board and 2) there's already a discussion under way there on an overlapping topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Let's have a moratorium on RfCs about RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha! My thoughts exactly, thanks for the chuckle.

• Oppose but I agree with Icewhiz about the need to first establish that a source has specific reliability issues before going for a general RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above: These RFCs are useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated. Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare, and generally invoked as a last resort), I don't think any outcome is taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. Additionally, while it's accurate to say that we should judge each case individually, the reality is that we can't reliably get enough people to weigh in on each of them to ensure consistent assessment of sources; going entirely case-by-case with no broader RFCs would result in inconsistent and sometimes random responses based on who happened to weigh in. In particular, one of the requirements of WP:RS is that a source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", often the most difficult thing to assess - and one that usually doesn't vary much from use to use (or, if it does, it does so in a consistent expected way that can be noted during the RFC.) These RFCs can't predict or account for all possible uses of a source, but they're absolutely useful in terms of giving us a consistent, reasonably well-grounded definition of "does this source, on the whole, have the baseline reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires?" --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that a source may have a “baseline reputation for fact checking and accuracy” in one area, and not have one in another area. This was pointed out in the several Daily Mail RFCs... the DM is accurate when reporting on sports... not when reporting on politics and celebrities. This is why I am not a fan of these RFCs. They don’t examine context. Blueboar (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So, several things. First, and most importantly, the Daily Mail RFC was one of those "last resort" things I mentioned - it's different from most of the RFCs we use here. Because a few people kept trying to use the Daily Mail as if it were a top-tier New York Times-quality source despite a very clear informal consensus that it was generally not reliable (and even though it kept coming back to WP:RSN and getting basically laughed off the page), we took the unusual step of formalizing that consensus into a general banned-by-default RFC. Those are and should be extremely rare, reserved only for when people keep insisting on trying to use a source in clearly unworkable ways over and over (ie. when a source both rarely passes WP:RS and is extremely popular for controversial topics where it clearly fails WP:RS.) It wasn't a gauge-the-general-room-temperature-for-the-Daily-Mail RFC, it was a we're-at-wits-end-and-need-this-to-stop RFC. Those are a separate thing, but I think they're justifiable occasionally; even in sports, I don't feel there much we would want in Wikipedia uniquely sourceable to the Daily Mail that can't be found elsewhere. But for the more common sorts of "what does the community think of X?" RFCs, things like this can be noted in the RFC, if it's true. We're not limited to binary yes / no options - the purpose of those RFCs is to collect a general measure of the community's consensus on a source in one place; if you look at the RFCs above, they're generally cautiously worded and lead to fairly cautiously worded entries in WP:RSP to provide guidance to editors, not strict bans or the like. Also, you are more likely to have someone contribute who knows those details in a large month-long RFC with a lot of people contributing than to have it come up in a tiny brief discussion with only a few people - what makes you think that if you come here saying "I want to use the Daily Mail as a source for Joe Sportsman", you'll get anything but "hahaha the Daily Mail? No." from the vast majority of responses? In this sense the RFCs are useful because they're more likely to turn up someone who says "wait, source X is actually usable in situation Y!", which (if they convince people in the RFC) can then be noted down on WP:RSP as something that came up and will then be available to editors who wouldn't otherwise have known it (and may not have discovered it, if they just poked WP:RSN and got a response from a handful of random people for their exact issue, which seems to be what the support voters here want us to go back to.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It is what is says on the box: an RfC about general reliability. ANY website is reliable for the material it says about itself, but we try not to use / should be very careful with the use of those (primary) sources in the first place. It is a good thing that we establish as a community that a certain source is generally reliable, sometimes/often reliable or generally unreliable. The ones that the community decides that they are generally unreliable should be removed for non-primary sources, and the use as primary source should be scrutinized and may need removal. The use of such unreliable sources should be strongly discouraged and sometimes plainly be made 'impossible' (i.e. only be possible after a consensus discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:
  • A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the list of perennial sources.
  • A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time.
  • The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that. Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• At least in as much as it applies, I have long said that we should not be having RfCs or even dedicated threads purely for the purpose of listing a source (one way or the other) on WP:RSPS. See also Goodhart's law. GMG^talk 14:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support strongly. If someone cares about looking into a sources reliability and answering questions about it they can go here. RfCs for sources which have not been brought here before just bludgeon the process and waste everybody involved's times. Sources should only be brought to RfC if there was no consensus or the consensus was not wide enough. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support While some publications are more reliable than others, it's not as if some sources are gospel truth while others are heretical. Above, we are spending time on the American Conservative which publishes conservative opinion. Policy is however clear. Opinion pieces are rarely reliable unless written by experts. What point is there in having an argument about what people think about these opinions? TFD (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support The whole idea of a broad brush for a source is badly flawed. First every source varies in reliability. Second, reliability varies with respect to the text which supports it. Britney Spear's sister's book might be reliable as a cite for a "Britney's favorite color is.." statement, but not for a statement on particle physics. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Honestly all the RFCs without having discussion first is disruptive and not very helpful in general. A RFC should be a last resort and not a first try. It also ignores the general ideas of what we consider a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per PackMecEng. The number of frivolous RfCs on this noticeboard discourages widespread participation, which undermines the possibility of them being authoritative answers, and encourages users to start an RfC every time they have a question about a source, or a gripe with one. Further, the wording of "generally reliable" which I take to mean "in general" conflicts with the primary meanings of "general" and may be misleading. Only an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source anyway, would be "generally reliable". The RfCs are stamping a "general" seal of approval on sources that may have only narrow applicability. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify every single potential source here, and by doing so we store up potential problems for the future (bad decisions made without any context, which when applied to an actual case are clearly wrong in the context of that case). Just apply WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

PS - I also think a good argument can be made that these general discussions of source-reliability are against WP:FORUM. Unless there is a concrete issue related to article content being discussed, then ultimately these are just forum-type discussions about media in general. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

These discussions don't violate WP:NOTFORUM, since they affect article content. They also affect how editor conduct is evaluated in areas subject to discretionary sanctions. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Only in the sense that a contextless discussion on what countries, politicians, or political parties are "bad" might do - and I'd hope that we would be able to identify that as as a WP:FORUM discussion. FOARP (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The context is all of the articles the source is cited in, which can be found through an insource query or Special:LinkSearch. And this entire noticeboard focuses on evaluating whether sources have adequate reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. We're not determining whether various entities are "bad", but whether sources meet Wikipedia's standards. If these discussions were just forum discussions that didn't impact article content, there would be no incentive for you to post "Bad RfC" in all of the other RfCs on this page. — Newslinger talk 08:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, folks, stating that something is a Bad RFC means it must be a good RFC. My incentive cannot possibly be to point out that they are bad RFCs - I must be doing it because they are good ones!

Similarly, discursive, context-free discussions about sources that frequently reference the imagined political bias of the source and rarely cite meaningful evidence of general unreliability are not actually a determination of the source being "bad" in any sense - other than having the potential effect that they cannot be used. FOARP (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some sources are plainly unreliable for any factual information, and we shouldn't have to make a request for each and every article in which they are used. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose if prior discussion - I don't see why a full-blown RfC is needed if there hasn't been a prior general RSN discussion on it. However, if there has, why not seek out consensus? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose halting RfCs: such discussions and WP:RSP heuristics (which marks many sources as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise") are exceptionally helpful to newer users and those less experienced in determining if a source is reliable. Saying "reliability is always assessed based on the nature of the claims being made" tells a new user nothing. It's a rule for experienced users to bear in mind in edge cases, but not helpful to someone who wants to know whether they should go to The Register (yes) or Forbes (yes unless it's /sites/) or Breitbart (no) when they need a reliable source for something. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

/sites/ is now used for staff articles too not just contributors. example. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, good to know. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a general concept. Actually, I wonder whether we should stop declaring sources to be generally unreliable, and instead start pointing out the specific ways in which certain common sources fail the guideline. The Daily Mail, for example, is generally unreliable because it's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is poor, not because we don't like it. Declaring sources to be generally unreliable (beyond saying things like "DM doesn't meet the WP:RS guideline's definition of a reliable source – specifically, it fails point #1 in WP:NOTGOODSOURCE") overlooks the importance of WP:RSCONTEXT and usually is more of a question about WP:DUE weight anyway. (Yes, that website/fringe news site/politician actually did say that [which means the source is "reliable" under the WP:RS definition for narrow statements like "This source said that"]. But so what? There's no need to put any of that in this article in the first place.) In several cases, I think that these "GUNREL" declarations have actually been "tiny minority" declarations, and muddling the two concepts is a bad idea for anyone who wants to be able to think clearly and logically about content policies.
  Specifically, while I think we should stop having these RFCs, I am willing to perhaps consider the occasional RFC in contentious cases that have repeatedly appeared here at RSN and where RSN has had difficulty in resolving those discussions. (RSN regulars are perfectly capable of repeating "No, you can't use that anonymous HIV denial website to support a claim that HIV doesn't exist" as many times as necessary, without anyone starting an RFC.) As a practical matter, I also think we should stop having these "banned sources" RFCs on this page (use a subpage if you need to). Any of the alternatives that sound approximately like "Stop the RFCs unless you genuinely can't get resolve your content dispute any other way" would work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal as too rigid, but favor some minimal threshold. I would favor, as a general rule, that an editor starting a "general reliability" RfC would need to provide diffs showing (1) that the source was cited at least 5-10 times in article space (either presently, or in the recent past) and that there has been some of sort actual dispute about the reliability of the source. (I would not, as some suggest, require 3 different noticeboard discussions or anything like that—but I would require some sort of actual evidence, via reversion, talk page discussion, or noticeboard discussion, that the reliability of a source has actually been disputed.). Neutrality^talk 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – sources should be evaluated in connection with a specific claim in a specific article, and not generally. – Levivich 01:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is obvious utility in maintaining the list of generally unreliable sources. Obviously some people do not like the fact that some sources are generally unreliable. That is largely the point. Case by case review of Breitbart would be a titanic waste of time, and we'd need a {{still no}} template as well. Equally, a source that is a legitimate review case by case, is probably not right for deprecation. There should not be many deprecated sources but there absolutely should be deprecated sources, and managing this through RFC is the only obviously practical way of doing it. Not every new user can be expected to be familiar with our arcana, so the edit filters minimise bite, and again, we have to have some way of managing that. You could make a case for triaging, and putting those which meet the threshold for a proper debate at WP:CENT, but we have to have the RFCs. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose- Although I can see the arguments for dialing back the RfCs a little, I worry that forbidding all discussion is just going to make every mendacious propaganda site decreed reliable by default while preventing anyone from doing anything about it. Reyk _YO! 10:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the main question. I do agree that they're mainly for unreliable sources, though, rather than setting rules for what is reliable [in general]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Autarch (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2019

(UTC)

• Just a quick count of votes to date: 19 OPPOSE and 11 SUPPORT Bacondrum (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose moratorium, while supporting the inclusion of several specific examples whenever raising a general question about a particular source. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support the opinions of North8000 and FOARP appear to be persuasive. The use of a source should be on a case by case basis, per article. Looking back on some of these RfCs a case of IDONTLIKEIT appear to have created consensus to ensure that sources are no longer utilized, which leads to due to the reduction of available resources, some content taking on the weight of views of the remaining sources, while excluding the views of other sources thus leading to, well meaning but, non-neutral content. Thus as others have suggested CONTEXTMATTERS.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 11:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per the many reasons already noted. Having a more structured discussion seems useful. I’ve been in a few roundabouts where the core issues are ignored and productive movement is derailed , on purpose or not, to the detriment of getting consensus.
  I also find it very useful to know if given a choice of multiple sources to use, which ones are more reliable. Presumably we should be getting sources that will last and not be just good enough for the moment. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support ^{Second thoughts 10:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)} - sources are used for verifiability so it depends on what needs to be verified - see WP:V To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. It is a core content policy to which we should adhere. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs. — Newslinger talk 17:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Workshop

Some editors have suggested restrictions on when an RfC on the general reliability of a source would be appropriate, as well as changes to the commonly used 4-option RfC format. For more coordinated discussion, please list your suggestion in a new subheading under this "Workshop" section, so other editors can comment on them individually. ​​​​​​​​— Newslinger talk 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia's proposal

I still oppose option 4 of the "commonly used" format. In my view an RfC on reliability is only appropriate if there has not been a discussion here which generated clear consensus, or if there has been discussion scattered around Wikipedia which needs centralising in an easily referable place. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Alsee's proposal

Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:

• A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the list of perennial sources.
• A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time.
• The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that.

Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support some combination of this with GMG's proposal below being added to instructions at top of this noticeboard. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Alsee's proposal ensures that general reliability RfCs are decided on at least four rounds of examination (three previous discussions plus the RfC itself), and directs attention to sources that need the most input from editors. It delineates the difference between the general case and specific cases, and does not place undue weight on any single use of a source. RfCs are most useful for reducing the volume of discussions on sources that are discussed too often. This proposal is likely to make the greatest reduction on editor workload by ensuring that there are not too many RfCs nor too many discussions on this noticeboard. (A requirement of 4–5 discussions instead of 3 also sounds reasonable to me.) — Newslinger talk 00:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, too WP:CREEP-y. An essay to this effect might make sense, but these discussions are useful to gauge the general temperature of the community's views on a particular source, which helps people decide whether to open specific discussions and how to word them if they do (eg. letting people know the starting point and whether they need to argue a particular usage is an exception to the general community opinion on a source in one way or another.) More specific RSN discussions are useful but not sufficient for our purposes on their own, since they usually have very little participation and can therefore produce extremely swingy results between similar sources based on who happens to weigh in. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, maybe best left for an essay (or some mildly worded friendly advice at the top of this page). I think that formal RfCs exacerbate the problem of these swingy results because if there are 10 active RfCs on here all the time, people watching for RfCs may just start to ignore them. So while it being an RfC may give the impression of being authoritative or representing general consensus, the flood of them may make that not true. Or is that off base? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. François Robere (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support if original proposal not passed - This is a good alternative since it would still address the problem of people simply treating this page as a forum for discussing which sources are, in their view, "bad" in some contextless sense. FOARP (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Supt.-2nd Choice if "GreenMeansGo's proposal" below does not pass, see my reasoning there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The list of perennial sources should have its own inclusion criteria based on past RfCs. Assuming that were based on multiple past discussions, it's unclear what this proposal would allow for in the case of general reliability RfCs. I generally support the idea that we shouldn't jump to one of those RfCs without previous discussions of a source, but I'm reluctant to suggest codifying that rule or, as I've already implied, the necessary involvement of RSP, which should remain a meta resource rather than play a role in the consensus process. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo's proposal

You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable. GMG^talk 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

^^^^ !!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes - though I'd loosen this somewhat. I think it is OK to discuss a widely used source prior to article level discussions (however that shouldn't be a RfC - but a request for input - and should have specific examples - e.g. source W is used for X, Y, and Z. I have concerns because of A, B, C. In any case not universal). A blanket deprecation RfC should only be opened if there is an indication of a problem on Wikipedia (e.g. Daily Mail - was widely used). Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – This should become policy. – Levivich 02:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support CThomas³ (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support adding to instructions at top of noticeboard. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, too WP:CREEP-y. Perhaps as a general suggestion, but not as a rule - as discussed above, it is useful for editors to gauge the general "temperature" of opinion on a particular source, and I don't think we should have any hard restrictions on them doing so. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure, I didn't add the header above and keep getting surprised when I see this section pop up on my watchlist. But I'm not sure I at all understand the reference to CRUFT, which you seem to have made twice now. GMG^talk 19:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Oops, I meant WP:CREEPy, not WP:CRUFTy. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aquillion. And honestly there are sources out there that people try to use that are beyond the pale in basically any circumstance. So while no source is always reliable, being able to find out if a source is always unreliable is useful. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A more specific issue, which came up for the Newsweek RFC below, is that the precise wording of this suggestion would bar people from making general RFCs when a source is frequently discussed and frequently found reliable. (It would also bar RFCs when a source is frequently discussed with no consensus, which is utterly absurd, since those are the situation that most desperately requires a broader high-participation RFC that might reach some sort of consensus.) Having a broad RFC to settle perennial discussions of all sorts is general policy. I'm not sure we even can bar future RFCs of that nature per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. The whole idea of "let's have an RFC to set the rules under which people can make future RFCs" seems both WP:CREEP-y and sketchy. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • 100% on the issue of perennial discussion and general policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • That makes sense, we cannot change the rules for RfCs without an RfC advertised as doing such. I was thinking more along the lines of "advice" at the top of this page. Something to the effect that starting a formal RfC for every question about a source may overload the RfC process and limit participation. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem is... no source is ever “always unreliable”... if nothing else, every source will be reliable for citing a quote from that source (and is, in fact, the MOST reliable source for that purpose). Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the exception for quotes and opinion statements that is often trotted out. If a quote hasn't been repeated by reliable sources, it fails W:WEIGHT; if it has, why not just cite the reliable source? –dlthewave ☎ 17:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If we're at a point where we're discussing whether a source is "always unreliable" or just "mostly unreliable", then we shouldn't use that source. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is incorrect on two points. First, there are, in fact, "always unusable" sources, ones that can never be cited in any context; in particular, WP:USERGENERATED sources can never be cited, fullstop - no context exists under which it is ever appropriate to cite one. But more generally, most of these RFCs and discussions are asking about whether a source can be used for anything except the opinion of its author. There are a huge number of sources that are clearly not usable outside that extremely specific context. Context matters for some aspects of WP:RS, but not all of them - there are ways to fall RS severely enough to render a source totally unusable in any situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for the following reasons:

1. There's value in discussing the general reliability of a source - be it a writer, a publisher, or a specific creation - which may or may not have a reputation for reliability among experts. Do musicologists often cite Peter Schickele? No (though not for lack of talent), and the current rules allow me to reflect that with an RfC if the question arises.
2. The proposal assumes general RfCs are wasteful in terms of editors' time and effort, but the fact of the matter is that one general RfC is much less wasteful than a whole bunch of specific ones. If one is only allowed to bring fourth a general RfC after a "preponderance" of specific threads have been opened, then how much time would we have we wasted on those threads? And this is assuming good faith.
   1. BTW, how much is "a preponderance"? Is five a preponderance? Ten? Do you really want an editor to be "legally" able to open five threads on a bogus source in five different articles before someone is able to bring them here?
3. The purpose of RfCs is to resolve disputes, but by requiring that previous threads "have decided the source is unreliable" we'd be preventing disputes from ever reaching the RfC stage. After all, what's the point of an RfC if we already have a consensus? Just ban RfCs altogether.

Bottom line: if you really believe there's a problem with too many general RfCs being brought in, then there's a much better proposal on the table by Alsee. François Robere (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support It's the closest thing that approaches the purposes of WP:V judging in context, and it would tend to avoid the WP:NOTAFORUM stuff these open ended queries get. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to not only be about RFCs; too bureaucratic for a noticeboard. —PaleoNeonate – 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support The note at the top of this noticeboard clearly says that discussions should be about whether sources are reliable for specific purposes. Also, WP:V and other sourcing policies clearly state that reliability can only be judged in context. I don't think these general RFC should be completely banned, but people are opening them on sources that have never been discussed on the noticeboard, or for sources that are essentially never used in articles anyways. That just clutters up the noticeboard with useless junk. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Prefer Alsee's proposal, which applies the same treatment to the entire reliability spectrum. — Newslinger talk 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "preponderance" - some level of prior consideration might be worthwhile, but the phrasing indicates that a more significant number is needed, perhaps unnecessarily restrictive Nosebagbear (talk)
• Mixed (mostly support Icewhiz's modification): I agree that opening an RFC in the absence of any indication that anyone has ever attempted to use a source is kind of waste of time, but asking editors to open multiple WP:RSN discussions about an obviously unreliable source before finally having an RFC would be an even bigger waste of time. If I have a dispute over a source Rense.com that reaches a point where it's necessary to open a noticeboard discussion, then why not just go ahead and deprecate to save everyone the trouble of revisiting a clearly terrible source in the future? Specific content disputes should be the starting point, but maybe we should make allowances for editors (emphasis on the plural) to agree to broaden a discussion if a particular source looks like it warrants it.Nblund ^talk
• Support - absolutely! It's in our PAGs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion's proposal

I suggest discouraging any repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here. If there's no consensus to remove them, or if we've agreed to allow them under certain circumstances, then posting near-identical comments to several of them at once objecting to them in identical terms, like this is WP:POINTy. (Not to call that one set of edits out - it's the most recent example, but others have done similar things in the past.) The reality is that such discussions have been accepted practice for a long time, and absent an actual RFC against them or some other indication that that practice has changed, trying to shout them down by responding to all of them at once with identical objections isn't constructive. The appropriate way to halt a common practice you find objectionable is to first try and establish a centralized consensus against it, not to try and force through an objection that lacks such clear consensus through disruptively repeating your interpretation as fact even when after it's failed to reach consensus. Posting identical "bad RFC!" messages on a whole bunch of discussions at once isn't the way to move forwards, especially if there isn't really a clear consensus backing that objection up. Merely having a strong opposition to particular sorts of discussions, or strongly believing that they're against some policy, isn't sufficient justification for disrupting them like that if there's no clear consensus backing you up. Obviously this would just be a general guideline - people could still object to individual ones they feel are particularly unhelpful, but mass-copy-pasting an otherwise off-topic objection to every single RFC of a particular type that you think we shouldn't be having ought to require at least some consensus to back you up. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. The whole point of this centralized discussion is to settle this in a clean fashion so it doesn't constantly spill out and disrupt other discussions with meta-arguments. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The constant obstruction caused by these objections, written into multiple unrelated discussions without consideration of the sources being discussed, is indeed disruptive. The results of this RfC should settle this matter definitively. — Newslinger talk 01:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Bad question. You refer to use of the words "bad RfC" (in this case by FOARP but I have done it more often). You are alleging that saying that is "disruptive" and that someone has tried to "shout down" others. These are conduct accusations. Replying "oppose" to a conduct accusation is (I believe) an error, since it implies acceptance that the proposal is legitimate in this context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Bad Proposal If the outcome of this RfC is that we shouldn't have those types of RfCs, then that objection is the correct objection to make. It doesn't matter if you're objecting to 1 bad RfC or 10 - they would all be bad RfCs. If the outcome of that RfC is that we should have those types of RfCs, then that objection shouldn't be made even once. Galestar (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Right, but what happens if (as seems extremely likely at this point) this RFC is closed with no consensus? Those discussions keep happening, and the same few people keep posting the same few identical objections on all of them? I don't think that that's a reasonable way to proceed. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal starts with Regardless of the outcome of this RFC. This proposal is only even possible if 1 of the 3 outcomes is arrived at... Galestar (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And ends with ...that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here. Most of the proposals above would allow them under certain circumstances, so I worded it broadly in the sense of ie. obviously comments reminding people of a clear outcome here would be fine. (And, obviously, you are incorrect about 1 of the 3; there's also the situation where none of the options reach a clear consensus.) Nonetheless, I'll remove the first bit to avoid confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay I guess I didn't quite understand some of the nuance at first. I still think that this proposal should only be considered once its decided what kind of objections are allowed/disallowed/undecided. Maybe I just think too linearly and don't want to jump ahead to the part where we decide how many objections at a time are okay when we haven't yet decided (or failed-to-decide?) which objections are okay. Galestar (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bad proposal - WP:NOTAFORUM is a pretty basic rule on Wikipedia, and if people on this page want to repeatedly flout it by engaging in context-free, discursive "Which media sources do you feel are bad?" style discussions, then you betcha I'm going to point that out. It also clearly states what should and should not be RFC'd on this page right at the top, pointing out that an RFC flouts this can be no more wrong than pointing out that an AFD nomination fails WP:BEFORE, or that an RFC is wrongly factored (both of which are very common). FOARP (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Support as per proposer. Bacondrum (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as consensus can change and the proposal to disallow further RfCs about past RfCs doesn't allow for CCC. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 11:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  This proposal does not "disallow further RfCs about past RfCs". It discourages "repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs". — Newslinger talk 11:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Adoring Nanny's Concern and proposal

The problem I see with blanket rules about what is and is not reliable is that it replaces using one's brain to figure it out. Effectively, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS carries no weight. See this discussion where I was in effect told that it was inappropriate to actually examine the evidence in the various sources and come to an evidence-based conclusion, which is exactly what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS implies one should do. Instead, the accepted thing appears to be to blindly follow certain rules about what is and is not reliable. And that makes people cynical about Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest that what needs to happen is that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS needs to become policy that is actually used, rather than merely a "policy" statement that sits there but doesn't carry any weight in a decision about what is reliable and what isn't. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're proposing. WP:V, a policy, already states that "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." In the same paragraph, it defines the reliability spectrum: "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Reliability depends on context, but some sources are more reliable in general than others. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  ​Additionally, your application of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw § Undue weight and fringe viewpoints (your linked discussion) is incorrect. You said in Special:Diff/893517711, "The soundness of one's conclusions -- the question of whether or not they follow logically from the evidence one is examining -- trump everything." That is against policy; we must "fairly [represent] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (WP:DUE). WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is not a trump card that allows us to elevate a fringe opinion that is not supported by other reliable sources. If a person is convicted in court, and nearly all reliable sources report that they are guilty, it would be improper to grant a false balance to the minority perspective of a news reporter who claims that they are innocent, when that perspective is not corroborated by other reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 20:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Adoring nanny, I just read the discussion you are referring to and I thought "Everyone in prison is innocent", if the court found him guilty and reliable sources report as much, that's the end of the story as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If he contests the conviction and it is overturned, then he is vindicated, otherwise it's just another in a long line of criminals claiming to be innocent. Any personal assessment of the evidence is original research. Bacondrum (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, context matters should be applied to sources that are generally unreliable, in that if a source is generally unreliable it should be seen in context as generally unreliable...hope that makes sense? ie: a dishonest source may tell the truth from time to time, but they cannot be trusted because they are generally dishonest. Bacondrum (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Bellingcat (August 2019)

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.

