Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

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)
• Not reliable. (bot brought me here) Not anywhere close to the level of Wired, ZDNet, or even krebsonsecurity(Brian Krebs).---Avatar317^(talk) 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. . For Christmas' sake, I can blog that I am God, if anyone built a church for me, I'd instantly be an atheist. No verifiable facts, no studies, no external review, just a claim. Secondary sources are used for a reason, hopefully review and verification. I suggest either filing this in the circular file, file 86 or file 13, aka the bit bucket.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:42, 21 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)

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". Deprecating The Epoch Times would require consensus in a formal request for comment, which this discussion could easily be converted into. — Newslinger talk 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias does not make it not RS as such, usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a typical "biased source" and as such can be used per policy with appropriate attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times isn't a matter of bias. It's a matter that it deliberately and calculatedly publishes misinformation. It should be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bias doesn't make a source unusable, but intentionally misleading its readers does. The Facebook ban was for that sort of misinformation, which I feel is a decent reason to consider them unreliable - Facebook doesn't ban ads from news sources lightly (after all, doing so costs them money.) NBC News' coverage describes them as spreading conspiracy theories about Trump's political enemies, and the New York Times says the same thing, which would at the very least make them a WP:FRINGE source, not one we can really use for very much. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah this isn't just bias. In addition to more or less openly campaigning for Trump, they've got credulous reporting on Qanon and Pizzagate, as well as vaccine scaremongering, and viral cancer quackery. Reporting from NBC News, Buzzfeed make it pretty clear that they're pushing false or misleading viral content related to contemporary politics. This is exactly the sort of content that has no place on Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That does not look good at all... My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklist ASAP. How has this propaganda machine not been blacklisted yet? It's really remarkable—it couldn't be clearer that under no circumstance is The Epoch Times a reliable source, IMO. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support RFC I'm not sure if this came up the previous discussion, but the Washington Post also reported on some issues with Wikipedia's use of the Epoch Times at the entry for Hunter Biden. This search of main space links turns up a number of cases where they're cited for pseudo-science (this story at Past life regression, and heavy use of this crazy story at This Man), and it is still cited on a number of BLPs and on stories related to Trump-Russia (Joseph Misfud, Paul Manafort). It's even cited at the entry for QAnon. The site is ubiquitous on social media, and it looks just presentable enough that users might sometimes mistake it for a reliable source. Based on this, I think its worth establishing a general consensus. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Epoch Times

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Epoch Times (RSP entry)?

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

— Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Context matters: Please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of The Epoch Times's news coverage, such as edition (the English edition at theepochtimes.com   and the Chinese edition at epochtimes.com  ), topic (e.g. Chinese politics, American politics, international politics, and Falun Gong-related topics), and year of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Epoch Times)

• Deprecate ASAP. Under no circumstance should this Falun Gong propaganda machine be considered a reliable source. The links provided by other users above make the source's utter unreliability crystal clear. For those new to the topic, I recommend this recent write up (The New Republic), think Russia Today—as the New Republic article puts it: "The Times has built a global propaganda machine, similar to Russia’s Sputnik or RT, that pushes a mix of alternative facts and conspiracy theories that has won it far-right acolytes around the world." :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 This isn't a good source, but judging by its complete usage, I don't see a reason for general prohibition on its use. The domains theepochtimes.com (English version) and epochtimes.com (Chinese version - is this RfC about both?) are used 1,348 times in Wikipedia. Most that I glimpsed through were rather uncontroversial, especially from the Chinese domain. The discussion above was rather insincere in my view. The Facebook advert ban was due to circumventing Facebook's political advertisement rules, not its news coverage. A QAnon story is being cited in support of deprecating it, but all I see in that story is reporting what the QAnon is, not advocating for it. Yeah, they also have more trashy stuff like the vaccine story as a "VIEWPOINTS" article, but so do many other lower-end sources like The Huffington Post. As for being pro-Trump: WP:PARTISAN applies and it should not be used for controversial statements. It's not feasible to deprecate all lower-end sources from the right-wing of the political spectrum. --Pudeo (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the Epoch Times, they are unaware of why they were blocked from Facebook ([1]). Whether that's true or not is unclear, as the source is itself not unreliable, but what is clear is that the Epoch Times is a propaganda outlet for Falun Gong—it's about reliable and journalistic as Russia Today. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The articles states If the Q posts are real, they may indicate that the Trump administration has established an alternate channel to speak to supporters, bypassing news outlets and social media altogether for something more direct. They're clearly pushing this as a plausible idea. Also: they were banned by Facebook because they created sockpuppet domains so that they could continue to run conspiracy themed ads that failed to meet Facebook's absurdly lax standards. This isn't just a low quality source. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. "Context matters" is not an appropriate approach for a source that just makes stuff up while claiming not to - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. I'd say close to RT or Global Times for Chinese politics and controversial statements, close to CS Monitor or Deseret News for general topics. Epoch Times is a publication associated with a new religious movement suppressed by China. It's obviously biased against China and its ruling party (thus WP:PARTISAN applies), but it runs both ways: Global Times is unlikely to be much better of a source for Epoch Times than vice versa. feminist (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The Epoch Times peddles unconfirmed rumours, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, and antivax propaganda, causing itself to be banned by Facebook. See NBC expose, Washington Post article, and NYT article. According to The New Republic, its European sites are even worse, and have become the mouthpiece of the far right fringe. -Zanhe (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate As per sources on the Epoch Times page they "peddle conspiracy theories about the 'Deep State,' and criticize 'fake news' media" and "its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• 2 As I said bias is not a criteria for exclusion. We can use it if we attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - per Zanhe above and MarioGom below. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• 4 (Deprecate) or 3 Some news pieces are just fine, but usually a more realiable source exists for the same events. On the other hand, they insist on pushing for WP:FRINGE theories, they use news pieces as a hook for conspiracies (see my comment in the discussion) and you cannot just single them out by excluding opinion pieces. This undermines the reliability of The Epoch Times as a whole. Their magazines include a lot of WP:FRINGE commentary of notable wingnuts and charlatans, which may be useful for attributed quotes of these subjects' views when they are WP:DUE. --MarioGom (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - per Zanhe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, would need a very strong reason to include this as a source for anything. Guy (help!) 12:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - The Epoch Times was founded as a propaganda outlet for a new religious movement and has, over time, gotten less reliable rather than more. While it was previously a relatively trashy outlet that was generally untrustworthy for anything controversial but might serve for routine, non-controversial information, it has transformed into a platform for pseudoscience, conspiracism and misinformation. The veneer of respectability and the ubiquity of Epoch Times newspapers in major urban centers makes it a substantial risk as a source of RS-looking misinformation on Wikipedia. We need to eliminate this source once and for all. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate both versions. A source that merely has a perspective (even a strong perspective) is usable, but a biased source that also spreads conspiracy theories or fringe theories in the service of their bias is not; it's clear that this source lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Since both versions are under the same management and seem intended to serve the same purpose, neither seems like a usable source. --Aquillion (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate This does not seem reliable, especially given its history of consipracy theories and support of what elsewhere could be considered Fake news. --- FULBERT (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate seems appropriate here because they publish conspiracy theories and hoaxes, and they've willfully mislead readers and advertisers. From what I can tell, the overwhelming majority of the content is unattributed aggregations of other news stories. The writers for the site are doing dozens of stories per day. Jack Phillips wrote 15 on October 8, none of those stories appear to involve any original reporting, and there are plenty of other sources for all of them. The content that is "original" to the site is garbage. They've repeatedly pushed QAnon, and now "Spygate", and their "wellness" reporting is rife with quackery. Stories like this one appear to be unmarked advertising, and they've given over a decade of breathlessly positive coverage of the Shen Yun performing arts company. None of that coverage discloses that the performing group is a project of the Falun Gong. Obviously there are worse sources out there, but this one seems to pose a high risk of causing a problem here because they have the look of a credible website Nblund ^talk 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. No reason for an encyclopedia to use such a low-quality publication. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2- per feminist and Slatersteven. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 (first choice) or "2" (second choice). Looks similar to Fox news or RT (Russia). My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate/Option 4 Too unreliable. If they have reliable articles, it will be covered by other news outlets too. The Banner talk 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 I dislike the trend towards deprecating sources willy-nilly. I think it should be reserved for extreme cases. I looked at some of the examples of allegedly "fake" reporting listed here, and my impression was that the Epoch Times was writing a story about something that didn't need a story written about it, but I didn't see anything that was obviously false. That said, I couldn't find a corrections page on their site, so I'd go with option 3. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• 1, 2, or 3 - depends on the context I think, and not a broad category. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 or possibly 3, per Nblund. If a person with a Wikipedia article wrote an opinion piece that appeared on Epoch Times, I'd first ask myself why they couldn't get it published elsewhere, and potentially use it with direct attribution, but never for regular news reporting. I don't think they'd tamper with other people's opinion pieces but that's a low bar. Anything Epoch Times can provide reliable coverage for should have reliable coverage elsewhere.-Ich (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Zanhe and others above. Bobbychan193 (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Epoch Times is an unreliable source, publishing alarmist "news" stories that are often fringe theories or conspiracy theories. Definitely not up to the standards of Wikipedia for a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - Epoch Times has always been unreliable for Chinese political news, but it seems to have been moving toward fringe conspiracy theories on a host of other issues, as others have highlighted. I don't think it meets our standards for general usage.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 / Deprecate: There's been weak to no support in this discussion for ET's journalistic integrity. Per :bloodofox: and Nblund: while the patently partisan bias alone isn't enough to justify its deprecation, there's been much ado about how far their writers will alter their stories to sway readers towards their own views. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 10:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: They cover conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. They're not trying to say any of that nonsense is true, just that it's a notable part of the discourse. And the "mouthpiece" argument makes no sense given that 99% of their article are not about that. Are newspapers started by Christians automatically mouthpieces for Christianity? Connor Behan (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Generally unreliable but not completely useless as a source in all contexts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• 2 to 4 Sometimes they have excellence interview with notable people. Sometimes their news reporting are so exclusively that either they have very good insider, or just fabricating the news. For example, claiming Sing Tao Daily (Canada) moved their editorial board to Mainland China. Matthew hk (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The Epoch Times)

