Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

(Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about The Daily Mail)

• Daily Mail fakes own historical front pages --Guy Macon (talk)

Quote from WP:DAILYMAIL: "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically"

We need to modify our handling of old pages from The Daily Mail to say that care must be taken to cite the original historical material and watch out for modern, edited versions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Christ on a stick, what is wrong with them? This is exactly why some of us do not think the "discouragement" goes far enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly suggest removing the text "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context" from WP:RSP, or cautioning also that they literally fake their own historical articles. Never trust the DM - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Instead of using their own historical material, they took the trouble to invent fakes that look "old-timey" (and they buried a vaguely-worded disclaimer four pages down). Do they think that slightly yellowed images won't bring in the clicks? Is fabrication simply their instinctive course of action? In any case, I support David Gerard's suggestion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I could formulate a rewording ... but idiots try to drive trucks through anything that looks like an exception. So I'd suggest this behaviour is egregious enough to remove the sentence. If people want to argue it case by case they can show they went to a microfilm archive or something, 'cos we literally can't trust the online version or reprints not to make stuff up - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be my take, There are archive versions not held by the Daily Myth. Thus any use if the DM must be independent of the DM.Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, in this case BoingBoing seems to be insinuating that the Mail may have been trying to make themselves look less pro-Nazi, so there is a motive beyond a contempt for journalistic integrity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair it looks more like a case of "our readers are so shallow they cannot understand anything not couched in modern terms and style". What I do not understand is why bother to make so much effort to create a "Fakesimalie". They could have done a "Yay for us 70 years ago" without "faking" a front page so totally (such as "for King and Empire").Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove wording. This is yet another reason why we cannot trust this source. buidhe 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would rather this had been given more time for wider feedback, not that I disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am tempted to revert that for 2 main reasons: 1. The inclusion there is the result of two RFC's. The wording is a summary of those RFC outcomes. By changing the wording fundementally in that manner, it no longer reflects the RFC. What that change does is prohibit (at least that is what it will be taken to do) all uses of Daily Mail historical material. It certainly needs a bigger discussion than the brief one here. 2. Its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Daily Mail despite its more recent faults has plenty of decent reporting over the decades previous. We cite the original publication, not The Daily Mail's reworked version of it. A more appropriate response would be adding wording to ensure the material cited has been verified from copies of the orignal. We take it on good faith anyway that written sources we dont have access to say what the editor says they do, and any editor using this as an excuse to misrepresent sources would be rumbled pretty quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would we rather used a nuclear bomb over such blatant crappyness, but I get your point, and said as much myself early on. Yes I would rather you reverted and this was made a formal RFC to overturn the last two.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See [2].

Looks like I need to start a new Daily Mail RfC in order to make any changes to the Daily mail entry in the perennial sources list. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See below - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So we are using a situation source (Boing Boing) to determine the RSP entry of the Daily Mail, that seems rather odd. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It would if that were an accurate summary of the above. Fortunately, it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That is an accurate summary of the above and additionally there's no proof. According to a source as good as boingboing.net The Times (apparently the May 2 1945 New York Times is meant) said "London newspapers received the announcement of Hitler's death just as the early editions were going to press but the second editions went 'all-out' on the news, with long obituaries of Hitler and biographical sketches of Doenitz ...". Thus the copy with the label "4A.M. Edition" might well greatly differ from what ends up in archives, and layout might greatly differ too if the early-morning audience was more inclined to visuals. The boingboing.net accusation is far more plausible but in the absence of a reliable source, or a copy of a "4A.M. edition" that differs from the picture, it's not established fact. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The term for it is historical negationism which has an illustrious history of practitioners. It is beyond the pale given it is an attempt to rewrite their own history as Nazi sympathizers. -- GreenC 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary

The WP:RSP summary on the Daily Mail includes the sentence "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". However, the Daily Mail also presents altered versions of its historical content, as documented above. (At the bottom of the altered content was a small single-sentence disclaimer noting it had been "specially edited and adapted" - which was not noticed by many members of the general public.) This leaves readily available historical versions of Daily Mail content questionable - as well as its untrustworthiness per the 2017 WP:DAILYMAIL RFC and its 2019 ratification, the site dailymail.co.uk appears not to be trustworthy about the Daily Mail's own past content.

Suggested options:

1. Remove the "reliable historically" sentence from the summary on WP:RSP
2. Add a qualifier: "Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail."
3. Do nothing
4. Something else

10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested action on WP:RSPDM

• Remove the sentence - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as the material they did publish might be reliable, they are just not reliable for having published it. But if it is reliable someone else would have written about it. Thus (and given the possibly of accidental or deliberate abuse) I have to change to remove, if they cannot be trusted over what they themselves have published they cannot be trusted over anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per David Gerard's reasoning below. As a secondary consideration, we should be discoraging use of historical newspaper sources anyway. buidhe 10:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove, with the caveat that the print edition may pass, so a print archive might be acceptable? Guy (help!) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So (in essence) remove and add qualifier?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't even add suggested ways to use the DM, they'll be taken as blanket permissions - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look likely to pass, but an official WP consensus opinion that dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source for the content of the Daily Mail would certainly be interesting - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the qualifier, per Slatersteven, and also the notion that these sort of qualifiers confuse the situation. --Jayron32 14:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier (though perhaps not needed as obvious). If the dailymail is unreliable, that may extend to their own historical content. But if you pull a dailymail piece off a microfilm archive or online archives not run by the mail ([3], [4]) then there shouldn't be any problem in that regard.--Hippeus (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the best answer is [A] just remove all mention of historical from the Daily mail entry of RSPDM, and [B] have the closing summary of the RfC you are reading now specifically mention that a microfilm archive or online archives not run by The Daily Mail is as good or as bad as the source where you read it. Having this subtlety in the RSPDM will indeed lead to misuse. Having it in the RfC closing summary will allow any editor to use the historical page (assuming that her local library's microfilm collection or www.historic-newspapers.co.uk are reliable sources for what was printed all of those years ago; if some other source starts faking historical newspaper pages we will deal with that specific source in the usual way). So I !vote Remove. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC I will not say "support" or "oppose" because that might suggest respect for the WP:RSP essay-class page, which I do not have. It is in fact quite easy to see document images for back copies of the Daily Mail via Gale. (I did so for the May 2 1945 front page via my local library site for free, I assume that others have good library sites too.) WP:DAILYMAIL makes it clear that editors have a right to use such material in some circumstances, regardless what people say in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove the sentence, and add a statement that historical content on dailymail.co.uk may have been significantly modified from its original version. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier It is possible to trust archives that were archived by trusted sources such as a national library, at the time of publication. Trustworthy archives exist as evidenced by the original BoingBoing post that found the original. -- GreenC 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Something else - Clarify, do not make false statements. PRESERVE the indication of where there is good content of Daily Mail. I do not see support given re their current print about history, but if you need precision that the good is historical items not current items about history, it should per WP:BATHWATER clarify the good is older published work. These might not be readily available elsewhere, as there simply isn’t much historical sources, and if the guide indicates the previously acknowledged good data is bad, then it’s just a case of the guide is giving false information. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is certainly good content from the Daily Mail... but there is no indication of which content that is. The OP didn't point out the old content is good, but that it cannot be trusted. They aren't going to put warnings on their stories saying, "This content is okay, the rest is a bit dodgy." It's just not going to happen. This is how these papers compete with each other. They wind up people who otherwise like to believe they don't want to be informed about reality, but warned about reality. They aren't worried about Wikipedia. They are worried about Facebook and Twitter. It feels like they are being thrown out. They aren't even here. They've little to no interest in what this site represents. They just want to make a splash in the pond, not write an encyclopaedia. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Add the reality, or what is the point? Anything less is just covering it up more. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier that the Daily Mail may change their historical content, making it unreliable. Best practice would be to use another source, or link to a reliable archiving service. LK (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per nom, or add a qualifier as the second-best option: since they're faking their own historical content, they're not a reliable source even for that. As for the idea of saying that historical content can be cited if one finds and cites the original in a library (and not the current Daily Mail's provably unreliable claims of what the original was)... under what circumstances is a (say) 1951 edition of the Daily Mail going to be both a and also the only reliable source we can find for something, anyway, and under what circumstance is information only reported in one so old edition of them going to be WP:DUE (or, in the case of an article as a whole, WP:NOTABLE)? I think, if anyone is trying to leave open some use of the Daily Mail as acceptable, I'd like there to be a concrete example of that being necessary and not just a contrived hypothetical. (Off-topic, discussing using very old documents as sources makes me think of Chizerots, which has three sources, from 1870, 1909, and 2008 respectively, discussing how "the most beautiful" among them is a "type [that] seems more Arabian than Berberic".) -sche (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier. The fact that the Dailymail online cannot be trusted for archives for its past copies does not make their past copies inherently less reliable. You can still find physical copies that can be used for archives. If someone can provide actual evidence of the Daily Mail publishing false stories historically that can be justify the removal of this section. However, that is not the case this situation just makes finding archives of the Daily Mail harder which does not affect reliablity. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 09:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove. The Daily Mail has never been a trustworthy publication. There is zero reason to ever source anything to it. Anything notable to include will be sourced elsewhere, and anything that only ever appeared on the Daily Mail is likely fake. No qualifiers; there's absolutely nothing usable about it. oknazevad (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence that suggests this? How do you know say a 1905 archive copy of the Daily Mail is "likely fake"? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:RSPDM

I think we should just remove the sentence. It's ill-defined and not well supported in the RFCs themselves - when, precisely, was the DM not terrible? By what measure? - and IMO, encrusting a qualifier with further qualifiers is not clear. And qualifiers have historically been used by editors who want to use bad content as an excuse to add otherwise-unusable content - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that there are things they are notable for (such as the photo of St Pauls), but then if its notable others would have noted it, we don't need to use the (well this) Daily Myth).Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If the result here is "Remove", it would probably also make sense to include an explanation that prevents this from being interpreted as contradicting the original conclusions. Maybe something like, "The original WP:DAILYMAIL RfC left open the possibility that it may have been more reliable historically, but a subsequent RfC [link to this discussion] determined..." Sunrise (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

certainly - it'll be linked as a third listed RFC, link it from WP:DAILYMAIL which is the 2017 RFC ... there will be various sensible ways to handle it. The present text has been modified in uncontroversial ways before, e.g. I noted other "dailymail" domains which aren't the DM, and dailymail.com used to be a proper newspaper, the Charleston Daily Mail, which is in fact used as a source in Wikipedia, before the DM bought it from them - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

certainly not - that would modify the closed and archived WP:DAILYMAIL RfC even though the subject here (read the topic, read the questions) is not about that, and even if it were it would not be legitimate here. If you want to overturn what the closers concluded in WP:DAILYMAIL your recourse is WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:RSPDM in general is not as well written as it could be, and undermines itself in significant ways. In particular, it does not cite its sources or attempt to justify its objections. In order to find those sources we are presumably expected to trawl through a total of 45 separate discussions.

