Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

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

Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?

The applicability of the Daily Mail ban to the Mail on Sunday has bee raised multiple times, and yet many editors are labouring under the impression that it does. These are the facts (briefly):

1. The Daily Mail (including its website) was proscribed in 2017 in an RFC: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC. There was no mention of Mail on Sunday being subject to this ban.
2. This ban was reaffirmed the following year: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail. Again, there is no mention of the Mail on Sunday.
3. The examples brought forward that led to the ban came from The Daily Mail or Mailonline, not the Mail on Sunday from what I can see.
4. Mail on Sunday is not just a sunday edition of The Daily Mail, it is editorially independent i.e. different editors, different writers. Occasionally they even adopt opposing positions (such as on Brexit). They are different newspapers but with a common ownership.
5. Mailonline publishes content from The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and its own stuff.

The question of the Mail on Sunday has been raised on several occasions:

1. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Does_WP:Dailymail_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday the prevailing opinion (summarised by Andy Dingley) is that the ban does not cover the Mail on Sunday namely because it is not stated to apply.
2. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Daily_Mail_(sigh,_yes,_again) Newslinger also notes that Mail on Sunday is unaffected by the ban.
3. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#Clarification:_Does_Daily_Mail_RfC_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday? we have a discussion that explicitly tackles this question, but does not explicitly answer it. Mazca observes that the two publications are editorially independent. He also comments that there is an argument that MoS shares many of the same reliability issues as its sister publication, and that the ban that applies to the online platform acts as a "de facto barrier" to MoS.
4. We now have a situation with David Gerard purging Mail on Sunday references from Wikipedia: see [1], [2], [3] just for a few examples. There are dozens more.

I certainly don't dispute that an argument exists that the Mail on Sunday shares the same reliability issues as its sister publication, as noted by Mazca, but the key word here is argument. The case has not been successfully prosecuted, which must surely mean that the ban does not apply to the MoS if we accept the prevailing opinion they are editorially independent publications. I also don't dispute Mazca's statement that the proscription of the online platform (that houses some MoS content) acts as a de facto barrier. It is statement of fact. If we can't cite Mailonline then the print version of the newspaper must be consulted directly. But Mazca does not state whether the Daily Mail ban explicitly applies to the Mail on Sunday or not. It is certainly being interpreted as such by David Gerard.

I am pinging in all the editors who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: @Yunshui, Primefac, Sunrise, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tazerdadog, Vanamonde93, and Ymblanter:.

I appreciate everybody is tired of debating these damn newspapers but can we PLEASE reach a point where the Daily Mail ban either explicitly states it applies to the Mail on Sunday or explicitly states that it does NOT apply to the Mail on Sunday?? If the ban is to encompass the Mail on Sunday then we should proceed with replacing the sources in an orderly fashion. Ripping out content (which is probably 99% good) is not constructive and detrimental to building an encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As the asker of the clarification request, I understood the result of the discussion as: “MOS is not included in the DM RfCs, but may suffer from the same issues. A new RfC will be required to come to a determination on its status.” Obvious question is: what until then? If it’s got the same reliability issues, we wouldn’t want it being used on wiki, and I doubt there’s much community energy for an RfC on this niche case. I think it’s thus appropriate to treat it with questionable reliability, but not as explicitly deprecated. But I don’t care enough either way. Someone like Newslinger may be better placed to answer the procedural issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. I have seen David Gerard's newest approach to the Daily Mail topic. He has now proceeded to strip anything published by the DMG Media company in the past two week. He his now removing the Mail on Sunday, Irish Daily Mail, and Irish Mail on Sunday. The reliable source noticeboard needs to deal with this topic, since numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process. Since, the reliable source noticeboard is what is providing the cover for these actions, the board needs to be very precise about the decisions it is taking. And as far as the Mail on Sunday, no it is not included under the Daily Mail deprecation. Many of us editors who create the content obviously have access to outside newspaper databases and do not need to use the website www.dailymail.co.uk --Guest2625 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems like an overly procedural argument. If they have the same reliability, why the need for endless debates on it? According to WP:RS, part of the core content policy, unreliable sources should not be used (with narrow exceptions, but that's not what we're dealing with here). (t · c) buidhe 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Also note that there is no assumption that a source is reliable, the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to restore disputed content is to show that the source is reliable. So I ask, what is the evidence that Mail on Sunday, Irish Daily Mail, etc. are reliable sources? (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Have we not just had this very discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source is what the last discussion said, and your laughable content (which is probably 99% good) flies in the face of reality.

numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process I'd say that the Wikipedia readers are being insulted by the numerous long-term editors using shitty sources, and I know whose side I'm on. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing dailymail.co.uk is indeed a barrier to citing the Mail on Sunday. But it is a technical barrier. In the same way if Wikipedia were only to insist on hardcopy citations. It is misguided to suggest that the MoS is not reliable purely because some of its content is reproduced at MailOnline. On the other hand, it may be reasonable to suggest that it is not reliable because it is plagued by the same problems as Daily Mail. In fairness I am putting a simple question to the administrators who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: does the consensus also apply to the Mail on Sunday? Some of you may consider this overly procedural. Maybe it is, but I wouldn't be asking if an editor were not deleting vast amounts of content on entirely procedural grounds. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If anybody in that discussion had made that "barrier" argument, it would have been countered, just as Betty Logan has done, by saying there is a print edition. But nobody did make that argument, or anything remotely similar to it, so "barrier" is not a reflection of consensus, it is merely the closer's opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the MoS is a reliable source for anything? Reassuringly, the Sunday Mail doesn't seem to be subject to the restrictions, but as it's a tabloid I wouldn't tend to think of it as a RS. . . dave souza, talk 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan has neglected to link the cause of the present discussion: she used this unreliable tabloid source to reinsert controversial claims about living people, sourced only to this unreliable tabloid, at List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing - apparently in the belief that using this trash source is acceptable as long as it isn't specifically deprecated.

I mentioned this in talk, Betty Logan blindly put the content back after without responding to the material having been challenged (thus not meeting WP:BURDEN, and then claimed the question I raised in talk was about WP:DAILYMAIL rather than her deliberately edit-warring in a reference to an unreliable source when making claims about living people.

I would suggest that even if the MoS is not covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - and not a word of either RFC's conclusion supports it being excluded, and nor does the result of the discussion, which concluded a carve-out would likely need a fresh RFC - that this is WP:POINTy behaviour, and material concerning living persons is absolutely not the place to be doing that - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

My primary concern is your interpretation of the RFC consensus. I have raised this same issue with you prior to this latest incident: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_299#dailymail.co.uk_reversion:_eyes_wanted. Your contribution history shows you were engaged in a purge of the Mail on Sunday and justifying it using the Daily Mail RFC. I don't see any attempts to locate an alternative source or raise the issue on the talk page. Removing content in this manner is destructive. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If you ever think unreliable tabloids are a suitable source for material about living people, you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing, and what constitutes "destructive". You appear both unable and unwilling to back up the content you want to edit-war back in, under WP:BURDEN - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You keep calling it "unreliable" but I have not seen any evidence for that position. During the Daily Mail RFC examples were presented of The Daily Mail or its website fabricating stories. Are you able to provide such examples of the MoS doing so? THis IPSI report (page 18) shows that in terms of upheld complaints it is comparable to other other publications in its category. The Sunday Times had more complaints upheld than MoS but I don't see you objecting to that title. It is fairly obvious to me that your actions are motiviated by an agenda against The Daily Mail rather than any objective assessment of MoS's reliability. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking as a closer rather than someone who had an a priori opinion on the source; no, the DM RfCs do not extend to the Mail on Sunday, and citing the DM proscription as a reason to remove the Mail on Sunday source isn't appropriate. Conversely, just because it isn't proscribed by the DM RfC does not make the Mail on Sunday a reliable source by default, and the spirit of WP:BURDEN still applies to any content that it is used for, in that the person seeking to include that content needs to demonstrate verifiability. To be honest, for contentious material sourced to the news media, I would want multiple corroborating sources always, unless the first source is of unimpeachable quality. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've already spoken (and answered) this exact question, but to (again) reiterate, I'm with Vanamonde on this: the RFC related to the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail only. The fact that they share a website is problematic, but if a reference is for the Mail on Sunday then it is inherently not a reference for the Daily Mail. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  Agree with Vanamonde and Primefac above - The Mail on Sunday was not covered in the RFCs, and it can be argued seriously (and probably correctly) that it is a fundamentally different source. Therefore the DM RFC does not cover the Mail on Sunday. If you think that the Mail on Sunday is a bad source that should be deprecated or otherwise restricted, you are free to open a fresh RFC to find consensus on that. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  I still stand by my comment at User talk:Primefac/Archive 29#The Daily Mail RfC, Again, i.e no unless MoS is part of DM the RfC on the latter does not apply. That's a separate question than whether it's a good idea to use MoS as a reference for something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Mail on Sunday

What is the reliability of The Mail on Sunday?

• 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

Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Mail on Sunday)

• Option 4 The content on mailonline (at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/index.html) seems to be no different and inseparable from the rest of the outlet, Peter Hitchens has reported favourably on the Douma chemical attack leaks, which are discredited by most mainstream sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Even for news stories, there's no separate subdomain for MoS stories and the bylines say "for Mailonline", the only way you'd be able to definitively know whether it was a MoS story would be by checking the actual physical newspaper, which wikipedians aren't going to be citing anyway. The TV&Showbiz section which editors find to be the most problematic is displayed right with the news on the MoS section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The MoS has its own separate domain, https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/, but it's only been cited 11 times per mailonsunday.co.uk  , and provides no separation from the TV&Showbiz section https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshowbiz/index.html, which appears to be the same as the rest of the mailonline, and the website functions as more of a mirror than anything else. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As I write this on a weekday, The content of mailonsunday.co.uk is identical to that of dailymail.co.uk, making it for all intents and purposes a mirror of MailOnline, and so therefore mailonsunday.co.uk should be added to the deprecated domains list regardless of the outcome of the RfC. If the Mail on Sunday is not deprecated, it should be allowed to be cited as a print reference only. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 I regard Mail on Sunday reliable for the following reasons:

1. It has editorial oversight. independent from The Daily Mail and the website.
2. It has been established that the DM ban does not apply to MoS.
3. During the Daily Mail RFC, examples of the DM fabricating stories were presented. I do not recall any from the MoS.
4. Other reliable sources reference it.
5. The number of complaints upheld by IPSI report (page 18) is comparable to other publications in its category that are generally regarded as reliable sources. The Sunday Times, for example, had more complaints upheld than MoS.
6. MailOnline (which is already proscribed) is a separate entity. It houses content from The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday but also publishes its own content. This does not confer unreliability on the MoS. This is nothing more than a technical barrier and the print edition can be cited directly.

It may get things wrong occasionally but no more than other comparable titles. No evidence of it fabricating stories has been presented and an objective measure shows that its level of accurate reporting is comparable to other titles deemed reliable. The arguments presented in the above discussion invariably boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a misunderstanding of the relationship between the Sunday and daily editions and the website. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a couple of lists now of egregious fabrication - please address these (with more case by case specifics than "I feel like it's no worse than others"), even a little bit of this sort of thing seems a massive red flag that would rule it out as being treated as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no lists of fabricated stories, just lists of stories that were proven to be factually inaccurate. For example, the story about a "Muslim" gang attacking a van was not fabricated. The incident happened! The MOS was forced to adjust the article because the religion of the perpetrators was based on conjecture. The story about climate change that was prcolaimed "fake news" wasn't fabricated if you look at the article, it was simply inaccurate. Again, the level of complaints upheld against it is not significantly different to other titles, such as The Sunday Times. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

They've been provided right here in this discussion - fabrication of claims, extensive fabrication of quotes, etc - but if you want to pretend they don't exist and think "lalala I can't hear you" and "but whatabout that other paper we're not discussing" is a refutation, you can certainly stay with that. If you want to discuss the Sunday Times, you should start an RFC on that. (And if you didn't actually want to discuss the Sunday Times, then your discussion of it so far is indistinguishable from throwing up chaff.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the meat of Betty's argument isn't so much that there isn't any incorrect information, just that there isn't any more incorrect information than papers we tend to consider reliable. They aren't saying they 'feel like it's no worse than others' but that there's empirical evidence that it isn't. Bringing up other papers we consider reliable isn't irrelevant. The problem is that the empirical evidence presented is extremely flimsy: the IPSO report is on the number of articles which received complaints, not how accurate they are. The report itself says "newspapers with the highest circulation [...] received the most complaints." It doesn't tell us anything. I was unable to find any empirical reports on the reliability of the Mail on Sunday specifically (if there were any I imagine there'd be no discussion), and all fact-checking websites treat it alongside the Daily Mail. Wikipedia seems to be alone in considering it separately. I think the false information already presented is egregious enough to warrant Option 4 and if other sources we consider reliable have done the same we should stop considering them reliable too. Iesbian (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You're making this seem a lot more reasonable than it is. An outlet that bases significant information on conjecture is not reliable. Other outlets we consider reliable don't do that. Iesbian (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - it's the same trash from the same sewer, and it always has been - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Obviously. Examples of false stories published specifically in the Mail on Sunday: In all cases, they only ever published corrections months later when forced to by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

These are not fabricated stories. They are stories containing inaccuracies. Statistically speaking, the MOS on average contains no more inaccuracies than something like The Sunday Times. It had two complaints upheld in 2018: https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1823/ipso-annual-report-2018.pdf#page=10. Should we proscribe The Sunday Times as well because five complaints were upheld over the same period? Betty Logan (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The false claims are central to the story in every example I've given. IPSO only deals with cases that get referred to them by members of the public and the inaccuracies they investigate can vary in severity which is why we're looking at specific examples. If you can find similarly many examples of egregious journalism in The Times, we can have a discussion about them as well. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

False or misrepresentative claims usually are central to inaccurate stories. I am not defending these articles. I am pleased the beautician won her case! But are any of your examples more egregious than this sequence of Times stories: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43887481. It is worth noting that of the 69 stories that received complaints only two were ultimately upheld. The remainder were either not taken up, resolved through other means, or IPSO found in favor of the MoS. I take on board your point that the IPSO cases are just a sample and not a comprehensive vetting of MoS's output, but that is true of the other publications they have ranked too. I think these examples would carry more weight if this were a discussion about a class of sources i.e. a discussion about raising the bar on what constitutes a reliable source. But this is not about raising the bar; it is about purging one particular source that sampled evidence shows is not disproportionately worse than rival titles in the market. Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 The above is enough for me to say 4, rather then 2 or 3.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Complete trash, per ReconditeRodent and others. This is lipstick on the Daily Mail. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 – these are not just "stories containing inaccuracies", on the global warming "pause" it made allegations of malpractice while ignoring evidence, and as noted above was eventually forced to publish online the IPSO finding that instead it had based the article on misrepresenting a blog post. Similar misreporting appeared in the MoS in 2012. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 4: There are dozens of examples of Mail on Sunday fabrications, but I will list just one, featured in Vogue: Meghan Markle Responds to a Set of Tabloid Rumors --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017. The list from David Gerard below is over-the-top with its accusations, e.g. being in fifth place for complaints just ahead of The Guardian doesn't show anything as others have already indicated, and there were no "fabricated claims of anti-Semitism" (the Mail on Sunday did not say Mr Livingstone was anti-Semitic), etc. But the lists do show that Mail on Sunday publishes corrections, and (see WP:RS) "publication of corrections" is a good signal. They are sometimes forced by IPSO but that is a good thing too, the British newspapers that refuse to join IPSO are the contemptible ones if that's what matters. Mail on Sunday is a "well-established news outlet" so WP:NEWSORG tells us it "is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact", so voting to censor it is a demand to violate WP:RS. Option 4 should not have been proposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Here is the article Peter Gulutzan is referring to: Ken Livingstone stokes new Labour anti-Semitism row after dismissing problem as 'lies and smears peddled by ghastly Blairites'. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bad counting. Peter Gulutzan at 01:22, 13 September 2020 wrote "The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017" The list was started with 7 items by ReconditeRodent at 10:56, 12 September 2020, and I added four items, two of which were articles covering the same incorrect article by David Rose already covered in item 3 on the list, and mentioned along with other incorrect articles of his in item 4 on the list. I'd already researched it independently, so added my items and tried to indicate two were on the same topic, but evidently not clear enough. In total, the list of 11 items covers 12 transgressions, that is 12 separate articles published by the MoS, some of them repeating false claims by David Rose. Appreciate it's a bit complicated, so miscounting is understandable if rather careless. Hope the following list helps to clarify things. . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

list for clarification:

1. 31 August 2014, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ featured an article by David Rose which claimed that the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice extent had slowed.