• I was initially reluctant to start this RfC, but many editors in the above discussion proposed measures that should undergo wider community review. With 5 previous noticeboard discussions, The Epoch Times is a controversial source that deserves a thorough examination. Pinging previous commenters Bender235, Slatersteven, My very best wishes, Simonm223, Aquillion, Nblund, and Bloodofox as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newslinger: please clarify whether this would deprecate the Chinese edition (epochtimes.com - 519 uses) in addition to the English version (theepochtimes.com - 829 uses)? --Pudeo (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • ​That's a good question. The options are just suggestions and it's up to individual editors to specify which editions of The Epoch Times their classifications apply to. If there are two separate consensuses for the English edition and the Chinese edition, we would create a split entry on the perennial sources list, e.g. RT (general topics) and RT (controversial topics, international politics), and the editions would be treated differently. An opinion without a qualifier would apply to all aspects of The Epoch Times (including edition, topic, and time period) as a whole. I'll clarify this below the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 04:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times pushes for all kinds of WP:FRINGE theories, not just QAnon and antivax as others mentioned. They have a lot of articles promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (The Communist Sexual Agenda, The Infiltration of Marxism Into Higher Education (Part 1 of 2)). Note that this is not confined to opinion sections, they also use news pieces as coatrack for it. Let's take Hundreds of Young Transgender People Asking for Help to Return to Original Sex: Report. If we wanted to use that story, we could just use the original from Sky News ([2]), since The Epoch Times just uses the Sky News report as a hook to promote theories about communists promoting homosexuality to undermine the family and so on. --MarioGom (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Note also the push for pseudoscientific theories on medicine such as functional medicine, promotion of bogus claims on cancer treatment by Cancer Treatment Centers of America#Controversy, etc. It seems related items have been used as a source in Wikipedia: Woman Has Spiritual Near-Death Experience, Cancer Cured as Result? --MarioGom (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine MarioGom (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Why are we even having this discussion? Did someone blank Wikipedia:RSCONTEXT without telling me? Does the FAQ at WT:V which has said "The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support" for years, suddenly disappear? This source, like every other source, can only be judged to be reliable in context. It's not "reliable" or "not reliable". As a general rule, this source is going to be "reliable for certain narrowly written and carefully contextualized statements". It may be best to use it with WP:INTEXT attribution. It may not be the best possible source for general information. But reliability is not a yes-or-no situation. The whole concept behind this RFC (also: an RFC on a high-traffic noticeboard? What's going on with that?) is flawed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We're having this conversation because the argument has been made that this outlet has equivalent reliability to sources like The Daily Mail and The National Enquirer while still being used as a source in multiple articles. As it is actively anti-reliable as a source, site-wide action is necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Was there a series of real dispute that editors had difficulty resolving? I'm not seeing evidence of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WhatamIdoing: Sources can be used in certain contexts even if they are WP:DEPRECATED. You may have to argue with someone who thinks that deprecated means completely blacklisted, but it should be ok otherwise if it is justified. Do you see any problem with this specific RfC? Or you are against the source deprecation process itself, or maybe the perennial sources list? --MarioGom (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm against anything that indicates to other editors that the rest of us think don't think they can figure out how to write a decent article without the rest of us telling them to follow some more rules first. People with a classical education might be thinking about the Woes of the Pharisees here, and I admit that it's not far from my mind.
      MarioGom, I see your account is just two and a half years old, so you probably don't remember when Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was taken seriously as a policy, when the article was more important than the rules, and when "You may have to argue with someone" to be permitted to do what was right by an article meant that a policy or process was fundamentally broken. If RS/P results in editors having to argue with mindless rule-followers about whether it's okay to improve an article, and if it's putting the emphasis on what's "allowed" instead of what's best for the article, then I'll be against it. If it provides practical help to editors writing articles, then I'll be all for it. Perhaps you can tell me which category you think it's most likely to fall into. So far, all I see is that the list grows endlessly, and it is largely populated by people who aren't creating much content, and largely used by people who aren't genuinely trying to figure out whether a source is desirable in a particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The way I look at it (certainly others may feel differently) is that, given the (absolutely appropriate) emphasis on Reliable Sourcing, the RS/P is an incredibly useful tool, especially for new editors who may not have a firm grasp on what constitutes a reliable source or know how to dig through the RSN archives. I know it certainly was for me. I also believe that its usefulness is directly connected to its accuracy, and these discussions help to improve that accuracy by giving an accurate measure of a source's basic credibility. Even RSCONTEXT says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Discussions like this help us assign a rough reliability, according to this exact metric, to sources. Yes, context is still important, but that doesn't mean that the New York Times and the National Enquirer should be treated the same, as if they each require the same amount of scrutiny to determine whether a given article in either is acceptable to cite for an article here. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • AmbivalentUnequivocality, could you explain that bit about RSCONTEXT better? I'm not sure how it relates. That sentence, in plain English, means "The New York Times, which has more than four thousand employees, is usually more reliable than little tiny newspapers like The Mulberry Advance, whose sole employee has to do everything from selling subscriptions to writing articles to sweeping the floor". I don't see how any discussion on Wikipedia could realistically "help to improve that accuracy", because "according to this exact metric", the only way for a source to become more reliable is to hire more journalists. The number of Wikipedians involved in these RFCs is irrelevant "according to this exact metric". "This exact metric" is about what they do, not about what we do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
          • WhatamIdoing Certainly. My reading on that sentence is slightly different than yours. I don't see it as being the same as "More employees = more reliable" because not all publications utilize their employees the same way. It is about how many people are actually engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing. More employees does not necessarily mean that they have more people doing those things. A large paper could employ thousands of people and still not commit any sizable number of them to fact checking, and a small paper could have relatively few employees but still conduct robust and thorough fact checking on what material they publish. It is what they do with their employees, and how well they do it, that matters. Yes, this metric is about what they do, but our part in it is elucidating what it is that they are doing. Our part is figuring out how robust their reputation for fact checking is, how strong their editorial oversight is, how readily they retract and correct errors. Publications that knowingly publish false claims, or unknowingly publish easily disprovable ones, clearly show a lack of such robustness. We can improve the RS/P by accurately assessing how well a given publication commonly meets these criteria. There is value in having a list that accurately represents the general quality of various sources according to the established criteria of what constitutes reliability, but to do that we must determine how well a given source meets those criteria. I believe that is something we can do, and I believe that discussions like this aid in achieving that goal. Treating every source as though they are all equally likely to produce reliable reporting seems shortsighted to me. Yes, reliability is about what they do. Our discussions do not make a publication reliable or unreliable. But our discussions do help accurately assess whether they are doing the things that are considered indicative of general reliability (Robust fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.), or whether they are engaged in behavior that is indicative of pervasive unreliability (Intentionally publishing false or misleading claims, pushing fringe conspiracy theories, etc.) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
      • WhatamIdoing: So if I understand correctly, you are against the deprecation of sources itself or this kind of RfC, but you have no particular concern about this specific RfC. I can understand that. It has certainly been problematic for me in the past. For example, when spotting an inaccurate story published at a sourced marked as generally reliable on perennial sources. But that's beyond the scope here, I guess. --MarioGom (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • That's the issue as I see it, and not beyond consideration here, that commentary must be distinguished from credible news, even in articles that are reporting some news. A neutral point of view doesn't sell many books or newspapers. Jzsj (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Frankly I think the use of newsmedia is generally inappropriate for an encyclopedia and leads to many of our woes surrounding WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT and WP:DUE across the site. When a newsmedia source compounds this problematic character by straight-up fabricating news to push a POV, well, if I think we shouldn't be leaning so hard on the NYT you can imagine what I think about such tabloids. And the Epoch Times, which was founded with the intent of being used as a propaganda outlet is one of the worst of a bad bunch. I'm sure an WP:IAR case might exist where deprecation might prove a challenge, but honestly I don't see it. And avoiding a 99% improvement to avoid a 1% chance of future impediments seems like weak cost-benefit analysis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • ^agreed. The consensus on deprecation can always change, but I have spent some time browsing the site, and I really haven't found a single story that appears reliable and not covered by a more reputable source. The Washington Post reports that the majority of the staffers are mostly part-time/volunteers rather than journalists, so it seems pretty unlikely that you're going to see any real reporting coming from them. Nblund ^talk 17:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
            • I agree with Jzsj's point. That's why we avoid {{one source}} articles. Librarians make a distinction between having "a balanced book" and "a balanced library": while there's a place in the world for a balanced book (history textbooks for schoolchildren spring to mind as an example), it's usually better to have multiple books (e.g., a book about a war that argues persuasively that it was all economics, a book that promotes the diplomatic aspects, a book that that focuses on the Great man theory, etc., so that you end up with a balanced view). But you have to read multiple sources to figure out where the sources differ from each other.
              Simonm223, it's always good to find an idealist on the English Wikipedia. ;-)
              Nblund, I believe that's true. However, the definition of "reliable" isn't "the most reputable source we could use for this statement". "Barely reliable" is still reliable. (IMO this source is probably "reliable enough" for some claims. You won't see me seeking it out, however.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Just a warning even about high school history books. It's reliably reported that conservative groups attend trustees meetings as in Texas and New York, and any trustee who approves of a book that criticizes capitalism or American democracy is "history". The few publishers don't take a chance with such books. To get a more objective course in American history one needs to use a college textbook. Jzsj (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: VGChartz

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

It's already been informally established that VGChartz 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 VGChartz 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 VGChartz'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 (VGChartz)

• 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)
• Option 4 Seems it has a reputation for non accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 It's pretty clear that it can't be trusted. I've never seen it be viewed as reliable before, and we shouldn't start now. Nomader (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Not reliable. Comatmebro (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (VGChartz)

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 VGChartz 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)

RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)

Should The Gateway Pundit be deprecated? Or listed as generally unreliable? Or something else?

See thegatewaypundit.com  ; and for earlier thegatewaypundit.com discussion see earlier Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256#Among low-quality sources, the most popular websites are right-wing sources; along with other previous mentions at: 256, 250, 241, and 233. X1\ (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Gateway Pundit)

• Depreciate / Unacceptable as a source. It's a batshit insane far-right conspiracy blog. I don't know the difference between "depreciation" and "generally unreliable", but I support whatever ensures that this rubbish doesn't get cited here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for just about anything outside of their opinion, with in-line citations, in rare situations where their opinion is directly relevant; they're a blog with no particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (obviously.) That said, see my comment below - they're only being cited five times that I can see. As far as I can tell nobody is arguing that they are reliable anywhere for stuff outside that. We don't need to hold RFCs for things that are already universally-accepted; there are far too many unreliable sources in existence to enumerate them all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Aquillion, are you opposed to deprecating? X1\ (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable for statements of fact, and opinion wouldn't/shouldn't carry much weight in most cases, but as Aquillion says, it's not exactly a frequent problem. Certainly not opposed to deprecating if there's evidence it would save a nontrivial amount of effort. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• In the very least unreliable. François Robere (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable for anything beyond their own opinion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for ... anything. Given that it's a hoax/fake news site I wouldn't even use them for their own "opinion" since those could just as well be trolling. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate this fake news website known for partisan hackery and hoax articles. This is never an acceptable source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable, do not deprecate Clearly not a reliable site. No reason to deprecate as it clearly isn't being treated as reliable. We need to stop the deprecation game even with sites like this. Springee (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Springee, but they are often cited on Talk pages, per "everywhere search". Again, why do you say deprecation game? X1\ (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• You are free to disagree with the term game but I'm firmly against going around and deprecating sources left and right. I'm not sure how deprecation is even supportable under WP:RS. My concern is two fold. First, let's assume a number of deprecated sources are all talking about the same thing. That means there might be some WEIGHT for inclusion in an article. That doesn't mean we treat the material as reliable but I do think deprecated sources can help establish weight if not reliability of some information. Here is another problem [[3]]. An article about Mossberg cited The Daily Caller for a basic factual claim (company had produced X number of some shotgun). This isn't a critical fact but for readers who are interested in firearms the article is better for it's inclusion and it certainly isn't a controversial claim. The citation was removed since DC has been deprecated. Now do we actually think the DC isn't reliable for that particular claim? So the typical reply when someone brings up such a point is, well if it's DUE then a RS will mention it and we can source it there. So I looked. I didn't check every link but what I found was a Mossberg press release (likely the DC's source of information) and a number of firearms blogs and forums discussing the topic. None of those sources would pass RS muster. However, the fact that so many websites are talking about the production stat suggests that, for that narrow audience, this is something that improves the Wiki article. If DC were treated like we treat a low quality source like Splinter News we would use them cautiously but we wouldn't have editors seeking out all references and removing the citation or even worse, removing the article content with the citation. I see no advantage to marking such sources with a "kill on sight" order. So, even in a case like there where I would be very suspect of any claim made by this source, I'm against deprecation here because I think it is problematic in principle. Springee (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know if we deprecate sources only for the AP2 area, but that is where they are completely unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would be more comfortable with the concept if we specified something like AP2. Springee (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Presumably "AP2" is wp:AP2, correct? X1\ (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable in the slightest. Depreciate – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. soibangla (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate I'm not sure this is necessary, because it seems like they are essentially already de-facto deprecated since they're a widely recognized purveyor of fake news. I don't see any problem with formalizing that classification, though. Nblund ^talk 21:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable and OK with deprecating - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate The fewer of these blatant misinformation sites we entertain, the better the whole project will be. They have a tendency toward supporting conspiracy theories, don't fact check much at all and exist as a propaganda tool. An encyclopedia should not be depending on such outlets. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• In the very least unreliable. I agree with Simonm223 and most others, deprecate is appropriate. This source is perennial as noted by various contributors, particularly highlighted by Aquillion's everywhere search. It will be useful to point novices, contrarians, etc to the Wikipedia:RSP citation of discussion if it gets a place on the table (hopefully). I don't understand Springee's "deprecation game" comment. How is it a "game"? X1\ (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate X1\ and Simonm223 make excellent points. The source regularly reports on conspiracy theories under the guise of news, which immediately calls into question whether any of their genuine news coverage is tainted with the desire to drive readers towards their own partisan views. Their SEO is structured so anyone looking to affirm a personal bias could easily search for say, "Badger Party planning frisbee ban", and get something resembling a WP:RS that could be injected into an article and left standing as authoritative information until another editor eventually susses it out. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 05:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable not "Deprecate" Deprecation is an extreme option over-used but not consistently used (leftist sources are usually spared the measure of deprecation). We have good, workable guidelines in WP:BIASED which allow editors to use their judgment with sources like the one we're talking about. Deprecation when there's no signifcant pattern of a given source being used to prop POV up in our articles is itself deprecated in WP:NOTCENSORED. --loupgarous (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Leftist sources rarely engage in conspiracy theories treated as reportage. Those that do should be deprecated too. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Simonm223's Those that do should be deprecated too. For useful list of "Hyper-Partisan Left - Most Extreme Left", see here (collected by BullRangifer). X1\ (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see any appropriate sources on that list. Though I wouldn't call any of them extreme left so much as extreme anti-Republican with poor or non-existent standards for fact checking. Thx X1.Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate I'm a latecomer to this but can't see a good rationale not to. Given the 3 posts above I'll add that this treatment should be even, any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bingo! Doug Weller there is another thread here about Fox News talk show hosts (not the News division). "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." The same applies to them, and they should be deprecated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Doug Weller I support the sentiment, but the application is lacking. This is particularly noticeable in the area of criminal justice. Freddie Gray was hurt before he was put in the van, not while he was in it. Daniel Holtzclaw's conviction is laden with red flags strongly suggesting that he didn't do any of it. And the Duke Lacrosse case was proven BS long before the NYT, WaPo, etc. said so. Each of the above has been documented in voluminous detail on sites that often remain relatively obscure and/or are treated as "unreliable" by WikiConsensus, while media that push "mainstream" narratives that fly in the face of demonstrable facts escape WikiPunishment. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: provide RSs for your claims. X1\ (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I can do that in the Duke case.[4] In the Freddy Gray case, I have a source that is likely WP:RS via WP:USEBYOTHERS, namely [5], but even there, there are WP:SYNTH issues, as the conclusion is obvious from listening to the whole thing, but I'm not sure if it's stated explicitly. In the Holtzclaw case, there appears to be consensus that the sources are not WP:RS, and that's the problem. When it is determinable that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong, yet we continue to keep our definitions of what is and is not reliable, then exactly what kind of world are we living in.[6][7][8] Adoring nanny (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A YouTube video by Michelle Malkin is your purported source? The same Michelle Malkin who pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, defends the illegal imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, and says the Anti-Defamation League is conspiring with antifa activists to destroy Trump? Alrighty then. (And your first link is to a website self-published by a member of Holtzclaw's legal defense team.)