The Daily Mail is a well-established newspaper with relatively wide circulation. It is well known that it is biased, and it is also well-known to be disliked by precisely the sort of demographic that (one would assume) would edit Wikipedia. Given the zeal with which the DM is removed, it is quite easy for someone not intimately involved in the debate to conclude that the issue is not so much that the DM is unreliable, but that editors who denounce it do so for POV reasons. Particularly when the text being removed is something inherently subjective (e.g. a movie review) or where it is used as an example with explicit attribution (e.g. in a section on press coverage of an event).

It might therefore be useful to augment WP:RSPDM and WP:DAILYMAIL with a new essay, putting the reasons for our attitude to the DM and giving appropriate examples so that editors less familiar with the history can catch up and understand why it is being removed. Kahastok talk 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. The DM has similar politics to the Times and the Telegraph, but - and this is the key point - those behave rather more like papers of record that aren't given to fabrication.

The primary objection that Wikipedia-type people have to the DM is that they are repeated, habitual liars who make stuff up, and are extensively documented as doing so. Do you really not understand that that's the problem? - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it's probably too much to expect you to actually read what I wrote before writing an abusive response. Kahastok talk 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems just silly, RSP is lazy and obviously a blanket statement will be sometimes flawed by giving false conclusions. Instead of examining specifics of an item in context per RS, or dealing with Mail had some bits accepted as RS, this just further pursues the false dichotomy of everything published by X is bad in every way or everything published by X is perfect in every way. Silly. The real question should be at what point are we to just ignore the WP:RSP supplement entry in favor of using the senior guidance WP:RS and/or get actual specific judgement of WP:RSN instead ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary. — Newslinger talk 06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional RfC Question: Under what conditions can we trust The Daily Mail?

(Background discussion moved from section above. See below for the actual additional RfC question)

Let's talk about the basic error in thinking that led us here. Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that:

• The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote,
• wouldn't fabricate an interview,
• wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words,
• wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name,
• wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine,
• wouldn't lie about material being original and not plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait,
• etc., etc.

Those who "just know" that there are times when the Daily Mail isn't lying expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation. Last week I had no idea that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages but I knew from experience that they lie in all situations. Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation. I am getting sick and tired of playing Whac-A-Mole. At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You will of course believe that this is precisely a problem I keep hitting in DM removals. "Surely it's reliable for his words!" No, why would you think that, it's the DM - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the above, I propose the following:

There are no situations where the post-1960 Daily Mail is reliable for anything. See below for claims about itself.

• If TDM publishes an interview, that does not establish that the interview happened or even that the person interviewed or the person doing the interviewing actually exists.
• If TDM publishes material under a byline, that does not establish that the person named wrote it, even if the person s famous or a paid TDM contributor. TDM can and will fabricate any material and publish it under any byline.
• If TDM publishes material, that does not establish that TDM has the right to publish it or that it was not plagiarized from another publication. All material published by TDM should be treated as a possible copyright violation.
• If TDM plagiarizes material from another publication, that does not establish that TDM did not edit it, introducing false information.
• Regarding using TDM as a source about itself, we can write "On [Date] The Daily Mail wrote X", but we cannot use any internet page controlled by TDM as a source for that claim. TDM cannot be trusted to not silently edit pages it publishes without changing the date or indicating that the page was edited. We should instead cite the Internet Archive Wayback Machine snapshot for that page. For printed pages, we need to cite a source that TDM cannot modify, such as an independent online archive or a library's microfilm collection.
• (added on 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)) In particular, the dailymail.co.uk website must never be used as a citation for anything, including claims about the contents of the dailymail.co.uk website or the print version of The Daily Mail. We are not to assume that what we read on any dailymail.co.uk page is the same as what was there yesterday, nor are we to assume that the content will be the same tomorrow, nor are we to assume that there will be any indication that a page was edited. We also are not to assume that users in different locations or using different browsers will see the same content.
• Even in situations where we have yet to catch TDM publishing false information, TDM is not to be trusted.

Note: I picked post-1960 because 1960 was when David English started his career at TDM. If anyone has evidence of TDM fabricating material before then, we can change the cutoff date. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional RfC Question Discussion

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support As it is becoming clear that they cannot even really be trusted for their own opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• The "1960" date - or any other date, or possible or impossible excuse - will absolutely be taken as a green light for open slather on filling Wikipedia with DM cites - I base this claim on the spectacular examples of DM fans trying to find loopholes in the words "generally prohibited", including one earlier today who claimed that "generally prohibited" didn't mean completely prohibited, therefore his use was probably good.

So I would not support listing a date without strong support for the DM ever having been good at any previous time - that is, clear positive evidence, rather than a lack of negative evidence.

Examples of all the things they do would probably be good too.

I would also explicitly note that the dailymail.co.uk website (by name) literally cannot be trusted as a source for the contents of the Daily Mail, amazing as that sounds - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Point well taken. I just removed the "post-1960" wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I also added a paragraph covering the possibility of TDM serving up different content to different users. There are documented cases of e-commerce sites giving you a high price if you are using an iPhone and a low price if you are using Windows XP, higher for Beverly Hills and lower for Barstow, etc. It would be technically possible for TDM to serve up different content regarding, say, Brexit to UK, US, and EU readers, and really hard for us to detect them doing so. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

See below for what DM advocates are like in practice. I could do with backup here from those who can actually read policy - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support without the post-1960 wording - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support without the post-1960 wording, per above. Let's not waste any more time on this garbage source. buidhe 20:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • BTW, if people really want to get rid of DM references - talk on WP:RSN doesn't have any effect against dedicated DM warriors (and there really are dedicated DM warriors). The refs need to be got rid of, one edit at a time, and their removal defended (using literally our actual policies). This search is a good start - just start at the top and work down, judging usage and removing or replacing per the RFCs. If a few people even did ten a day, that would help improve Wikipedia greatly - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - please respect the seniority in guidance of RS and RSN, and a comment section within a RFC is not a valid RFC. What is in RSP is just some editors opinionating and phrasing, not necessarily a summary or strong consensus of views. If it was wrong in this case is just another example of such is imperfect and limited. I have always found the RSP idea simply too dogmatic and plainly a lazy and silly premise that there can be a perfect dichotomy of all-perfect or all-wrong that applies to all content of a publisher for all time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's important that we highlight the level of fabrication we're dealing with here, to help good-faith editors understand why the usual exceptions for attributed quotes aren't applicable to DM. –dlthewave ☎ 02:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support without 1960 wording. There are zero places where the Daily Mail can be trusted. They're as bad as the National Enquirer. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this unique to the DM?

Do other news sources do this? If so, we probably need to address it at the policy (WP:RS or WP:V) level. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ish, I seem to recall that mock newspapers are common enough, but something tells me they are rather more obvious about not being genuine. But yes I can see this may need to be more general.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We would have to find a source that [A] Is willing to lie about/fake anything at any time, and [B] has been around for over 100 years. Infowars will lie about anything but nobody is going to believe a claim that something was published by Infowars in 1917. The New York Times might say "we published X in 1917" but they haven't shown themselves to be willing to lie about anything and everything. As far as I can tell, there is only one source that fits both [A] and [B]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mmm, the NYT flaws are something RSP supposedly should note, (e.g. they have a thing on for Trump,) and RSP supposedly was/is to capture RSN discussions, not go off and try to evaluate 100 years of publishing where there is no article usage in question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Typically you'll see a scan or image and then the actual original text as text - you won't see the actual thing the DM did, which was to say in the headline:

Read history as it happened: Extraordinary Daily Mail pages from the day Adolf Hitler died 70 years ago this week

and then - as a tiny text box in the bottom right corner of the fourth cover image:

SPECIALLY adapted and edited from the original Daily Mail editions of May 2, 1945 and April 30, 1945

without even the original images. And with the text of the articles changed from the 1945 text.

If you wanted to claim this is something that other newspapers do, requiring a general solution, I think you'd need to first provide evidence of other papers doing this - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No this is totally not unique. If you are from the USA, hear this, people know in the UK and Ireland that the tabloids are sensationalist. Sensationalism is not a dirty word in the newspaper media over here. All national sized newspapers are openly biased in one way or another. The least sensational is the London Times (not the Irish Times, the Irish-only national papers are almost as bad as the British ones). This does not mean they are like the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. That is not what a tabloid is over here. The newspapers are all walking the sensationalist line over here. Like your TV news. Ours is the other way around. Our TV news is almost impeccable. Newspaper news used to feature a teenage girl with her boobs out every day. Get it. Understand. It's not a secret. Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed. Our newspapers are like, boobs out, SPLASH SHOCK EVERY SINGLE DAY HEADLINES, every single day. You can rely on them for daily gambling news. Newspapers here are the actual authority on that. One of the less popular daily tabloids, the Daily Sport, is nothing but gambling and boobs. There have been sitcoms about British tabloids since maybe forty years ago. They are not ashamed of what they are. It is simply what they are. ZOMG LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN CAN I HEAR THIS RIGHT???? Yes. Just like that. It has muted over the years, but it is still obvious. They run conflicting stories, they sensationalise, *they are often an important informative part of culture*... not simply nonsense like the Weekly World News, always based in fact... but that is as far as they can be surely trusted. If they say a bomb went off, you can be sure one went off... If they say the sky has fallen down, yes, get your umbrella out. Do they receive letters from Elvis on Pluto... no that is not what people are saying about them. Can you trust them to word and check facts as an impeccable source of information? No!! They are sensationalist. They actually try to walk the line between being honourable and being in court. They are not ashamed of that. They exhibit personality, bias, seriously... people do not respect them at all... people love them... You've watched or seen Japanese gameshows, and thought, maybe a lot of the Japanese are actually crazy, right? But RTG... how is newspaper culture supposed to compare to crazy Japanese gameshows??? Well... we can't do Jerry Springer and Oprah like you can... can we. It's like having a different accent. We stress different words. We have different attitudes about different individual things. Overall, it's pretty much the same insofar as it can be. It's like getting to know a different city. It might be north-south. It might be east-west, or it might be none of the above. ~ R.T.G 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Re "Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed", see [5] and [6]. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well you can't win them all, but the non-regional newspaper press defaults to popular sensationalism, not impeccable documentarianism. We rely on these sensationalist journals because they are popular and free on the internet, but they are off the cuff, and that is not what Wikipedia is trying to be. Good grief, did I delete the part where I pointed out that we have "newsagents" instead of "drugstores"? Newspapers are very useful to culture over here to inform people of incidents and events in the world around them, but they exist to sensationalise. ~ R.T.G 14:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User:RTG Agree, at least for recent history. Newspapers in the U.K. were more restrained and respectful before the 1970s. In the United States, for many years mentions have noted that television news switched to being entertainment and sensationalizing, and newspapers reliability and neutrality were in decline in the 1990s as another ‘death of truth’. Newspapers seem to largely be BIASED, going past individual specialties (e.g. Wall Street Journal covers business) into catering to their local market or playing to a subscriber audience. (e.g. NYT runs anti-Trump, Washington Examiner runs pro-Trump). In some ways that makes it easier for WP to find the POVs, but in general it is a WP issue as editors proclaim EVERYthing from NYT is not just RS but also TRUTH and WEIGHT because NYT said so — or proclaim EVERYthing from Mail is FALSE so not RS and large WEIGHT POVs get obliterated. Seems like 80% or so of what U.K. population sees is deemed non-existent right now. Unless it’s BBC or London Times, it just isn’t acknowledged to exist. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to be done about that. It seems maybe even dangerous, not to have any biases in media at all, and that is because the people themselves cannot be strictly trusted. The people themselves are no more worried about their information services building an encyclopaedia than the Daily Mail is. I struggle with it. What is the popular meme? Even if you tell the people the best thing to do they won't do it. Jimbo Wales has been trying to start a people-driven news service for years. The current iteration is https://wt.social/ ~ R.T.G 11:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is not unique to the DM, but the reason we have these sorts of discussion (as I said way back in the original RFC) is that they have a specific combination of prominence and unreliability that is comparatively rare. We can't individually depreciate or ban every single unreliable source; the purpose of these centralized RFCs is to address a situation where a source that is patiently unreliable in any context where we would want to use it is, nonetheless, being extensively used by some editors who try to insist it is reliable. I don't think we can address that in a sweeping sense at a policy level because whatever category we create or define, a source's defenders will insist it doesn't fall into it. When there's a significant disagreement over the facts as they relate to a specific source, and it's leading to constant issues over whether / where it can be used on Wikipedia, a centralized discussion like this is really the only option. --Aquillion (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted

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.

---

Problem at For Your Eyes Only (short story collection) - see reversion with dismissive edit summaries, ignoring obvious policy issues, and personal attacks on Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection). More eyes needed.

I'll flag more of these in this section as they come up - I assure you, this is an absolutely typical example of the genre: ignore all policy and guidelines, dive straight into the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior and stop with the outright lies. If you’d bothered to read the bloody message on the talk page, you’ll see that I said I would replace the source. Stop being such a dramah monger. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please desist in your personal attacks - these are a violation of the policy WP:NPA. I believe my claims are fully supported by the material in the history and on the talk page - you reverted against policy and strong consensus, and made personal attacks. You also responded to citation of policy with citation of essays. Have you considered following Wikipedia hard policy, such as WP:BURDEN? - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No personal attacks, and stop being so disruptive. I have said I will find a replacement in the morning (I first said it about 5 or 6 posts ago, but you've ignored it and kept disruptively pressing your point). Take your little crusade elsewhere until I've had the chance to look properly. It's 12:40am and I'm off to bed, but (for the nth time), I will look again in the morning. In the meantime, reflect that there are ways and means of doing things, and you are not doing things terribly well. - SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

www.dailymail.co.uk is not an acceptable source. You say you have a better source? Then use that source. Do not re-insert any citation to The Daily Mail. Also, please don't make obviously false claims like "No personal attacks" when 23 minutes earlier you posted a personal attack ("Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior... Stop being such a dramah monger.") --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

FFS... You really don't bother reading what people say, do you? "You say you have a better source?" I've not said that at all. On several occasions I have said that I will look for one,after a night's sleep. If you are looking for the best way to piss people off with your little crusade, you've found it: an inflexible approach of edit warring to instantly remove information that has been in place for several years, without allowing a few hours for that information to,be replaced? Get a fucking sense of perspective. As to the supposed PAs: I have given a fair description of your approach to this situation. Now back the fuck off for a few hours to allow for a search for a new source. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Or you know, you get a sense of perspective and re-read WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:CIVIL. Leave the unreliably sourced information out until you have reliable source to back it up. Like everywhere else on Wikipedia. The world will not end if those passages are missing from the article for a few hours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. SchroCat, I don't even need to leave this thread to see you ignoring policy and being combative and disruptive. Guy Macon clearly read what you wrote, he fucking quoted your personal attacks! If "dramah monger" really does fall under WP:SPADE, then it would be perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to suggest that you're the one starting the drama as if out of some sense of blind entitlement, and being a hypocrite in expecting others to give you a few hours to bring in a replacement source instead of just letting the page not have that information during that time. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• He obviously didn't read it, given what I've said, but if you want to back up a disruptive process by using personal attacks to call me a hypocrite with a "sense of blind entitlement". then I guess the blindness is thick on the ground here and the PAs are fine to throw around. As I said on the talk page, the information has been in the article for several years, and to a source that is not banned (and yes, Headbomb, the world will also not end if those passages remain in the article for a few hours while an alternative is sought - particularly as some was removed and some left with a cn tag - no logic there at all. And I'll let you strike your sentence saying the information was "unreliably sourced": it wasn't). I had acknowledged that I was going to look for an alternative source, and yet that still gives someone the right to edit war, rather than a few hours grace to find an alternative? Common sense has been replaced with the crusading zeal way too much. You lot have an apexcellent way of pissing people off by not bothering with common sense and choosing the most inflexible and disruptive path that inconveniences readers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I've struck the lie in the title: I am not an advocate for the Mail and never have been. I voted in favour of the ban of the source and I'm glad to see it being removed, but it's the manner and method of that removal that is disruptive. Find a different way to deal with it, rather than edit warring and then calling me a "DM advocate". (That also falls under NPA, but I don't expect anyone will bother with leaving stupidity messages to warn Gerard about civility with name calling). - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the 2017 RFC and 2019 RFC, I don't see you on either. Did you change usernames? - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This edit removed a reference to the Mail on Sunday. Has the Daily Mail ban been extended to the Mail on Sunday? While they have the same owner they are editorially distinct as far as I am aware. From what I recall of the discussion all the evidence of falsified stories/quotes related exclusively to The Daily Mail title and its online presence. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither WP:DAILYMAIL or WP:DAILYMAIL2 covered the Mail on Sunday and there has been no RfC since then that would mean the source is unsuitable. Nice to know the disapprobation of the above (not to say the edit warring and grief) has been over the illicit removal of information cited to a source that is not deprecated. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I've tweaked the title again to reflect the reality. - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat,

• Did you make this edit?[7]
• Did that edit add the source www.dailymail.co.uk?
• Did you also add "work=Daily Mail" in that same edit?
• Is www.dailymail.co.uk the URL for The Daily Mail?
• Did I revert you with this edit?[8]
• Was my edit summary in any way unclear?
• Did you then edit war to re-insert the source www.dailymail.co.uk?[9] again?

These are simple questions. You should be able to provide yes or no answers to each of them, but please do feel free to explain, in detail, why your edits actually added (and were reverted for adding) The Daily Mail] but you are now claiming[10][11]that they only added The Mail on Sunday? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Was this or this removing a banned source? Yes or no? Did this whole annoying mess start with the boundaries of WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DAILYMAIL2 being pushed to delete information removed from a legitimate source? Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source? These are simple questions. You should be able to provide answers to each of them.

And again, it comes down not just to the removal of information (some of which was removed illegitimately, some legitimately), but in the crass and inflexible way it was done. As the information has been there for over a decade, was it urgent that it was removed immediately, even after I had said I would look for an alternative after a night's sleep? Again, this is a simple question. You should be able to provide an answer for it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A less easy to answer question is how many illicit removals have been made of information sourced to the Mail on Sunday? I do hope that a concerted effort is made to replace the information that should not have been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Evasion noted. I will take your refusal to give a straight answer as an admission that in this edit[12] you did indeed insert a citation to The Daily Mail. Again, please stop claiming that you only added a citation to The Mail on Sunday.

Re "Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source?" First ONE REVERT IS NOT EDIT WARRING. Please retract your false accusation and apologize. Second, I am not required to carefully examine your edits and remove only those portions that violate Wikipedia policy. It is your responsibility to make edits that follow policy. If someone reverts an edit of yours that contains a policy violation along with other material, It is your job to create a new edit that only contains non-violating material. Instead you purposely re-inserted the citation to www.dailymail.co.uk -- a citation that you yourself admit is not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"One revert is not edit warring": yes it is, despite the shouty caps and bolding, if there has been a back-and-forth a couple of times and you join in, then you were as guilty of edit warring and me and Gerard. So no, no retraction, and certainly no apology. As you seem to be trying to avoid any responsibility for removing information cited to a legitimate source, there is little I can (or wish) to say or do. But you keep telling yourself you are perfect and I am the bad guy, if that's the way you want to go. You were in the wrong for some of these actions. Your evasion on the question of how much legitimate information has been removed is noted. No surprises. I'm off; I'll leave you to have The Last Word - I'm sure you'll enjoy that. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And again you misrepresent Wikipedia policy. WP:EW says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions... What edit warring is: Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." (emphasis added). Making false accusations against other editors is a form of personal attack. I think it is becoming clear that your behavior is something that needs to be dealt with at WP:ANI. Given the previous blocks in your block log for edit warring and personal attacks, an indefinite block is likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I misrepresent nothing. I was actually blocked for undertaking one revert in an edit war between two others, so feel free to take that case up on my behalf. And if you honestly think that going to ANI is a beneficial step, crack on and do just that. Or is it an empty threat and a way to raise my block log? Don't ping me to this page again, I really have no desire to discuss anyone so willfully obtuse who refuses to acknowledge that they have erred even in the slightest (I have admitted it, by the way: it's just you who are trying to evade any sense of doing anything wrong.) - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment I think there are two issues that emerge from this discussion:

1. It appears that Mail on Sunday is not proscribed by either RFC, and as such citations to it should not be removed without further discussion.
2. There is then the manner in which the sources to The Daily Mail are being culled. While a consensus exists to remove it as source I cannot honestly say this edit exemplifies good practice. The problem with The Daily Mail is that it is untrustworthy, but much of what they report is still accurate. This was acknowledged in the RFC, and one of the arguments advanced by editors in favour of a ban was that an alternative source could be located for credible claims in most cases. Unfortunately this solution is being thwarted by an aggressive culling campaign. This edit removed legitimate encyclopedic information, which is probably to the detriment of the article. In the case of non-controversial claims that are not about living people would it not be better practice to simply remove the source and replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag? While SchroCat technically shouldn't have restored the source I get the sense from him that what he was really doing was restoring the information, and he eventually located alternative sources. Is this not the most desirable outcome?

Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan, the Mail is deprecated. That means it's untrustworthy. If something is only in the mail, we can't use it; if it is in another source as well, use that instead. Don't use the Daily Mail as a source. Or any tabloid, for that matter. The print edition of the MoS may be considered reliable case by case. But is still a tabloid so a better source is always preferred.

