Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RfC: Sixth Tone

I recently found the Sixth Tone, which is owned by a mainland Chinese media company. Although Chinese media is sources which should be with catious when it comes to political issues in China, should we include the Sixth Tone as a realiable source to discuss Chinese society and culture (especially when there is no other source to fully describe a non-controversial Chinese events such as introducing a Internet personality and Chinese government-accused controversy on Chinese Internet service, since state-run media and popular western media)? Relisted by ToThAc (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC), originally raised by Mariogoods (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Additional considerations: Foreign Policy described Sixth Tone as an "excellent site" and they seem to be concerned with how fake news is spread. The site does seem to need more notablility, though, so I would most likely find a different source first. But as you say, there are not many other sources like this. I am on the fence.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I agree with your opinion. It is hard to find sources which represent Chinese view while not engaging much in propaganda. And while we have The Paper, Sixth Tone uses English language. (I needed more Wikipedians to comment this)Mariogoods (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Everything I've read (includiog articles I used as sources to write the Wikipedia article Sixth Tone as well as the Foreign Policy article) seems to support that Sixth Tone itself is accurate for non-controversial cultural matters. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely not reliable for political topics. No opinion about non-political topics. Anything that is based in mainland China should have the same reliability as the Chinese Government for political topics, which is zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, the Sixth Tone should be used with caution to cite in political topics, especially Chinese political topics. But I don't think we should fully reject its report in political topics. Mariogoods (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Additional consideration Can be used to discuss Chinese society and culture but it needs to be carefully reviewed, attributed, and idealy would only be used to flesh out things described by reliable sources and not for things uncovered by reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. They're actually a really good source, particularly about cultural/social issues (am familiar with some of their journalists). The only reason they'd be deserving of any scrutiny at all is because they're largely based in mainland China. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable for politics as a source controlled by the Shanghai branch of the Communist Party of China. feminist (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing some troubling arguments here in that no response whatsoever has actually addressed their reliability but instead raised issues about where they're geographically based. If you've got reliable sources in the US saying that it's a good source, and you've got no specific-to-them arguments why the sources we already acknowledge are reliable in their reporting are wrong about this, general wariness about Chinese sources is not any kind of basis on which to declare something "non-reliable" on certain topics without any evidence whatsoever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

    My concern is not with where they are based, but the fact that they are published by Shanghai United Media Group, which is literally controlled by members of the Shanghai branch of the CPC. See their webpage. feminist (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sixth Tone. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Grayzone

Was recently questioned about the reliability of Grayzone. Grayzone began as the Grayzone Project of Alternet (see WP:RSP).

Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Thanks again.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey: Grayzone

• Option 2, that about tells me nothing about editorial policy or who writes for it. But looking at a sample of stories it all seems to be the same people some of whom appear to be editors of Greyzone. I think this is an example of some of it is SPS and some of it may not be, thus should be used with care.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: @Slatersteven: You are asking for more information? I believe you told me not to present a case during a previous RfC. I have done my research on Grayzone in the past and have my own opinion. If you wish to discuss this, would it be possible to do so on your talk page? Whatever is more appropriate, just trying to be as transparent as possible.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Any conversation about this matter should be kept in one place. If you wish to address my doubts please do so here so others can see.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What doubts to you have? Just want to reply in a proper manner.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"But looking at a sample of stories it all seems to be the same people some of whom appear to be editors of Greyzone. I think this is an example of some of it is SPS and some of it may not be, thus should be used with care." how much clearer could I have been?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The main issue that Grayzone has with its editorial policy is its political ties. Russia often utilizes Grayzone editors and its founder Max Blumenthal to disseminate Russian propaganda according to StopFake. The founder, Blumenthal, has been a frequent supporter and contributor of RT and Sputnik. Janine di Giovanni has said that "Blumenthal’s views completely flipped" after meeting with RT and that Blumenthal "has attacked not only the White Helmets but also Bana al-Abed, a nine-year-old girl who lived in rebel-held Aleppo and ran a Twitter account with her mother. ... The man ... now accuses anti-Assad Syrians of belonging to al-Qaeda and has claimed that the White Helmets were affiliated with the Islamist group". Hopefully this explains some of their editorial view.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Here is a small analysis by France 24 about the collaboration of the White Helmets with al-Qaeda: [1]. In addition to that, there are dozens of photos of White Helmets members carrying assault rifles. The White Helmets only operate together with Al-Qaeda, and every time Al-Qaeda had to flee an area because of defeat, the White Helmets fled together with them. Xenagoras (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: The allegations you make and try to validate with the France 24 source are described as either "false" or "unproven" in the analysis.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ZiaLater, the France 24 analysis proves my allegations.

White Helmets celebrated the taking of Idlib alongside armed groups. White Helmets helped jihadist groups carry out executions. Three seconds after a public execution in Deera, at least three White Helmets rush towards the body of the victim and carry it away on a stretcher. The crowd around them seems to be celebrating the event. White Helmets were able to carry out rescue missions in ISIS-controlled zones in 2015. White Helmets group admitted in 2017 that it had "assisted members of organisations like the Al Nusra Front and ISIS." Raed Al Saleh, the head of the White Helmets, [said] in 2014 that they mostly carried out their work in "zones that have been liberated or those under the control of ISIS" and in 2017 he added that the only true ‘no-go zone’ in Syria for volunteers are the areas controlled by the [Assad] government. [2]

A document with an Al Nusra logo states, "Charter from armed groups in Aleppo. The groups commit themselves to protect members of the [White Helmets]." Abdullah al-Muhaysini, an Islamic cleric close to Al Nusra said, "Regarding those in the [White Helmets], I don’t call them members of the [White Helmets], I call them the Mujahideen (Islamic fighters) of the [White Helmets]. They are mujahideen – may God accept [their Jihad and our jihad] – I don’t make a distinction between them and the men who are in the trenches and behind the barricades. They’re no different." The White Helmets mutilated the corpses of Assad regime soldiers. Ammar al Selmo, the former head of the Aleppo branch of the White Helmets, now in charge of the Al Bab branch, posed with a sniper rifle next to eight other men, some of whom are also heavily armed. A video shows a man wearing the White Helmets uniform and holding an assault rifle. Another video shows people who are supposed to be members of the White Helmets making V-signs from the back of a pick-up which is full of the corpses of presumed Syrian army soldiers. A White Helmet in his uniform facing the camera says in Arabic, "We collect the bodies of the Shabiha [pro-Assad militia] and throw them in the rubbish." [3]

Xenagoras (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Your mishmash of a response excludes many things. White Helmets celebrated the taking of Idlib alongside armed groups. France 24 confirms that they celebrated with a group of the Army of Conquest, though "it is hard to tell what group these fighters really belong to". Does not specify it was Al Qaeda. White Helmets helped jihadist groups carry out executions. They did not help carry out executions, they were seen taking the bodies away afterward. The background to this situation is certainly unclear. Were they intimidated into taking care of the bodies following the execution? It is hard to say "no" to a group in control when they are performing executions in the streets... Anyways, the White Helmets condemned the event stating "the presence of volunteers in no way shows complicity or encouragement of the execution” and “[w]e condemn unequivocally the murder of civilians no matter who the culprit is". White Helmets group admitted in 2017 that it had "assisted members of organisations like the Al Nusra Front and ISIS. You purposefully exclude the remainder of the sentence. France 24 states "the White Helmets group admitted that it had 'assisted members of organisations like the Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State group', as well as government soldiers and members of foreign militias". The full statment shows that the White Helmets, according to France 24, provide aid to individuals no matter what groups they belong to. This is obvious because they state "volunteers save people on all sides of the conflict – pledging commitment to the principles of 'Humanity, Solidarity, Impartiality' as outlined under international humanitarian law". Is there something wrong with following the international humanitarian law? A document with an Al Nusra logo. This was declared "false" by France 24, with their conclusion saying "The France 24 Observers team wasn’t able to find out when or how the document was originally published, nor to establish its authenticity. There’s an Al Nusra logo but the quote cited by Anna News is incorrect". Abdullah al-Muhaysini, an Islamic cleric close to Al Nusra said. France 24 concludes, "It’s false to say that these two videos prove that Al Nusra considers the White Helmets as “soldiers of the revolution” or Islamist terrorist fighters." Again, an obvious conclusion presented that you ignore. White Helmets mutilated the corpses of Assad regime soldiers France 24 states this is true, while the White Helmets responded to the incident, saying the individual "had participated in an act that violates the organisation’s principles and the vision of the Syria Civil Defence" and was later removed from the organization. A video shows a man wearing the White Helmets uniform and holding an assault rifle. "The FRANCE 24 Observers team could not locate the original footage, and therefore cannot verify its authenticity." Seeing a trend here. You exclude "false" or "unproven" conclusions. “White Helmets members make the V-sign over the corpses of Syrian soldiers” "The FRANCE 24 Observers weren’t able to locate the original footage from this video in order to verify it." Again, another unproven statement... “A White Helmet member admitted to throwing the corpses of Syrian army soldiers onto rubbish heaps” "The FRANCE 24 Observers team wasn’t able to locate the original footage from this video in order to verify it". Finally, another "unproven" statement that you promote as true.

Xenagoras, it is obvious that you a promoting falsehoods in a discussion that is specifically attempting to determine verification, reliability and prevent the exact falsehoods similar to what you present. This is not helpful and you should re-evaluate how you interpret what is published in sources and your purpose in the Wikipedia project.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

In addtion: The Southern Poverty Law Center has written "Blumenthal was not as clear of a spokesperson for Kremlin geopolitics before he appeared at the same RT gala as disgraced former National Security advisor Michael Flynn and the Green Party’s Jill Stein in December 2015. During that occasion, he joined a panel called “Infowar: Will there be a winner” alongside Alt Right anti-Semite Charles Bausman of Russia Insider. A month later, Blumenthal’s pro-Kremlin position crystalized with the founding of the Grayzone Project. ... With other Grayzone contributors, Norton has been criticized for downplaying war crimes and helping publicize false theories about rebels contaminating Damascus’s water supply".----ZiaLater (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 Near as my research turns up, this is basically a gussied-up personal blog for Max Blumenthal and his cadre of close friends; anything which I would trust from this source I would first crosscheck against more reliable sources; and at that point I would just use the better source. I would use attributed quotes per WP:ABOUTSELF but otherwise I would never use such a site for speaking in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 14:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is a useful source of information and has a coverage and perspective that is not always available from other sources. I would attribute anything I used from the site. Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  What makes that perspective trustworthy? How can we know that the site's factual reporting is reliable? --Jayron32 19:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: They are possibly trying to make the "multipolar argument"? If someone today was told that smoking is unhealthy but then saw a 100-year-old smoker who attributes smoking to their longer than average lifespan, who would you trust? Having a perspective different from someone else does not make them reliable.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 3. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. While Max Blumenthal has done some great journalistic work in the past, he's done some dubious work more recently too. We know nothing about Grayzone's editorial standards and it reads like a blog.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3. Looks to be less reliable than Alternet, which is itself unusable. Guy (help!) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3. One could use this to attribute stuff to someone with WP:ABOUTSELF I think. I can't seem to find anything on fact-checking and would need more information on standards, the people behind it and whatnot. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@MikkelJSmith2:, please read the "About" page [4] of The Grayzone for information on their editors, journalists and contributors. They have 2 editors plus 2 reporters plus several dozens of contributors. The Grayzone has published a correction on one of their stories so far, it can be read on the bottom of this article. The 4 editors/reporters all have a distinguished career of very good investigative journalism, including winning awards. Xenagoras (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. Max Blumenthal is not the only journalist associated with this publication. Western state-mouthpieces like the NYT are considered reliable despite their obvious pro-imperialist bias, so why depreciate sources that dispute that narrative? Maybe Grayzone is pushing an agenda sometimes, but so are the western sources that are held up as infallible. LittleChongsto (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. It is a self-published site. Most of its contributors are also regulars with Russian state media (e.g. Anya Pamparil is an RT America presenter) and its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media. An informed glance at any of its articles shows several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking. It is a partisan site which might be usable for the opinions of its contributors if they are noteworthy but not as a source of news or information. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC) (Plumping for 3 over 4, re ZiaLater request BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC))
• Option 3 or 4. I found this article by Daily Beast (In Nicaragua, Torture Is Used to Feed ‘Fake News’) and I think it shows that the accuracy of Grayzone is worrisome. The article explains how The Grayzone Project published an article by "Charles Redvers", who, according to the article, lied about his background and identity. Redvers wrote about a video where 20-year-old Nicaraguan student Dania Valeska, after Sandinista militants besieged a church in Managua where she and two hundred other students sought refuge, was forced to recant, after being arreste, beaten and threatened to be killed. Redvers claimed that Valeska was "later shown to be play-acting", referring to the livestream she published during the attack, where gunshots could be heard and apologized to her mother, thinking she would die. Daily Beast quotes the United Nations as a rebuttal:

The United Nations human rights office disagrees. In an August 29 report, it noted that the threat to life was very real. “The church was subject to shootings by police and pro-Government armed elements for several hours, which led to the killing of two individuals and injured at least 16,” part of a crackdown the office said violated “international human rights law.” (The Nicaraguan government expelled the U.N.’s human rights team following the report’s publication.)

It is worth mentioning that Zero Hedge, which has been found to be unrealible for Wikipedia "due to its propagation of conspiracy theories" and because "it is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated.", often quotes The Grayzone Project: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. In another instance, Grayzone even claimed that Democratic Socialists of America received financement by the United States State Department.[11]

As it has been pointed out, Grayzone is highly opinionated and a self-published site too. Its main contributor, Max Blumenthal, even responded once to an Al Jazeera report mocking victims of the Syrian Civil War. More information regarding Blumenthal's criticism here. Answering to other editors saying that other outlets are "Western state-mouthpieces" or have a "pro-imperialist bias" as a justification, two wrongs don't make a right. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Now that you mentioned Zero Hedge, Alexa Internet has some interesting metrics as well. The Audience Overlap shows that Grayzone readers often frequent Telesur (see WP:RSP) and the recently created Orinoco Tribune, which uses Telesur, Grayzone and Venezuelanalysis (see WP:RSP) as its primary sources. Looking at Grayzone's old domain name, "grayzoneproject.com", Alexa Internet shows that 47.1% of traffic sources came from Venezuelanalysis, 45.3% from Consortium News and 20.8% from MintPress News (see WP:RSP).----ZiaLater (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Edit: Apologies, this is a traffic source comparison and not where Grayzone received their traffic.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, you can see from the MintPress website that Blumenthal is listed under "Frequent Contributors" and the GrayZone Project is listed under "News Partners".----ZiaLater (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4: Option 3: As the user who posted this RfC, I have patiently observed what multiple users have shared. Grayzone is a partner of MintPress News, with MintPress News itself being deprecated. Alexa Internet also shows an overlap with Telesur (also deprecated) and Venezuelanalysis (which was nearly deprecated, but ultimately found unreliable). Multiple users here have also said Grayzone is "less reliable than Alternet", that there are "several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking", that "the accuracy of Grayzone is worrisome" and that we should "never use such a site for speaking in Wikipedia's voice". The allegations shared about Grayzone disseminating information about a possibly coerced and tortured protester in Nicaragua is also unsettling.

Responses arguing for the support of Grayzone did not argue in support of their reliability. One argued that Grayzone is "a perspective that is not always available from other sources", using a multipolar argument unrelated to reliability (different perspective ≠ reliable) that the Southern Poverty Law Center has already covered. Another user argued "Western state-mouthpieces like the NYT are considered reliable ... why depreciate sources that dispute that narrative? Maybe Grayzone is pushing an agenda sometimes, but so are the western sources that are held up as infallible". This user makes an irrelevant conclusion, using established reliable sources as a red herring to target when we are instead trying to determine if Grayzone itself is reliable.

After summarizing what everyone has shared so far, one can see that Grayzone should be deprecated.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Option 3 should be the best for Grayzone as editors have concerns about the reliability, though its usage is limited. Using this option is less prohibitive on the source and should help with any concerns with WP:ABOUTSELF.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

ZiaLater per your analysis and the comments that came after I think I'll have to change my vote to Option 3 it satisfies the concern that I had for WP:ABOUTSELF. I'll have to strikethrough my previous vote and write a new one though - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: judging by "audience overlap" - judging news site X by what other news sites Y or Z their viewers also viewed is an irrelevant conclusion, using other sources as a red herring to target when we are instead trying to determine if Grayzone itself is reliable. Xenagoras (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you do not understand what a red herring is, as I am not using websites in the "audience overlap" to distract from the reliability of Grayzone. The echo chamber within media is existent and it appears so in this case, especially when such websites are promoting one another. So this "audience overlap" is very important. If a blatantly unreliable source is promoting another source that is questionable, that promoted source may be concerning, especially if it is not a vetted source. But we are not judging solely on the overlap here, there appears to be multiple concerns about Grayzone shared by users in this discussion.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per ZiaLater's and Jamez42's excellent analyses. There is no reason to ever cite this on an encyclopedia; this is a self-published blog by a fringe-y figure. To the extent one wants to cite facts, there's no indication that the blog has any indication of consistent fact-checking, use by others, or any of the other requirements we require. To the extent one wants to cite opinions, a citation to the website would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Neutrality^talk 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4, pretty well summed up by User:Jayron32 ("gussied-up personal blog for Max Blumenthal and his cadre of close friends), Guy ("less reliable than Alternet, which is itself unusable"), User:Bobfrombrockley ("its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media"), User:Neutrality ("self-published blog by a fringe-y figure"), and analysis by ZiaLater and User:Jamez42. This "cadre of close friends" do seem to re-publish each other's agenda, and no indication of more reliable authors at GrayZone have been given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Inherits Alternet's general-unreliableness, and what use by others exists is not great - mostly it focuses on Max Blumenthal's arrest, which implies that the site itself has little independent reputation outside of being, essentially, his blog. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 While there are some concerns with this source, there are some contributors who are respected university researchers. I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Which contributor is a respected (or even unrespected) university researcher? I couldn’t find any. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

George Galloway is notable (as former UK MP, not as a researcher) and was interviewed on Brexit in a Grayzone video four days after you asked.^[12] Check out their channel, it's not only Max Blumenthal. –84.46.53.250 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

While Galloway is "notable," I don't think he falls into the category of "respected university researcher." Per his wiki page, he's worked for Press TV and RT, both both considered generally unreliable and frequently described as disinformation outlets that uncritically report conspiracy theories. He's more of a controversial political figure. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's someone from academia: Jeb Sprague. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Even though the term "researcher" was used above, for this sort of thing I would really want a professor instead of an RA. Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 Should not typically be used because it primarily publishes investigative journalism (i.e., primary research) and opinion. Can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or when they publish investigations whose notability is established by being taken up by other sources, e.g., Blumenthal's story about burning aid in Venezuela. Not frequently used, no need for deprecation. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Cmonghost: You do make a good point that it is not widely used on Wikipedia. Maybe we should go the way of Venezuelanalysis in order to be less prohibitive, though editors agree that there may be some inaccuracies here. Deprecation could also cause issues with WP:ABOUTSELF, so I am thinking about moving towards Option 3.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 Here[13] Grayzone says that reports on Chinese organ harvesting "rely without acknowledgement on front groups connected to the far-right Falun Gong cult . . ." Funny, Wikipedia's article Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China sources include NYT, WaPo, CNN, the Economist, and so on. I will note that this is considerably worse than anything seen at certain sources that have been deprecated. However, as a general matter, I don't like deprecating sources, so option 3. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The news source links China Tribunal to ETAC as per its website (the Guardian reports the same thing [14]), ETAC to Epoch Times, then Epoch Times to Falun Gong as per NBC [15] and the New Yorker [16]. The only part of the story that is original to the Grey Zone is taking people from the ETAC website and comparing them to those on the website of the Epoch Times, something which anyone can do with similar results (especially given the Grayzone has linked the relevant parts). The story's only claim that organ transplants were not happening was a link to a Washington Post article to that extent [17] and two words in an embedded tweet. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Jamez42 and ZiaLater. It's basically a blog written by a politically-fringy figure that's closely associated with other deprecated news sites. I think deprecation is the best option to prevent it from being used to spread unreliable information. Any reliable facts it contains likely can be supported with more reliable sources that should be preferred anyway. WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources already provides an exception for a deprecated source to be used in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per Slatersteven, LittleChongsto, Cmonghost, Jayron32. The editor Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist, writer, author, and documentary maker, who has written for numerous publications, including The New York Times, Nation, Guardian, etc. (see his Wiki page). Reviews of his books have critical acclaim in many notable publications, but you wouldn't know it from reading the bulk of his Wikipage, because instead of an accurate summary of the reviews, those reviews have been cherry-picked for the juiciest quotes that are most likely to raise eyebrows and quotes from his harshest critics who call him an antisemite because he doesn't tow the line of being pro-Israel, and in Western politics it is criminal to criticize Israel. He probably agrees with the U.N. that Israel should be charged with war crimes. Let's see what Time of Israel--a publication I often see used as WP:RS--has to say about the U.N.'s decision to proceed with war crimes:

"Foreign Ministry vows Jerusalem ‘will not cooperate with this mockery,’ says ‘moral majority’ of states did not vote in favor of measure".