---

Is Bellingcat a reliable source? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC) I am here to request that Bellingcat be considered a RS. Here is information about the website which indicates that it is deserving of RS status:

• Reliable outlets overwhelmingly describe Bellingcat as an investigative journalism website (or synonym) and cover its stories favorably: NPR (Bellingcat “ has meticulously investigated conflicts around the world”)[2], Guardian (“Bellingcat has been responsible for revealing key aspects of some of the world’s biggest stories”[3] + “in its short life has broken scoop after scoop”[4]), Wired (“ just the latest in an ongoing series of reve¬lations the Insider and Bellingcat have made”[5]), CBS News[6], New Yorker (“Bellingcat’s news-making investigations”[7]), Australian Broadcasting Corporation[8], AP[9], NYT[10], Reuters[11], DW[12], AFP[13], and BBC[14][15].
• In an article for the NY Review of Books, University of Stirling journalism scholar Muhammad Idrees Ahmad said in June 2019, Bellingcat “ has chalked up an impressive record of breakthroughs… Its alums either lead, participate in, or support every notable open-source journalistic enterprise currently in operation. ”[16] According to Ahmad, Bellingcat is not only notable for its methodological sophistication but for the transparency of the process involved in uncovering stories. He notes that this has influenced legacy outlets to add greater transparency to their own reporting. INews writes, “Although most investigative journalism is shrouded in mystery, the [Bellingcat] platform shows their workings, detailing how they found out the story and which techniques they used”[17]
• Favorable coverage by reliable outlets such as CJR[18], Poynter[19], the Tow Center for Digital Journalism[20], Nieman Lab [21][22], Foreign Policy magazine[23], and Human Rights Watch[24]. Poynter: "In the verification business, Bellingcat is a website on a hill... for fact-checkers and other journalists, Bellingcat has an open-source list of tools that are essential for any online investigation."[25] Bellingcat research has been cited in the International Court of Justice[26]. The Guardian described Bellingcat’s Skripal scoops as “a series of blockbuster investigations”.[27] The Financial Times described Bellingcat's podcast about its own reporting on MH17 as "Extraordinary in detail, tenacity and execution, you can practically smell the sweat that’s gone into making it."[28]
• Major scoops and reports which were covered by establishment news outlets: Evidence that Russia was behind the MH17 downing[29][30], “broke the Skripal story”[31][32], "a comprehensive and contextualized report on the motives and movements of the Christchurch killer"[33], uses of chemical weapons in Syria[34], locating The Netherlands’ most-wanted criminal using Instagram,[35], a Russian troll factory website[36], a project to track military vehicle movements in Ukraine[37][38], . The International Criminal Court used information uncovered by Bellingcat in the arrest warrant for [[Mahmoud al-Werfalli].[39] and Bellingcat was “praised for the groundbreaking investigation” into a mass-killing in Cameroon.[40]
• Bellingcat staff are frequently cited as experts[41][42]. The Tow Center for Digital Journalism recommends that journalists and journalism students see Bellingcat for how to report on user-generated content.[43][44] Poynter recommends a Bellingcat guide for using LinkedIn data.[45] This study recommends a Bellingcat guide to open-source investigations.[46] The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network published "A 5-point guide to Bellingcat's digital forensics tool list"[47].
• Bellingcat staff have collaborated with the BBC[48][49]. Peer-reviewed books on digital journalism have chapters authored by Bellingcat journalists on how to conduct digital forensics.[50] Outlets such as the New York Times have hired Bellingcat staff as reporters.[51] Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins sits on an advisory board for the International Criminal Court on the use of technology in ICC cases.[52]
• According to Ahmad, Bellingcat has had an influence on journalsm: “Bellingcat’s successes have encouraged investment in open-source research capability by much larger and long-established media institutions (such as The New York Times Visual Investigations), human rights organizations (Amnesty’s Digital Verification Corps; Human Rights Watch’s soon-to-be-launched OSINT unit), think tanks (the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab), and academic institutions (Berkeley’s Human Rights Investigations Lab).”[53]
• Per Bellingcat, it has won the following awards: “Bellingcat has won The Hanns Joachim Friedrichs Prize in 2015, the European Press Prize for Innovation in 2017, the Ars Electronica Prize for Digital Communities in 2018, the European Press Prize for Investigation in 2019, and the London Press Club award for Digital Journalism in 2019. Bellingcat has also been involved with award winning collaborative projects, most recently the BBC Africa Eye investigation, Anatomy of a Killing, which has won multiple major journalism awards, including a Royal Television Society Award and Peabody Award.”[54]
• Bellingcat has corrected news stories by legacy outlets such as the AP and NYT[55].

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey: Is Bellingcat a reliable source?

• Generally reliable. For the reasons presented above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• See also: Talk:Douma chemical attack#RfC: Bellingcat coverage VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans rather comprehensive overview above, as well as my own past experience with its coverage. Bellingcat is one of the best things to have happened in independent journalism in recent years. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC) 20:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong No unless qualification included to indicate Bellingcat is a “grant-making organization that receives an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress through the Department of State” which gives, at minimum, an appearance of bias. (About BellingcatNED FAQs) Humanengr (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think perhaps you have confused Bellingcat with the NED, from which Bellingcat receives a grant, but as far as I can tell, has no other relationship? Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Not confused. Bellingcat receives government money via NED, regardless of claims of independence. That suffices to taint. Humanengr (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

But would you agree with me that Bellingcat is not a "grant-making organization"? That is NED. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t make a difference if they are or aren’t. It’s that their existence and function is supported by government. As far as making grants, I do see on that link that, at minimum, they have staff. So in that sense, they admit to providing grants. Humanengr (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It makes a difference to me in that I believe in the quaint notion that facts matter. Again, you are being unclear. In your view, does Bellingcat or NED "admit to providing grants"? Dumuzid (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What ‘facts’ are you referring to? And no, I don’t see where Bellingcat verbatim “admit to providing grants.” Humanengr (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact I mean is that you asserted that "Bellingcat is a 'grant-making organization that receives an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress through the Department of State.'" This is simply untrue. They receive a grant from the NED, which fits that description. That may be enough for you to deem them unreliable, but it does not change the fact that they are independent organizations. Bellingcat, so far as I can tell, does not make grants, nor does it directly receive an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress through the Department of State. Would you agree with me to that extent? Dumuzid (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The money trail — U.S. -> NED -> Bellingcat — is obviously indirect. Independent? The Board makeup gives a different impression. But, yes, I do agree that “Bellingcat, so far as I can tell, does not make grants” per se, “nor does it directly receive an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress through the Department of State.” Humanengr (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What does that have to do with its reliability? Reliable sources such as NPR, PRI, PBS, and Journal of Democracy are funded in part by the US government, as are countless peer-reviewed studies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Opposing nation’s media would be / are lambasted for similar appearance. Fair is fair. Thx for the list. Humanengr (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to propaganda outlets like RT, Sputnik and TeleSur, the difference is that none of those outlets have a reputation for reliability and fact-checking whereas NPR, PRI, PBS, Journal of Democracy and Bellingcat do have reputations for reliability and fact-checking (as well as state-funded news outlets such as BBC, DR, SVT, NRK, CBC, ARD, YLE, RÚV, Sveriges Radio, Radio France etc. - [56]). That they are government-funded is not the reason per se why they are unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

’Reliable’ only as conferred by a self-reinforcing loop. Humanengr (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

At this point it seems like you have a fundamental issue with WP:RS. We define reliability based on a source's reputation among a network of other reliable sources; if you feel that the entire mainstream media is flawed and unreliable, you've fundamentally rejected WP:RS in favor of trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

How about we start by applying WP:RS evenly? Any media that receives government funding gets treated the same, be it U.S.-allied or other is treated alike — banned, approved, approved w an attached caution. Humanengr (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of there's not a single source that has been downgraded in RS status for the sole reason that it's in some way funded by a government entity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe you had mentioned RT, Sputnik and TeleSur. On what basis have judgments been made re those? Humanengr (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

They are not RS because they repeatedly publish falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, past discussions on RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), Sputnik (RSP entry), and Telesur (RSP entry) criticized these sources for spreading propaganda and disinformation. In particular, there are 30 in-depth reliable sources that explicitly describe RT as a propaganda outlet. The fact that these sources are closely connected to their respective governments indicates that they are partisan sources, but does not directly impact their reliability. Their low reliability is tied to their poor reputations for accuracy.

Now, TASS (RSP entry) is another case in which some editors questioned its reliability solely because it is operated by a country with low press freedom (Russia). However, other editors did not think that was the primary factor and expressed a range of opinions on different grounds. In any case, the US is not a country with the same scale of press freedom problems, and the same arguments would not apply here. — Newslinger talk 04:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger, re "the US is not a country with the same scale of press freedom problems" — not sure how one makes a judgment on that from within the medium. (McLuhan re fish) Humanengr (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm deferring to the judgment of the Press Freedom Index. In 2019, the US is ranked #48 ("noticeable problems"), while Russia is ranked #149 ("difficult situation") out of 180 countries. — Newslinger talk 03:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Difficult to respect that ranking (even from within the fishbowl) given their methodology's 'indicators'. #2 is 'Media independence': "Measures the degree to which the media are able to function independently of sources of political, governmental, business and religious power and influence." Do any Western media operate independently of Western intelligence sources wrt accusations against non-Western-allied nations? #1: Pluralism: "Measures the degree to which opinions are represented in the media." Do any express doubts about Western intelligence from unnamed sources? etc., etc., Humanengr (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• General reliable That was a lot of links to go through but they make a good case as a whole. I don't get the objection to the funds they receive, since "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

On what grounds do you distinguish ‘bias’ from ‘propaganda’ (Snooganssnoogans‘s term above)? Humanengr (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. That said - I must ask why the question comes up - David Gerard (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Request requires amendment There are instructions at the top of this page and the create new section editing page. Please add links to the previous discussions in the archive to your request, the most recent of which I note is highly unfavorable and suggests a certain degree of consensus as generally unreliable. Please provide a link to the specific blog post on the bellingcat site you are seeking to cite. Finally please indicate the WP article in which you want to cite bellingcat and the text in the article you want it to support, either as quote or diff. (edit:piped link) Cambial Yellowing(❧) 07:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking through that previous discussion, it appears that occurred in 2015, when Bellingcat was just under a year old and there wasn't a track record of RS using its reporting or otherwise commenting on it. While the call of self-published/unreliable was the correct judgment at the time, we now have a sizable body of evidence that Bellingcat conducts reliable journalism. If you have more recent coverage suggesting that it's unreliable, then that's a different matter. That having been said, I do agree that it's a bit weird for an editor to come to RSN to make an argument about a given source without a context--generally the procedure is to either get wider feedback on a dispute involving a source's reliability, or someone with no familiarity with a source trying to get a basic sanity check on whether it's usable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I added a link to a current article talk space discussion and RfC regarding this source. I presume that discussion is what prompted this post here. Maybe the "general" presentation of the query here was to mirror the similar presentation of the 2015 discussion? VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans. David Gerard, the reason that the reliability of bellingcat is being discussed is likely because Cambial Yellowing, a three-month-old account, has been attempting to purge bellingcat's highly reliable coverage of the Douma chemical attack from that article, citing an RSN discussion from 2015. Furthermore, this account has continually and falsely characterized bellingcat as a "highly dubious blog." (As an aside: Cambial Yellowing, if you have previously edited Wikipedia as another account or an IP, you might want to disclose that now.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, TheTimesAreAChanging. The age of my account, as you know, is totally irrelevant. I will thank you to refrain from making thinly-veiled and groundless accusations. That is not a form of argument, and is inappropriate behavior. You have given your opinion; there is no reason to pretend others' opinions are, in your view, "false". You are, presumably, not a child. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 08:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans, et al. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, with the obvious caveat that context matters. I would expect WP:EXCEPTIONAL to be carefully considered here. VQuakr (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable in general as per all the above comments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans, Rosguill, and my own experience with them. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable Lol, if anyone thinks that the US government gives money to "neutral" sources/information, they need to think again. Or read, say Who Paid the Piper? or a zillion other such works. Eliot Higgins was an unemployed guy with ZERO academic background in the Middle East area, and then he got funding as he wrote what "some people" liked. (BTW, I was just re−reading about the 2001 anthrax attacks and Bruce Edwards Ivins: please note all those American WP:RS who reported that "this was the chemical signature of Iraqi-made anthrax". A complete lie. Heh, not to mention the Nayirah testimony: US sources a have a LOOOOOOOOOONG history of falsification when it comes to any military conflict that the US is involved in. Sorry, but that is just the facts.) Huldra (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Bellingcat does receive a grant from an organization funded by the U.S. government. It receives no government money directly, as far as I can glean. Moreover, it also receives similar grants from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and is headquartered in the U.K. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

And.....? Do you think a single one of the writers/authors who were paid by the CIA during the last 70 years were paid directly by the CIA? Not that I can see, And do you really think that the US is the only government playing these games? Huldra (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

And who are you, Mr/Ms 78.147.36.67, who knows me so well? And yes, I do recall, say, Judith Miller, working for The New York Times, getting a Pulitzer prize (together with the rest of the NYT team) in 2002, for (among other things), "proving" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs at the time ....One could roar with laugher, ......if it hadn't been for all those hundred of thousands civilians Iraqis killed, and millions who became refugees (many in Western Europe, where I see you are?) As the expression goes: "Fool me once: shame on you. Fool me twice: shame on me". Huldra (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Snoo's exhaustive research. Neutrality^talk 00:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable but with occasional reliable for attribution content. The site's main author offers many attempts at analysis of highly technical subjects under the rubric of open-source investigation. These analyses lack scientific detail and rigor. They have undergone no peer review process nor scientific editorial control. The author, Eliot Higgins, is an education dropout with no scientific training and no qualifications in any scientific field. The site's editor is a journalist and poet with a BA in English and no scientific background. While Snoogans has collected an extensive list of journalists and serious journalism-related sources which support the site, notably absent is a single reference from a scientific publication or scientific organization working in the technical fields in which the author is claiming to offer serious analysis. The author's work has come under severe criticism, including from qualified and recognized experts in those fields. Its response has often been far from scholarly.

Just as we would not cite the London Telegraph or the New York Times on the copenhagen interpretation or flash suppression, Bellingcat is not a scholarly source for the technical areas on which it frequently seeks to comment — determining weapons delivery trajectories, chemical dispersal, aircraft physics, and so on.

The site has some content which is not technical, but simply careful work in non-technical areas done online. Some of this content appears useful and potentially reliable, though there is little attempt made to test the provenance and integrity of the image content which it is examining "forensically". Such on-the-ground investigation would be fundamental to any serious professional forensic investigator's examination of such material.

There is some content which is written by individuals with subject expertise, and therefore useful with attribution. It comes with the caveat of also having undergone no peer review process nor scientific editorial control. Just as we would not rely on papers written by specialists but unpublished and unreviewed, the articles of this type can similiarly not be relied upon for material in Wikipedia voice.

As I stated before, the request above needs to include the specific content that editor is seeking to reference and the text they wish to support, per the instructions at the top, in order to form a proper assessment. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 01:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose findings of general reliability or unreliability for government-funded organizations. (Yes, I know the NED is a private foundation receiving money from the US Congress, which then finances -- inter alia -- Bellingcat). In my experience even the "best" sources can turn out to have been unreliable (NYT, for example). I believe we should proceed on a case by case bias... is // Elliot Higgins // a reliable source for // X // claim... Here I assume the real issue that prompted opening this "general" reliability thread was Higgins publishing on 4 Aug 2019 a negative piece about Tulsi Gabbard. This explains why the thread was opened on 4 Aug 2019 by the principal author of Tulsi Gabbard's BLP. (as of 4 Aug 2019) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, but some cautions exist. The concerns about its funding and potential bias stemming from that are not generally an issue to using a source (for instance, we rely on the CIA World Factbook), provided there's no indication that that potential bias has caused them to release inaccurate or misleading information; but they do have to be considered when evaluating WP:DUE weight or WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, so it's still worth keeping in mind. Regarding the concern that it's not as reliable as an academic paper written by a specialist - I mean, that's a pretty high bar? But also, it's important to remember that those papers also have issues - they're frequently difficult for non-experts to assess or weigh, and rarely provide the broad overviews that we need for our articles; it's very easy for papers, taken out of context, to produce a misleading view, which is one of the reasons eg. WP:MEDRS urges caution. Secondary high-quality analysis sites like this, while they obviously have their own limitations, are important to fill the gap between "breaking news stories" and "in-depth technical papers by experts". --Aquillion (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What you describe as a "pretty high bar" is the standard set by sourcing policy. Secondary analysis means review articles, monographs, textbooks or other materials written by experts, which reference the relevant specialist material. It does not mean amateur sleuths who have no training in the field, and make no reference to the relevant specialism and literature. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 22:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't say what you say it does. You are citing a subsection of the section WP:SOURCETYPES, which lists several different types of sources. If our sourcing of specific historical events from the last few years was limited to peer reviewed articles, our coverage would be scant indeed. The actual definition of a secondary source, as used on Wikipedia, is at WP:SECONDARY. VQuakr (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Questionable Strong Oppose - after reading NPR article and seeing dependence on social media as their source - can't believe it is even being considered as a source. ^{12:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)} - editorial board filled with reputable professionals? No...uhm, so where does the information come from - has he subscribed to a newswire? Surely he doesn't go out in the field and do investigative journalism, or does he? What makes it reliable - what makes any source "reliable"? Stick with academic sources and stop depending on RECENTISM. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The links above (for me, especially this one) do a pretty good job of answering your questions. It may not convince you of reliability (or indeed may convince you otherwise), but at least some light may be shed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Atsme: seeing dependence on social media as their source: My impression is their use of social media is akin to this: Fitness tracking app Strava gives away location of secret US army bases (e.g. they mine social media for inadvertently-leaked information). - GretLomborg (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• ‘IFFY - IT DEPENDS’ - I’d say maybe, depending on context. This seems more like one persons blog that grew into a sophisticated Blog, rather than meeting the usual RS criteria of press sources. I’m seeing no announced self statement on their website, no editorial controls, no retractions evidencing good practices and self-admission when wrong. The articles look to be hard fact-oriented analysis, but I’m not seeing a stable topic focus or staff that built expertise up.
• Acceptable with attribution, whether undue or not would be decided on a case by case basis, for the reasons laid aout above. NPR says "an international Internet research organization that has meticulously investigated conflicts around the world". I don't think we get to decide it's unreliable just because it documents a Trumper being radicalised in a very short space of time. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Granted, I'm an IP user so you don't have to listen to me, but anyone could sit at home and use Wikipedia and Google Maps to build enough scaffolding around whatever the State Department's line is in order to support it. "Open-source investigation" is a euphemism for "amateur Internet detective work", and Bellingcat is only well-regarded because it gives any point being made the appearance of rational, researched, nonpartisan, and civilian legitimacy. 161.11.160.44 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for news topics. Bellingcat's favorable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy has been confirmed by a large number of reliable sources. The evidence presented by Snooganssnoogans shows that Bellingcat is frequently used by other reliable sources. The site's open-source intelligence methodology allows its research to be easily verified by other reliable sources, and has earned the site ample credibility despite being new. We do not require academic peer review for news topics unrelated to biomedicine. As always, caution and in-text attribution are recommended for controversial claims. — Newslinger talk 05:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Not really familiar with Bellingcat, but in any case I prefer attribution for controversial statements for this kind of work. Open-source investigation is not free from bias, as verifiability does not necessarily imply full coverage and neutrality. Daß Wölf 05:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Users should apply WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Except in extreme cases, which this is not, it's far preferable to a blanket rule that thus-and-such a source is or is not WP:RS.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: As I mentioned above, the article that appeared the day this blanket reliability thread was opened is sharply critical of Tulsi Gabbard. It is unclear if this is the article that we are meant to be evaluating the reliability of. Nevertheless, I think it is worth spending a moment looking at it. Though the article spends a lot of time discrediting MIT weapons expert Theodore Postol, it oddly completely glosses over the publication of his strong denunciation of the OPCW report after an engineering assessment was leaked to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda, and Media <-- why is this red?? in May 2019. Since then both Postol & former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter have been sharply critical of the mainstream media's criticism of Gabbard's skepticism. Neither Postol (who points out how easy it would be to shoot helicopters flying at 50-100m above a building in Douma) or Ritter (who addresses Khan Shaykhun saying the Douma airstrike has already been "largely debunked") bother to spend too much time addressing Higgins' messy piece directly, though in time it seems pretty clear (to me at least) that the surprising lack of discussion of this major development (and the attempt to discredit Postol) will end up having been quite damaging not only to the credibility of this Bellingcat piece, but quite possibly to Bellingcat's general reliability as well. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard that would suggest this article is being considered to support a statement there. Hard to draw any conclusion about suitability without seeing the specific claim that Bellingcat would be used to support. Caution would indeed be warranted per WP:BLP, and for discussion of her position on Syria we have lots of top-tier sources to choose from instead. VQuakr (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - of course with all sources context matters but generally it is a reliable source. The accolades it has received from other reliable sources exceeds most sources, the evidence of its reliability exceeds most other reliable sources. -- GreenC 16:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, but attribution sometimes should be provided per RS considering it reliable. Nevertheless, Bellingcat is sometimes the only investigative source available that deeps into a specific aspect of an event, attribution is recommended.--MaoGo (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - Bellingcat has an excellent reputation for factual reporting and they acknowledge when they get it wrong All this talk about government funds rendering outlets unreliable by default is absolute, total and utter nonsense. Sure, state broadcasters like RT or "news" outlets like Granma are simply propagandists, at the same time much of the highest quality reportage globally is produced by public broadcasters like the Public Broadcasting Service. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service, the Public Broadcasting Service, Al Jazeera and the British Broadcasting Corporation are some of the most respected news outlets in the world. The ABC and the BBC in particular are outstanding, probably the highest quality outlets I can think of. The ABC and the BBC are both 100% government funded...no reasonable person would dispute their general reliability (the acts relating to the ABC enshrine the highest journalistic standards, in law). Why would a commercial outlet be more reliable? They are beholden to people with their own agendas (Murdoch for example, runs blatant political campaigns and his outlets routinely publish falsehoods), owners, shareholders and advertisers. The quality of the source must be judged on the quality of it's reporting, not where the funding comes from. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• (bot-summon) Most of the "not reliable" arguments seem to come in two flavors: "government-funded hence partisan" and "all mainstream media is crap because Iraq war". For the former, Bacondrum's refutation is on-point: reliability is evaluated from the results, not political or economical allegiances (of which no newspaper, scientific journal, or any type of source is free). For the latter, yeah, most media is crap (and not just when disinformed via a massive government campaign), but it's the least crappy we have; if you are seriously saying the New York Times should be considered "generally unreliable", you are advocating for 99%+ of WP articles about post-2000 events to be nuked since no source would ever be reliable enough. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References

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.

Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites - The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox

UK progressive online only news sites such as The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox have been described by the BBC as making a huge impact and earning a massive following." They are all subject to a state approved regulator, IMPRESS and receive a positive rating from NewsGuard.

• Evolve Politics
• The Canary
• Skwawkbox

They are relevant across a range of articles relating to British current affairs.