I have two particular problems with the Mail as a source for Wikipedia. The first is how it's used, which is often for trivia, especially salacious trivia (that's their speciality, google "all grown up"). The second, and related, is the notorious "sidebar of shame". I have a serious problem with linking to any site carrying that kind of bullshit from any Wikipedia article. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So a "quality broadsheet", e.g. The Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc., which quotes the Daily Mail as it's sole source would be acceptable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, yes. They can be expected to have fact-checked it. But calling the Telegraph a "quality broadsheet" is a bit of a stretch these days. Guy (help!) 11:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How would you describe it? Next on the list to be a banned? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, no-one is claiming that the Mail should be retained as a source. Two RfCs (in which I voted to ban its use both times) have confirmed that. What we are talking about is two different things here: 1. Much of this grief started because Gerard edit warred to remove a citation from the hard copy Mail on Sunday. That should not have been removed, and he has still to account for that. 2. The process when information from the Damily Mail or dailymail.co.uk is flawed. In this case the information has been in the article for over a decade, and yet it was suddenly necessary to delete it immediately without providing an adequate window to find a replacement? No. That's just dumb. It doesn't help our readers and it annoys the crap out of people. I said on the article talk page right at the start that I would find a replacement, but this was ignored, and the edit warring continued. How does that help anyone? As it was, the information was finally left in the article overnight (UK time) until I was able to find a replacement in the morning. I cannot see any benefit in the inflexible, unthinking immeditate removal-without-the-option approach. The information is still in the article, and all now connected to a reliable source (two sources at one point). The best outcome has been achieved despite the fervour for the inflexible and immediate approach. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I had always assumed that anyone removing a DM source was supposed to search for an alternative source, or add a {{cn}}, or both. Not just remove both DM and the info itself wholesale in one edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not recall that ever being said, and will make more work as at some point the unsourced material might have to be removed (per wP:v.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to "make more work" by having to search for the info and a fresh source all over again? Isn't one expected to search for a better source for information sourced to any unreliable source? Isn't that normal procedure? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tagging with {{Deprecated source}} would also have had the desired effect of highlighting the problem. If such a tag had been left on there for a day or so, that would also have avoided all the kerfuffle; as it is there has been a lot more work invoved because someone edit warred to remove a source that is entirely legitimate`. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

True, but it is a users choice if they wish to remove badly sourced information or tag it. There is no policy that even implies you should add back badly sourced information. We gain nothing with tags all over the pace saying "bad source" "dodgy information" "BorisJophnsonsaidit", we do however (I would argue) lose. Wikipedia has a reputation for unreliability. If our articles are littered with crap even we think is unreliable that image is hardly going to improve.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting we "add back badly sourced information". Quite the reverse. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, no, the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources. It's an instance of BRD. There have been attempts to claim this by people who fundamentally oppose the entire idea of deprecation, but it's not policy. Guy (help!) 11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of this information was added when the DM was still considered to be WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So? If it is now a dodgy source its a dodgy source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So Guy said "the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources". I'm just saying that when it was originally added the person may well have been justified in using the DM as a reliable source. A person just removing the source now isn't adding anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No they are removing something we now know cannot be trusted for information. What Guy said applies just as much to wanting to add information back (or indeed retaining information). This is why the DM was deprecated, because of its massive over use. We now have to clean up that mess.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

But there is absolutely no need to do it in such an inflexible and disruptive way. When Gerard removed a legitimate source and edit warred on it, there was no mess to clean up. When two editors decided to delete information supported by the Press Association and a Scottish newspaper, we're crossing a line between responsible housekeeping and disruptive editing. The orginal title of this section was "‎DM advocate". I'd rather be called a cunt that a DM advocate, but such is the mindset of a small group of zealots that anyone who asks for an 8-hour moritorium on removal is the subject of abuse and lies. Your call on whether you think this is an ideal pathway for the inhabitants of the RS board to behave, but I suggest the approach needs a rethink. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. It looks to me to be a rather odd case of WP:BRD. I'm just suggesting that removing material and a DM source wholesale, without any attempt to find an alternative source, might do more harm than good. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

True, but wp:brd is clear that once material, has been removed it is down to those who wish to include it to make a case at talk, not just add it back with a change of source (you are right, by the way, the new sources should have been enough as far as I can see). Thus (whilst) the DM part of this debate is about RS, the rest is not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. So all those instances where I've followed David Gerard round and re-added stuff with a good source (and which he's consistently thanked me for), I should have instead taken to the Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) And it's not like I've really "followed him round" at all. I've seen his standard edit summary about DM pop up in my watchlist and when I've gone to look at the deletion I've thought "oh that looks like a very reasonable claim, there must be at least one other RS source that supports that...."

That's taking a misreading of BRD too far for any common sense approach. If the source is being challenged, then replacing the source is sufficient, even if that is just replacing exactly the same information, including qquotes. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We also have wP:agf, I have no idea abvout this case but I have had trouble finding sources others have found. You are assuming no effort was made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A more useful edit summary might say "I've looked for a better source and I can't find one, so am removing"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Three things: firstly, I was talking in general about providing a different source when material is challenged. (Don't forget that the verification policy says that @Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed". There is, written into policy, a way that information does not have to be unthkingly removed as a matter of course. It can be tagged for a short period to allow for a replacement to be made. Secondly, If it is removed, there really is no reason to have to discuss replacing it with an alternative source on the talk page. Replacing the information with a new source is entirely appropriate. Thirdly, it seems that a few people have said they can't find the information (although raising AGF is a bit of a straw man here). I found it in two sources and Sarah SV found two sources using variants of the quote made to different journalists; I also found another variant on the official Bond site. Just because the person desparately removing as many DM sources as quickly as possoble didn't find an alternative (and yes, that does pre-suppose they bothered looking), it doesn't mean the infomation isn't there to those who know how to look for things properly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, Oh, so David's actions resulted in better sourcing. So we're good then. Shall I close this? Guy (help!) 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, may as well gloss over the removing of a legitimate source and the sub-standard way people are demanding the immediate removal without thought to the loss of legitimate information. The lack of flexibility is always a given when a crusade is in progress. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please only discuss the DM, anything else just confuses the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as we are clear that the Mail on Sunday (paper version, not online) should not have been removed. At. All. Neither should the other sources. Part of the problem is that I have seen no comment from Gerard to acknowledge that they were wrong to remove it in the first place and doubly wrong to edit war to remove it a second time. I hope this disruptive approach is not something that is going to be repeated. In terms of the DM info, allowing a short moritorium on finding a new source seems to be a common sense way of approaching this, rather than such an inflexible approach that is currently in favour. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This RFC is about the daily mail, only the DM and just the DM. If you have other RS issues start a new thread. If you have issue about user conduct this is not then place.Slatersteven (talk)

Actually this sub-thread is (currently) titled "dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted". Since its opening post it has been nothing to do with the RfC (as such it should never have been a sub-thread of the RfC in the first place; the topic of discussion has not essentially changed since the first post, given we are still discussing matters relating to the opening post). We can change it from a sub-thread to a full thread if you prefer? - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As this is not (and does not appear to be) an RS issue, but rather an issue over user conduct this is not the right venue anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Very true. Once has to question way it was opened in the first place, and why a personal attack was used as the original title. Never mind - but I really don't have high hopes that this has made any difference, and will not be surprised when it inevitably happens again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 10 May 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.

Another unreliable source? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com)

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.

---

In this edit,[13] SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) replaced a citation to [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] with a citation to [ www.mi6-hq.com ]

[14] says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject."

[15] says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team."

So, generally reliable or self-published fan site?

The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from [ www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510171/Live-Let-Dye-Daniel-Craig-turns-clock-darkened-hair-007-photocall.html ] (25 January 2008). mi6-hq.com published it at [16] on 30 January 2008. This highlights one of the problems with replacing citations to The Daily Mail; if you search for other sources that say what DM said, you find a bunch of low-quality sources that pretty much parrot what was on the DM page a few days earlier. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty obviously not an RS, no - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I am getting the usual insults and refusal to follow Wikipedia policies at Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)#Replacing one unreliable source with another? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com). Normally I would report this at ANI, but I am still recovering from my recent Cardiac Arrest and I don't think the stress would be good for me. Would someone else here be willing to file it? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It gets worse and worse. He now claims that in the last few days you went to a library, found not just one but two sources that by an amazing coincidence just happen to contain the exact same quote from The Daily Mail that he edit warred to keep in, and yet for some inexplicable reason he cannot remember who Daniel Craig said it to or when he said it. Meanwhile, the person he says authored the source (Noah Sherna) doesn't seem to exist, but in yet another amazing coincidence, Sherna Noah writes for The Daily Mail.[17] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't lie. I have claimed nothing of the sort. I have also made no comment on who Craig said it to, so I am unsure where these falsehoods come from. I have advised exactly how you can verify the source, so try reading what I have said properly and use the link provided. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Sherna Noah works for the Press Association. The Guardian also has a version of the same quote; I've left it on the talk page. It appears to be the same point made during an interview with a different reporter. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, someone needs to read WP:FANSITE. Guy (help!) 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, no they don't. Macon needs to ensure he posts all the facts and 1. doesn't miss out key points (like two other reliable sources were added shortly afterwards), and 2. he doesn't lie, like he has above (I did not claim I went to the library and I did not say anything about who Craig was talking to; feel free to look at the article talk page to find out where I have said either of those things. They are entirely false). BTW, FANSITE shortcuts to Wikipedia:External links, which isn't the guideline you are after - you mean WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, mi6-hq.com isn't a fansite, then? Someone should tell the person who maintains it. Wikipedia isn't a fansite either. These articles would mostly be improved by being about half as long. Guy (help!) 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, that's not what I said. I was pointing out the link you provided, to FANSITES, actually discusses the addition of fansites in external links, not within articles. The pertinent link on this occasion WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library, meanwhile refusing to say where you checked the source, a reasonable person would conclude that you checked it in a library. (later you decided to reveal that you checked in using an online source). When you repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of where and when Daniel Craig said that, a reasonable person would conclude that you most likely can't answer the question. When you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites (the actual wording is "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable") a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules (something we have already seen with Wikipedia's rules againstr personal attacks). When you repeatedly claim that if you make an edit that violates Wikipedia's sourcing policies, the person reverting you is somehow required to carefully search your edit for any portions that don't violate Wikipedia's policies, and you just flat out ignore it when you are told again and again that there exists no such requirement, a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to even discuss whether you are following Wikipedia's rules.

This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source and with David Gerard asking you to follow our rules.[18] and correctly identifying [19] that your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source. Your subsequent behavior here has demonstrated that he was right. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library": I didn't. I told you to go to THE library - the one we have on WP. I even fucking linked it for you. If you're not able to click on the link despite it being handed to you a second time, I do begin to wonder just why you are being so obtuse. Other inaccuracies here include "you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites": you'll have to read what I said a little more closely. I said "WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites", and actually there is some deliberate leeway in the wording of the guideline (for example, if such a site was being written by one individual who was a published expert in the area, then it would be a point for discussion). "incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules" another tedious PA you like to throw out, and hopelessly wrong too, ditto the link to IDHT - all tiresomly inaccurate.