So if Blumenthal agrees with the U.N., apparently he is an immoral Self-hating Jew.

Some of the things Blumenthal writes about are shocking precisely because they are true, and the mainstream media will not share it. Like the fact that Maduro's troops did not burn the U.S. "aid" that was supposed to pass through the U.S. economic blockade, which is what nearly all the U.S. media said and never retracted. But Blumenthal showed footage that in fact the "peaceful" pro-Guaido activists were throwing Molotov cocktails that probably set the trucks on fire. Although the U.S. media got it wrong, they are not the "fake news" in this case, it's entities like TeleSUR that got it right that are liars and conspiracy theorists.

And indeed, many of the things Blumenthal says do challenge the corporate media's portrayal of events--which is why his award winning work is taken so seriously. He does not tow the line of the establishment, especially by not being a Zionist. Instead, he is labelled an "anti-semite" Jew by Zionists like Alan Dershowitz, Rabbi Marvin Hier, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.[18]. When a writer brushes up against the establishment by exposing certain things they are not supposed to, the "emperor's lapdog"--the establishment corporate media--is not going to like the experience. (Noam Chomsky) Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told:

"If these institutions [media] condemn us, that's pretty good reason to think we are doing the right thing."

-Chomsky

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone. — Newslinger talk 10:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

+1, I fondly recall waiting for 30 days after the last comment before having fun with NAC on c:+m:. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 2 -- I don't think I've ever cited Grayzone, but as the perspective is an outlier, I would attribute. (I assume someone has mentioned their "just let him talk" interview with Maduro.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 per the above analyses. On the founder (Blumenthal), it should be noted that the sources they cite are only a selection and multiple others haven’t been mentioned (e.g. see Max Blumenthal#Syria). Additionally, many of the arguments being used to support 1 or 2 for this source are fallacious, some on more than one level. For instance, the case described above as an irrelevant conclusion is also a tu quoque fallacy (which unfortunately is depressingly common in this context), and includes at least a couple of others as well. Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to a couple of the comments below: even if they sometimes publish reliable information, we as editors can't actually identify it as such until it's been confirmed by more reliable sources. Otherwise, it will be mixed in with unreliable information, and we don't have any way to tell them apart. In fact, for the Venezuela example, the original article also said the trucks were part of "the [US] coup against Venezuela", uses scare quotes (twice) for the term "humanitarian aid", and strongly suggests that the purpose of sending the aid involved "generating waves of destabilizing violence" - and all that is from just the first two paragraphs. Also, "scooping" or otherwise being first to publish something is not very relevant to a NOTNEWS encyclopedia; if the information is true, then it will be confirmed by more reliable sources in short order. Probably within days or even hours, especially since the implication is that there was another source being scooped, meaning that they were about to publish it themselves. Sunrise (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 In additional all the above, Blumenthal has fabricated sources in the past and then claimed that the academic in question was intimidated into lying by a writer from The Atlantic [19]. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Saying that the Grayzone is not an RS because it has been quoted by non-RSes seems something of a problematic argument - non-RSes quote from RSes all the time, twitter accounts quote from BBC reports for example. The argument that the Grayzone should be deprecated because of its audience seems similarly dubious.

Grayzone is also a long way from one member of the general public's blog. Its masthead includes Max Blumenthal who has written for The New York Times RSP, The Nation RSP, Al Jazeera English RSP, and The Daily BeastRSP, winning various awards; Ben Norton who has written for The Intercept RSP including a piece alongside Glenn Greenwald (yep, the same one person who published the Snowden revelations); Aaron Maté who writes for The Nation RSP and is a regular contributor to The Hill RSP; and Anya Parampil. It also hosts pieces from guest contributors. The style of their content strikes me as about as far away from a blog as it could possibly get but that's in the eye of the beholder.

The Grayzone also covers stories like the Burning Aid one [20] which are later picked up by major newspapers [21].

While I will maintain that these are serious journalist using sources like video footage to shine a light of international affairs from an angle not normally seen you can argue against its use in Wikipedia. Just please for the love of logic do so for what they are and what they publish not because a blog quotes them from time to time and their audience might also read unreliable sources. El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• 1) Writing op-eds for reliable sources doesn't imbue journalistic reliability on a writer. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 because the two editors Norton and Blumenthal plus the two reporters Mate and Parampil plus several contributors have distinguished careers in investigative journalism and some of them won journalism awards for their work. The Grayzone conducts reporting on location in foreign countries and also publishes corrections like here. The Grayzone is independent from political or financial outside influence. Its independence allows it to get unique journalistic access to places and people, enabling it to have scoops. It is a valuable addition to the journalistic spectrum. Xenagoras (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4', or Option 3 at absolute best. Fringy as hell. Edit:' strike Option 3, per further evidence on this page. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Regarding the burning aid in Venezuela, the Grayzone has been credited by Glenn Greenwald with scooping the New York Times:

  While the NYT’s article and video are perfectly good and necessary journalism, the credit they are implicitly claiming for themselves for exposing this lie is totally undeserved. That’s because independent journalists – the kind who question rather than mindlessly repeat government claims and are therefore mocked and marginalized and kept off mainstream television – used exactly this same evidence on the day of the incident to debunk the lies being told by Rubio, Pompeo, Bolton and CNN. On February 24, the day the lie spread, Max Blumenthal wrote from Venezuela, on the independent reporting Grayzone site, that “the claim was absurd on its face,” ...He compiled substantial evidence strongly suggesting that the trucks were set ablaze by anti-Maduro protesters, including Bloomberg video showing them using Molotov cocktails, to express serious doubts about the mainstream narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Greenwald is not crediting Blumenthal for giving the NYT the scoop, he is saying that Blumenthal was one of the first to share that information about the burning aid trucks, not the NYT. This does not deal with the overall reliability and WP:Fringe issues. There are better sources to use, especially with the major controversy and contention surrounding the burning of aid trucks, the NYT is more reliable than Grayzone in this case.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: (reasoning to follow)     ←   ZScarpia   17:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2: I generally trust people who've been vetted by The New York Times and the LA Times, both of which Max Blumenthal has written for. But since The Grey Zone is a startup organization without much of a track record (except for Blumenthal's), I wouldn't trust it as much as I do with NYT or LAT, hence I'm vacillating between 1 and 2. -Zanhe (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Vetted by The New York Times? They describe Blumenthal as "a senior writer for Alternet and author" in their most recent description. Reminder: Grayzone originated on Alternet, with Alternet being recognized as being generally unreliable (Option 3) per WP:RSP. Could you provide any sources of the vetting you are talking about?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 as the GrayZone is more like Breitbart, with sensational scoops of questionable accuracy rather than actual news. There have been quite a few advocacy of fringe theories on the site and there is no need to use it on Wikipedia. It's not a news website, but a personal blog and their claimed "journalism" has been criticised by many on the left as propaganda, inaccurate, conspiracy theories and fake news.

1. On Gutter Journalism and Purported “Anti-Imperialism”, Gilbert Achcar in New Politics (magazine) ...One example of pro-Putin, pro-Assad “left-wing” propaganda combined with gutter journalism is...Another example is Grayzone, a website founded by a particularly versatile character named Max Blumenthal. These websites have in common the habit of demonizing all left-wing critics of Putin and the likes of Assad by describing them as “agents of imperialism” or some equivalent. The main “target market” assigned to them is naturally the left-wing readership. This implies that they must strive not only to convince their readers of the virtues of Moscow and its clients by a resort to fake “left-wing” and “anti-imperialist” arguments, but also and most importantly to discredit their left-wing critics. In doing so, they resort to the oldest trick of the slandering profession: outright lies.
2. Are purveyors of fake news endangering the lives of real journalists? In Pulse Media, written by Mathew Foresta Blumenthal and Rubinstein’s outrageous conduct cannot be written off as mere conspiracy mongering or trolling. A retraction is not enough. Dangerous lies and fake news cannot be allowed to run amok.
3. Stand from the Left: No to Chinese Authoritarianism, No to "Yellow Peril" by Promise Li on DSA website These problematic views are fueled by a disinformation campaign from right-wing outlets, like the Grayzone, that pose as being ‘anti-imperialist,’ with whole mass-led movements reduced to the positions of their cherrypicked individuals and organizations– thus smearing millions of protestors, from Hong Kong to Xinjiang, as U.S.-backed fascists and imperialists.
4. Against the GrayZone Slanders by Dan La Botz in New Politics (magazine) The GrayZone attack is based on a conspiracy theory, the notion that the omniscient and omnipotent State Department and other U.S. government agencies finance and control the most important organizations and institutions on the American left with the goal of furthering regime change in other countries.
5. Junket journalism in the shadow of genocide by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad in Aljazeera Opinion ...the emergence of a new form of junket journalism that serves as a global laundering service for blood-splattered autocrats. In recent months, several of the same figures have turned up in capitals from Caracas to Managua whitewashing mass repression; they have dismissed Uighur concentration camps in Xinjiang, slandered protesters in Hong Kong; and they all somehow find Vladimir Putin unimpeachable.

Given the multiple criticisms regarding accuracy, I believe this is not a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. It's model is akin to Breitbart which engages in sensational "scoops" and is more of an advocacy outlet with the intention to provoke.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@DreamLinker: Using the Democratic Socialists of America as a WP:RS to gauge the political stance of Blumenthal (who is by any standards of the left-wing), or the extreme pro-interventionist (Muhammad) Idrees Ahmad, is not a good basis for your argument. Ahmad himself has been verified to have engaged in fact-free polemics, including describing the self-christened socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriya under Gaddafi as "fascist": In May 2016, he argued that in Libya, a “popular revolution” against a “fascist” who was slaughtering his own people had taken place, and that it was “West-centric” to argue that the reason Gaddafi fell was because of intervention by France, the UK and the US. This stance has been echoed by many others including Ayoub, who has argued that to observe that Libya was destroyed “utterly strip[s] Libyans of agency” and described Libya as a “paradise” compared to Syria. This interpretation of events in Libya has been thoroughly disproved by several sources including a report by the UK Foreign Affairs Committee that is discussed in greater detail below.

In short, using the pejorative "fascist" to describe any form of authoritarianism / opposition that one dislikes, as Ahmad has done, should thoroughly discredit that person's credibility as a WP:RS. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 or at best 3 per DreamLinker and ZiaLater. Any story that's broken by Grayzone would need to be independently checked for it to be usable. Any story not broken by Grayzone should be cited to the original source. Fringy nature of the website means that opinions are unlikely to be due weight. buidhe 16:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. This is not a ban, as discussed at WP:DEPRECATE, but based on the extensive analysis summarized above this is not a source that should be used in nearly any context. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Somewhere between Option 1 and Option 2. Grayzone journalists have had respectable careers elsewhere before joining this news platform, and they're one of the fewer number of outfits still trying to do investigative work. Furthermore, the notion that a news outlet should be banned or disregarded because it isn't sufficiently anti-Russian or anti-Putin, is dystopian and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's project as an international encyclopedia. Since the Grayzone sometimes has a strident editorial line, there are cases where it should be used with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: no one is proposing deprecating this source because of its point of view. Its reliability is under discussion. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 Agree with DreamLinker's analysis. It seems a lot like a propaganda outlet, and I see very little evidence of real editorial oversight or fact checking, compounded by the fact that Max Blumenthal is the founder, editor in chief, and author of about 20% of their articles. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Absolutely factual reporting. If you consider any bias its editor, Max Blumenthal, may have, you should consider the editorial choices of those involved in The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, etc.. Why aren't these also questioned? If I may address why, it's because these newspapers existed even before Wikipedia, so it's based on historical reasons instead of practical or factual reasons, or any concern related to reliability. If you have any concern on The Grayzone supposedly being financially supported by Russia and Venezuela, if that's even true, why is that any different from sources supported by United States? It's been known for some time that the United States has a propaganda machine, and that phenomenon was even addressed by Noam Chomsky. However, since the US has historically oppressed peoples of the world, through illegal regime changes around the globe, and financial and military support to not only extreme right-wing fascistic governments, but also terrorist organizations, a different narrative coming from the harmed countries may be needed. If people consider a news source "biased" because it disputes American imperialism and cultural hegemony over the world facts, they are also biased, but siding with a nation that has been, as History shows, militarily and economically oppressive. So, if a news source present facts and also a political analysis considering the dangers of Western imperialism, representing a voice for the oppressed nations, I consider that news source not only absolutely factual, but absolutely necessary considering the geopolitical situation of our world. --Marx.FelipeForte (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC) — Marx.FelipeForte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 1 in agreement with what FelipeForte said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: @Snooganssnoogans: @Bobfrombrockley: @Jamez42: @Aquillion: @Cmonghost: @David Tornheim: @Sunrise: @Zanhe: @Buidhe: @Darouet: @AmbivalentUnequivocality:

Could you try to determine a single option if possible? This might help the closing user with where consensus lies. Also, if you did not provide an explanation, that would be helpful as well. It seems that this RfC has been quite extensive, so your opinion matters! Thank you!----ZiaLater (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Done.BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I would think of the choice alone as really being a matter of vote count rather than argument, thus not having much effect on the outcome unless new arguments are also added at the same time. That said, it may be relevant to note that option 4 is already a de facto support for option 3 (being the same option with additional provisions included). Sunrise (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sunrise: I understand this and figured to notify everyone who was undecided between two options. Making a single decision is especially important for users who chose Options 1-2 or 2-3, but I wanted to give the opportunity of an update to everyone if they wished to do so.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per ZiaLater and Jamez42. Serious concerns about editorial oversight and factual accuracy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible advocacy?

Just wanted to leave a notice about the possiblility that advocacy has been occurring regarding Blumenthal on Wikipedia. Here is a tweet by Blumenthal calling attention to his Wikipedia article stating it has been smeared by a user. Blumenthal states, "Jimmy Wales has legitimized this character and powerful admins back him as well", concluding that "Wikipedia is a bulletin board for pro-war elite interests". I opened a peer review to help address any concerns that Blumenthal might have and to broaden the number of users invovled in the article. Any other recommendations to abide by WP:BLP are greatly appreciated.

Twitter user Riothero, who is recognized as Tellectualin (formerly Riothero) on Wikipedia, replied to Blumenthal's tweet:

"I tell you, ZiaLater (the Wikipedia editor lower on the list) is also a huge douchebag. These people have time on their hands, and will wait everyone out until their edits stick!"

I take pride in my impartiality when it comes to my edits, so personal attacks like this hurt. I have never and never will be involved with special interests on Wikipedia. If I do have to name an interest regarding the project, it is the interest of maintaining reliable sources and information on the project. This interest is the entire reason this RfC was created in the first place! Encounters with Grayzone began to increase and so a question was brought here in order to get help from other users.

So, thank you to everyone who has helped with determining the reliability of Grayzone and thank you for staying away from personal attacks, focusing on the task at hand instead of each other.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the "possible advocacy" you mention for Blumenthal or against him? Have you read the policy sections WP:Respect privacy and WP:outing? ("The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment".) Regarding edits on Blumenthal's page, I can't see that any of the current content was provided by Tellectualin. The leading editor is on 37.3% and you are second with 7.5%. Are there specific edits you are concerned about? Burrobert (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: This vague notification is becuase there is a potential for advocacy both for and against Blumenthal. This is why I created an impartial peer review to observe recent edits and to improve the article's quality. As for privacy and outing, I am well informed about these policies and I have fully complied with them.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone. — Newslinger talk 10:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?

Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?

- MrX 🖋 16:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

For background, see the discussion above: #Endless problems on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

---

• Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has it listed as a general reliable source. Not sure why subject matters after fact checking has been verified and accepted by a project.--WillC 17:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Sources can have different levels of reliability in different subject areas. See WP:RSCONTEXT for more details. The scope of WP:A/S is musical topics, not general political topics. — Newslinger talk 17:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  RSCONTENT says they may, it doesn't say they are defacto unreliable for that context.--WillC 17:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  It's not de facto reliable for politics, either. This RfC will determine what the consensus is. — Newslinger talk 17:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  That I won't argue, but its use is to cover the publication of articles and the negativity of these articles. Not for an actual factual statement regarding politics. Since we are discussing context, the manner in which it is being used is relevant.--WillC 18:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• No - Their political coverage is superficial, and very high on opinion and low on fact. They routinely quote mine other sources, add a bit of snarky commentary, and call it journalism.[22][23] Most of their politics content is written by Shane Ryan, who seems to be a Bernie Sanders devotee and critic of mainstream media.[24][25][26][27][28]. Paste's coverage of politics is on par with The Root, (defunct)Splinter News, and Salon (the later of which Shane Ryan previously wrote for)[29]. - MrX 🖋 17:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • None of that disqualifies Ryan or the source per WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSORG.--WillC 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe it does, and I've listed several examples to indicate why it should not be used as a source for politics content.- MrX 🖋
      • Well this is where you are going to need to list that. Because Ryan being a fan of any politician doesn't make the source less reliable nor does being involved in opinion content. If that was the case, there would be no reliable sources.--WillC 04:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No, and people saying it is are being silly. It's a specialist source, and that speciality isn't politics. Advocates trying to rules-lawyer RS guidance to push it through have fundamentally misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, per the comment of MrX. I did not find discussion on Splinter or Root, but there was some on Salon, with no consensus achieved, and a recommendation for adding attributions to its statements. If their politics content is written by the same person/people, then they should have the same treatment. Biased sources should not summarily be prohibited – not least because following such a guideline to a T would ban even so-called RS in politics such as CNN, (MS)NBC and ABC, given that they are for-profit entities with billion-dollar-scale political interests. Permit the political coverage of Paste Magazine, but attribute it as progressive or leftist in citations if such is the general sentiment of editors. As such, the discussion on this should probably not center around bias, but whether it can be trusted to be factual – and the fact that they have been deemed RS in other topics tells me they shouldn't be assumed without evidence to be untruthful. Selvydra (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• No. It should not be used for factual statements. There's nothing to indicate it has a reputation for fact-checking and reputable reporting in politics. It may be used for attributed statements if they meet WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. It's already reliable for other articles on Wikipedia, thus I don't think it would publish falsehoods in other topics. It would be idiotic for their reputation for them to do that -- especially for a source that's been cited by WaPo, NYT and other RS. When looking at their politics page, I've seen similar analyses in different sources. Just with a quick look this article [30] has subject matter that's been featured in many news articles by RS in the past few weeks. Another example would be this [31], I've read similar pieces/arguments in the Hill. So, I don't think that we should paint the source with a big brush due to bias -- even if the tone of some articles is snarky at times (which I don't particularly like). And as for bias, we've had sources with bias used on the site. So, in the case of bias, Paste should probably be attributed. So, in other words, the same conclusion that was given for Salon. I think that would be fair for consistency too. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: Obviously I find it reliable. Apart from Albums finding it reliable, which means that project has established credibility through factual accuracy, I'd like to point out a couple of things about the site. Particularly that CNN featured it during headlines and as per policy "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them" which displays the viewpoint by CNN regarding Paste as a credible organization to lend time. Chicago Tribune has cited it and even listed it among the best magazines. The book American Directory of Writer's Guidelines has a section regarding the Paste editing behavior, including editorial content, fact-checking, and reliability. Paste was named "Magazine of the Year" by the PLUG Independent Music Awards in 2006, 2007 and 2008. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, Paste was nominated for a National Magazine Award in the category of General Excellence. Though they are minor awards, the organization is notable enough for an article. Washington Post, New York Post, and The Guardian have all covered Paste. To "reflect established views of sources" seems to be that Paste has a good reputation among sources or at least a reputable magazine. In fact, Guardian has employed Hari Ziyad for content and he has worked for Paste as well. Shane Ryan also writes for Paste and is the subject of the citation at stake. He is a New York Times bestselling author and written for ESPN The Magazine and Golf Digest in addition to Paste. These are just a little bit of the information I found through a simple google search. As for context regarding source, it appears Paste is moving beyond just music and film now as it has an official section for politics. Which means determining if it is fitting for this material. The policy says it may not be reliable but not that is automatically. I suggest the above material makes it reliable as is for all topics due to established factual accuracy as a generally reliable source in addition to other sources recognizing it and its editors as having credibility and reliability to do material of their own. Like before, the goal for RS is to reflect the views of the source. I feel the views regarding Paste and its editors is positive.--WillC 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Wrestlinglover, you forgot to link to the Albums page. Here's the link : Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes as per the coverage of it in other reliable sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, reasonable politics-related WP:USEBYOTHERS across the political spectrum in eg. Vanity Fair, Vox, Vox again, New York Times, Fox News, The Colorado Independent, Snopes, The New Yorker, The Guardian. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• I checked five of those sources: four (N Yorker, Guardian, Vox x2) do not cite Paste magazine for factual statements, but for explicitly partisan punditry (in the same way that those sources might cite op-eds from the Daily Wire and Breitbart as a reflection of where conservatives stand on a topic). One (NYT) cited Paste for its reporting, but that was for its arts coverage.[32] Here are the ways in which the four sources cite Paste: "the Chapo Trap House hosts have been lauded by Paste magazine as the “vulgar, brilliant demigods of the new progressive left”"[33], "Paste magazine labelled “Chapo Trap House” the “vulgar, brilliant demigods of the new progressive left.”"[34], " “This is classic Booker — stand out front on feel-good social issues, regardless of his past positions, and align with big money everywhere else,” wrote Walter Bragman at Paste Magazine."[35] and ""The Democratic establishment doesn’t want a Democrat as president – it specifically wants Hillary Clinton as president," writes Brogan Morris in Paste Magazine."[36] This is not a RS outside of its arts coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  When looking at the sources posted by Aquillion, three of them that you didn't mention cite Paste for its political coverage : [37], [38] and [39]. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• This source quotes a statement made by a politician to Paste (which RS also do with non-RS).[40] The Snopes piece does not cite Paste for factual information, it cites Paste because a person that they were fact-checking pointed them to a Paste article and they cite the website as part of a genesis of an unfounded conspiracy theory (just like they would with non-RS).[41] The Fox News is by the hack Brian Flood in Fox News's "entertainment" section which is solely devoted to misleading smears about other nets outlets. So, in short, the only RS that has cited Paste for its politics reporting is a piece by Fox News (an outlet that I've for years argued is not a RS, it's also an outlet that would not hesitate citing all kinds of non-RS from our RS perennial list) attacking CNN.[42] And the piece is petty as hell. CNN failed to mention that university students in the DC area who attended a Democratic primary townhall had also interned with liberal political groups? What is this: "Abena McAllister, who was described by Blitzer as “active in Maryland Democrat Party,” was listed by CNN’s chyron as a “mother of two.” However, she is apparently the chair of the Charles County Democratic Central Committee." It's exemplary of the kind of petty BS that Paste is used for on the Media bias against Bernie Sanders page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  I skimmed the 2nd one so I missed that, sorry. As for the first of those, I will have to disagree that still seems fine to me. As for the third one, Fox News' website is RS, so I don't see why Paste wouldn't be used, but this does re-affirm my belief -- which I mentioned above -- that Paste should be attributed though due to its bias (just like Salon). MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• " partisan punditry" = "partisan expert analysis". The point of RS is to establish to reputation of a source against secondary sources. Established sources crediting Paste in any way that is positive suggests they have a positive reputation regarding Paste which establishes credibility and reliability.--WillC 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• RS frequently cite the likes of the Daily Stormer, Breitbart News, Daily Wire, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars. Simply being cited is not what WP:USEBYOTHERS is about. It's about being cited for statements of fact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• It clearly states the goal: "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." The problem with that argument is that the secondary sources list them with a negative reputation. These list Paste with a positive reputation. That is what makes one credible and the other just a child screaming into a bag.--WillC 05:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• None of the sources, with the exception of one NYT piece on Paste's arts coverage and a Fox News piece, cite Paste in a positive way. I don't understand your need to not budge an inch on anything. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have to when you don't read. Literally Vanity Fair, Vox, Vox again, New York Times, Fox News, The Colorado Independent, Snopes, The New Yorker, and The Guardian all referenced Paste in positive light, either using it as a factual source or as a source for opinions. None treated Paste as a bad source or pushed negativity towards it when referenced.--WillC 17:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• If that's your standard for positive light, then the Daily Stormer, Breitbart News, Daily Wire, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars have also been cited in a positive way in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Have they? And sources?--WillC 21:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Per this standard, here are some "positive" USEBYOTHERS for Breitbart:[43][44][45][46]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• No Couldn't find a corrections page on their site. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Adoring nanny, why would that disqualify their reliability? Genuinely curious, since some sources only correct below the article and they're reliable (i.e. they don't have a corrections page). MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Do they do that? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I was just asking you a question regarding that point. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• No Paste Magazine is only an RS for music, not for politics. Others have correctly noted that their news coverage consists of a small handful of opinionated writers. For an outside opinion, I see that MediaBiasFactCheck also notes they are left-biased: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/paste-magazine/ --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A bias doesn't negate reliability per WP:BIASED--WillC 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing way too much conflation of bias and opinionatedness with unreliability. One does not automatically beget the other. If it did, CNN, MSNBC and Fox wouldn't be RS either (AT&T, Comcast and Fox Corp. have tremendous political interests – the difference is they purport themselves to be unbiased, while most leftist sites do not claim such). Selvydra (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Which is really upsetting because it is an attempt to discredit in such an invalid way while remaining ignorant to arguments against such position. It is a very disingenuous position that is brought on by an editors own inherent bias. All media sources have a bias. To claim bias that does not impact its factual capabilities as reason to deny reliability of a source, would basically level all of Wikipedia's ability to source statements. Even scholarly sources maintain biases simply by covering specific subjects.--WillC 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      • You two are right that the outlet could still be given a “reliable but biased” rating; the issue is that it also has no reputation for reliability in politics coverage, as numerous others have noted.MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