Using these sources in Wikipedia articles aids in NPOV as they present a progressive viewpoint and content often absent from the mainly conservative mainstream media, which is owned and directed by commercial companies. Even the non commercial Guardian is not a consistent supporter of the current Labour Party, which is the offical political opposition in Parliament. While this is a subjective view on my part, it may be that these sites were originally more sensationalist to establish themselves and over time have become more reliable. However, some editors still regularly delete content from these sites, on the basis that they are fringe. Can we have a consensus that they are sufficently reliable as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to be used? Jontel (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Even as I may like them, I have a certain trepidation about a blanket declaration that they're solid RSes for all purposes in Wikipedia. With-attribution, as the partisan sources they are maybe. But I'd like some evidence of actual reliability as sources. And being signed up to IMPRESS doesn't really mean much - "No national newspaper has signed up to the new regulator" - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

References

You say "some editors still regularly delete content from these sites". Why not identify these editors and the article talk pages where you have tried to discuss with them? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to echo Peter’s comment. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another... so we would need to see HOW these sources are being used (what they are being cited FOR) before we can say whether they are reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm highly skeptical of The Skwawkbox, as it is a blog operated by a single person (Steve Walker, who is not any of the people listed on the Stephen Walker disambiguation page). That classifies it as a self-published source. Evolve Politics lists two people in its about page, Tom D. Rogers, and Jessica A. Miller, which is still in self-published territory. The Canary has the largest team of the three, with several dozen people listed on its team page, and I would not consider it self-published, although I have not yet examined the site's content or reputation. — Newslinger talk 15:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I would say that these sites are typically useful as a source for quotes and statements by progressive politicians and activists to whom the sites are sympathetic, meaning that the sites will likely be reliable for this, when attributed, when these quotes and statements are not covered elsewhere. There is no need to use them for the facts of significant events, as that is available from more mainstream sources. Nor would their opinions carry much weight. They have small staffs, but that is not such a handicap for online publications. I would invite the views of Icewhiz, Bondegezou, Bellowhead678, RevertBob Slatersteven and Bangalamania without making specific assertions. Also, G-13114 Here are two discussions: Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_3#The_Canary and Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_7#RfC.4_IJV/JSG/JVP_/_Oryszczuk Regarding providing evidence of accuracy as requested by David Gerard, what would that be? On NewsGuard standards, they rate The Canary 8/9, Evolve 8/9 and Skwawkbox 9/9. On Impress complaints unheld in whole or in part over three years, The Canary has two, Evolve one and Skawkbox five. A 2019 survey by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that The Canary was trusted by its readers more than publications such as Buzzfeed News, the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, HuffPost, The Independent, Sun and regional press, and almost equal to the Daily Telegraph.Jontel (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Meh... “trusted by readers” may be another way of saying “bias confirmation”. I would be more interested in what critics say. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Critics are typically political opponents or competitors and usually both, so plenty of motivation for bias. However: [Press Gazette] [Buzzfeed][News Stateman] This critiques MSM coverage of UK Labour Party, so making a case for additional sources. [Media Reform] Jontel (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jontel's comment that they are acceptable sources for left-wing politicians' comments on issues, but not much else. However, even in this context we still should be wary. Just because a comment is true, doesn't mean it should be included, and I am not convinced that being covered in the Canary is enough to warrant inclusion of comments into articles not about the politician in question. Bellowhead678 (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar:I am curious as to these comment of yours."I have to echo Peter’s comment. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another.". How can a source be reliable and not reliable? How about the New York Times or Washington Post? Can they be reliable in one context and not reliable in another context? What then is the criteria upon which reliability is judged?Oldperson (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, for example, a tweet from Donald Trump that says X is an idiot, is an RS that DT tweeted that, but not an RS that X is an idiot. WaPo and NYT are great for lots of stuff, but when you get into the area of WP:MEDRS the desired bar is often higher. This [57] is WaPO. It's still only RS for the authors opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Nooooo, not hardly. These are no better than the likes of the Daily Caller. Popular <> accurate or trustworthy. Remember: millions of people trust te Daily Mail. The ususal rule applies: if a better source exists, us it, if it doesn't, it's probably bollocks, or at least its significance is exaggerated. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• These are entirely the opposite of "reliable sources" - they are deliberately highly partisan, often loose with facts, sometimes engaging it outright fantasy... The Land (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• They are not remotely reliable. They are highly partisan. (Yes, in very limited circumstances, they might be reliable for certain quotations, but, generally, no.) Look at The Canary: here's a current article, entitled "The BBC’s pro-Johnson propaganda is so absurd even a former Tory deputy PM has had enough". We consider the BBC RS. If we accept The Canary's view, the BBC is not RS, it delivers "pro-Johnson propaganda". We can't have an RS list including both! Now read the actual article: it misrepresents what Heseltine says to fit an agenda. Read The Skwawkbox, it's just non-stop pro-Corbyn spin. Bondegezou (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• I have to agree with what has been said above. Appropriate perhaps for quotations or the personal views of RS figures in limited circumstances, but that's about it. These websites have been criticised for clickbait and fake news from across the political spectrum, not just political opponents. The Skwawkbox's page notes that it has been used by Corbyn insiders to get its messages across, so there may be the occasional instance where it's relevant, but I'm not 100% sure on that one. Whatever the consensus view is on these sites, I do think they warrant a listing at the perennial sources page. --Bangalamania (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for news. These serve the same niche in the eco system as Guido Fawkes (website) - just from the Left. The have all sorts of interesting leaks, intentional leaks, and breaking news - however the more noteworthy stuff gets picked up by mainline sources a few hours later (e.g. Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, etc.). In some cases they might have a notable opinion piece - and they are probably OK for that - but in most case they are WP:UNDUE (if you can't get it published somewhere else....) - it might be DUE in a more obscure article of ours if there is someone senior behind the op-ed. (they also have some very far-out news and oped pieces). In this academic book - Skwawkbox and The Canary are described as "dubious sites". In this academic book The Canary and Evolve Politics are described as producing "tabloid style hit-pieces". All these outlets -are part of a network of similar sites supportive of the Corbyn wing in Labour - [58]. In this academic book and this one they are described as alt-left (for Americans reading this - in the US the alt-left isn't much of a thing - a myth even. In UK politics - things are flipped around - including Russian support (traditionally, and continuing today, to leftward elements in Labour) - much of what has been going on in the alt-right stateside, has been alt-left in the UK (of course - the UK has its own fascists - hard right - but they are enjoying (thankfully!) less popular support in the recent past). Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A "Marxist critique"! Any port in a storm? A book written by two academics and published by a specialist in academic literature, certainly. It would be nice, though, if equal enthusiasm was shown for work produced by academics under the imprimatur of universities ([59][60]) who don't share the viewpoint of Bolton and Pitts.[61][62][63] Note the bit in Political Communication in Britain just above where you linked to where it says:"A study conducted by LSE confirmed what many on the political left had suspected, finding coverage concerning Corbyn was disproportionately negative, and, while acknowledging the democratic importance of media scrutiny, deemed the print media to have regularly strayed beyond its purview as 'watchdog' to an 'attackdog' position."     ←   ZScarpia   19:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable There is a difference between bias and propaganda.This a propaganda sites with fake news as shown in this thread --Shrike (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• These sites are OK as far as they go, left POV and I would say exactly the same if they were right POV. The mainstream news is politicized right and left, so a little bit more right and left isn't going to make that much of a difference. They are kind of like a web based Fox News for the left, I don't regard them as propaganda, just ideologically driven. I would say use with caution.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not generally reliable, and in particular The Canary is problematic - Private Eye has highlighted numerous issues relating to it over the last couple of years. Please note that being a member of IMPRESS means little. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this whole RFC - we are supposed to assess three sources for reliability, regardless of what they are relied on for. Context matters and you haven't given us anything except "these sources are left wing and I think we should allow left wing sources". Answering this is inevitably going to involve a lot of "I like this"/"I don't like this" (for the record , I don't like these sources and don't think them particularly reliable) which renders the RFC pointless. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• I am quite familiar with the Skwawkbox and the Canary. The Skwawkbox is a valuable resource for information on the inner workings of the Labour Party. It does support Corbyn and is generally critical of what is calls the centrists and Blairites. It also publishes examples of state and corporate media bias against Corbyn. The Canary provides a useful perspective on current events. I have not seen any problems with the reliability of either outlet and would use both the Skwawkbox and the Canary as sources of information with attribution. I have not read Evolve enough to comment. Burrobert (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I doubt that we would have considered Militant to be a reliable news source three decades ago when the Militant Tendency was doiong what it did and the activities of the present Momentum group, which these websites generally promote, is claimed to bear many similarities, in particular in terms of machinations for take-over of constituency parties and indeed the central party administrative and policy mechanisms. They're propaganda organs posing as news sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable - Based on arguments presented above. From what I've read and seen, these sources may be skewing facts to confirm their worldview. Red flag for a source - it may suggest the source is propaganda or publishes information for some ulterior agenda. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• All three are generally unreliable; I think Icewhiz hits the nail on the head when they describe them as "the Guido Fawkes of the Left". I'd even go so far as to deprecate the Skwawkbox (as well as Guido, FWIW): their assertion earlier this year that February has over 2,000 days shows that journalistic integrity is on a different planet to them. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment

• leighrayment.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

We have a large number of links to Leigh Rayment's pages - in the thousands - and even a template, {{Rayment}}. I have some concerns.

• The site has obvioualy been hit by a keyword stuffing hijack, Google his name.
• The biography shows no evidence of reliability.
• Many of the links appear to be functionally useless, e.g. to /baronetage from dozens of articles on baronetcies - isn't a source for text on the article as it claims (e.g. Albert Spicer) and doesn'#t appear to be that useful.
• Much of his content cites no sources. When he does, it's to things like The Newgate Calendar, a rather lurid populist book which would definitely have been prone to embellishment, especially in its days as a penny dreadful.

The template was created by Kittybrewster, a valued and delightful man who nonetheless has a history of adding articles of questionable significance. A few citations to an L. Rayment exist in the literature, but this is Louise, not Leigh, and they are English, whereas the bio says he's Australian. Many of the links were added by Tryde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has left the building so I can't inquire further.

On balance, I think this template should be deleted and the links nuked as a self-published source. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Zero input, I have no further info from off-wiki, I will start tagging as {{sps}} if nobody objects? Guy (help!) 17:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been removing Rayment sources for years now. I thought it was already determined to be unreliable and SPS. Don't know where I got that idea from but I do agree with it being so! - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Valuable corroboration, thanks Sitush. Guy (help!) 20:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Jim Saleam's PHD

Jim Saleam is a well known Australian neo-Nazi, a holocaust denier and a criminal - convicted of involvement in racist hate crimes (including attempted murder) also convicted of fraud.

On release from prison, for an attempted racially motivated murder, Saleam attained a PHD. His PHD thesis was being used as a citation for analysis of the 1930's proto fascist movement, the New Guard. To my knowledge no one ever reviewed or republished Saleam's thesis, it never went anywhere, it's been ignored by the broader academic community. He is not notable for anything other than fraud, neo-Nazism and attempted murder.

I do not believe this is a reliable source by any measure. What do other editors think of this source? Bacondrum (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If the thesis was reviewed by qualified experts and the doctorate was awarded by a legitimate university that followed its normal policies and processes then the document is almost certainly a reliable source. What the author has done otherwise isn't relevant. However, if no one else has ever cited the document then it probably doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article on the grounds of due weight. ElKevbo (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I see his thesis is used for this edit: [64]. So... work of a far-right extremist used to "balance" the article about a far-right organisation of the 1930s. Joke of the day? In any case, he is not a renowned (and respected) expert in this field of study, his opinion is certainly undue. Pavlor (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I believe it has due weight. Please see the concerning article's talk page under "Jim Saleam's PhD" for my argument. AwakenedWorld (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious Saleam is object of study for historians you mentioned, not renowned expert for 1930s Australian politics. His personal history aside, he is only some no name graduate with PhD (thousands of these in the world...), there is really no reason to have his opinion in the article. His thesis may be useable for uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for the edit, you tried to push through. Pavlor (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

To compare him to the swathes of PhDs in the world, and hence to invalidate his opinion in the article, would be to ignore his heavy role in the Australian far-right scene since the 80s. He's not a no-name by any stretch of the imagination, being someone with so much experience. AwakenedWorld (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

He has next to no scholarly renown. As you wrote himself, his only notability is based on his political activity - and even here he is only a marginal voice (1.2 % best electoral result...). Once he becomes accepted as a scholar (or successful as a politician), his opinion may have some weight. Until then, he is certainly not the source we are looking for. Pavlor (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

He clearly has been accepted as a scholar, as evidenced by his citations. Given that it's the responsibility of editors to uphold WP:NPOV, I would be happy if another source representing a similar minority view is added. This would settle the dispute and achieve the same utility as Saleam's dissertation, hopefully without further hiccups. However insofar as that minority view is not represented, I argue strongly in favour of due weight for Saleam. AwakenedWorld (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I fear your understanding of NPOV and due weight is not compatible with policies you cite. If you want to add this POV to the article, simply find better source. Pavlor (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Red flags aside, this thesis does not appear to have had any significant scholarly impact. Almost every time it is cited in academic literature, the author is actually writing about Saleam himself, not referring to his research. I think it can be safely discarded. It's entirely reasonable to consider modern neo-nazi perspective in a legacy section of an article on a much older far right group, but that can be done from the point of view of authors who are not neo-nazis. There are even a couple of historians who mention Saleam's opinions in this respect. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed? I think combining those historians' opinions with Ivar the Boneful's solution could work. AwakenedWorld (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's had about as much scholarly impact as your typical PhD thesis on a niche historical topic. I don't think you're correct about how his thesis has been cited. Google Books and Google Scholar both turn up several instances of his thesis being cited and his arguments mentioned or discussed by other historians of the far-right. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The University of Sydney doesn't hand out PhD's willy-nilly. Many works about the histories of obscure/extremist political movements are written by those involved in the movement or sympathisers, it doesn't mean they're not necessarily scholarly. I don't see a particular reason to reject this source across Wikipedia, and I see it is already cited on half a dozen other Wikipedia articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search="the+other+radicalism". His political affiliation could be noted more clearly. Possibly having a whole paragraph in the article lends undue weight to Saleam's views and it could be condensed into a couple sentences. Have any other scholars responded to his argument? If so that could be a way of balancing his views. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think that would be most appropriate. AwakenedWorld (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• We don´t reject (well at least some of us) this source as unreliable, we reject its particular use in the article as undue. As Someguy1221 wrote above, extremist POV can be covered by works of more mainstream historians. Pavlor (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, would its pairing with other sources of the same minority view be suitable in your opinion? AwakenedWorld (talk)

I mean use one high quality source to present this POV. If some good source mentions Saleam´s opinion, then this may be useable - with proper attribution. Pavlor (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Bacondrum's opinion before proceeding with a draft. I'd prefer to have some consensus here. AwakenedWorld (talk)

I'd accept one high quality source to present this POV or a source that mentions Saleam´s opinion - with proper attribution. But, if the section is merely about Saleam's view of things then it is undue. Bacondrum (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll prepare something in a few days. I invite you both to keep a watchful eye on the page, and please interject with your own improvements if necessary. AwakenedWorld (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry if I got my hackles up. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from in objecting to the use of this vile and hateful man as a source. Bacondrum (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can understand. AwakenedWorld (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It meets rs per Scholarship. But all that means is that the facts presented in the thesis can be considered reliable. That does not mean that any of the opinions expressed in the article should be included. That is determined by Due and undue weight: "each article [should] fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If reliable sources have ignored these opinions, then they fail weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. It is a PhD, that's the beginning and the end of what can be said for this offered source. It's not notable and is ridiculously UNDUE for the purpose of "balancing" the article. And I'll mention that "activist", as AwakenedWorld wishes to designate Saleam in the New Guard article, is also ridiculous. If Saleam ends up being mentioned in the article, which I'm strongly against, I suggest using our article Jim Saleam to indicate what Saleam is actually notable for: "Australian far-right extremist Jim Saleam", or "convicted criminal and neo-Nazi Jim Saleam". I blinked in disbelief when I saw AwakenedWorld's argument on Talk:New Guard that talking about Saleam's "purported" [sic] Neo-Nazism (AwakenedWorld considers Neo-Nazism "a vague phrase") constitutes "an an attempt to poison the well".[65] What? No, not at all. Also, as long as we're on the subject of New Guard, why have we been allowing elaborate self-promotion in the article, by quoting their program at length? What is all this about loyalty to the throne, uniting all loyal citizens, maintaining the full liberty of the individual, etc, etc? We don't do that for any political organisations, or indeed any organisations, because then they would all appear wonderful. Compare Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. I've removed the section, with an explanation on talk. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC).

climatecasechart.com

Source: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

Article: Tim Ball

Content:

On 22 August 2019 the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball,

on grounds of delay

.

Rakeroot (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, my quesiton is: Is the source reliable for to the grounds of dismissal?

I don't find this information anywhere else. Rakeroot (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The insertion was here by Dave souza. The climatecasechart page says that is "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer" without pointing to what media and what statements, so could be depending on blogs and tweets (that's all I've seen about this detail so far). Poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Am inclined to agree that this source only presents hearsay in its statement that "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer, on August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay." On that basis, this isn't a reliable secondary source for the court's dismissal of the case. . . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I argue that, the fact that the case is dismissed is not disputed so the source could be used for this. Rakeroot (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• You know, I would say that site is RS for factual claims. It does not seem to editorialise, it is backed by a reputable and identified group of people, it comes under the auspices of Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and it backs everything with citations to original material. So as a source of for a summary of the legal outcome of a case or filing, it is appropriate. Wikipedia doesn't apply the hearsay rule, because we're not a court. Guy (help!) 12:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

He Did Not Fear: Xusro Parviz, King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire

He Did Not Fear: Xusro Parviz, King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire [66]

Not too sure about this one - it's first time I've seen this author. He seems to be relatively new in the academic world and quite young. The publisher is Gorgias Press. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The book meets rs. What that means is that we can assume the book is factual. An academic publisher has had other academics read it and chosen to publish it. That doesn't mean that the opinions or conclusions expressed in the book are necessarily significant, although they should be well-reasoned. TFD (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

samvadindia.net

Can the website of the organization bestowing a literary award be used as a source for who received that award, and who was on the jury awarding it? Specifically asking for recipients of the Raja Rao Award formerly given by Samvad India Foundation (http://www.samvadindia.net). Thanks. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Yes, provided the site is not user-generated but it does not prove notability of the award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Atlantic306, many thanks. I do have other sources for the notability. Website has a page for each award recipient with a very thorough biography, for example this biography of Yasmine Gooneratne. Want to be sure this is usable as one of the sources for these, though not as a sole source. Thanks again! Hyperbolick (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

markathitakis.com

Hello everyone! I was wondering if this source here would be considered reliable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? I would be using it for theLittle Eva: The Flower of the South article, and I would be specifically citing this sentence: "The creepiest, easily, is Little Eva, Flower of the South, an 1853 children’s book in which the title character is saved from drowning by Sam, a slave.".

The site is self-published through WordPress, but according to the about page here, Mark Athitakis has been published in both The New York Times and Washington Post. I know self-published blogs are generally not considered reliable, but I was wondering if this individual's other publications would his blog suitable for Wikipedia. I thinking more on the negative side, but I would like to get some feedback/input. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Commission de Toponymie for statement about earliest official naming

In the article Jumbo Lake, it is asserted that

Lac Jumbo was officially named on 3 October 1972.

sourced to Lac Jumbo, Commission de toponymie de Quebec, retrieved 2019-09-01

The Commission de toponymie source shows a "date d'officialisation" which is presumably reliable for assertion that this lake was listed in their database of names on that date in 1972. However is it reliable for assertion that the lake was first officially named on that date? (Q1)

And, if experts here could please venture into notability as well, does it seem appropriate to include such a statement into every article about towns, cities, natural features in Canada? (Q2a) Or should the Commission de toponymie's date be mentionable only when the act of naming is shown to be notable in a different source, such as for a renaming of street to honor a fallen firefighter or whatever, when the source is commenting about the naming date specifically? (Q2b)

• Comment. (Adapted from discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumbo Lake.) I believe that the statement is possibly completely false, if it is meant to establish the first official recognition of "Jumbo Lake" or "Lac Jumbo" for this lake. I believe that mentioning it at all is giving outrageous salience to a non-notable bureaucratic action, and is trivial beyond a degree acceptable to mentioned in an encyclopedia. It is true that The Commission de Toponymie source about Lac Jumbo does include "Date d'officialisation: 1972-10-03". But I do not believe at all that the lake was named in 1972. I think that was when the Toponymie commission added an entry into their database. This is similar to how WikiProject SHIPS editors incorrectly believed for a long time that a date entered into the DANFS database (or into some other U.S. ship commission office) was the christening date for a ship, when it could be shown by news reports sometimes that the launching of a ship and its christening happened on a different, earlier date. It turned out the DANFS database (or whatever) date was the date that a government unit got around to entering it into their database, only. Here, I disbelieve that this was the first official recognition of the name of this lake, and it is not worth mentioning that this was the date that one bureaucratic unit "recognized" it. I have some familiarity myself with another lake in Quebec, "Sixteen Island Lake", from well before the "officialisation" date in 1996 reported in Commission de Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles (but maybe that is supposed to establish the official date for just the post office?). IMHO, there is no way in hell that this lake was not officially recognized in many ways, previously, before then, and before the 1968 date given in this other Commission de Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles. For 16 Island Lake, the Wikipedia article mentions, based on other source(s) that its name was in use by 1898 for the post office. Am I "daft" for asserting that this sentence should obviously be removed from the article (and/or from an area article which may cover the topic of the lake)? It was asserted in the AFD that my view is "daft" and that "Government websites may have mistakes, but we generally treat them as reliable sources."

Thank you for considering this question. I think this is my first time raising questions at wp:RSN, so please forgive me and direct me if I should be posing this differently somehow. (Also should this be registered as an RFC somehow?) --Doncram (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

So, this is just my opinion, for the little it is worth, but I share your concerns about the bureaucratic nature of the labeling. That said, I also think it is inherently notable that the government is making these assertions (even if sometimes dubious). Thus, for me, the best middle road would seem to be using such statements with attribution, and presenting conflicting information where it is available. On the other hand, we need to be careful not to venture too far into WP:OR territory. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. For another example, Édifice du Club-Universitaire-de-Montréal is about a club founded in 1906, whose building was built c.1912, and was listed as a monument historiques du Quebec on September 29, 1986. The "Date d'officialisation" is May 7, 2003. I don't think it is fair or appropriate to state the 2003 date in any way in an article about the club (long-needed, just created). --Doncram (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC) --01:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I do think you are a bit overthinking "date d'officialisation," as it seems to obviously simply mean the date said name was accepted by the Commission, and not the date of original naming or even government usage. Still, I understand the frustration. Dumuzid (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The Commission de toponymie du Québec, a government agency, checks place names in Quebec and gives a stamp of approval. They say they made "Lac Jumbo" official in 1972. I see no reason to doubt them. There are over 2,000 citations to them, so we have a massive clean-up job if they are dodgy. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no special knowledge of this, but I share Dumuzid's skepticism. What name appeared on government maps pre-1972? It should be easy to check. If it is the same, isn't that also a form of official recognition? It would be best if a source is found that explains precisely what listing by the Commission means, rather than guessing. McKay (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Ghion Journal

I found an article from Ghion Journal. I can't be sure whether the source is appropriate for Cold War II (renamed as Second Cold War). The source has POV commentary against the US mainstream media. I don't know which other sources have the same view as that source. -- George Ho (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Copies of reliable sources on blogs

I am looking for clarification regarding scans of reliable sources on personal blogs. Specifically, would the scanned stories at https://dontparade.blogspot.com/2016/08/newsday-tv-book-august-6-12-1972.html qualify as "reliable" despite being hosted on blogger.

I reverted an editor for sourcing a claim sourced to the second image on the blog page on the basis of WP:BLOGS. However, the editor insists the original Newsday story is the source and not the blog. I can't find a policy or guideline addressing this issue directly but Youtube video clips are discussed by WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher."

Following the advice at WP:NOYT would indicate that at screencap of a reliable source on a blog is not a reliable source. That said I highly doubt somebody has faked a screencap of a 50-year-old source about some uncontroversial information about a film so it is almost certainly a genuine rendering of the original news story. It is a essentially a DIY archive.

Is there a specific policy or guideline or general practice that governs this type of thing? Betty Logan (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In the case of Robert Stewart (saxophonist) there was a personal webpage with pressclippings, including WaPo, JazzTimes etc. Editors at the time felt these could be used to some extent, citing the publication, not the webpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Since these stories are from 1972, and there is no indication that the owner of the Blogger (RSP entry) blog has the right to republish the Newsday content, I would consider this to be copyright infringement. Per WP:COPYLINK, we should never link to material that infringes copyright. You can still cite the original Newsday articles, and it would be best if you could confirm the contents of the articles from a more trusted source (e.g. the actual Newsday book, or a trusted database like Newspapers.com or NewspaperArchive – available through The Wikipedia Library, and can be linked to), since it's difficult to determine if these scans are altered. However, don't link (or provide a URL) to the blog in the citation. — Newslinger talk 10:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• See this resource regarding Newspaper copyrights. It's pretty handy. I agree that the citation should be the actual source not the blog. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the information! We don't know whether there is a copyright notice on the media (without access to the original media) since only part of the documents were photographed and shared, but I can't conclusively say that it's a copyright violation from what is presented in the blog. — Newslinger talk 16:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Something to remember here, the citation is not the link or the URL. The citation is the bibliographic information that allows someone else to find the original source. For a book or a newspaper article or something like that, it doesn't need to be online. If it is, and is available in a clean link unencumbered by copyright violations, a link is a nice thing, but you don't have to link to a direct copy of a source for a valid citation. Just give the full bibliographic details and you're fine. If you found it as a copyvio scan on a blog, don't tell anyone. Just cite the original article and leave it at that. You're fine. --Jayron32 14:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• One caution... it is not difficult to manipulate documents. Copies found on unreliable websites may not be “true to the original”. Always try to find and cite the original. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• We have an essay WP:Convenience link that explains the issues. I think the main points are: (1) Someone has to check that the copy matches the original; (2) Don't link to copyvios. McKay (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Is a biography on a micronation's website a reliable source for a BLP?