More nonsense follows; "This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source". Again, that's a straight lie. This started when Gerard removed a reference from the paper version of the Mail on Sunday. A legitimate source. I'll keep repeating that a legitimate source was removed until it finally sinks in and you stop telling porkies. "your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source" Another straight out falsehood. I don't know how many times I have had to say that I support the ban on the Mail (that I voted for twice) and the idea it should be removed: it's the crass and inflexible way it is being done that it disruptive. Now, if you're done with trolling and telling lies, I'll leave you to it. There is nothing contructive to be had in listening to more falsehoods from you - you appear to be in competition with the Mail to see how many inaccuracies you can cram into each line. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

[self-reverted] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, this is thoroughly out of order. SchroCat, it would be better not even to respond. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have already asked you once not to ping me to this page. Stop. You are behaving like the worst sort of disruptive troll. Stop. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• mi6-hq.com? Is that Mike Corley? Guy (help!) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Mike Corely appears to be focused on conspiracy theories involving MI5 persecution. I don't think he has much interest in James Bond, but of course mi6-hq.com is a fansite where anonymous users can post content, so you never know. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not discus 15 different sources in one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 May 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.

Daily Mail: The halving

In Q3 2018, there were 27,336 uses of the Daily Mail as a reference on Wikipedia. At this moment, there are 13,630.

The cleanup of the backlog of bad sources continues. Please use a search something like this one, and help improve Wikipedia. If a few people can each do even ten a day, that'll make Wikipedia a noticeably better place - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail: It's below 10,000

The deprecated source backlog has less than 10,000 entries remaining! Your assistance is most welcomed - start at the top of this list (or wherever you like really), and see if you can knock off five - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Apple Daily

Given that references to Apple Daily are used in a lot of Hong Kong-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Reliable, but may require further investigation
• Option 3: Unreliable for certain topics (such as those which may be considered controversial)
• Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 5: Publishes incorrect or fake information and should be deprecated.

Thanks. 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Apple Daily)

• Option 4 or Option 5: It's a tabloid that regularly relies on poor sources, such as using a tweet from Solomon Yue a protest conspiracy theorist to cover which Hong Kong officials are on the U.S. list of sanctioned individuals in this article (now being added en masse to articles). A recent example of it producing false (i.e. factually incorrect but not necessarily with the intent to misinform) news (bolding mine):

  For example, a protest supporter last month posted a misleading image depicting Lam using her mobile device during the enthronement of the Emperor Naruhito, a sign of disrespect. Within hours, the post was shared thousands of times, including by prominent activist Agnes Chow and local news outlet Apple Daily. It turned out the image was actually taken before the event started, according to a report from Annie Lab, a fact-checking project at HKU’s Journalism and Media Studies Center.
  — A 2019 article by The Japan Times

  It's been described by academic sources as producing sham news, among a host of other journalistic issues:
  • A Wall Street Journal article (1999): describes it as giving readers a heavy diet of sex and violence and having been attacked for bringing tabloid journalism into Hong Kong homes
  • A Far Eastern Economic Review article (Taiwan — Lai's Next Move: The publisher with the Midas Touch hits new highs. But mainland China remains a dream (2001)): describes it as a racy tabloid
  • An EJ Insight article (2019): describes it as having never claimed to be objective or unbiased, particularly in reference to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests
  • A journalism book published by the The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press (2015): criticizes it for breaches of privacy and paparazzi-like conduct.
  • An academic reference book by Berkshire Publishing Group (2014): its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred
  • An academic book on HK media by Routledge (2015, quoting 2005 criticism): Apple Daily has been described as 'well known for its brazen, sensational news coverage ... Legitimate political and social topics have been supplanted ... by sex, sensational crimes, the rise and fall of celebrities, scandalous paparazzi investigations, rumors, and even sham news.

To its credit, it's an example of press freedom in Hong Kong with extensive coverage of the protests, and is a rare publisher in HK that is willing to take on the Chinese government. Nevertheless, it's a tabloid that engages in the usual poor journalism practices across all types of content. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC); modified 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC); expanded 08:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC); struck Option 5 on basis on undemonstrated intention in false reporting 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC); parenthetical on "false" to save everyone's time 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC); add years of sources 18:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3, I think we should treat them with the same care we treat the New York Post and New York Daily News, they are usable in some circumstances but we always prefer higher quality sources. A distinction should be made between Apple Daily and the purely tabloid Next Magazine which should be deprecated. We must also be careful to make it clear that this is only about Apple Daily HK not Apple Daily Taiwan which has a completely different staff and editors (the Taiwanese one being much better, although they just had cuts [20] so who knows what the future holds). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2, changing iVote per [21] (the EJI Insight article provided above). They appear to currently be the third most reliable paper in HK and on a ten point scale score barely lower than SCMP (5.71 vs 5.89). The tabloid stuff looks to be largely in their past or confined to the separate Next Magazine publication. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 If it just a question of whether it is reliable, I would say no. I don't see a clear-cut case of intentional false reporting, so I don't think Option 5 is appropriate. In general, I would avoid it and seek better sources. However, ironically, I think the "controversial topics" of option 3 are where it may be valuable as a source. There simply aren't many news outlets covering Hong Kong political dissent, and I don't see major concerns about its coverage of this topic in particular. Editors should use it cautiously on a case-by-case basis. Daask (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3. Apple Daily isn't a fake news site, however some of the info may be opinionated against the government and should be treated with caution. It might, for example, downplay the violence by protesters and exaggerate use of violence by police. However, if it is reporting the GDP of France, it should be reliable. Political articles almost certainly cannot be quoted directly; they should be paraphrased if possible. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

striking out option 2 per arguments below. Not as bad to require a 4, but definitely not desirable in BLPs. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 They sometimes produce churnalism based on social media posts or images – but that's no different from other publications. They used to have a reputation of focusing too much on celebrity gossip, but that is no longer the case since a few years ago, as is reflected in survey results showing Apple Daily's reputation rising from the bottom to the top of the list. They take a different political position than every other print newspaper in Hong Kong, but that's not a reason to declare a source unreliable any more than to declare the Guardian unreliable just because they support Labour in a sea of pro-Tory newspapers. Apple Daily (HK) is perfectly reliable for news on property developments and government policy decisions, or reviews of local restaurants. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 See my comment in #Discussion (Apple Daily). Matthew hk (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: I agree with Daask. I would call Apple Daily a situational source, whether its usage is appropriate or not depend on the context, but I don't think this option is provided. Apple Daily is useful if we want to cover some of the more obscure details that English sources didn't cover, especially in the political/social aspect (certainly controversial topics), complementing other RS. If a controversial statement can be sourced to a RS, however, use those instead of Apple Daily. OceanHok (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, as mentioned above by other users, it is ranked above average among HK newspapers, television and online news sites by both citizens and independent research.--Roy17 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, per all, no point to make me Apple daily is not a RS. ----Wright Streetdeck 01:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2: In a recent CUHK research, Apple Daily enjoy high reputation in terms of credibility. If a page has only (or primarily) included Apple Daily as source, stating the need of having more diversified sources at the top of the page will mediate any potential problem. Universehk (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2: In the most recent survey conducted by CUHK, AD is second highest mark on Media Credibility--PYatTP (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 is ranked as one of the more reliable Hong Kong outlets and without a convincing rationale questioning its reliability I side with it being generally reliable with the caveat of seperating out fact from opinion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2: Apple Daily has an irreplaceable role in Hong Kong covering a wide range of sensitive topics extensively and exclusively. Political news articles may require verification, but occasional errors and the above journalistic issues do not seem to impact its general reliability. lssrn | talk 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Apple Daily)

• @MarkH21: please either source or retract, the statement that Solomon Yue is a conspiracy theorist violates WP:BLP no matter what space its made in unless backed up by a WP:RS. I noticed its unattributed on their page, it has been removed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye Jack: Sorry, I took the statement from the WP article lead at face value too quickly. Digging in further though, sources do prescribe him as tweeting conspiracy theories:

  It’s a theory that seems to be somewhat related to the Wuhan lab conspiracy. One tweet by Republican Party official Solomon Yue, who has more than 100,000 followers, said: “#coronavirus is stolen from Canada by espionage & sent to Wuhan to be weaponized to kill foreign enemies.”
  — Article from Vox

  The problem of containment gets worse when power users such as politicians give this false information a boost. In US, Trump helped amplify tweets from the support of QAnon, the conspiracy group active in spreading Corona virus rumors. Republican party official Solomon Yue tweeted to more than 100,000 followers that the virus was stolen from Canada for use of a Bio weapon
  — Article from Rising Kashmir

  I’ve struck the label about him as a conspiracy theorist above, but the main point still stands about the article being based on his tweet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  The points a good one, I agree that Apple isnt generally reliable but we have a very high standard for calling someone a conspiracy theorist. Tweeting or re-tweeting conspiracy theories doesn’t count, we need a WP:RS to say in black and white “X is a conspiracy theorist” or “X is the originator of the Y conspiracy theory." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, and thanks for removing the statement from his article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  @MarkH21: Also just noticed that you’re mischaracterizing the The Japan Times article, neither the quote or the article supports the assertion that they’re "producing false news,” at most you can say “shared a misleading image.” Please correct yourself. I also note that since Solomon Yue is not a conspiracy theorist but is in fact the highest ranking member of the RNC born in China what they say and do is definitely newsworthy and reporting on it doesn't make them unreliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Also Multimedia Stardom in Hong Kong: Image, Performance and Identity doesnt make that statement, its a direct quote from Lo 2005 (and thus a little dated for our purposes, we are discussing Apple News’s reliability today not in the late 1990s). Representing a quote as coming from the source which used the quote is dangerous academically. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Actually now that I look at it a few more are too dated for our purposes: that WSJ piece is 1999 and the FEER piece is 2001. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  The Berskshire book has been weirdly fashioned to remove both the beginning and end of the statement which changes the meaning entirely, the full statement is “Yet, its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred, but Lai insisted that journalism should feel the market’s pulse and reader’s feelings. Criticism of the government and the powers that be, including Lai’s good friends, was the rule and without exceptions.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  The title of that EJI piece (which I believe is our most recent) is “Jimmy Lai's newspaper up in credibility, survey finds” btw, looks like you cherrypicked pretty hard to get these. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  The original Apple Daily article said that Lam was using her phone during the ceremony, as opposed to before the ceremony: 但她被當地電視台拍到在觀禮期間玩手機，對場合有欠尊重. Roughly: but she was filmed by a local TV station playing on her mobile phone during the ceremony, showing no respect for the occasion.

  Of course reporting that Solomon Yue says XYZ isn’t unreliable. However, publishing an article saying that six people are on the US sanctions list on the basis of his tweet that says Gang of Six: [six names] is very different.