        The thing though is that as I mentioned above it was cited for its political coverage by Fox News (the reliable Fox News stuff not the Hannitys and whatnot) and another source MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  MaximumIdeas, we don't use mediabias/fact check, it's considered unreliable. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • MikkelJSmith, I’ve seen it cited in these discussions before. I know it’s not the end-all-be-all, but it seems to be an important voice and they have a staff of researchers looking into the outlets. Was there a formal decision I missed here that their ratings should not be mentioned at all? If so, please let me know. MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

    MaximumIdeas, I used to cite it too, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it's unreliable MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

    • Thank you. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No Doesn’t appear to have any credibility in the field of politics, especially in regards to factual reporting or journalism. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No Not it's area of expertise. And of course it's possible to be reliable for one thing but not another. I might count as an "expert" in my professional field (where I have educational credentials and experience) but am no more than an uninformed layperson in plenty of others. Publications are the same way. Current American politics is not exactly a niche field lacking in sources; no need to stretch to include these out-of-scope resources. If anything, we should be significantly more restrictive on which sources we use in this area, as it is one where disinformation is rampant and reliable sources are plentiful.Just a Rube (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – Paste is a generally reliable source. If they drift too far outside their area of expertise, attribution is enough of a caveat to fix that. Of course, other sources focused on politics should have precedence. However, there is no need to consider Paste anything other than a reliable source. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – Paste is a generally reliable source for politics. Attribution will suffice where opinion is involved. Burrobert (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes (with attribution)- seems to be reliable, although it clearly has some bias. It also won an award from the Chicago Tribune and had a weekly segment on CNN (The self-proclaimed "Most Trusted Name in News"). Question for @MrX:- If I start a discussion on Salon will you support deprecation since you believe Paste is on par with Salon? Here is an article from Politico discussing how Salon has really gone downhill in recent years [47]. Just curious to know where you stand since I may start an RFC at some point.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No, and I'm not supporting deprecation of Paste either. - MrX 🖋 21:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The New Republic

Which option best describes The New Republic?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2: I am not seeing why this is unreliable, what am I missing?Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Before we proceed - What is the reason for this RFC? - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Furthermore - speedy close as malformed RFC, started with no context for question - someone please? - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree we need to stop these RfC's that are eliminating all WP:RS that is critical of U.S. regime change efforts in Venezuela. The same group of editors who dominate the Venezuela pages (e.g. [48]) have been eliminating these sources one-by-one with their !iVotes and often citing a connection to or supportive views of Maduro, e.g. Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR),TeleSUR, Venezuelanalysis, Grayzone, HispanTV. I have good reason to believe this editor wants the New Republic eliminated to make it easier to delete material that is unfavorable to Juan Guaido who he supported in this this edit war here. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Tornheim, please have a close look at WP:EDITCOUNTITIS (an argument based on that is unlikely to be sound). I know you read the discussions of how my editcount is inflated by the way I edit, the amount of cleanup I do, and the amount of intra-article copying and moving of text I was the one to do, after discussion. I certainly know you know that I no longer participate in those articles (precisely because of false examples of editors succumbing to EDITCOUNTITIS to attempt to discredit my editing, when I was the one doing all of the cleanup and consolidating between articles). I do follow RSN, and I will continue to participate here when I see marginal and state-sponsored sources being used inappropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The list includes:

Centre for Economic and Policy Research CEPR - RfC still running

Telesur deprecated in 2019

Grayzone - RfC still running

MintPress News deprecated in 2019

Venezuelanalysis deprecated in 2019

Burrobert (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a tired and dumb argument about rfc's here. What is the point of this noticeboard if not to discuss reliable sources? If a source is debated then a discussion and survey is great, and if the result is a firm consensus that should set a precedent with that source lest something changes ie: new owners, new editorial staff etc. We save a lot of time/repetitive debates/edit wars etc by having a list of reliable sources. The debates been had, move on. I personally think these endless and inevitably frivolous oppositions to rfc's are disruptive. Bacondrum (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum, the primary point of this noticeboard is to discuss reliable sources in the WP:RSCONTEXT of a particular statement in a particular article. This is different from having general discussions about whether a publication should be near-banned from use in any article for any statement. We occasionally need those general discussions, but we don't need them nearly as often as they're happening, and we don't want them when people might reasonably suspect that the goal is to ban the source generally without having to confess that you're trying to get it removed from a single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Options 1 or 2. It should be attributed for controversial claims or for things that other RS have not covered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Close as malformed RfC. The original poster has offered no evidence one way or the other. This constant series of RfCs trying to anoint or condemn sources without context needs to stop. The long term effect is for those with one POV to vote sources with opposing POVs "off the island". This is a bad practice and does not help make better articles. Springee (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• In this case, UNDUE. As with all matters of RS, one size does not fit all, and reliability of a source depends on the text being sourced. In this case, the author is Mark Weisbrot, a chavismo cheerleader, who has not evidenced fact checking or journalistic principles wrt Venezuela, and has been shown to be factually wrong multiple times. I can't fit that into the "Options" formulation above, but Mark Weisbrot is highly biased on Venezuela, and inserting opinions from him is UNDUE. I suggest those who want to insert anything said by Weisbrot should try to find similar at NYT, WaPO, or any of the other left-leaning mainstream media. I have not formed an opinion on The New Republic in general, but if it is like other sources that feature(d) Weisbrot's work (e.g.; The Huffington Post), we can look at how we rate their reliability, and the reliability of their contributors. We perhaps have the same situation here-- a source that demonstrates little journalistic concern about contributor opinion it publishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Option 2, based on information below from User:Alcibiades979 and User:MaximumIdeas, as well as the examples of fringe reporting from User:Aquillion, then we would place New Republic similarly to how we place National Review. Separately the Weisbrot-authored opinion would be UNDUE and Option 3 according the scheme above. So, that yields Option 2 or 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we please discus the source, and not each other?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please provide an example of what text is being proposed based on this source and at what article? In general, looking at the Weisbrot-authored article, an examination of all of the preposterous positions and demonstrably false claims (compared to more reliable sources) that it advances would be too lengthy to be of use here. What are the specifics so that DUE WEIGHT can be evaluated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a significant number of us have been fearing this sort of source-silencing for a long time. I certainly was worried, with Wikipedia being as omnipresent as a source of information, that there were nowhere near enough protections in place to keep it from being used by schemers and agendists for profit and power. Now we see a part of it happening here.

No. The New Republic is a good source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian I'm just pinging you to remind you to vote for which option you think is best. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Option 1. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 The New Republic had a tumultuous time in the 2010s, but most of the coverage that I can find of it criticizes the publication's business and marketing decisions, not so much their actual journalistic quality [49] [50]. They've had managerial troubles, and our article for them documents a number of controversies involving individual writers and editors, but as of this year CJR is still treating them like a leading American news publication, even if they're not what they were in the 20th century. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that very few media outlets have survived the fake news bombardment unscathed (which is an utter shame). Yes, the NR has had its share of controversies, but here's the thing: they always end up being on the right side of a news story, and they have survived crises that would have detonated other news agencies. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that this is less due to fake news and more due to the general influence of the internet on news media. TNRs trajectory over the past decade has mirrored Newsweek to an extent, with the caveat that TNR appears to have reversed some of their more disastrous decisions made 2014–2016 and now have new editorial leadership which seems to be less interested in picking up the clickbait market, whereas Newsweek took the full plunge._signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Contributor opinion (eg Weisbrot) is still distinguished from the source in which it is published (eg Huffington Post as a different example). To evaluate the contributor in this case, versus The New Republic in general, we still need to know what the proposed text is. In general, Weisbrot's writing often has demonstrable factual errors, but as a chavismo cheerleader, he is a good source on what Maduro/Chavez believe/state/think/do. Specifics, please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 A lot of New Republic pieces read like opinion pieces. For example, as of right now on their home page, we have "A Unified Theory of the Trumps' Creepy Aesthetic"[51] which talks about Trump's "smirking melon-ball head", "impossibly accursed foods", and an aesthetic that is "always so shitty". I also couldn't find a corrections page on their site but did notice that they said corrections could be submitted as letters to the editor, which seems a little weird, but does also show some interest in correcting errors. So I can't exactly say that they are unreliable, but I can't really say they are reliable, either. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @David Gerard:@Springee: I'm a little confused regarding the malformation of the RfC, since from what I gather RfCs have to be started in a neutral manner, without including own's positions.

As it was suggested before, the source was recently added to the United States involvement in regime change article, although I deeply regret that David Tornheim used their comment to attack and accuse me and other editors about unrelated topics. Browsing through the noticeboard's archives, it seems that the outlet's reliability has not been discussed in the past, so I want to know the community's position. Media Bias/Fact Check rates New Republic as having a left bias based on story selection and editorial positions that frequently favor the left. and high factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record., which is why I think attribution is needed and Option 2 best describes the outlet, but I've seen we don't depend on Media Bias/Fact Check to determine source reliability, another reason why I thought the RfC was the best option.

If needed, I can solve this issue, reopen the request for comment or close it, depending on the best option. Once again, many thanks in advance. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, MediaBiasCheck is considered unreliable on wikipedia. See [52] - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Not an attack. Everything I stated here is completely verifiable and has been observed by other editors in this RfC and elsewhere about the needless elimination of sources with these unnecessary WP:RfC's. These sources cover things outside the scope of the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis.

If you truly believe that what I stated above has no legitimacy, maybe it is best we take it to WP:AN/I. Would that be better venue for you? I am happy to open up a section there about my concerns. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, take it to ANI or user talk pages, we do not discuss users here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@MikkelJSmith2: I know, which is why I said that we don't depend on Media Bias/Fact Check to determine source reliability and a reason of why I started the RfC. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, oh sorry, I misread your paragraph. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2 No worries, thanks for your input :) --Jamez42 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Options 1 or 2. Pretty much agree with the arguments above. I would also like to add that interestingly this chart [53] puts it in the same ballpark as the Daily Beast, The Intercept, Mother Jones, the Nation and Vanity Fair. I'm not treating it as gospel, but based on other information I know about the source, that seems correct. So, reliable but biased would be the assessment here I think. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. The New Republic says in its own about section that "For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas." So they have a self-described left-agenda. Furthermore, they have no editorial policies separating their news from this editorial agenda. Given this, while it can be an RS for opinion or investigative reporting, it should be used with extreme caution when it comes to political reporting. Separately, am curious to hear from @David Gerard:@Springee: where in the guidelines it says that a description is necessary for an RFC. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable. Opinions should be attributed of course. Burrobert (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 3. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's purely opinion, no? I started reading through some articles and at first was put off by the fact that opinion wasn't labeled as such, until I did some research on the paper and found that it's purely opinion. This is even stated in its |about page: "We don’t lament intractable problems; our journalism debates complex issues, and takes a stance. Our biggest stories are commitments for change." So in this light it should be treated like any other op-ed source. It most definitely has a point of view, its writings use persuasive rhetoric to argue for that point of view. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: per Burrobert "Generally reliable. Opinions should be attributed of course.", per Slatersteven,Snooganssnoogans, Rosguill, and Jack Sebastian.

Still as I noted above--and others have concurred--I find serious problems with having these RfC's, when a standard post following the rules of WP:RS/N is all we needed in this case. I suggest we have a wider discussion about these RfC's and create limits on when they are launched and insist on a clear justification for them.

Perhaps, simply requiring in advance that editors show clear and convincing evidence that an RfC is needed, and requiring them to first make a request to hold the RfC here at WP:RfC--one that gains approval before it is permitted to be launched. These RfC's--especially when few non-involved editors show up (not the case here)--can have huge negative impacts on sourced material from the past and into the future. It can also create a strong POV problem if sources with a particular bias (all sources, including NYT, CNN, etc. have systemic bias) are eliminated by editors who do not like that bias. We cannot follow our key guideline of WP:NPOV if we continue to eliminate or deprecate publications that include opinions by experts, simply because the opinions have a particular bias that the editors who show up to the RfC do not happen to like, whether that bias is left, right, pro- or anti-nationalism, etc.

Also, these "fact-checking" sites have strong biases, and these are often used to "discredit" a publication in these RfC's, sometimes because of a single incident [to be exanded] I think these fact-checking sites may be even less reliable than the publications they are assessing. A single claim in one of these sites should not be the basis for deprecating a source. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David Tornheim. I haven't see anything to make me think this isn't a generally reliable source but that doesn't mean we should treat every article as automatically reliable etc. My primary concern is there are too many of these RfCs recently and it seems their objective is to either anoint as "good" or "bad" a particular source. David's concern about systematic bias if too many sources are voted off the island or enshrined is also a concern. When someone comes here with an open ended question about a source I think the question that should be asked is, why are you asking? What have previous RSN discussions said? Can you provide an example of how this source is going to be used in an article? I don't recall ever working with/around the editor who opened this RfC nor do I recall dealing with The Nation as a source often enough to have an opinion on it (I had to look it up to see if it was left or right leaning!). Regardless, we simply need fewer of these blanket RfCs. It seems like far to many have come out since the Daily Mail was deprecated. Perhaps this noticeboard should have a rule stating that RS discussions must include context examples (what article is going to be used where) or have examples of previous RSN discussions before we can have a RfC to assign a stamp of good/bad on any general source. Perhaps we should spend a bit more time discussing if individual articles are making sound claims vs just assuming because it comes from "RS" it must be good. Either way, as it stands I'm opposed to RfCs such as this one. Springee (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2. They're a complex case because their ownership and direction have shifted over time. On the whole they are generally reliable; they are often WP:BIASED, but the direction of that bias has swung back and forth over time, as our article on them discusses, so knowing the era a particular piece was written in and who wrote it is important if you need to determine if and how it's biased on the particular subject at hand. They have also occasionally published WP:FRINGE positions, especially Charles Murray's views on race science. That was a bit of an outlier and on the whole they are probably reliable due to their established reputation and relatively few scandals that directly impugn their journalistic accuracy, but it's important to pay attention to who wrote a particular piece there and to use in-line citations when necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 leaning left or right is beyond irrelevant. Have they published falsehoods? Nope. Have they got good editorial standards? Yes. This is a high quality left leaning source (everyone has a slant, whether they accept it or not). Bacondrum (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 either the website does not clearly label opinion content or it's all opinion, so it should be attributed in articles. buidhe 03:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 2: I do have to agree with concerns of a potential blur between fact and opinion, though it does have some editorial standards. Definitely should be a source that is attributed.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. I've seen no report of specific factual errors in comments above. Everyone looks at a set of (who, what, when, where) facts and makes their own (why) interpretations. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1; as others have said, I haven't seen any suggestion they make factual errors (except, presumably, with the low frequency that even the "best" sources occasionally make errors). If, as some have said above, reports from certain eras are biased in one way or another or need attribution, that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (or brought up again here if and when there is an actual problem). -sche (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, but only because I don't accept option 1 in relation to any regularly updated source The only sources we can confirm as "generally reliable" are "closed" ones like books that have been published in a finished state. I also despise the fact that many Wikipedia editors (most recently, in my recollection, here) would like to use popular news media (and "scholarly" sources in unrelated fields) as "generally reliable" sources even in cases in cases where they are definitely wrong. Lacking further information, options 3 and 4 in this case appear to be something only someone with a political axe to grind would buy in to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close as malformed RfC. Like Springee said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – I have seen no evidence to detract from the fact that this publication is generally reliable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close as inappropriate, given that it's used in about 150 articles, and there's been no effort to see whether any of those uses (much less most of them) have any problems at all. I also don't see any effort by the editor who started this to look at the (dozens of) previous discussions in the RSN archives, which in my brief spot check generally said that it's as reliable as anyone would expect, given that it's an opinion-oriented magazine rather than a pure-dry-facts magazine. To give one example, User:FOARP described The New Republic as "highly reliable" in December 2018, in the context of explaining the difference between any individual article being perfect, vs the magazine overall being reliable (because they once published, and later retracted, content by Stephen Glass). And if you want a truly circular example, User:Bloodofox cited The New Republic for facts about Epoch Times, in the October 2019 discussion that resulted in deprecating that source. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close - This is precisely the kind of contextless WP:FORUM-style discussion about whether the source is “bad” that we should be avoiding here. Read the notes at the top with of the page about what this page is for. FOARP (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The New Republic. — Newslinger talk 10:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Metalheadzone