Your apparent personal belief that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong about Holtzclaw is irrelevant to the encyclopedia and can have nothing whatsoever to do with article content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's typical of the type of response I get on this. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to take the considerable time and effort that would be required to determine who has it right and who has it doesn't. It is frustrating to see people respond by lashing out at me and/or the sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: You appear to be off-topic on judging whether The Gateway Pundit should be deprecated , or listed as generally unreliable , or something else? Citing a book is fine but irrelevant, undisclosed-podcast.com is irrelevant, HoltzclawTrial.com is inappropriate, National Review is considered per our table to be debatable, and YouTube is generally unreliable (depends on subsource). In your arguments, using only "generally reliable" sources will add credibility. This isn't the world per your what kind of world are we living in comment, it is Wikipedia and Wikipedia is built on generally reliable RSs, not wp:OR. We remove wp:OR and unreliable RSs, and in some cases we are obligated, by law to remove them. If you are interested in the topics in which you commented and gave sources, that is fine, but this RfC thread is on judging The Gateway Pundit as a source, not a casual forum, see WP:NOT. X1\ (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable Gerntrash (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Gerntrash: "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? X1\ (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. It's far too unreliable. They regularly push conspiracy theories and lies, often from the Trump administration, passing them off as truth. "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." (Doug Weller). -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - I see it as misleading, sensationalist clickbait. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable. No corrections page for example, and definitely no reputation for accuracy. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? X1\ (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• No. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: elaborate. X1\ (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, in light of your uncivil question to me in another thread on this page, I'll decline to elaborate. I am asking you to disengage from my vote. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. Unreliable source that peddles conspiracy theories. Autarch (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. As above - might as well formalize this, since there is no need to ever cite this. Neutrality^talk 01:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The Gateway Pundit)

• Is it actually being cited anywhere? A search finds only five uses in article space. Most of those should be replaced, but it's not exactly something pressing enough to require an RFC (with such a small number of cites, all of which look easy-to-replace, you can just replace them and open a discussion leading to an RFC if someone objects and you can't hash it out.) I'm not sure we need to bother with RFCs when it seems like virtually everyone agrees the source is unusable already (and are not using it.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say the important question is not how often is it used at this very moment, but the more difficult to answer, "How often do people try to use it inappropriately and how much time is wasted discussing it?" Deprecating a source can be a huge time saver, assuming there is consensus that the source is bad enough to be worth deprecating, and there is actually time to be saved. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hrm. A search for everywhere rather than just article content does turn up 86 uses (mostly talk.) Even then, though, it seems to be mostly new / inexperienced users bringing it up, and it's pretty clear that every time it comes up people are just like "no, you can't use that as a source." Most of the time they didn't seem to know WP:RS is a thing, so that conversation would still have to happen. --Aquillion (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• There were some attempts to use it in 2016/17 before and after the election. Not so much now. It's possible these attempts could renew as we get closer to 2020. Volunteer Marek 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Aquillion is "Hrm" a reference to Ḥ-R-M? X1\ (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecating a source because it might be abused in the future is political censorship. It seeks to usurp editors' judgment generally to apply the WP:BIASED guidelines because a given source might be abused - but no significant amount of such abuse is evident. Using the RFC process to censor future edits to the encyclopedia by prior restraint needs to be examined in the light of WP:NOTCENSORED. --loupgarous (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Vfrickey: the only prediction we have is by using past evidence, so we go by a sources' "track record", and for this one it is not good. X1\ (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "ProPublica" (October)

Should ProPublica be listed as a generally reliable for news coverage? Or something else?

I see the issue; Should ProPublica be listed as a generally reliable in its areas of expertise? Or something else? X1\ (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

See propublica.org   and everywhere search in wp; and for earlier ProPublica.org discussion mentions see wp:RSN Archives: 132, 178, 213, 246, 251, 263, and 268. X1\ (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated lede sentence per feedback. X1\ (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Bolded the lede to make the questions standout. X1\ (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (ProPublica)

• Generally reliable in its areas of expertise Generally reliable for news coverage. X1\ (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Updated my "vote" due to a couple of comments. X1\ (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Please name specifically what the "areas of expertise" are. And please provide the RS you used to support that set of topics as being their areas of expertise, thanks. Note: No WP:OR of inferring from awards please, only state language and the source you had per WP:RS, please *not* one of its partners. And you can ignore the table. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, the "partners" are a long list of reliable RSs ...? X1\ (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ The topic is please name specifically the “areas of expertise”, with preference to articles on ProPublica from independent sources — so preferably not a partner. If you didn’t have an independent source mentioning such or were just using a phrase without RS then just say so. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: Haven't even started a search. So let me understand, you provide non-RS (see below) when RS is requested, and you want me to not use RS, such as "generally reliable": The Atlantic , BBC , Bloomberg Businessweek , CNN , Financial Times , The Guardian , Los Angeles Times , Mother Jones , The Nation , New York , The New York Times , The New Yorker , Newsweek , Politico , PolitiFact , The Sunday Times , Time , Vanity Fair , Vox , The Washington Post , Wired ? Or other RS, such as: 60 Minutes, ABC News, CBS News, Center for Investigative Reporting, The Center for Public Integrity, CNBC, Consumer Reports, Frontline, NBC News, and NPR News? X1\ (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• You just answered the question with “haven’t even started a search”, which I think means your input was from personal impression vice a source. I haven’t checked your list above, but yes independent source would indeed mean one not among the 47 (?) listed as their partner, and independent source input is preferred. A good source should not be used as RS on itself or its business partners. That would still leave thousands of sites for possible commentary on them ... London Times, Toronto Star, NY Post, FoxNews, The Independent, Globe and Mail ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ You have not answered what “areas of expertise” are yet. Please list specifics, or presumption will be undefined = none stated = none. Your first phrasing here was obviously off, and I’m suspecting you’re unable to back anything up. WP:ONUS is on you to support your claim. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Besides all the areas in which they've received awards? --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Markbassett: can I use generally reliable RS? X1\ (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Preferably use sources not partners to them, otherwise I think any written stable and available location may be mined for inputs. It would seem necessary for any rating to have some details of area(s) or nature framing the evaluation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

My input to first version of question Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not news coverage - umm, they can't be a RS for news because they don't DO news of the day. They don't cover what is happening with Kurds or Brexit this week, Canadian election results, the woes of Man Utd, or natural disasters and such. They do investigative pieces from a progressive POV, with a data analysis approach. ProPublica is respectably known and usually has a factual data-driven content, but they do have a bias that they're open about, and do not present a balanced picture which they also are open about. It's going to be about telling you a way to see something Wrong from a progressive view point and nothing much else. Very well done, but limited in scope and POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC) umm, Markbassett, are you attempting a joke? If so, this is not the time or place. X1\ (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC) User:X1\ ??? No, it's no joke, don't see why you would think it was -- they really are not news coverage. Which I thought your later !vote-change edit indicated accepting. The being limited in scope and POV - well, again don't see how you could read that as a joke, it's basically said on their website and mission declarations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC) @Markbassett: so you believe ProPublica can't be a RS for anything? X1\ (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC) User:X1\ the question asked was if “generally reliable for news coverage”, and my answer was no, because they don’t do that. Still don’t see how you felt that was a joke. I see there’s now a revised question “generally reliable in its areas of expertise”, which I haven’t responded to. As to whether they’re a RS for anything, that isn’t the topic and I’d prefer to just deal with the revised topic if anything. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Markbassett, Cheers X1\ (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Determine case-by-case - self-declared not balanced coverage, and expertise subject to author Mostly that editorial control and qualifications only extends to in-house writers. The external submitters and co- or re-published external pieces may differ. Generally seems excellent quality in writing and methods, but selection of facts and direction to analysis is self-admitted and noted by critics. In other words, this isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one, so conclusions are likely POV but reported data is likely reliable. Positive points for background of reporters usually being well qualified in the field, positive points for being explicit online in how they check and self-admitting their limitations. Minor negatives that with the analysis pieces I saw there seems no open access to raw data, and minor negative that I see no example of a retraction. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett provide RSs for selection of facts, not balanced coverage, isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one, likely POV, and previous request for RSs of progressive POV, have a bias, and do not present a balanced picture. Note: No wp:OR, only provide RS, such as from the table with . X1\ (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

1) User:X1\ ? I don't see any "previous request for RSs" so I'll start from here, and take your asking as giving me permission to ask the same in return. I presume you are asking about their internal reporters instead of noting that they have external submissions and collaborations of co- or republished material not done under the same editorial control. As I recall, I looked their self-declaration and then what others said about them, and did a couple Googles of them with some negative words.

2) Mission is "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"

3) Follow that with keeping bias out vs "investigative" - "First, it’s important to point out that ProPublica focuses mainly on investigative journalism, which is a particular genre that makes its reporting different than, say, political coverage. In most cases, investigative stories make an argument rather than just capture both sides of an issue. ... The stories often have a particular structure: Some person, government agency or other entity allegedly did something wrong and harmed others. Almost always, the wrongdoing is set against a standard — a law, ethical practice or norm. ... So on a certain level, some point of view is baked into investigative stories because, in many cases, reporters begin with a tip or data that suggests wrongdoing and then set out to determine if it occurred."

4) Externally, MediaBiasFatCheck rates them "Left-Center biased based on story selection that favors the left and factually High due to proper sourcing and evidence based reporting." It notes their collaborations are with 47 sources including reputable left leaning news organizations. Also it mentions "In general, their investigations look at corruptions and abuses of power. While ProPublica purports to be non-partisan, a review of their recent reports are aimed at right leaning politicians and their issues." This criticism was also mentioned (more colorfully) by The Washington Examiner ProPublica is the left's biggest muckraker you never heard of.

5) Example of criticism included their Surgeons Scorecard, as an example of Bad Data vs No Data. It was noted as setting off a firestorm, eviscerated in New England Journal of Medecine by Lisa Rosenbaum, and critiqued by The Rand Corp.

6) I think that'll do for a start - next I'll put a question back at you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, see request 19:37, 26 October 2019. X1\ (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• ah, I see it now, a few screens *down* from here VS above here. I’ll go put in a reply. Markbassett (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (2) "Mission" is a value showing strong bold/courageous investigative journalism, thus RS. You have made similar comments implying such things are a sign of weakness, odd. X1\ (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ “Mission” is always a goal, the thing one is stating one has an emotional prejudice and is biased about. Companies are biased about money in their field; Governments are biased about their nation, party, and power; Charities are biased on the topic they are pursuing. You don’t expect unbiased data from a Tobacco-area company or Government about cancer, and neither should one expect accuracy about drunk driving from MADD. An honest advocate presents *their* points and is open about having an agenda. One can only hope and check independent sources to see if there isn’t exaggeration or outright falsehoods. ProPublica seems open about their goals and methods, and the general constraints of the nature of the methods. Cheers