  This is about the general reliability of Apple Daily. Editors can cite Apple Daily articles from 1999 or 2020 on Wikipedia. This is a whole body of literature being assessed.

  I don’t see how the part of the sentence about what the Apple Daily founder insists is relevant to assessing the reliability of the Apple Daily, or how it’s essential to the prior assertion in the quote.

  The EJI article isn’t asserting that Apple Daily is the third most credible news outlet; it says that the Apple Daily was third out of eleven paid local newspapers in a public opinion survey, while asserting in EJI's voice that the Apple Daily never claimed to be objective or unbiased. The survey barely means anything, and I hope that Wikipedia never has to rely on public opinion polls to determine reliability (even the deprecated Breitbart is distrusted by only 9% of US Republicans and 36% of US Democrats in a public opinion study by the Pew Research Center). — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC); minor typo fix/clarification 03:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Your current argument is that Apple News made an error, you still have a long way to go to support “producing false news“ as that appears to be 100% your opinion rather than the opinion of the WP:RS.

  I don’t see how reporting on his tweet is journalistic misconduct as you’re claiming, plenty of people report on tweets these days and the tweet was by a notable person who is an expert in the field.

  We actually base general reliability on recent rather than historical reporting, if that were the case the we would have WaPo banned as a white supremacist conspiracy outlet. Thats why its wikipedia policy that the most recent WP:RS is the queen bee in any dispute.

  A public opinion survey in their home market has a bit more standing than your OR about false news. The way you pull that quote from the piece is highly misleading, in context it doesnt mean what you’re trying to force it to mean. Also again, even if it meant what you think it means bias and objectivity aren’t an issue for us WP:RS wise, lots of biased yet reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  False news isn't the same thing as fake news; fake news must be deliberately false. At least this is the most common definition and is the one used at the WP article, and seems to be the one you're using; I'm using "false news" to literally mean news that is factually incorrect. Apple Daily frequently reports information that is false, i.e. erroneous, but not demonstrably intentionally so. They have a habit of frequently making erroneous reports (here's another blatant front page error from 2013).

  The article isn't just reporting on the tweet, it just says that Regina Ip, for instance, is on the sanctions list. It credits the reporting of these people being on the list to Solomon Yue, without disclosing that it was based on the tweet Gang of Six: Commissar Carrie Lam, [...] Regina Ip are on a leaked 🇺🇸 sanction list.

  You're going pretty far back with that WaPo comparison. I don't think we're far enough into the 21st century that the recency consideration should exclude 1995-2005.

  It's not OR; RSes have reported several times about high-profile mistakes in Apple Daily reporting. I'm not trying to force anything, the quote means exactly what it means. But public opinion surveys don't have any standing on what makes a source reliable. This survey also appears to be the sole reason for your !vote that Apple Daily is Generally reliable. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is getting off topic so I’l just address the main point and then you can edit your original comment. False news is not different from fake news or sham news, they’re different names for the same thing. What you are doing is calling errors/mistakes false news and that needs to stop now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Again, I've clarified several times that what I mean by "false news" is "factually incorrect news without a demonstrated intent to misinform", so there's no further need to explain what I meant. There are several differing definitions of the terms discussed at fake news, as covered in its "Definitions" and "Types" sections. I've explained the definition that I am using and clarified the exact statement that I am making. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I’ve searched high and low for a definition of false news like what you’re describing here (the fake news page makes it abundantly clear that they are generally used interchangeably), I cant find one. Can you link your preferred definition? We generally don’t let editors define words however they like when wikilinking those words would indicate something completely different (as it does here if we wikilink false news in your statement). By your definition of false news every single WP:RS has “produced false news” which is an odd statement that I think would be objected to by almost everyone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  An MIT study published in Science defines "false news" in the exact same way that I have:

  We have therefore explicitly avoided the term fake news throughout this paper and instead use the more objectively verifiable terms “true” or “false” news. Although the terms fake news and misinformation also imply a willful distortion of the truth, we do not make any claims about the intent of the purveyors of the information in our analyses. We instead focus our attention on veracity and stories that have been verified as true or false.

  The rest of the paper then uses "false news" in exactly that way. Is that enough? Plenty of other reliable sources use "false news" to literally mean news that is incorrect, rather than the narrower requirement of being deliberately incorrect. There's a case to redirect false news to misinformation instead of fake news, but I don't intend on wasting any more time on this off-topic matter. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Using that definition publishing false news does not effect reliability as it relates to wikipedia so I’m confused by your argument. We require that it be deliberate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  The point was that they have had several high-profile incidents of erroneous reporting and sloppy journalism, and have been criticized for doing so. It’s more frequent and severe (relative to the body of independent coverage about their journalism, and relative to the age of the newspaper) than one would typically find for “Generally reliable” sources in WP:RSNP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who is is not familiar with the reliability of Apple Daily or Hong Kong news in general, I have to agree with Horse Eye Jack here that sources that are over a decade old are not appropriate to determine reliability. For instance Buzzfeed built an award winning news operation after initially being a publisher of listicles, if you were to judge Buzzfeed by article discussing the publication in the early years, you'd get inaccurate impression. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If it were "fake news" (deliberate false reporting), which I don't think Apple Daily has done, then it would go to Option 5. Reliability is not just about whether the newspaper reports news falsely and deliberately. Reliability is about whether the newspaper reports news falsely at times (even if not deliberate). This is related to the reputation for fact-checking, which according to arguments above have appeared multiple times. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability is more about owning errors, when reliable sources make errors (and they routinely do, NYT makes multiple errors a day) they correct or retract their error. Apple News (HK) does appear to do that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems more a Tier III thing personally, as it is, in my opinion, not completely reliable on controversial topics. As expressed above, they do correct their error.--1233 ( T / C） 03:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Too long don't read. Apple Daily has many error as well as tabloid journalism. The magnitude of error is way too large. For example reporting Wang Ming-chen as the first Chinese physicist when copy editing the original The Beijing News. However, the The Beijing News article clearly stated that she is the first Chinese female physicist and by common sense many Chinese physicist are born earlier and obtain PhD way earlier than Wang.

Another example, they made a huge investment on video news. However, for Hysan, they can't even read the source material probably and reporting the company has 10 properties in Causeway Bay in the video news. But in fact, the company annual report clearly stated 9 in Causeway Bay and 1 in Wan Chai/Mid-level. Their investment on photoshop / video compare to basic proofreading fact checking is disproportionate.

For other metric, a depart of CUHK (香港中文大學傳播與民意調查中心) conducted a survey on creditability, many citizen gave the newspaper quite a low score. (this is an option (edit: damn me for another typo. I mean opinion) article on Ming Pao regarding the survey, not the primary source [22] )

For the good side Apple Daily has on-site reporter on live event, accusing them not reporting that they actually saw is a WP:OR. Instead, for HK local news, if more than one source to reporting event A and if Apple Daily's narrative is roughly the same as other newspaper, i don't see any point to not to keep 2 newspapers as citation. I personally not recomanded to use Apple Daily as single citation without cross checking BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see that Apple Daily got a low score, I see that Apple Daily got the third highest score. Google translate yields "Among the paid newspapers, almost all the newspapers' scores have dropped, and they have fallen considerably. With the exception of the Apple Daily, its scores and rankings in 2016 have risen, and this year it has risen to the third place, which is almost the same as the score of the second Ming Pao, and the South China Morning Post continues to top the list.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The option (edit: typo: opinion) article is stating overall the newspapers got a low score. By a metric of 1 to 10. Yeah 5.18 in Y2016 and rank 8th among paid newspaper is self-explanatory. It was ranked 3rd with a score of 5.71 in Y2019 , after the outbreak of 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Apple Daily is ranked 11th in 2006, 2010, 2013 surveys BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The scores are relative not absolute, they can only be used to judge the newspapers against each other. You can’t just say “5.71 is not 10 so it must be bad!” when the source doesn't say that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The score itself does not have a conclusion by itself. But the opinion author, 蘇鑰機, which also came from CUHK, choose "香港傳媒公信力：低處未必最低" as the headline, which roughly translated as overall the creditability of the whole industry is falling and not yet bottom . Ranked 11th for 2006, 2010, 2013, 8th in 2016 and 3rd in 2019. That's some reference point for other people to judge Apple Daily's credibility. Matthew hk (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude you don’t get to file a bogus ANI report [23] on me (which you almost got boomerang blocked for) and then carry on discussions with me as if nothing has happened. Pound sand, I’m done with you and your disruptive editing style. Don’t let me catch you on my talk page either, you’re banned from there. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, Horse Eye Jack, I recommend against holding this kind of attitude against users who fail to assume good faith. An allegation of editing on Dahua Technology, however egregiously failing to AGF, is not going to solve disputes. This discussion id different. Putting that aside, I consider Apple Daily kind of reliable for reporting straight facts like this report on COVID-19 but reports like calling the Communist Party bandits or reports of the protests (particularly the use of police force)? I'm not going to cite them. It is nowhere near reliable for contentious topics, as mentioned above. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Many users here tend to discredit Appledaily because of its political standpoint. The truth is, the press in HK is so distorted and heavily influenced by Chinese govt that often very few other established newspapers would cover the sensitive topics that Appledaily covers, so people not familiar with press in HK may find that Appledaily is sometimes contradicted by other sources, but local citizens and researchers' rankings reflect the actual credibility Appledaily deserves.--Roy17 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Roy17: What do you mean by independent research and researcher’s rankings if it’s different from the local citizens’ rankings (i.e. the CUHK public opinion survey)? — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @PYatTP: 3rd (not 2nd) in the specific category of local paid newspapers (11 entries) of the public opinion survey. Also emphasis on it being just a public opinion survey. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is B'Tselem a RS?