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Metalheadzone?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply

Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting

Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information

Supplemental information about the website: Publishes news about Rock and Metal bands both modern and old. Does have a page dedicated to user submitted news but the form seems to be down so unsure if there is user generated 'news' being submitted and published, or if any is, if it's being verified in any way. EliotWL (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any indica of reliability there. It appears to be essentially a blog. Guy (help!) 01:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly unreliable - we’ve already had a discussion and come to a consensus on the music WikiProjects. It’s listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC] as a result of it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Their https://metalheadzone.com/about-us/ does not provide any indication of editorial oversight or policy. They do list at least two contributing staff, but no credentials are provided for them. I suspect that factual reporting could be considered reliable, while reviews may contain personal opinion rather than anything else. However, since it's on NOTRSMUSIC, I would stay away from its use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Even a “2” is pretty generous. As I mentioned in the WikiProject discussion, the head person who writes a vast majority of the articles has a disclaimer at the bottom articles that essentially states that he doesn’t have a great grasp on the English language. Which explains the extremely misleading or poorly worded headlines they frequently pump out. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why are we jumping straight to RfCs? - Ryk72 ^talk 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If you look above There are two metal zines that no one has discussed, and have subsequently been archived. Perhaps EliotWL saw that and decided to have some actual input. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Not reliable. Appears to be used in only 11 places.[54] On review of the site, I concur with JzG, above, I don't see any indica of reliability there. It appears to be essentially a blog. and Richard3120 here, It's literally a group of Turkish guys reposting anything they can find online related to rock and metal on their website. It seems to be 90% tabloid/Buzzfeed-style "shock! horror! nightmare!" exaggerated headlines that preface mundane anecdotes. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Most of these articles have BLP considerations and this style of tabloid gossip can't be recommended. Dartslilly (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: Does not seem to have much editorial oversight and because of some of the BLP concerns mentioned. Would be better to use the sources they link to, for instance with this article that would possibly raise a lot of BLP issues.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Metalheadzone. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. With only three staff members and a couple of unlisted contributors directly involved in writing blog posts, the team is small enough to be considered self-published. A web search revealed minimal use by other reliable sources. Combined with the questionable editorial oversight and tabloid-style content, the heavy focus on living persons makes Metalheadzone generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 11:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PureMédias

Since this is a source that's never been discussed before, I'd like some opinions on PureMédias:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Thanks. ToThAc (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What's the usage that brings this question up? (Without that, this probably isn't worth doing an RFC on.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose RfC on Principle Is this being used much? Have people raised a concern about its use? If no then why bring this up. Do we even have enough information to reach a conclusion one way or the other? My feeling is if a source hasn't been used much or discussed much by others then we have little on which to judge. It could be a relatively young source that will gain a strong, good or strong , bad reputation over time. However, if we have a RfC now, it might result in a thumbs down which would then keep the source out of Wikipedia even as it's real world use improves. Sorry, if we have little information on the source then we should look at specific examples of use rather than make a general proclamation. Springee (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard and Springee: Sorry, I must have forgotten to show you this source's usage. Here you go: ozap.com  . It appears to be used primarily for sources relating to French television, politics, and musical numbers. ToThAc (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but what provokes you to bring up the question? What's the editorial dispute concerning the source? - David Gerard (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Thing is, at first glance, it appears to be some sort of online database of people, somewhat like IMDb. ToThAc (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks more Hollywood Reporter than IMDb. Maybe ask editors on fr: instead and bring that discussion here. SilverbackNet ^talk 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What Springee and SilverbackNet said. Looks like any other pop culture news site to me. feminist (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have unpinned this RfC, as the discussion was too insubstantial for a formal closure. — Newslinger talk 11:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: KenRockwell.com

Is KenRockwell.com a reliable source for statements about photographic equipment? Qono (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Used as a source in many articles on photography equipment, KenRockwell.com is self-published and has no editorial oversight. As far as I can tell, the author has not written any books on photographic equipment. As quoted in the previous listing, the text that used to be on the about page is telling:

Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No mater how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day.

Here is a link to a previous posting on this source, though no discussion was generated.

I want to discuss the source broadly, but here is a representative example:

• Source: [55]
• Article: Nikon F-mount
• Content: "E Lenses with manual aperture control like PC-E lenses allow manual diaphragm operation on all cameras, with possible unreliable metering on DSLRs without E-type support."

Thanks! Qono (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Qono, not a reliable source. Should be treated as a blog. Why the RfC is needed here? DBigXrayᗙ 03:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, thanks for your response. I am unclear if RfC's are meant for disputes only. I've started a conversation on the RfC talk page and would welcome your input there. Qono (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Question Do we have evidence of other reliable photography sources citing KenRockwell's blog? This might be sufficient to establish Rockwell as a subject mater expert. From there you may be able to argue this is an expert opinion that can be used with attribution. I think Rockwell's site is a good resource and one I've consulted when buying a camera. However, it's clearly a personal blog per Wikipedia's standards thus the only way for it to be considered usable, other than for ABOUTSELF, is to establish some level of expertise acknowledged by other sources. Springee (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  The eligibility requirement is a little bit different than that. According to WP:SPS, Rockwell's "work in the relevant field" must have "previously been published by reliable, independent publications" for him to be considered a subject-matter expert. — Newslinger talk 20:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds like the sort of thing we would normally apply to topic that is largely supported by academic texts. If Rockwell were interviewed or otherwise acknowledged by a respected photography magazine would that count here? This is a RS area I've been somewhat interested in for a while. For a while I've been considering doing some work on articles related to the sort of formula race cars that are typical of SCCA events. That is a topic with little academic sourcing. Trying to get facts/figures/opinions from experts is harder because they generally don't publish. I'm not sure if David Bruns has ever published anything on race car design but his Swift DB-1 was a car that changed Formula Ford across the world. A lot of the interesting design ideas associated with that car, things that made it successful, are voiced by people who's resumes make them clear experts in the field but not published on the subject. In this case I would not WP:IAR but rather bend them if reliable sources say Rockwell is an expert in the field. Springee (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: KenRockwell.com. — Newslinger talk 11:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Times of India RFC

Which option best describes the reliability of The Times of India?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

buidhe 18:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey: Times of India

• Comment: ToI is one of the most-used sources on articles that are AfDed, and there are concerns that the website does not distinguish promotional content. However, other editors consider the source reliable or mainstream: see previous RSN discussions 1, 2, 3. This is a particularly important discussion as ToI is a major news source for the second most populous country in the world. buidhe 18:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• 1 generally, for Indian-related matters (not necessarily for US/European things), but like other "mainstream" papers everywhere, pr crap does no doubt leak in. So maybe 2. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. You really need to analyse the actual content. India has many issues with the freedom of press (it's rated something like 140th in the world, behind a number of countries that are one-party states!) and therefore many sources tend to report with a pro-Government bias. Bias, however, is not the same as being non-factual, it's merely the picking and choosing of what content to publish, just like the majority of sources in the West. This is worth a read. Also, check for paid promotional content when used as sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a good piece, but TOI was one of the groups Modi targeted with an ad freeze: "Senior executives of those groups and opposition leaders contend that the ad freeze was retaliation for news reports critical of the government". Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 generally reliable for the factual reporting as no evidence given of unreliability of the basic information. Note that factual reporting does not include press releases, it has it's faults but I don't think it is any worse than major western newspapers that all dabble in promotion to some extent so discretion is needed in which stories to use but overally generally reliable. Regarding their entertainment content the film reviews seem independent criticism as they give plenty of rotten reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Well, that's exactly the problem. The ToI (and some other Indian major sources) do tend to parrot Government press releases as fact. I realise that Western sources do this as well, but most Western governments (I'm not including Donald Trump's Twitter feed here) don't tend to publish press releases that are easily provable as false (see this and the Wikipedia article on it). See also this, for example. If it's an article merely repeating a Government press release, it absolutely needs to be "The Government said ...", and not reported as fact. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This may not be the best discussion for this, but I'd be curious as to what people think about their coverage of actors and films outside of strict reviews. I've come across a lot of articles of this sort published by ToI that would be considered tabloid-level coverage in the US or UK. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• 2. Black Kite raises an important point. feminist (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Addendum: the same applies to any other Indian newspaper. Special considerations apply with any reportage involving local politics and/or related topics. feminist (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• 2 is the obvious answer. In limited experience it has been problematic more often than not. I am almost concerned enough to state a 3, if only because I have seen (particularly related to sports, politics, and biographical information) a willingness to publish a mix of jingoistic propaganda a la the Daily Mail, and sensationalism a la the Daily Mail. To be fair, a lot of that seems to be bleeding through from the "E-Times" or "Entertainment Times" - but there is unclear segregation. Also echo the concerns above by Black Kite. Lots of conveniently published "claims" by government sources about opposition parties. Koncorde (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• 2 More or less what has been said above. I am not sure that they have a bad reputation for fact checking but do act as a government mouth piece. I think this is a case of attribution in all cases.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2—3: Agree with what Black Kite states, but government involvement more often than not moves a source towards unreliability. Attribution should certainly be used with this source.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Wow. This is unexpected. I never even questioned it, but of course I should have done. I guess I lean 2 but will need to study more closely. It's not just the exertion of government control, Indian culture is very respectful towards authority so there may just be a good-faith shortfall in critical analysis. They treat homeopaths as doctors in news stories, for example, and tend to obsessively overuse honorifics, and I always put this down to the same culture of respectful acceptance that most Westerners find so charming as visitors to India. Guy (help!) 17:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

They also take horoscopes seriously, amongst other relatively benign pseudo fads (some of which have become accepted "alternative medicine" in the west) and have been known to legitimately promote ideas such as Breatharianism (sic?) and male pregnancy (of the physical man variety). Koncorde (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, not a surprise. Skeptics have a hard time in India. I love Indian culture, but you can't get away from the fact that belief is a magic talisman that isolates every form of bullshit from criticism. When a high street pharmacy advertises that it sells "homeopathy, ayurveda and allopathy" then you know that rational thinking is not getting much of a look-in. Guy (help!) 09:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3, based only on my experience at AfD, where I have seen often this source reproduce obvious promotional material in the guise of reporting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luminita Blosenco, which I've just closed, for a relatively clear example. Sandstein 09:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The one TOI piece there is nearly all photos from instagram and has no byline so is clearly not a news article. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are good articles -and poor articles so discretion is needed on which articles to use with attribution for anything not widely reported, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Many TOI stories (and Indian publications in general) do not have a byline. That does not automatically mean they are factually incorrect. Based on my years of reading it, the paper edition of TOI does not have a lot of bylines even for the news pages. Yet, I would regard it one of the most reliable for Indian news, along with The Hindu and Hindustan Times. The promotional "TOI" piece [56] that you are talking about is actually from ETimes (which seems to have evolved from the IndiaTimes portal). It is published by the same publisher. However, while TOI has news, ETimes/IndiaTimes is more like a web portal which carries entertainment/P3 related articles. Even the website for ETimes states "ETimes is an Entertainment, TV & Lifestyle industry's promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising" The actual TOI can be accessed from [57] and the news articles can be differentiated from the ETimes articles.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 based on comments from Black Kite and Sandstein. This source could be biased in certain nationalist contexts but is an important news and commentary source from India, and nationalist news production is a problem in most countries on earth. -Darouet (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. I see no evidence that they're categorically unusable, but it should be noted that The Times of India occasionally puts out such utter garbage that citing it is inconceivable. See for example Nawarat Ring where the ToI is used to support the claim that wearing a sapphire prevents accidents or health problems. Most of the citations are about entertainment topics: approximately 40%. When the article is credited PTI (Press Trust of India) or TNN (Times News Network), it's usually OK. IANS can be really terrible, (see [58] for example. Stories aggregated from Brandwire or Mediawire should never be used; they're PR. The ToI is sloppy with their bylines, so care should be taken when citing the author. For example: is https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/de-stress/how-i-start-my-day/articleshow/64778683.cms by TNN, or Nona Walla, or Kamlesh Patel, the author of The Heartfulness Way?
• Option 1 or Option 2 per arguments of Atlantic306 above. Some legitimate concerns raised, but there are numerous comments holding ToI to standards we just don't see Wikipedians demand from mainstream newspapers in the US/UK/Australia/etc. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?

Hi, recently an editor tried to use Arab News in Yemen Civil war article. The Arab News is not an independent outlet, the Saudi regime control all the media in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of speech there. Should be considered unreliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Past Discussions
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews

• Reliable, use caution Arab News is reliable source per WP:NEWSORG (even SharʿabSalam▼ himself said it was reliable source back then). However, that does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. If it's difficult to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Arab News stated that ..." Ckfasdf (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ckfasdf, Arabnews operates from Saudi Barbaria. There is no freedom of the press in Saudi Barbaria, they have killed a journalist using a saw. How in God's name are we going to consider these sources reliable?.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, see also motivated reasoning. There's no evidence presented here that Arab News is printing falsehoods, though they may well be highly selective in what facts they do print. Guy (help!) 10:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree about SharabSalam's statement about Saudi Arabia murdering the journalist because the suspects who murdered that journalist are arrested by Saudi police. Just look at the BBC News article. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I dont think Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi is related to decide whether Arab News is reliable source or not (they still have coverage on this topics, although they dont put news that link the event to saudi royal familiy). Well, it's pretty much what is Guy (help!) said. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• May be reliable for uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for the topic in qestion. Saudi Arabia is a party to the conflict and one can´t label any of their media as independent, because freedom of press is severely restricted (an euphemism) in Saudi Arabia. What will be next? Al-Ba'ath as a source for the Syrian Civil War? Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with Pavlor - somewhat reliable - I don't believe they are reliable on Saudi involved political issues, particularly including the named topic. While there may be a dearth of non-biased sources, this isn't a case of a source being just one notch above. They aren't tabloid-y, I don't think their level of bias is problematic for sports coverage etc, or even much of their world coverage Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Lacking information on when and in what context the source was cited, I don't feel comfortable saying that it wouldn't be appropriate even with inline attribution to a source whose publisher has close ties to the Saudi regime. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it may be this (and related) edit [59] (arms supply by North Korea). Pavlor (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, in that case I would say no attribution necessary, but maybe use a better source. SharabSalam reverted content attributed to multiple sources, including The Huffington Post. Whether using the HP source for the claim that NK is a "party" to the war is appropriate is an entirely separate issue from the general reliability of Arab News. Here are two non-Saudi sources that also talk about a UN report on NK selling weapons to the Houthis. Moreover, the cartoon above and the lack of context provided by the OP makes it look like this is just being used as a forum to attack Saudi Arabia and Arab News in particular -- I am not saying I disagree with that sentiment (heck, I'm not even saying that the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post got the relevant facts right in this case), but RSN definitely is not the forum for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue on that edit was fixed on later revision (such as cite generally-known RS which are CNN and Reuters, and removal claim NK as "party" to the war). But, it seems OP openly claim that sources from Saudi Arabia are inherently unreliable due to "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech." Ckfasdf (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In case of this civil war, Saudi sources (or even Saudi-owned like Arab news) aren´t really independent, so their reliability is indeed dubious. These may be perfectly reliable for many uses here on Wikipedia (eg. camel racing), but certainly not for regional conflicts (except probably as a source for statements by Saudi government). There are many much better reliable sources covering this region, I recommend using these instead. Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't disagree. I think it depends on context, though; in this case the problem with adding North Korea as a "party" to the conflict had nothing to do with the independence of the source, as even Arab News didn't directly verify that content, and most of the rest could be easily verified with better sources, so the relative citability of AN was not really relevant. And of course, for 99% of our articles that might theoretically cite AN for uncontroversial content, the lack of media independence in "Saudi Barbaria" doesn't actually affect their reliability for such content, as the Saudi government is not directly involved in 99% of our articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean ... maybe we need to be careful when citing them on issues where the Saudi government is known to be involved and/or doing some shady shit; but their lack of independence on certain topics doesn't make them "inherently unreliable" (if there is such a thing) on all topics, and even on topics where they are probably not reliable, they can still be cited with inline attribution under certain circumstances.

If the only purpose of this thread is to attack "Saudi Barbaria", with no serious questions regarding sourcing in a particular instance, can it just be closed?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The proof of reliable source is that you can find same content on multiple sources. Based on discussion above, I believe everyone is agree that Arab News IS reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. However, due to high possibility of biased information on controversial topics (such as Yemen civil war), it should be avoided to use on those topics per WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. If no further comment from OP, yea... agree to close this Rfc. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like SharabSalam had refused to make further comments. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Depends: Per Pavlor, Saudi Arabia is a participant to this conflict. Using information from their media depicting the Saudi government POV is fine if attributed. For any controversial topics, this media may not be reliable.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment No source is reliable for everything. The best approach is to use the best sources, per Good research, which would not be Arab news. Generally it should be used if at all in information about topics that receive little or no coverage in major news media. For example if an article is about a new restaurant in a suburb of Riyadh or some minor prince's falcons, then it might be the source to use. TFD (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Inside the Criminal Mind References

Inside the Criminal Mind

The article basically contains 3 sentences and lists 3 sources all of which are TV Recap/Review sites. From the way the article is written it is hard to determine which site is the source for the info provided but I am mainly questioning whether these articles can be determined to be "reliable sources"

References listed:

"Stream It Or Skip It: 'Inside the Criminal Mind', Netflix's Docuseries About Dark Psychology". Decider. Retrieved August 1, 2019.
"'Inside the Criminal Mind' - Netflix Original Series Review". Ready Steady Cut. Retrieved August 1, 2019.
"'Inside the Criminal Mind'". Geeks. Retrieved August 1, 2019.

lenta.ru

• lenta.ru  

Lenta is deprecated due to events around 2014. Is it considered reliable for stories published before then? Guy (help!) 17:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The RSP entry says that it was depreciated according to a discussion in 2019, but links to a discussion [60] that does not mention Lenta.ru, but instead talks about (and depreciates) Newsfront, Veteranstoday, Veteransnewsnow and Southfront. Has this source actually been depreciated? If so, at least we need to point to a proper RFC rather than one that doesn't discuss it before people start mass removing it - and the same for other Russian sources such as Sputnik or RT. If it hasn't, then we need a proper discussion to see what it can be used for (even if it is a mouthpiece for Putin, can we treat it as press releases from the Russian government for non-controversial events?).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not deprecated in that discussion, and only @David Gerard: and @JzG: discuss that long list with no consensus to deprecate or blacklist any of the entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Added to the depreciated list here on 5 January and to WP:RSP here on 4 January 2020 - both appear to link to the discussion that does not mention Lenta.ru. This needs to be sorted one way or the other - people shouldn't be claiming consensus for removals if no-one has actually sought consensus, never mind actually demonstrated consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.stopfake.org/ identifies it as fake / propaganda, The Grauniad has several articles discussing the 2014 Russian Government takeover e.g. [61]. The article at lenta.ru backs this up: post-2014, it appears to be a propaganda site (se RAND Corporation report, for example). Guy (help!) 23:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Rand report mentions Lenta.ru exactly once - talking about it running a false story, while there doesn't seem to be anything about Lenta.ru on the front page of stopfake.org - could you please point out actual references to Lenta.ru? (and is stopfake reliable here?. To make a judgement on how Lenta.ru can be used (if at all) needs better information on how bad it is, what the nature of any bias or false stories are is and how it compares to other Russian news organisations.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, the RfC being referenced implements both deprecation and blacklisting for sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation. Examples of reputable sources discussed included mainstream media websites, Media Bias/Fact Check, and the East StratCom Task Force. While the RfC does not specifically discuss lenta.ru, it was originally motivated by this RSN discussion, which occurred at the same time. That discussion contains a list of sources, including lenta.ru, that was used in the initial set of sources classified as being affected by the RfC.

If we assume the classification is valid, then to answer the original question, it seems likely that lenta.ru was still reliable prior to the events of 2014. Actually, I would consider it straightforward enough to make confirming it here as an exception unnecessary. That said, presumably that means that at least the blacklisting should be lifted, unless said blacklisting is warranted for some other reason. Sunrise (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Lenta.ru before 2014

The entry on Lenta.ru says:

Due to persistent abuse, Lenta.ru is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lenta.ru was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishes conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to a mass dismissal of staff in March 2014.