2. MoS accusation "Muslim" gangs 25 July 2015, corrected to just a "gang of youths" 18 September 2015

3. 4–5 February 2017 MoS alleged "World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data", 18 September 2017 MoS forced to publish IPSO correction

4. as 3., plus two subsequent articles on February 12 and February 19 repeated the claims, 22 April 2018 page 2 of MoS print edition concede incorrect, "Corrections to these articles have been published online."
Article also noted IPSO complaints upheld against two other articles.

5. MoS 29 September 2018 "Number 10 probes Remain MPs’ ‘foreign collusion'"

6. MoS June 2019 false claim about "Labour's tax plans", IPSO ruled inaccurate in November, publication of the correction delayed until after the election.

7. MoS December 2017 "rogue beauticians" story, IPSO upheld complaint but correction on wrong page, June 2019, Associated Newspapers agreed to pay damages.

8 article and correction as 3

9 article and correction as 3

10 MoS 29 January 2012 "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

11 MoS 14 October 2012 second article claiming "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

dave souza, talk 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 2 - depends on context and whether the discussion is conflating items. The article says this the largest WEIGHT such publication so seems a bit much to exclude it, and seems in the category of popular press so I’m thinking it reasonable to cite for that context and folks are trying to consider it outside the context it would/should be used. Seems obviously “Generally” reliable in the sense of usually having the criteria of editorial control and publication norms and accessibility, and the bulk of stories factual correctness is not in particular question. I don’t think anyone here has put it as the category of 3 generally self-published or blog or sponsored pieces. Category 4 seems excessive - false or fabricated doesn’t seem a correct characterization if people are having to go back to 2012 and 2014 for cases to discuss. Also, much of the discussion above seems to be confusing https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/ with https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ or that none of these are actually The Mail on Sunday. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Categorise the same as the Daily Mail: there's no substantial difference between the two paper's journalistic values and fact-checking processes, and hence this RfC should not be able to override the stronger, more global consensus to deprecate the Daily Mail. As a second resort, if we are to categorise the Mail on Sunday differently then we must categorise it as option 4 per the compelling evidence presented by ReconditeRodent and David Gerard that it is established practice at the paper to lie and suppress corrections wherever legally possible. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – 2 - Requires scrutiny but a respected paper that has done much serious reporting unavailable elsewhere. The majority of advocates for "deprecating" the MoS are the same "it's the Daily Mail" line even though it in fact has its own website i.e. Mail on Sunday and a totally separate editorial staff. Ownership by the same company has little if any relevance. Basing your vote on carefully ignoring the facts seems unreasonable to me. Cambial Yellowing❧ 07:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, same or substantially the same editorial policy and authors. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an incorrect statement. It has been stated multiple times that the Mail on Sunday is its own independent newspaper. This means it has its own staff, journalists, and editorial board. Please read the Mail on Sunday wikipedia article to inform yourself about the newspaper. These are the "authors" as you call them of the Mail on Sunday:

Peter Hitchens

Rachel Johnson

Olly Smith

James Forsyth

Robert Waugh

Piers Morgan

Craig Brown

Tom Parker Bowles

Chris Evans

Ruth Sunderland

Sebastian O Kelly

Liz Jones

Sally Brompton

Sarah Stacey

Mimi Spencer

Jeff Prestridge

John Rees

Ellie Cannon

Jane Clarke

Katie Nicholl

Oliver Holt

Stuart Broad

Patrick Collins

Glenn Hoddle

Michael Owen

Nick Harris

Andrew Pierce

You have also chosen option 4, which means that you are stating that these journalists as a group are involved in writing "false or fabricated information". You have provided no proof of your statement. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 The Mail on Sunday has a completely separate editorial oversight, staff, office and so on. They are completely different newspapers that compete with each other, but simply have a similar name. I do, however, see the risk of their content being hosted on the MailOnline/DailyMail.com, as they do not have their own website. In which situation I would endorse Option 2 with the condition that the Mail on Sunday remains a reliable source but that the print edition must be the one cited, with online links unacceptable. Ortolan57 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It's hard to see how it's an option 1 given its cited record of fabrication - surely this should be addressed in an opinion worth taking into consideration - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, just as completely divorced from the truth as the regular Daily Mail, despite being nominally seperate. They clearly have the exact same record of lying constantly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 No evidence that this source is any more reliable than the regular DM, and considerable evidence to the contrary. Remember, the onus is on those who are arguing the source can be used to demonstrate that it actually has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 Although the MoS may not be in Breitbart/National Enquirer territory it is clearly generally unreliable as per above comments. A note on comparisons of complaints: if we look at the nature and scale of the inaccuracies in the MoS presented in the lists above and below, and not just how many there were in a given year, it is clear that most of them are serious and relate to central news stories not just marginal human interest stories (major inaccuracies about electoral candidates not corrected until after election, major mischaracterisations of data about climate change) and also that they fit into a pattern of repeating false allegations as part of an ideological campaign (e.g. around climate change, where false statements were repeated despite earlier corrections) or systematically misrepresenting religion/ethnicity (e.g. to generate clickbait buzz by plugging into anti-Muslim panic), and not simple mistakes such as mistyping the number of arrests at the Appleby fair. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 since not proof has been offered to show the Sunday edition of the mail any more reliable than the daily --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 I wouldn't want anything on Wikipedia based solely on a MoS article, it is too unreliable. If it is valid information it will also appear in more reliable papers like the the Guardian or the Telegraph. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1Putting aside the paper's politics, all wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should never be our first choice for sourcing content and we should prefer neutral academic sources. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a last resort and guided by exercising good judgement. Large parts of what the Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail) content are reliable and well-written and were the same content published elsewhere we wouldn't even question it - such as this for example [4]. This pogrom of Daily Mail content has already seen sources being blindly removed even when for our purposes they would be reliably sourced and well-written and it's often to the detriment of articles - and anyone who questions this is shouted down. Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis, I am firmly opposed to blanket pronouncements such as this related to mainstream media. WCM_email 16:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • So you're fine with the list of blatant fabrications? - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you're fine with the "fabrications" of the newspapers you judge to be reliable? Please quit this obviously disingenuous and facetious line of argument - the output of a media outlet should be judged as a whole and not based on cherry-picked examples. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The argument "but whatabout these other newspapers that aren't the topic here" isn't regarded as a useful argument on RSN. If you want to discuss those, you should start an RFC about them, listing their fabrications. This discussion is about the Mail on Sunday - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Responding to "but the MoS is not less reliable than the Sunday Times according to the metric that you've chosen to ban it" with "then you should start an RFC on banning the Sunday Times" is clearly not an argument made in good faith. We all know that the outcome of such an RFC would be a snow-close for "Option 1" and a possible trip to ANI for whoever chose to waste everyone's time by proposing it. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 As per Curry above and the fact that MOS has a separate editor. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  @The C of E: Seeing as you were opposed to the deprecation of the Daily Mail itself (arguing that there was "no need to blacklist a whole publication because of a few opinion pieces that may not be to some tastes") and then argued just two years later that the ban should be lifted because they had "changed", what possible relevance could The Mail on Sunday's editorial independence have? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This argument essentially boils down to trying to exclude anyone who was in the (substantial) minority in the DM Ban RFC from ever having a say in any future issue related to banning media. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I question who this IP is @FOARP: given he seems to have only started editing this year so how can he know about whom said what back when? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall having participated in a previous RfC on the use of the Daily Mail as a source. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm merely questioning the particular argument being used here. Given what The C of E has said in the past, supporting option 1 is consistent, but given their premises, I can't see what relevance the publication's editorial independence could have. Perhaps The C of E can clarify.

But I don't see how what I'm saying would exclude anyone who participated in the past RfCs from having a say here. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a clear attempt to daisy-chain RFCs. "But you didn't agree with the concept of these RFCs so you can't vote Option 1 in this RFC" the argument goes, resulting in a more extreme and less balanced result. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (preferred) because it shares DM staff, history of fabrications, and has the same website as the Daily Mail, complete with "sidebar of shame" and its obsession with objectifying (see also "all grown up"). Failing that, then go with print edition only as no worse than the average tabloid, but still best not to use because tabloid. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, not really seeing why the print edition should be presumed less deprecable than the online version - is there a convincing reason? - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, convincing? Not sure: depends who you're trying to convince (and obviously here I exclude Brian K Horton and his hosiery drawer). The bar to inclusion means that most of the churnalism on the website doesn't make it into print. The print edition is exactly as biased, and has undoubtedly printed some egregious bollocks, but the level of oversight is at least marginally higher. But you'll note that is my second choice, because my strong preference is to exclude altogether. You cannot trust anything you read on the Mail websites, and that fatally undermines any claim to journalistic integrity for any of its output IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

fair - I'll certainly agree that if there was an Option 4½, Mail Online would warrant it - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Bad RFC (or Option 1 if the RFC still goes ahead) - These "let's ban media outlets we don't like" have no link to any actual issue in an article on Wikipedia. They always turn into a forum-style discussion on the perceived good-ness or not of the source itself rather than its reliability in relation to any subject matter. Editors should be free to decide what sources they use through consensus on a case-by-case basis, rather than these pointless blanket bans. Comparisons to reliable sources with exactly the same failings that the news outlet to be deprecated displays are always batted away with "why don't you start an RFC on banning the New York Times then?" (or similar facetiousness). The outcome is pre-determined as soon as the typically right-wing nature of the publication to be banned is highlighted. Rampant double-standards abound especially between UK and US publications. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Seeing as your issue is with the writ-large deprecation of sources generally, isn't that an argument better suited to WT:RS to have Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Deprecated sources amended? I don't see how it's relevant here when we're trying to apply the existing guidelines. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I oppose these blanket bans of regulated media with well-established editorial teams based in countries with robust freedom of speech, then I also oppose banning the MoS and hence am voting on those grounds. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

hence am voting on those grounds These discussions are not votes; so you appear to be declaring that your statement here is explicitly not about the MoS as a source, and hence meaningless in the discussion. The process of deprecation was itself ratified in an RFC; if you want to remove it, then you would need to run an RFC to do so - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You're trying to make any opposition to this steady banning of sources invalid ab initio. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I note you haven't answered my point below about your deletion campaign deleting even WP:ABOUTSELF statements by the MoS (explicitly allowed even under the DM 2017 RFC close) which is a prime example of how this isn't about content, or what has been specifically decided in RFCs, but about getting something you can use to justify a mass-deletion campaign against a publication you dislike. FOARP (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your other question is you whatabouting the issue - this is a discussion of the Mail On Sunday, not of me. If you have a point to make about the Mail On Sunday, it needs to be a point about the Mail On Sunday. If you can't make a point about the quality of the Mail On Sunday as a source - and you've just said above that you're not making a point about the Mail On Sunday, you're trying to reverse the idea of deprecation of sources, which is an action that's been ratified at RFC. You can keep on trying to flail about to distract from the point, but if you're not addressing the question then you're just making noise. You don't even understand that this isn't a vote, so I can't say that you are even proceeding in bad faith, but you don't appear to be proceeding competently - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

1. It's not 'whatabouting' the issue. You're trying to referee the discussion, which given the magnitude of your involvement is totally inappropriate. If you fail to understand this, then that would render you patently unqualified to have any weight be given to your statements regarding reliability (since that would mean that you lack a fundamental understanding of what reliability even is).

2. Comparisons with other sources are NOT irrelevant to this discussion, and telling editors to 'go start an RFC about The Times' or whatever is flat out disruptive. GENERAL RELIABILITY is RELATIVE. We should not be applying different sets of standards to sources we don't like than the sources we like. Furthermore, your 'suggestion' is a non sequitur, and is clearly in bad faith, because every one of us knows that will NEVER happen. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with FOARP. It's unfortunate because blanket bans will come back to haunt us in the future for a number of reasons. This is not to say there are not problems with sources, but every source article should be evaluated and never site banned. -- GreenC 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 As per ReconditeRodent. Autarch (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per others, they make corrections and the volume of problems is not severe. -- GreenC 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - generally reliable newspaper. The Mail on Sunday had a relatively low number of complaints based on the ipso statistics. The number of complaints was similar to its competitor the Sunday Times. It’s a respected newspaper that has a number of notable contributors. Other newspapers quote it. The paper is conservative leaning so care is required on political topics. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, prefer 4 I kept being surprised that this was still being employed as a source following the Daily Mail deprecation. Tabloids are bad sources, and this is on the bottom layer of tabloids, sharing staff and large amounts of content (and apparently its philosophy and veracity) with the Daily Mail. The above examples of fabrication and evasion require some pretty dedicated scampering to ignore. We are an encyclopedia and must be able to exclude material that has a high chance of being misrepresented or made up. If an item is of wider impact, we can use one of many other sources; if it is MoS exclusive, we run the risk of it having been blown up into some chimaera in order to add another five points to the headline size. Do not need. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. The list of issues above is persuasive. The reason why full depreciation rather than unreliability is called is twofold. First, the "errors" highlighted above are all in one direction and all reflect the biases of the Mail's owners (its "errors" are inevitably stuff that eg. downplays global warming, paints Muslims or Labour in a bad light, bolsters the Tories, and so on); this, combined with the tendency to slow-walk corrections or neglect them entirely, suggests that, regardless of the (still uncited?) claims of editorial independence, it is subject to the same forces, in the same way, that make the Daily Mail itself unreliable. Bias is acceptable in a source, and occasional errors are not an issue; but repeated errors, in the same direction, which consistently reflect the biases of the owner suggest a systematic problem that makes it hard to justify using them as a source - there is simply every reason to think that their overriding goal is to advance their owners' political agenda at the expense of fact-checking or accuracy. Second, they fit the same criteria that made depreciation of the original Daily Mail necessary in that they are clearly not reliable due to the above, yet a vocal minority of editors insists that it can be used - and not merely that it can be used, but that it is somehow an exemplary source (note how the opinions here split between overwhelming numbers of people favoring depreciation and people saying it is generally reliable, with so little in-between.) That is the sort of situation that requires a decisive conclusion, since it is plain some people will continue to try and use it as a source everywhere unless there is an unambiguous decision saying they can't. Finally, in case it comes up - given that this discussion focuses on the parallels between the Mail and the Mail on Sunday and how those seem to stem from its ownership, I would suggest that whatever decision we reach here ought to apply to any outlets owned by Daily Mail and General Trust, at least by default (Metro, the other major paper they own, is already listed as generally unreliable.) It is clear from these discussions and the examples above that the root problem is the owners and not the individual editorial boards. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To deprecate a whole media publishing group is very problematic. It's merely indicative of the slippery slope that Wikipedia is heading down with its whole deprecation process. The next thing to appear on this board will be an attempt to ban the Rupert Murdoch publishing group. The problem with this board and its perennial sources list is that it has a legitimacy problem. Were all the editors individually notified on their talk page who will be directly affected by this upcoming Mail on Sunday decision? If not, this local group decision has a legitimacy problem. And a vague RFC advert in the wiki-jungle doesn't cut it. Those editors who used the source have a right to defend their decision. And, the only way to defend your decision is to be notified. I know for a fact that a group of editors who are in the middle of a content dispute over the Mail on Sunday have not been notified. This is very problematic.