• Markbassett, item (3): again odd that you believe this statement represents something other than "generally reliable" RS. X1\ (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ seems odder that you’re saying RS yet unwilling to give any consideration to ***their self-declaration of limits*** ??? Seems they would be RS for that. Usually self-claimed flaws are accepted and self-claimed expertise is checked. Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (4): the Washington Examiner is listed as with a Summary including Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source; can't you find a non-biased source to use as an RS? X1\ (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Mmm... would that mention of WE partisan be indicating WE remarks are suspect because ProPublica is left-bias? Markbassett (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, Media Bias/Fact Check site looks interesting, I'll check it out. X1\ (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• X1\, MBFC is not reliable in the slightest (as several discussions on this noticeboard have conclusively shown). The site is basically one random dude's opinions. It's not surprising in the slightest but still incredibly disappointing that a highly active editor in American politics, Markbassett, cites it as a reliable source while he attacks one of the greatest journalistic outfits as unreliable. Just further proof of why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (5) "Surgeons Scorecard": I don't have access to either Medscape.com or NEJM.org; so not respondable. X1\ (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ - that’s odd, I seem able to get into the sites at least. Oh well, existence and nature of criticism description is at MediaBiasFactCheck and is easily findable by google at multiple other venues. That medical community is not entirely happy with scores nor method of scoring seems hardly EXCEPTIONAL anyway - just proceed from ‘major and noted medical publications objected to ProPublicas scorecard’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable in its areas of expertise When ProPublica does analysis, their number-crunching is reliable. But before they get to crunching numbers, ProPublica designs their studies to test what is generally a partisan hypothesis. They've done good work with the New Yorker in exposing ethical abuses surrounding commercial "storefront" stem cell therapy and their work's been deemed reliable by third party commenters such as medicinal chemist Derek Lowe in his "In The Pipeline" blog. They are useful and reliable on some stories, especially on the technical arguments surrounding contentious issues such as net neutrality (where they would be a good part of a balanced survey of informed opinion on such subjects). As with any openly partisan secondary source, editors ought to review the guidance in WP:BIASED before and while citing ProPublica. --loupgarous (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Vfrickey: could you provide RSs for the openly partisan claim? X1\ (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for all purposes - Five Pulitzer Prizes in 12 years of operation. Widespread recognition and republication in other sources. Zero evidence of any problems with their reporting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all purposes - The arguments presented by MarkBassett are mind-blowingly bad. Just one reason of many why editing in American politics is dysfunctional. ProPublica is top-tier journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable I took a glance at their site and saw this[9] article about "the climate apocalypse to come", which gives me considerable pause. There is no concrete information about this "apocalypse" other than a statement that planned power blackouts are apparently a taste of it. I find the lack of a concrete definition concerning. They don't say what is going to happen or when. The fact that there are predictions of global warming and its consequences does not help them. If an "apocalypse" is coming, they should say what they mean by that. I am therefore going to have to say they are not reliable. Furthermore, their site is obviously WP:PARTISAN. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: please provide RSs for the claim of obviously WP:PARTISAN. Your glance appears rather unfounded, as I see nothing not RS in the Abrahm Lustgarten article on 2019 California power shutoffs you apparently gave as evidence. Using a hyperbolic term in a title has been all-too-common in recent years; not evidence of non-RS. Provide evidence of your Not reliable claim. X1\ (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Adoring nanny: see within the link you provided high quality RSs such as NPR.org, NYT; the article was co-published with New York Times magazine. X1\ (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Adoring nanny: presumably, you understand WP:IDL is not the same as Not reliable. X1\ (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Adoring nanny, since you are not providing any backing for your comments, but providing a source to refute, am I to assume your first reaction was just I don't like it? If so, strikeout your "Not reliable" comment. There are eight "Generally reliable", one equivocation, and your (currently) unbacked "Not reliable". X1\ (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, where we strive to provide reliable information, we have an article about Global warming, and the Timeline of the far future states that in 1.3 billion years, Eukaryotic life will probably die out on Earth due to increased Solar luminosity. But we don't have an article on The coming climate apocalypse because it's a hyperbolic claim that lacks clear meaning.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: did you even read the article you provided as evidence? The content of the article, you provided, is not a hyperbolic claim. And for the title: "Apocalypse" (ἀποκάλυψις) is a Greek word meaning "revelation", "an unveiling or unfolding of things not previously known and which could not be known apart from the unveiling".; so by that meaning and by the meaning of something dreadful it fits. If your power has gone out &/or your home has burned down &/or you or your loved ones have been harmed or even killed; you might very well completely agree with the word choice in the title: i.e. still RS. X1\ (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I did. This is becoming uncivil. Please stop badgering me. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, I've struck the only word I imagined you could find uncivil, and unbolded. I am disappointed to see you say you feel badgered. This is not about you, the wp:rsn thread is to determine the status of a source, preferably something resembling a consensus.

There ten that fit "generally reliable", one that says Generally seems excellent quality, and your's which is not only not "generally unreliable" it is "Not reliable" (never reliable, so presumably closest to "deprecate"). "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and your comment is an extreme outlier. You have shown no backing evidence and your argument appears to be lacking in merit; which leads me to believe you either have personal animosity toward the source and have been unable to be objective, or you are here to be disruptive. Both would imply you are "not here". X1\ (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for all purposes - In 2019 alone, so far, this decade-old organization of more than 75 journalists has won dozens of journalism awards, including a Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing. Anyone who calls an organization for investigative journalism, much honored for its factual accuracy, as "obviously partisan" is betraying their own political bias — like those who dismiss such factual science as evolution as somehow "liberal." I don't even know how this isn't a WP:SNOWBALL discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please strike per WP:NPA. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's ad hominem, yes but still nothing that needs be struck out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Direct quote from WP:NPA -- "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" Adoring nanny (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the unsigned comment directly above uses "affiliation" correctly. What the commenter quotes refers to: "Well, he's a member of the ACLU / NRA / New York Yankees, so he's wrong." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Found and added signage missing from above. X1\ (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You are arguing that "betraying their own political bias" does not refer to a perceived affiliation. I believe it does, specifically perceived political affiliation. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No. I am not saying "Don't believe him because he's a Democrat" or "Don't believe him because he's a Republican." It is absolutely factual to say that anyone who claims the neutral ProPublica is "obviously partisan" is commenting based on their own personal views and not on objective reality.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per their Pulitzer Prize and otherwise incredible work. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable ProPublica is used extensively by news sources, it makes no sense to think PP itself to be just reliable in areas of expertise. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. I’ll respond to Mark in that while ProPublica typically practices investigative reporting, they’re similar to the AP in that they break the news, and outlets pick it up after, as you’ve noted. Also: when picking up an article outide their bureau, it’s subject to the same editorial control and vetting. This is fairly standard, and as far as I know, they’ve never had to issue a major retraction. As the evaluations of the journalistic community’s generally say about ProPublica: “this is a journal for journalists”. It has one of the highest calibers of reputation in journalism internationally. Republication is part of their standard business model. Lastly, it has no professed bias, as you claim. The founders were once asked whether their political leanings would affect the content, and you can clearly see their response in the article. Bolstering that, their reputation is generally regarded as just supplying good journalism. It shouldn’t matter matter whether they’re a 24 hour news television channel, or a newspaper that simply repeats the investigative journalism of others. They’re about as reliable as you get. It’s not a source that regurgitates the news, but breaks it. None of your objections are rooted in any policy I’ve ever read. As far as WP:DUE, I had no real opinion before, burn simply commented on the sourcing and your mid characterization of it. But given the multiple secondary sources that have started pouring out since, it’s clearly worth a few lines. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Symmachus Auxiliarus "it has no professed bias, as you claim" is disproven in my later quotes near the top of them professing such. Note the nature or cautions for WP RS from statements on mission "the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform" and Balance "investigative stories make an argument rather than just capture both sides of an issue" and POV "some point of view is baked into investigative stories". This is simply the nature of their doing exposes in Progressive topics, it is what they forthrightly declare and raise money to do. Similar to muckraking is a part of the classical Progressive Era. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. Highly reputable, Pulitzer Prize-winning publication. This is not a close call. Neutrality^talk 01:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all purposes. Reputable, awards; there is nothing to assume publishing of "fake news". My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, exactly the things we look for in a high-quality source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (ProPublica)

• ProPublica#Awards is rather impressive. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Context? Has this been challenged somewhere? What was it being used for? I've not seen treating PP as a source be controversial in the past. If it's been unclear, it would be helpful to link past discussions (plaintext mentions of archives doesn't do much more than a search bar would). If past threads have been clear, we can just add it to RSP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Specifically, the RfC was spawned by this comment, but I have seen other surprising comments during semi-random general browsing. I have generally thought of ProPublica as well-respected investigative journalism RS, and with impressive detail at that. But I don't generally follow them, and only recently for the first time looked at their homepage. Maybe I have only seen the best quality works, may be it is on an author by author basis? So I wanted other comments. If some consensus-ish discussion is reached here, then I can point other editors it for reference. X1\ (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's ridiculous. The nature of ProPublica's work is the journalism itself, not the publishing. Its reporting is highly visible not because people visit its website but because publications like The New York Times pick up the stories. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• It looks like their concern is WP:DUE, not WP:RS (although they're somewhat related.) There are publications whose reputation is so weighty that when they give significant attention to a subject it is almost automatically WP:DUE; then there are ones that lack that automatic weight but which still clearly pass WP:RS. Without regard to the question of which one ProPublica falls into (it's usually a much harder and more context-sensitive question to answer than whether a publication passes WP:RS), I don't think they're suggesting it's unreliable, so there's not much for WP:RSN to say. That sort of question usually goes to WP:NPOVN (and generally doesn't get an easy answer, because, again, it's tricky.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the concern was DUE -- whether ProPublica alone was enough WEIGHT to get an article into Presidency of Donald Trump. It was posted to the TALK within hours of going online. (I generally suggest NOT just doing a copy-paste of whatever was in the mornings feed, and a 48 hour waiting period for WEIGHT and more information to show up.) Since then a couple major venues seconded it, but of circa 25 major venues that's all so far. It also has some issues of being an esoteric statistic and being phrased as a comparison to Obama rather than an absolute metric or across longer time period, but mostly it just hasn't hit DUE for consideration yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: for the Archives;

132 = a PBS Frontline investigation, coupled with ProPublica, a journal for journalists, published by people who came from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. = i.e. among high-quality RSs.

178 = ProPublica used as an RS.

213 = News organizations using a third-party fact checking service = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.

246 = Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, which is a (high-quality) non-profit, investigative journalism outfit that prouces such investivative pieces but instead/in-addition to publishing on its own niche website, offers them to its affiliated partners that have a broader reach. See ProPublica, which follows the same model at a national scale. = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.

251 = from other reliable sources such as Propublica or the Guardian = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.

263 = ProPublica has an expressed interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." = strong journalism quality, strong RS.

268 = ProPublica used as an RS.

X1\ (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ - again, nobody is saying they do not do some quality work, we're just saying by their own statements (such as this 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing."') they're whole goal and methods are crusading for Progressive topics by showing wrongdoing, so ... only going to show the numbers that advantage Progressive topics, and actually only show numbers in a way that makes things appear Wrong doing. They don't do balanced views or get responses or seek alternative explanations or show something going right even on the Progressive side, they just seek for the expose. For any external writer guest piece, I couldn't say it's the same quality of editorial control but would say it's still going to fit to the model of limited scope and POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting criteria, but none of it is relevant to the source's reliability, while seeming POV-violating as well.--Ronz (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• So, Markbassett you believe spotlighting of wrongdoing is only progressive politics? I strongly disagree. Can you provide RSs to back the claims you are making? X1\ (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ no I said that was spotlighting of wrong-doing for Progressive topics. (I.e. About Immigration, Health care, Education... Civil rights, Criminal justice, Environment, Gender issues... they typically don’t spotlight wrongdoing for other concerns.) Investigative pieces seeking wrongdoing on Progressive topics are a description of how they’re focused. I have seen at least one piece other than ‘spotlighting of wrong-doing’, but just ONE seems rare. Feel free to try offering contrary evidence that most pieces are not exposes, or that most topics are not Progressive (or say Liberal), but I think you’re speaking contrary to obvious facts and their own self-declarations there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: why would you believe Immigration, Health care, Education... Civil rights, Criminal justice, Environment, Gender issues are "Progressive topics"? Donald Trump and his supporters would strongly disagree. X1\ (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Tbf that's not even evidence of bias, let alone unreliability. On the same note one could try to discredit e.g. a medical journal because it focuses on such a topic, and for the most part ignores a plethora of topics you haven't listed such as stamp collection and model trains. You could of course say that there exists a context of such sources focusing on this selection of topics being generally suspicious, but that would not be a statement of fact, but of politics. Daß Wölf 21:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ addendum, note the Progressive nature in reform and social topics (environment, Womens rights, FDA) with authors and journalists muckraking is basically that of the classic Progressive Era. Basically "Progressive" caries with it a Moral foundations theory framework of different topics, approaches, and criteria for seeing the world; one can have a debate a Conservative as a Liberal, and both POVs feel 'right'. "Progressive" does not mean "Democrat" -- it can be against "Liberal" (think recent infighting of branches of Democratic debates) and neither is necessarily Democratic in party. "Progresive" seems just one in the definition of terms, e.g. "Conservative" is not the opposite of "Liberal" or The Three Axis Political Spectrum and Political language is broken and we need to fix it. People might describe themselves as a mix, e.g. "socially progressive and fiscally conservative", and one can see "Blue Dog" democrats that are pragmatic, fiscally conservative, pro-defense, & appealing to mainstream values of the American public. ... "Progressive topics" is a descriptive, just go with it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: Medium is considered generally unreliable. X1\ (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• X1\, you beat me to it! It's a sad day when even defenders of the GOP and Trump recognize that an 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"' is a "Progressive topic", rather than a conservative topic. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be (back in Eisenhower's day) that the GOP prided itself on exposing corruption, rather than covering it up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, exactly! I love how "fighting corruption" is somehow "Progressive." All investigative journalism fights corruption and criminality by shining a spotlight on it. Unless one is suggesting that allowing corruption is "Conservative," then one can't suggest that fighting corruption is "Progressive." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian

This newspaper has an inherent left wing bias in all it's articles, It's op-ed pieces are often anti-semetic. Why is it considered as a reliable source for anything?80.0.45.128 (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian is covered at WP:RS/P. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Here's a list of awards received by The Guardian and a list of past discussions on The Guardian's reliability. Do you have any specific examples that would support your claims against The Guardian's reliability? — Newslinger talk 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• The Guardian is an eminently RS. Apparently offense has been taken that it accurately describes Milo Yiannopoulos as "Far Right". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• WP:RS is about having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about being unbiased. A source simply having a perspective you find objectionable isn't sufficient to make it unreliable; see WP:BIASED. The question when dealing with such sources (and I'm not sure the Guardian would even qualify as such relative to news media as a whole) is whether its perspective or bias influences its reporting. There's a huge difference between a source like The Guardian that simply has a particular perspective and one that (for instance) was created to advance a perspective or which systematically has that perspective disseminated from above by a set of daily talking points as at Fox News; and even then, there's a difference between sources that work to advance a particular agenda (but do so 'fairly', ie. by reporting the news as it happens, if with a slant or with selective focus), and sources like the Daily Mail that just outright make stuff up, report stories with gross distortions, and otherwise don't exhibit the fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So? as has been said multiple times. BIas is not a reason for exclusion, if it was Fox would be banned, its not.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I almost feel that we ought to clarify that policy a bit to make a division between sources that have a clearly identifiable perspective (which to some extent all sources have, though they differ in how much it influences their tone and how much effort they make to erase it from their coverage), and sources that are intentionally biased, ie. they get daily memos from above telling them how to slant their news or were created with the intention of influencing politics. Currently WP:BIASED lumps the two together in a way that is somewhat misleading - the former are far more reliable than the latter and, when high-quality, generally do not require in-line citations, whereas the latter should be avoided. The Guardian, obviously, falls into the former camp; they have a perspective, yes, but there's no indication that they push it in any formalized way. While it's true that you could technically describe both Fox and The Guardian as biased, there is a substantial difference - Fox's bias is formalized and part of its institutional mission, which is a much more serious issue. (And I don't mean to make this just about Fox - it's also a major issue when people try to use think tanks as sources, citing WP:BIASED. Yes, they're sometimes usable, but a think tank generally exists to advance a particular perspective, so they have to be used far more cautiously than a source that lacks institutionalized bias. In particular it can be presumed that sources with such bias will often omit or downplay details unflattering to their position, even if they are fully-reliable otherwise.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

All bias media sources, Fox included should not be used as a RS for any project such as this. If a source is not centre and independent, then you cannot trust what they are reporting is true, or what facts are being ommitted to suit the bias of their articles. But if this is how wikipedia works then so be it. It will continue to be a joke in scholarly circles. Kind Regards J 80.0.45.128 (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia (RSP entry) is not a reliable source, and I would certainly hope that no academic publication directly uses content from Wikipedia, except for the purpose of studying or quoting Wikipedia itself. All readers are advised to exercise due diligence when using Wikipedia for research.

On media bias, our neutral point of view policy requires us to balance biased sources with sources representing other perspectives in proportion to their due weight. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (WP:DUE) The result is a neutral article not obtained by limiting ourselves to extremely neutral sources like the Associated Press (RSP entry) and Reuters (RSP entry), which would unnecessarily restrict our coverage, but by forming an accurate reflection of the world around us. — Newslinger talk 22:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Grauniad has a solid reputation for fact-checking and draws clear distinctions between news and editorial content. It has won many awards for high quality journalism. It is a reliable source. Guy (help!) 16:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• While I generally dislike the use of news media as a source, so long as we do allow that any news media source should be used as a reliable source, the Guardian should. And I say this as someone who has been quite critical of Guardian reportage on a couple of topics; for instance, the Guardian was quite credulous both in its publication of Wikileaks data and also its reiteration of poorly sourced information in China stories. However, with that said, the Guardian has much stronger fact checking, editoral standards and corrections policies than most other news outlets. No news outlet is perfect, and Wikipedia is definitely too dependent on them in general. But the Guardian should be one of the last outlets we walk away from, not the first. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• The only thing I would simply be careful with on the Guardian is that they've taken a firm stance that climate change is real and they will fight disinformation related to it, so when it comes to how they write about climate change deniers/skeptics in terms of opinionated thoughts. eg if they started saying "This idiot John Q Smith thinks that a 1.5degC rise is normal.", we'd be very careful in repeating that on WP (best I know, they haven't done anything like that). Otherwise an RS. --Masem (t) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ah... climate change is real. François Robere (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Wow! Any source that doesn't take a "firm stance that climate change is real" is not a RS, and any editor who doesn't take such a stance should be topic banned from that topic area IF they push denialist opinions (forbidden WP:Advocacy) on those topic pages. The evidence is right up there with the theories of gravity and evolution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's not the question of whether CC is real or not, its how they would treat those that deny it with derogatory language because of the Guardian's firm stance to support that climate change exists. They can call people climate change deniers/etc. just fine, just that if they stoop to more derogatory terms, that's part of this "bias" and we should avoid including. --Masem (t) 02:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masem:, I don't believe you that the news side of the Guardian said, "This idiot John Q Smith thinks that a 1.5degC rise is normal," or anything remotely similar. Link, or it never happened. Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a hypothetical. I have never seen, nor would expect the Guardian to go there with a statement like that. But if they ever should, we should be careful of how to use that.--Masem (t) 04:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Guardian doesn't outright fabricate stories, unlike The Daily Fail, but there are certain areas where caution should be exercised. It has put out anti-semitic stories in the past (see https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/06/averting-accusations-of-antisemitism-guardian) and probably should be topic-banned in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area. It is probably fine for most other topic areas though. Betty Logan (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Since The Guardian made the necessary corrections ("The words were replaced and the articles footnoted to reflect the fact"), I don't think this is enough to exclude The Guardian's reporting on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Guardian apologized for using politically incorrect language, and retracted the language when they received objections. — Newslinger talk 02:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Unspeakable Love

It would be OK to use this material Soon after the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality. In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations attributed to the following source in Ruhollah Khomeini article? source:Whitaker, Brian (2011). Unspeakable Love: Gay and Lesbian Life in the Middle East. Saqi Books. ISBN 0863564836.

I have to say that I cannot find any other sources to support "Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality".Saff V. (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Books are usually poor sources for statements of fact, the reason being that books are usually not fact-checked by independent fact checkers. You are therefore thrown back largely on your confidence in the author. Well let's see... Brian Whitaker has an article. He's a legit journalist, writes for The Guardian... Which means he's not an academic. However, is clearly very expert in the general subject. He speaks Arabic and has written several books. The passage is very specific: "In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions." Not the sort of thing that a person like him would just make up. He seems unlikely, with his level of expertise, to have confused "executions" with "imprisonments" or something. Is this something he would do on purpose? Well, he's got a website, al-bab, so you can check him out more thoroughly there... Here is his Twitter feed. And here is a library of his Guardian articles. He could be vetted more thoroughly thru these, but my overall sense is that no, he probably wouldn't do that, as it doesn't seem to fit what looks to be his business and career model. To the the extent that he might have a strong enough polemical bias to twist facts on purpose, he doesn't show it right off.

TL;DR: Has the expertise to not get this wrong. Does not appear likely in my view to have got it wrong on purpose. So, source is OK. Just OK, but OK enough in my book. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Source is RS. There are billions of other sources that confirm homosexuals were outlawed under Khomeini "because it went against the Quran". Sky is blue. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, Well in that case, we should use one of those sources instead, one that's been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal or publication known to have a good fact-checking operation. Herostratus (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea where the idea books are usually bad sources comes from. The publisher seem reputable, the author is a respected journalist who actual,y has a qualification related to the topic this book is about. Now there may be an argument for attribution, but its RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, It comes from the idea that books are not fact checked. Articles in Time magazine are actually gone over by a fact-checker, independent of the write. She consults reference works, makes phone calls, and so forth to double-check that the writer indeed got his facts right.

Books are not fact-checked in this way. Books are gone over by a copy editor, but she is looking for spelling and grammar mistakes and awkward wording; she might check some facts on an ad hoc basis, but not rigoursly. There's no time; she's got X days to copy edit the entire book, and fact-checking is labor intensive. Sometimes an author will pay out of his own pocket and hire a fact-checker. Not usually.

And indeed I have some instances of distinguished authors getting fact wrong in books.

Nor does the publisher care. HarperCollins etc. know that people buy books by subject and author. No one says "Oh, a new HarperCollins books, I'll buy it". So it's not their business model to care. They won't publish books by InfoWars type authors who make up facts wholesale from whole cloth, because that'd eventually tend to degrade their reputation; that's different from caring whether a proper author is loose with occasional facts. "Reputable publisher" sounds comforting, but it's just a magic word. It doesn't mean much really.

So, a book is little better than a blog. The fact that it has physical mass, hard covers, cost some money to create, fancy dust cover... it feels comforting, but it doesn't mean anything really. Tha's not terrible; a lot of blogs are fine. It's just a matter of how reliable you think the author is, and you have to recognize that without a fact-checker even the best author's book or blog is going to be "Acceptable, but not great". Brian Whitaker looks reliable enough for me. Whether he had published his statement in a book or on his blog makes no real difference. We've decided to trust Brian Whitaker that what he says is true. Herostratus (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: your evaluation of the author was good but I think you may have a more accurate "sense" if you note that the author of [10] has used another book (Afary, Janet and Anderson, Kevin: Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islam. Chicago 2005, p. 161.) as the reference for the claims. It is more interesting that in the footnote 31 of the later book, p.292 , the author has used email exchanges as a source of information! Can we rely on this?Saff V. (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we? Email correspondence with experts in a given field is a valid way for journalists and academics to obtain information. It also cites a piece by Eliz Sanasarian, and other academic writings, and is published by University of Chicago Press. I don't see anything that would contradict this being a reliable source, in fact quite the opposite. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No less then face to face interviews.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Pleas take look at the provided link then make the commment, Not only the source is the email exchanges, but also are this two unriliable website, homan and [11]. it is what was written in footnote:

Some of this information is based on an e-mail exchange with Goudarz Eghtedari (Iran). For a discussion of this issue, see Sanasarian 2000 and various issues of the journal Homan (1999–2001). For more information on the Iranian GLB movement, see the website for Homan: The Group to Defend the Rights of Iranian Gays and Lesbians, www.homan.cwc.net. For literature on Iranian lesbians, see www.geocities.com/khanaeyedoost.According to Duran, “homosexual assault is frequently used by the police of repressive regimes, such as the SAVAK during the reign of the Shah of Iran or its successor,SAVAMA, the dreaded security organ of the Khomeini government” (1993, 187). Saff V. (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@AmbivalentUnequivocality: According to which policy of wp:RS is the email exchanges reliable?Saff V. (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Are we citing to it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the main source for that claim is email which as WP:SOURCE demanded, Unpublished materials are not considered reliable.Saff V. (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hold on I am confused now, is the claim being sourced to the book, or an e-mail?Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A book, which cites another book, which cited email. Staff V seems to be arguing that since the chain starts with email, subsequent books based on the email are not RS. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I will reserve judgement on the merits of such an argument (though I think my above responses should give a clue) based upon what his response it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest then you read wp:rs which does not support your contention. Books are RS, as long as they meet certain criteria, this one does. If you are not happy with this I suggest you take it to village pump and try to get policy changed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the book very clearly qualify as a good secondary RS on the subject. And what is the argument against using it, exactly? "A book, which cites another book, which cited email"... so the book is not an RS? This is the same "argument" as in the thread just below about Soviet gas vans. Wrong. An author of a secondary RS/a book can cite whatever (or nothing at all), but it is still his/her conclusion, and it is clearly a secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This secondary book is not reliable for this claim, because these claims refers to email! I did not talk about being reliable book or not generally.Saff V. (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Not only you are making an original research here, but you are trying to disprove claims made by a reliable source (a book by an expert) while not being an expert on this subject yourself. This is POV-pushing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Books written by practicing journalists who specialize in reporting on the field the book is about (in this case, the internal politics of Middle Eastern countries) ought to be treated as reliable subject to the precautions stated in WP:BIASED. Some of the best reporting on the contentious and highly technical field of nuclear weapons proliferation has been in books authored by journalists who work for large newspapers and news magazines. The guidance in WP:BIASED has never been more appropriate wnen citing news sources in general, not just books or famously agenda-driven news outlets. --loupgarous (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It is reasonable to say "Statements written by practicing journalists who specialize in reporting on the field... ought to be treated as reliable subject to the precautions stated in WP:BIASED". It's not necessarily true, but it's reasonable, as long as its understood that there are exceptions, and it depends on what the statement is.

Because whether its a book, a blog, an interview, or any other public statement doesn't necessarily or even usually make much difference. Just understand that, book or blog, if the person made a mistake -- for instance, slipped up reading a column of figures and wrote that the 2017 nominal GDP of Czechia is 245,000 (when actually that is the 2018 number) -- nobody is going to check that, probably. So it is not just expertise and lack of bias, you also need an author who wants to be and is able to be pretty careful about each statement of fact she puts under her name. Lots of writers are expert and unbiased, but not super careful. (As I said above, this particular writer for this particular statement of fact from this particular book is probably OK.) Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And any argument here must be based upon policy, not logic. Policy does not say that blogs and books are the same. Can we close this now, its just going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I find it dubious to suggest that WP:RS and WP:V would oppose inclusion of a source just because at some point the contents of that source were communicated via email. I would ask instead whether this source has any reviews that speak to its reliability; is it contradicted by other reliable sources; is it written by an author with a reputation for making shit up? This question seems more one of WP:DUE than WP:V to be honest. And for us to determine how due this particular source is for inclusion we must start by examining whether there's a countervailing view at all. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. The bottom line: the book was reliably published, and the author can be reasonably viewed as an expert on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jihad Watch, the Middle East Forum and "Global muslim brotherhood daily watch" in articles about Islam

We describe the first as an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog. Our article on the Middle East Forum is a bit equivocal but doesn't fill me with confidence, and I'm surprised that we call its founder Daniel Pipes an historian (yes, he once taught history, but that's not what he's known for - he's mainly a major critic of Islam). Global MB Watch is a one man band run by Steven Merley who worked for Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation whose senior consultant now is Evan Kohlmann and was evidently, according to his description of himself[12] the subject of praise by John Ware (TV journalist), described by the Guardian as "not quite public enemy number one for many British Muslims -"[13].