I've explicitly mentioned that this refers to the 2014-present period as I see the links to pre-2014 Lenta.ru articles are being removed. Alaexis_¿question? 23:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Noting that this is about WP:RSP, not Lenta.ru. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I've converted this discussion into a subsection of the other active Lenta.ru discussion, since they both discuss the same aspect of the same source. — Newslinger talk 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)​

Pre-2014 Lenta.ru articles links

Lenta.ru has been problematic since 2014 when it was taken over and its staff replaced by a pro-government one (see this Guardian article for details). However this means that the links to pre-2014 articles are being removed due to the domain being in the spam-list. Is there a technical possibility to filter only post-2014 articles? Or to ensure somehow that there are no large-scale removals of old lenta.ru links? Alaexis_¿question? 22:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I've converted this discussion into a subsection of the other active Lenta.ru discussion, since they both discuss the same aspect of the same source. — Newslinger talk 05:57, 2 March 2020‎ (UTC)

Fortunately, since Lenta.ru includes the date of publication in the URLs of their articles, we are able to blacklist only post-2014 articles. In fact, we can pin this down even more precisely, and blacklist Lenta.ru articles that were published on or after 12 March 2014 with the following regular expression:

\blenta\.ru\/\w+\/20([2-9]\d|1([5-9]|4\/(1|0([4-9]|3\/([23]|1[2-9])))))

​— Newslinger talk 07:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Paleobiota of Burmese amber

An editor (Kevmin) keeps adding an OMICS Publishing Group journal at Paleobiota of Burmese amber. The message that predatory journals aren't acceptable as citations doesn't seem to sink in, so please advise here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The reference being used in this situation is to the type description for the genus and species. The article referenced meets ALL criteria for an ICBN accepted formal description of a taxon, and is what will always be used as the formal reference for that taxon. While Poinar may have made a poor choice of journal for the description, it is the one that is used by all taxonomists that reference the taxon, so any other reference to Spheciophila adercia such as here & here(note the listing as Legitimate) all default to the type description as accepted and formal. This was not noted by headbomb in this listing here for some reason.--Kevmin § 01:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If Mycobank/ICBN recognizes the classification, then Mycobank/ICBN should be cited, not the OMICS journal. The removal of the {{predatory}} tag is inappropriate, as is citing OMICS to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

They recognize it and cite Poinars article. It is defined taxonomic practice on en.wiki and in taxonomy in general to not obfuscate the source of a taxonomic name, thus Poinar and not secondary tertiary or quaternary sources. The tags are misleading in asserting there is a different source that is more acceptable for a taxonomic act other then the type description.--Kevmin § 01:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That does not alleviate the fact that OMICS is not a reliable WP:PRIMARY source, and we cannot cite them to establish anything. The tags are needed, and your edit warring to restore a below sub-par source is getting tiresome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Kevmin, they can do that because they have experts who can assess if the OMICS source is bollocks. We are not experts, so we have to cite reliable sources, and OMICS is not one. You can't trust it without SME review, and we're not allowed (by policy) to stand as SMEs. Guy (help!) 13:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, the issue is: (1) we don't want to cite the type description of the species because it was published in a predatory publisher's journal, but (2) there isn't any dispute that the article is the recognized type description for the species, and (3) it is the general practice in these lists to cite directly to the type description, so (4) failing to cite the type description would be inconsistent and unhelpful to users who are expecting to be able to use these lists to easily find the type description. If that's correct, could there be a positive-sum solution here? If the concern is that we would appear to be giving undue credence to the journal publisher by citing the type description as authority, would it be workable to have a ref (or note) that cites to an appropriate authority in the field such as Mycobank, and then separately provides a link out to the type description? That way it's clearer that we are providing the predatory-publisher link purely for user convenience, and are not relying on it for authority. -- Visviva (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, since WP:RS counsels us to treat predatory-journal publications as equivalent to self-published ones, I wonder if anyone can clarify why George Poinar Jr. wouldn't be considered an "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" per WP:SPS? -- Visviva (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a dispute that the find is legitimate. If some higher authority recognizes is, sure, but we don't take LOOK I DISCOVERED SOMETHING! at face value from WP:SPS, even expert ones.Poinar could have made mistakes, could have had nefarious motives, could have overlooked something, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies things somewhat. Assuming the dispute has been appropriately documented (I'm not seeing much here), why wouldn't we simply note it in the list item (and/or the not-yet-created article)? -- Visviva (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb wrote "There's a dispute that the find is legitimate"

Citation needed for this rather extraordinary assertion. Also a citation is needed that there is any violation of the IPBN rules for the type description and that there is any dispute by the paleontological, mycological, or amber research communities of Poinars findings in the paper. (As a note Visviva there is no dispute in the relevant fields of Poinars paper.)--Kevmin § 23:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Poinar is a respected scholar, and papers he has published on the topic of ambers in fungus have been published in other reputable journals, including scientific reports and others. I think the most likely explanation is that this was a mistake and that he didn't realise he was publishing in a predatory journal. I understand why predatory publishers are banned on wikipedia, as much of what they publish has absoloutely no scrutiny. But this a type description of a specimen, not some random biomed paper. Paleontology is primarily a descriptive science and since this is done by a respected scholar should be left as an exception, with a warning note providing links to readers about OMICS practices, it's better readers are aware and informed about OMICS predatory publishing behaviour rather than it is just swept under the rug in behind the scenes disputes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It really is quite simple, if Poinar really is credited with the discovery of a new species recognized by IPBN or whoever, then cite those, not a predatory publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that a super-policy to the effect that we don't cite journals published by predatory publishers under any circumstances (even when the specific paper meets WP:RS and is relevant to the article) is the sort of thing that would call for a broad community discussion. -- Visviva (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Predatory journals, by their nature, are the very definition of a source that is not WP:RS. Having a broken clock paper still requires a reliable source to establish its findings as legitimate, because without those, we can't know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the policy currently. WP:RS indicates that publications in predatory journals should be treated as self-published (i.e. as if the author had just published the paper on their own website, essentially disregarding the journal entirely). And WP:SPS indicates that publications authored by "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" are deemed reliable even when self-published. So unless there is a dispute over whether Poinar is "an established expert in the subject matter", the paper is a reliable source. I suppose that's the end of the story as far as RSN is concerned. Of course, there could still be other issues, for example undue weight, if there is in fact a documented dispute in the field over the legitimacy of Poinar's report. -- Visviva (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And we wouldn't take any claim of discovery at face value from any expert that published that on their own blog. Again, the solution is simple, if Poinar really is credited with the discovery of a new species recognized by IPBN or whoever, then cite those, not a predatory publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't we cite both? I'm fine with the reference being there plus an addtional mycobank ref with the warning label and the predatory publisher tag. Many taxa have been described, historically and currently in books. If the book is self published or is published by a publishing house but isn't properly peer reviewed by scientists, does that mean that it is an unreliable source, as it has not been peer reviewed? I think as long as it is well labelled it is fine. I've seen many citations and have cited blog posts myself by experts that have useful information that isn't in peer reviewed papers, much of this depends on context and what kind of information is being cited from it. As under WP:SPS, to quote the policy in full "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." If policy treats OMICS papers as self published, then they should be only be considered reliable sources if authored by an "established expert", which Poinar clearly is. I don't think you are going to change your mind on this Headbomb, and so to prevent this devolving into an endless back and forth so this needs to be resolved via some kind of wider policy discussion on how Predatory publishers and expert sources intersect, as the number of participants currently isn't high enough to reach some kind of concensus on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's simple, they simply aren't reliable for these sort of claims. We would not accept a claim of discovery from a blog at face value, and neither should we take one from a predatory journal at face value. You have your solution, if it's recognized by IPBN, then cite IPBN because that's the reliable source. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not simple, as I've stated, many taxa are published in books that haven't undergone peer review. When a taxon is self published or unpublished, it is considered to to be a nomen nudum or naked name. It is impossible to republish a publication from a predatory journal into a not predatory journal because it isn't considered self-published (like a pre-print) or a naked manuscript. In order to be considered a Validly published name, it must satisy International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants criteria for validity, CHAPTER V: VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES, SECTION 2: NAMES OF NEW TAXA. Articles 38-40. The paper satisfies all of the criteria laid out in the criteria for validity, including a diagnosis of the taxon. No where in there is "peer review" even mentioned. For critera of publication under CHAPTER IV: EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION, SECTION 1: CONDITIONS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION, ARTICLE 29 It states "Publication is effected, under this Code, by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to scientific institutions with generally accessible libraries. Publication is also effected by distribution on or after 1 January 2012 of electronic material in Portable Document Format (PDF; see also Art. 29.3 and Rec. 29A.1) in an online publication with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN)." Given that even as a non-peer reviewed publication by a predatory publisher it clearly satisfies these criteria, and thus is valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It is extremely simple. If IPBN, a reliable source, recognizes Poinar, then cite IPBN, not OMICS, which is not reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Read what I wrote rather than writing a 2 sentence response ignoring the entirety of it. The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants is the highest authority on the topic, something like the supreme court in terms of taxonomy. If they consider a paper validy published then It should be considered validly published on Wikipedia, end of. You seem completely set in your opinion that there should be absolutely no nuance about how predatory publisher papers should be treated. I am happy to abide by a concensus view, but you seem completely unwilling to come to any sort of reasonable compromise on the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Citing IPBN should be a 'reasonable compromise' to anyone reasonable given that they are an authoritative source. OMICS is not reliable. We cannot call it reliable or take its claim at face value. IPBN is reliable. Cite IPBN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Haelewaters et al, 2019 disputes Poinar 2016 calling it "spurious", In that case the source can no longer be considered reliable. So I have fallen on my sword and changed my opinion and accept your compromise. I still think that there needs to broader policy discussion about predatory publishers and if it is reasonable in specific contexts to cite them, but that's best left for another time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

To increase transparency and robustness of the process for classification of sources, increase the review requirement for actions that prevent use of a source. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Detail

Proposal 1: Add the following to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions:

A project-level RfC is required for the following:

• Any source that is proposed for deprecation (see also the list of deprecated sources);
• Any source that is widely used in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) that is proposed as generally unreliable (see also the list of perennial sources).

RfCs should be registered at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard using {{rfc|prop}}.

Proposal 2a: Add the following to the instructions for editors at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

You must initiate a project-level RfC when requesting blacklisting of any entry that is widely used as a cited source in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) other than those added by the spammer(s). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with requesting blacklisting where there is ongoing abuse. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Proposal 2b: Add the following to the instructions for admins at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

A project-level RfC is required when blacklisting any entry that is widely used as a cited source in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) other than those added by the spammer(s). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse, with the expectation that it will be removed if the RfC decides against blacklisting. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Proposal 3: Add the following to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard:

Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}} and should run for at least 7 days. Contentious RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved administrator and consensus assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument.

This does not affect existing classifications or blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

1. Support 1, 2a, 3 (first preference); 1, 2b, 3 (second preference) as proposer. Discussions on source classification at WP:RSN typically have few participants, but may have substantial impact if problematic sources are widely used. This also applies to spammed sites that are targets for blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support the proposal in principle, but I can't comment on the particulars simply because I don't have much experience of this area. Deprecating and/or blacklisting a widely used source can have long-term effects on the verifiability of content in the relevant topic area and it should be done with a stronger consensus that one achieved by one or two editors. The one case that I've been involved in in the past didn't leave me with the impression that the process was a sane one: a website used in a few hundred articles was blacklisted on the strength of opinion of three editors (with a fourth one disagreeing), where the major issue appeared to be not any demonstrable unreliability, but those editors' dislike for the fact that the website was generating a profit from running ads while using public domain data. If a discussion is more widely advertised (like with an RfC), then the impact of personal whimsy should be less noticeable, and the outcome better defensible. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support per Uanfala, the basic principle that deprecating a source is a sufficiently significant step to take that it needs many more eyes on the discussion to do so. Otherwise a walled garden dictates. Is the occuramce also uncommon enough to warrant a notice at CENT? ——SN54129 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support all: significant steps ought not be taken without discussion. But this is not my area of expertise, and so I am also unable to comment on the particular mechanisms of each proposal. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Like Uanfala I was involved in a case where a website was blacklisted on ideological grounds. In addition to the benefits list above, this proposal will provide us with an audit trail detailing when and why a site was blacklisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose - because I cannot in clear conscience fully support it. I'm also of the mind that such a proposal should go to VP for wider community input. There would have to be clearly defined parameters before blacklisting/deprecating any source in an effort to eliminate potentially harmful ideologically based decisions. --^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe we should also tighten up the guidance on the conduct of RfCs, e.g. to ensure that they primarily address reliability of a source. This is especially important for politics articles, where there is asymmetric polarization in the media that causes frequent and heated arguments on Wikipedia. There are also credible reports of a repeat of the 2016 Russian social media and disinformation campaigns whose very existence is denied by previously mainstream conservative sources. It's not Wikipedia's problem but it's a problem for Wikipedia, and I think we should be ready for the heightened scrutiny we are likely to receive even when it is from bad-faith actors. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would generally oppose any language that imposes arbitrary cut offs. There is nothing special about "100", but if you include that type of language, people are going to treat it like gospel, as if there is something substantive that separates sources with 99 and 101 citations. GMG^talk 13:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, I thought about that. I don't mind adding an option to strike the numerical example. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• @JzG: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, heaven forfend that a complex issue could not be rendered in a way that pleases the bots. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you this is the effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think proposals 2a and 2b should be restricted in scope to apply only to blacklisting domains for reasons related to reliability. An RfC would be unnecessary to blacklist a domain that was widely spammed in clear violations of the external link spamming guideline (excluding the reliability criterion). — Newslinger talk 03:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  ^This. After having manually removed almost 1000 occurrences of "lepidoptera.eu" from articles before having it blacklisted. It rarely happens, but it does. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  I also agree with this. We should put as much emphasis on verification and reliability as we can as some users can easily be confused with bias vs. reliability.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, so lepidoptera.eu was spammed. So was ZoomInfo (and I nuked all links). Playing devil's advocate, should we not blacklist and then have an RfC, as I propose, to ensure that there is broad support for removal? At least if it's used in pre-existing (clarification added) reference tags (which could have been more explicit, so I fixed that). External links is different. 1,000 articles is a big impact on the project. Even if the source is clearly unreliable, it's going to be better to have solid consensus for any automated removal. And in fact if we do it right we can probably get approval for a bot to remove all references to a site that has been through this process, which will save a massive amount of time. Guy (help!) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Let's not give spammers a target to meet. Being used in reference tags is not particularly relevant, WP:CITESPAM is the default nowadays I believe. MER-C 12:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This sounds backwards to me... I would think we would need an RFC prior to placing a site on the blacklist (whether due to reliability or some other reason) To determine whether the site should be added to the blacklist or not. Once a site is on the blacklist, however, we can automatically remove (and I don’t see a need to have additional RFCs before automatically removing).

Deprecated sources, on the other hand, are a different issue... these are discouraged, but NOT blacklisted (as they often have nuanced exceptions and carve outs attached to the deprecation)... so automatic removal is not the best solution. These need to be examined on a case by case basis, and additional RFCs may be needed. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist has over 8300 entries. Having an RFC "prior to placing a site on the blacklist" in 15 years would have required an RfC more frequently than every 16 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I am confused... How do you determine if something is spam vs legit sourcing without an RFC? Is there some alternative process? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Counter-question: How does one determine if a user needs to be blocked without an RFC? Or if a page needs to be protected? The point of electing administrators is to let some people enforce the community's policies in uncontroversial situations without having an RFC for every single action. The spam blacklist is primarily used to deal with the worst and most obvious cases of spam reported at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, just as WP:RFPP and WP:AIV are used for simple protection and blocking requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, not that it's especially relevant but actually it's analogous to the proposed blacklisting response. Abuse is dealt with expeditiously but is then subject to review either by the user appealing the block (up to ArbCom if necessary) or by the admin posting the block for review on WP:ANI, one of the most watched pages on enWP. Guy (help!) 12:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, the default for a deprecated source is to remove it. My standard approach would be to tag with {{deprecated inline}} and then after some time go back and remove the tagged sources. We should not raise enormous bureaucratic obstacles to removal of a source we have decided is crap. My issue is that the process for deciding it's crap is vulnerable to groupthink. And I say that as one of the group.

The reason for blacklist then RfC when there are significant numbers of references is to control abuse. We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. The blacklist controls abuse, most abuse does not involve substantial numbers of references in mainspace, because it's usually a simple matter of rolling back the edits of the spammers. The example that clarifies this for me is ZoomInfo. This was absolutelt spammed. I then checked the existing references and found a mix of good and likely bad faith additions, including what was almost certainly their people adding their archive url to a lot of references. Those archives are all now defunct, according tot he checks I did, so are worthless. The rest of the information cited to ZoomInfo was generally trivial and likely to be self-provided. I still think, in retrospect, an RfC would have been a good idea. It was discussed here in some detail, but only the usual suspects show up.

Bear in mind that the existing process for deprecation is a short discussion here, often with few participants. The default for blacklisting is even quicker. Turnaround can be close to real time and in some cases the person proposing addition, also actions it (not best practice but necessary to control spamming, same as speedy deletion nominations by an admin are sometimes done in one step rather than being tagged and left for a second pair of eyes).

It seems to me that best practice is to be more deliberative when significant numbers of existing references are affected. And recent experience, for me at least, backs that up. As an aside, I would also like to see a parameter in the {{cite}} templates to link to any discussion showing consensus to include an apparently dubious source (e.g. specific self-published books). A small and discreet checkmark could be displayed to say it's a qualified reference despite appearances to the contrary. Guy (help!) 12:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is confusing two different things - whether a source is reliable and whether a source is being spammed. Sources which pass all the requirements of reliable sources can still be spammed (whether by/on behalf of the owner/creator of the source or by unrelated third parties), and not all unreliable sources are spammed or otherwise added maliciously. The Spam Blacklist should concentrate on sources that are being spammed - the determination of which does not require an RFC as it depends on behaviour here (and on other Wikimedia projects) rather than the quality of the source. If we on en:wiki want to keep a separate blacklist covering sources that are unwanted for reasons other than spamming (such as unreliability or copyvios, then that is a different thing entirely.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  Nigel Ish, no it's not, it's handling two scenarios whereby sources might be rejected: blacklisting (which can happen due to spamming but may affect large numbers of references if the site has been abused, as was the case with ZoomInfo), or deprecation / "Generally Unreliable". Both of these can happen as of today with virtually zero input. I think that's a bad thing if the site has been widely used. Given your decision to reinstate vanity presses and blogs lately, I think you are of the same view: we should not be adding a site to a list which qualifies it for large scale removal from Wikipedia without some more input than we currently get. Guy (help!) 12:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated

Since I am the only one to !vote so far I have updated the proposals per comments above:

• Removed the number of references per WP:BEANS etc.;
• Clarified that links added by the spammer(s) don't count when blacklisting, so only pre-existing links.

Does this help? Guy (help!) 12:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you essentially proposing that we expand the scope of the blacklist to cover deprecated sources as well as spam? If so, I would oppose. While deprecated sources ARE usually removed, there are nuanced exceptions when they should not be... and thus deprecated sources must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, no, I am saying that when a site has been spammed but is widely used as a source, we should follow up with an RfC to decide what o do about the existing uses, part of which will be to assess whether it was, in fact, reliable in the first place. Guy (help!) 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok... my confusion stemmed from the fact that your proposal #3 focused on deprecated sources, and not spammed sources... but if you are now limiting the discussion to just spammed sources I can shift from opposition to neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy's statement We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. In this regard, I think that 2b is a bit better than 2a; I like the sound of The RfC may be initiated concurrent with addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse more than The RfC may be initiated concurrent with requesting blacklisting. But, to me, neither option really seems clear about the chronology that is being envisioned here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  XOR'easter, sure. And I am happy to tweak it, but I think you understand my intent: blacklist then discuss. Controlling abuse comes first. Guy (help!) 20:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

EarnTheNecklace.com

• uses

An entertainment news website. I've been slowly reviewing how EarnTheNecklace.com is being used, after running across it a while back. Given the amount of usage, I thought discussion is needed. Here's an example:

• Jony Ive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Net worth US$900 million (2019)

This article begins with a disclaimer: "*Disclaimer: The estimated net worth numbers are based on our research done on the Internet and are for entertainment purposes only. We do not guarantee the accuracy of these numbers."

References

Another example:

• Jared Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): In 2009, Harris met Allegra Riggio, a lighting designer and TV host 14 years his junior; at a comedy club where a mutual friend was performing.

References

While EarnTheNecklace does include these disclaimers for some articles, they also headline such articles when a person is in the news. While they do tend to indicate some references in their articles, they are often to sources that are considered unreliable on Wikipedia.