The BLP in question is Igor Ashurbeyli and the website is here. The micronation is Asgardia (a bit of a mess that I cleaned up a bit - mainly sourced to its website and a journal where he is editor-in-chief run by something he founded, Asgardia Independent Research Center). It looks as though it is used in other BLPs as well.[67] As a side issue, why can't I find the articles using ROOM[68] and asgardia.space with External links search? [69] I'm dubious about either of these being used as sources. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any information where that site is used on its own, or at least it is always part of a string of over-citation so there is really no need to keep it. To answer your question though, I would say it could be used with the same restrictions as an ABOUTSELF source. I would not use it as a source for his receipt of The State Science and Technology Prize or Gold UNESCO Medal. Jbh ^Talk 13:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur with JBH. For non-controversial ABOUTSELF claims it's probably fine. For anything significant, no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Andy Ngo

There is currently an RfC Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_Do_sources_support_calling_Ngo's_statements_on_the_hammer_attack_"false"? at Andy Ngo that may be of interest to people who participate on this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source?

It is a blog. Although it lists 4 contributors in addition to "editor" Brad Linder in the about page, in reality Brad Linder is essentially the only author in 2019 (1 exception), and there have been only 2 authors since February 2016.

I've been recently tempted to use it as a source, a couple times, to change a primary source to a secondary source, like magic; however, this seems wrong.

It was suggested to bring it up for discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:/e/_(operating_system)&diff=913365830&oldid=913365695

I'd appreciate other views. Below are more details. Thanks.

It has been used as a source for many articles in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

95 results

Sometimes it is called "blog" in Wikipedia References, sometimes not.

I believe it mostly re-words and repeats press releases, and blog posts by companies. An example, recently:

https://liliputing.com/2019/09/first-batch-of-purism-librem-5-linux-smartphones-ships-in-late-september.html#comments

versus

https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-shipping-announcement/

In the liliputing blog post above, comments seem to confirm this:

"Some Guy: ...Also, this article seems to have been posted before anything about this is on purism’s website."

"Brad Linder: I guess someone forgot to tell them that the embargo lifted at 11:00AM 🙂"

"Daily Deals" are almost indistinguishable from "articles." https://liliputing.com/category/deals

The about page calls Brad Linder editor; however, he is also the primary author, and the ONLY author for the last 8 months, with one exception by Lee Mathews on 8/26/2019.

It says, "Liliputing has been mentioned on hundreds of news, and technology web sites," and gives 11 examples. However, 1 - Computer World is a broken link, most are several years old, and 1 - Techmeme, "works by scraping news websites and blogs,..."

https://liliputing.com/about

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Brad+Linder+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

57 results

Lee Mathews https://liliputing.com/author/lee Last article 08/26/2019, but this is the first since 12/26/2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Lee+Mathews+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

1 result

Lory Gil https://liliputing.com/author/lory Last article 02/05/2016

K. T. Bradford https://liliputing.com/author/ktbradford Last article 08/20/2014

James Diaz https://liliputing.com/author/cybergusa Last article 09/16/2011

The site warns: "Disclosure: Some links on this page are monetized by Skimlinks and Amazon's and eBay's affiliate programs."

It is heavily loaded with affiliate javascript from MANY different sources, as seen with noscript, etc.

-- Yae4 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ugh. That site is basically a collection of advertisements. Guy (help!) 21:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Example of editing by readers:

Victor C: Brad, just letting you know, the WIN is mono. They had to remove the left speaker for the fan...

Brad Linder: Whoops! Fixing that now.

https://liliputing.com/2016/10/gpd-win-handheld-gaming-pc-quick-review.html , Reference 14 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPD_Win -- Yae4 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

While it's SPAMmy, It can certainly be used in a limited capacity. For instance on the Kodi (software) article, https://liliputing.com/2013/05/xbmc-running-in-linux-on-a-tv-box-with-an-amlogic-am8726-mx-chip-video.html is used to support that the software supports the AMLogic VPU chip. This is not an unreasonable use. Good to see that they make corrections to articles, which is good editorial oversight. It should not be used for anything other that plain, factual coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Making corrections after initially publishing inaccurate information, after readers point out the mistakes, is not "editorial oversight." Editorial oversight is having an editor, independent of the author, who catches mistakes before publishing. At this blog, the author is the editor, or vice versa. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Blogs do not generally update their posts. If there is the ability and will to recognize errors and omissions, that implies that there is some editorial oversight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I wanted to use infosec-handbook.eu (blog) as a source too, but couldn't because it doesn't meet the criteria. BTW, it also updates based on reader feedback (and has more active authors). If we use liliputing for that video, then we could use any blog with a fancy appearance and tons of advertisements as a way of including youtube videos. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What you were restricted in using that other website's content for is not up for discussion here.

We're not using the video itself, in the case I quoted, it's a specific discussion that is being used to support one fact. It is not generally reliable, as is the case with most other blogs. However, even blogs may be used under some circumstances. This is not a binary use vs. do not use situation, it's a large scale and judgment must be used to determine whether an entry can be used to support a fact.

Also, as stated above, it cannot be used to help determine if a topic meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The point was other blogs also do make corrections based on reader feeback, contrary to your claim.

Go down the list; Liliputing breaks most criteria: NO editorial oversight (aside from readers), self-published, blog, examples of making mistakes, sponsored content or primary purpose of showing you ads and getting you to click affiliate links. As I understand the process, if two of these discussions conclude it's a non-reliable source, then it goes on the "binary" list as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources

If that "one fact" is really worthy of being included, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Liliputing

Is Liliputing (liliputing.com) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog? — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Liliputing)

• Self-published source. I'll repeat what I originally wrote on 10 September: Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Advert-infested clickbait of no real merit and no evident quality assurance, much better sources exist. Guy (help!) 21:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally Unreliable Anything but a factual statement is not reliable. Cannot be used for GNG or other reliability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Should not be used as a source. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Liliputing)

• I've created a new subsection for the RfC to meet the "brief and neutral" requirement for RfC statements. Yae4 originally created the RfC in Special:Diff/919418976, but the RfC statement was too long to be transcluded into the RfC category lists. Discussion on Liliputing originally started at Talk:/e/ (operating system), then sprawled to other pages including Talk:Kodi (software). According to Yae4, Liliputing was used in 95 articles on 9 September, but this count has since declined to 12 articles   after removals. Pinging previous commenters JzG and Walter Görlitz as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer hardware task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "The Western Journal" (September)

Should The Western Journal be deprecated? Or listed as generally unreliable? Or something else? X1\ (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For the WesternJournal.com, see earlier Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Western Journal, and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Western Journal for comments on The Western Journal's reputation. Note: I have only been in a previous "rating", and haven't kept up on potential process changes here. X1\ (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I pulled it from Mikhail Abyzov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Kyle Kashuv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The first is a blatantly bad ref and use of that ref. The Kashuv ref isn't remotely as bad, but appears to be the type of warmed-over press that the NYTimes identifies.

I'm only seeing 12 uses as references at this time --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I see westernjournal.com  . X1\ (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Western Journal)

• Unreliable as a source for facts, and too extreme for opinion in most cases. It should be deprecated as a source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate it This analysis by the NYT seems to be all that needs to be said about this disinformation outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• This probably doesn't need an RfC - it's obviously not a reliable source for anything other than ABOUTSELF. Guy (help!) 21:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Same as BullRangifer (above), agree with u:Simonm223 and u:JzG. X1\ (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable based on the Times coverage and the fact that it managed to get itself blacklisted from Google News. --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable per the RS on their wiki page. However, per those same RS, their corrections page is a recent addition and they did retract an article that was wrong. In light of this, deprecation is going too far. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable getting blacklisted from two major news aggregators is bad enough, but the NYT coverage nails it for me. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable - NYT story makes clear that the site does not have any actual reporters of its own, and that its content is essentially just aggregated and rewritten stories from other conservative sources such as Breitbart. There is thus no reason to use the site regardless of reliability - anything they publish can be found elsewhere in original format if we wanted it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. Clearly identified as unreliable by several sources. Furthermore it generates little or no original reporting, any citation should point to the actual original news report (with Reliability evaluated in terms of that source). There is therefore little or nothing lost by deprecating this source. I considered just closing this as unanimous WP:SNOW. However given the social-media footprint and strong partisan affiliation, this case warrants burial under a large strong consensus to firmly put to rest any attempts to re-litigate this issue. Alsee (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Utter garbage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate per Simonm223. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The Western Journal)

• Comment Their corrections are here. [70] They also say at the bottom of every article that they are "committed to truth and accuracy in all of our reporting." This certainly gives an impression of reliability. However, prior to voting, I am interested in what evidence others may bring to the table. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Fox News had "Fair And Balanced" as a strapline. That was bullshit, by common consent. Guy (help!) 21:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Have you followed Western Journal long? It appears, per their wp page RSs, that had serious credibility issues regarding wp standards for RSs. Can you speak to how they now intend to use the westernjournal.com/corrections section? If they don't correct the articles themselves, a separate page will often be ignored. X1\ (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Hence my interest in other people's evidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Some references used used previously here. X1\ (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Has Western Journal ever retracted an article? Do they use credible references within their articles (citing them as sources)? X1\ (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Is a Splinter News headline a reliable source for calling Andy Ngo's WSJ article racist

1. Source: [71]
2. Article: Andy Ngo
3. Content:

   Splinter News' Libby Watson described the op-ed as "racist".

4. The article by Ngo that the Splinter News piece is referring to is here.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Not Reliable. My own view is that headlines are not generally RS, since they are usually not written by the author of the piece (contrary to the content we have here, which claims the headline was written by the author Libby Watson), and since headlines are often written to attract clicks rather than for accuracy. Finally, I have never heard of Splinter News before, and I do not think such a fringe source should be used for a very negative claim like this in a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment. This question is irrelevant and incorrect, because WP:INTEXT is used. BeŻet (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've suggested that the in text attribution is likely mistaken, as authors typically do not write their headlines. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems more a question of UNDUE WEIGHT. The reader is left wondering: why should we care what this Libby Watson thinks? Is her opinion significant? Is it significant enough to be highlighted in this way? Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's undue, but it's also unreliable, and misattributed since we have no idea if she even wrote the headline. All these points are true. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's your own opinion that you've originally put forward as if it was included in Wikipedia guidelines. When I asked you to point me at relevant guidelines, you never did. We don't run Wikipedia on your opinions. BeŻet (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems mediocre at best. DN (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup, headlines are not reliable. Even when something like this is in the article text, it is better to quote a specific critique. Connor Behan (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

An op-ed by Paul Gottfried about the accuracy of a PragerU video

One editor is deleting the following text from the PragerU article:

• In an article for the American Conservative, historian and philosopher Paul Gottfried, who has written extensively on the subject of fascism, harshly criticized a PragerU video hosted by Dinesh D'Souza which maintained that fascism was a leftist ideology. D'Souza maintained that Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who influenced Italian fascism, was a leftist, to which Gottfried noted that this contradicted the research by "almost all scholars of Gentile’s work, from across the political spectrum, who view him, as I do in my study of fascism, as the most distinguished intellectual of the revolutionary right."[72]

Can I get confirmation here that Gottfried is indeed a recognized expert on the topic of fascism (he has published multiple peer-reviewed books on the subject) and that an attributed statement to him where he fact-checks a fringe PragerU video is WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It would probably be best to get a second source that agrees and supports the claim. This person does seem to have standing to make the claim but are they correct? For that matter in context of the PragerU article is it due to put this much discussion into a single video? Springee (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Not an accurate summary of the dispute. The content in question is proposed for inclusion in the "reception" section of the PragerU article. That section contains negative opinions about PragerU only at this time, including op-eds from Buzzfeed and Vanity Fair. The dispute is whether, if we are to include this AC piece, we can also include a positive AC piece here that praises one of PragerU's videos. I contend that it makes sense to either exclude AC's reception altogether, or to include both the positive and negative pieces they have published. If we're to exclude the positive piece on the grounds that the author of the positive piece is not notable (and less notable than the guy who wrote the negative piece), then we should also exclude several other pieces in the section currently, such as the one in Buzzfeed, on the same grounds. I'm flexible and open to suggestion. But I don't think the section should just be reserved for criticism, which is how it is shaping up. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Forget about the outlet, focus on the authors. Paul Gottfried is a highly respected historian and scholar whose opinion is likely to be significant. Maria Biery is a recent college graduate who majored in journalism and mostly writes for right-wing/far-right outlets. Her opinion is unlikely to be significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I can accept that, but only if we also remove the opinions from Tina Nguyen (VF) and Joseph Bernstein (BF) from the section on similar grounds. They're also just low level reporters like this AC author, and should have similar notability. May want to look at the assistant professor of sociology too--not really notable at the level of the others in the section. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that when it comes to political analysis we shouldn't put too much weight in the opinions of most VF or Buzzfeed writers. Springee (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have time to look at the others at the moment, but I intend to. There is also the matter of what the pieces are actually saying. Gottfried's piece is directly criticizing the factual assertions in a PragerU publication from the standpoint of mainstream scholarship. The Biery piece is simply praising PragerU for calling out communism as being bad because During my time in public school, I never learned about communism, the Cold War, Stalin, or Mao. That's it. There's nothing intellectual in there. Biery notes some actual statistics on how many Americans have a poor grasp of history, but aside from a few anecdotes the rest is completely free of anything approaching scholarship. In short, the piece is worthless. It's more than just who wrote it and is it nice or mean to PragerU - you also have to ask, what did they actually say? Gottfried's piece is actually saying something relevant. Biery's is not. So anyway, I'll look at the others later. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at the other two sources now, The Vanity Fair article and The BuzzFeed News article, well, those are actual news articles. They're not in the same ballpark as the essay by Biery. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The Pulitzer Prize, George Polk Award, Sidney Award, National Press Foundation, National Magazine Award, Online Journalism Awards, and Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting do put weight on what Buzzfeed News are reporting. But what do they know? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Buzzfeed also has a lot of partisan crap [[73]]. Springee (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The cite is to Buzzfeed News, which has separate editorial controls from Buzzfeed and is considered far more reliable (see WP:RS/P and the numerous previous discussions on the subject, which have turned up multiple high-quality sources specifically noting the shift that Buzzfeed News represents.) Buzzfeed is sometimes controversial as a source, but Buzzfeed News is 100% reliable and is an excellent source for this sort of thing - they're one of the few reputable sources that goes in-depth on internet culture-war things. As a general rule, you should check WP:RS/P before discussing a source, which would have alerted you to the difference between the two. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The content sourced to Vanity Fair is a description of PragerU's influence ("very influential"), aesthetics ("slick") and ideology ("conservative"). The report by Buzzfeed News, an outlet that has won multiple prestigious journalism awards in the last five years, is the most in-depth profile of PragerU that exists. Then there is the source that you want to add: an op-ed by a conservative college student who devotes one paragraph to Dennis Prager rambling about Nazism and communism, where she just repeats what he says, and says that she agrees with him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The Buzzfeed and VF pieces are obviously opinion pieces by non-notable authors. But, since they're critical, they're in. Oh, and also an unknown assistant prof of sociology of course writing for an activist group. But if someone non-notable says something nice about Prager U, they're out. One standard for negative pieces, a different standard for positive pieces. It's an obvious violation of NPOV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there's one standard for well-researched news articles that provide useful information about a subject; and another standard for an op-ed by a college student blaming her crappy public school education on some imagined inability of American liberals to talk about communism. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Two standards. Look at Francesca Tripodi's opinion. She's an assistant professor who has published exactly one refereed article. Obviously not notable. But it's in, because she calls PragerU a white supremacist gateway, and we definitely want that in, don't we. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to keep up with you when you keep moving on to different sources to complain about. "But what about this one? But what about that one?" etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument I'm making is slightly complex, but it's been the same from the beginning. The inclusion of the professor's article in AC suggested to my surprise that AC isn't automatically regarded as unreliable around here. So then, when I saw that there was another piece in AC that talked about Prager U, I included it. I judged that piece to be just as notable as several other (frankly low-quality) sources in the section. So, if you're not happy with that, the admissible solutions, from my perspective, are to either exclude all the low-quality sources (e.g., the piece for the activist group by the nearly unpublished assistant prof.), exclude both AC peices as non-RS, or leave all of them in. But of course the preference is to leave in the low quality sources that are critical, while excluding the source I found. Not surprising, I guess. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sympathetic with the desire of some editors to pack some articles with what are in effect negative factoids that don't form a cohesive theme/narrative. However, looking at the Buzzfeed and VF examples in this particular case I don't see that they are making overly controversial claims. However, I'm not sure why Gottfried's piece is DUE in this case. It seems to be more about D'Souza's opinion vs PragerU as a whole. Springee (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on, this D'Sousa fringe theory nonsense is so pervasive in the US far-right internet that there's literally been serious discussion about permanently semi-protecting Fascism since the tedious requests to treat D'Sousa's mouth noises as anything other than WP:FRINGE occur from throw-away accounts with such regularity. Not only is Gottfried correct; they're in line with the vast body of work on Fascism as a far-right ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Then put it in the D'Souza article. It's not DUE in the article about PragerU. How many PragerU videos have been released? Per Wikipedia 482. Why focus on one? It makes sense to focus on generalized themes in the videos on in the replies. If the idea is PragerU gives a mouth piece for fringe ideas, fine. Find a RS that says so (I suspect that is not a hard task) but it's simply DUE, especially in such a short article, to give so much weight to this single reply to the opinions in a single video. Springee (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

As if D'Sousa making his idiot mouth noisesoft-repeated WP:FRINGE claim about fascism is the only failure of scholarship at PragerU... Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Then the article should have a RS saying PragerU's videos are often wrong/disputed etc by experts in the field. That would help the lack of SUMMARIZATION. Springee (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the article should have a statement to that effect supported by RSes. The requirement that A) the article must be summarized and B) the RSes used to support that summarization must be summarized in the same way is untenable for right-wing internet phenomena that live and die by their ability to generate fresh controversies to draw either hate-clicks or own-the-libs clicks. However serious academics usually just ignore these nonsense propaganda sites; as such there's a dearth of summary sources rather than sources focused on this or that specific controversy - as I'm certain you are fully aware given your edit history. If PragerU is noteworthy enough to get an article on Wikipedia (which considering WP:10YT I would dispute) it is imperative we have a neutral article that positions it in its position in reality - a far-right propaganda portal. Excluding critics because they're too specific in their criticism is contrary to the pillars of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be more about your opinion of the subject vs how to write an effective article. However, you hit on the correct point. If PragerU is a far right propoganda portal as you claim then we should find RSs that say that. We should summarize that position and include their examples. The article should have some sort of topic sentence, "Many of PragerU's videos contain misleading analyses or go against consensus views on a topic [citation]". This would be a topic sentence of a section. This article doesn't do that. Instead it has a dumping ground for random information called "Reception". If the article is going to imply that PragerU is spreading misinformation then we need RS's that say as much. I don't think that will be hard to find. What we should not have is a single example of a disputed claim made by a person in a PragerU video in the article with no higher level explanation as to why that is relevant to the broader subject. Why should the reader care that 0.2% of videos released by PragerU are disputed by this individual historian? Springee (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the important question from a WP:10YT perspective is, why should we care about PragerU? Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• The article suffers from a lack of SUMMARIZATION. If we are going to discuss Prager’s internet presence, we shouldn’t be discussing individual videos (video by video)... instead we should summarize and discuss Prager videos as a whole. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • While that's likely a good idea, it's outside the scope of the question before us which is whether various sources are equivalently WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, but since questions of DUE are related here it's worth pointing out. Springee (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Exactly... Before we can discuss weather a source is DUE, we need to determine if the material it supports is DUE. If we summarize more, we could probably avoid discussing individual videos (and thus avoid the need to include reactions to those individual videos). Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable The source is reliable. POV/NOT concerns are another matter, and outside the scope of this noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this was not the proper venue to discuss the actual dispute we were having, which should have been discussed on the talk page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable A person whose books and articles on fascism have been published by academic sources is expert enough to determine if D'Souza's "facts" about fascism are contrary to what fascism scholars say. TFD (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable and due as far as I can tell. Connor Behan (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

• spioenkop.blogspot.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

Are these sources reliable?

• http://spioenkop.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-oryx-handbook-of-iranian-drones.html
• https://twitter.com/JeremyBinnie/status/1148255599731384320
• https://twitter.com/JeremyBinnie/status/1148968924056367104

please see what is happening in Samad (UAV) --SharabSalam (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Blog used in many articles

This blog http://spioenkop.blogspot.com It is used in many articles and should be removed. It is not reliable. It contradict reliable sources. Their facebook page has 500 subs (not notable). Advertisement? Why is it being used in Wikipedia when it make such bogus fake reports?--SharabSalam (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The blog is cited extensively in the military affairs literature, and the twitter user is a defense journalist who has written on this very subject. They are reliabler per WP:SPS. Notability applies to pages, not sources. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop trying to remove things just because you dislike them. Streamline8988 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It may be usable for the authors views, so how is it being used?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to identify the author. Guy (help!) 22:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the text that is added in Wikipedia in Samad (UAV) is presented as a fact although there are contradicting claims. The editor who I had dispute with wasn't willing to get what I am saying easily. I told the editor that we can't use the blog source without at least attribution. The source for example says that the Houthi drone was used before in Iran, that is an extraordinary claim especially that Iran denies providing Houthis drones and Houthis claim that they made them in Yemen and some of them say that they took the design from some Russian drone. The name of the drone is named after a Houthi leader who was allegedly assassinated by a Chinese-made UAE drone. I honestly don't want to stress my nerves trying to explain something so obviously wrong so I just came here for help. I think the blog is making so much unfounded extraordinary claims that are highly likely unture.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are the authors.

Joost Oliemans is a freelance writer and analyst based in The Netherlands.

Stijn Mitzer is an analyst and blogger based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

I don't think we should rely on these sources to present their opinions in Wikivoice.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I added inline citations, take a look and let me know what you think. Also be advised that some random guy is insisting the Houthis completed fabricated the successful attack on Abu Dhabi international airport; you might want to take a look at that too. Streamline8988 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Natural 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.

---

Greetings, all. I understand that this may come on as self evident but we do have entries in the project page for the Daily Mail and Breitbart after all! So, I hereby propose to summarily denote as entirely unreliable the website Natural News, considered to be a disseminator of conspiracy theories and fake news by a plethora of sources, e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and so on. -The Gnome (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Rather redundant to bring up here; the place for throwing darts at Natural News is where they're known and, uh, loved: WP:FRINGEN. For example, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Gary Null (copied from COIN) and so forth. Snopes.com knows all about 'em, too. Enjoy! Elizium23 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Elizium23. This may indeed be redundant but since I've not seen Natural News explicitly deisgnated as am unreliable (though, per Alexa, visited often) website, I thought I'd bring it up here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Are there any? If so, I have been slipping. I remove them all regularly. Guy (help!) 22:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Blacklist. A less popular version of InfoWars (RSP entry) with a focus on WP:MEDRS-violating health claims. The site's propagation of pseudoscience is well-documented in Natural News § Criticism and controversies, in addition to the sources The Gnome provided above. I've removed "RfC on" from the section heading since this discussion isn't a formal request for comment. As even the Natural News article states that Natural News (formerly NewsTarget) "is a conspiracy theory and fake news website" with little to no editor controversy, a formal RfC is probably not necessary here. — Newslinger talk 22:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Requested blacklisting at WP:SBL § Natural News. — Newslinger talk 01:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism — Newslinger talk 22:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting. Any instances are practically defacto removed anyways (with JzG doing most of the lifting on that too). I'm not always gung ho about blacklisting sources unless absolutely needed, but given the combination of constant WP:FRINGE coming out of it and most of it directly going against the ideas put forth in WP:MEDRS, it has no place here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Warrants the level beyond merely "deprecated". Same for newstarget.com - David Gerard (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support I cannot imagine a scenario where we would ever use Natural News as a source for anything. I wouldn't even use it as a source to describe itself. jps (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting — a worse-than-worthless "source". XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting this garbage site. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Blacklist: Kill it. Kill it with fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support triple blacklisting I browsed a couple of pages to see how it has developed and, well, it has developed and is now full-on nuts. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support From the sources you provided I do support blacklisting ~mitch~ (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Thesis: Fiji in 'The Life and Times of Cakobau: The Bauan State to 1855'

1. Source. Title: Fiji in 'The Life and Times of Cakobau: The Bauan State to 1855'- A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Otago, New Zealand. Author: Hurray P. Heasley, B.A. (Hons.), Otago. August, 2010. Page Number 31: Genealogy on the Origin of the 1st Vunivalu from Nakorotubu, Ra presented on page 31 by the late Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, Roko Tui Bau & 2006-2009 Vice President of Fiji.

2. Article. The above removed source was cited on Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani.

3. Content. On page 31, the late Solicitor and former Vice President of Fiji and Roko Tui Bau, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi explains the original ancestor lineage of the title of Vunivalu of Bau and is a credible backup source to the statement Nadurucoko the original Gonesau, was the father of Nailatikau Nabuinivuaka, the first (1st) Vunivalu of Bau and Kubuna and link the first and original title holder of Cakobau's title to Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani's ancestor from Nakorotubu, Ra.