It's not complicated for me. The complaint statistics of the the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday are the same. The Sunday Times has also made a number of significant corrections. All this information was provided below. What the Sunday Times does better is that it has a more sophisticated writing style, since it targets the professional upper class. The Mail on Sunday is targeted towards the middle class. Option 2 I certainly can understand, since this is similar to how many American editors view Fox (which has some parallels to the politics and biases of the Mail on Sunday). Even option 3 would be understandable for people who cannot bear any publication which makes an error. But option 4 would mean the newspaper is worse than a self-published source. It would mean the highest selling Sunday newspaper, which won newspaper of the year in 2019 and has a number of notable writers, cannot be even used for its review of a theatre play which is gross and absurd. Fortunately, what is happening with the British media market on this board cannot be done to the American media market which has a much larger and more diverse pool of Wikipedia editors who use it. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Whole heartedly agree with this view. That the editors who have actually used the MoS as a source have not been notified is a legitimacy issue with this RFC. That they are excluded is an inevitable product of this RFC being completely divorced from actual content issues with articles. Engaging with the actual use of the MoS on Wiki would mean acknowledging that a lot of the present use (which is not high) is simply WP:ABOUTSELF (e.g., the edit by David Gerard linked above where he deleted even the mere mention that a book had been MoS book of the week, claiming that this was justified by the DM ban which explicitly allows "about-self" use), or completely uncontroversial. The double standard between UK and US media outlets, let alone between UK outlets and those of China or Iran, is as palpable as it is absurd. Responding to clear evidence that the MoS has had no more complaints upheld against it than the Sunday Times with "well then you should start an RFC to ban the Sunday Times" is not arguing in good faith. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - I would think that because The Mail on Sunday is just the weekend branding of Daily Mail that it'd fall under the existing restrictions there, but nonetheless, they still seem to have a desperate use of trigger words, sensationalism, low-quality fact checking and having been the source most sanctioned by UK regulators (source which says "The Daily Mail is used here to include the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday...") three years in a row (source). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It has been explained multiple times that the Mail on Sunday, Metro, i (originally a sister newspaper of The Independent), and also Daily Mail are all separate newspapers. This means that the newspapers have separate staff, journalists, and editorial boards. These different newspapers are published by DMG Media which itself is owned by the media company DMGT. It is normal for media companies to own multiple titles. See for instance Rupert Murdoch's News Corp which owns Dow Jones & Company (publisher of 'of the Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch and Barron's), News UK (publisher of The Sun and The Times), and book publisher HarperCollins.

Also it is not clear why you provided links to two blogs about the IPSO statistics, when below is the complete IPSO table for 2018. The table clearly shows that the Mail on Sunday did not rank poorly. Please uncollapse the green bar below that says table and trust your own eyes. The only thing I do want to quote from one of your blogs is the following:"Sunday Times Forced to Admit to Fake Antisemitism Smears". That sounds like a major faux pas that the Mail on Sunday's competitor made, just like that little faux pas that the New Statesman made in regards to the Roger Scruton interview that we just discussed on this reliable source board. It is unfortunate that generally reliable sources sometimes make faux pas. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 How much confidence can really be taken from a debate where even basic pertinent details, such as whether or not the Sunday edition has a separate editorial staf , cannot seemingly be settled a priori? I note too, the complete lack of impeccable sources like the Columbia Journalism Review. These have been used when debating the reliability of Fox and the New York Post in this foraaa , so their absence here, given the claims that basically cast the MoS as a step change worse, rings alarm bells as far as the potential for bias goes. Jack B Williamson (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC) — Jack B Williamson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  The Columbia Journalism Review is a US based outlet and generally doesn't cover the UK press so the lack of coverage by that outlet is irrelevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  I have struck the contribution from the boring sockpuppet. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 I think generally news media shouldn’t be considered reliable by it self. Citing facts from news is not how it works in the real world. You need to also consider other sources. A body of news sources together give weight, but it is still in the news. I read newspapers and enjoy, but that is mostly because I think. The narrative that we need to fact check the media is a construction. This RfC I think is created to ease some admin work, and that is perfectly OK. They already banned publications that can easily be mistaken, because of the architecture of the web address. I understand it’s a mess. I don’t like the options. I think option 1 and 4 are divisive provocations for the trenches. And option 2 and 3 are vague. What does even option 3 mean? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 22:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If, as you say, you don't in fact understand the question, it's not clear this helps form an informed consensus - David Gerard (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Mail on Sunday)

• I am tired of discussing the Daily Mail as much as anyone else, so hopefully after this there will be no more need for any RfC's on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Please specify that this covers all editions at all URLs for all purposes - otherwise someone will be along making excuses as they already do with the DM: "oh, the Shetlands edition has some different staff", "but you didn't specifically mention articles on trainspotting", "but I like this guy", "but exceptions exist so I'm claiming this as an exception", etc., etc., etc - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If the Mos and Daily Mail are both deprecated, it automatically covers all DM domains. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Including This is Money? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This Is Money is in its own words the "financial website and money section of the MailOnline", so is covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I see that you already asked this precise question before, and that was the answer then too, so it's entirely unclear why you're asking again - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That was one response from you that was not mentioned in the closing statement. I am open to hearing from other editors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Here's about half an hour's quickest casual search. I'm sure if I put actual effort in, the list would be far longer. If anyone has their own lists of the MoS's mission to spread nonsense that we absolutely cannot trust as a source for encyclopedic content, please post them.

• A pile of distorted and fabricated claims about the EU: [5]
• Fabricated front-page claims of "foreign collusion" by Remain MPs [6]
• Fifth in the list for PCC complaints, 2013 [7]
• Fabrication about claimed BMA guidelines for doctors [8]
• Capital gains tax fabrication, IPSO rules as "serious breach" [9]
• Fabricated claims of anti-Semitism [10]
• Defamatory attack on individual [11]
• IPSO: "significantly misleading" [12]
• Fabrication of quotes in interview (the MoS cannot be trusted for quotes any more than the DM) [13]

The MoS is lying rubbish just as much as the DM is, it just pretends not to be. A trash-tier tabloid that tells gullible readers it's a newspaper of record - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of those are not the best sources but I find (5) and (8) to be particularly alarming at a glance. Would you/someone mind digging up if the paper version, ie not MailOnline, has the same issues? And can we clarify if we’ve got this issue just in politics-related reporting or in other topics as well? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No idea if it's in the paper version, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't distinguish on that - some of the above are paper version specifically. Nor on politics, e.g. the irresponsible lies about the beautician - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

David observe how I presented the errors made by the Sunday Times. Now look at the way you presented the errors made by the Mail on Sunday. I have used completely neutral language. I merely stated these are some errors made by the Sunday Times. And then quoted the completely neutral ruling of the IPSO committe. You on the other hand have used completely loaded language. Do you think that me or anyone else could not also use such loaded and over-the-top language that you are using? Your language is reaching for the reader's senses, my language is intended to reach for the reader's mind. I believe it is better when we are trying to find the truth through debate that we use the language of reason. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't studied yet the different sources that David Gerard has provided for his case, but I did look at Betty Logan's table which is quite rigorous and not prone to cherry picked examples. I provided a copy of the IPSO table below.

Table

IPSO Annual Report 2018 No. of articles complained about No. of Rejected complaints in remit Rejected Not pursued by complainant Resolved by IPSO mediation Resolved directly with publication Upheld Not upheld 1 MailOnline 503 213 135 5 16 34 9 14 2 Daily Mail 313 129 112 2 4 6 1 4 3 thesun.co.uk 178 88 53 1 6 22 2 4 4 The Sun 155 96 59 3 3 17 6 8 5 The Times 124 92 68 3 5 6 2 8 6 mirror.co.uk 102 48 25 1 2 13 4 3 7 The Daily Telegraph 78 58 37 7 2 4 1 7 8 Metro.co.uk 75 37 27 1 2 7 0 0 9 express.co.uk 71 50 28 1 4 12 5 0 10 The Mail on Sunday 69 37 27 2 2 2 2 2 11 The Sunday Times 58 52 33 2 5 2 5 5 12 Daily Express 48 30 21 2 0 1 3 3 13 Daily Mirror 40 20 13 0 1 2 2 2 14 dailyrecord.co.uk 36 22 16 0 1 1 0 4 15 Daily Record 34 22 15 1 1 2 2 1 16 The Argus (Brighton) 29 7 5 0 0 1 0 1 17 Metro 28 16 13 1 0 1 1 0 18 The Spectator 25 18 15 0 0 0 2 1 19 walesonline.co.uk 25 10 7 0 0 2 0 1 20 Telegraph.co.uk 24 9 9 0 0 0 0 0

The results are quite informative. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but MailOnline includes the MoS's online content, and we aren't citing the physical newspapers. Using single digit "Upheld" is a weak metric for reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

We have in fact cited the physical newspapers quite a lot - most content before 2000 isn't on dailymail.co.uk, for example - and I'd have expected the RFCs covered those - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That's getting into "was the Mail more reliable historically" territory, which was discussed in the last RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for table, but I don’t get it. There’s plenty of reliably sourced examples above of unreliable reporting by MOS, so why are numbers relative in table (which should be quite complete) so low? Are reports in MailOnline including problems with MOS (“paper edition”)? To clarify (as I don’t get their structure personally), is MailOnline actually the digital version (ie, word for word) of the paper newspapers? Or is it separate reporting? Further, are all stories in the MOS available word for word on MailOnline, and all MOS stories on MailOnline word for word the ones in the paper edition? And there’s no stories on MailOnline credited to MOS which don’t appear in the paper edition? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Because IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated in Wikipedia, and IPSO is widely regarded as a captured regulator. I don't know how many stories from MoS make it into one of print and paper but not the other, but either would count as MoS - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure but I just expected the number to be higher, or at least the number of filed complaints to be higher (in table, it's comparable to The Sunday Times, which doesn't seem right). I think any reliability of the paper copy is relevant though. If it's just MailOnline (which is covered under existing RfCs anyway) it shouldn't be a big issue and this RfC is moot. If the paper copy has reliability issues too, then the RfC is important. So if there's a distinction of content, really this RfC should be focused on if the paper version is equally as crappy. I've never read a copy of the MOS (tabloids with gossip covers aren't quite my thing) so I'm not saying if it's reliable or not, just that the focus should be on the paper component (if it differs). At a skim, looks like a couple of the links by dave souza above are content also included in the paper copy, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm confused David. In your above critique, two of your points use IPSO to criticize the Mail on Sunday. Now after the IPSO table for 2018 is presented, you state that "IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated". This is truly some ironman logic. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Since, some people are advocating for deprecating/banning the Mail on Sunday, I thought it would be useful to provide a sampling of some notable journalists and writers who write or have written for the Mail on Sunday.
Some notable Mail on Sunday writers:

• Peter Hitchens
• Liz Jones
• Piers Morgan
• Tom Parker Bowles
• Chris Evans
• David Mellor
• Dan Hodges
• Anna Mikhailova
• Derek Draper
• John Junor
• Julie Burchill
• Austin Mitchell
• Norman Tebbit
• Suzanne Moore
• Rachel Johnson
• Frank Barrett

It would be a loss to the neutrality of Wikipedia if editors were not able to mention the opinion of some of these notable writers from the right-leaning Mail on Sunday, which is the highest selling Sunday newspaper in Britain. It's hard for me to believe that the Quillete or Iranian Press TV, which both received option 3 from this board, are of better quality than the Mail on Sunday. I cannot see how the Mail on Sunday is equivalent to Breitbart News or the National Enquirer, which received option 4 from this board. Wikipedia which is neutral does its readers a disservice by not allowing the opinions of conservative British commentators to be voiced. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

These are opinion pieces, not quality journalism about facts, and as such are subject to the care needed when using any opinion pieces. Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources states that "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint." If the viewpoint of these commentators is valuable, they can be "voiced" subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF. It's not a blanket ban. . . dave souza, talk 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side note: it is not ok to cherry pick corrections to build one's case, when there is a very clean and precise comparative table available with complaint and accuracy data. I believe many of the above editors are not aware at how problematic their method of analysis is. I believe the best way for me to show the problem with cherry picking reported errors is to provide cherry picked counter examples of how its competitor the Sunday Times has made similar reporting errors. This is a counter list of reporting errors by the Sunday Times. The table above is the proper way to compare the complaints and accuracy of the different newspapers supervised by the IPSO committee. I'll note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world is incorrect. See Independent Press Standards Organisation#Membership: "Several of the broadsheet newspapers, including the Financial Times, The Independent and The Guardian, have declined to take part in IPSO. The Financial Times and The Guardian have established their own independent complaints systems instead." The latter has long had a "readers’ editor – who is appointed, and can only be dismissed, by the Scott Trust – [and] can comment on issues and concerns raised by the public. There has also been an external ombudsman to whom the readers’ editor can refer substantial grievances, or matters concerning the Guardian’s journalistic integrity." That includes a feature of corrections and clarifications, not waiting for months or a year for IPSO judgment on public complaints.[14][15] . . dave souza, talk 04:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You are correct. I made a slight mistake. I meant to say that no other set of English-speaking newspapers is monitored by an outside regulatory agency. Most newspapers have procedures in place to deal with corrections, and many bigger newspapers have a newspaper ombudsman who deals with questions of journalism ethics and standards. The position is independent of the control of the newspapers's chief-editor and perhaps owner. Frankly, I think wikipedia should think about getting a centralized corrections "ombudsmen" who the reader could easily deal with in order to ask for corrections. For many wikipedia readers the talk page and how to ask for corrections is a mystery. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Fox RFC was also full of people going "but whatabout this other paper that isn't the subject of discussion". If you and Betty Logan want to start an RFC on the Sunday Times, that should be its own discussion. If you don't, then you need to discuss the MoS - whataboutery about other papers really isn't an argument. And nor is going "this is numbers, therefore they are the end of the discussion" - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point David. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Bad point. Clearly the number of corrections/complaints are relevant if you're using them in this RFC as a ban-rationale. Clearly it's relevant if the MoS receives no more complaints/corrections than sources that are recognised as reliable sources. It is simply facile logic to say "but those reliable newspapers aren't under discussion - you should open an RFC on blocking those reliable sources" because everyone knows that an RFC on the reliability of the Sunday Times would be snow-closed and the nominator would be at risk of a ban for wasting everyone's time. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources
References

Most of the information appears to be anecdotal. The New York Times and other mainstream media pushed the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, deliberately helping to start a war that foreseeably would kill hundreds of thousands of people, displace millions and cost trillions of dollars. That is more serious than the MOS publishing defamatory information about a beautician that they retracted after an IPSO complaint. The fact that IPSO upheld 9 complaints against them in one year is not statistically significant considering that they publish 52-53 issues each year. That works out to 1 error every six weeks, which is subsequently retracted. We don't expect that news media is 100% correct in reporting. We expect a small error rate and that the most significant errors will be corrected on a timely basis. The New York Times for example publishes error corrections every day. The MOS of course is not in the same league, but its accuracy rate is close to 100%. TFD (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably, this RfC conflates the Mail's website and the printed Mail on Sunday newspaper.