I don't see a problem deleting networth info attributed to EarnTheNecklace. I don't think it should be used for BLP information. I'm unsure about anything else, but am leaning toward this being generally unreliable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree striongly. This is not a source that we should be using in this way. Guy (help!) 19:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. EarnTheNecklace.com is a less popular version of CelebrityNetWorth (RSP entry). Neither site provides accurate net worth estimates, and the reliability of these sites falls short of what is required by the biographies of living persions policy. — Newslinger talk 08:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I looked at their terms of use page. It says: "USE & COPYRIGHTS: Contents Copyright © 2018. You are prohibited from copying, saving, printing, selling, hyperlinking, using our URL, or reproducing, in any manner whatsoever, any of the information on EarnTheNecklace.com." Does that mean wikipedia shouldn't link to that website? --Guest2625 (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  ​I wouldn't worry about it. EarnTheNecklace.com can make that statement, but hyperlinking a website (that does not contain illegal content) doesn't violate any laws in any jurisdiction affecting Wikipedia, and that statement would almost certainly carry no legal weight in court. — Newslinger talk 05:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with removing them all. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Vanity press

FYI, I am doing another run of AWB edits relating to vanity presses. The search regex is copied from Filter 894: author\s?house|trafford\s?publishing|iuniverse|publisher\s?[=,:]\s?lulu[. ]*com|\bxlibris|mellenpress\.com|edwin\s?mellen\s?press|grosvenorhousepublishing\.co\.uk|grosvenor\shouse\spublishing.

The affected publishers are:

• Author House
• Trafford Publishing
• iUniverse
• Lulu
• XLibris
• Edwin Mellen Press
• Grosvenor House Publishing

I'll work out the appropriate regex for CreateSpace too.

The plan is, as usual:

• If the source has been tagged as SPS for some time then remove it (and replace with {{cn}} if it is not adjacent to another ref tag);
• If the source has not been tagged, tag it {{sps}};
• If it's a bare external link, remove it regardless.

I eagerly await the usual confident but mutually contradictory instructions from editors. If there are queries about specific books, I will direct people here.

In related news: filter 894 gets a fair few of hits, and in most cases editors ignore the warning and save anyway - that's why the problem is getting worse, not better. Maybe check the logs occasionally if you're bored and spoiling for a fight?

On the occasions I have trawled through the history to find who adds such links, it's very often IPs or WP:SPAs that give every impression of being the author of the book. The time may come when we have to blacklist the vanity presses then whitelist those books with consensus for inclusion. But not while we have thousands of the bloody things. Guy (help!) 20:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This only works if there is a URL, right? So it won't catch

• Stany Zjednoczone. Econometric models with panel data across Stata. CreateSpace. OCLC 1084540894.

This may be a bit less promotional without a "buy me" link, but not necessarily any more reliable. buidhe 01:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I am tweaking it now because I have found some like this, but basically it will find the vanity presses in "publisher=" or their domains in "url=" or when rendered as a http/(s) url. Guy (help!) 12:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How about this hypothetical example? Consider that Google Books links don't have the publisher in them. (Sorry for giving you a hard time, I think this is a good idea but there are many ways around it). buidhe 05:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Salyers, Toni (2013). Dark Dreams. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-4819-5950-6

Buidhe thanks, I am looking at all of the above. It's not going to be a one-and-done exercise, this is a bit of a plague. Guy (help!) 21:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do not consider Edwin Mellen Press as self publishing in the sense that he others are. They ask subventions from the author ,but so do many very high class academic presses especially if he book is going to be expensive to produce. They're simply a not -very-high-quality academic publisher. DGG ( talk ) 10:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Mmm sounds like it's similar to Cambridge Scholars Publishing. I can think of very few situations where I would use either, but it's true that a hard blacklist might not make sense. buidhe 00:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Al Masdar news

This source is almost like the Syrian offshoot of RT and Sputnik. It frequently posts conspiracy theories, such as Khan Shaykhun chemical attack being a American false flag. [62] According to Alliance for Securing Democracy Al-Masdar is a main source of Syria-related propaganda for Russian accounts aimed at US audiences. [63] The website also frequently uses Twitter as a reference for its news, which is not considered a WP:RS yet editors use Al Masdar to bypass this and use twitter as a reference on Wikipedia. MidEastEvents (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The site is also a main hub for far-right according to Business Insider. [64] MidEastEvents (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion from WT:RSP, as this noticeboard is much more widely viewed than the talk page.​ — Newslinger talk 01:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Masdar News has been already discussed numerous times during the years and been deemed to be a mostly reliable source when it comes to territorial changes in the Syrian conflict. Its reliability was established on the fact that Masdar, which is indeed pro-Syrian government, overlaps in its reporting of territorial changes almost entirely with SOHR's reporting (anti-Syrian government source and considered authoritative on Syria by other RS). A compromise solution was found that, when citing territorial changes, they will be presented as fact if cited by both Masdar and SOHR. If something is reported only by Masdar and not SOHR, then we attribute it to Masdar and let our readers decide weather its true or not, in line with Wikipedia's policy of not excluding the views of one beligerent over the other. However, its been further agreed that when Masdar makes controversial claims, like on the subject of massacres, chemical attacks or something similar, it will NOT be used as a source unless other reliable sources such as Reuters, AFP, BBC, etc also confirm it. Due to a major lack of independent/3rd party sources in Syria, its been agreed among editors that Masdar and SOHR, which widely cover the conflict, would be used under the established rules I mentioned. Excluding either of the two as a source on Syrian war-related articles would leave our coverage of that conflict undersourced in a major way. I am pinging other editors who have been involved in the Syrian war articles to also chip in. @Mr.User200:@Smeagol 17:@I Know I'm Not Alone:@Cengo-1992:@Applodion:@Takinginterest01:@Goodposts:@Mehmedsons:@Khirurg: (sorry if I missed someone) EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

For reference, the previous RfC on Masdar News, per which the ground rules on the source were established, can be found here [65]. EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

User @EkoGraf: hit the nail on the head. Al-Masdar has proven to be reliable in terms of factual accuracy. It is a pro-Syrian government publication, yes, but its reporting is nonetheless based on factual events. The SOHR is a very similar situation, but with the roles reversed - it actively opposes the Syrian government. For this reason, the two sources are often used in tandem, which provides a relatively good sense of balance in the article. If only one is available, it can be used with attribution as per WP:PARTISAN. As EkoGraf mentioned, excluding either of the two would seriously and severely hamper coverage of the Syrian Civil War and drastically reduce the quality of the articles on the subject. The fact of the matter is that foreign publications don't cover enough detail to replace sources like these, and Syrian publications are bound to have a bias. For this reason, publications with opposite biases can be used together to verify certain events. In any case, Al-Masdar has proven to be an accurate source and its publications can usually be trusted to convey the full reality of the situation to their readers, be it from a pro-government viewpoint. The presense of an editorial viewpoint doesn't necessarily imply a lack of accuracy. Al-Masdar's sympathies for the Syrian Government have so far not usually translated into more than phrasing differences (eg. 'militant' as opposed to 'rebel' - which in of itself isn't necessarily wrong, as they are defined as such by their country's government, but it does present a POV). It has published articles on government losses, as well as on controversies. For these reasons, I support the current SCW consensus, as accurately described above by EkoGraf, that Al-Masdar can be used, with attribution if used alone, and without if used in conjunction with other sources. As for extremely controversial matters, such as chemical attacks - the current consensus dictates that such material may only be added with multiple, independent publications and may not soley be based on such a source.

Lastly, part of the original controversy around al-Masdar was regarding one of their editors (the same one that published the controversial Khan Shaykhun article) that was found to have posted a racist comment in an online forum ten years prior. That editor was suspended by al-Masdar when those allegations were revealed and forced to resign two days later. He hasn't published anything on Al-Masdar since. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @EkoGraf: and @Goodposts:. The Syrian Civil War is a difficult subject matter, and getting reliable sources has often proven be a nightmare. In fact, even Western newspapers which are usually reliable and employ capable journalists have occasionally repeated unreliable propaganda claims. In this regard, al-Masdar is certainly flawed - it makes no secret of its firm support of the government and opposition toward the rebels. Regardless, it has access to sources within the Syrian government and military, and is able to report on matters which pro-rebel sources such as SOHR generally fail to mention, i.e. which military units take part in operations. As its reporting also overlaps with SOHR and other pro-opposition media in regard to battles, Masdar cannot be said to be a mere propaganda outlet. It should be used with caution, but as Goodposts said, Wikipedia would certainly lose many details and the proper balance between pro-rebel/pro-government sources if it would be banned. Applodion (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ekograf and Goodposts, SOHR and Al -Masdar might be used together to report undeniable facts from the battlefild, this means reports of offensives and territorial gains/losses. Regarding casualties neither SOHR or Al-Masdar share their metodology or back their claim of dead combatants with the names of he victims. Something combatants media do usually. SOHR have made very wild claims before. I remeber two, the 2013-2014 Aleppo Prison breach by Syrian rebels. This was a huge editorial error and anti-rebels labelled that coverage as SOHR FAKE news. The other gross error was a report of monthly casualties that the individual losses did not matched with the final sum. I remember sending a message to the SOHR account in FB about it and they changed their final tally in some hours. A pity I did not took a screnshot. Regarding Al-Masdar and SF some weeks ago remeber seeing a wild claim of Israeli strikes in Yemen or something like that, without any photo or evidence. They took away that new shortly after. In short dont believe blindly any media regarding the Syrian Civil War they back combatants in the field and have their own iterest. Mr.User200 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

I do not think we should consider al-Masdar a reliable source. I accept that there are times when it might be useful to cite it with attribution for some details that are missing from more reliable sources, and that where it agrees with pro-opposition sources the two can be triangulated to get access to a broadly accurate account. However, there are several problems.

1) I think it is a red herring to say that it is reliable because it largely agrees with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), sometimes described as "pro-opposition". SOHR started out as pro-opposition, but now often more closely resembles al-Masdar; they often seem to use each other as sources. SOHR is basically one man in England with a network of sources in Syria. It does not share its methodology and has been heavily criticised for that. It has long since ceased to be a trusted source for pro-opposition Syria-watchers. (See this 2017 piece and this very recent article both by Syrian journalist Amr Salahi, who also writes for Middle East Eye and al-Araby.) The Syrian fact-checking site has published multiple articles definitively showing SOHR to be reporting inaccurately. The fact that al-Masdar often agrees with SOHR is therefore not an argument for trusting al-Masdar.

2) As noted above one of their former editors Paul Antonopoulos (also involved with the South Front blog) was outed as a neo-Nazi and forced to resign. It is true that he has not published on a-M since, but his old articles remain up and many remain sources in our articles. More importantly, the main editor Leith Fadel has also been involved in controversy, as described on the al-Masdar News WP article itself.

3) a-M, like SOHR, published very quickly. Many of its articles are rightly entitled "Breaking News". Breaking news articles are defined as primary sources by Wikpipedia. As the WP:BNS essay says, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and is not required to rush to publish. As a result, our processes and principles are designed to work well with the usually contemplative process of building an encyclopedia, not sorting out the oft-conflicting and mistaken reporting common during disasters and other breaking news events. Primary sources should always be replaced by secondary sources as soon as possible, and it is often better to leave out minor details only appearing in primary sources or in borderline reliable sources. If a detail is too insignificant to be reported anywhere other than al-Masdar or SOHR, it probably isn't important enough to include in an encyclopedia article. We don't need to know how many meters the SAA advanced on a given day or which hill they took then lost one afternoon. In short, there is rarely a good reason to cite al-Masdar.

4) Most (not all) al-Masdar articles are themselves second hand. They pass on SAA press releases, translate the Syrian state news agency into English, summarise ISIS press releases, post social media videos online, etc. The fact that these have been reposted by al-Masdar does not make them more reliable, and they should be assessed in the same way the original source was assessed. Thus a SAA briefing quoted by al-Masdar about which unit was involved in a particular battle might be usable (and this is one thing al-Masdar probably is good for) but we need to use it very, very carefully.

5) Because al-Masdar uses such non-neutral language (e.g. both jihadi and non-jihadi rebels are called "jihadis" and "terrorists"), it is not good that our articles link to their articles, especially because readers will assume that we are citing decent sources.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Bob. I wish we had more 3rd party/neutral sources on Syria that could replace Masdar. And where we can replace it we should. However, due to the major lack of 3rd party sources on Syria, we do with what we have. And due to Masdar's reliability over territorial and military unit issues and unreliability over controversial issues, the previous RfC set up the basic ground rules on the usage of Masdar News on Wikipedia after an extensive discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for tighter specification of when to use as an RS, building on the last RfC: (a) a-M can be used without attribution as a source for official Syrian government statements, for pro-government casualty names and the naming pro-government units deployed; (b) a-M can be used with attribution and care as a source for territorial gains and losses and other non-controversial and uncontested facts, ideally triangulated with pro-opposition sources (preferably not just SOHR), but effort should be made to replace with better sources as soon as possible; (c) a-M should never be used as a source for names and numbers of pro-opposition casualties, names of pro-opposition units or details of factional disputes among opposition fighters, or for any controversial or contested details; (d) breaking stories from a-M should be avoided unless necessary, and where used should include an inline primary source tag and be replaced by reliable secondary sources as soon as available; (e) articles that are heavily reliant on a-M should have an unreliable sources and/or partisan source template added and sections that are heavily reliant on it should have a more citations or a one source template added. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll address the issues one by one.

1 - You are correct that the SOHR does not share its methodology and has been criticised for that. Regardless, it is still a pro-opposition publication and this becomes apparent from the phrasing of its articles. For example "The Syrian Army captured the village of X" would often be reported by the SOHR as "The regime and its militias captured the village of X". Its noteworthy that the Middle East Eye, which you mentioned, is in of itself involved in controversy over an alleged pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias and Qatari funding. It was one of the outlets that the gulf coalition demanded be shut down as part of the Qatar diplomatic crisis.

2 - What al-Masdar did was more or less exactly what they should have done in that situation. The first article written by that editor was dated in late 2014, while his post in the neo-nazi forum was from 2007. It's likely that they didn't know about a post he made online 7 years prior. Once made aware, he was suspended and made to resign, which is exactly what one would expect. Even Vice Media, today known as a left-liberal publication, was originally involved (and even co-founded by) with Gavin McInnes - who later created the extreme rightist group "Proud Boys". Needless to say, he also doesn't write for Vice any longer. It is impossible to know the deeply held political opinions of every person that works for a publication, nor how they would or will develop as time goes on. What matters is what the response of the publication is once matters such as these become public.

3 - I will agree with you that sensationalism is not good for wikipedia, nor should editors rush to edit in the "breaking news". At the same time there are many noteworthy things that are only published in sources such as these. An example would be the reshuffle of military command in an important military unit or the surrounding of yet another observation post.

4 - That is not necessarily something that takes away credibility. It is expected that a source has some kind of methodology for confirming the findings that were alleged on twitter or other rarely reliable sources - for example by using its own sources and informants. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with translated SANA articles, when used to cite official positions of the Syrian government. It's actually preferable to linking in arabic, as machine translations can be unreliable and wikipedia policy favours English sources when available.

5 - It is true that they use non-neutral language, but so does the SOHR, Daily Sabah, Anadolu Agency, Al Jazeera and the vast majority of other regional sources. That's why we often use al-Masdar to provide some balance when citing some of these other sources.

While I do believe you have some valid points, I do believe your proposal is simply too restrictive, especially the idea of marking articles citing them multiple times as "unreliable". I can, however, I agree on a moderate holding off from "breaking news" articles - though I think this should cover all sources on the topic, and not just al-Masdar. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. (1) I would not use Middle East Eye as a reliable source in an actual article, but use that to show that pro-opposition commentators do not regard SOHR as a reliable or pro-opposition source. True, SOHR uses the word "regime" for the government (as do some mainstream Western outlets) but it also uses the word "jihadi" for many rebel groups. My point is that using it to legitimate al-Masdar is dodgy because two wrongs don't make a right. (2) The difference from the Vice example is that McInnes went on to be a far right activist when he left Vice, whereas Antonopoulos was involved in far right politics before joining al-Masdar, which speaks badly of their judgement. It's not itself a dealbreaker, but is suggestive of a pattern of bad judgement and fringe partisanship. As I said, what's more important is the controversy around the editor, such as his circulation of fake allegations that a refugee in Europe was a Nusra activist.[66] (3) Agree. (4) OK, but it is a reason why we need to exercise caution. As al-Masdar's reliability is not agreed on, we cannot give them the benefit of the doubt about their methodology for confirming social media stories are true. (5) OK, but al-Masdar is a particularly egregious example, so we should be minimising its use rather than using it to balance other weak sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there precedent for such detailed prescription regarding when and when not to use a source? While the OP was clearly exercised about bias at a-M, I think the RS issues are covered sufficiently by the general guidance of the 2017 rfc. Batternut (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable with the use of Al Madsar (see the heated discussion on its talk page in the past) without attribution, and a period of time in which it passes the WP:NOTNEWS in which alternative sources with credibility can be found. In fact, there were no disclosures (about us, etc.) before Dfroberg (a member of the board of directors) joined in the writing of the article. He did eventually admit his COI when I found his name appended to one of their articles, but was eventually blocked for trying to disruptively promote their publication and take the WP:JDLI bits out. I can sympathise with EkoGraf wanting to be able to use their material since he works with stats, as has already been pointed out, attribution is essential, but it must quickly be backed up. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As per the RfC, we cite Masdar with attribution when its the sole source reporting on a territorial gain or when we are using it as a source for a controversial issues that is also covered by other more reliable sources (so to provide a competing POV). We do not use Masdar as a source (we exclude it) when its the sole source for a controversial issue that is not covered by other RS. When it reports on a territorial gain that is also confirmed by the anti-gov SOHR we use both as refs and there is no need for attribution since they confirm each others claims basically. And, I think we can all agree, whenever there is a chance to replace Masdar with a more mainstream reliable source we do it. I could also agree that "breaking news" reports by Masdar should not be used until more concrete and clear reports are provided. EkoGraf (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason I think we need more robust guidelines is that the source is really heavily and badly used. For example, in the article about a current offensive, Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present), al-Masdar is used 32 times, which is an awful lot, and it would be more and with less attribution if I hadn't gone through it and checked some of its overreached uses. Maybe it is more heavily used there because it is on-going so people haven't had time to go back and replace with better, but it doesn't seem like that does happen as people move on to hastily adding in the breaking news on whatever the current offensive is. Thus, in Idlib demilitarization (2018–2019) about 10% of cites are al-Masdar; in Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019), 122 cites (about a quarter of cites) are a-M; in Northwestern Syria campaign (October 2017–February 2018), 148 out of 264 references are to al-Masdar. It seems to me that unless we have a much stronger steer against using it, it will keep on being heavily used. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?

Is The Green Papers [67] a generally reliable source for election-related information? - MrX 🖋 20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Current usage: [68]
• Previous discussion: [69]
• Related discussion: Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Poll: Should The Green Papers estimates for pledged delegates be used in place of those from major sources like the New York Times?