It is useful to reinstate this thesis to the article so that information on wikipedia are more informative and in totality according to the original objectives of the founders of Wikipedia. Saqiwa (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this thesis in some public repository, so we may look at it? And no, some politician is not a valid source for such claim. I would expect rigorous research in primary sources on part of the author of said thesis, it is useless otherwise. Pavlor (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pavlor: The link that kept being added as a citation is www.justpacific.com/fiji/full-text/Heasley%E2%80%94Cakobau-thesis.pdf, but that includes all 461 pages of the thesis. The citation specifies the relevant information is found on page 31 which can be seen at www.justpacific.com/fiji/full-text/Heasley%E2%80%94Cakobau-thesis.pdf#page=88. My concerns about this per WP:SCHOLARSHIP are that it's not clear whether the writer of thesis HMurray P. Heasley is widely recognized as a expert on the subject matter, it's not clear whether histhe thesis is something that other researchers/scholars or even other secondary sources have cited or reported on as being reliable, and it's particularly unclear whether the original sources cited by Heasley for the content areis reliable. There are three sources cited on that page by Heasley and he actually actually states that source for cites 1 and 2 cannot be considered impartial because of a COI, while cite 3 seems to be WP:NOR that was supplied to Heasley as a favor by the source (Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi), andthat was simply taken by Heasley to be true at face value. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify and for copyediting purposes; added content is underlined and removed content is strickenout. -- 01:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)]<[Note:Post edited once again by Marchjuly to correct name of the thesis writer. -- 01:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)]

Thanks. It is obvious the author of said thesis himself sees this issue as unresolved. Giving a definitive answer in Wikipedia voice would be certainly a misuse of this source. Source is useable, but not in the way presented by OP. Pavlor (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pavlor: Let me clarify that Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi was not a politician but an appointee to the position of Vice President of Fiji. He was also a Roko Tui Bau with obvious historical knowledge of the title of the Vunivalu of Bau. It would be unfair to totally dismiss his claims as he was a solicitor, as he had backed up his source from the Native Lands Commission (NLC) records of 'Tukutuku ni Yavusa o Kubuna' of the Bau commission hearing of 1929. Saqiwa (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If the original source is not the thesis or Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, but rather "the Native Lands Commission (NLC) records of 'Tukutuku ni Yavusa o Kubuna' of the Bau commission hearing of 1929" then that's what should be cited if those records are considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia doesn't try to cite content from a book by providing a citation to a person who might have read the book; it cites the actual book instead. So, the original source material should be cited whenever possible, but only if it's reliable and only if it's accessible as explained in WP:PUBLISH.

The records of a commission hearing sound like a primary source to me, and such a source may be used to support certain factual statements as long as the records can be accessed and verified by someone if necessary. Wikipedia editors cannot, however, interpret such primary sources per WP:SYN and it cannot cite such interpretations made by others unless those others are considered reliable sources. So, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi's interpretations or recollections of what was discussed or determined at that commission's hearing most likely cannot be used per WP:NOR.

There is another problem that was pointed out by an administrator named Diannaa when I asked her about something related to this, and that problem has to do with WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER. Wikipedia can only link to content (including citations) where it reasonable to believe that the cite hosting the content is doing so with the permission of the original copyright holder. Diannaa is quite experienced when it comes to sorting out copyright matters on Wikipedia and her opinion is that the website hosting the thesis is not the original source of the thesis and it also doesn't seem to have permission to host the thesis from its copyright holder. So, unless it can be verified that the website does have permission, a link to it on that website cannot be added (even as part of a citation) to a Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to have direct link to the thesis (or any other "offline" source), informations about publisher etc. (or university library where the thesis is available in this case) should be enough. In general, thesis for doctoral degree is useable as a reliable source - with usual caveat of due weight. Is there any other higher quality source (I mean in respected peer reviewed journal) concerning this obscure ancestry topic? Note the thesis we discuss here is not useable as a source for claim presented above, because that is not what its author wrote (he presents two views, not a single one). On a side note, I don´t share your POV about citing de facto primary source. Thesis (or even better peer reviewed article in high quality journal or a book from a renowned scholar) is a secondary, independent, reliable source we are looking for. Pavlor (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I should've clarified above that WP:SAYWHERE is fine when citing a source as long as it's considered reliable (this includes being published and reasonably accessible, i.e. not in someone's private collection or otherwise has severely restricted access). I didn't mean the thesis couldn't be cited if it wasn't available online somewhere. As for my POV, I think the original source could simply be cited in support of certain facts, but that it would be better supported by a secondary source (e.g. to a thesis) for interpretation purposes.

Anyway, FWIW, I did Google "Hurray P. Heasley", the writer of the thesis, and the first two hits were Kubuna and Vunivalu of Bau because these are also articles where Saqiwa has cited the thesis as a source or otherwise added it as a link. Another hit was to the website hosting the thesis and another one was to a book on semantics that Heasley co-authored. I'm not, however, finding this thesis or anything else related to this written by Heasley published in peer-reviewed journals or being cited by others in such journals or books. Moreover, I tried getting feedback on this at WP:FIJI but never got a response. I also really just came across this article via a question at the Teahouse posted by Saqiwa a few weeks back and was trying to help him resolve the issues he was having with another editor named DrKay challenging his edits, particularly the sources being added as citations. That's the reason I actually suggested Saqiwa bring this up for discussion here so that get feedback from others, and I'm fine with whatever the consensus turns out to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's clear from Heasley that these genealogies are contentious and exist in many different versions. So even if one specific genealogy at the NLC says one thing, it's undue and bias to select it over the others. Either all variants should be presented or none. In this case, as it's all primary sources, probably none. If only one genealogy is discussed then it will have to be qualified as one variant among many. It's Murray Heasley, by the way, not Hurray. DrKay (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DrKay for pointing out the thesis writer's correct name. I should've caught that myself, and shouldn't have assumed the name in the citation was automatically correct. FWIW, there are a number of hits for "Murray P. Heasley" who's an academic, but most seem to be related to something unrelated to this type of content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Charles de Bourbon?

Charles de Bourbon: High Constable of France "The Great Condottiere", by Christopher Hare, published T. Nelson, 1911.

I have found nothing on Christopher Hare.--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

He's written a lot of books on History. Actually, I should say "she". "Christopher Hare" is apparently the pseudonym of Marian Andrews. See also here. She's discussed briefly here. That may give you a start. --Jayron32 13:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

But it's over a century old, & for that alone should be treated with great caution. If, possible, find something better. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Being over a century old doesn't make it unreliable. --Jayron32 12:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

When I was a young man, a common theme in my methodology class was to avoid sources written in the 19th century unless you could prove the author's specialization. In this case, 1911 falls just inside the 20th century but my concern as to the author's specialization still remains. Thank you both for your thoughts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

We aren't here to tell you what to think about Ms. Andrew's/Hare's qualifications as a historian. You're free to read her list of works, how others have cited those works, and develop your own opinion based on how the greater world of historians at large treats her work. --Jayron32 17:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this academic paper a reliable source?

This:

• Rosenberg, Shawn W. (2019) "Democracy Devouring Itself: The Rise of the Incompetent Citizen and the Appeal of Right Wing Populism" in Hur, Domenico Uhng and Sabucedo, José Manuel eds. (forthcoming) Psychology of Political and Everyday Extremisms

is a paper that was delivered at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychologists in Lisbon this summer. The author is a professor of Political Science and Psychology Science at the University of California, Irvine, and has been described as "one of the lions of the profession". [74]. As indicated above, the paper will be included in a forthcoming book that is in preparation. In the meantime, it is available at the URL above, on Academia.edu.

Given that the paper was selected for presentation at an academic meeting, and was indeed presented, given the qualifications of the paper's author, given that it's to be included in a forthcoming academic book, and given that the paper has provoked responses in the media, is the paper a reliable source per WP:RS? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Acceptance for publication in an academic book is enough. Presentation at an academic meeting is not necessarily enough since some conferences have very weak acceptance criteria, much less than peer review. Zero^talk 04:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable for what exactly? For the individual opinion of an expert in the field? Reliable as a statement of fact or consensus in the field? Reliable for it's overall conclusion or reliable for secondary comments made along the way that aren't crucial to the primary conclusion? Does it conflict with other experts opinions in the field? It's it cited by others? Absent knowing how it will be used and what it will support it's hard to answer. Certainly we shouldn't stamp it as "reliable in all cases" the way some might wish to do with a holy scripture. Springee (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Springee, you're being disingenuous. Since you removed information sourced to this paper, which I added to Right-wing populism, [75] you know precisely how it is intended to be used. For those unaware, this is the information that Springee removed from the article:

In regard to the authoritarian aspect of right-wing populism, political psychologist Shawn W. Rosenberg asserts that its "intellectual roots and underlying logic" are best seen as "a contemporary expression of the fascist ideologies of the early 20th century".

Guided by its roots in ideological fascism ... and its affinity to the fascist governments of 1930s Germany and Italy, [right-wing populism] tends to delegate unusual power to its leadership, more specifically its key leader. This leader embodies the will of the people, renders it clear for everyone else and executes accordingly. Thus distinctions between the leadership, the people as a whole and individuals are blurred as their will is joined in a single purpose. (p.5) ... In this political cultural conception, individuals have a secondary and somewhat derivative status. They are rendered meaningful and valued insofar as they are part of the collective, the people and the nation. Individuals are thus constituted as a mass who share a single common significant categorical quality – they are nationals, members of the nation. ... In this conception, the individual and the nation are inextricably intertwined, the line between them blurred. As suggested by philosophers of fascism ... the state is realized in the people and the people are realized in the state. It is a symbiotic relation. Individuals are realized in their manifestation of the national characteristics and by their participation in the national mission. In so doing, individuals are at once defined and valued, recognized and glorified. (p.12)

According to Rosenberg, right-wing populism accepts the primacy of "the people", but rejects liberal democracy's protection of the rights of minorities, and favors ethno-nationalism over the legal concept of the nation as a polity, with the people as its members; in general, it rejects the rule of law. All of these attributes, as well as its favoring of strong political leadership, suggest right-wing populism's fascist leanings.

@Zero0000: Is this a reasonable use of the source, in your opinion? Contrary to Springee's contention, the opinion of a subject expert is only unacceptable if it contradicts the views of the consensus of subject experts, not if another subject expert has a slightly different, but compatible, view, which is the case here. The full context of the section of the article in question with the deleted section above, can be seen here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If it is a fair report of the source, which I didn't check, it is acceptable. It is largely informed opinion rather than purely factual statements, but attribution is enough to cover that. Zero^talk 05:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on the information that you have provided, Beyond My Ken, I conclude that this is a reliable source for the specific assertions in question. Springee, it would be intellectually honest for you to disclose that you had already reverted content cited to this paper before commenting here. Honesty is the best policy, after all. BMK, you should not be wikilinking words or phrases in direct quotations. Let the quote stand on its own. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point, I've removed the link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

BMK didn't say how or where the content was to be used and asked such an open ended question that I gave the same answer I would have given anyone. As RRC below says it wasn't reverted as unreliable and it would be misleading for BMK to suggest as much. Springee (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a debate over whether this source is reliable, but rather whether such a large quote from a recent paper is due. There have been hundreds of books and papers published on the relationship between fascism and populism; any material on the subject should be based on the consensus of academic experts. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In the discussion on Talk:Right-wing populism, an editor said specifically that it was not a reliable source. Note that I used to have the first paragraph only, without the quote in the article, until I was asked on the talk page to provide further elaboration, which I did. Then, after I added the quote (and other sources), it was removed as UNDUE. There's been a considerable amount of goal-post shifting in an attempt to reduce any commentary on the relationship between right-wing populism and fascism to an absolute minimum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should let Buffs summarize their own position on the issue. Buffs said it wasn't reliable based on the fact that it has yet to be published. Several editors said it was UNDUE. Editors are allowed to evolve their thinking and aren't required to state all objections the first time. Springee (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Buffs said it wasn't reliable based on the fact that it has yet to be published." Exactly, which is why I came here to determine what the RSN editors thought. Your UNDUE argument is wrong on on both policy and procedure, but it's not what this discussion is about. Just as you and Buffs continually sidetracks my behavioral complaint on AN/I by constantly bringing up content, please do not attempt to sidetrack this discussion about reliability by constantly bringing up UNDUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You suggested I removed this material as unreliable so it’s more than reasonable for me to defend myself from your incorrect accusation. If the only question was prepublication you could have said as much. If you don’t want this derailed perhaps you could not throw out the first accusations. Springee (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, seems like it's reliable, but it's surely undue for a forthcoming paper to receive such a spotlight and a huge blockquote, rather than being one of many papers that informs a summary of expert opinion, with this perspective given weight according to the degree to which other experts have tended to agree with it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's a quote from another paper--one by Mudde from 2004 that has received nearly 2400 citations:

Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose ‘the pure people’ against ‘the corrupt elite’? As argued above, I disagree with this view, and believe that both the populist masses and the populist elites support ‘true’ representation. In other words, they reject neither representation per se, nor the lack of social representation. What they oppose is being represented by an ‘alien’ elite, whose policies do not reflect their own wishes and concerns.

This seems to offer a different perspective, and it also notes that there is disagreement about exactly how to think about the relationship between populism and representative democracy. I've omitted footnotes in the above quote, but he cites two authors for the claim that populism and democracy tend to go together. An accurate summary of the literature would reflect all these views, together with other significant views in the no doubt vast literature on this topic. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(1) I see no conflict between the two. (2) The current discussion concerns the relationship between right-wing populism and fascism, not the relationship between populism in general and representative democracy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If you read the paper, you'll see that he means his statements to apply to right-wing populism as well as other forms of populism. The view that right-wing populism is a form of of fascism is obviously a different view than the view that populism is "inherent to" and a natural expression of representative democracy. The subject is more complicated than a summary of (or a huge block quote from) a single forthcoming paper is going to suggest. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Right-wing populism is a form of fascism" is a point of view that nobody who is being cited (or potentitially being cited) is espousing, so to bring it up is a bit of a strawman argument. What is being said are (1) Some right-wing populist parties have roots in post-war fascism and (2) Right-wing populism, under specific circumstances, can become fascistic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The quote you provided states that right-wing populism has roots in fascism that guide it. The quote you provided does not say "some right-wing populist parties" have such roots. It does not say that such parties become fascistic "under specific circumstances." Rather, the quote you provided says that right-wing populism (no restriction stated) has guiding roots in fascism (no restriction stated). That's it. And that's obviously a different view than the view referenced in the quote I gave, which says that several authors have seen populism as "inherent to representative democracy". As I say, all these perspectives from RS should be put together in a summary, and the preprint you found isn't more due than these other perspectives, and in fact is far less due than perspectives in published work that has been widely cited. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between "[some] right-wing populism has roots in fascism" and "right-wing populism is fascism". I'm not going to argue your re-statement because it is neither accurate nor properly representative. It is, in fact, a straw man that you invented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The addition of 'some' in your reconstruction is inaccurate. It's not there, and isn't implied in English. The quote says that right-wing populism is rooted in fascism, and those roots continue to "guide" it. I don't see the difference between that and saying that right wing populism is a form of fascism. In any case, the source is not due for such a huge quote, and what the source says does not cohere with other, far more influential sources that have been published. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Pre-prints should never be considered reliable sources or cited in articles except in the most unusual of circumstances. ElKevbo (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a very strong statement. Pre-prints of accepted manuscripts should surely be evaluated for inclusion on the same basis as published articles because the only difference is typesetting. No comment on the specifics of Zero0000's case at the start of this thread. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that substantive differences between the two documents should be very rare but why in the world would we ever cite a pre-print instead of the actual published article?

In this specific instance, it sounds like one or more editors are advocating a citation to a conference paper that is being published as a book chapter. That's even more concerning that a pre-print because it seems to imply that the editors in question believe that the conference paper can be cited as a book chapter i.e., no changes will be made to the conference paper when it's published in the book. If that implication is correct, it's a troubling assumption. Either cite the conference paper or wait until the book is published to cite the chapter. Don't quote the conference paper and cite the book chapter. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Because the published work may be behind a paywall. If there was a case where someone gave a reference to an article behind a paywall and linked to the pre-print that would be entirely reasonable (while still linking to the pay-walled version through a DOI if applicable or similar). University repositories often contain pre-prints as the green open access version of a publication. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

For purposes of citations in Wikipedia, it's irrelevant if a source is behind a paywall. More importantly, it's confusing at best and dishonest at worst to claim to be citing a document but then link to a different document. If you want to cite a document, just cite the published version and not a copy of it that may differ in important ways. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The point is that a manuscript that has been accepted for publication will not differ from the published version in important ways. The key change is in typesetting. There is nothing dishonest about linking to an open access paper, that was why universities created repositories in the first place. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The version of the paper on Academia.edu says specifically that it is the forthcoming chapter for the book cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a follow up, Simonm223 has restored the material to the article in question based on the view that this discussion has said it is a RS. I think most here agree it's reliable as a recently (soon to be) published peer reviewed paper/chapter. However, I don't believe that addresses the DUE concerns raised above and at the article. Springee (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I am open to edits but not to wholesale removal of the source. This looks an awful lot like more WP:GREENCHEESE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between removal of the source and removal of a block quote etc that was seen, by local consensus, as undue. Springee (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I would contend that local consensus became questionable the second this hit noticeboards; thus my involvement per review of the thread here. As I said, I'm not opposed to editing the use of the source; I'm opposed to whole-cloth redaction of the source from the article. Which is what you had done, with the argument that it'd been voted on. (WP:NOTVOTE notwithstanding). Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with that argument and I generally agree. The board discussions can indicate a different consensus. However, I don't see that case here. To some extent here and at the talk page there is a concern that this new article doesn't represent a consensus view among academics. The original source that introduced this paper to the article, a Politico article by another expert in the field called it "shocking". That may not apply to the quoted section but it did apply to the overall paper. More critically, editors here raised UNDUE concerns. Those were the same concerns raised on the talk page. Also, as Shinealittlelight pointed out, this paper is somewhat in conflict with a highly cited paper on the subject. Based on the number of citations we shouldn't give this paper more weight (in terms of text length) than the highly cited paper. Per ONUS we can verify the content but that doesn't mean there is consensus that it's due in the article as a definition of right-wing populism. Springee (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Also @Simonm223: I'm fairly sure it's irregular to restore challenged content while talk page consensus regarding it is being established. Springee was right, as I see it, to keep it out of the article while the conditions for its inclusion (and the weight that is due to this source) is still being discussed. This was mentioned on the local talk page and I don't see that anything has been changed by bringing the matter to this talk board-- the fact that there are many editors here who seem to be of the opinion that it is not reliable at all makes your restoration even more questionable. Zortwort (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Having finally looked at the content beyond skimming through concerns of edit-warring, it's my opinion that the edit this concerns at Right-wing Populism gives the source far more than its due weight. Reliable or not, and I think it may be technically reliable, this yet-un-published paper should not be given 3 paragraphs worth of attention in the definition section of that article. Zortwort (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A RfC has been opened at the article talk page related to this material

An editor has opened a RfC regarding the inclusion of this material in the Right-wing populism article. The RfC is located here [[76]] Springee (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

English-language Asian news sites

Hello, I am still looking for Japanese news sites like The Japan Times, South China Morning Post, and The Straits Times. Contributors on this article must be verified and reliable before citing it. --TaleofTalisman (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of reaction is tweet

Is it allowed to use tweets for reactions section in Sahar Khodayari, as a result, most of the section included the following tweets?Saff V. (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• FIFA made a statement about Khodayari's death: "We are aware of that tragedy and deeply regret it."
• Paul Pogba, French footballer, tweeted: "Strength and prayers to family and friends of blue girl, Sahar Khodayari"
• Masoud Shojaei, Iranian football team captain, expressed his sorrow after Iran's win over Hong Kong on 11 September 2019: "Condolences, girls of Iran. Today, Team Melli lost because Sahar wasn't with us".
• Spanish Club FC Barcelona said: "FC Barcelona is very sorry to hear about the death of Sahar Khodayari, may she rest in peace. Football is a game for everyone - men AND women, and everyone should be able to enjoy the beautiful game together in stadiums."
• Farah Pahlavi, the last Shahbanu of Iran, tweeted a statement saying: "Sahar, one of the symbols of the Iranian women's fight against the Islamic regime, will be remembered forever."
• English Club Chelsea FC said: "We were deeply saddened to hear of the death of Sahar Khodayari. Football is a sport for all and we believe stadiums must be open to all."
• Spanish Club Real Betis said: "Even if a few days have gone by, we don't want to forget about this. For respect, tolerance and equality. Men and women. Boys and girls. Stadiums are for everyone. Today we turn blue in memory of Sahar Khodayari."
• Spanish Club RC Celta de Vigo tweeted: "The sport that we all love, should love us all. RIP #SaharKhodayari"
• Fran Beltrán, Spanish footballer, tweeted: "The most beautiful sport should not exclude anyone. Stadium never without women. This is about human rights."

References
References

There is no point, none of these reactions are notable or interesting. These sorts of comments will come up when anybody notable dies, and shouldn't be included in an article unless exceptional coverage has been generated about the tweets themselves. Zortwort (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts... instead of listing each “reaction” separately (which gives each individual reaction undue weight)... SUMMARIZE them. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar:, yes if there were reliable source, you would be right and we have to summarize but now there is not reliable source!Saff V. (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not original research to observe that several clubs/other related people expressed condolances and thus summarize it that way. That is definitely not a contentious fact that would need more explicit sourcing for to summarize. You can still use all the same twitter sources but just group them as a single grouped ref. --Masem (t) 17:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

You definitely can't summarise them because they are tweets= primary sources and so that would be original research. I think we need secondary sources so that we can be sure their reaction is notable.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Spacefacts

Spacefacts is being used as a reference at Hazza Al Mansouri. The website has a somewhat amateur look, like the websites I was making in the mid '90s. The only page that provides any real information about the website gives the strong impression that it's little more than a fansite.[77] Neither of the people listed on the page seem notable and I was surprised to find that the website actually has an article on Wikipedia. Opinions? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah... it is a non-expert fan site. The major contributors are not scientists or engineers (one is a lawyer, the other a community administrator). Not reliable. And I too question whether we should have an article devoted to it (its major claim to notability seems to be that it is cited a lot on the German Language WP.) Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable, in my opinion. Even if its content is factual it's not a suitable source for anything. I've also nominated the Spacefacts page for speedy deletion as there is no indication of notability. Zortwort (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

New York Times' - Epstein reporting

Please consider whether the NYT article should have its Epstein coverage demoted to "reliable but not independent" based on some or all of the following points is sufficient sourcing for the claim highlighted in point #5. (Striking original request per Newslinger’s comment). petrarchan47คุก 00:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

___

1) NPR calls out NYT for dropping the ball on Epstein coverage

NPR describes how 3 media outlets whitewashed Epstein coverage for various reasons. One of them was the New York Times: How the media fell short on Epstein

___

2) Current NYT CEO Mark Thompson & the BBC pedophile scandal and alleged coverup

• Telegraph Nick Pollard, former head of Sky News and lead investigator into the Savile inquiry claimed that former BBC boss Mark Thompson lied over Savile evidence"

• Vanity Fair examines Thompson's role and seemingly conflicting statements Vanity Fair

• "Thompson is now attempting to reconcile two apparently contradictory statements over what he knew about a TV report into Savile by the BBC's Newsnight programme." Guardian

• Thompson confronted about his contradicting statements about what he knew, stumbles through interview Channel 14

• Front Page Mag concludes in Mark Thompson: From Pedophile Cover-Up to the New York Times: "As long as Mark Thompson holds the Old Gray Lady’s reins all the news that’s fit to print may not include exposing elite pedophile rings. It didn’t at BBC under Thompson’s leadership and there is no reason to believe this has changed."

• Background on the scandal:

Extended content

"[BBC] staff turned a blind eye to the rape and sexual assault of up to 1,000 girls and boys by Jimmy Savile in the corporation's changing rooms and studios." Guardian "at least 72 people were sexually abused by the DJ and presenter while he was working on BBC shows, including eight victims of rape. The youngest was just 10 years old. The largest number of assaults – 19 – happened during recordings of Top of the Pops." Independent "BBC foreign correspondent Caroline Hawley said that “she thought she had told Thompson the broad context of the axed Newsnight investigation into Savile” at a pre-Christmas drinks party at BBC Television Center in late 2011." BBC "Savile was accused by 107 staff at the BBC over the course of his decades of abuse" BBC 'Jimmy Savile raped children as young as nine' while working at BBC, leaked report unveils

___

3) Joi Ito - NYT BOD (2012-2019)

MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito and colleagues concealed Epstein donations and affiliation with the program. Ito knew Epstein donations were disallowed and created a coverup at MIT of the source and amount of donations. He also sought Epstein donations of $1.7 million for personal projects. Ito stepped down (but was not fired) from the NYT board of directors, as well as several other boards and the MIT Media Lab, on the heels of the New Yorker piece.

• a good summary of the controversy for those unfamiliar

• bombshell New Yorker report that led to Ito's resignation

Apparently the NYT had the scoop but sat on it. WaPost: "Before Ito’s resignations, prominent women in the media world such as Xeni Jardin had spoken out on social media against his ties to Epstein"

Xeni: "I told the [New York Times] everything. So did whistleblowers I was in touch with inside MIT and Edge. They printed none of the most damning truths..."