These sources are used in articles such as Wahhabism, Hani Ramadan and numerous others.[14][15][16] Doug Weller talk 14:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

MEF after 2009 become peer reviewed and have editorial control yes its partisan but we allow partisan sources per WP:BIASED --Shrike (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The objection is not to partisanship. MEF, and the organizations it funds, actively foment Islamophobia, there is a long record through all of the venues it establishes and supports, and via all of the funding groups behind it, of militant antipathy as a driving force in a publicitarian cause. I don't think we should make an exception here. If MEF figures on a respectable site listing hate groups (Southern Poverty Law Center) as it does here, then it should not be used on Wikipedia. We have huge resources from Academic, government think tanks etc. on all of these Islamic movements. The latter are often problematical, qua partisan, but they have no stepped over into financing fear and fomenting anti-Islamism as the MEF does.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be concerned if we were using Jihad Watch as an authority on Muslim subjects, but from glancing at the internal search results, all of the citations that I saw were specifically citing it to support claims about the activities and opinions of anti-Muslim academics, which seems potentially acceptable. I haven't reviewed the other sources at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't use blogs, let alone conspiracy blogs, which is how Jihad Watch is described. This is every more so given its decidedly polemical anti-Muslim world view. Sensitive topics require optimal sourcing. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We should not be using blogs at all, as Nishidani said. Furthermore some of these sources look pretty clearly like WP:FRINGE outlets and they should not generally be used as sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd agree that these look like fringe outlets. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense to lump all three of these sources together. The Middle East Quarterly has been edited by Efraim Karsh, who has held academic posts at various respected universities. And I don't think the SPLC is the best authority on anti-islamic sentiment after its Majid Nawaz fiasco. Is there any evidence that MEQ is an unreliable source, making stuff up or stating incorrect facts? If it should be discredited it should be on those grounds and not because Wikipedia editors disagree with its POV. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 15:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

According to its h-index, MEQ is cited by other academic journals and ranks in the middle of similar journals by number of references to its articles. It gets cited by regular scholarly books, for facts. (Although it is criticized elsewhere for pro-American orientation, no evidence of unreliability is offered). I don't see any indication that MEQ is not a reliable source. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Those linked citations aren't the strongest, and fringe sources frequently exist in an ecosystem of supportive other fringe sources that support them. I'm still very dubious about MEQ. The others are clearly fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

An article published in a local Ukrainian newspaper as a source for a history article

This source was already mentioned in the previous discussion devoted to the Gas van article, but it seems the idea to discuss several sources simultaneously was not good, so I am posting my question about this source specifically.

The source is a 2012 publication in a local Ukrainian newspaper. I failed to figure out credentials of this author. An interview in a Russian newspaper (which is a Human interest reporting) says he is a historian, but I failed to find reviews on his publications, and his books. Our policy says that mainstream newspapers are considered reliable sources, but I would like to know a third opinion if this publication is a mainstream newspaper article.

The statement this source is supporting is Gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union.

This question may be simultaneously a WP:V and WP:NPOV issue, because outstanding claims need outstanding evidences, and it would be good to hear a third opinion on whether such a publication may serve as an adequate evidence for such a claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need 3 active posts on the same noticeboard, about the same article? It suggests that whatever is going on at Gas vans is a bigger/thornier issue than a matter of a specific source's reliability. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, unfortunately, yes. I realized that discussion of this concrete source separately would be less confusing and time consuming, and resolving this issue would be a first step out of an impasse.

In particular, I would like to know if my understanding of WP:NEWSORG is correct, and if such sources are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• An RS and can be used, especially with attribution to author. I think the source is OK because the author (Sokolov) is a historian who published, for example, this book. A lot of info about him, including other numerous scholarly publications, can be found here. This is an interview with him in one of major Russian newspapers. According to introduction by 3rd party, "Dmitry Sokolov is a historian from the city of Sevastopol. Since 2007, he has published many history articles in journals, and since 2013, he has been publishing monographs annually on various periods and aspects of the tragic events that began in 1917 on the land of Tauris." This is all in Russian. The article in question was published (not self-published) in a newspaper. The article is clearly a secondary source because it summarizes claims from books by Petro Grigorenko, ru:Шрейдер, Михаил Павлович and several others. Yes, as Paul tells, one of his summary statements was that gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union - because such cases have been reliably reported in books by Grigorenko, Shreider and yet another author cited in the review article by Sokolov. My very best wishes (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any evidence it has a poor reputation for fact checking?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: if I understand it correct, this works in an opposite way: an evidences of a good reputation and fact checking should be presented per WP:BURDEN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Always been unsure, as its hard to prove that where as it is easy to show it does not have one. So I tend to err on the side off "it has a good reputation because it does not have a bad one".Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: it seems you still don't understand. Our policy says Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include (...) Mainstream newspapers. That means want to see a proof that this newspaper is a mainstream newspaper, because otherwise it cannot be considered a reliable source.

Moreover, the newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion. Therefore, this publication is more like op-ed, and, per our guidelines, it should be considered reliable primary source for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Is my understanding correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I cannot say if it is mainstream I am not Ukrainian (but I see nothing to indicate it is not), as to your second point, correct so we attribute.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That is an interesting approach: does it mean that every newspaper is considered mainstream unless the opposite has been demonstrated? If yes, that fully contradicts with my understanding of our policy.

Regarding your the second answer, "attribute" ... to whom? What are credentials of this author? Had he authored any book or article that was published by some reputable publisher or scholarly journal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure, see the link to his book above; he has many other publications noted in another link. Also, this is not "news", but an educational publication about the past by historian. How this article can be a "primary" publication if it is entirely based on other sources, primary and secondary? My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a page about this newspaper on ruwiki, ru:Крымское эхо, and it does not tell anything bad. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

So, speaking of the three meanings of a source [17], (a) the article itself is OK (it claims nothing extraordinary, but simply summarizes what other sources on this subject say), (b) the author is fine, an established historian based on his publications, and (c) the newspaper is obviously not a scientific journal, but this is just an article on history for general public, enough to reliably document whatever author tells. Also, the newspaper is located in Crimea where author apparently lives. At the time of publication, it was a Russian language Ukrainian newspaper (as Paul tells), but it was expropriated by Russia in 2014, together with peninsula. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am hesitant on this one, just because I have seen a considerable amount of historical misinformation in newspapers especially the more minor ones. It is reliable for the fact that the author wrote it, but I wouldn't take it much farther than that. I doubt that editors are in a good position to vet such claims—especially if they put a disclaimer on it! Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 19:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, Paul misled us by saying: newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion. This is not a disclaimer for this specific publication. This is a disclaimer at the very bottom of the website which goes everywhere: Ответственность за точность изложенных фактов несет автор. За содержание рекламных материалов редакция ответственности не несет. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Since English Wikipedia users are not expected to know Russian, below I reproduce the disclaimer in full

"При перепечатке и цитировании ссылка(гиперссылка) на "Крымское Эхо" обязательна. Точка зрения авторов может не совпадать с точкой зрения редакции. Ответственность за точность изложенных фактов несет автор. За содержание рекламных материалов редакция ответственности не несет. Материал, обозначенный (R), публикуется на правах рекламы."

Google translates it as follows:

"When reprinting and citing, a link (hyperlink) to the Crimean Echo is required. The authors' point of view may not coincide with the editorial point of view. Responsibility for the accuracy of the facts presented lies with the author. The editors are not responsible for the content of advertising materials. Material labeled (R) is advertised."

In my opinion, the statement in bold is exactly what op-ed means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a disclaimer at at the very bottom of the website which goes on all pages, right? But you made it appear as a disapproval of the article by Sokolov [18]: "newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion". The disclaimer does not say anything about Sokolov or his article. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Reading this source, it looks totally unreliable. It's written in a sensationalist and politicized rather than academic or historical style. My Very Best Wishes has found two links [19][20] showing that the author Dmitry Sokolov has a presence somewhere on the Russian-language internet, but his lack of connection to English-language academia makes it impossible to verify his credentials, importance, and suggest he's not a well known journalist or historian. The paper he's written in is not a major / flagship or internationally recognized publication and I can get no information about it in English.

In short, nearly every red flag one could conceive of is present here. I thought that in these topic areas, we were supposed to use the highest quality academic sources, with an emphasis on English-language sources. By contrast, this feels like scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it is simply written as an article for general public, not as an academic paper. This is a newspaper, not an academic journal. But the newspaper and especially the author still qualify just fine per WP:RS. That's the policy. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. The topic area is under strict sourcing restrictions;[21] local newspapers need not apply. François Robere (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I wish you were right, but, alas, The Great Purge is not under this restriction. Only Nazi gas van topic, and only in part related to Poland falls under that restriction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that this source is also used to argue that the primary sources quoted by this source (Sokolov), namely the memoirs by Shreder and Grigorenko, have to be quoted in the article as well. Whereas on this page My very best wishes writes that Sokolov claims nothing extraordinary, but simply summarizes what other sources on this subject say, they have frequently maintained on the talk page that Sokolov “discusses” the claims by Grigorenko.[22][23], and therefore these primary sources may freely be used. Upon Sokolov and the sources quoted by him they also base their conclusion that gas vans have been used “in at least three different cities” in the USSR.[24] [25] This conclusion is not supported by any other sources. Not using these sources they consider to be censorship.[26] [27]

This is an article on the Holocaust both in Poland and the Soviet Union. Gas vans were used at Chełmno extermination camp, e.g.. The whole epic discussion has emerged, because it has been maintained by some, that the "same" gas vans as were used by the Nazis were first used, probably even "invented" by the Soviets. A quote by journalist Yevgenia Albats, stating: "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", has been vigorously defended, thereby effectively integrating the "Soviet gas vans" into the narrative of the Holocaust. I think that narrative is untenable and not supported by scholarly sources, only by fringe sources like Sokolov, but those who connected the "Soviet gas vans" to the Nazi gas vans should not deny that they intend to suggest that very connection. Applying the source restrictions would certainly clear things up a bit. --Assayer (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

To that, I would add that one of the most renown historians writing about Stalinism, Wheatcroft, clearly writes that the claim that gas vans were used during the Great Purge is "sensational", and it needs further confirmation (Stephen Wheatcroft, The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353). Therefore, the statement that Sokolov's article contains nothing extraordinary directly contradicts to what a top quality reliable source says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your "applying the source restrictions would certainly clear things up a bit", I asked EdJohnston to do that, and I am still awaiting for a responce.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is probably off-topic, but Yevgenia Albats is not only a journalist, but also a political scientist who received her PhD degree in Harvard University and taught in a number of other Universities. More importantly, she is a top expert in Russia on the KGB subjects; she worked as consultant for the Russian Duma commission to examine KGB involvement in Soviet coup attempt of 1991. This is all described in her book used on the page. Also, "same gas vans" is the narrative by almost all sources that mention both Soviet and Nazi gas vans, for example, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and yes, also by Petro Grigorenko and Sokolov. Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention Soviet gas vans simply because Soviet gas vans were not a part of the Holocaust, quite obviously. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention Soviet gas vans and so forth - that's exactly the reason why the sources who "mention both Soviet and Nazi gas vans" are WP:FRINGE. And saying "almost all sources", one should note that the majority of scholarly sources on "Soviet gas vans" do not mention Nazi gas vans at all. The fringe character of the whole subject is the reason why you have to turn to an article by a virtually unknown local historian in a Crimean newspaper in the first place. To insist that an otherwise insignificant aspect of the history of gas vans should be exempted from the strict sourcing restrictions otherwise applied in the very same article is inconsistent, confusing and leading to distortion.--Assayer (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention...". Sure, that's why we do not mention Soviet gas vans on the page Holocaust, but only on page Gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust#Gas vans refers to the "main article" Gas van. So the latter article is very much within the scope of the topics under source restruction.--Assayer (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Why even use newspaper article (or op-ed), when there are plenty of peer reviewed journals and books devoted to this part of the world/history? If you want author´s opinion, simply use higher quality source he wrote on the same topic. Pavlor (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, sure, one can easily skip this source and simply use books by Yevgenia Albats, Petro Grigorenko, Shreider and others. However, Assayer and Paul want to remove claims by almost all RS about it (see here; actual edits on the page [28]), and replace them by a blog post by unknown person (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's absurd to use this source for Russian Communism, which is one of the most studied and documented topics in the world. Imagine writing an article about the American Civil War or Amundsen's journey to the South Pole and using a village newspaper in Spain as a source. This is clearly cherry-picking, choosing an obscure source that presents information not accepted in mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That is sort of a false equivalency. Spain has nothing (or very little) to do with either of those things, whereas this is about the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was a part. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Not mentioning that the history of Soviet NKVD repressions is a Terra incognita. Even basic numbers (how many people were victims) remain completely unknown. One of reasons: the KGB archives were partly destroyed, and partly remain state top secret. When Lev Ponomaryov commission started digging, it was disbanded immediately. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would remind users this is about reliability, not wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, good point. So the conclusion is that the source is not reliable for that statement, and the absence of other sources does not make it reliable. Do other participants of the discussion (except involved parties) have any comments/objections to that summary?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood. Slatersteven said the article can be used with attribution to author [29]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

californiabirthindex.org ?