---

• Should not be used in preference to established RS like the New York Times and other newspapers which cover this topic in sufficient detail. buidhe 21:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The days and weeks after a primary/caucus is over, there can still be updates to votes totals and delegates from official sources until the final results are certified. The Green Papers always keeps up with these updates, while other reliable sources like the New York Times, USA Today, and CNN often do not. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but...: The site provides high quality information, but it's essentially a self-published website by two politics geeks, with no editorial oversight (nor any web designer to speak of). It can be used, but if The Green Papers say one thing and mainstream media outlets say another, report what the mainstream outlets say, even if you believe the Green Papers are "more accurate". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. per above. --Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Based on a read of their 2020 Iowa results article, the source is reliable (display official election result data imported both from the primary official result website in each state and from the New York Times) and it is also of a unique high quality (as it transparently outline how national pledged delegates have been calculated while explaining the underlying math, so that the reader himself can check and verify that the calculated results indeed are correct).
  • When used along with a primary official result website source (i.e the IDP website), then The Green Papers source add quality to wikipedia. Newspaper sources and even the offical website result websites, tend to skip publication of the calculations behind the allocation of national pledged delegates, and instead just jump on to display only the final results.
  • Another quality of The Green Papers source is that it continue to track subsequent developments for the calculated final result of allocated won "national pledged delegates", both when "certified final results" are published by the official result website roughly one month after the election, and in those cases where the initial won "national pledged delegates" subseqently transfers to other candidates (i.e. check how the source was used to keep track of the final results in this 2008 Iowa Democratic cacucuses wikipedia article, where it should be noted that most newspapers at the time in comparison failed to update their several month old result articles to keep track of the subsequent developments happening months later for the Iowa national pledged delegates). Danish Expert (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and no. Yes in that its data is probably accurate; no in that it doesn't really qualify as RS in the usual Wikipedia sense, though IAR may apply. I largely agree with what Buidhe and MaxBrowne2 said above. This site reminds me of Kworb for music data. feminist (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - It is a self published website with unknown editorial oversight. It may be usable in some contexts, but when major news organizations routinely report election results, there is no real value in citing a self published source. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - I agree with feminist that the data might be accurate, but it is a self published Blog so its reliability is questionable. I don't think it should be used as a main reliable reference, maybe a secondary in some cases. ContentEditman (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• No SPS blog by people who do not seem to be recognised experts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - Self-published blog. They probably get it right most of the time but I see no reason to rely on them when there are ample better sources (official reports, AP, NYTimes) to cite. Neutrality^talk 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• No I notice a disclaimer on the Nevada Democrats caucus page: "These pages contain a combination of official, unofficial, and estimated data. The information posted here is subject to change."[70] If something is an estimate, that must be mentioned in the text. But there is no reason in reporting their estimates since they have no claim to expertise. However, journalists are supposed to have the expertise to weigh sources, so we can use their info if it is reported in news articles. TFD (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• No Where more reliable sources agree with their data, use the more reliable sources. Where more reliable sources disagree with it, then we can't trust this one. There's no good reason to use it. --Jayron32 15:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I suspect that all those who replied "No" from 23-26 February most likely lack some experience on what this source is really about and how Wikipedia article's previously chose to use it (as a supplementing secondary source along with the primary source being the "official election result webpage") for most US presidential elections (including primaries and caucuses) over the past 20 years.
    The Green Papers is not a traditional source, but more of a factual election result database, which collected and documented all official election results (with its primary data-input being identical to the imported results from the primary official website result webpages, and adding several important additional calculation details - plus some sourced comments on all potential subsequent changes to the count of pledged national convention delegates happening after the election date itself) for all Democratic/Republican presidential races from 2000-2020 in their database. It can simply not just be replaced by any other reliable source.
    Besides of being the most complete and accurate historic database for final results (i.e the created wikipedia article about the source features this line: "During the 2016 presidential election, many journalists started paying attention to the site's delegate counts, and Quoctrung Bui of the New York Times noted that the site "...does something very few media organizations are willing to do: accurately and independently tabulate delegates in real time."), it also like CNN+AP trade in the business of calculating a projected preliminary count of won pledged national convention delegates based on the ongoing preliminary partial count before 100% of the voting places reported their result (hence they also added their "data disclaimer" on the top of the page, warning readers that their page features preliminary data subject to change). Whether or not these preliminary calculated data for pledged national convention delegates (based on partial less than 100% counted results) should be added to Wikipedia articles by AP/CNN/TGP or none of them at all, is a second very seperate ongoing debate, where my own position is, that infoboxes should completely refrain from displaying these calculated preliminary data figures delivered by any source, meaning that we should instead just opt to display a "TBD" - at least until 100% of the vote has been counted.
    Contrary to AP/CNN, the The Green Papers however nevertheless is the only source that transparently display how this calculation of pledged national convention delegates is performed (first based on preliminary unofficial results and later based on final official certified results being imported by the source-linked primary official result webpage), and The Green Papers is the only available source that provides a full explanation of how this calculation math is working, and moreover it has a historic track record of doing these calculations both faster and more accurate compared to AP/CNN. We have no source to replace it, because as you can see this alternative AP source do not deliver the same amount of data details compared to The Green Papers. Finally, it is similar to all alternative newspaper sources being updated very frequently several times per day, so it never features outdated data. Danish Expert (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• Where the source collates information from electoral officials, we can follow Say where you read it. For example in a 1948 congressional race in Idaho, we could cite that electoral board and mention in the footnote that we got the info from The Green Papers. But there is no reason to report their calculated results if they have been ignored by mainstream sources. Bear in mind too that we are not preventing readers from going to The Green Paper if they wish to do so. It is not the role of Wikipedia to incorporate everything available on other sites on the internet. TFD (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• You accidently missed the point of my stated comment above. MrX started this "reliable source RFC" because he want to use AP/CNN instead of TGP as a reliable source for the preliminary calculated number of "pledged national convention delegates" election results. My position is, that neither AP/CNN/TGP should be used as sources for a display of this preliminary data (based on less than 100% of the votes being counted), as per WP:NOTNEWS. However, there is absolutely no reason to change how Wikipedia has previously used TGP as a reliable supplementing secondary database source for US election articles in the past 20 years, as it provides this important valuable additional info not reported by ordinary newspaper sources:
  1. Number of pledged national convention delegates based on the election result itself (while providing all verifiable math and explanation for this calculation, which competing sources tend to skip).
  2. Subsequent changes to the number of allocated pledged national convention delegates due to events from candidates pulling out of the race - or subsequent changes due to subsequent election system developments at the state's district convention or state convention.
  3. Display exactly how many pledged delegates each candidate won within respectively each of the 6 election races that form part of a states overall election event (i.e. congressional district 1+2+3+4 delegates, plus the PLEO delegates per statewide total and at-large delegates per statewide total).
  4. Finally TGP also keep track on how each states unpledged delegates finally vote on the floor of the Democratic Partys' National Convention.

All of the above 4 additional data points are not provided by alternative newspaper sources. Once certified results are published by the primary official election source (which TGP link to), they then finally also remove their data disclaimer about "preliminary data subject to change" (i.e. see the 2016 Iowa election result article). This is why Wikipedia shall continue to use TGP as a supplementing data source (along with a primary official election webpage source), without enforcing any changes to how Wikipedia previously up until today has opted to use this TGP source. Danish Expert (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There are reasons. We are an encyclopedia whose credibility is based on adherence to referencing to sources with reputations for fact checking, editorial oversight, and making corrections when necessary. Your argument is based largely on the mechanics of the information that TGP publishes and your own assessment of its value and quality. We should not use questionable sources simply because they publish information that reliable sources don't. We have always done it that way is a poor argument for elevating this source. I would be careful about making declarations like "Wikipedia shall continue to use TGP as a supplementing data source" that may run contrary to consensus. - MrX 🖋 13:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

We are however experience editors who (generality) understand policy, an SPS is an SPS accuracy is irrelevant. If this was produced by A recognised (BY other RS) it might be usable, no evidence has been produced it is. can tell you (exactly) what the weather is like outside my house, that does not make me an RS on it (no matter how accurate I am).Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrX, would you mind adding an {{rfc}} tag to this discussion to make this a formal request for comment, or removing "RfC:" from the section heading? — Newslinger talk 12:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait, I see that Legobot removed the {{rfc}} tag in Special:Diff/940712018 after this RfC was prematurely archived. I restored the tag. — Newslinger talk 13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have caught that. - MrX 🖋 13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the Christie's Web site a reliable source for antique furniture info?

I mean Christie's the auction house. --AlainV (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/petit-bureau-en-capucin-de-style-louis-5412630-details.aspx

Ish, it would be a primary expert source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dimensions of an object, I think that's ok. Price-ranges and such, I don't think they're independent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of the dimensions and what could be considered an objective description of the object "un gradin rétractable muni de deux tiroirs et de sept casiers" I certainly wasn't thinking of the price. --AlainV (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Stuff like "beautiful and unique" (not a quote) would be iffier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

As always attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by attribution? How would the principle of attribution work or have worked in the case of le Bureau du Roi and/or the Resolute desk articles during their creation? I always understand better with examples.--AlainV (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"according to Christies the petit bureau en capucin de style louis is this big" specific examples work best when we know what a source is being used for.Slatersteven (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if I'm wrong, but each piece of furniture is just an example of a type. It would be wrong to cite Christie's to make a general point about antique furniture or a certain type of it when each bit of information is only on one example of it. The two articles linked are of individual furnishings so that should be ok, but I still think better sources are likely available. buidhe 00:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

For furniture? Not many. I haven't looked at this example, but for expensive items they often publish mini-essays by specialists (often outside ones) that are highly useful in specialized areas. Obviously they want to present the item for sale in the best light, but all concerned live & die by their reputations (and fear litigation) so these are normally RS. Obviously for their own achieved prices they are the best source, but pre-sale estimates shouldn't be used. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Johnbod. For individual pieces of furniture, the catalogue listing is reliable for facts such as dimensions, materials, and price achieved. They are also technically RS for pre-sale estimate (so long as it is attributed, e.g. "Christie's estimated that it would be sold for $4000-$6000"), but I suspect that for other reasons (such as WP:DUE) there's basically never a good reason to quote such estimates. For individual pieces and types of furniture, the catalogue essays are generally written by experts (at least, they are in the fine arts; I assume the same is true for other deparements), and Christie's itself has a reputation to uphold, so I would consider those generally reliable. Also for types of furniture, Christie's would be reliable for "In $YEAR, an example sold at Christie's measured $DIMENSIONS and was made out of $MATERIALS" type statements – but again, other policies probably suggest that in most cases such things shouldn't be included. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I intended to omit prices from this article and other furniture articles I'm working on. They change too much and I'm working in another time frame. The reference books I use (like John Gloag's Complete Dictionary of Furniture ) avoid them completely. The problem is that there aren't enough good reference books. That's why I'm turning to the Web.--AlainV (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A catalogue entry would not be RS for notability.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

National Writers Press

• All pages with source code containing ""National Writers Press""

This is a bit of an oddity. https://nationalwriterspress.com/index.html suggests that it's halfway between a vanity press and a publisher. Not many inclusions so not an urgent problem, but is this actually a legit publisher? Guy (help!) 18:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Guy, we are on the cusp of a paradigm shift in book publishing - it was inevitable. Wired wrote a bit about it a little over a year ago. I suggest looking closer at the credibility/reliability of the individual authors, and not be too quick to discount/deprecate them as self-published since there may be contractual terms with the publisher that are not shared publicly. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR sourcing (etc.) at Talk:Mottainai

New outside voices are still very much welcome. The page has seen a lot of activity from trolls and editors who are hounding me, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, and so on, so more neutral parties chiming in would be most appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

CAPTCHA exemption for reliable domains

(Background: New users have to enter a CAPTCHA every time they make an edit that includes a link to another website. There is a little-known feature in the mediawiki software that allows us to whitelist websites that are used frequently and are highly unlikely to be used by bots for spamming. The whitelist is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist .)

I submitted a request for the following domains to be added to the whitelist:

• ipcc.ch (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
• nap.edu (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)

I was asked to post the request here in case there are any objections. If there are no objections within a week, these sites will be whitelisted and new users who want to add references to these sources will not have to enter CAPTCHAS to do so. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The elephant in the room - amazon.com

• amazon.com  

Tens of thousands of articles contain references to Amazon sales pages. Many more contain {{ASIN}}, which links to Amazon via an Amazon=specific product identifier. Many of these are used as sources for statements of fact.

I have always thought that if Wikipedia stands for one thing, it should be content neutrality. Linking to the sales pages of Amazon, a company whose ethics are questioned by many, seems to me to be a fundamentally bad idea. It seems to me that any of us who care could work together to craft a central RfC to deprecate and remove these. We should not be part of the process of driving independent or emergent sellers out of business by promoting their biggest competitor. I don't think any other vendor gets this kind of number of source links on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 21:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we need even an RfC? I remove them on sight. I'd be surprised if I've left any I've encountered. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that might make me pause is whether anyone is using the preview of books on Amazon like the preview view on Google books (which we do allow - and it could be argued have equally muddy business practices, and certainly will try and sell you things) - also note that we do link to Amazon (amongst others) every time we have an ISBN code - with the Special:BookSources page explicitly stating "Google Books and Amazon.com may be particularly helpful if you want to verify citations in Wikipedia articles, because they often enable you to search an online version of the book for specific words or phrases, or you can browse through the book (although for copyright reasons the entire book is usually not available)."Nigel Ish (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't need an RfC or to remove them on-sight, we need to understand why they're being used. For instance, like a link to iTunes, they can be used to verify track titles (although AllMusic or another site is preferred), or other information that is not controversial including the aforementioned book previews. Knee-jerk responses like this are problematic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it probably needs contextualization. If the references are to information that actually appears on a product page (e.g. product description) then I agree that would for sure be a no-go, but if it is linking to a preview-able book then I don't see the problem, as it simply saves a step for anyone looking to verify the citation. I'm not really sure that it should matter to us whether or not it is "a company whose ethics are questioned by many", as that could be said about nearly any company or organization, and unless those ethics are related in some way to the reliability of the source (e.g. a news organization that lacks ethics as it relates to factual reporting) it seems to fall more into the category of righting great wrongs. All that really matters is if the information is reliable and verifiable, and if linking to a book via Amazon in the most expedient way to allow for that then I think it is fine. If independent or emergent sellers host similar previews of books then I don't see anything wrong with switching a link from Amazon to one of those sellers, but I don't think it is our business to worry about, or take a side on, whether or not citations inadvertently function as advertising. I think this would potentially open a whole can of worms about all citations inherently functioning as advertising to the cited source (be it Fox News, the NYT, WaPo, Al Jazeera, etc.), and whether or not that is ethical or fair. Personally I think that sources should be evaluated exclusively on their merits as it applies to reliability and verifiability. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I almost agree with the above, if I take it to mean "link to a page in a book preview".Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

AmbivalentUnequivocality, who's going to look at all 40,000 of them? If we don't come up with some reasonably broad-brush proposal, it will never get done. Guy (help!) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need Amazon pages at all. If a book is worthy of mention anywhere on Wikipedia, it will have an ISBN and be available in WorldCat. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Reviews on Amazon (as they are user generated) would not establish notability. So in fact what is it useful for?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Not all reviews are user-generated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

​Do you have a counterexample? Amazon republishes reviews from sites such as Wirecutter for a small selection of products, and links them from search results pages, but those reviews can be cited to the original publisher if necessary. As far as I can see, all product reviews on the product listing (designated as "Customer reviews") are user-generated. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether Amazon is evil or not. Such links should be removed on sight (which I do). If we have to use links to Amazon (or iTunes) to verify something, we're doing it wrong. The information should either be referenced to a reliable source, or left out. We don't need to link to book previews for anyone's convenience, as that is not our role. I agree with others that we don't need an RfC for something so obvious. - MrX 🖋 12:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• The first couple of links to Amazon that I checked were all links to book pages marked as "excerpt" or similar, directly helping with verifiability. If we don't want to link to Amazon (or Google for that matter, who also have purchase links on their book pages) from our articles, at the very least such links should be moved to the talk page instead of being simply bot-removed. Making our content easy to verify seems to be a more important goal to me than avoiding links to Amazon. So yeah, it is obvious that "remove all" is wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's our role to bend rules to make it easy to read a portion of a source, but if it were, then Google Books would be an option that would seem less likely to run afoul of WP:COPYVIO and WP:REFSPAM. - MrX 🖋 13:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a fundamental difference between linking to Google Books and linking to Amazon here. (I do see a difference, but not a fundamental one that would make one link always OK and the other link never OK). If we outlaw Amazon links, we should also outlaw Google Books links that contain "buy ebook" links or other invitations to spend money and give it to Google. —Kusma (t·c) 13:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That comparison is nuts. We link to Google Books because it actually contains the content in the books and so assists us dramatically with article sourcing. Amazon provides us nothing of the sort. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Amazon very often contains readable excerpts too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, I am talking about pages on Amazon that actually contain the content in the books. —Kusma (t·c) 14:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As the previous RFC on the matter have made pretty clear, the solution is

a) replace Amazon links and ASINs with ISBNs and other neutral identifiers (OCLC, LCCN, etc...) when they can be found

b) if they can't be found, Amazon links and ASINs are fine as identifiers of last resort. Same for any other vendor out there (Wiley, Springer, CRC Press, etc...)

c) And also remember that these links are more-often-than-not added out of convenience, like <ref>See Gallagher 2005 <amazonlink></ref>, because it's much quicker to do that than insert a properly formatted {{cite book}}, and not out of desire to spam Wikipedia with commercial links.

So unless something changed from the last RFCs, I don't really see why we need to re-hash this again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion reflects one common problem in Wikipedia. Editors see a "bad" source, instinct is to remove without even thinking to replace with a good source. Mentioned above is WorldCat. If Amazon is cited to prove a book exists or its date, publisher, ASIN, etc., replace with WorldCat. Maybe a bot to do this throughout? Hyperbolick (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

They do. Or at least I'm pretty sure that User:Citation bot does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• This isn’t something we can make a blanket determination on. We have to look at context (what is said in each article where Amazon is cited) and ask two questions: 1) Does the citation reliably verify the material in our article? 2) Is there is a BETTER, more reliable source that would verify that material?

If the answer is “yes” to the first question, and “no” to the second, then we should leave it as is. If the answer “yes” to BOTH questions, then we should replace the citation to Amazon with a citation to the better source. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Or tag as needing better. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see why Guy is concerned about this but I comments and a question. Presumably any reference to a book should contain all the information needed to identify the book without any Amazon links (Title, Author, Publisher, Year, page number for specific content). I see no reason why any of that material would ever need an Amazon link. However, sometimes editors feel a link is helpful. I agree when WP:V is in dispute and people don't agree that a source supports a specific claim. In that case editors often look for a links. We generally seem OK with links to Google.books. I can understand the concern about linking to a purely commercial link (Amazon). I don't see any copyright concerns here since the link is to publicly, legally allowed material. In that regard it's no different than linking to a NYT article. So the question is, if the link exists only to allow for ready verification that a particular book supports a certain claim should we remove it. My inclination is no. However, if the link is to the general page, I'm not OK with it. If it's to the specific page then I think it's reasonable. However, unlike Google scholar I'm not sure how to do that with the Amazon links. Springee (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if Amazon previews allow you to link to a specific page? But regardless, I think linking to a sales page for the book is pretty inappropriate. As you say, the citation provided should allow a user to look it up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

So, how does a link to Amazon differ from a {{cite book}}? Should we stop using that? At least Amazon data can be clicked-through. With a physical book, you still have to find a physical copy to verify the data. All the same information is present in Amazon and no one is forced to purchase the book at the site: it's just data that the company has provided in the hopes that someone may purchase it one day.

In short, I get the feeling that people are reacting to the fact that it's a commercial site more than the fact that it's a useful site (tracking aside). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, the ISBN handler does exactly that. Gives you a list of libraries and everything. For actual content, we can link archive.org or maybe Google Books. Guy (help!) 22:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

And ISBN handler lists Amazon in multiple nations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, along with multiple other booksellers and free sources such as libraries. The question is whether preferring Amazon is consistent with Wikipedia policies an ethos. I would argue not. Guy (help!) 12:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Stage 1 proposal

Filter 894 (log) warns on addition of vanity presses like Lulu and XLibris. When this is set to "Trigger these actions after giving the user a warning", requiring a second click to override, most additions are not committed. The filter prevents the majority of additions. As a first step, we could add a filter to warn on addition of links Amazon (and any other online seller we consider is an issue), potentially restricting to additions within a <ref> or {{cite}}. Guy (help!) 22:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Warning against amazon links would be detrimental because users use those as shorthand for full citations. E.g <ref>See p. 5 in https://www.amazon.ca/Physics-5th-James-S-Walker/dp/0321976444/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=physics&qid=1583020734&s=books&sr=1-2</ref>. Are there better ways to do this? Of course, but we don't want to discourage the addition of material which fully meets WP:V, but which simply isn't presented in the platonically ideal way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

What Headbomb said. I'm getting tired of material that is perfectly acceptable under WP:V getting whacked as part of overzealous applications of these discussions without regard to the contexts in which those sources are used. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, I disagree. Warning is not preventing. The vanity press edit filter results in either no edit or a different source roughly 3/4 of the time, that seems like a decent outcome. Guy (help!) 12:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Since an auction house like Christie is not a RS how about an established museum like the Met?