While I have no time for the company's owners, nor their outlets' politics, I recognise that, like most newspapers, the reliability of its coverage varies. Large parts of the content of the Mail on Sunday - especially outside the spin of its political columnists - are both reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) and well-written; some of it by guest contributors whose relatability we would not doubt if published in another newspaper (most recently, for example, David Attenborough). Sadly, I've seen too many cases of the DM being blindly removed as a source even where its coverage is both reliable and unique, leaving statements unsupported or, worse, substituting source which do not support the valid statements made. This RfC, if it passes, will see the same happen to the Mail on Sunday. Wikipedia editors should - and should be allowed to - exercise judgment on a case by case basis, just like other adults. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to respond to the point that the proposers "are tired" of arguing about the Daily Mail and newspapers related to it in some way: there was absolutely no reason at all given here to propose this ban now. The reason why people keep arguing about the Mail is because you keep opening these RFCs - there is no other reason, especially no actual content-related reason, why it is still being discussed. In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed. The impression is of a group of people for whom the DM ban was their greatest moment and as such they wish to revisit it again and again. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed. If you read the discussion above -probably a useful step if you're going to weigh in on a discussion - you will see that your statement here is trivially incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

David, where is an actual issue with an actual article actually referenced in this entire farago? You deleting MoS references from articles is not an "issue with an article". You need to show that people are relying on MoS as a source and that this is causing actual problems (eg., it is being used to push fringe or incorrect views above and beyond what may happen with reliable sources), not "people are occasionally relying on MoS as a source and the problem is I keep deleting it because this is what I choose to prioritise". FOARP (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

PS - David, whilst we're at it, please explain this edit. Even if you think the DM ban applies to MoS why are you deleting statements from the MoS about what the MoS book of the week is - i.e., a situation where the MoS is talking about itself, a scenario which is explicitly allowed for by the DM 2017 RFC close ("the Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion")? To me it doesn't look like the problem is with people citing the MoS here. FOARP (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

HYPR sources, are they good enough to start an article?

Hello, I have a couple sources and I don't know if they are considered reliable independent and sig coverage, I tried to create the article through AfC but it got deleted. I am not happy with the explanation. These are the sources I would like to know if they meet WP:NCORP, thanks to everyone :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriptocurrency (talk • contribs)

Sources

Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?

The following online article is used in a Wikipedia BLP, Aliza Ayaz which is up for AfD: Pakistan’s First And Youngest Student, Aliza Ayaz Speaks At WUF By The UN Habitat.

Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?

Ivan (Jovan) Radonjic letter to Queen Catherine 2

Hello, there is an ongoing long discussion without concensus on Vasojevic talk page [16] about the letter send by Radonjic (2 letters in 1788. and 1789.) to Queen Catherine 2 , is it reliable source and does it goes under WP:AGE MATTERS since there is also reference of the letter from an autor from 1900. Thank you. User:Cobalton (talk) 15:24, 20.September 2020 (UTC)

theaerodrome.com

On Talk:Max Näther, Georgejdorner says that http://www.theaerodrome.com/index.php is a reliable source for information on Max Näther and other WWI fighter pilots. As far as I can tell, theaerodrome is a typical self-published militaria site (which are not usually considered reliable). The page cited[17] does not give any author information or other indication of reliability. Is this a reliable source? (t · c) buidhe 04:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The Aerodrome has a bibliography, which by consensus makes a website reliable. We in the WWI aviation history community established that some years ago in a consensus. Also, some of the world's most published and greatest authorities on WWI aviation are behind the site--Greg VanWyngarden, for instance. These are the same historians that we cite when they publish in print. It makes no sense to say they are reliable in print, but not on the internet. Kinda reminiscent of the argument that paper encyclopedias are inherently better than Wikipedia.

The Aerodrome website has a bibliography page buried deep within it. Pain in the tail to find, but I've done it. Some biography pages in the site cite the source(s) at the foot--where the historians cite the very books I use if I have them.

Aerodrome forum as source is forbidden, of course.

And could we settle this once and for all? I get tired of making these same points about the Aerodrome over and over. I may give up its use despite its usefulness, just to avoid this repetitive nonsense.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Having a bibliography does not necessarily make a source reliable. What is needed is a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (WP:RS). Perhaps you care to link the previous discussions regarding this source (I searched the noticeboard archives and did not find any). (t · c) buidhe 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There's this awards section on the website - I can't find any proper about page that talks about authors or editorial control.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've been involved with discussions on this site before, including with my colleague George above (just to be clear, we've collaborated on getting Stan Dallas and Albert Ball to A-Class and FA status). The site has always appeared to me to be one of the better self-published sources -- as well as having a bibliography they've sometimes cited individual items to reliable printed sources. I've certainly never caught them out publishing incorrect information, sometimes I can make a very good guess as to the sources they've used even without citations. So in the past I've considered it a reliable source for anything up to GAN, but not further. I find it's best use is as a pointer to check up info in the library or elsewhere on the web, rather than as a reference itself for WP articles. An example is the Peter Drummond article -- I used TheAerodrome for some referencing to get it to GA, then replaced all those with more obviously reliable sources to go to A-Class and FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ian it seems ok up to GA, but we need to do better at Milhist ACR and FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

G'day, the bibliography can be found here: [18]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of The Sun interview of a music group as a source

The article What the Future Holds (album) was recently nominated for DYK by Calvin999. They have indicated that they would like to use an interview that The Sun did with the album's artist as a source for the article. Given that The Sun has been deprecated as a source, would it still be suitable for the interview to be used as a source in the article, or could a one-time IAR exemption be granted here given the information may not be found elsewhere? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hard to see how it's justified. Promotional at best, ginned-up fabricated rubbish at worst. The Sun is deprecated as a source that just can't be trusted. If there is literally no other source for a claim than The Sun, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and it's a DYK. If a claim is found only in The Sun and no other source, there's no way it should be on the front page of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Have to agree with that from David. Really, the Sun editors don't care what's in their paper as long as she's got big t*ts. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard, The C of E, and Roxy the dog: I'm not sure exactly which page was Calvin referring to as they didn't link to it on the DYK nomination page, but I'm assuming it's this link. Would it be suitable? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

See comments above. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I'd say this given my views, but ... I agree with David. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

So, all of you that have responded above: be clear - what are you questioning? Is the implication that the Sun did not interview this band at all, but typed up a phony transcript of a fictional interview and published it under the false pretense that said interview actually happened? Or, are you saying that you think it's likely that the interview did take place, but the interview questions and/or the responses were altered in the published version so as to significantly misrepresent the content of the interview? The latter is perhaps slightly more plausible, but I still find it an unreasonable stretch of the imagination. A newspaper fabricating an interview or the content therein that they themselves conducted (or say they conducted) is a far different thing than printing unsubstantiated hearsay that so-and-so said such-and-such about this-person. Any publication that made a practice of the former I would expect to go bankrupt from libel suits so fast as to make their heads swim. Are there ANY known cases of the Sun doing this?

I don't know if there is or isn't, but if there is NOT, then automatic responses above are of little more use than a flock of sheep bleeting "four legs good, two legs bad!" Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think what I said has been a bit misconstrued back on the DYK. I said that it's a shame The Sun can't be used (generally), because Steps gave a lengthy interview and said things which haven't been said in other interviews. It also happens to be pretty much the first they did regarding the album too, so was initially the sole source of album info direct from them. When I was asked for another ALT, I said it's a shame The Sun can't be used for more album specific hooks. The Sun source was removed from the article before DYK nomination. I still think that given that it was an interview directly with Steps for the Bizzare section which appears in The Sun, I would like to be able to use it in the article and not for the DYK. The interview is about their album with Steps talking about it answering questions, it's not an opinion based news article which I understand people have decided could be unfit for purpose. I see them as two different circumstances for inclusion. An interview is a great source of info and it's a shame it currently can't be included. To imply that someone made up five members response to a subject for the sake of doing so is an unfair accusation in itself.  — Calvin999 11:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "...gave a lengthy interview and said things which haven't been said in other interviews" caught my eye. In the case of The Daily Mail we would reject any such interview because they have been caught multiple times editing interview answers and even fabricating the entire interview. Most tabloids, even if they are willing to make up stories,[19] are not in the habit of fabricating entire interviews. Is there any evidence that The Sun isn't reliable for interviews or other direct quotes? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I don't know. They've done some interviews since but that was the first one and it was quite lengthy. It's not like Steps know the Sun is banned on Wikipedia and they pick their interviewers accordingly to suit us. If the answer's no then the answer's no, but it would be beneficial to be able to include The Sun on this occasion. Steps don't always get the mainstream coverage others get so being able to make use of anything, especially quoted content, is very valuable.  — Calvin999 09:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

123 Telugu, Idlebrain, and FullHyderabad

Are these sources reliable? All these sites are film-based.TamilMirchi (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I think 123Telugu is not, and FullHyderabad is questionable. But Idlebrain looks like RS to me. It has to be since it survived an AfD. Anyone considering it a non-RS is clearly judgmental. --Kailash29792 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, Whether a source is notable is orthagonal to whether it is a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

TamilMirchi, can you expand on what "film-based" means? I'm not familiar with that term. Thanks! Donaldd23 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

These sites are only focused on film reviews and not general news.TamilMirchi (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

But isn't that what Wikipedia looks for to establish notability...reviews? Isn't that what Rotten Tomatoes is...a film review site? I am not seeing an issue. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

123Telugu is owned by Telugu film producer Shyam Prasad Reddy, so its not a blog by any means. --Ab207 (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Infoshop.org

as used in Wilmington, Delaware

Also in 2002, Wilmington became perhaps the first U.S. city with surveillance cameras covering the downtown area.

Would

Website description "The Infoshop project is run by a collective of anarchists, anti-authoritarians, socialists and people of other political stripes. We don’t adhere to a specific flavor of anarchism or libertarianism, but we’ve often been called “big tent anarchists.” We take that to mean that we provide a wide range of anarchist news, opinion and information with the idea that our readers and users have the freedom to make use of that info as they see fit."

Wouldn't this basically be a same classification as Breitbart, Post Millennial and like, except it's a left winged version? I checked archives and there is only one discussion that mentions this and it's not a substantial discussion. Graywalls (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Claims for being "the first" need stronger sources than usual. If this is true, it ought to be reported in a source that's unquestionably RS. (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if it didn't say "first", is it even appropriate to introduce this source into Wikipedia? As I understand it, infoshop.org is very partisan and similar to Indymedia.org Graywalls (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I am unlikely to cite it for pretty much any claim. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this particular Wilmington assertion, infoshop is not fit as a source. However, there will be circumstances where using Infoshop is appropriate, for example as WP:ABOUTSELF. I'm actually about to start a discussion of indymedia and that will cover similar ground. Mujinga (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, https://web.archive.org/web/20120107013451/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG5 as used in Market socialism. There's a disclaimer on the bottom "Anti-copyright 2011. Some material on this site may be covered by so-called "intellectual property" laws." Broader question. They're definitely biased, reliability is questionable and there's an issue of intellectual property rights issues making some of the stuff from them a WP:COPYVIOEL. Shouldn't Infoshop.org be deprecated? Graywalls (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Find a Grave as a reliable source

The use of Find a Grave as a reliable source needs to be clarified as the assertion "5. Find a Grave does not exercise editorial control, and the material added to the site by volunteers is not vetted (WP:QS)." at Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find_a_Grave is false for any entry that has a fame rating. These entries are curated and cannot be changed without editorial over site. All Find a Grave entries with a fame rating should be reclassified as a reliable source. Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

From the About page:

Who is behind Find a Grave? First and foremost, you are. Thousands of contributors submit new listings, updates, corrections, photographs and virtual flowers every hour. [...] The community continues to add and update memorials every day. We look forward to an exciting future for the site and the community!

— https://www.findagrave.com/about

So, WP:UGC with an affirmative claim of sufficient volume of input that meaningful editorial oversight would be impractical. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I nominated the find a grave template for deletion and I was surprised it was kept with unanimous vote.just a comment. Graywalls (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• It is mostly user generated content, like a Wikimedia Commons for grave photographs.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• To clarify, it looks like Richard Bruce Bradford isn't claiming that all of Find a Grave should be seen as a reliable source, they are claiming that a particular subset of pages, those with a "fame rating" should be seen as a reliable source. The FAQ page does say "Famous memorials are a special collection maintained by Find a Grave and will not be transferred to anyone." and has rudimentary style standards. It's very surface level editorial control though, and it's not clear which pages had the site staff as editors and which are written by the site itself. So those pages would be slightly more reliable than a random blog, but still don't qualify as WP:IS. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 19:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Marc Couwenbergh

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

---

@Emigré55: claimed on the article Anna van Egmont that Marc Couwenbergh an art historian of note was. See this version of the article, and specific source 9 ([20]) and 10 ([21]). The same sources are used for Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus). Despite multiple requests for clarification (Talk:Anna_van_Egmont#Couwenbergh_art_historian and Talk:Anna_van_Egmont#Marc_Couwenbergh, no answer was coming forward. A check on the linkedin-page of Marc Couwenbergh made clear that he does not call himself an art historian. As Emigré55 is clearly upset about the removal, I like to hear the opinion of the community if these sources are reliable and if Marc Couwenberg is an art historian of note. The Banner talk 16:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Emigré55: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid The Banner does not look for the right sources in Google on this author. Or wants to deliberately ignore them?? Just read, for instance, here: "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography : Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (translated into English from the Dutch page) --Emigré55 (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Another source on Couwenbergh, commenting on one of his book about Vermeer and the women (not art history? really??)--Emigré55 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

None of these sources states that he is an art historian. Just that he write/blogs about art. The Banner talk 16:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

So what?

Moreover, your accusation is not valid, since both these article in their present version do not quote him as an art historian, contrary to your very awkward (to say the least..) accusation. Harassment? --Emigré55 (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

People can see what you have put on my talk page and what you have copied to your own talk page...