Can anyone tell if this is a credible primary source for birth records, or if there is a better one?

In particular is an ongoing dispute if Jussie Smollett was actually born Justin. Or any other name.

Any help appreciated! Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

this is not a question of reliability. Primary sources cannot be used per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The policy is very clear. Slp1 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s foremost a question of reliability. If the information is from an unreliable source then I won’t consider using it as a reason to search for reliable secondary sourcing. If the source is accurate then it begs the question why the disconnect of what is true, verses what is being reported.

It’s been suggested Smollett, or someone, changed his name, although some states amend birth certificates maybe California does not. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The policy language could not be clearer: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

If reliable secondary sources do not discuss the material, then it must be excluded by policy. "It’s been suggested Smollett, or someone, changed his name" is precisely the type of innuendo and rumor that has absolutely no place in Wikipedia, and this is a matter of policy that every Wikipedia editor is obligated to follow.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn’t looking to use it as a source per se, but to determine what is accurate in the many sources available.

Right now we are unable to reliably source any birthname so we’ve removed that from the info box.

At this point it seems he was born Justin, and Jussie is a nickname. None of which has been reliably sourced, but all of which have been ongoing edited into the article.

I figured there was something to it and wanted to get some resolution on the matter. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Justin" should be excluded from the article until reliable secondary sources report it. The fact that one very reliable source withdrew the claim is a strong indication that the so-called birth name was probably an error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Excluding ‘Justin’ for now is exactly what we are doing; because of this inquiry we are also removing the ‘birth name’ from info box because there is *no* source he was born as ‘Jussie’. ‘Jus’ is one of many nicknames for people named Justin, personally I feel this is the most likely explanation.

I’m convinced there’s at least one very good PR person at work on the issue, as can be seen on the article talk page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: Sports Illustrated [30] refers to Smollett as "Justin." Foreign publications also refer to him as "Justin." Is SI a decent enough source? Collect (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Also [31] Elle which is likely also to be RS. [https://www.programme-tv.net/news/series-tv/224892-jussie-smollett-agresse-la-star-dempire-sort-enfin-du-silence/ ], [32] The Panther, how many are needed? Collect (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll post these to the article talk page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

catholicism.org

• catholicism.org  

This website is currently being used in 76 articles. It's published by the New Hampshire branch of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a religious group with no official recognition from the Catholic Church. Here are some recent news articles about the group: [33][34][35]. While the SPLC's coverage of traditionalist Catholicism is generally incomplete and of poor quality (e.g., why do they label anti-ecumenism and sedevacantism "worse" than antisemitism? [36]), I agree with their characterisation of the New Hampshire Slaves as antisemitic[37]. Would it be appropriate to treat this website as an unreliable source for everything other than the views of the Slaves? Cheers, gnu57 05:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A non-canonical Catholic institution is only going to be reliable for its own views. Actually, the same is true of official Catholic Church publications. But the latter viewpoint is much more important and likely to be appropriate for inclusion in articles. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 06:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Requires an explicit attribution to the author of any publication and depends entirely on the qualification of the author. Must be avoided, unless the author is a known expert on the specific subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Source for some quote that has no proof in material historical documents

In the article on Uskoks the following is mentioned, I quote "Large numbers of Serb fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia fleeing the Ottomans, joined the ranks of the Uskok bands " I read the book from Goffman Daniel and page where these Serbs are mentioned but there is no evidence for that claim(migration from Serbia or mention of Serbs) so i wonder what to do? These historians have stated it but it has not been proven by anything, otherwise it cannot be proven with nothing because there are no historical documents that mention Serbs in that part of Croatia except one document but these Serbs migrate to Slovenia. Two historians are factual evidence for Wikipedia however these historians tell fairy tales, what do I do? I started a topic on the talk page but i am wondering what else i can do, thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, please take another look at WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:PRIMARY. It is perfectly acceptable (in fact preferable) to use reliable secondary sources for a claim without personally examining the primary sources used. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 19:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't express myself well, there are no historical data of Serbs in the Senj area or that they are members of the Uskoks. How to use reliable secondary sources for a claim when they are not proven. It is as if they mentioned that Turks were Uskoks but there is no information about Turks been Uskoks. I suppose those historians quote some Serbian historians who are probably seeing Serbs there. Factual data says the following: "Determining the exact national or ethnic composition of the Uskoks from Senj is extremely difficult since is rarely recorded nationality of the Uskoks, (most commonly terms for Uskoks are "Croat", "Slavs", "Morlaks") It is difficult to actually determine the national and ethnic composition of the Uskoks, Venetians are described Uskoks as Croats, Habsburg sources also identify Uskoks as Croats. About a migration from Serbia to Senj we should not waste words for that. Do you now understand what this is all about?Mikola22 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, Yes, this is exactly what NOR is for. If you have a supposition based on evidence that published sources are mistaken, write a history paper on the subject and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. THEN cite it here. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

But they do not prove it in their books because there is no evidence for that. We cannot based some fact on the statement of some historian which claim that the Uskoks are Serbs when there is no evidence for that. So i should write a scientific paper to refute it? But i cited scientific papers where Serbs are not mentioned as Uskoks. We have some new history that we didn't know about until now. So far we have not had a single historical record that talk about Serbs who are coming in masses to Croatia(Senj area) but on Wikipedia it says and everyone who reads that fact really thinks it's true. If someone starts write that the Chinese are coming to Croatia and that will be true because someone wrote it in their book. It's like quoting and put in wikipedia article clame of Serbian historian Jovan Cvijic who mentions White Serbia from where Serbs come to the Balkans, but there is no historical documents that mentions White Serbia. Do not tell me I need to write a scientific paper to refute that claim of Jovan Cvijić? Wikipedia is a great platform for Serbian propaganda because no one is looking for original evidence. If these claims start to be transmitted by foreign historians we will have some new history and we already have one. Croatian emigrants in America or Argentina when he reads about Uskoks in the wikipedia he will probably think that Senj Uskoks are and Serbs although there is no evidence for that, some citizens in Serbia will think the same. It's like reading a serbian wikipedia I quote "The Uskoks people were Serbs who fled from Ottoman territory to the border regions of Austria and the Venetian Republic." I have now stated that there is no historical information for that. Twilight Zone?Mikola22 (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Do they say it in their books? Please read wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Quote from the book: "Just as it rounded Pola point, less than one day out from Venice, a swarm of some forty small boats suddenly darted in from the east and quickly infested the massive and clumsy galley. The courier knew that these were Uskoks, a community of destitute yet determined privateers — many of whom were fugitives from Ottoman Bosnia and Serbia — entrenched in the northern Dalmatian seaside town of Senj, sanctioned by the Habsburg state, and dedicated to struggle against Islam. Despite their sworn opposition to the Ottomans, it was Venetian shipping that most suffered from their attacks, which invariably occurred in the Adriatic "sea of Venice." Uskok zeal excused strikes. Bracewell, Uskoks of Senj, passim." This is what Goffman Daniel writes in his book, he does not explore history of Uskoks. Probably quotes Catherine Wendy Bracewell. The first we should see a page of her book where she quotes this and evidence for that claim. I have been following the reviews of her book in Croatia and she determined someone's origin based on names and surnames. A review, I quote "She notes, however, that to determine of Uskoks origin helps their names and surnames It only proves that is true what i'm talking about i.e. that we do not have any historical information about Serbs in the Uskoks, but that should be clarify by names and surnames? How when half of Croatia are under Turks and a good part of the Croats convert to the Orthodoxy. This is as it claims by Serbian historians from the 19th century. For part of the article in which are mentioned migration of large numbers of Serbs from Serbia there is no evidence for that so we don't even need to discuss it. Otherwise someone could write book about the British population and identify someone's origins based on their first and last names, if someone wrote that in a book people would probably think he was crazy.Mikola22 (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure this source supports either conclusion. It does not say they were Serbs (but were from Serbia), but nor does it say they were not Serbs.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, right now i noticed that. Serb fugitives are not mentioned in the book of Goffman Daniel but this is stated in the article on Uskoks.Mikola22 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

References

The Guardian on Hong Kong protests

Is this Guardian article 'Society is suffering': Hong Kong protests spark mental health crisis a reliable source for citing that at least nine suicides have been linked to the 2019 Hong Kong protests? feminist (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Might be best to attribute it, but yes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, this is good RS. Does not require explicit attribution, except saying something like "reported/reportedly" to not be in WP voice. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. I would attribute this to The Guardian since I don't see other sources explicitly corroborating the "at least nine" figure. Most sources acknowledge the suicides without providing a number. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not in this instance, no. The article says "Since June, protesters have tracked at least nine cases of suicides that appear to be directly linked to the demonstrations." (Emphasis added). Well I mean I sure don't trust what "the protesters" say. We can't, much as we support them; their job is to make the government look oppressive, not be pedantic with their facts, and important job it is. It's just not a job that fills our needs.

The Guardian then turns this into "Nine suicides have been linked...". They don't say by whom. So that moves it a bit away from pointing out that original source is going to be very biased.

And then they have "Public health advocates, NGOs and counsellors say the number of calls and threats of suicide they have received has increased..." (Emphasis added). Assuming that this is true and either The Guardian has had an independent fact checker call these people (using the reporters notes) OR they have a vigorously enforced "get your facts wrong three times and you're fired" (or whatever) policy for their reporters -- and I don't know if either of those are true, but assuming -- a bunch of calls and threats does not equal nine people dead. Ditto the Hong Kong U. study showing "It is not just the protesters who are at risk. A study by Hong Kong University released in July found nearly one in 10 were suffering from probable depression, as well as an increase in suicidal thoughts, from 1.1% at the start of this decade." One in ten of whom is not made clear, but it says "It is not just the protesters...", so I assume the population of Hong Kong generally, so we are still a long way from nine actual protestors dead.

And in fact and FWIW, the main interviewee of the story, Niko Cheng, also remains alive.

There is one -- one -- anecdote given: "Lo Hiu Yan, a 21-year-old piano student, who fell to her death from an apartment building on 29 June. She had written on a wall: 'Hong Kongers, we’ve protested for a long time, but we shouldn’t forget our faith. We must keep on'." OK. Even assuming that this is reported accurately, what are the names of the eight others and why are they not given in the article.

Don't get me wrong: I like The Guardian, in fact I look at it most days, and they are reliable for most facts and I've used them myself. And of course we all support the Hong Kong protestors. But The Guardian is not an utterly unbiased Fair Witness, I don't really trust Lily Kuo (the writer) and her editor to not have been a little loosey-goosey considering the subject, and the entire piece looks rather one-sided (did the reporter seek out an opposing view, anyone who might have said "well, we don't know if there are really nine people dead or if it's just a legend"). We don't want to pass along a Martin Šmíd type situation. Herostratus (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable - the Guardian is a reliable source end-of, in this case the figure should be attributed in the text but the sort of speculation above is personal opinion with no factual backup, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, like anyone, I might be wrong or I might be right, or more probably somewhere in between. But to dismiss my work as unfounded speculation and uneducated opinion is not helpful to what we are trying to do here, and arguments by assertion is not how we are supposed to roll on this board. So far the vetting of this ref, in total, has come to:

1) "Yes" (for attributed use)

3) "Yes, this is good RS".

2) "Reliable" (for attributed use)

4) "Reliable -- the Guardian is a reliable source end-of-[story?]" (for attributed use)

5) My contribution, which I guess is "personal opinion with no factual backup" if you like. =/

It's not a headcount here. There's nothing wrong with chiming in with a quick one sentence personal assessment of one's considered belief about a publication in general, and we're busy and sometimes that's all we get. But it's not really enough. It's just the best we can do, mostly. But anyone who believes that a source is going to be correct in all instances, to a level of confidence that we can take it to the bank... well, there aren't many such publications, and The Guardian sure isn't one of them.

Attributed use is a cop out because this is not an opinion, a review, or an interpretation. Nine people are dead or else they're not. It's not a matter of "According to Pinkcney Pruddle, the play is actually a metaphor for the manufacturing of ice cream" or whatever.