The Met doesn't have a "Bureau Capucin" in its holdings but there are other types of desks for which I'm looking for sources and the Met has a few. The Met is at https://www.metmuseum.org/ and an example of an item in their collection is at https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/15.21.2/ with the kind of historical text I need.--AlainV (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I do know that the question of whether the printed signage at museums should be considered RS was asked about 10 years ago, and at that time we said “yes, it generally was”... Does this answer your question? Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a single person said in unequivocal terms that Christie's was not a reliable source. There was a nuanced discussion about context and reliability where it was shown that depending on what you were using it for and depending on how you attribute it in the text it would be perfectly reliable for certain applications. You need to be clear on what you intend to use something like this, especially where it is outside of the normal "book, journal, magazine, news" type of sources we think of in this context. Like wise with a "museum". What are we using from the museum? Signage? Printed guides? Books they have published? Their website? What are we using that content to verify here at Wikipedia? How are you phrasing what you are writing? How are you attributing the source? That all matters. --Jayron32 22:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I should have mentioned explicitely that I'm thinking of using their Web site entries as shown in the examples I gave. I should also have said that this would be (with the exception of the capucin desk) for existing desk articles which already have lists of scholarly books consulted but which (for now) lack inline citations.--AlainV (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you give an example sentence and citation? That would let us see the how well the article text is supported by the source (or not). Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A museum and an Auction house are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

If the Metropolitan Museum has an object in its collection, it will usually have reliable online material about it, and it is not necessary o ely on jus the exhibit label. Perhaps Pharos can assist here . DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, its not a sale catalogue entry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

worldatlas.com

I found many articles that cite worldatlas.com, which is another online encyclopedia. Unlike Wikipedia, it seems to lack references in most of its articles, so it is probably not a reliable source. Should references to World Atlas be replaced with references to other sources, where possible? Jarble (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am definitely not a fan of citing tertiary sources especially online ones and a better source would be best. But last time this came up that I saw Trusted web sites for research - Yale University (PDF) was cited.--Moxy 🍁 03:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Moxy but, as an fyi, that Peabody link leads nowhere. IAE, doing a bit of research, it seems you meant to link this document. From it, it's noteworthy that the worldatlas.com site in question is listed by them as a recommended "trusted" site. I think this is where our focus needs to be: that an internationally known educational institution (Yale U.) has advised its museum researchers that WorldAtlas is considered a "trusted" (i.e., reliable) site. Mercy11 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• WorldAtlast.com is reliable. It qualifies as a tertiary source and the WP policy on tertiary sources here states "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources". There's nothing in the policy saying tertiary sources aren't to be used. Likewise, there's nothing unreliable about WorldAtlast. This particular atlas is reliable given that it has its own editorial board and the company isn't listed at List of self-publishing companies. That said, I think it's always preferable to have more than one source to a claim; however, that preference would be true of all sources, not unique to WorldAtlas.com. Also, I am not sure why a comparison is being made above between WorldAtlas and Wikipedia: Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. The comparison seems misleading. Mercy11 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

KCNA.kp and CGTN.com

I kindly request some comments on the following source(s) relating to their verifiability and reliability:

• CGTN (website at www.cgtn.com)
• Korean Central News Agency (English website at kcna.kp/kcna.user.home.retrieveHomeInfoList.kcmsf)

At the time of writing, no Wikipedia articles using the above sources have been identified. --69.160.29.94 (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As state run media they are not neutral, thus could not be used for statements of fact.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As this discussion is not a formal request for comment, I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading. Please see WP:RFC for details on the RfC process. — Newslinger talk 12:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal CV of Cristina Alberini

• Article: Cristina Alberini
• Source: Microsoft Word - Alberini_CV.docx

I was reviewing the DYK nomination for Cristina Alberini, which had several unsourced statements (see Special:Permalink/941596340) when I reviewed it. Two sources were later added to the article to support the unsourced sentence; they did support her work with Eric Kandel at Columbia University, but not that she moved to the University of Brescia in 1987 or that she returned to the US in 1991. In other words, {{failed verification}} applies. I did a quick Google search for sources and I got Alberini's personal CV which confirms this. (Alternatively I can simply cite one journal article she wrote while at Brescia, but that won't be helpful with sourcing the duration of her tenure.) Two previous discussions did not reach a clear consensus on this issue. I personally think that my usage was OK, because it merely fills in the gaps between what other sources support. But I'd like other editors' thoughts on this. feminist (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

An SPS, and how do we know this is her CV?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's from her personal website. feminist (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Care to link to it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Should "citation needed" be added when there is a permanent dead link?

I would like opinions to see whether my thinking is incorrect regarding placing a "citation needed" tag where information is sourced with a permanent dead link, as well as marking a citation as "dead link" in the text of the article if it is already identified in the list of references as "permanent dead link". I recently removed information from Billy Graham because the source was marked as a permanent dead link ([71]). Another editor (in good faith) reverted me, stating that "it's never OK to remove a dead link WP:DEADLINK" [72]. After considering it, I agreed that the information should remain in the article. Since the link is dead, I added a "citation needed" tag. Since the link is not identified in the text of the article as dead, I also added a "dead link" tag ([73]) so that other editors would know that a new source is needed. The other editor removed both tags with the comment "no a permanent dead link can be replaced, but not removed and there is a citation there" [74]. So for future reference I'd like to know if it is inappropriate to add those tags when a link is determined to be permanently dead. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it should be marked with so an archived version can be found. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Having the original reference is vital to fixing link rot by hand. Often it is still available elsewhere. Sometimes I've been able to get the site to restore the link. But I cannot do these things without the original reference; it is the deletion of links rather than their going dead that causes a permanent loss. There is no need for a "citation needed" tag. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to be sure I understand, the link in the list of references indicates "permanent dead link", but in the text of the article there is no indication of a dead link. I think it should be added there; otherwise the reader doesn't know it's a dead link unless they go to the trouble to look in the list of references. Does that sound right? Sundayclose (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The readers regard notations in the text as clutter. If they want to know about a reference, they hover the mouse over it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

One more question. How long should information tagged "citation needed" or "dead link" remain in an article? I realize that sometimes a dead link can be fixed, but sometimes it can't. I looked extensively for the particular source in this particular case and I believe it is no longer available. In this case I can find another source that partially confirms the information. But in other articles I've seen questionable information remain tagged in articles for many years. Where do we draw the line? Thanks again. Sundayclose (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources for the Goths article

Article: Goths

(Pinging other users who have edited recently on this article: @Carlstak, Srnec, Orenburg1, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Narky Blert, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Cobaltcigs, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, and Yeowe:)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Author: Peter Heather. Note: there is no dispute about his status as an authority on the Goths.

Works involved, by the above author, are two "dictionary" entries behind a paywall:

• Heather, Peter (2012b). "Goths". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony; Eidinow, Esther (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 623. ISBN 9780191735257. Retrieved January 25, 2020. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Heather, Peter (2018). "Goths". In Nicholson, Oliver (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press. p. 673. ISBN 9780191744457. Retrieved January 25, 2020. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The proposal for discussion is a rather high impact proposal affecting the whole article:-

Krakkos proposes that Peter Heather as an author, and in particular these two relatively recent dictionary articles are not just among the best possible sources, but definitely THE best, and as a result:

1. The lead of the article Goths should ONLY use these two sources. Anything NOT in these sources should NOT be in the lead AT ALL.

2. The article as a whole should be based on what is in these two sources.

Discussion. Feedback requested:

• I strongly oppose this proposal (and posted it here above, after discussion on the talk page). Reasons include:

• The rule proposed is arbitrary and extreme and no such rule is needed. No rationale seems clear.
• The specific sources were, already before this proposal, controversial because they are short dictionary articles which do not discuss the disputes within the field which are known to exist, and on some points Heather represents an extreme position compared to others. Wikipedia has to report all the major respectable positions, and this proposal would make that impossible.
• The cause of this demand being made seems to only be a content dispute. The proposer, (Krakkos), favour's Heather's positions. (There are also disputes about the LACK of citations to Walter Goffart, and the use of little-known book-review and educational website sources to attack Goffart and praise Heather further. I aim to post further about these.)
• As a side issue, these dictionaries are only available behind a paywall, and Krakkos has access to Oxford reference works through Wikipedia Library. It seems strange that in discussions about other highly regarded authorities, Krakkos has argued against the use of German language sources because these are less accessible to readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC) ADDED. It has been mistakenly commented on the article that this is my main concern.[75] It is not. Policy allows material behind paywalls, and also allows material in German. I was just pointing to a potential side issue, and the inconsistency of this potential argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• ADDED. To be clear I will also mention that one argument that has been made is that the newer of the two encyclopedias is very recent, making it very useful. However my counter arguments are that (1) from all reports it nevertheless is not written with the aim of giving updates of new debates from the last 20 or 30 years and (2) from online reviews it is clear this work was a project that took decades, so despite the final publication date, some articles might be very old.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose Andrew Lancaster's making of misrepresented proposals on my behalf. At Talk:Goths#Request to replace links behind paywall, i have asked Andrew Lancaster for permission to insert free links at Goths, so that he will have an opportunity to read the articles by Peter Heather in the Oxford Classical Dictionary and The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. 15:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried my hardest to get your cooperation Krakkos, [76], and it is based on your own words. If the proposal is wrongly worded, say so please. One way or another we need community input about your demands, so we can move ahead. Please do not work against this.

Also do keep in mind that the paywall is a side remark, as clearly stated. Please don't now try to make it all about the paywall?

...And why have you again written your position in a confusing way so that it looks like the opposite of what you mean? Is that to make some sort of point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I've tried even harder.[77] Formulating fictitious "proposals" on behalf of other editors is not a good way of cooperating. Krakkos (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine. I register that as another one of your diffs that leads to nothing relevant or positive for you. But more to the point, clearly you think the "proposal" I wrote for you does agree with your position (or proposal or claim or whatever we call it). Phew. Not sure what you can complain about. Anyway, until now, no one else agrees with you, but at least you agree with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• The lead should have no citations at all. It should summarize the article, which should be thoroughly cited. The two sources mentioned are top-tier sources and can be used extensively. Beyond that I don't know what to say. How the lead handles contentious issues will depend to a large extent on how the article does, but in my opinion it is perfectly okay to skate over controversies in the lead so long as the result it still NPOV. Srnec (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• The two sources are very good, but the best articles use a variety of sources. So other sources should be used as well. Indeed, relying too heavily on only one or two sources can create an unbalanced article with POV problems. Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Part 2

Despite the strict-looking proposal noted above, these lesser known sources ARE being used in the article to ridicule Goffart and other scholars who disagree with Heather such as A. S. Christensen, and to support Heather:

A paywall online educational website:

• Mark, Joshua J. (October 12, 2014). "The Goths". Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 17, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |editors=, |registration=, and |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

A book review of Christensen:

• Whitby, Michael (October 2003). "A. S. Christensen: Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth". The Classical Review. 53 (2). Classical Association: 498. doi:10.1093/cr/53.2.498. Retrieved February 27, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |layurl=, |laydate=, |nopp=, and |laysource= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Another book review of Christensen:

• Sønnesyn, Sigbjørn (2004). "Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths". Scandinavian Journal of History. 29 (3–4). Taylor & Francis: 306–308. doi:10.1080/03468750410005719. Retrieved February 27, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |layurl=, |laydate=, |nopp=, and |laysource= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The question is whether it is appropriate to use lesser sources like this, only for this type of reason, when there are lots of better sources easily available online, and many of those are currently not being used. Feedback requested:-

• I oppose the use of these 3 sources in the above way on the Goths article. (I posted this question.) These sources add nothing and are being used for nothing else, and at the same time we are not using any direct quotes or paraphrases from Goffart himself for example. Concerning accessibility, Mark is for example behind a paywall. (And as in the above case, the defender of these sources is Krakkos who has Wikipedia Library access, and is a partisan of Heather and critic of Goffart.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I fear this issue of due weight rather than reliability of sources. In general, "lower quality" sources should not be used to balance "higher quality" sources. If both views (Heather and Goffart) have support in mainstream scholarship, we should give both similar treatment. Are there any reviews disputing Heather´s work? (I have access to some journals to check them) Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes the proposals on our article have to do with "relative" reliability, but in a strong way: in effect one source (Heather) is said to be so much better that any sources Heather disagrees with should be excluded or at least not taken seriously.

One relevant question on our article is whether we need to explain Goffart's position at any length. (I am of the belief that Goffart's position on this particular point may even be the majority position today but in any case Goffart and Heather are of similar "statue".) Another relevant question would be whether we need to use book reviews at all in this case. (I suppose that is context and not for this particular forum to rule out though.)

What do you say with that extra information in mind? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose any statement that we can only use certain sources, I also oppose giving undue weight to fringe or minority (or non expert) views. Seems to me both sides may be in the wrong here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, the two proposals you oppose, at least how I understand it, come from the same user. Can you double check if I am right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• This post is rather confusing, but at any rate i oppose Andrew Lancaster's proposed prohibition against using the above-mentioned sources at Goths. If Goths is to include the theories of Arne Søby Christensen, then it should also include reviews of Christensen's theories by prominent scholars such as Michael Whitby. The article from the Ancient History Encyclopedia is not behind a paywall (at least not in my country). I also agree whole-heartedly with Slaterseven that the article should not give undue weight to minority positions. Walter Goffart's theories on Gothic origins are rejected by more prominent experts such as Peter Heather and Herwig Wolfram, and Goffart's theories are not mentioned in any reliable reference work on the Goths. It is thus a minority position and should not be given undue weight. Krakkos (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos could I humbly suggest that you reword your first sentence so that the word you bold is the opposite of "oppose"? I wrote these noticeboard posts as proposals to consider, and the proposals are yours. So I think you are saying you support both your own proposals, right? (This actually means you disagree with Slatersteven, as I see it.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Note - I would say that the comments from Pavlor and Slatersteven are spot on. This is primarily a question of WP:DUE rather than WP:RS. WP:TERTIARY states that "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight". Jimbo Wales says that due weight is well determined by examining "commonly accepted reference texts". This dispute is basically about the application of due weight in the summary of the article Goths. Fresh reference texts on the Goths, published by one of the world's most prestigious publishing houses (Oxford University Press) and written by the world's foremost expert on the Goths (Peter Heather), is therefore a useful tool for the application of due weight in the summary of Wikipedia's article on the Goths. Krakkos (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What does this mean in practice though? I guess we all agree the source is potentially useful, and there should be due balance etc. The answer, as explained by you on the article talk page, is exactly what I have defined in terms of two "proposals". Your posts here seem to be trying to deny you made such demands, and still try to argue in an unclear way that these are indeed how you demand that the editors should proceed on that article, and even try to imply that others here agree?? Please clarify. Aren't your ideas about the article in agreement with these proposals I wrote for you? Can't we agree that so far these ideas have been rejected by everyone else who has commented?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• These are all RS so far as I can tell. Mark is not a great source, but sometimes broad tertiary sources are needed at Wikipedia. It should probably be used sparingly if at all. The book reviews are fine, but a little too specific for such a high-level topic as this. I can't imagine there is anything we need to say in this article that cannot be sourced from something better. Srnec (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC also to be considered

As an aside, editors interested in this topic may also be able to make helpful input into an RFC about a book publication date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goths#RfC_on_publication_date --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Close

Andrew Lancaster writing proposals he claims are from Krakkos, then arguing[78][79][80] with him when Krakkos tries to express his own opinion is a pretty ridiculous approach. fiveby (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: with all due respect I think this intervention to break a discussion is unfortunate and unusual. Maybe I could have worked differently, though honestly it might not be as easy as it looks; BUT in the end...

Firstly, do RSN posts need to be posted only by editors whose RS claims are being questioned? The answer is obviously no.

Secondly, whether or not the proposals are "from Krakkos" is not necessarily important to the case. Again I think that is very common. Indeed, probably many discussions here end with one of the sides saying "you misunderstood me anyway" and that is not really a bad thing.

I came here to get clear feedback on record about whether certain positions are according with Wikipedia community consensus. That is the purpose of this forum. (I'd be happy to explain the background elsewhere.)

That feedback we already have will, fortunately, help future discussion, whether or not Krakkos accepts that those have been the position taken or not. At least that will then be clear. I wish you could have allowed this to go longer though.

Given this interruption now deliberately makes continuation of the discussion difficult, I will summarize what we have so far:

1. If "one editor" would announce to other editors that ONLY ONE SOURCE (one author in this case), even a VERY good source, may be used as in an article lead, AND as a basis to decide what topics should be allowed in the WHOLE of the article, that would NOT normally be acceptable.

2. If "someone" would argue that one of the most well-known and widely respected positions in a field may be reported ONLY by quoting negative and ridiculing snippets from a few review articles, that would NOT normally be acceptable.

Fiveby, you have a right to think, for example, that these two conclusions are obvious and can't possibly be needing discussion on RSN. Putting that aside, would you "in theory" agree with 1 and 2, imagining that such a position was ever taken by someone? I fully understand if you say that it is not believable that anyone would take these positions, but what harm can it be to answer me? (Indeed, what harm would there have been allowing the discussion?)

@Krakkos, Slatersteven, Srnec, Blueboar, and Pavlor: putting aside the question raised by Fiveby of whether anyone actually argues for these positions, are points 1 and 2 posted above correct in your opinion? The more clear we can make this, the more problems we can avoid.

To be clear, if Krakkos wants to say that 1 and 2 are nothing to do with anything proposed, which is certainly not what Krakkos has said so far, that would also be very useful and good news. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought I had, but here we go. The lede is a summery of the article, if its in the body it can go in the lede (sources are irrelevant to this question). The second point is harder, but we cannot just dismiss sources on grounds of an appeal to authority. So no an argument of "these are the only 2 sources we can use" is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: it's a strawman propasal and appears designed for further bludgeoning in the current flood of Oxford vs. Toronto talk page posts. Don't try and tell me what I think, it's insulting. fiveby (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

TohoKingdom

1. Source: TohoKingdom.com
2. Article Godzilla (franchise) and other related articles.
3. Per a discussion among users on the articles talk page here, there was discussion whether or not the site should be used as a source. Although there was a lot of enthusiasm for the site to be used, I believe it fails WP:SELFPUBLISH. It actively publishes information about films such as Mothra, and notes some sources, but also appears to use self-published sources such as in the article I had previously linked to, stating "On March 1st, 1961, Toho and Columbia released a press release stating how the latter was happy to be working with Toho" which declares its information from a self-published book. As I couldn't get much response outside enthusiasm for the site on its original discussion, I felt it would be appropriate to bring it up here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT: Yes, TK started out as a fan site but it has grown over the years. They've interviewed the filmmakers of the actual productions, acquired press releases directly from the studios, published exclusives, and provide information that is difficult to track down from other English sources, such as budgets and box office results for the Japanese films. Their information is mainly taken from Japanese periodicals and books, found here, which they also provide reviews for. The amount of information TK has provided for the films is impeccable and should be given serious consideration to be cited as a reliable source. TK is slowly but surely becoming an authoritative source on the subject of Godzilla and Japanese sci-fi/fantasy cinema. Armegon (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you show me on the site where they say where the information is gathered or how? Because they definitely review the books, but its not clear how they gather their own information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I managed to find three sources on the site itself that match your request. For this one, the author says that the Ryfle book "is unsurprisingly one of the acknowledged media sources cited on Toho Kingdom's credits page." For this one, the author states that this particular Japanese book is one of his "most used resources." And for this one, the author states "When we started putting background information in our movie bios, I went back and re-read many books in my collection to take notes for this. Tucker's Age of the Gods was one that I got lost in." So it seems they do use reliable sources (books in their collection) to add information to the site. Armegon (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This again is where I take issue with the site, particularly the review of Age of the Gods which itself is a self-published book and fails as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes but WP:SPS states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." In the case of Tucker, he seems to be a reliable source since experts like August Ragone found him reliable enough to publish one of Tucker's essays in the Tsuburaya book, see page 102 if you have the book. The information culled for the site are either from Toho approved books or from English experts who have had their work published independently and verified by the filmmakers they themselves interviewed. Armegon (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

South Front

Is this source reliable? This website is used dozens of time on Syrian civil war related articles. Here is an article by Politico about South Front. Need your opinions. Beshogur (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Beshogur, absolutely not. It is a fake news / disinformation site. Guy (help!) 12:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Very strong language, few sources

Please review Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory#Very_strong_language,_few_sources. Thanks in advance. EllenCT (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Leafly

An opponent of medical cannabis is claiming leafly.com is 'some dodgy commercial site' rather than a reliable source because it contains (small) advertisments. I can't find anything in the guidelines that says advertisments are not allowed. All newspapers use advertisments and Leafly does not seem to be a blog either. However, the opponent claims we cannot use Leafly to source the fact that CBD is legal in most US-states except for Idaho, Iowa and South Dakota.

I have spent too much energy on this and will let the opponent have their way. But I still would like to know what the consensus on Leafly is. Does someone need to gather 49 more documents like this one or can they cite Leafly? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

It seems to be a commercial site, as such it may fail on neutrality grounds. It does not just contain "(small) advertisments" it is a place to "buy them from legal, licensed retailers.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

They seem to have launched a new website a few months ago (at most). It used to be just a platform that informed about the different strains of cannabis. They have a shop now on their main page, I did not notice that when I looked up the article (linked above). Now I'm not sure. Does their shop make the legal information they provide unreliable? This would also make many tv/entertainment and videogame sources unreliable. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No, but it may make it biased. Thus (at best) it should be a case of attribution. But I wonder why not use a clearer RS, if they are the only source for a claim if legality (given the fact they are trying to sell something) that renders it (to my mind) in doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If by biased you mean they are cannabis proponents, then yes a lot of the information is probably biased. The big shop on their homepage really bothers me, I'll personally not use them as a source after having noticed. But I've also looked at some more legal articles they wrote. None of them have any product advertised or promoted. If they've become an advertising platform, wouldn't it be very risky for them to provide biased or false legal information? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No I mean they sell stuff, thus whatever they say must take that into account "This weed (which by coincidence we just so happen to sell) is the best)" "you can buy great products form these (which just by coincidence have paid to advertise with us) these great shops". Without seeing what legal advice they give I cannot say if it might be illegal. But no it would not be dodgy for them to provide "false" or "illegal" information, its how they word it that counts "The following is a list of States where we think cannabis is legal to smoke, disclaimer wee claim no accuracy for this list".Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

See also this list of strains. Leafly is used as the main source here. They are cited on many other wikipedia articles as well. As long as the information is not medical or politically biased I see no reason to remove all these citations. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Spammy, promotional source (see Leafly for how this company works) that fails WP:RS generally. You have to confirm that you're over 21 and specify which country you're from to enter the site and accept its T&Cs. According to the site there are two countries: the USA and Canada. Tells you all you need to know. Alexbrn (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)