But still you avoid an answer, and that is why I have asked the community to step in to judge if the sources are reliable. The Banner talk 19:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

And here Emigré55 restores the dubious sources, as usual accompanied by threats. So please judge these sources. The Banner talk 19:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again: the precised page, according to the sources, is here. --Emigré55 (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable unless evidence of him being a subject-matter expert can be provided. It's someone's personal website, so absent evidence he is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications it's a failure of WP:SPS. FDW777 (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • On "Evidence of him being a subject-matter expert": It is provided by the Rijksmuseum in the Netherlands, which The Banner voluntarily omitted to mention. The Rijksmuseum library website cites no less than 6 books on art and history written by Marc Couwenbergh and published in established publishing houses ;

List of his books in Research Library of Rijksmuseum

1/ August Willem van Voorden 1881-1921 : een Rotterdammer in Kortenhoef / tekst: Marc Couwenbergh ; redactie: Désirée Koninkx. By: Couwenbergh, Marc [aut] Contributor(s): Koninkx, Désirée [edt]| Oude School Kortenhoef [his] | Kunst aan de Dijk [cur] Publisher: Kortenhoef : Stichting Kunst aan de Dijk, [2015] Description: 35 pagina's : illustraties ; 26 cm. Content type: tekst Media type: zonder medium Carrier type: band ISBN: 9789081403863 (paperback). 2/ De liefde voor het naakt : Theo Beerendonk 1905-1979 / Marc Couwenbergh By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Luinstra, E.A Publisher: Zoetermeer : Beerendonk Uitgeverij, 2011 Description: 95 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. ISBN: 9789081739504 (geb.). 3/ Tussen kunst, sociaal engagement en ironie : een kroniek van de familie Van Norden / Marc Couwenbergh. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): MuseumgoudA [his] Publisher: Gouda : museumgoudA, 2008 Description: 112 p. : ill. ; 21 cm. ISBN: 9789072660060. 4/ A.J. Groenewegen, 1874-1963 : 'licht, leven en ruimte' / Marc Couwenbergh, Paul Groenewegen. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Groenewegen, Paul | Hoeve Rijlaarsdam [his] | Marie José Bies Fine Art [his] Publisher: Maastricht : Adriaan Groenewegen Stichting, 2007 Description: 96 p. : ill. ; 31 cm. ISBN: 9789090216355. 5/ Piet Zwiers 1907-1965 : schilder van Giethoorn / Marc Couwenberg. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Stedelijk Museum Zwolle [his] Publisher: Zwolle : Stedelijk Museum Zwolle, 2007 Description: 80 p. : ill. ; 30 cm. ISBN: 9789073429130. 6/ Werkpaarden en dienstmeiden : het Rotterdam van August Willem van Voorden 1881-1921 / Marc Couwenbergh. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Historisch Museum Rotterdam [his] Publisher: Venlo : Van Spijk Art Projects, 2006 Description: 112 p. : ill. ; 30 cm. ISBN: 9062165214.

--Emigré55 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it shows that he can be hired to produce books. Not that he is an expert in the field or an art historian. And can you stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• On evidences that The Banner is ignoring voluntarily sources:

1/ He claims having checked Couwenbergh page on LinkedIn and that it does not indicate he is an art historian.

Whereas, one can read on this same page:

LinkedIn elements of presentation omitted by The Banner

“More than twenty years of experience in writing, especially about art, culture and history from near and far: - Monographs on artists from the past and present, including 'The love for the nude' - Exhibition publications and catalogs, including 'Art sprouted from adventurous brains' at' ... as a stream grows older ... 'by Marjolijn van den Assem in Museum Gouda, the three-part series about the history of the forgotten artist village of Rijswijk and' Een Rotterdammer in Kortenhoef - AW van Voorden 1881-1921 ' - A family chronicle of the artistic and socially engaged Van Norden family - The life story of the resistance fighter Jan van Borssum Buisman, Agent of the Swiss Road Commissioned by newspapers, museums, publishers and artists.”

2/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus):

He comes back claiming: “ journalist - political scientist - writes about; but no words about being an art historian. Sorry. The Banner talk 19:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC) »

Thus doing, The Banner deliberately ignored the source I cited above his comment, and truncated it in his answer, which is a clear manipulation of the source, (source here): "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography: Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (Translated into English from the Dutch page; parts truncated by The Banner in bold characters).

--Emigré55 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A writer specializing in art. No words that he is/was an art historian. The Banner talk 18:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

One cannot be a writer specializing in art without being an art historian. Eissink (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC).

Of course one can. Plenty of people who write about art are not art historians. Art history is distinguished from art criticism. The definition of art historian is not "someone who writes about art". Vexations (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Subject matter expert issue aside, I wonder why even using some self published blog, when there are books about the article subject? As of expertise of Marc Couwenbergh, are there any reviews of his books in respected art history related journals? That would solve this question once and for all. Pavlor (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Rijksmuseum is the most respected and authoritative institution and source on art in the Netherlands. It is very doubtful that its curators would have added to the Museum Research Library 6 of the books written by Couwenbergh on various art and historical subjects, if he was not a well regarded and respected author on art and history. And furthermore recommend them online, here. --Emigré55 (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, my book based on my college thesis (not even a master degree) is in several libraries. That doesn´t make me expert on anything. So, no reviews in peer-reviewed journals? Pavlor (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken: there are no such "peer-reviewed journals" in art history, which examine articles or publications for verification purposes, like in the medical and pharmaceutical filed.

Furthermore, there is no need to be an expert reviewed by peers (hence with the very restrictive meaning you seem to give to this word) to qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is enough that the author work in the relevant field (i.e. in this case, art) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Which is the case, by numerous reliable and independant publications, such as the one mentioned here.--Emigré55 (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonesense. Every scholarly journal worth of that description has some sort of peer review (at least on the basic level of an editorial board). If one wants to cite some self published source, its author must be really expert in his field, his opinion would be undue otherwise. Back to my original question, any reviews of his books? Pavlor (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

He should not be an "expert" according to YOUR own definition (in addition a very restrictive one, which is also non existent in Wikipedia rules). He should be an "expert", defined only as "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Period. And that is perfectly the case for him, as evidenced here above in this section, or even also here below. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Just inserting a clarification of policy... the “whose work has been published” clause is NOT a definition of “Expert” - it is an additional requirement on top of being considered an “expert”. Not only must the author be regarded as an “expert” - that “expert” must ALSO have published works in the field. I do not have an opinion on whether the author in question is considered an “expert”... however, IF he is, then he meets the additional requirement of having published works in the field. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No matter how much bold text you use, my point still stands. If we should take this author as an expert in his field, we need objective criteria - eg. view of his peers. That is why I asked for reviews of his work. Pavlor (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

On « objective criteria - eg. view of his peers. » :

1/ “View of his peers”:

• As you write yourself (“ e.g.” ), peer review is just an example of the way to assess who is an expert. And in certain fields only. Indeed, peer review is also only used in certain expertise fields such as medicine or academic work. We are not dealing here about any field of that sort, but that does not exclude him to qualify as an expert in his field .
• An expert as defined by “peer review” is YOUR definition of an expert. And a limited one, which does not encompass all other definitions of the word “expert”.
• The fact that there would be no peer review is in any case neither enough nor a reason to exclude him as an expert, which qualification is not ONLY dependent on a such a restrictive definition.
• In any case, he has been assessed by his “peers”, before being allowed to publish as an expert on art in magazines such as De Correspondent. This is enough to qualify him as an expert in the field, even using your criteria of “peer review”.

2/ “Objective criteria”:

• View of peers belong to subjective criteria, not objective ones.
• If you want to take into account objective criteria , you should then take into account his books, their number and subjects, the fact that they are cited in dedicated Research Libraries on art, his publications, the fact that he regularly (since more than 20 years), publishes into newspapers or magazines about art and/or history. These are objective facts, which have qualified him for a long time as an expert in his field, not opinions/views which are subjective (be it from peers, yourself or myself).

--Emigré55 (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Simply no. There is no evidence he is really an expert in his field of study (sure, he may be, or not). Using his books published by respected publishers should be fine (at least for uncontroversial facts - note due weight), his blog is not a reliable source. Pavlor (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You are right on the fact that his numerous "books published by respected publishers should be fine", to qualify him as an expert, even if it is not your opinion about him. It is mine and the opinion of others, and your opinion is not enough to disqualify him as an expert, as per the mere definition of the word.

But you are wrong on his blog. "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."A blog is a reliable source in his case as he fully qualifies by the rule. WP:RSSELF --Emigré55 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, you provided no evidence he is really an established expert on the subject matter and judging by your repeated "creative" reading of our guidelines I wouldn´t be surprised there is no such evidence at all. I don´t get what advantages (reliability-wise) has the use his blog over books by the same author. Pavlor (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"There are none so blind as those who will not see":
On the contrary, I provided enough evidences that he is an expert, through his books but also by his peers (e.g. at “De Correspondent”, as per your own and somewhat biased and limited vision of the word expert), which you simply ignore.
You only pursue your own opinion, according to the rule YOU want to establish, not the rule of Wikipedia (about reliability of a blog) which I reminded you, and who is or not an “expert” , simply ignoring the extensive definition of the word appearing in Wikipedia.
Simply read the definition of the word “expert” in Wikipedia, and your will find all reasons simply not to deny that Couwenbergh is/can be called an expert in his field, even if it is not your own opinion about him.
Please also refrain from accusing me of “creative” reading, and using words such as “nonesense” (sic! I guess you meant nonsense), which I could now see as personal attacks.
Because of the use of these words by you, and your totally negative attitude, even denying simple facts, it seems now to me that you only want to destroy this article, instead of bringing something positive to a couple of articles which were very poor before I started to contribute to them.
I would strongly advise you not to start an edit war based on your own opinion about Couwenberg not being an expert. For the reason here above explained, this discussion is now over with you as far as I am concerned.
Please consider that there are 6,896,864 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.
--Emigré55 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Emigré55, that's not a recommendation. Libraries are not so selective that merely holding a book is an endorsement by the institution. Vexations (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, and in this case, it is. And probably in the opinion of the curators of this Research Library, which is no simple library, but a Research Library; and the one of the most prestigious institution in the Netherlands.

And I don't know of any "recommandation" needed to be a reliable source; only several publications in several independent publications. Which is indeed the case for Couwenbergh, who was published independently numerous times, as evidenced here above.--Emigré55 (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Related to his book on Vermeer's girls, Nederlands Dagblad in 2017 called him a 'kunstrecensent', which translates to art critic or art reviewer (article / archived copy). Eissink (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC).
• Comment De Correspondant, (circulation: more than 50,000 paying subscribers in the Netherlands) present him as a "journalist, specialised in art"--Emigré55 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable No evidence this author is really an established expert on the subject matter as defined in WP:RS (per FDW777). Pavlor (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you consider "the subject matter" here, Pavlor? Eissink (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC).

Art history? If anyone provided any reviews of his books in a respected journal, my concern would be fully answered. Until then, I can´t reccommend to use this self published source (as I wrote above, his books may be fine). Pavlor (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. As per WP:RS/SPS : « 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. »

1/ Definition of an expert in Wikipedia :

« An expert is somebody who has a broad and deep competence in terms of knowledge, skill and experience through practice and education in a particular field... An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. »

2/ Couwenbergh is endorsed by his peers at De Correspondent as an expert on art:

"Marc Couwenbergh schrijft (...) en met grote kennis over kunst- en cultuurhistorische onderwerpen. Tomas Valnesten".

"Marc schreef verschillende boeken over deze onderwerpen."

Which translates as:

"Marc Couwenbergh writes (...) and with great knowledge about art and cultural-historical subjects. Tomas Valnesten".

"Marc has written several books on these topics."

In: De Correspondant, (circulation: more than 50,000 paying subscribers in the Netherlands)

3/ His books have been reviewed by respectful other sources and medias:

E.g: His book on Vermeer's and the women in his corpus, reviewed by Nederlands Dagblad (article / archived copy).

Book also reviewed by this other source, in this article, from Algemeen Dagblad (circulation: 350,000 readers)

--Emigré55 (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

And still you do not back up your original claim that Couwenberg is/was an art historian. And you also do not give proof that his blogpost were critically reviewed by peers. His books are not about the issue at hand, at that is the reliability of the blogposts. The Banner talk 17:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Do not create rules which do not exist in Wikipedia. Contrary to what you write, his blog posts should not be reviewed critically by peers. Only his "previous works", i.e. in this case, books, which should have been "published by relable and independant publications". WP:RS/SPS, see above, is clear: His "...work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." And this is the case, indeed, as evidenced by 2 reliable sources.--Emigré55 (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This request is about the two blogpost that you use to backup a far reaching claim. You claimed at that time that Marc Couwenbergh was a notable art historian. I still have not seen any proof of that. Nor that the blogposts are reliable sources. And it still is my opinion that the text based on these blogposts should be removed as being backed up by unreliable sources. The Banner talk 09:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems there will be no consensus in this discussion. The author here, Couwenberg, is definitely an academic, although educated in political science, who in the last fifteen years has been able to publish his work in the circle of respected Dutch museums and related publishers, counting nearly twenty publications, sometimes as an individual work that even has been translated. His catalogues seem to be mainly on the better more local painters, whose lifes and works haven't even reached Dutch Wikipedia yet (but they probably will, also thanks to Couwenbergh) – e.g. Piet Zwiers (1907-1965), Jan van Vuuren (1871-1941), A. J. Groenewegen (1874-1963). This is not work that will get 'peer reviews', but it is very valuable. Now Couwenbergh has a personal site, call it a blog if you want to, where he has written some interesting notes on Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus). In his writings on the portrait, Couwenbergh does not claim anything, he merely observes and gives interesting remarks. I don't see any problem in using these pieces in the article – other publications on the particular subject of the identity of the noble young lady would be welcome, but those would in principle not be more or less valuable or valid. I suggest this section be closed, it is not fruitful. Eissink (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

Yes, he gives interesting opinions in his blogposts. But no facts or sources. The Banner talk 13:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

In your very first, the initial post here, you mention two sources, while you really give two times the same source. If you would have read the other source, the first article that is referenced in the article, you might have seen that the title is even a quote from a source. I think that you just don't care, that you just didn't read the article, or you wouldn't have uttered such an untruth as you just did. But more importantly even, art history consists for a large part of speculation and especially persuasion (cf. the attribution of a painting to so and so), and it is for a large part based on consensus more than on facts, unless one is interested only in the weight of a painting. But you probably wouldn't know that, because you are not interested in art, you came to the connected article of Anna van Egmont, where I suggested Emigré55 to create a seperate article on the painting, solely to stalk me. This whole discussion is a disgrace, the umpteenth. Eissink (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

Interesting observation. I see two different blog posts mentioned: De Mona Lisa van Pieter Pourbus meester-schilder uit Gouda and Anna van Bueren versus de Mona Lisa van Pieter Pourbus meester-schilder uit Gouda. Posted on the blog respectively on 25 February 2018 and 2 March 2018. But it is funny that you need personal attacks to back up your claims. The Banner talk 14:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Everyone that has had to deal with you in matters like these, knows that every discussion with you ends up with a baseless accusation of a personal attack. Unfortunately, when such an accustion comes, it might very well be not the end, because you like to repeat your 'arguments', which is understandable, because besides this one, and the similar "why don't you AGF?" you only have "source is bad" and those of the kind "haha, you must be running out of arguments" / "LOL, are your arguments that weak?" / "don't you have content related arguments?", meanwhile never giving further clarification on your part. Of course this is a convenient repertoire from somebody who never contributes even a paragraph to any article and who's only interest is deleting other people's work. Eissink (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

From you last two edits here: "(...) solely to stalk me."; "(...) knows that every discussion with you ends up with a baseless accusation of a personal attack."; "Of course this is a convenient repertoire from somebody who never contributes even a paragraph to any article and who's only interest is deleting other people's work." For your information, Eissink: I have created 380 new articles. That looks slightly more then "never contributes even a paragraph". The Banner talk 16:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I see I was wrong on that point, you did indeed create articles years ago. Not one on art or even remotely related to art, though, if I'm correct. Eissink (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

So it was just a baseless accusation. My credentials are public, so everybody can see what I do and how I vote in AfDs (also different then you claimed). But I like to point at Éamonn O'Doherty (sculptor), an article started by me. Goodbye, my friend. I will no longer respond on you as it does not serve the issue at hand. The Banner talk 16:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

All the better. I wish you had left me alone in the first place. Eissink (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

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

Marc Couwenberg (2)

Where is the discussion about Marc Couwenberg? That discussion was not closed. The Banner talk 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Marc Couwenbergh. You can unarchive it but it still may get ignored. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The Banner, this seems like a question that needed to be settled one way or the other so below I brought it back and closed (E&OE, YMMV, objects may be closer than they appear in the mirror). Guy (help! - typo?) 11:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But seeing the prior exchanges, it will be a hot potato to really exclude the sources (and text). The Banner talk 12:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Indymedia

Hi I think we need to have a proper discussion about using Indymedia as a source. I'll try to give a breakdown of the situation as I see it. The Independent Media Center (also known as Indymedia, IMC) was an early use of the internet by left-wing anti-globalisation activists in the late 1990s and early 2000s. There was a boom and bust, as corporate social media took on all the facets of the new phenomenon of open publishing, a newswire, a website accessed for free from anywhere etc etc Hundreds of indymedia websites sprang up for different local collectives and most have folded, although some continue eg indymedia NL and indymedia Ireland and many sites are archived. So when I am talking Indymedia, I am talking about many different, mostly city-based news networks, mainly from the 1990s and 2000s.