___

4) Soft, almost romantic description of Epstein's abuse:

• New York Times summary of the complaint by Jane Doe 1: "the massages quickly became sexual"

Compare with other media:

• WSJ "repeated rapes and assaults"

• CNN "pressured into giving him massages that transitioned into sexual abuse"

• CBS "sexual battery and sexual assault"

• VICE "The massages ...turned into several instances of sexual assault"

___

5) Possibly inaccurate coverage of Epstein-related court documents

Two thousand pages of previously sealed court documents were released the night before Epstein was declared dead. The New York Times makes a claim that no one else (except Alan Dershowitz and Ghislaine Maxwell) has, a claim now mirrored in our Jeffrey Epstein article:

NYT "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue."

Wikipedia: "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false."

The claim was made midway through a fluff piece about Trump-fueled conspiracy theories involving Bill Clinton. Besides this brief mention, the NYT has not reported on the documents. WP editors have taken its statement to mean that Guiffre admitted Clinton was not on the island, contrary to her earlier testimony. They have decided that because it was printed in the Times, it must be true, and lack of corroborating reports, and the presence of contradictory reports, are seen as irrelevant because the NYT is considered to be reliable.

• Law and Crime reported on the documents: Underage girls present when Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein's island

In transcripts of Giuffre’s deposition released by the court Friday, Bill Clinton‘s relationship with Epstein is expounded upon. Giuffre alleges that Clinton was around when she was with Epstein on his island. Giuffre claims that she “flew to the Caribbean” with Epstein when she was 17, and that while she was there, Maxwell bragged that she picked Clinton up in a "black helicopter that Jeffrey [Epstein] bought her". Giuffre further says that she had spent time with Clinton and that while his secret service agents were there, they weren’t "where [everyone] was eating." ... While the details of the alleged helicopter trip were, thus, unclear, Giuffre’s other statements in the deposition, if true, confirm Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey Epstein’s island while underage girls were present. This runs contradictory to Clinton’s claims that he has never been to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.

The documents say Guiffre was directed to have sex with former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, among other powerful men. NYT mentions this nowhere in its reporting. Those who do cover the Richardson allegations include but are not limited to:

vice, Reuters, wapo, vanity fair, daily beast, cnbc, nbc, Rolling Stone, cbs, NY Mag, Bloomberg, Wapo.

Most media did not mention Clinton at all; I've included the text from those that did because it shows how vastly different the NYT report is from all other accounts. No other media mentions any lie or misstatement whatsoever from Guiffre in their coverage:

Extended content

FORBES A court unsealed documents from a lawsuit filed by an accuser of Jeffrey Epstein that claim a number of powerful men were involved in Epstein’s alleged ring of abuse—and that President Trump and former president Clinton took previously unreported trips with the former financier... Bill Clinton: The former president visited Epstein’s private island while Giuffre was there, she claims in one of her depositions. Giuffre stated that Epstein held a dinner for Clinton on the island. (In a statement previously made to Forbes, Clinton denied ever visiting Epstein’s private island.) TIME In court documents that were part of the defamation lawsuit unsealed Aug. 9, Giuffre said that Trump never had sex with any of the women, but that Epstein told her they were friends. Giuffre also noted that she remembered Maxwell telling her that she and Clinton flew in a “huge black helicopter.” Politico The logs and depositions of Epstein’s pilots also detail former President Bill Clinton’s use of Epstein’s planes to travel around the world for the Clinton Foundation and to make paid speeches. “President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York,” Clinton spokesman Angel Urena said last month “He’s not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade, and has never been to Little St. James Island, Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, or his residence in Florida." Chicago Tribune Giuffre, as part of her sworn testimony, also states that she met former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore and future President Donald Trump, and that Epstein once held a dinner for Clinton on his island, Little St. James, off the coast of St. Thomas.

Thanks for your help. petrarchan47คุก 22:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I've read this several times and frankly I'm a little flummoxed. The NYT is pretty ironclad as far as RS go, it's one of the most respected and trusted papers in the world. Are you really trying to argue that it's somehow not "independent" in covering Epstein (ie, that it's somehow pro-Epstein?) That's a pretty bold claim to make and not one that is particularly well at all supported by what you've linked here. And I'm pretty uncomfortable with what you seem to be implying about Thompson... Fyddlestix (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not making implications here, I'm providing data points with varying degrees of relevance. Thompson's move to the NYT was very controversial, even by fellow NYT employees: N.Y. Times Columnist Questions New Boss' Handling of Pedophilia Scandal. petrarchan47คุก 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, what edits/articles is this even about? There's no point debating the NYT's reliability/independence on this story in a vacuum, what specific content is at issue here? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is about whether the New York Times is a reliable source for a statement about Virginia Guiffre retracting a statement about Bill Clinton visiting Epstein's island. The statement in the article is "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false." which is cited to a New York Times article which includes the statement "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.". At the risk of seeming like I am not assuming good faith, I think it is important to point out that previous attempts by Petrarchan to remove this statement from the article include attempting to contradict the Times' reporting with both semantics and original research ("'an earlier claim she made about' could mean anything. Maybe she claimed he had a striped shirt on at the island, but later remembered it was a Hawaiian shirt. You should be able to find this admission of a lie in the documents by using the word search option. If indeed you find it, I will make a donation to the NYT for their fantastic reporting. Because apparently they're the only ones to uncover this, which strikes me as odd."). I see this as little more than a further attempt to discredit what is undoubtedly a reliable source, and am wholly unswayed by the "evidence" being presented. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like a raving conspiracy theory to me - and Wikipedia editors need to be very careful about saying people are "linked to" a pedophile scandal and spinning implications about that. Might need a BLP-savvy admin to look at this posting. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping for a BLP-savvy admin (or editors) as well. I was thinking Slim Virgin might be of some help. I've changed "linked to" to "&" because I didn't mean to go beyond what sources say, and "linked" is probably too strong, as you say. petrarchan47คุก 23:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Caution, none of them are infallible. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

If, but and maybe, speculation should never really be RS, when its this speculative.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Falling short" isn't the same as "not reliable." The NYT isn't infallible (no source is), but if you want to cast its reporting into doubt or keep it out of the article, you need a source contradicting it directly on that particular point, not a source bemoaning its coverage of the topic in general. Even with such a source, I'm skeptical that you could exclude a major, relevant statement in an article by the NYT - at best you can say "the NYT said X, while [other source] disagreed" or some similar construction making the disagreement between sources clear. That is to say, the Times is such a widely-read and high-quality source that when they get something wrong, that itself usually becomes part of the story that we need to cover. But even then you'd need the disagreement to be direct and obvious to avoid WP:SYNTH - you can't just say "the NYT said [specific thing X], but their general coverage of the topic was questioned by Y." Also, as an aside, I'm fairly sure Front Page Mag doesn't pass WP:RS, so you're not helping yourself by citing it disagreeing with the NYT (of all sources.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You might want to read this. I'd say Columbia Journalism Review is a pretty decent source about reliability, wouldn't you? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very aware of that (no source is perfectly 'neutral', either.) But that says that the NYT's bias (from the perspective of the left) is largely one of focus and emphasis - none of the stories there are described as wrong or even individually misleading; and even when the overall focus gives the wrong impression it's not intentionally misleading its leaders the way some other sources might - that piece is pretty clear that the problem, from the author's perspective, is that the Times genuinely sees the world through the lens they use to report things. It's just that the NYT's particular perspective (which has, as it says, always been a thing - and is always a thing for any source) is becoming more obvious and attracting more commentary because there's fewer readers who share it. That doesn't make the NYT unreliable for a simple statement of fact like this, and (for the better or worse) it doesn't yet change the fact that the NYT is the paper of record. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

But what is the NYT actually saying? If you look at Newslinger's comment, you'll see our interpretation doesn't have support in the source material. Also, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. If I'm reading this right, an article about the documents and their contents would be preferable to this one from the NYT that is focused on conspiracy theories and mentions the documents only in passing. petrarchan47คุก 23:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• An examination of the five points listed above:
  1. The NPR story states that The New York Times editors "benched [correspondent Landon Thomas Jr.] instantly from any professional contact with Epstein" when they discovered his conflict of interest, and then "By early January 2019, Thomas was gone from the Times". The NPR piece condemns only the correspondent (Landon Thomas Jr.), but not the NYT as a whole. I would exercise caution when using Thomas's coverage of Epstein (e.g. his 2008 profile of Epstein) in any source, not just the NYT. The NYT's rapid removal of Thomas is a positive indicator of its reputation.
  2. The Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal has nothing to do with Epstein. Mark Thompson is not even mentioned in the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article, although I see that Mark Thompson (media executive) § Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal states that "Thompson departed the BBC before public exposure of the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and is not noted in the BBC chronology of the unfolding coverage". A short mention of Thompson's media responses might be warranted in the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article if due, but this scandal involves the BBC personality Jimmy Savile, and is unrelated to the NYT's coverage of Epstein.
  3. The NYT's coverage of Joi Ito is non-independent and should be attributed in-text, as Ito is a former board member of The New York Times Company. Because Ito was removed on September 7 after his conflict of interest was revealed, NYT's coverage of Epstein (outside of his interactions with Ito and the MIT Media Lab) after this date is unaffected. Coverage before this date falls into a gray area. Since the main concern is that the NYT may have resisted reporting some of the allegations against Epstein while Ito was a board member, editors should seek to supplement NYT coverage on Epstein with coverage from other reliable sources to ensure that all available information from reliable sources is considered.
  4. The NYT article also used the subheadline "The woman said her life was permanently scarred by the sexual abuse that started when she was 14." Your quote, "the massages quickly became sexual", does not exist in the article. The actual quote was "That first massage quickly turned sexual", and the next paragraph elaborated that 'she returned to Mr. Epstein’s home “countless times” until she was 17, with the visits becoming more frequent and the abuse becoming more severe.' The NYT's coverage here is in line with the descriptions from other reliable sources.
  5. I traced the NYT claim to pages 1910–1917 of the Epstein documents (387MB PDF version; linked from the article):

Video Deposition of Virginia Giuffre, Volume II Examination by Ms. Menninger (pages 1910–1917)

7 Q Okay. You have mentioned a journalist by 8 the name of Sharon Churcher. 9 A Yes. 10 Q You are aware that Sharon Churcher 11 published news stories about you? 12 A Yes. 13 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 14 Go ahead. 15 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Is anything that you 16 have read in Sharon Churcher's news stories about you 17 untrue? 18 A I think Sharon did print some things that 19 I think she elaborated or maybe misheard. But, I 20 mean, if you have a specific document to show me, I'd 21 love to look at it and read it and tell you what I 22 think. 23 Q Is there anything, as you sit here today, 24 that you know of that Sharon Churcher printed about 25 you that is not true? 1 A Not off the top of my head. If you show 2 me, like, a news clipping article or something, I can 3 definitely read it for you. 4 Q Is there anything that you know of that 5 Sharon Churcher has printed about Ghislaine Maxwell 6 that is not true? 7 A No, not off -- no, not off the top of my 8 head. 9 Q Is there anything that you recall saying 10 to Sharon Churcher that she then printed something 11 different than what you had said to her? 12 A Yeah, I've read stuff. I mean, I just -- 13 I can't remember what, but I read something that I 14 think was, Oh, she got that wrong. I can't remember 15 an exact example off the top of my head. 16 Q Did you ever complain to Sharon Churcher 17 about things that she got wrong? 18 A I didn't see a point. I might have, but 19 I -- I didn't see a point really because it's already 20 printed, you know. 21 Q You had a fairly voluminous set of 22 communications with Sharon Churcher by e-mail, 23 correct? 24 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 25 A Voluminous, like a lot of them? 1 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Yes. 2 A Yes. 3 Q And during any of those communications, do 4 you know whether she printed things about you after 5 you had any of those communications? 6 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 7 A I don't know. I know a lot of stuff was 8 printed, and I never really stopped to read who 9 printed the article, or wrote the article, I should 10 say. Sorry. 11 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. I'll show you 12 Defendant's Exhibit 7. 13 (Exhibit 7 marked.) 14 THE DEPONENT: Thank you. 15 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) I'll let you read 16 through the statements on the first page there, and 17 if there is anything that is not absolutely true, 18 just put a check by it and we'll come back to it. 19 A It's not very clear how she wrote it. "I 20 flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine 21 Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black 22 helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her." 23 That wasn't an eyewitness statement. 24 Like, I didn't see her do it. Ghislaine was the one 25 who told me about that; that she's the one who flew 1 Bill. 2 Q All right. If you just want to put a 3 check by it, then we'll just come back and talk about 4 each one. 5 A Okay. 6 Q Just to move things along. 7 A Okay. I have made three checkmarks. 8 Q All right. 9 MS. MCCAWLEY: And I just -- before you 10 continue, I just want to identify for the record, 11 since this doesn't have any identifiers on it, are 12 you representing that these are statements from 13 Sharon Churcher? 14 MS. MENNINGER: I'm not representing 15 anything. I'm asking the witness questions about 16 these statements. I asked her is anything on here 17 not true. That's all I asked her. 18 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) So which ones did you 19 put checkmarks by, Ms. Giuffre? 20 A I'd have been -- I'm sorry. "I'd have 21 been about 17 at the time. I flew to the Caribbean 22 with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick 23 up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had 24 bought her." 25 Q Okay. And what else did you put a check 1 by? 2 A "I used to get frightened flying with her 3 but Bill had the Secret Service with him and I 4 remember him talking about what a good job" -- 5 sorry -- "job she did." 6 Q Okay. And what else did you put a check 7 by? 8 A "Donald Trump was also a good friend of 9 Jeffrey's. He didn't partake in any sex with any of 10 us but he flirted with me. He'd laugh and tell 11 Jeffrey, 'you've got the life.'" 12 Q Other than the three you've just 13 mentioned -- 14 A Yeah. 15 Q -- everything else on here is absolutely 16 accurate? 17 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 18 A Yes. Well, to the best of my 19 recollection, yes. 20 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. What is 21 inaccurate about, "I'd have been about 17 at the 22 time. I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then 23 Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge 24 black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her"? 25 A Because it makes it kind of sound like an 1 eyewitness thing. 2 Q Okay. Did you say that statement to 3 Sharon Churcher? 4 A I said to Sharon that Ghislaine told me 5 that she flew Bill in the heli- -- the black 6 helicopter that Jeffrey bought her, and I just wanted 7 to clarify that I didn't actually see her do that. I 8 heard from Ghislaine that she did that. 9 Q You heard that from Ghislaine, and then 10 you reported to Sharon Churcher that you had heard 11 that from Ghislaine. 12 A Correct. 13 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 14 A I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine 15 that sounded too true -- too outrageous to be true, 16 but you never knew what to believe, so... 17 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. And after 18 Sharon Churcher printed what she said you said, did 19 you complain to her that it was inaccurate? 20 A I might have verbally with her, but again, 21 I didn't see a point in making a hissy over it 22 because what was done was done. She had already 23 printed. 24 Q What was inaccurate about, "I used to get 25 frightened flying with her but Bill" said -- "had the 1 Secret Service with him and I remember him talking 2 about what a good job she did"? 3 A I just don't remember saying that to her. 4 I don't remember saying I remember him talking about 5 what a good job she did. 6 Q All right. 7 A I just don't remember that at all. 8 Q Okay. And I guess, just to be clear, my 9 questions wasn't do you remember saying this to 10 Sharon Churcher; my question is, is that statement 11 accurate? 12 MS. MCCAWLEY: Well, objection. 13 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did you used to get 14 frightened flying with her? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. Did Bill have the Secret Service 17 with him? 18 A They were there, but not like on the -- 19 not where we were eating. 20 Q Do you remember Bill talking about what a 21 good job she did? 22 A I don't remember that. 23 Q So what is inaccurate about that 24 statement? 25 A I just -- it's inaccurate because I don't 1 remember him talking about what a good job she did. 2 I don't remember that. 3 Q Does it inaccurately suggest that Bill had 4 the Secret Service with him on a helicopter? 5 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 6 A Well, not being an eyewitness to it, I 7 wouldn't be able to tell you. I can't tell you what 8 I don't know. 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) And do you believe you 10 said that statement to Sharon Churcher? 11 A I mean, Sharon and I talked a lot, and if 12 she misheard me or just wrote it in the way that she 13 thought she should, I have no control over that. So 14 I'm not too sure. 15 Q Did she record your interviews? 16 A Some of them. Some of them she didn't. I 17 mean, we, like -- we, like, met for like a week, and 18 we spent a lot of time together, and then even after 19 that we just continued, like, kind of a friendship.

Sharon Churcher is the Daily Mail (RSP entry) writer who published the piece "Teenage girl recruited by paedophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton". From the transcript, Virginia Giuffre disputes Churcher's quotes of her that were published in the Daily Mail. There are two possible conclusions that could be drawn from this transcript: either the quotes are accurate (and Giuffre told Churcher statements that she later retracted in her video deposition), or the quotes are inaccurate (and Churcher published false information in the Daily Mail). The NYT's claim, "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue", appears to assert the first conclusion with the key words "claim she made".

Overall, I don't see any major concerns with the independence of NYT's reporting of Epstein with the exception of the issues related to Thomas (#1) and Ito (#3). As with any source, in-text attribution is recommended for contentious claims and exceptional claims require coverage from multiple reliable mainstream sources. — Newslinger talk 17:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on all counts [EDIT 10/6: regarding point #5 (I did not mean to agree that there are no concerns with the other points)], and thank you for digging up the source material. Having read the section from the transcript, I still don't see how it can be interpreted as 'Guiffre admitted she never saw Clinton on the Island". It looks like they are quibbling over the helicopter aspect. Guiffre again states that he was there, with Secret Service. The wording from the Times isn't clear to me; they could be referring to Guiffre admitting she hadn't seen evidence that Clinton arrived on Maxwell's helicopter, but certainly there is no justification from the transcript for the claim we're making in WP's voice.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. To claim both that Clinton wasn't on the Island, and that Guiffre is known to make gross misstatements about incredibly powerful people, is a serious matter if not properly sourced. That is why I've taken issue with the whole thing. Guiffe has never been credibly accused of lying or making inaccurate statements. The FBI is preparing to interview Prince Andrew based on Guiffre's testimony and evidence (photographs, corroborating flight logs) alone. If she had been discredited in the way WP is now suggesting, we would have heard about it. It would impact much of the ongoing investigations and court cases, no? Alan Dershowitz is trying to get out of a defamation suit brought by Guiffre (one he invited only months ago), but in his defense he has never brought up the 'fact' that Guiffre has admitted to, essentially, lying about an ex President. He's brought up everything he can think of (Yes, I had a massage at Epstein's but I kept my underwear on and did not enjoy it*), but not that?

If Guiffre had admitted in the documents to lying about Clinton being on LSJ, why did no other media pick that up? Why did journalists who focused on the documents (unlike the NYT piece which focused on Trump and Clinton) actually reiterate that Clinton was said to have been on the Island?

As I've said at the talk page, I do think this statement sourced only the to NYT should be removed until corroborating sources can be found. (I'm not sure why this makes me the bad guy...)

Right now, WP is both calling Guiffre a liar, and exonerating Clinton based on this one single line from the NYT, a line which is either inaccurate or being misinterpreted by WP editors. The NYT has printed serious inaccuracies before, like the entire time they claimed WMD's existed, so this attitude that they are infallible strikes me as odd. petrarchan47คุก 23:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right in that a single sentence from an NYT article ("The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.") is not enough to substantiate the exceptional claim that Giuffre made a false statement. I can't be certain that the NYT was wrong, since the NYT article doesn't specify which "earlier claim" Giuffre allegedly made, and because I only performed a text search on the Epstein documents instead of a thorough review of the entire 2024-page PDF. However, if I were a reporter, I would not accuse Giuffre of making a false statement based on the excerpt of the transcript I posted above, which is the most relevant portion of the documents I was able to find through a text search. — Newslinger talk 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That was the only section in the transcripts I found to be relevant, also. The NYT says "a claim", indicating there were several. But it was actually the journalist who got the facts wrong, and the transcripts show Guiffre was merely correcting the record (about seeing the helicopter first hand vs hearing about it from Maxwell). Wikipedia changes it to "the claim", and has been calling Guiffre a liar for over a month. The NYT couches their statement in a paragraph about Clinton and the island, so even though they don't specify, they are guiding the reader surreptitiously, I believe, to read this as WP editors have done, contrary to the documents they cite. It is inconceivable that out of at least 20 media orgs that covered or mentioned the documents, the NYT were the only ones to discover this supposed admission by Guiffre. There are only two possibilities: NYT fact-checkers are incredibly inept, or this was an act of deceptive journalism. In either case, I don't see how this can be ignored going forward. This is fake news, and not inconsequential. The subjects could hardly be more famous and influential people. petrarchan47คุก 15:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the term fake news here since it takes more evidence to show deliberate disinformation than negligence (or just ambiguity), and I don't think the burden of proof for the former is met. There's not enough detail in that one sentence to be certain whether it is correct or incorrect. This case does illustrate that passing mentions in articles tend to be less reliable than claims that are substantiated with longer and more detailed explanations. (Perhaps WP:CONTEXTMATTERS could be expanded to include this principle.) I'll submit a correction to the NYT. If I get a response, I'll share it here (if the discussion is still open) and at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein. — Newslinger talk 17:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You read my mind about writing to NYT. I so appreciate all your responses and the effort of contacting them. I trust we will be as discerning about them as we would say, Fox News, with regard to their response. I have followed this Epstein story extremely closely and can assure you that in those 2,000 pages, Guiffre is not found to admit to what NYT suggests. I cannot see the placement of their ambiguous statement as anything but a deliberate attempt to mislead. The entire paragraph is in defense of Clinton and about the Island. So we have really no choice but to assume that was the subject, however the sloppy wording gives them an out - "Oh we meant the detail about the helicopter, we just didn't think readers needed to know" - except for the fact that they got even that one detail wrong, it was the journalist and not Guiffre who misspoke.

One reason I think it's important to consider the bigger picture via points 1-4 is because of the attitude here in general towards the NYT, namely that they are somewhat saintly and infallible, and it's impossible to imagine they would purposefully mislead. However I've discovered that regarding Epstein coverage, in short, they hide or ignore damning evidence and facts (Xeni and whistleblower's Ito info, Richardson allegations), they report that which isn't true (point 5); they use softened language to describe child abuse as consensual (even once is too much, and placed at the beginning of the article means more readers are likely to see it); they were fine with Ito until he was outed; and it cannot be ignored that their current CEO was at the helm of the BBC during the entire Savile scandal when the BBC shelved an investigation into the pedophile and instead aired two Christmas specials celebrating him - this is a CEO who claimed not to know anything about any of it and has been credibly accused of making conflicting statements in his defense. petrarchan47คุก 02:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Newslinger, I believe, just wrote something similar to what I was going to note: the NYT discovered something wasn't right with one of their reporters and so they benched him. Good! I am not aware that anyone here is saying that the NYT or any other outlet is fallible. Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I don't think the NYT's general reliability is in question here (although I think you meant to say "infallible"). The motivation for this discussion appears to be a specific case where the NYT's coverage needs to be corroborated with additional reliable sources to support an exceptional claim. — Newslinger talk 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• The NYT article is Michael Crowley, "Trump Shares Unfounded Fringe Theory About Epstein and Clintons", The New York Times, 10 August 2019: "The documents unsealed yesterday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein's accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue." But which claim exactly? The Jeffrey Epstein article (permalink) cites this in support of: "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false." The WP article discusses "her previous claim" as though there was only one claim—that Clinton visited the island—and therefore that must be the claim that is false. I agree that we can't infer this from the NYT article, and their source contains over 2,000 pages. The NYT needs to introduce a "{{page needed}}" template. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems like an easy fix to change "her previous claim" to either "a previous claim she made" or (although it nudges up against original research) "a previous claim attributed to her" (also I think discussions of content, other than for frame of reference, probably belong on the article's talk page, and not here where the focus is/should be about the reliability of NYT as a source) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarah. I agree with the general sentiment here that without corroborating sources, this NYT mention of an ambiguous claim should not be in the article per:

• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.

• WP:EXTRAORDINARY Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.