It there was a good chance that the statement was true, that'd be different. But there isn't. It's at least reasonably possible that the statement is not true. In fact, if I had to bet, my guess at this point would be that it is probably not true. If it's true, what are the names. How can we not know the names. We know the names of the Nine Martyrs of England and Wales, the Nine Martyrs of Cyzicus, the nine victims of Charleston, and forth. What's different about these nine. Get me the names for starters and then we can talk. At any rate, "who knows, it might be true" is a pretty low standard for including statements of fact in the Wikipedia, it says here, even attributed inclusion. Herostratus (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It is potentially a matter of interpretation, since whether a suicide is linked to the protests or not isn't necessarily unambiguous or clear-cut. And we can use in-line citations for statements of fact in situations like that - "CNN reported that..." and the like. This doesn't cast the figure into (much) doubt, but it makes it clear who is doing the counting. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• The dispute, as I understand it, isn't over whether it's reliable, but where or how to cover it (which isn't really an WP:RS issue.) It can definitely be covered in the article text, although I might use in-line citations if nobody else is saying it or other estimates differ. But I'd object to listing it in the infobox, because that gives the impression that this is a concrete official death toll and that no other deaths occurred, which isn't really what the Guardian source says - this is one small facet of the topic, worth covering in the body, but not appropriate to put in the infobox on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You understand wrong. I dispute that the source is reliable. Herostratus (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Is wikispooks.com a reliable source or should it be deprecated?

I see we use it in a number of articles[38] but take a look at their article "Conspiracy theory" - the quotes are theirs, most of their articles don't seem to have scare quotes. The lead says ""Conspiracy theory" is a label given to ideas which challenge an official narrative, held by people who are pejoratively termed "conspiracy theorists". This stems from the US deep state's efforts to promote the "lone nut" theory of the JFK assassination. The concept was later developed into a general purpose enemy image used to try to prevent the connection of deep events that the commercially-controlled media presented as isolated incidents. Post 9/11, it is the subject of pseudo-scientific study to limit freedom of speech by promoting the idea that the holders of such opinions are inclined to violence and deserve to have their civil liberties removed, in particular by subjecting them to internet censorship.'"

I'd argue that this is a site that should definitely be deprecated. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with that argument. Content is user generated "The site is written by volunteers", and "a few pages here have imported material directly from Wikipedia", and "The idea of "fake news", launched in 2016, appears to be a counterproductive attempt to boost flagging faith in corporate media". Seems about as reliable as an anonymous conspiracy theory blog. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No evidence of reliability. Guy (help!) 10:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No its not an RS. It seems to be another Wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• ”Depreciate” is the wrong word. I would simply call it Unreliable. “Depreciation” implies that there are at least some rare instances where it would be OK use it (example: when we depreciated the Daily Mail, we made an exception for its sports reporting) and, in this case, I can’t think of any situation where it would be appropriate to use it. We simply don’t consider user generated websites reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, yeah - obviously not a reliable source, and we should be taking a careful look at any of the pages you linked there that use it as a citation. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Obvious wiki is obvious. Having said that there is no need to actively depreciate such obviously unreliable sources. The number of such obviously unreliable sources is endless, and the vast majority are well covered under existing policy and common sense, without needing to evaluate them individually. GMG^talk 14:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Blacklist. Open wikis including WikiSpooks are categorically unreliable, as they are self-published sources that present user-generated content. If WikiSpooks is being cited inappropriately, it can go straight into the spam blacklist alongside Examiner.com (RSP entry) and Lulu.com (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 08:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, this is just another wiki and therefore not an RS. However, it is currently used only in 4 main space articles. No reason to blacklist which is the last resort against extreme spamming. Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?

WP:SPS says: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (emphasis in original)

Prior RSNB discussions

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Stephen Barrett "Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?" Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#QuackWatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Plural medicine, tradition and modernity (Mentions Quackwatch and whether a book criticizing Quackwatch is an SPS, but no discussion about Quackwatch being an SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Quackwatch etc (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery "WP:SPS allows for this sort of sources "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.": This guy meets this with flying colors for the field of medicine and of quackery in medicine" but no actual discussion about whether Quackwatch is an SPS Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (Discussion about SPS in the last four comments of the thread) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 146#Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist? (No mention of SPS, but the article being discussed is a BLP) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 148#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 223#Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet (Discussion about Quackwatch, No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 252#Climatefeedback.org (a climate science fact-checking website) "[Climatefeedback.org is] Not technically WP:SPS. In order to be "self-published", a website must be under the sole proprietorship of a single person or definable ideological group. This is not the case with this source which is simply a fact-checking website. Compare Snopes, TalkOrigins, or Quackwatch" Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

Is Quackwatch a WP:SPS? Should it be excluded as a source on WP:BLPs? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Depends, no it should not be used (as long as it is an SPS per wp:sources for opinions about people, it could be used for critical analysis of their claims (but it would have to be their claims, not them).Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why are we starting this discussion when the discussion at BLPN is ongoing? GMG^talk 16:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

And [[39]] and [[40]]. But this is (I think) a better venue as this is about RS policy and what constitutes an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a self-published source and should not, per WP:BLPSPS, be used in BLPs or as a source on living persons elsewhere. That includes not using it for their claims. If there are no RS discussing the claims, then don't include those claims. Otherwise, we're violating WP:DUE, then violating WP:BLPSPS to demolish the UNDUE additions. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

As this is already being discussed at WP:BLPN#Quackwatch as a source on living person articles, is Quackwatch a SPS? it's not a good idea to bring it here as well. I wonder what would happen if there was a big disagreement between the two forums? Doug Weller talk 19:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• To avoid the potential for conflicting results... I suggest we simply close this discussion, and invite everyone to participate at the discussion at BLPN. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. BLPN is clearly the wrong place to talk about whether a source is a SPS. I propose that we recognize that the BLPN discussion is in the wrong venue and make the move in the other direction, leaving a link. Please respond in the "Proposed move" section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• We've been having this exact discussion about this exact article for over a decade, for the exact same reason: Null demanding that QuackWatch be removed, issuing legal threats demanding that, and sending people here to argue for it. The conclusion is always the same: QuackWatch is a reliable source for discussion of quacks and quackery. Guy (help!) 23:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• What Guy says. ∯WBG^converse 05:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Then WP:RSPSOURCES needs to be changed, because it does not say that. So it is giving the wrong advice, and is misleading, thus this will not go away.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Quackwatch is an SPS. Yes it should be excluded as a source for BLPs because is not a reliable source for BLPs (and probably most everything else) per WP:BLPSPS. It is self-published and it appears to lack independent editorial control. WP:USEBYOTHERS is weak. It is cited by publishers like the New York Post, AlterNet, the Daily Beast, Fox News, and Time. Although less of a concern, there is no evidence that the editorial process is independent of the commercial interest of the site (referral income from medically related products/services). On background, the owner of Quackwatch is a Psychiatrist who has not practiced medicine for 26 years.[41] Even if this blog were not self published, the principle that, if something is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it will have reported by other reliable sources, applies.- MrX 🖋 11:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Question - If the argument is that Quackwatch is SPS, and thus not appropriate as a source in a BLP... what about non-biographical articles about fringe medical practices or theories? Can we use it to say the practice or theory is “quackery”... but NOT use it to label the main proponent as “a quack” (etc). Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

To that point, if we had enough information for a standalone article on an fringe medical practices, that would 100% need to be supported by MEDRS-based sourcing (otherwise it would fail MEDRS). And to that end, if we are truly talking a fringe medical practice, the MEDRS sourcing is going to point that out, eliminating the need for QW, or at least no longer making it the only source to call it out. --Masem (t) 14:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is about BLP's only. There is no blanket ban on SPS's (as far as In know) for anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok... now let’s explore the grey area: non-biographical sections contained within biographical articles. It is not uncommon for a BLP about fringe proponents to contain a section outlining their theories/practices. Can SPS be used in these sections? Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would (as we do about ourselves) comment on content not the proponent. So it could be used to critique specific ideas, but not to call them names.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this source should be used anywhere without attribution. I also don't think we should WP:LABEL people as quacks or things as quackery, and certainly never in Wikipedia's voice. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should be used with attribution.

If reliable sources label people "quacks", then we do so.

Labeling things "quackery" (or something similar, such as "pseudoscience") is often required per FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quackwatch should not be used for biographical information where BLP applies. Quackwatch most certainly can be used in articles about a living person. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• While there may be some merit to limiting the use of SPS for talking about the person, experts can still be used for content about the person's actions and claims. QW and Barrett are such experts. BTW, keep in mind that much of the content at QW is not written by Barrett, so SPS does not apply. Those who appeal for blanket deprecation of QW are pretty clueless about the website and its content. This must be done on a case by case basis, just as with any other website. That is also the consensus in the many RfCs about QW. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a SPS and in any case its expertise is in fake medicine, not biographies. If an actor says they never get colds because they drink orange juice, then (depending on how they feel about them), tendentious editors will change the lead in their article to "actor and quack medicine advocate" and half the article will be about why vitamin C does not prevent colds. Besides, if information about an individual is ignored in mainstream media and reliable published books and articles, it lacks weight for inclusion in a BLP. TFD (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

Dictionary.com[42] A theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot: One popular conspiracy theory accuses environmentalists of sabotage in last year's mine collapse. A belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group: A number of conspiracy theories have already emerged, purporting to explain last week's disappearance of a commercial flight over international waters. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public: Merriam Webster:[43] A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators The Free Dictionary:[44] A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act. The belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied Collins Dictionary:[45] A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely. Lexico (Oxford):[46] A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event. Your Dictionary:[47] Any theory that purports to explain something by ascribing it to collusion among powerful conspirators: a usually dismissive term implying that the theory is far-fetched, paranoid, etc. (Definition is from Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition) Wiktionary:[48] A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. [1960s] (Dismissive, derogatory) Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish. Usage notes: The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form. ...but of course we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so please see: Britannica: [49] Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy... The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories is typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources. Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR):[50] A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Quackwatch as a source on living person articles, is Quackwatch a SPS?

I wasn't aware of the BLPN discussion when I posted this here, but now that I know about it, let be say that BLPN is the wrong place to talk about whether a source is a SPS. I propose that we move this BLPN discussion here, the correct venue, leaving a link. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh who cares. That's bureaucratic silliness. Consensus is not dependent upon venue. GMG^talk 00:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is. Different venues attract editors with different interests and expertise. If you ask a question at BLPNB you get responses from people who are particularly interested in BLP issues. In this case there is nothing specifically related to BLPs to decide. Everyone agrees that if Quackwatch is an SPS then it must be excluded from BLPs, and everybody agrees that if Quackwatch is not an SPS then it is a reliable source that can be used on BLPs. The only question is whether Quackwatch is or is not a self-published source.

If you ask the same question at RSNB you get responses from people who are particularly interested in classifying sources, which is what we are trying to do here. Yes, there is considerable overlap in interests, but you can't ask a question about, say, paid editing at the No Original Research Noticeboard and expect that the answer will be the same as it would be if you posted the question at the Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard where it belongs.

When you put a question in the wrong place, the editors who are best at answering that sort of question tend to miss it. So posting questions in the proper venue is important. There is an essay on this at Wikipedia:Use the right venue which says "If you try to start a discussion in the wrong place, it won't be seen by the right people" --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You were not aware. Now you are aware. It is best to keep centralized discussion centralized. GMG^talk 02:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Centralization is good. I like centralization. I am perfectly willing to move the BLPNB thread here, but for some strange reason I suspect that you or someone else will object. I am NOT willing to close down a thread that is in the proper venue just because someone posted a similar question in an inappropriate venue earlier. I would also add that pretty much all of the previous conversations on this (see my list above) have been here on RSNB. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the venue for discussing RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Far from bureaucratic silliness, there are multiple tangible benefits to discussing things in the places designated for them. I won't attempt to enumerate them here. Oh who cares. For starters, Guy Macon, Slatersteven, and me. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please move the two conversations to the RSNB? I would do it, but I am past my quota for being called a pedophile nazi bedwetter cabal leader for this month, and it is only the 4th... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

winstonchurchill.org

Hello. Is winstonchurchill.org a reliable source for Racial views of Winston Churchill?

It's a piece of polemic,in a website dedicated to preserving his memory. It would be a reliable source for Richard M. Langworth's views on the racial views of Winston Churchill, but a neutral academic textbook or similar would be a better source to use. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I think OK with attribution, but I would.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done I used winstonchurchill.org's full text instead of the quotes used by BBC. Which, since the article is about racial views and not about chemical weapons, is the only needed part. Aryzad (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No, no, no absolutely not. You cannot do that. The discussion didn't mention that the proposal was to use this website to directly substitute its interpretation and analysis for that of the BBC. That is utterly unacceptable - in limited circumstances, this could be used to briefly present this source's opinion, as their opinion, but giving it priority over the opinion of an established, reliable secondary source like the BBC is absolutely WP:UNDUE. Evaluating how to use sources isn't just a matter of RS / non-RS; sources have differing reputations and weights. The BBC is obviously a better source here and needs to be given prominence, with Richard M. Langworth's personal disagreement given a single sentence to present a potentially WP:FRINGE view, if that. You cannot present his view as truth, hardstop, and I'm skeptical that you can even use his views to cast doubt on the BBC, since the difference in reliability and prominence is so stark. Your solution of presenting the quotes in a way that implies Langworth's interpretations without directly saying so is in some respects even worse, since it raises WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues - if Langsworth's position is to be included at all, it should be directly said that it's his opinion (and would have to be accurately represented as a minority position.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Kissyfur

Is this IO9 Top 10 list that claims certain shows don't deserve to be remembered a reliable source regarding critical reception of the series Kissyfur? I don't think barely-known Top 10 lists with negative opinions aren't good sources. 73.123.30.85 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

IO9 is generally reliable, except for it's user-submitted section.

I'd say attribute it as opinion. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)