Indymedia is therefore is proudly self-published and do not worry I will not attempt to argue otherwise. However, I will argue that in specific circumstances, indymedia is a useful and reliable source. Not least because of the specific point made by WP:SOCIALMEDIA but also for other reasons. Wikipedia has changed a lot since the 2000s regarding referencing and verifiability and that is of course great. We need to be sure we are correct, especially regarding BLP issues. Yes if it appeared in indymedia, it probably is in other sources too if it was notable (and some things are, some things aren't), but many of these other sources are lost or paywalled. The 1990s and 2000s are a bit of a deadzone for social movement history since many websites have expired and gone without archives, before the advent of the wayback machine and other means of archiving stuff. So when writing about many of the marginal (and not so marginal) historical events, then I would argue the indymedia service can be useful with specific caveats.

Indymedia is currently listed on perennial sources as "generally unreliable" with the blurb: "The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source." I would dispute that and prefer to see a warning for "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" and a link to this discussion, or whatever else people decide. There have been previous discussions and I can link to them here (two are linked at perennial soources) already. I am struggling to see any sort of consensus formed there at all. 17, 23, 275. 23 and 275 are mentioned on perennial sources.

As a final point, indymedia articles are used judiciously in academic literature and we shouldn't forget that either. I find it strange to contemplate all use of indymedia on wikipedia being deleted when academics will use it with discretion. Here's a quickly compiled list of articles which reference indymedia from my recently read pile, just to illustrate my point. I'm not talking about pieces ABOUT indymedia, I'm talking about academics using indymedia as a source on social movement history.

• "Autonomy in the city?" in City Stuart Hodkinson & Paul Chatterton http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccit20
• "When cops “go native”: policing revolution through sexual infiltration and panopticonism in Critical Studies on Terrorism Michael Loadenthal https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17539153.2013.877670
• "Neoliberalism out of joint: Activists and inactivists in London’s social centres" in Subjectivity Peter Conlin doi:10.1057/sub.2014.8
• Truijen, K. (2019) Architecture of Appropriation – On Squatting as Spatial Practice ISBN|9789083015200
• Mudu & Chattopadhay Migration, Squatting and Radical Autonomy (Routledge) 9781138942127

If it helps to clarify, let's end with a specific example:

• I have a discussion with Graywalls at Talk:Dutch_squatting_ban#Sourcing where they want to delete an indymedia source about banners being put on buildings as being "disreputable", i want to keep it alongside a mainstream media article since it's the only available photographic evidence of the banners. I think it makes wikipedia a better encyclopedia to have that link. The source is not being used to say anything controversial, it only evidences the specific event, which is notable as attested by the newspaper article from Volkskrant. In short I see no good reason to remove it and no consensus here to do so. I think it's clear by now I think indymedia is a useful and reliable source under a limited context. Thanks for any opinions. Mujinga (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ping to @Graywalls: as promised. Mujinga (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Everything is primary source at first. Scholars, journalists and academics all use their direct interview, blog sites, anecdotal evidence and all in their research; but this doesn't mean we should use it. Also, adding contents at our own discretion based on POV fringe source goes against the idea of WP:NPOV and due weight. I saw a dog do its business inside a Walmart a while back and this is the sort of thing that would find itself on people's blogs. Even if you were to attribute it "according to John Doe, a dog did its business in Walmart and he went on as if nothing happened", introducing contents from a blog is an undue coverage of absolutely non-notable thing. Graywalls (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally unreliable. Indymedia is self-published, and does not exhibit sufficient editorial control to be considered a reliable source. Journalists and academics use all kinds of data sources, including sources that would be considered unreliable on Wikipedia, as primary sources for research. In contrast, original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles, and we are not able to use Indymedia on Wikipedia the same way that journalists and academics can in their work. — Newslinger talk 14:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable per Newslinger: academics also cite Breitbart and InfoWars, does that make those sources reliable? However, being generally unreliable doesn't prevent it from being cited alongside reliable sources when it contains primary source evidence, such as photographs, where editors have determined that this is useful. (t · c) buidhe 00:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  even that's being extremely generous. I couldn't remember which article it was, but there was a Wikipedia article with the incorrect type of a bird or something and went unnoticed for a long time. When you cite dubious source, you exponentially increase the risk of having pictures that do not depict the stated caption. POV sources also often selectively photograph and publish things to push their agenda. The times when questionable sources, such as but not limited to Independent Media Center (Indymedia.org and many other domains), infowars.org, wordpress.org should be very very rare. An example of special circumstance they're useful. A credible media comments on something that was on Indymedia, for example, some criminal incident. Due to copyright reasons, they're not able to post the whole thing in verbatim, but if the news story includes a link, then posting that link alongside would be acceptable, IMO. Graywalls (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable to me this does not seem to be a reliable source. Consistency appears to be key here. If we allow this self published sources to be legitimated as a reliable source, then there is nothing stopping one from legitimating other self published sources as well. That does not seem to me to be a can of worms that we would want to open. Fortliberty (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable It is essentially user generated contents. Using something there isn't a whole lot different from putting things on Wikipedia directly without reference as you could put whatever you want on there, then reference to it as if it was legitimately published. "What will happen with your contribution: Anyone can publish on Indymedia through the links to the forms under 'publish yourself!' to use. All contributions appear almost immediately on the website. The collective tries to read through most of those contributions. The collective can leave the contributions on the basis of the criteria, delete them or move them to another category." (Google translation of https://www.indymedia.nl/node/16) Graywalls (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment thanks for the replies that are coherent, Graywalls you are doing yourself no favours talking about dogshit. I feel my point is being misread slightly since I am not disputing that indymedia is self-published. I am talking about how many social movement actors published manifestos, listings and so on at indymedia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This means that as other sources are lost / disappear / get paywalled, indymedia will become a useful source for wikipedia since it will be all we have as a record of projects and groups, and this is what makes it different to the given example of Breitbart and Infowars. That's why I brought up academics using it, but I should have realised that would have got us sidetracked into a primary sources discussion which was not my intention. I suppose I'm happy for indymedia to stay marked as generally unreliable and I can see an emerging consensus for that, as long as we have the caveat of WP:SELFSOURCE, referred to by "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable". This allays my fears of all indymedia links being wiped from wikipedia. Regarding my specific example, I only see an answer from Buidhe so far, although I note Graywalls has already deleted it referencing this discussion which seems odd, since I see no consensus for its deletion here. Mujinga (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable as self-published, possibly useful for attributed statements. If a group used it to publish their manifesto, then it would be a primary source for that. Or for the opinion of notable contributors.--Hippeus (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence

I have a bit of a strange one. I think it might be a RS, but I want to ask.

Name of work: How Dogwhistles Work[22][23]

Abstract:

Extended content

Henderson, R. & McCready, E.. (2018). How Dogwhistles Work. 10.1007/978-3-319-93794-6_16. The paper focuses on the semantics and pragmatics of dogwhistles, namely expressions that send one message to an outgroup while at the same time sending a second (often taboo, controversial, or inflammatory) message to an ingroup. There are three questions that need to be resolved to understand the semantics and pragmatics of the phenomenon at hand: (i) What kind of meaning is dogwhistle content—implicature, conventional implicature, etc.; (ii) how do (some but not all) hearers recover the dogwhistle content, and (iii) how do expressions become endowed with dogwhistle content? These three questions are interrelated, but previous analyses have emphasized answers to a subset of these questions in ways that provide unsatisfactory answers to the others. The goal for this paper is to take stock of existing accounts, while showing a way forward that reconciles their differences.

The authors:

• Elin McCready (some papers are published under the name Erik McCready),[24] Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Aoyama Gakuin University.
• Robert Henderson,[25] Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona.

OK, so it appears to be a paper written by a couple of academics. The question is whether it is a peer reviewed paper. Here comes the strange bit; where it was published:

• New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, published by the JSAI (Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence) International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence.

What in the world does artificial intelligence have to do with alleged hidden meanings behind things US politicians say? Do the people running the AI symposium have the expertise needed to evaluate a paper about US political speech? Did any actual linguists peer review the paper? I am surprised that they accepted a paper which appears to have nothing to do with AI.

Background:

Extended content

Our article on Dog whistle (politics) keeps being edited in such a way to support the POV that every accusation of dog-whistling is automatically true, no evidence required. In general society, there are some who hold that every accusation of dog-whistling is automatically false, but they haven't shown up on this page yet. (They are pretty clearly wrong in the case of the phrase "Family Values" being a dog-whistle to evangelical Christians). Any material that implies that the accusation may or may not be true is challenged and if possible suppressed. In some cases you can look at the editor's history and see that in other pages they are pushing the idea that republicans in general and Trump in particular are constantly dog-whistling, no evidence required. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• This looks sketchy for the journal; accepting a paper that apparently has nothing to do with the subject matter is a red flag that peer review is not happening. However, it would pass SPS since the authors are recognized experts in the subject matter (although why didn't they publish it in a more conventional way??) University of Arizona's linguistics department is well regarded AFAIK. (t · c) buidhe 08:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am not sure whether that high regard extends to an associate professor, or that being an expert in linguistics makes you a subject expert on what the "true meaning" of something a politician says is. He has another paper,[26] this time published by Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 2019 (at least this one is about liguistics[27],[28]) that basically labels three republicans liars (which, being politicians, they are) without any mention of democrats. But still, no "this is unreliable" smoking gun. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• It looks fine to me, the journal issue is just a collection of papers from a big conference: ("This book constitutes extended, revised and selected papers from the 9th International Symposium of Artificial Intelligence supported by the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, JSAI-isAI 2017. It was held in November 2017 in Tokyo, Japan. The 22 papers were carefully selected from 109 submissions")[29] The conference on AI apparently consited of a number of workshops on many different topics. LENLS 14 was the one that paper was given. Looking at the conference description and program [30], that paper was indeed presented there, and the workshop's topic was "formal syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and related fields" - so a talk on the "semantics and pragmatics of dogwhistles" would fit right in there. (and in fact, linguistics, logics etc is of interest for AI as well, so the overarching topic makes sense as well.) As for peer-reviewed: it is an edited talk published in a conference proceeedings issue, so I wouldn't say it as "weighty" as a research paper published in a specialist journal, but I would say it is reliable and could also be cited in an academic context. --Mvbaron (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Apparently pragmatics (context) is a scholarly subfield of semantics (meanings) and semiotics (symbols), and is also is of interest to AI study, so it does look to be in the subject field. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

schoolswebdirectory.co.uk

• schoolswebdirectory.co.uk  

This doesn't look like a RS to me. 82.7.174.132 (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

guide2womenleaders.com

• guide2womenleaders.com  

Reliable? I don't see it myself. Over 450 references. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be RS to me. The "about the author" page indicates that this is a self-published website. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• self-published, as Neutrality notes.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

SwimSwam

I've been in a discussion on Talk:Adam Peaty about the reliability of SwimSwam.com as a source. It states that it is SwimSwam.com is the world’s most popular swimming news and lifestyle website. SwimSwam provides global coverage of swimming, open water swimming and the “swim lifestyle” outside the pool (and/or lake, ocean, river, etc.). Our slogan is Everything for the swim fan on SwimSwam! You can also submit a story. As such I can't see the editorial policy that would allow us to use it as a reliable source particularly for a BLP. This has all arisen over a disagreement over this article which consists of three of Peaty's instagram quotes (lambasting The Sun for an intrusion of privacy) and the aforementioned article from The Sun that has now been removed. So is SwimSwam a reliable source for article's about a BLP's private life? Any third opinions would be much appreciated. Woody (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable with the standard caveats. If it’s supporting a dubious or exceptional claim then attributing the information may be appropriate. Swimming World News is a standard source but they simply don’t have the staff or bandwidth to cover the whole sport. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Look to the Stars

• looktothestars.org  

Is https://www.looktothestars.org/ a reliable source? It is used to back up a claim on Anna Wilding (director) that the Wilding Foundation helped with the 2011 Christchurch earthquake relief efforts. The relief operation has been heavily documented but I can't find another source to back up this claim. -- haminoon (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Per about, I'd say no. It has some kind of editorial control but its mission is to "publicize the many wonderful things that celebrities are doing to help the world", so it's basically PR at best and a fansite at worst. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Should VLSI Research be considered a reliable source?

At least two low quality articles make use of the source VLSI Research to establish facts. The list WP:SAL Semiconductor equipment sales leaders by year and the article WP:COMPANIES ASM International. Should VLSI Research be considered a reliable source? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 00:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In the article ASM International the following statements are supported by the source:

The company was founded by Arthur del Prado (1931-2016) as ‘Advanced Semiconductor Materials’ in 1964.[2][unreliable source?]

Semiconductor equipment companies ASML, ASM Pacific Technology and Besi are former divisions of ASM.[2][unreliable source?]

1960s: In 1964, Arthur del Prado founds ASM as ‘Advanced Semiconductor Materials’ in Bilthoven, the Netherlands.[2][unreliable source?]

1980s: Following an initial public offering on the Nasdaq in May 1981, the company expands. In 1982 ASM Japan is established.[2][unreliable source?]

I view the tone informal and inappropriate in the referenced source https://www.vlsiresearch.com/public/cms_pdf_upload/VR_Art_del_Prado_Tribute_161115.htm although these may be facts and the source generally may be considered a reliable source in the industry Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 14:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A google search https://www.vlsiresearch.com/public/cms_pdf_upload/ show 1140 results for VLSI Research public articles. The referenced sources supporting the list article Semiconductor equipment sales leaders by year can be found this way, and it is possible to use the same search method to discover ideas for articles not yet created WP:HOW. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Further background:

VLSI Research is a relatively small independent company that specializes in Market research for manufacturers in the semiconductor industry.

• https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.vlsi_research_inc.ffa3e57426c2a6b79cc25ed37eb74ad6.html
• https://www.vlsiresearch.com/about

There are other firms that can provide the type of analytical data VLSI Research provides, like much bigger firms Delloite,PwC, or Gartner. How does one go about determining the quality (reliability) of the publicly available data from these firms? Is there a better or worse way of presenting the data they provide? The first example I provided above with a referenced source seem to be a different styled information than one should expect from such a firm. It is plausible the firm published a styled text that carry industy specific culture in a jovial manner. Then perhaps the question is not if the source is reliable, but if the context and choice of source is right Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 11:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

dailypress.com, see content below for specific context

Is https://www.dailypress.com/ a reliable source?