I'll remove the statement from the Epstein article until we can satify sourcing requirements. Calling Guiffre a liar in WP's voice is unacceptable and mustn't continue. petrarchan47คุก 02:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep saying we can't call her a liar; by my reading, the (carefully-worded) line you object to does not do so. It says The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false; a claim being false does not mean it was a lie, especially given that the context makes it very easy for Giuffre to have simply been mistaken. Furthermore, the statement that she was mistaken is not exceptional - numerous other sources in the article support that, eg. The Secret Service told Fox News in 2016 it had no record of agents being on the island. Giuffre claims Maxwell told her she flew Clinton to the island on her helicopter, although she conceded, "I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine that sounded too true – too outrageous to be true, but you never knew what to believe." Maxwell denied Guiffre's claim that Clinton visited the island. In fact, it is Giuffre's accusation that is WP:EXCEPTIONAL here. Furthermore, reporting such an exceptional claim about a living figure without covering exculpatory reporting in a high-quality WP:RS clearly violates WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Federalist (website)

I didn't find any direct discussions on the website itself in RSN but it's cited as a source in Trump–Ukraine controversy#Whistleblower evidence rules as promoting a conspiracy theory and was directly linked from Donald Trump's twitter feed: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge which the remainder of the section disputes. Aside from the appropriateness of being cited above (as Trump's promotion of their article prompted other reporting), I hate immediately dismissing any right-leaning publications as non-RS, but the wiki page The Federalist (website) has some other things that give me pause. Pending feedback, I'd possibly also add a line to the lede stating that the website has been known for promoting conspiracy theories.-Ich (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• It was co-founded by a man who had to leave the WaPo because he was caught plagiarizing [78], the question "Who funds The Federalist?" is a meme among journalists [79]... It's unreliable in a way that right-leaning publications don't in principle have to be. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• ^ agreed. There's no particular reason to cite the Federalist there, since other sources are already pointing to it as the original source for the claim. As for the broader question of reliability: I wouldn't use it as a source of fact for anything remotely controversial, and I suspect it would be WP:UNDUE for statements of opinion in most cases. Like a lot of sites on the right (Washington Examiner, Washington Times) they offer some occasional niche reporting, but they're abjectly terrible around anything remotely controversial. They're particularly bad on stuff related to LGBT rights: they regularly publish articles (example) that cite ACPeds, an anti-gay junk science group. Nblund ^talk 16:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• It is a RS for this purpose. A conspiracy theory is a theory until it's proven not to be, and we have been including conspiracy theories about Trump since he announced he became a candidate. When notable enough for inclusion, theories and speculation should be cited to the source using in-text attribution and not presented in WP voice, if they are to be included at all. Keep in mind, the allegation of Russia-Trump collusion was a conspiracy theory that has long since been debunked but we included almost all of the details of the conspiracy theory in the Trump-Russia dossier along with many other articles and his BLP. Were there any corrections in MSM? Have the conspiracy theories been removed from the WP articles? If we're going to eliminate conspiracy theories and speculation, let's not do it on a partisan basis or simply because we don't agree with them, and then try to discredit the source to keep it out of the pedia. The latter is getting too close to noncomplinace with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is proposing that the claim about the whistleblower rules should be removed all together. The question is whether we should cite The Federalist. We have other, more reputable, sources that have described and debunked the claim, so citing The Federalist seems pointless. If The Federalist is the only source available for a claim, it probably isn't notable enough for inclusion. Nblund ^talk 17:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the Federalist should be cited as the source for the original allegations. And I think it has received enough attention that it should be included. I would also recommend giving the pro-Federalist side its due. E.g., see this piece: [80]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have explained why The Federalist's story is false and misleading. We absolutely don't need to give WP:FALSEBALANCE by pretending otherwise. There's also no reason to direct users to a demonstrably false news article when we have better sources readily available. Nblund ^talk 17:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It isn't false balance. RCP is a good site, and these authors seem to have relevant experience, and give voice to a substantial minority view on this matter. Their view deserves mention, with attribution and a note that they're conservative. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

One "COMMENTARY" piece written by two employees of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation does not hold a candle to the many reliable sources across the political spectrum (listed below) that describe the view as a conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 18:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That's one prominent example of a lot of pieces on conservative sites that make the argument that while the sources you've cited are correct that the law wasn't changed (something Sean Davis never claimed, by the way), the ICIG did change, in response to this complaint, internal policies concerning how they determine whether such a complaint is credible--a determination that the law left for the ICIG to make. I could go dig up a bunch of additional similar stories by conservatives, but I assume you're not interested. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 18:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here goes: Sean Davis's own reply, this Fox News story says something similar, Red State also expresses the same view. There are more of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. After reviewing the ICIG press release alongside all of the articles mentioned in this discussion, I think the wording Wikipedia uses to describe The Federalist's allegations is a matter of due weight, and a discussion on the wording would be best handled with an RfC on Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy or the neutral point of view noticeboard. All sources agree that the ICIG replaced the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with a new form that contained different language, but some conservative publications claim that the form change was politically motivated (e.g. "raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint"). The accusation of political motivation is the item that most reliable sources have described as a "conspiracy theory".

Regardless of how editors eventually decide to phrase the description, I believe The Federalist's article "Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge" falls under WP:ABOUTSELF in the context of its role in Trump–Ukraine controversy § Whistleblower evidence rules, and can be cited with in-text attribution and appropriate analysis from reliable sources. Donald Trump's September 30 tweet is cited in the article under the same principle, despite Twitter (RSP entry) being a self-published source. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, you say that The accusation of political motivation is the item that most reliable sources have described as a conspiracy theory and you link the Snopes article. But the Snopes article finds fault, not with the claim that there was political motivation, but with the claim that there was any change to "the rules" at all. As they put their conclusion: "No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress." So they're interpreting Sean Davis as claiming that there had been a legal requirement that was changed by the ICIG. I.e., they think that Sean Davis and Trump are asserting that the ICIG changed the law and that this claim is a conspiracy theory. My vote would be to accurately state this line on the situation, which seems to be what we find in most major news reports on this. We may then briefly note the conservative reply: that the complaint is not that there was a change in the law, but that the ICIG changed their internal policy about how they would determine what counts as a credible complaint, and that they scrubbed their old policy off of the relevant forms in order to avoid the appearance of conflict with the way they handled the recent complaint about Trump. I don't see that RS actually address this response at all, at least so far. In fact, because of this, my own preference would be to wait a month or so before including anything on this story at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The Snopes article directly referenced the deep state conspiracy theory in their description of The Federalist's claim: 'The claim originated on The Federalist website, which published a story on Sept. 27 that was not only inaccurate but played on the “deep state” conspiracy theory, an idea now popular among both fringe fanatics and White House officials alike. It posits that U.S. intelligence agencies are scheming against Trump.' I agree that Snopes does not use political motivation as the basis of their argument against The Federalist's article, but Snopes does claim that The Federalist's article contains a conspiracy theory that alleges political motivation.

Many of the other reliable sources are similar in that they describe the The Federalist's claims as a conspiracy theory, because the sources assert that the article's claims are false on technical grounds (i.e. the rules did not actually change) and that the article's claims allege political motivation. Example descriptions of political motivation allegations:

• CNN: "President Donald Trump tweeted a conspiracy theory suggesting the rules for whistleblowing had recently changed in order to accommodate the recent whistleblower complaint against him"
• USA Today: "Trump's allies have been repeatedly portraying a recent change in the whistleblower complaint form to allow second-hand information as a move by anti-Trump bureaucrats to permit the official accusation of presidential misconduct to move forward when it had no standing to begin with"
• Washington Examiner: "Republicans are now adopting the arguments of the DNC circa 2016, claiming that the whistleblower alleging damaging claims against President Trump's dealings with Ukraine is a corrupt actor who gamed a rigged rules change and that this conspiracy renders the actual contents of his complaint as illegitimate."

A false theory is only a conspiracy theory when it alleges a conspiracy. These sources claim that The Federalist's article contains a false theory that alleges a political conspiracy, which by definition would be a conspiracy theory. Most of the reliable sources mentioned in this discussion so far which use the conspiracy theory label correctly state that The Federalist's article alleged a change in the rules (some quoting Trump's September 30 tweet, which used the word "RULES") and not a change in the law, although most sources also reported that the law did not change. — Newslinger talk 05:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't agree with you about what the conspiracy theory is supposed to be according to Snopes, but forget that. When the sources say the "rules" did not change, they mean the law didn't change. Thus, they think that Sean Davis alleged that the ICIG changed the law. I believe that should be made clear in our article. And it should be made clear that Sean Davis (and other conservatives) have responded that this was never what they meant. But perhaps we should not continue discussing this here. On the narrow question of whether the Federalist piece should be cited, I think you and I now agree that it should (or at least can) be cited. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we both agree that The Federalist can and possibly should be cited in this context, albeit on different grounds. How the article should describe the sources' use of the term conspiracy theory is outside this scope of this noticeboard, but I'm sure this will eventually be hashed out at Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy. — Newslinger talk 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Added "possibly" to allow for editorial discretion. — Newslinger talk 21:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - Sean Davis alleged that the whistleblowing document requirements was changed. In fact, in May 2018, the whistleblowing document already stated that it was allowed for whistleblowing reports based on "Other employees have told me about events or records involved". and even Other source(s). [81]. By that measure, Davis' claim that the ICIG secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings is false. The firsthand knowledge requirement is for the ICIG to establish via their own investigation, not for the whistleblower to establish. starship.paint (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint my old friend, good to see you again. So you think that, because the form they altered had (and the new form still has) a box you can check to indicate that you got the information second hand, this shows that the ICIG always allowed second hand information as the basis for a finding of "credible" even though they explicitly said on the previous form (and in other policy documents) that they only found first-hand reports credible? Do I have your position right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight - I'll let CNN explain it for me: [82] This does not mean that the inspector general would reject a complaint if it presented only secondhand knowledge, but that firsthand information would be needed for the complaint to be found credible and passed further up the chain of command. The inspector general has 14 days from the time the complaint is submitted to investigate and make a determination as to whether the urgent concern is credible. And that's exactly what happened in the case of this whistleblower. So, the ICIG's preliminary review involves the ICIG finding the firsthand information themselves. If you want a Republican source, here's Chuck Grassley, co-founder of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus: "Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim's credibility," the statement continues." starship.paint (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Starship.paint, so the boxes don't have anything to do with it; glad for the clarification. Your idea in this last comment is that when the ICIG document said If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA it did not mean that the person filing the complaint needed to provide first-hand information, but instead that the person filing the complaint could provide nothing more than second-hand ... assertions, which the ICIG would then investigate to see what they could dig up. But, obviously, that isn't what the statement of ICIG policy that I just quoted means. I guess your idea is that the statement on the form was in error, and that this was never their policy? Why would you think that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - of course I'm not the ICIG, but here is what I think. You shouldn't have cut out nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions the second time you quoted it. When the ICIG writes unsubstantiated, to me at least, it seems that they have to do their own investigation to determine if first-hand information is substantiated - of course you can't just accept claims as they are as credible. If so, why don't you think that they also have to do their own investigation to determine if second-hand information is substantiated? starship.paint (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I think that their internal policy, as stated on the form, clearly indicated that the ICIG would deem a complaint non-credible if the assertions made were only second-hand, or (not and!) if the assertions were unable to be substantiated. Now the word 'or' here means that they would deem non-credible if either of these situations were the case. So, equivalently, in order for them to deem the complaint credible, the complaint would have to include first-hand assertions, and would also have to be substantiated (perhaps after some investigation by the ICIG). I mean, I'm just reading the policy they removed from the form. It seems like you're reading 'and' where they said 'or'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - we both agree at the end of the day, the ICIG needs to be in possession of firsthand substantiated information to determine credibility. For that to happen, it definitely needs to do its own investigation, even if it were provided with documents, to ensure that they are not faked. This being the age of deepfakes, even videos can be faked now. Since the ICIG always has to investigate with a preliminary review, it can obtain firsthand information itself, don’t you think? The whistleblower would have to give up their sources, or at least which department the sources work in. Then the relevant federal employees would be interviewed by the ICIG, in a bid to find firsthand substantiated info. starship.paint (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Sure, we agree that the ICIG needs first hand info, and that the ICIG needs to investigate. And of course I also agree that the ICIG can obtain first hand info in the course of that investigation. So that's what we agree about. Perhaps you will also agree that ICIG internal documents used to say that they required the whistleblower to provide first-hand information. And they changed those documents in response to concerns about how the press would talk about the present case. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I believe that the ICIG needs firsthand, substantiated information to accept a report as credible - but I believe that to determine this, the ICIG needed to conduct its own investigation to find substantiation instead of just rejecting all secondhand reports straightaway. Therefore, I believe that the last sentence of the removed paragraph was certainly misleading, and I believe that they removed that paragraph because it was misleading and did not follow the law - even though the whistleblower did use the old document. starship.paint (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Since the text in Trump–Ukraine controversy § Whistleblower evidence rules is crystal clear that the article in The Federalist is a conspiracy theory, and the article itself is the subject under discussion, the article can be cited as a primary source if it is supplemented by reliable secondary sources that cover the article's role in the conspiracy theory. Although The Federalist can be cited as a primary source, it doesn't have to be, and that decision is largely made on editorial discretion. The key question is whether citing The Federalist would help readers understand the conspiracy theory in the context of the Trump–Ukraine controversy. — Newslinger talk 17:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there any RS that call it a "conspiracy theory"? I'm not aware of any. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, on second look, there is exactly one source that calls it a conspiracy theory: partisan source The Daily Beast. CNN, WaPo, and Guardian do not call it that. Thus, in following the major RS, we should not call it that without attribution to DB, since it's an opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Snopes, CNN, NBCnews Nblund ^talk 18:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Other sources that use the term conspiracy theory to describe the matter include The Independent (RSP entry), Vox (RSP entry), USA Today, and even the conservative Washington Examiner (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 18:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Was the Trump-Russia collusion allegation said to be a conspiracy theory in any of our articles? The word "conspiracy" is laced throughout Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). The NYTimes used "conspiracy". Shall we maintain consistency here? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" as it is commonly used has a specific meaning. The phrase you want to use when discussing things like Trump-Russia or Clinton-Email is something like "allegations of a conspiracy" "X claimed that Y conspired" "convicted of engaging in a conspiracy". etc., depending on what is in the sources. "Conspiracy theory" should be reserved for things like "Big Pharma is covering up THE TRUTH about vaccines" or "The DNC is running a pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends on whether there are enough reliable sources that use the term conspiracy theory to describe the collusion allegations. As Guy Macon said, there's a distinction in connotation between the highly negative term conspiracy theory and less negative phrases (such as allegations of conspiracy). Since the conspiracy theory label is an exceptional claim, we would need multiple high-quality reliable sources that use the exact term conspiracy theory to support its use in any Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 18:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy, Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard — Newslinger talk 21:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• The following is a general comment on this topic, and is NOT to be construed as disagreement with or criticism of any particular individual.

We all have biases, conscious and unconscious. Some of us are, for what we consider good reason, Rooting For Team Blue or Rooting For Team Red in the ongoing dumpster fire that is US politics.

If you look inside yourself and see that you are indeed Rooting For Team Red or Blue, you are likely to have an unconscious bias causing you to not recognize conspiracy theories that attack the other team and to be especially sensitive to conspiracy theories that attack your team. You may even have convinced yourself that only the other team has a problem with conspiracy theories or fake news. Please make you best effort to avoid any hint of unconscious bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Some months back there was a discussion of whether to call Spygate a conspiracy theory. It turns out that it is called a conspiracy theory in two cherry-picked news sources: one piece in the LA Times and one in Haaretz. Every single other major news organization refrained from calling it that (unless in opinion pieces). When challenged to make our article reflect the minimal weight that RS news reports gave to 'conspiracy theory', the reply was that a conspiracy theory is just a theory about a conspiracy, and consensus was unmovable on this. Since it was uncontroversial that Trump's Spygate theory alleges a conspiracy, it was deemed a conspiracy theory. But of course when we turn to an article where it goes for red and against blue to use 'conspiracy theory', we suddenly get real strict about what it means, and it can only refer to things like alien abductions and black helicopters and so on. So yeah, let's be less partisan in our use of the term, I agree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It should never be cited as a reliable source, especially after their recent debacle. It should be cited only to show what they've asserted, solely for the purpose of debunking the endless conspiracy theories in which they participate in trafficking. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

And such mention of The Federalist can be done without using them as our source, but by quoting RS which mention them. ALL content must be sourced to RS, including falsehoods, allegations, and conspiracy theories. We do not use the original, unreliable, source. Readers can use the RS to then find the unreliable source, if they are so inclined. Our determination of due weight is always determined by the mentions in RS. If some weirdness isn't mentioned in RS, then we don't mention it at all. It has zero weight, regardless of how widespread it is in unreliable sources. For example, Fox News can mention nonsense all the time, as it is wont to do, and that doesn't give it any weight for our purposes, only in the minds of believers who use unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable, probably on par with the Washington Examiner (RSP entry). Does not pretend to be politically neutral. More of a source for opinion than for reportage. feminist (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

An eyewitness account

The subject has been discussed at Talk:Gas van#An eyewitness account. The source in question is an article by Alexander Lipkov entitled Я к вам травою прорасту… Роман свидетельств, i.e., I will sprout grass on you. Novel of Evidence. It has been published in the Russian-Language magazine Kontinent in 2005.[83] According to an entry on Johnson’s list, it is a Literary Quarterly publishing “stories, narratives and short novels”.[84] Lipkov is an author of books and documentaries. The texts mainly consists of interviews recorded during the filming of the documentary “I will sprout grass to you ...”, directed by A. Kolesnikov, 2005. This publication is used to support the following claim in the article on Gas vans

“According to an eyewitness, the executioners used multiple large trucks, each loaded with up to 50 naked people, some of which still remained alive upon arrival to the firing range.”

There is an additional note explaining:

The eyewitness, a former NKVD officer, was interviewed by Lidia Golovkova, the principal compiler of the Butovo memorial books, and by former FSB officer Mikhail Kirillin, who was a member of a group to rehabilitate victims of Stalinist repressions. According to a driver of such truck, the gassing was necessary to exclude the possibility of a riot.

My objection with this source is, that it does not include the actual “eyewitness account”. Rather it presents an interview with Lidia Golovkova and Mikhail Kirillin who report what the “eyewitness” has told them. They provide some biographical information, but neither the name of the “eyewitness”, nor any details, when, where and under what circumstances they collected the information. I consider that to be an unreliable primary source which should not be used as a source for Wikipedia in accordance with WP:PRIMARY.--Assayer (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Attribution would be best, "according to... an eyewitness...".Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Kontinent seems like a reasonable source for an interview, but yeah, I would suggest an in-text attribution. Interviews, I believe, are citable for yes, someone said this and it's WP:DUE, and the framing text can be used to establish their credentials (ie. yes, he is an eyewitness)... but they don't necessarily do fact-checking for the things people say. So that's a valid source for "an eyewitness said that they saw X" (or maybe even "an eyewitness quoted in Y said that they saw X"), but not for the fact that X is unambiguously true. --Aquillion (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think the journal and the author are fine and qualify as a secondary RS, but it is the best to provide direct citation and direct attribution. Also, one should double check where the claim originally comes from because the original source has been explicitly quoted ("...") in the secondary source. In one case, the original claim comes from Golovkova who was described in RS this, "a principal compiler of the Butovo memorial books". In another case, the original claim comes from Alexander Mikhailov, Major-General of the FSB Reserve: [85]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

in this case, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. People's recollections of events decades ago are frequently poor. TFD (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think in this case we should not consider the reliability of the eyewitness, but that of Lidia Golovkova and Mikhail Kirillin. If they are telling us that this is a trustworthy story given their research on the subject, we don't need to check that ourselves, nor do we even need access to the primary source. We just need to ask what their reputation is. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not an "exceptional claim", but a claim consistent with all other sources on the subject, i.e. all sources that tell anything about Soviet gas vans. The only difference with other sources are a few details. My very best wishes (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if that was a publication by Golovka and/or Kirillin on the subject, preferably with proper footnotes and sources, but it isn't. This is Golovka and Kirillin narrating what they know about the subject, stating that an eyewitness helped them to find out about the details what had happened at Butova. Without any information about the origin of the interview, without identification of the primary source, these claims are not verifyable. Nevertheless, if I understand the discussion correctly, in the article the claim should be attributed to Golovka/Kirillin instead to an "eyewitness", shouldn't it?--Assayer (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a narrative by Golovkova. However, she tells this is according to words by an NKVD officer (an eyewitness) who was a direct participant of these events. She and Kirillin said who he was and briefly described his biography. He was the key person who helped them to discover the Butovo firing range. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's ordinary in this type of situation for journalists and similar to not reveal the primary source of information, but this does not make the content unverifiable in Wikipedia-speak. That policy does not require us to be able to track down the ultimate source, and it should not either, when there is a good reason to expect a secret. If, as suggested by MVBW, this person helped G&K find that firing range, this directly shows that they didn't just seek to make a documentary of what people told them - they actually looked into what they were told to obtain both new and corroborating information. Basically, they were engaged in investigative journalism. So the question for us is whether G&K are reliable for that, in which case their validation of the primary source is sufficient. If the claim is not exceptional, it doesn't even necessarily need attribution. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, your position that anything said by a former NKVD officer must be credible is not the standard required by reliable sources. It seems to me that you are willing to believe anything they say when it supports your beliefs. The only reliable source that mentions the topic says, "Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief of the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a gas chamber on wheels, an airtight lorry camouflaged as a bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butovo."[86] It is sourced to an article in Komsomolskaya Pravda (a tabloid in the Soviet Union!), October 28, 1990, p. 2. The non-reliable sources used in the article embellish the story so that Berg was supervisor of a fleet of vans. But no other reliable source has paid any attention to the story, which means it is not reliable, because "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include...surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources." A google book search reveals four references to Berg: Cotton's book, a book with an excerpt from his book, a book from a non-academic publisher, probably sourced to Cotton's book and the Wikipedia article.[87] I don't even think that we can reliably state that Berg himself ever existed. TFD (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, this page currently does not refer at all to "Komsomolskaya Pravda". It uses 8 other RS including publications by academics and reputable historians in the part about Soviet gas vans (+ 2 more RS are noted on talk page). There are no doubts that Berg actually existed because some sources (including this one under discussion) tell about his criminal case kept in the Soviet archives, where the involvement of Berg in the use of gas vans has been officially recorded and discussed. If he was an actual "inventor" of the gas vans is less clear. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I know the article doesn't refer to Komsomolskaya Pravda, which is a good thing because it pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. But it's the source that the only reliable source in the article cites for its information. It turns out though that the NKVD officer did exist, but he is referred to as "Isaiah Berg." TFD (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Kontinent, two things must be taken into account. First, according to the introduction, the author is a writer who specialized in cinematography. Furhermore, according to him, the text is a collection of eyewitness testimonies, and the author does not claim he did any fact checking. Therefore, it would be correct to see it as a collection of primary sources.

Second. Among the testimonies, I found the following statement:

"And the testimony of Berg himself, no matter what he says about himself, is by no means evidence. Maybe they knocked them out of him in the same way as he knocked them out of others at one time."

That means that, although the interrogation protocol looks reasonable, and Berg really directed exhaust fumes to a van(s) to prevent possible resistance of the victims, formally speaking, the interrogation protocol can be trusted at the same extent as a protocol of interrogation of Bukharin or Tukhachevsky.

That means Berg's interrogation protocol, the only document Komsomolskaya pravda article is based upon should be treated with caution. And, accordingly, that undermines a credibility of all other sources that are based solely on that KP article, including Solzhenitsyn, Albatz, Merridale, etc.

I think this book may be used in the article about the Great Purge as an example of an overall brutality of those time events, although it is desirable to double check these facts if possible.

In general, I would prefer to wait until this information is published in some good peer-reviewed scholarly journal before adding this content to Wikipedia. By using such poor quality sources for writing about such serious topics as the Great Purge, we make Wikipedia sensationalistic and journalistic in a worst sense, thereby undermining a credibility to this resource in general. Yes, some local newspaper may be a good source for an article about some High school, however, it is hardly a good source for an article about Uncertainty Principle. The articles about serious and important topics require serious sources, otherwise noone will trust Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The more I am reading the less this story seems clear to me. One testimony says:

"A thorough reconciliation was carried out in this reception building: whether the person who was brought is the one who was sentenced. There were so many namesakes that there were mistakes, and it happened that a man was sentenced to be shot, and they were shot after 3-4 weeks, because another was brought instead. There was even a unique case when a person was written that he was a Pole, and he was able to prove that he was Russian. And the decision of the “troika” was canceled."(...)"Screening of documents was carried out very carefully. Without a photograph, a person was not accepted. In each document it was written that photography is obligatory: the person checked against the photograph. And here, as the former commandant told, the decision was announced to the sentenced. You can imagine what was happening there after that."

That means after the victims arrived to the execution place, they were subjected to a strict identification procedure before they were shot, and, in some rare cases they were released. That would be impossible if they were suffocated to death during transportation. All of that is very odd...--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the quotation above ("A thorough reconciliation ...) is irrelevant because it is not about people who were transported by gas vans, but about people who were shot at the firing range (most people were simply shot after transportation by ordinary trucks, according tho this and other sources about Butovo firing range). Secondly, no one suggested to include the testimony by Berg to the page. And yes, his case by itself is not a proof of anything. No one tells it's a proof. We only know from this source (according to Golobkova) the following. In 1953, the family of Berg filed for rehabilitation. Then his case was reviewed, and the gas van story came to light. Several executioners, who were then all alive, were called and interviewed. Two of them admitted that gas vans were used, but two others denied it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"That means Berg's interrogation protocol...". This is all original research. For example, there is no any reason or sources to assume that the claims in books by Albats and Solzhenitsyn were based exclusively on a publication in the tabloid, even if they used it as one of references ([...]). None of these books directly quotes the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda. Instead, the experts tell their own views (Albats: Owning to the shortage of executioners, Chekists used trucks that were camouflaged as bread vans as mobile death chambers. Yes, the very same machinery made notorious by the Nazis - yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention, in use years before the ovens of the Auschwitz were built). We are not in the business of speculating how exactly experts or historians on the subject came to their conclusions. We simply say what RS (their books) say. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, the first English article about the Soviet gas vans was written by holocaust-denier Udo Walendy in 1991.[88] and it has been the subject of extensive literature by holocaust deniers. It feeds into their world view: not only didn't the Nazis gas anyone but the Jews did. Basically all we have is a few second or third hand stories which have only been taken seriously in one reliable source, which is a red flag. Why don't Rummel, Valentino, Courtois and all the other writers on Stalin's mass killings mention it? Probably because they have a higher standard of reliability than we apply to the article. TFD (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There's an article about this on "Holocaust Controversies," an anti-denialist website founded by Nicholas Terry, a senior lecturer in history at Exeter. See "A Study In Hypocrisy: The "Revisionist" Treatment Of The "Soviet Gas Vans"". It makes the point that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not the claim is true. TFD (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the claim that Nicholas Terry is saying there is insufficient evidence to prove one way or another? He states:

’’”Needless to say, it was a one-time, local, makeshift invention, not widely used. There is no credible evidence that its use was well-known at the time and it certainly has no relation to the well-documented Nazi gas vans.”’’