Source: Dietrich, Tamara (April 26, 2005). "Standing Up to Saddam and His Son Took Courage". Daily Press (Newport News). p. C1. ProQuest https://search.proquest.com/docview/343333770. If the proquest content is not accessible, it's also reproduced here at the bottom http://www.zindamagazine.com/html/archives/2005/4.27.05/index_wed.php This source is a summary of an interview with the article subject, Georges Sada, and David Eberly.

Wikipedia Article: Georges Sada

Content in the article:

U.S. Air Force Colonel David Eberly credits Sada with saving his life and the lives of fellow prisoners by lobbying Qusai Hussein to forgo the executions Hussein was demanding. Sada was imprisoned briefly for his resistance to the executions.[2][better source needed]

Is this source reliable? For example, David Eberly was also interviewed by PBS and never mentioned Georges Sada, the article subject. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/1.html

The following is separate from RS but still worth noting: The content in the article quoted above has other issues, such as being a sort of primary source as the article is just a summary of an interview with the article subject, Georges Sada, and David Eberly. The claim that Sada saved Eberly and other pilots from execution originates with Sada himself, and in the above source link, Eberly seems to go along with agreeing with Sada and has no confirmation. As noted, when Eberly was interviewed by PBS, he made no mention of Sada. There has been no verification on this claim to date that Sada was ordered to execute the pilots and refused, among some of Sada's other claims about himself. He also is best known for pushing a refuted and baseless conspiracy theory about Iraq moving its WMDs to Syria in late 2002 (see WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Syria), so I'm unsure how much credibility Georges Sada has as a primary source, which in general is already discouraged in Wikipedia articles. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

the proquest search can be considered archive reference, as the article in question is available at https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-20050426-2005-04-26-0504260195-story.html Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 13:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Mysteriumen The question is if the source, and in this questionable context, is reliable, not if it exists. Also you posted a link that just goes to the home page, so it isn't available there. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30 I get you want to question a news media, I simply have no opinon about Daily Press (Virginia)’s reliability except they seem to have editorial oversight. Don’t know how you find the link to the article in question not working, perhaps you are using some sort of blocker Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 16:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Mysteriumen Tried 2 different computers and my phone and multiple browsers on each. Clicking on the link just takes me to the homepage dailypress.com, not to an article. Anyways, I had read the article in full on ProQuest. There seems to be some confusion but we're are on the Reliable_sources board so let's keep the discussion on that.

While the source itself is a little-known publication and a small-scale local newspaper, the context is also important. It's mainly biographical primary source, that is the source recaps the article subject being interviewed and details stated about himself, and is being used as biographical information on the Wiki article about the subject. This source also conflicts with a PBS interview with David Eberly, also linked above, who makes no mention of the article subject Georges Sada. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30 The context of the article in question seem to be that local organizations close to Daily Press (Virginia) was hosting an event where the subject of your article Georges Sada attended, and in a wider context building his character relating events that have meaning in establishing the importance of his role in more important events. The interview don’t appear to comment on fact checking anything that is said, so I don’t believe the interview is useful in supporting facts about controversial events. The style is somewhat gossipy. It might be useful in describing his character in some way. This interview would be more useful if other reports from that local event is also available. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 17:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ Thanks for your input, much appreciated. You may a good observation with "in a wider context building his character relating events that have meaning in establishing the importance of his role in more important events". He uses this story and a few others to make himself out (unverifiably so) as one of the top people in the former Iraqi regime, which also fed into his 2006 book in which he speaks as an "authority" on the conspiracy theory that Iraqi WMDs were moved to Syria, his source being "anonymous pilots". Agreed, the style is gossipy and does no fact checking. It takes Sada's word at face value, like a couple other talks/interviews he's done. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Left and Citron Research (formerly StockLemon.com)

Citron Research (Andrew Left) is prominently cited at TransDigm Group#Inaccurate filings with Department of Defense and "hidden monopoly". Is he a reliable source? No previous RSNB discussions that I could find. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, going to say not for this, on the basis that he is not unlikely to have a vested interest in the case. If it's reported by the WSJ based on his work, that would be different. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Wafa.ps a RS?

Wafa.ps is the news agency of the Palestinian National Authority (the interim government in the PA), as such it should not be considered a RS and should only be used with inline attribution, when absolutely necessary. It is currently being used in many articles, and especially in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area where it surely shouldn't be used at all. I would love to depreciate it considering there is absolutely zero fact checking but I just want to open this up for discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be quoted for facts by New York Times, Washington Post, BBC News, Reuters etc.VR _talk 02:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, No, it's quoted inline for "as per Wafa," which is not what I'm asking here.

We've had cases here before where NYTimes used a source and we still ruled it wasn't a RS. We aren't the NY Times, and if Wafa is an official mouthpiece of a government and isn't RS, then we shouldn't be using it.

Plus, as the NY Times article mentions, it explicitly calls out that Wafa is the "official Palestinian news agency," IOW, that is not something we should be using without inline attribution at the least, (which is what the NY Times did). Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Er, yes, WAFA is a very reliable news agency. Not sure why you would think otherwise? By Western standards, its web site is bare bones, but that is an advantage to Palestinians who browse with bandwidth-limited mobile phones. Generally, if Israel bombs Gaza, WAFA will have something up within a few hours at most.

True, WAFA "spins" news; if Israel bombs Gaza, WAFA might "forget" to note that PIJ fired rockets into Israel earlier in the day. But that is par for the course and Israeli media is equally guilty of "spinning" news. WAFAs factual reporting is very rarely incorrect. Furthermore, its reporting is often more detailed than Israeli or Western sources. While they might report: "Israel bombed targets in Gaza," WAFA might report: "Israeli warplanes struck three targets in Gaza; Khan Younis, Rafah and Beit Hanoun, causing material damage but no injuries." If what it reports isn't cross-checked, it will report it as "according to local sources ... " or "according to local activist Mohammed Something ..." exactly like other news agencies.

WAFA is frequently cited by other Middle Eastern media houses. For example, by IMEMC, Anadolu Agency, Al-Monitor, Middle East Monitor, and Palestine Chronicle. It's even cited by Israeli news sites like Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and Haaretz. And by UN's media reviews.

If that isn't enough to convince you, then I don't know what would. Sometimes, when Palestinians are killed by Israeli soldiers, B'Tselem publishes investigative reports months later. For example, here is WAFA's report of the killing of Ibrahim Mustafa Abu-Yaaqoub and here is B'Tselem's investigation. As seen, their reports correlate well.

Frankly, I'm alarmed by this campaign to blacklist more and more news sources. The effect is that events that Western media doesn't think are important can't be noted on Wikipedia. There is no replacement for WAFA. If you blacklist that (and by extension, all Palestinian news outlets that are objectively worse), the end result would be that you'd have exactly zero Palestinian news agencies that would be permissible on Wikipedia. And it doesn't stop there, you'd have to blacklist the vast majority of African, Middle Eastern and Latin American news agencies too. ImTheIP (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, We try very hard not to use official government news agencies. And note, all the "ACCORDING TO WAFA." That is not the same as using the source as a "ref" tag, without inline cite, which would be better. You can't say "X did this" and source it to Wafa without saying, "According to Wafa...." That should be the bare minimum here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My point is that news orgs trust WAFA. Especially Israeli news orgs which is significant because due to their physical proximity to the OPTs, they are better judges of WAFA's trustworthiness than Western news orgs.

Read the Times of Israel article. Boxerman's article is a derivative of a WAFA report; he relies on WAFA for the photos, the video, and the quotes from the involved doctors. Here is another recent article by Boxerman where he credits WAFA for the image. He doesn't credit WAFA for the content, but he clearly "borrowed" the "meters away" formulation from WAFA's report published an hour earlier.

These aren't isolated examples. Sometimes when Israeli journalists write stories based on WAFA's reporting they don't credit WAFA and then it is of course difficult to prove that they relied on WAFA if there isn't an obvious temporal correlation and some key phrases reused. Sometimes they write: "According to the Palestinian Wafa news agency, Mohammad Majd Kamil died after falling from a high place while being chased by Israeli police in the Galilee town of Arrabat al-Bottuf on Tuesday." The "according to ... Wafa" clause isn't there because WAFA is considered untrustworthy, it's there because citing your sources is good journalistic practice. If they thought WAFA was untrustworthy why would they cite WAFA at all!?

I cannot see any rule about government-affiliated news agencies in WP:RS. And we cite BBC, Yle, NRK, RAI, France 2, PBS, etc, all the time. On List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2014 we cite the IDF spokesperson's twitter account and on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2015 we cite Shin Bet. If we can cite Shin Bet (without "according to" qualification, mind you) I think we can cite WAFA.

I agree that "according to ..." is required for controversial content. But the content that you removed that was sourced to WAFA wasn't controversial. A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10] I fail to see how prefixing this sentence with "According to Wafa, ..." makes anything better. Can one remove the "according to Wafa" if MEMO writes about the clashes or does one have to wait until (and if) the Jerusalem Post covers it? Does the "according to" have to be applied to COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine? "According to WAFA, Mai Alkaila confirmed 806 new cases ... According to WAFA, Mai Alkaila confirmed 433 new case ... According to WAFA, ai Alkaila confirmed 632 ne ..."

tl;dr WAFA isn't Sputnik News, don't get fooled by the website's layout, don't blacklist the most reliable English-language Palestinian news source. ImTheIP (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, What is your evidence that this is "the most reliable English-language Palestinian news source"? (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Some government news sources are reliable. Usually they are those like BBC, Deutsche Welle, which have editorial independence from their government. On the other hand, there are other government sources such as RT or Telewizja Polska which are infamous for spreading propaganda and disinformation; these ones tend to be controlled by the ruling party of the country. Who runs Wafa and is it editorially independent from Fatah? (If not, at the very least, it cannot be considered an independent source for Palestinian politics). BTW, if some event is only reported by the IDF but not covered by any independent sources, then it is probably not DUE in mainspace either.
• It is possible for a journalist to cite sources without using the "according to" construction: just state the fact while including an external link underneath to the source. Use of the "according to" construction indicates that the secondary source is not taking responsibility for the accuracy of information. Wikipedia should follow suit by attributing in any controversial case (not COVID cases, these are reported according to official govt statistics, no matter how dubious). (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• unreliable propaganda like RT. See Wafa's about: "WAFA was established as an independent body that was structurally, politically and administratively linked to the PLO Executive Committee" (so not independent). President Abbas exerts control: "On May 9, 2011, President Abbas also issued a presidential decree on the organization of WAFA’s work pursuant to Item II of Article VI on drawing up WAFA’s administrative and organizational structure, which ushered in a new institutional structure for WAFA in terms of job specializations and tasks.". Going on to their functions: "1. Gather news... accordance with the provisions of the presidential decree", "3. Contribute to the fulfillment of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s public policies in line with the higher Palestinian interests". Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable Like Eostrix noted No independent news board they similar to RT or SPUTNIK. Shrike (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Mainly Reliable

Federation of Arab News Agencies (FANA), "the Palestinian News & Information Agency (WAFA) won the best report Award 2019"

Strengthening and funding WAFA development and Palestinian media legislation saw the active involvement of UNESCO; a recent report found nothing adverse other than Wafa's privileged access in a market where there is a plurality of private media (that were encouraged to set up by the PA) UNESCO Office Ramallah (24 November 2014). Assessment of media development in Palestine: based on UNESCO's media development indicators. UNESCO. pp. 49–. ISBN 978-92-3-100021-8.

The Italian Government provided US $1.5 million as far back as 1997 for the strengthening of Wafa. This newsorg has been around for a long time and one has to wonder why is this just coming up now? This listing seems ill-motivated, where are the examples of false reporting or errors of fact? Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, reliable only for what Abbas/PLO says. Besides being a stated propaganda mouthpiece controlled by the PLO, WAFA is known for routinely publishing laughable conspiracy theories. For instance: [31][32][33]

  Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem

  The same report notes that WAFA also has pig conspiracy theories:

  Wafa , controlled and funded by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' office, has in the past accused Israel of using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes and fields in the West Bank.

  In case you were wondering, they are stilling doing it in 2017: [34](copy)

  A wild pig attacked, on Friday night, a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun ... Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.

  11Fox11 (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for facts in the Palestinian territories. As shown by ImTheIP, Wafa is widely quoted by Western reliable sources for facts in the Palestinian territories as well positions of the PNA. It seems like one of the most reliable Palestinian sources for news. Wafa is probably a WP:BIASEDSOURCE when it comes to reports that involves those opposed to the PNA (mainly Israel and Hamas) and caution should be exercised in those cases.VR _talk 16:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, except for official PLO statements. It is the media arm of the PLO, controlled tightly by it. It is the sort of place that publishes "Palestinian man killed at checkpoint" while omitting that the man was a suicide bomber with 50 pounds of explosives strapped to his chest. --Hippeus (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Basic facts about WAFA

The Palestine News and Information Agency (WAFA) was founded by the PLO in 1972. In 1994 it became part of the Palestinian Authority (PA). It was reformed between 2008 and 2011 to bring it closer to the presidency. Donor pressure unhappy with what they saw as inciting content was perhaps the reason. WAFA, the Palestinian Public Radio and Television Corporation, and Al-Hayat al-Jadeeda (daily news) are the main media channels of the PA. All Fatah-affiliated. Only WAFA publishes in English.

There are only a handful news orgs based in the OPTs publishing in English. WAFA's competitors are the Hamas-affiliated Quds News Network, the "independent" Palestinian Information Center (PIC), and the palestine news network (pnn). Their reporting is more often than not derivative of WAFA's. For example, WAFA's report about settlers attacking olive harvesters is the basis for both pnn's short article and PIC's article. Thus, if you blacklist WAFA you have to blacklist these news orgs too since they publish rewrites of WAFA's articles.

How does WAFA make news? Like all other wire services it relies on a network of freelancers. When they see stuff happen, they record it on video, they take photos, and they talk to witnesses. Then they send their material to WAFA which publishes it. If the news is interesting enough, it is broadcast on tv, otherwise it's just pushed on the news feed. Exactly how all other wire services in the world operate. And it is not true that WAFA has no editorial control. Kholoud Assaf is WAFA's editor-in-chief.

Here is a bunch of reporting from the BBC that in part or in full relies on WAFA:

1999: [35], [36], 2001: [37], 2002: [38], [39], [40], [41], 2003: [42], [43], 2006: [44], 2007: [45], [46], [47], [48], 2011: [49], 2012: [50], [51], 2013: [52], [53], [54], 2014: [55], 2015: [56], 2016: [57], [58], [59], 2017: [60], 2018: [61], [62], [63], 2019: [64], [65], 2020: [66], [67]

By no means is this an exhaustive list - there are hundreds more BBC articles that cite WAFA and a similar list could be made for virtually every news org in the world. Just to drive the point home that WAFA is reliable and has been around for a loong time, here is some of WaPo's reporting from the Lebanese Civil War in the late 70's early 80's that in part or in full relies on WAFA:

1977: [68], 1978: [69], [70], [71], [72], 1979: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], 1980: [79], [80], [81], [82], 1981: [83], [84], [85], 1982: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], 1983: [96], [97], [98], [99], [100] , 1985: [101]

In these artices WaPo is actually sourcing WAFA for facts. For example, in this article from 1981 WaPo writes in its lead paragraph: Waves of Israeli warplanes bombed heavily populated Palestinian neighborhoods in Beirut and targets in southern Lebanon today, killing at least 123 persons and wounding hundreds more in Israel's most devastating attack here since its invasion in 1978. How does WaPo know that at least 123 persons were killed? It relies on WAFA: As of late afternoon, the Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that the death toll had reached 123 but later the Phalangist radio put the figure at 150. ImTheIP (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In these cases, as far as I can tell, WAFA is attributed, i.e. the source repeating the information is not taking full responsibility for whether WAFA's reporting is accurate. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that you are asking me to do something nigh impossible to prove WAFA's reliability. I'm tasked to find articles that sources WAFA for facts but does not credit WAFA as the source for these facts. I'm sure you understand why finding such articles would be difficult? You can yourself try to find articles on the BBC that sources Haaretz for facts but does not credit Haaretz as the source for these facts. While not impossible, it is time consuming to find such articles because you have to match keyword phrases that indictate that the journalist in question engaged in some copy-pasting. I provided one example above where Boxerman borrowed facts from WAFA without crediting WAFA. Are more examples needed or do you trust me when I assert that that happens frequently?