Terry seems to accept that Soviet gas vans did in fact exist, but were not well known or used on the same scale as Nazi gas vans. So what exactly is the issue here? —Nug (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Terry seems to accept Soviet gas vans probably existed, but it is hard to tell anything for sure. That contradicts to the claim that that fact was firmly established and well described in reputable scholarly sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Nug, that's out of context. Terry means that if the vans existed, it was one time etc. That's clear from the preceding comments: "The evidence on which the claim is based is reviewed in L. Golovkova (ed.) et al., Butovskij Poligon: 1937-1938. V Rodnom Kraju; Dokumenty, Svidetel'stva, Sud'by, Vol. 8, Moscow, 2004, pp. 72ff. The authors had access to all the relevant files and don't make any conclusion as to the historicity of the gas vans....Leading deniers accept the "Soviet gas vans" story based on rumors, hearsay, and unsourced statements of various people who don't even pretend to be witnesses....The nature of the sources does not permit us to make "strong" conclusions. And neither can this evidence be dismissed." TFD (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the book by Golovkova (ed.) et al., Butovskij Poligon: 1937-1938. V Rodnom Kraju is a valid source, just as one discussed in this thread. If anyone has access to this book and can directly quote what it actually tells on the subject, that can be included on the page. I assume her statements in the book will be consistent with her statements in the source under discussion. Are you saying that the book holocaust-denier Udo Walendy need to be used for references on the page? None of other ~10 sources about Soviet gas vans even mentioned this book. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

However, the link to "A Study In Hypocrisy..." is just a blog post by someone who claimed to be "Sergey Romanov". This should be completely ignored, unless reliably published. Whatever it tells about work by Golovkova, etc. can be just a fantasy by someone on the internet. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I sure saw that coming.... Well, that blog has been frequently cited by historians like Mark Hobbs in the The Routledge History of Genocide, and Gordon Thomas/Greg Lewis, Defying Hitler. Nicolas Terry has also edited a volume on Holocaust and Genocide Denial for Routledge in 2017. So, that's not the usual kind of blog.

For example, there is no any reason or sources to assume that the claims in books by Albats and Solzhenitsyn were based exclusively on a publication in the tabloid, even if they used it as one of references One of the oddest arguments I have ever heard. As if historians just name or don't name their sources at will. Well, the article in the tabloid is the only reference given by Solzhenitsyn, Albats and Colton. Solzhenitsyn even writes, that he learned about the gas vans "from the astonishing disclosure in 1990".--Assayer (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you propose to use this blog as a source on the page? We can't even if it was cited by someone else. Books (like "The Routledge History of Genocide", or "Defying Hitler" you mentioned) can of course be cited if they tell something about the Soviet gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Xinhua reliability

Hi. Is Xinhua News Agency a reliable source for a claim that 50 countries signed the letter supporting China's policies on Xinjiang?[89] In the Xinjiang re-education camps article it used to say that 50 countries signed the letter supporting China, but that was later changed to the original 37 because of questions about the reliability of the source. The Account 1 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not overly, as it is state run. Reading it rings alarm bells.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid state run news agencies if their editorial board is not independent(for ex. BBC) --Shrike (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not reliable for this claim, although it's appropriate to include it with attribution for the claim that China stated that 50 countries had signed it. As an additional concern, while the original provided source gives a list of which 37 countries signed the letter, the Xinhua article does not state which additional countries are among these supposed 50. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable in this context. I agree with Rosguill: this Xinhua claim may be eligible for inclusion in the Xinjiang re-education camps article with in-text attribution to Xinhua (and a note that it's a state-owned news agency) as a primary source equivalent. If the "50 countries" claim (and the discrepancy between the "37" and "50" counts) receives broader coverage in reliable sources, an appropriate amount of their commentary should also be included. In general, Xinhua is similar to TASS (RSP entry), and the reliability of its claims partly depends on how they would reflect on China's image. — Newslinger talk 01:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I found a source from Bitter Winter showing the list of the additional countries that joined in.[90] Is it reliable? The Account 1 (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsure, no idea who they are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm also uncertain as to Bitter Winter's general reputation. Setting that aside, the actual content of that article supports the claim that the Chinese governments have claimed that 50 countries signed (and specified the additional 13), but it's not clear that it supports the claim that these countries actually signed the letter, per the phrasing The CCP has now announced that 13 more have signed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of Bitter Winter. It's published by CESNUR, an advocacy group for controversial quasi-religious organizations including the Church of Scientology, New Acropolis, Aum Shinrikyo, and the Order of the Solar Temple. The polemical "China Recruits 13 More in its Axis of Shame" article states that "Some media have now published a list, which seems authentic" and provides a screenshot of a spreadsheet, but doesn't say where it came from.

The Washington Post (RSP entry) published more details in "China celebrates ‘very happy lives’ in Xinjiang, after detaining 1 million Uighurs": "The Foreign Ministry declined to supply the letter or the list of the 50 countries to The Washington Post, even though it has been all over state media this week, saying it was up to the Human Rights Council to release the information." I haven't found a list of the 13 missing countries from a usable source yet. — Newslinger talk 05:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Diplomat provides a list of the original 37 countries. The difference between that list and Bitter Winter's list of 50 countries is the following 13 countries: Bangladesh, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Mozambique, Nepal, Palestine, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Zambia. If there are reliable sources that show the support of these countries, then we can take the "50 countries" claim more seriously. Note that Qatar withdrew its support, so the number of supporting countries may have dropped to 36 or 49. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for non-controversial Government announcements or attributed declarations. I have used it extensively, for example, in List of international presidential trips made by Xi Jinping to determine dates and destinations of presidential trips, which is non-controversial and I have found it to be accurate. In this case, the claim looks dubious and I would use in-text attribution unless an actual list of countries is found. --MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout

There's a disagreement over this edit on the page for Guus Berkhout. The statement cites a factcheck from Climatefeedback.org, which is a fact-checking organization that brings in subject area experts to analyze claims about climate change. @Peter Gulutzan: has argued that the site is a self-published source, and can't be used for a statement about a BLP. Is this source acceptable for this purpose?

Previous discussion of the site Nblund ^talk 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Sciencefeedback.co (the parent site) is an accredited member of the Poynter Institute's fact checking network, they have clear editorial standards, and a good reputation for accuracy. I don't believe they meet the definition of a self-published source, because the scientists who write the analyses are separate from the editors. To my mind, they are similar to other fact checking organizations like Politifact, Snopes, Science-based medicine, all of which are recognized as generally reliable and not self-published. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Specifically reliable in this instance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Since my edit summary mentioned WP:BLPSPS the appropriate forum is WP:BLPN not WP:RSN, and opinions like "generally reliable" are irrelevant. The criterion is not that reviewers are separate from editors, but that they are under editorial control and being reviewed themselves. The context is that scientist group A wrote a letter, and scientist group B attacks the credentials of group A, and Wikipedia publishes group B's comment without even linking to group A's letter. So as well as WP:BLPSPS we have WP:BLPBALANCE and possibly WP:WELLKNOWN depending how well known Mr Berkhout is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• A group of mostly non-experts push fringe science. A legitimate fact-checking outlet which relies on recognized experts point out the fringe science pushed by the group. Apparently, in your mind, Wikipedia should not adhere to WP:FRINGE nor WP:NPOV, because pointing out fringe science is a violation of neutrality. It would be harmless silliness if so much time wasn't wasted on having to revert similarly motivated edits by you all over Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Peter Gulutzan I'm not sure I follow your argument: the reviewers are under editorial control from the editors/publishers. The reason for WP:BLPSPS is that even expert blogs have no external mechanism for ensuring accuracy. Nate Silver could have a couple of drinks one night and decide to tweet something libelous about Scott Rasmussen. There would be no way to stop him, because he's both the "publisher" and the "author" of his own Tweets. He wouldn't be able to do the same thing on Fivethirtyeight.com, though, because the creation of content and the publication of content are separate from one another at that site. Nblund ^talk 15:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Re scientists: there might be as many doctorates among the authors being attacked (certainly Berkhout+Lindzen+Nordin+Vahrenholt, maybe Rittaud+Prestininzi) as among the attackers. Re editorial control from the editors/publishers: Science Feedback's "about" page says "We invite scientists with relevant expertise to comment ... Science Feedback editors provide a clearly stated summary of the scientists’ comments" which is all, summarizing is not controlling. However, Nblund did the right thing by seeking consensus, and so far seems to have it, unless more editors disagree. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable. The fact check in question, 'Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science', is reliable in the context of this edit, which uses in-text atribution. It was authored by 6 different reviewers: 2 professors (including Timothy Osborn), an assistant professor, and 3 researchers/scientists. The fact check also underwent review from a named editor. Although Climate Feedback uses a contributor platform, it sets high requirements in its reviewer application process, including a "PhD in a relevant discipline" and "at least one published article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last three years in the field of climate science or climate change impacts". Climate Feedback publishes the methodologies the site uses to evaluate articles and claims. Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) accreditation is the gold standard for fact-checking websites, and Science Feedback (which operates Climate Feedback and Health Feedback) qualified for this accreditation in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

  WP:BLPSPS claims do fall under the purview of this noticeboard, as the determination of whether a source is self-published falls under both the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. Considering the high requirements of the reviewer application process and the presence of a named editor in every fact check, I don't consider Climate Feedback a self-published source. As Nblund mentioned, Climate Feedback is comparable to Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry), which was determined not to be a self-published source in its January RfC. (All of my comments also apply to Health Feedback, which is very similar to Climate Feedback.) — Newslinger talk 04:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Euclid-site (etymological sections)

The Euclid-site (see here) presents information about various Eucalyptus-species. In the etymological sections (section: “Origin of Name”) it provides the etymology of the Latin names of these species. In these sections, various mistakes and inconsistencies are seen. Despite being issued by the Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research, the number of etymological errors on the Euclid-site is exceedingly high for the number of Eucalyptus-species described. Unfortunately, this site is used by some editors (like Gderrin as in these edits: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]). My request is to label the Euclid-site as unreliable, with respect to the etymological sections. I explicitely state, that I do not wish to claim that the Euclid-site in general is unreliable, as I have only checked the etymological sections.

In the list below, some of the errors that can be found in the etymological sections of the Euclid-site (section: "Origin of Name" on the linked pages) are listed. Liddell & Scott’s Greek dictionary (indicated as LS-Gr) and Lewis & Short’s A Latin dictionary (indicated as LS-Lat) are used and linked for comparison.

1. Inconsistent transliterations

1. -κ-
   1. -k- in Greek karpos (LS-Gr: = Greek καρπός (karpos)) (e.g. Eucalyptus cylindrocarpa, Eucalyptus goniocarpa)
   2. -c- in Greek carpos (e.g. Eucalyptus cypellocarpa, Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. megalocarpa)
2. -αι-
   1. -ae- in Greek elaeo- (LS-Gr: < Greek ἐλαία (elaia)) (e.g. Eucalyptus elaeophloia)
   2. -ai- in Greek haima (LS-Gr: = Greek αἷμα (haima)) (e.g. Eucalyptus haemastoma)
3. -ει-
   1. -i- in Greek -oides (LS-Gr: < Greek εἶδος (eidos)) (e.g. Eucalyptus celastroides subsp. celastroides)
   2. -ei- in Greek aggeion (LS-Gr: = Greek ἀγγεῖον (aggeion) (e.g. Eucalyptus gigantangion)

2. Different forms of same Greek or Latin words used

1. "bark"
   1. Greek phloios (e.g. Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. euroa)
   2. Greek phloia (e.g. Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. lissophloia, Eucalyptus decipiens subsp. adesmophloia).
      Only Greek φλοιός (phloios) (LS-Gr) exists.
2. "short"
   1. Latin brevis (e.g. Eucalyptus brevistylis
   2. Latin brevi (e.g. Eucalyptus brevifolia).
      Latin brevis (M|F) or breve (N) (LS-Lat) is the correct nominative.
3. "male"
   1. Greek andra (e.g. Eucalyptus brachyandra)
   2. Greek andros (e.g. Eucalyptus macrandra).
      Greek ἀνήρ (anēr) (LS-Gr) is the correct nominative.
4. "vein"
   1. Greek phlebos (e.g. Eucalyptus leptophleba)
   2. Greek phleba (e.g. Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. gratiae).
      The correct nominative is Greek φλέψ (phleps) (LS-Gr). Maybe, "veins" is intended in the etymological section of Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. gratiae, but that is φλέβες (phlebes) in ancient Greek and not phleba.
5. "shaped like a rhomb"
   1. Greek rhombos (e.g. Eucalyptus rhombica)
   2. Greek rhombus (e.g. Eucalyptus rhomboidea).
      The correct form is Greek ῥόμβος (rhombos) (LS-Gr), but that does not mean "shaped like a rhomb". That is actually Greek ῥομβοειδής (rhomboeidēs) (LS-Gr).
6. "horn"
   1. Latin cornu (e.g. Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp. mediana).
   2. Latin cornis (e.g. Eucalyptus longicornis).
      Correct form in Latin is cornu (LS-Lat).

3. Adjectives misinterpreted as nouns

1. Latin ventralis translated as "front" (e.g. Eucalyptus sp. Dorsiventralis).
2. Latin fasciculosus translated as "cluster or bundle" (e.g. Eucalyptus fasciculosa).
   "Cluster or bundle" is fasciculus (LS-Lat) in Latin.
3. Latin melleus translated as "honey" (e.g. Eucalyptus melliodora).
   Latin melleus (LS-Lat) is clearly an adjective.
4. Latin cylindroideus translated as "cylinder" (e.g. Eucalyptus oleosa subsp. cylindroidea).
5. Latin pilularis translated as "small pill" (e.g. Eucalyptus pilularis).
   Latin pilula (LS-Lat) is a "pill".

4. Non-existing (or incorrect) words

1. Greek ancophila (e.g. Eucalyptus ancophila).
   Ancophila does not exist in ancient Greek
2. Greek phloia
   (see 2.1)
3. Latin brevi
   (see 2.2)
4. Greek andra and andros
   (see 2.3)
5. Greek phleba and phlebos
   (see 2.4)
6. Latin stylis (e.g. Eucalyptus brevistylis).
   Probably botanical Latin stylus (derived from stilus) is intended, but not Greek στυλίς (stylis).
7. Latin calcareous (e.g. Eucalyptus calcareana).
   Calcareous is English. A possible Latin form could be calcareus.
8. Greek niphophilos (e.g. Eucalyptus pauciflora subsp. niphophila).
   No such word exists in ancient Greek.
9. Greek kephalos (e.g. Eucalyptus gomphocephala) or Greek cephalos (e.g. Eucalyptus cephalocarpa).
   Greek word for head is κεφαλή (kephalē) (LS-Gr). Greek κέφαλος (kephalos) (LS-Gr) is actually a "species of mullet".
10. Greek gigant (e.g. Eucalyptus gigantangion).
    Greek γίγας, gen. γίγαντος (gigas, gen. gigantos) (LS-Gr) is the correct form.
11. Latin pseudo- translated as "false" (e.g. Eucalyptus globulus subsp. pseudoglobulus).
    In Latin "false" is falsus (LS-Lat). In Greek, "false" is ψευδής (pseudēs) (LS-Gr).
12. Greek halophilus (e.g. Eucalyptus halophila).
    Does not exist in ancient Greek.
13. Greek lepto (e.g. Eucalyptus leptocalyx).
    Correct form is λεπτός (leptos) (LS-Gr).
14. Greek podos, translated as "foot" (e.g. Eucalyptus leptopoda subsp. arctata).
    Correct nominative is πούς (pous) (LS-Gr). Greek ποδός (podos) is actually the genitive case, but has to be translated with "of a foot".
15. Greek apoda (e.g. Eucalyptus scias subsp. apoda).
    There exist a Greek feminine singular ἄποδἡ (apodē) (LS-Gr), but that is not written with an -a.
16. Latin flora translated as "flower" (e.g. Eucalyptus cylindriflora).
    Flora (LS-Lat) is the "goddess of flowers" in Latin, flos (LS-Lat) the Latin word for "flower".
17. Greek cypellum (e.g. Eucalyptus cypellocarpa).
    The correct form in Greek is κύπελλον (kypellon) (LS-Gr).
18. Greek dendros (e.g. Eucalyptus dendromorpha).
    There exist a rare neuter δένδρος (dendros) (LS-Gr) in Greek, but probably the more common form δένδρον (dendron) is intended.
19. Greek morphos (e.g. Eucalyptus dendromorpha).
    Greek μορφή (morphē) (LS-Gr) is the correct form.
20. Greek dipterus (e.g. Eucalyptus diptera).
    Greek δίπτερος (dipteros) (LS-Gr) is the correct form.
21. Greek carpus (e.g. Eucalyptus pyrocarpa).
    Correct Greek form is καρπός (karpos) (LS-Gr). The form carpus is the Latinized form.
22. Greek nemos (e.g. Eucalyptus erythronema var. erythronema). Correct Greek form is νῆμα (nēma) (LS-Gr.
23. Greek ptera translated as "wing" (e.g. Eucalyptus tetraptera).
    Correct Greek form is πτερόν (pteron) (LS-Gr).
24. Greek macro (e.g. Eucalyptus macrorhyncha subsp. cannonii).
    Correct form is Greek μακρός (makros) (LS-Gr).
25. Greek adena translated as "glands" (e.g. Eucalyptus myriadena).
    Greek for glands is ἀδένες (adenes).
26. Greek odontos translated as "tooth" (e.g. Eucalyptus odontocarpa).
    Correct Greek form is ὀδούς (odous) (LS-Gr). Greek ὀδόντος (odontos) is however the genitive case, but that means "of a tooth".
27. Greek oligis (e.g. Eucalyptus oligantha).
    Correct Greek form is ὀλίγος (oligos) (LS-Gr).
28. Latin grand. (e.g. Eucalyptus ovata var. grandiflora).
    Grand is English, grandis (LS-Lat) is Latin.
29. Greek sphaera (e.g. Eucalyptus parramattensis var. sphaerocalyx).
    Sphaera (LS-Lat) is the Latinized form, while Greek σφαῖρα (LS-Gr) can be transliterated as sphaira.
30. Latin formis (e.g. Eucalyptus pyriformis).
    Correct form is forma (LS-Lat).
31. Greek synandra (e.g. Eucalyptus synandra).
    Does not exist in ancient Greek.
32. Latin valvis translated as "valves" (e.g. Eucalyptus trivalvis).
    Latin plural of valva (LS-Lat) is valvae.

Wimpus (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. Scholarship and Primary, secondary and tertiary sources recommend that we use secondary sources. Context matters also would suggest we not use it. TFD (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

BigAndi, MrOllie and a Springer textbook

BigAndi (talk · contribs) is a new editor. Today they have added a lot of references to a scientific textbook published by Springer: Andreas Maier, Stefan Steidl, Vincent Christlein, Joachim Hornegger (2018). Medical Imaging Systems - An Introductory Guide. Springer, Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-319-96520-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). Unusually this is not merely a recent and relevant book from a credible scientific publisher, it's actually an open access text under a free CC-by licence. We should rejoice at having such a resource available to us. (Apologies as I haven't checked every edit here, nor every chapter's licence.)

MrOllie (talk · contribs), a well-known defender of WP from spam, has reverted the lot and template-warned {{uw-coi}} BigAndi for doing so. See User talk:MrOllie#Edits on Medical Imaging as well.

I have no idea of the size of Andreas Maier, just one of the many authors involved in this book (like so many textbooks, it's mostly an author per chapter). Nor do I know if "BigAndi" here has any connection with them, or anything to do with this book. Nor do I care: this is a clearly RS textbook and source, and additionally as the full thing is open access then we should really welcome it, whoever is adding it.

I have no time for editing, certainly not for getting embroiled in this type of spat. However it could use some more eyeballs over it. Personally I'm inclined to restore the lot. We should be welcoming it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I think it is very plausible that BigAndi has a COI here. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible, yes, but I wouldn't go much further than that. And such a COI is only going to be to one chapter.

Even if so, I'd still use this as a reference. COI is a limitation on how we add content, not a ban on what we can use. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

BigAndi (talk · contribs) is sorry for the mass editing. He tried to use the upload feature for one image and got the error that he has to do at least 10 edits before this is allowed. Only after that BigAndi (talk · contribs) discovered Wikimedia commons. BigAndi (talk · contribs) agrees with removing the entries in the references only section. He would still like to move more content from the book to wikipedia as it seems partially not yet covered in wikipedia. BigAndi (talk · contribs) is sorry that his contributions were considered as spamming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigAndi (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Why does BigAndi speak in the third person? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t know how to use the sign function. I guess this shows that I am new... BigAndi (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW if you fear, I have a COI, I will not reference this book again. I still think the material is of value. BigAndi (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

factsanddetails.com

Quite a bit surprised this hasn't been discussed here before. Factsanddetails.com is a single author-compiled tertiary source, an encyclopaedia of sorts in itself, which covers lots of international topics. The author uses a variety of sources, and sometimes, but not always, makes direct citations. Of course, editors can use the site as a guide and optimally should follow the source trail, but is there a categorical "yes" or "no" as to whether Wikipedia citations to factsanddetails.com should be permissible? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

factsanddetails.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 . From MER-C's tool, it's used 178 times in article-space. Haven't looked through that yet to see what it's actually being used for. I'll note also the possibility of a source being considered appropriate as an external link but not as a reference. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times, once again

The Epoch Times is currently listed as a questionable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and usually described as a "falun-gong mouthpiece" in previous discussions. They have recently come under scrutiny for being a Trumpian partisan outlet as well, to the point where Facebook banned them from further advertising on their platform. At the moment they still have those same video ads running on YouTube, with a guy snapping his fingers to changing headlines, using alt-right bingo buzzwords like "mainstream media", "hidden agendas", or "Russia hoax" that could've just as well come from a Trump campaign spokesperson. I think it is time to reclassify this website in the same category as the The Daily Caller and the National Enquirer. --bender235 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times (RSP entry) is currently classified under "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", but we haven't had any noticeboard discussions since the August NBC News report, "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". — Newslinger talk 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: VG Chartz

Other than sales data, what would best describe the reliability of VG Chartz as a whole? (More detailed query below.) ToThAc (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's already been informally established that VG Chartz is unreliable for everything pertaining to sales data. One excerpt from a certain bureaucrat of a non-Wikimedia wiki even summed up the following here:

Due to its popularity and being the most immediately visible source when researching sales data, it's hard not to address VGChartz.

Much has been written about the reliability of VGChartz. As explained on the site's methodology page, it has access to data from an undefined sampling of "retail partners", filling in the rest by guessing based on various trends (while the aforementioned trackers do not have access to every retail chain and do some number of "filling in the blanks", they are proven to track a substantial amount of retailers, unlike VGChartz). The fact that VGChartz numbers have frequently been contradicted by more official channels and other anomalies (In one instance, the site reported the game Arc Rise Fantasia as a best-seller for June 2010 despite the game not being released until the end of July) have led to several sites banning it as a source. As far as the wiki is concerned, VGChartz is not reliable and should not be used as a reference for sales data.

References

However, I have repeatedly seen VG Chartz cited in areas other than sales data; most of it is to cite release dates and companies behind certain games, with some relevant news articles as well. Moreover, most of the criticism towards the site is usually limited to just the site's methodology in obtaining sales data. And so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, what options would best describe VG Chartz's reliability?

1. Generally reliable
2. Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (recommend better source)
3. Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (require better source)
4. Generally unreliable

Cheers - ToThAc (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (VG Chartz)

• Option 4 per above. I also strongly oppose option 1. After some digging around, I learned that most of the articles on the site are user-generated content, while the news coverage could use better sources. ToThAc (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 - there’s already a pretty solid consensus on this amongst anyone who understands how Wikipedia defines an RS, and nothing has changed. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• It has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources for who knows how long. Why are we having an RFC about it? --Izno (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Izno: This is about addressing the reliability of other parts of the site (articles, news, previews, etc), not necessarily their sales data. ToThAc (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 - there have been multiple discussions on VGChartz that show it is unreliable. What makes this discussion any different? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Ive yet to see data sourced to VGChartz that cannot be sourced to better quality sources. --Masem (t) 03:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (VG Chartz)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 02:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and Namcokid47: In case this wasn't already clear to either of you, I'm addressing the entire VG Chartz website, not necessarily their sales data (which has already been proven unreliable). ToThAc (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that, and I am still opposing it. Nearly all of the content on there is user-generated, and lots of the articles are not in the best of quality. I still consider them unreliable. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. ToThAc (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)