Likewise, I have no idea what taking "full responsibility for" means. Media houses in general don't take responsibility for each others reporting. The BBC reports: Crusader winery found under house in Israel. How does the BBC know? The townspeople have been working together to shore up the ruins of the 12th century King's Castle that dominates their Galilee skyline under the guidance of local archaeologist Rabei Khamisy, the Haaretz newspaper reports. Is the BBC taking "full responsibility"?

The BBC reports: Palestinian Mohammad Abu Khdair 'was burned alive'. How does the BBC know? The Palestinian official news agency Wafa quoted the attorney-general as saying that Mr Aloul had reported fire dust in the respiratory canal, meaning the victim had "inhaled this material while he was burnt alive". Is the BBC taking "full responsibility"?

I think I have provided much evidence that shows that WAFA is considered a reliable wire service, both in Israel and in the rest of the Western world. Those who claim that WAFA is not reliable have not provided any evidence of journalistic malpractice or of dubious reporting. I think this case should be dismissed with prejudice since it is based on a falsehood: "there is absolutely zero fact checking" There clearly is fact-checking. ImTheIP (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is also quoted by others. WAFA is often quoted by others to convey official Palestinian statements or in the funny section to laugh about conspiracy theories they publish. For instance: [102][103][104]

Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem

The same report notes that WAFA also has pig conspiracy theories:

Wafa , controlled and funded by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' office, has in the past accused Israel of using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes and fields in the West Bank.

In case you were wondering, they are stilling doing it in 2017: [105](copy)

A wild pig attacked, on Friday night, a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun ... Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.

11Fox11 (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah promoting wild anti-Semitic theories about animals doesn't sound too reliable for me --Shrike (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The zero-evidence train of innuendo and dubious inference promulgated by the pro-Israel crowd is simply laughable. Ironically, WAFA was initially set up to counter Israeli propaganda and has done a pretty good job of it. This isn't the Jewish Virtual Library full of errors of fact and omission with no oversight, this is a perfectly respectable newsorg with an inside track to the Palestinian leadership, that's all. There is nothing else.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If so, why is it reporting conspiracy theories with no evidence? (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The reprints above seem to say that Wafa is reporting what it was told by Palestinian residents. Can someone find the original Wafa article? There is a difference in promoting a conspiracy theory and reporting on one and what else does Wafa say in its coverage. Newspapers will and should report on conspiracy theories common among their audience.VR _talk 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Levels of responsibility is important to journalism. For example, sometimes Reuters will report something but attribute it to a different news source or an individual. This is different from reporting it in their own voice. See Jonathan Fenby, The International News Services (1986) p. 25. (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If pig conspiracy theories is your best shot, give up now.Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a Western tradition of treating Palestinians as liars-by-default. Unless confirmed by a non-Arab, a Palestinian's claim is more often than not seen as "the product of the well-known over-imaginative Arab mind."

The "wild pigs" story described by 11Fox11 sounds similarly outlandish if you don't know about the context.

The West Bank population of wild boars have exploded in the recent decades and is a serious menace. Why the population has exploded is unknown; some blame the construction of the West Bank barrier, others the decline of the number of hyenas which are the wild boars natural predators.

A single pack of wild boars can inflict almost catastrophic destruction to agricultural lands. Palestinian farmers are effectively defenseless against wild boar attacks; they are neither allowed to have firearms nor to kill them using poison traps. Settlers, on the other hand are, and they shot at wild boars that get too close to their settlements. Wild boars are wickedly smart animals and learn to stay away from settlements and instead they gather in Palestinian areas.

Many Palestinians are afraid of wild boars and consider them unclean animals. Fully-grown wild boars weigh upwards of 200 kg. An attacking wild boars can cause serious injury to children. Palestinian farmers fault Israel for refraining from culling the wild boar population. They also suspect that it is part of a strategy to make their lives miserable. Likewise, some farmers fault settlers for letting wild boars roam instead of shooting them.

There have been multiple reports of settlers using wild boars to harass Palestinians. Nothing has (afaik) been confirmed. Thus, we don't know if the reports are true or the product of over-imaginative Arab minds. Settlers have probably not dumped truckloads of wild boars into Palestinian areas. However, it is not beyond the pale to suspect that armed extremist settlers have intentionally driven packs of wild boars into Palestinian built-up areas and agricultural lands. There is an infamous settlement known as Yitzhar in the Northern West Bank and its inhabitants are known to act like utter pricks against their Palestinian neighbours.

Here are some reporting on the wild boar problem:

• The Wild Boar and Feces Epidemic in Palestine by Vice
• Cooperation with Wild Boars in Palestine by a blogger
• Wild Boars in West Bank Causing Damage to Palestinian Villages and Farms by POICA
• FROM ANIN TO ZBUBA by Oakland Institute
• Jenin residents fend off hyenas by Times of Israel
• قطعان الخنازير .. أداة المستوطنين الجديدة للاستيلاء على الأراضي الزراعية by Al-Quds from 2020.

The al-Quds article is very indepth and interviews numerous Palestinian officials and farmers affected by the wild boars. A number of them claim that settlers have "released wild boars" and a number of them claim to have been injured by wild boars. I cannot tell if the article is "pure propaganda". If it is, then it's damn convincing propaganda.

Let's investigate the Wafa article in question:

A wild pig attacked on Friday night a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun, west of Jenin, causing her injury in her hand, according to local sources. They said Alaa Houshieh was admitted to hospital after she as bit in her hand by a pig.

Note that the story is credited to local sources and that the report doesn't mention settlers.

Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.

That is indeed what many Palestinians say.

The residents, who say they never before had wild pigs in the West Bank until the settlers came there, have urged the Palestinian Authority to help get rid of the wild pigs in their areas, which have become a threat to them, particularly children.

The first part is, afaik, an exaggeration; wild boars are indigenous to the West Bank, even though they are a much bigger problem now than ever before. Wafa's report is one-sided - it doesn't give the settlers nor the Israeli government's view of the story - but the actual reporting seem to be sound: a 10-year-old girl in Yamoun was bit in the hand by a wild boar, according to local sources.

CNN touches on the wild boars problem in 3 cars torched, mosque defaced in West Bank:

"This is not the first time Deir Istiya village (has) come under attack by the settlers," Salman said. "Deir Istiya is surrounded by nine Israeli settlements, and we are attacked and harassed by settlers on daily basis." Salman said settlers released some 300 wild pigs into the farming fields of the village, which destroyed and damaged the seasonal crops of the Palestinian farmers.

I frankly fail to see much difference between CNN's take and Wafa's. Here is one article in the BBC about Israeli "guard pigs":

Rabbis back Israeli 'guard pigs'

Under Jewish law, pigs are seen as unclean

An organisation in Israel has gained rabbinical approval to train pigs to guard Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

If that article had been published in Wafa it would have been called blood libel. But now it's published in the BBC. So what gives? Last year the Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli scientists would have "a complete cure for cancer in a year". Earlier this year it was fooled to publish slanderous op-eds by deepfaked author profiles. Wafa is absolutely not the best news agency, but it is also far from the worst. As a source for incident reports, e.g. A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10], it is very reliable. ImTheIP (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Sourcing for Quotations

Background:

There are a large amount of bogus quotes in various sources. It appears that humans are good at remembering a saying while forgetting who said it, and we have a tendency to assign the quotes to a plausible source. Example:

• "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", often attributed to Albert Einstein.

See [ https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=%22Insanity+is+doing+the+same+thing+over+and+over+again+and+expecting+different+results%22 ].

One source says that the correct attribution is Rita Mae Brown.[106] but see Wikiquote:[107]

Now in the case of the above quote, we can find sources that specifically say that it was misattributed, but what about a quote where multiple sources (but not reliable sources on quote attribution) claim that a famous person said it, no source has bothered to say it is misattributed, and an exhaustive search (which would, of course, be WP:OR) cannot find any evidence of when and where the person supposedly said it? Do we say "attributed to" in such cases?

Related: What if a famous person actually did say it, but someone else said it much earlier? Example: Denis Healey and Law of holes. Do we say "attributed to" in such cases?

At issue is Law of holes. Is it attributed to Will Rogers or misattributed to Will Rogers? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Related: [108] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, interesting. "Popularly attributed to" with a footnote? "Often incorrectly attributed to" when it's unambiguous? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Fatherhoodchannel.com

It seems like it's something in between a wordpress blog and a news blog. They're not clear about who they are on the website. Should this be considered a WP:SPS or a group blog?

It is used at Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine and about 40 other places.

The Carolinas Campus, until 2014, had a similar relationship with the private Wofford College, but currently participates in the "College Town Consortium" with five other local colleges. The annual White Coat Ceremony for first year medical students is held at nearby Converse College.

Graywalls (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• Unreliable source and the information is trivial anyway. I say remove it. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Ice and Christian Zionism

On the article Christian Zionism, User:Torchist has been adding the source article Lovers of Zion by Thomas Ice (from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University to source many statements in the article[109]. They also use it at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Template:Protestant Zionism to support the inclusion of many people in that template.

Is that article a reliable source for facts, or is it a fringe partisan source which shouldn't be used as factual (it of course can be used to show the opinion of Ice, if needed)? I don't think we should be including sourcing where the conclusion is "Nevertheless, like those who have gone before us, we will stand on biblical conviction as we constantly watch for the further outworking of Gods' historical plan, revolving around His people-Israel and his any-moment return. Maranatha!". Fram (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

They can be used for the personal opinion of Ice and perhaps pre-tribulationists but it would be a mistake to use them for more than that. Just a note on Ice’s academic credentials, he currently teaches at the much less rigorous Calvary University, his research institute is on Liberty’s campus but I don’t think they’re technically part of the school. More like a theological think tank than anything else (and a very low budget one at that, definitely fringe). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

NBC News- 'Undecided voters' at NBC's Biden town hall were featured on MSNBC as Biden voters

If this is the wrong place, my apologies. I read through the deprecated sources, the reasons for deprecation and fake news with no corrections came up frequently with some but not a ton of regard as to gravitas or frequency.

NBC staged fake news with some significance and it is unlikely any correction or clarification will be coming, at what point does it reach deprecation or even notable levels for the WP to lose an iota of WP credibility? Trying to stay current, not referencing Duke Lacrosse, Covington, Iraq WMD 100yrs worth to........no Ukranian famine.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/undecided-voters-nbc-biden-town-hall

Staged fake news are not the actions of a reliable source for anything, certainly not anything involved in the topic of the staged fake event.

At what point does NBC or any of the what were considered mainstream US media considered less reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c801:b1f0:191e:5cb6:a14d:c35f (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Citing a non-Fox News reference for this would be a good starting point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's also a lot of "alleged" content there. Koncorde (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Or deprecate Fox news would be a good ending point. These "allegations" are captured on video and linked and they have not been disputed to date. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c801:b1f0:191e:5cb6:a14d:c35f (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not deprecate reliable sources (or at least we shouldn't). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

[110][111][112][113] Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

In my search for further clarification-Multiple 'undecided' voters at ABC town hall had history of anti-Trump social media posts https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/multiple-undecided-voters-at-abc-town-hall-had-history-of-anti-trump-social-media-posts/ At least here they use the word may-unlike above where it is captured on video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c801:b1f0:191e:5cb6:a14d:c35f (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not stage fake news. Although, as mentioned above gravity and frequency were not that considerate on the deprecation list. Surely, staging fake events must carry more weight than merely the written word?

It would be helpful if you would "sign" your posts by appending four tildes ("~") at the end of your comments. Please and thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not "fake news" until someone reliable says it is (and Fox is a canonically unreliable source for discussion of reality-based media). It may or may not be an error - we have no idea how these people represented themselves during selection, and no idea whether they changed their allegiance at some point from independent to Biden. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

europeanheraldry.org

• europeanheraldry.org  

This looks like another self-published nobility fansite. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree—no indication of being RS. (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

World Health Organization (who.int)

• who.int  

But it looks likely for scientific purpose from WP:MEDRS, which is generally reliable for COVID-19 sources. --The Houndsworth (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• What's the question here? WHO is obviously reliable, but will fail MEDRS for biomedical facts. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources like R&D blueprints were published by the WHO, for example, the phase plans for COVID-19 vaccine. --The Houndsworth (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide the examples? Sounds like they distributed/hosted preprints. They did not author articles or review them? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 13:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

4president.org

• 4president.org  

I can only find one direct discussion of this domain, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46 § Campaign Materials. The site is used a lot more than I would expect given that it has no About page and no indication of reliability. I just removed a lot of cites to blogs.4president.org (which, for some links, redirects to blog.4president.us, for others to a Typepad blog) based on WP:POLEND - I am not surprised that people have completely ignored this but it was adopted after RfC and is unambiguous:

1. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people.
2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
3. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

There remain about 90 articles sourced to this site. I strongly suspect that it's not a RS for any of those, either. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Panarmenian.net and pan.am (PanARMENIAN.Net)

Especially on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict page, I couldn't verify some of the sources from other reliable sources that comes from these websites (which go to same publisher). And then, I looked to the website's Wikipedia page; however I couldn't find enough citations from reliability (most of them comes from the page's itself or social media pages) and I learnt that it's a internet portal (which has suspicious reliability because of gathering information from emails, online forums, etc.). I'm doubting that it's not a reliable source (except the photos, which are used in numerous reliable sources).Ahmetlii (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say on first look that this does not appear to be a reliable source. The name of this media company has the word "Pan" in it and that to me is a big, fat, red alarm bell that it probably is not a neutral observer to anything related to Armenia. For me, as a general rule of thumb, I tend be wary of using sources that plays up it's point of view in such an in-your-face kind of way. Fortliberty (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

historyofroyalwomen.com

• historyofroyalwomen.com  

Run by a group of young women, some of whom have an academic background in history but not, apparently, as professional historians. Reliable or not? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about in/excluding sources on Talk:Orgone

Talk:Orgone § RfC about in/excluding sources on pseudoscience I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

PopSugar?

I was just wondering if PopSugar is considered a reliable source. It isn't listed as an unreliable source in WP:RS, but I have seen some people view it as a gossip website. Here is a link to the website.

Is Aleteia a reliable source?

A user told me it was a blog and therefore not a reliable source. Can anyone confirm? Veverve (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on "The Aleteia site offers a Christian vision of the world by providing general and religious content that is free from ideological influences." and "Aleteia is a for-profit offshoot of the Foundation for Evangelization through the Media" [114], it's not a source I would use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)