There have been several posts here in the past about B'Tselem that I've found, and from what I can tell about the consensus is that it can be used but at the very least it needs to have inline attribution. B'Tselem is an advocacy organization, not merely an NGO, as such it has a POV and we should not attribute something to it in Wikipedia's voice. I found discussions here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B'Tselem , Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78#CAMERA_/_Alex_Safian and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_170#POICA_&_Israel. In the IP conflict area, any pro-Israel NGO is often dismissed automatically, yet ARIJ and B'Tselem is allowed because it's pro-Palestinian, even though they play loose with the facts (as was shown with B'Tselem a few weeks ago with Coronavirus and the UN). Regardless, I think there should finally be a decision that this NGO doesn't speak for Wikipedia and is not a RS that can be used for a neutral ref-tag without an "according to B'Tselem..." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally. NGOs that do not have a a good reputation may be (example CAMERA as you note), but B'tselem does have such a reputation. Other reliable sources (eg NYTimes^{[24][25][26][27]} BBC^[28][29][30] the Guardian^[31][32][33]) regularly cite B'tselem. nableezy - 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Up above you claimed Virtual Jewish Library isn't a RS, even though it's cited by the NYTimes many times. And what is wrong with CAMERA? They report on media inaccuracies. The fact that they are pro-Israel means that you don't like it. There's also NGO Monitor, which is pro-Israel, that gets tossed out often, and Ad-Kan. Please let's not pretend that there's an even playing field here. (You say there are pro-Israel NGO's that are allowed, can you name some?)Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A source isnt reliable or unreliable by virtue of its stance on Israel or Palestine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is reliable or unreliable by virtue of its reputation for fact checking among other sources. JVL does not have a good reputation. B'tselem does. Therein lies the difference. nableezy - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, a pro-Israel NGO that is used? Hmmm, the ADL? ITIC? Some of the worse ones that are still used include the Hudson Institute. Being pro-Israel or any other position isnt what determines if a source is usable. nableezy - 04:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• As to the matter, they are a political advocacy group. They aren't just for human rights. They are against settlements which is a political issue. They also routinely ignore human rights when it's perpetrated from the Palestinians, or worse, see Ezra Nawi for just one example. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability and bias are two separate things. B'Tselem has a reputation for accuracy. Maybe the Virtual Jewish Library does as well, but that's another conversation. TFD (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the thing, it doesn't have a reputation for reliability, it has been found repeatedly to make things up. This was in March when even the UN praised Israel and the PA's cooperation, [34]. If they are biased, their sourcing should not be in Wiki's voice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The Israeli military is not the source of truth in this world, sorry. That they accuse B'tselem of something does not make their well-earned reputation for fact-checking and accuracy not true. nableezy - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, so B'Tselem makes up fake news, and Israel corrects it and it's published in multiple RS, but according to you, only the B'tselem source is usable. Does that make sense? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Im sorry, I stopped reading at "fake news". nableezy - 04:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• for more information on B'Tselem from a RS (as Nableezy would say) another NGO who documents funding please look here, to say that it is just a human rights org is not true. [35] (please read the Political Activities section) and then from another RS, B’Tselem Spreads Anti-Israel Lies at the UN Security Council and this was a political event, not about human rights issues. Here's an opinion piece about how B'Tselem lost its way and isn't a HRO anymore and is a political organization, B’Tselem Must Take Responsibility for the Consequences of Its Actions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Youre bringing the chief of staff of NGO Monitor writing and saying that trumps the NYT or the BBC or the Guardian who all regularly cite B'tselem. Thats not how reliability is determined.And, oh by the way, note what said chief of staff of NGO Monitor wrote: the European Union, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland continue to fund B’Tselem. Thats because of their oh so sterling reputation. nableezy - 04:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a side note here, when you say regularly cite them I am just not seeing it. Most of the sources you list are over a decade old. PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

NYT: [36][37] [38]

BBC: [39][40][[41]

Reuters: [42][43][44]

Those recent enough for you? nableezy - 04:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup! Thank you, though it is kind of funny, the last two Reuters articles copy paste the paragraph cited to B'Tselem. PackMecEng (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just as with good news sources, the distinction between facts and opinion can usually be identified in Btselem's output. In the case of opinion, "according to" is appropriate. In the case of facts, its reputation for accuracy is very strong. Zero^talk 05:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

On what you base you claim that they are trustworthy?They are even don't pretend to be some neutral observer.They have clear agenda so everything they present should be taken with their agenda in mind --Shrike (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute even when they are used by media they tend to be attributed, so we should follow that as well. Especially the accuracy of their casualty stats have been called into question. buidhe 08:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Camera.org is not reliable itself. According to camera.org, the NYT is biased,[45] the Washington Post is biased[46] and they even put editors in Wikipedia to promote pro-Israel POV. I dont think you should rely on such source.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Btzelem is bisaed too what is difference? --Shrike (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You cannot assert that the 'facts' themselves are biased. Camera's mission is to spin the facts, not document the realities. One has a forensic approach to a 'crime scene', the other gives a tabloid account in which the assailant was compelled to defend themselves against the 'victim'.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that your neutral unbiased opinion? Perhaps this is reason enough why Wikipedia is biased. Terribly shocking. Camera just reports on the media's inaccuracy. I hope people don't presume to say that the media is accurate all the time, but of course it's yet another pro-Israel RS that is labeled as not-RS by people here, just like NGO Monitor, and others.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Nableezy. It has been cited by multiple reliable sources like the BBC, Reuters, New York Times, etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable B'tselem is an NGO with positions based on international human rights law and has gained international awards for this work. The executive director, Hagai El-Ad has twice been invited to address (in 2014 and 2018) the UN Security Council. It receives funding from the EU and other governments. Their reports and statistics are widely cited. Does this sound unreliable?.Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unusually Reliable and Zero's point on the distinction between its reportage on facts versus comments that may be construed as B'tselem opinions, should be followed with regard to whether to attribute or not when citing this source.

Additional Comment. There is a lot of verbal confusion here, such as calling B'tselem an 'advocacy group', and unfamiliarity with what it does. An NGO whose remit is basically to document empirically (and this involves extensive field work interviewing people involved in incidents in order to sift out the facts from witness bias, as well as constructing vast databases, with statistical analyses) human rights abuses measures these in terms of two systems of law: Israeli and International. This is not 'advocacy' in the usual negative sense of the term, as biased lobbying for some cause. As one book puts it.

'Information on Israeli human rights violations is highly politicized. B'tselem, the Israeli Information center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories is perhaps the best neutral source.' Jack Donnelly, 'International human rights: unintended consequences of the war on terrorism,' in Margaret Crahan, John Goering, Thomas G. Weiss (eds.), The Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: Human Rights, Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy, Routledge, 2004 ISBN 978-1-135-99507-2 pp.98-111, p.110 n.10

We use mainstream newspapers whose reportage is basically breaking news written rapidly as every incident unfolds, without attribution all over these I/P articles. B'tselem instead exhaustively sends out interviewers to ascertain from all eyewitnesses (and from Israeli army reports and legal judgements) what actually appears to have happened, and is infinitely more objective. The fact that what it reports is often upsetting to espousers or spinners of the official government or military line doesn't make it an advocacy organization and indeed even the IDF has long admitted that it is dependable, as witness the following statement by the Israeli historian and senior IDF figure, Mordechai Bar-On

In one case the IDF chief of staff publicly challenged the numbers B'tselem reported on Palestinian casualties, and subsequently apologized when he learned that his figures were wrong and B'tselem's report was correct. In later years the military authorities often asked B'tselem to confirm their own information.' Mordechai Bar-On, In Pursuit of Peace: A History of the Israeli Peace Movement, US Institute of Peace Press ISBN 978-1-878-37953-5 1996 p.401 n.119

In short, recourse to RSN re B'tselem should stop until there emerges, not from notorious activist NGOs touting an official viewpoint, but from serious sources analyzing its actual performance, any evidence it systematically indulges in spinning the facts it reports so abundantly. It is more reliable than most of our unquestioned mainstream newspapers.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you not get the irony and hypocrisy here? So B'Tselem is OK, but another NGO is a "activist NGO?" NGO Monitor showed when B'Tselem made stuff up, just in March it made up a story about the coronavirus, yet it was dismissed because it was NGO Monitor, and IDF was dismissed because it was IDF, so the bias is clear for all to see. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand that NGO Monitor is not reliable and they havent shown anything. What Btselem reported was that Israel confiscated tents the Palestinians designated for a clinic. That has also been reported by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and as a result of those complaints the IDF has said they will stop demolitions in the West Bank. Not quite the silly spin you would like to put on this. You cant take crap sources complaining about ones that actually have a solid reputation and use that as evidence against said solid reputation. That has nothing to do with hypocrisy, and you would do well to stop making such personal attacks that have literally no basis in fact. nableezy - 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't NGO Monitor not reliable? And what B'tselem report was not that the IDF will stop demolishing stuff, but that the IDF confiscated supplies and demolished tents, yet they did no such thing. You are posting a news article that has nothing to do with what I posted. Bottom line is B'Tselem has ceased to be a neutral and human rights org and is now an advocacy org. It is not a RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Youve made your position on that clear. Unfortunately nobody else seems to agree with it, nor do the many sources that cite B'tselem as the widely respected human rights organization that it is. Why isnt NGO Monitor reliable? Thats like asking why isnt Electronic Intifida reliable. But its because serious sources dont treat it as a serious source for reliable information, but rather as essentially a propganda outfit known to lie and distort in order to advance its agenda. Youre comparing the equivalents of Electronic Intifida and If Americans Knew and demanding that they be treated like B'tselem. Thats just silly. nableezy - 04:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

SJ. Don't assert that I am being hypocritical.It is an WP:AGF violation. You are making a simple categorical error, which I guess I'll have to explain to you.

There is a category NGO.

Both B'tselem and NGO Monitor are subsumed within that category.

Therefore anything that is said of one, applies to the other. If B'tselem is OK as a source, so it any other NGO commenting on, or active, in that area.

Is it really necessary to explain to you that subsets of a category are not, by virtue of belonging to the same category, interchangeable? Or that because Jews, Christians and Muslims are subsets of the broad category Abrahamic religions, what is said of any one of the three applies automatically to the other two? Jeezus! (sorry, tetragrammaton, for the life of the prophet!).Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute, like media does. They are an advocacy group, though a respected advocacy group.--Hippeus (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Attribute per Buidhe. ​Also per the previous discussions cited above, this is clearly not a neutral think tank, but an advocacy organization. Data from this group should be clearly attributed whenever used.YUEdits (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me summarize.

• It was asked if B'tselem was a reliable source. The answer is unequivocably yes.
• Many editors think attribution is required because it is an NGO. It was pointed out in the original discussion 9 years ago that since B'tselem is a major source for facts in the I/P area, reflex attribution everytime would mar innumerable pages with a formulaic repetitiveness.

'I think that formulation may be too critical of B'tselem. The question here is really whether and when in-text attribution is necessary. IMHO, much or most of the time it is not. We should focus on what is actually controversial, everything can be potentially controversial, especially here. Much of the actual criticism of B'tselem could be characterized as nitpicking or cavilling,...Right now, the article in question has too many "According to B'Tselem"'s, detracting from readability and doing little positive'John Z

• For this reason, (given also that the Israeli army itself, whose actions B'tselem often criticizes, is known to accept that it is accurate- I recall one general remarking that it kept the army on its toes) User:Zero0000 offered a sensible suggestion:
• Source facts to it, and only use attribution when B'tselem offers an opinion, a position he affirmed in 2011.

Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. Of course anything potentially controversial sourced to them should clearly indicate them as the source (which goes for all NGOs). Zero

• So. Recent bad habits of reverting out B'tselem as not RS are against consensus. This is resolved as it was in 2011.
• But editors have yet to clarify the point about attribution issue raised also in 2011: (a)invariably or (b)occasionally, according to the nature of what is being cited. If (b) you get formula splatter, which mars pages.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Attribute. I personally take their reports seriously, but this is a TA where it's difficult to establish a "baseline" of reliability (eg. some source with which to compare others), so any source that might be seen as "taking a side" should be attributed. This applies to most every local governmental and non-governmental organization, some foreign governments and a host of media entities. François Robere (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• The full name for B'Tselem is "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied territories". This is therefore clearly an advocacy organization, and one that advocates a rather unpopular point of view in Israel. It has therefore all the incentive to be biased in its reporting. That is one reason I think that information from this source is suspect. In addition, when I look at the list of Board Members I am unimpressed by the general academic level (chaired by a high-tech executive, includes a script-writer), and very much impressed by how many political activists are on the board... Not to mention the fact that there is no indication that the board exercises any editorial control. Last but not least, their website has a blog section. In short, this organization is likely to be very POV in its reporting, has no indication of editorial supervision of its publications, and in general does not impress with its academic level. As a result, the blog section is of course completely unreliable, and the rest of its publications are likely so biased and lacking editorial control, that they can not be used as reliable sources either. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy has said above: "It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally." His opinion has been quoted by others here as a reason to consider B'Tselem a reliable source. However, reading his statement makes it clear that his opinion is only based on argument by assertion, and therefore lacks any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:SCHOLARSHIP for example warns of the dangers of scholarly publications "that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" and that is all the more true when this is not even a scholarly publication. WP:BIASEDSOURCES acknowledges that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" but also asks us to "consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering", and B'Tselem is lacking at least in the first of these requirements. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, it isn't my opinion. Haaretz: Israeli human rights NGO, NYT an Israeli human rights group that monitors the treatment of Palestinians, NYT the Israeli human rights group. Please dont pretend like I am asserting something that has literally thousands of sources backing it up. But claiming that an argument by assertion (which was not made) is invalid and then proceeding to actually argue by assertion and not offer any evidence for your comment is a little funny. nableezy - 14:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

And, as for those other reliable sources citing B'tselem, please see WP:UBO. Whether or not the POV is unpopular in Israel is literally the least important thing I've read in weeks. What matters is how other reliable sources treat B'tselem, and they treat it as reliable. nableezy - 14:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert C. DiPrizio (29 February 2020). Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts. ABC-CLIO. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-1-4408-6748-4.

Brief review - "B'tselem is internationally recognized for its work on behalf of human rights..."

Donal Carbaugh (19 August 2016). The Handbook of Communication in Cross-cultural Perspective. Taylor & Francis. pp. 318–. ISBN 978-1-317-48560-5.

Marc H. Ellis (19 September 2017). The Heartbeat of the Prophetic. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 383–. ISBN 978-1-5326-1906-9.

So easy to find RS approving of B'tselem. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

These source only mention that B'Tselem exists and that it is a group of political activists in the field of human rights. That is not the question here. The question here is if they are a reliable source, and that I do not see written in these sources. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

When reliable sources cite a source, and do so repeatedly, that shows its reliability. Again, see WP:UBO. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that B'tselem is regularly cited by reliable sources. nableezy - 01:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PanAm Post

Hello! Another source that has raised questions: PanAm Post. I noticed that PanAm Post was describing a member of their staff as having a Harvard University "degree". They say that Emmanuel Rincón, a self-published author (WP:QUESTIONABLE/WP:RSSELF) who writes for the site, has "a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University". That "degree" is a free edX course provided by Harvard (see here, where 40,000 people are already enrolled!). This raises concerns about their reliability and if the site exaggerates the credentials of their staff (or their reporting).

So I am asking the community to decide the following evaluations about PanAm Post:

• 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

Not sure if these type of RSN RfCs are still permitted since changes were proposed when I was last active, but a few opinions on this source would be appreciated!----ZiaLater (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• An embellished author profile is concerning, but these profiles are often embellished though normally not as above. Are there any other red flags? Looking at their website, much of the content appears to be opinions.--Hippeus (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: PanAm Post has been listed in WP:VENRS, an essay dedicated to list and analyze reliable sources for Venezuela related topics, where it has been described as: Miami-based newspaper, described as "libertarian". Generally reliable, but news articles should be differentiated from opinion pieces and original invetigations, which should be attributed.

It appears that PanAm Post is generally considered as reliable to report news.

PanAm Post was the outlet that published an investigation denouncing the embezzlement of payments for the housing of Venezuelan military defectors by representatives of opposition leader Juan Guaidó in Colombia, which led to the audit and investigation of the situation afterwards. However, there have also been concerns about its neutrality and reliability after Orlando Avendaño assumed the position of chief editor, along with Vanessa Vallejo. Care should be taken with opiniated articles.

I don't know if there are different authors or important differences between the English and Spanish versions, but this should also be taen into account.

I stand with the original description, that if used, PanAm Post articles should be attributed. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: Since the source has been described as "libertarian", the Cato Institute RfC, which has received similar allegations, might be relevant to the discussion, and it might help to invite editors more knowledgeable about this. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 I guess, it is to me unclear how reliable this website is. As said by Jamez42, it has been cited by other reliable sources before so it is notable BBCAPWaPoWSJReuters but no information on how reliable is their reporting per se.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  In Forbes The 2020 Ranking Of Free-Market Think Tanks Measured By Social Media Impact, it was described as popular and with "solid reporting" on topics related to free market.--ReyHahn (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  Associated Press called PanamPost "a conservative online publication run by mostly Venezuelan exiles from Miami" in a piece that confirms PanamPost original investigation.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3, much of their reporting has a strong right wing bias which often manifests itself as omitted information, poor sourcing, entertaining questionable scientific views, and sloppy reporting. Ownership is also secret which makes it impossible for us to determine whether this source is independent of the subjects it reports on. The irony here is that the topic for which they’d be the most useful, Venezuela, is also the topic they are entirely unreliable on reporting. Their opinion pieces are batshit crazy, but its not like anyone was going to try to use an opinion piece anyway. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye Jack: do you have some sources to back their "right wing bias"?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever read them? Their editorial and opinion section is openly right wing, often comically so, (for example [47] header: "Few dare to acknowledge the reality that the world has been dominated by different shades of the left, over the last century. And to move forward, we must recognize that we have been defeated. It is time to rethink the world and Latin America"), something that cant be said of right of center publications like the WSJ. If you’ve read them for a while you might have noticed that the opinion section tends to bleed over into the journalism more than is appropriate from a reliable source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Also for what its worth the author of that extremist opinion piece is the guy "with a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess this is where opiniated articles should be distinguished from their reliability. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No this isn't, if they had a separate editorial board and journalistic staff that would be one thing but they don't. That guy writes both opinion pieces and news articles (with barely a change in tone I might add). Thats just not something a reliable source does, sorry. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Horse Eye Jack. A publication which blurs opinion and news to the degree that this publication does, which entertains those ludicrously insane viewpoints and blends them in with its supposedly factual reporting, and whose ownership is secret, cannot be a reliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Devonian Wombat: can you share an example of a non-opinion article being heavily opinionated ?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, here is an article: Bill Gates’ Strange Relationship with China and the Coronavirus which is not marked as opinion, instead simply as “coronavirus”, which accuses Bill Gates of essentially being a spy for the Chinese government, accuses the WHO of covering up for China, and to top it off, goes on a massive anti-vaccine rant for several paragraphs that declares the HPV vaccine caused thousands of deaths, and says that efforts to create a vaccine for coronavirus is part of Bill Gates’ effort to enrich himself. There is also this article: The Death of Venezuela’s Interim Government which is not marked as an opinion piece, instead as news, where the author spends the entire article ranting that the reason Juan Guido is not very popular is solely because he has tried to make some compromises with former supporters of Chavez and Maduro, and ends with a pretty clear call for violence. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Devonian Wombat: Many thank for the examples. Could you please elaborate with what you mean that its ownership is secret? --Jamez42 (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Jamez42: The PanAm Post is owned by PanAm Post LLC, but there is no information on who owns PanAm Post LLC, meaning that the site could have a conflict of interest with things it reports on, and we would not know. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Devonian Wombat: Understood. Many thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3-4: For some more background on PanAm Post, it was founded by Luis Henrique Ball Zuloaga, a prominent anti-Chávez businessman. Ball is the son of Luis Henrique Ball Martinez, an executive of his father R. R. Ball's Biogen medical distribution company (an American Cyanamid distributor) in Venezuela that was accused of participating in the price fixing of pharmaceuticals during the tetracycline litigation controversy. Ball continues the management of his family's company, though it is now known as Grupo Ciencia. He is also the cousin of María Corina Machado, a prominent opposition politician in Venezuela.

Ball is on the board of Atlas Network. Atlas Network states the following about Ball: Mr. Ball was until recently a regular columnist of Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper, El Universal ... Mr. Ball was amongst Venezuela’s most vocal public critics of the new Venezuelan Constitution proposed (and now in force) by Hugo Chávez in 1999. At the time, Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper “El Universal” described Mr. Ball as the “mastermind” of the campaign against the approval of the new constitution in the referendum of December 15, 1999. During the fall of 2001, Mr. Ball was named Chairman of the Organizing Committee of the first national work stoppage organized by the Federation of Chambers of Commerce jointly with the Federation of Trades Unions to protest against the autocratic tendencies of Hugo Chavez. In 2004 Mr. Ball was formally accused of “Civil Rebellion” and “Treason” by the National Prosecutor in Venezuela. In an article titled "The failure of the left" by Ball, we see his thoughts on Venezuela, writing "Since 1958 Venezuela has had nothing but leftist governments." He described the PanAm Post as his pet project, saying "PanAm Post has been more a vocation ... rather than a business activity". According to Ball in an error-ridden PanAm Post article, the Trump administration has even described the PanAm Post as "a Russian Troll" after he criticized the US for not maintaining a "credible threat of force on the Maduro regime". Ball has also discounted The New York Times and described it as the "Soviet Times" in an article that again said that Venezuela has only had left-wing governments.

The PanAm Post also promotes climate change denial articles against the scientific consensus on climate change as well, writing things such as "I, for one, am thrilled to have access to a cheap and practical source of energy: fossil fuels are not going to destroy the planet or make it uninhabitable for human and animal life" and the "Proud to Be a 'Man-Made Climate Change' Denier" article that describes global warming as "[a] massive lie designed to manipulate global policy into a wealth redistribution system. ... It is better to be a denier and free than a believer drinking the cyanide laced flavor-aide (it wasn’t cool-aid) in a socialist paradise".

Then you have the PanAm Post being picked up by Snopes for regurgitating unproven information from The Epoch Times, which has been deprecated on WP:RSP. Emmanuel Rincon, the questionable editor mentioned above, even cites The Epoch Times when discussing COVID-19 in China.

In summary, we have an extremist founder who created PanAm Post as a "vocation" that attacks what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, with PanAm Post being used as a platform for climate change denial and anti-China rhetoric resued from The Epoch Times (among other fringe topics), while their staff uses possibly cooked-up credentials. This seems like a similar case to The Grayzone, with WP:RSP stating Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. This seems like a blog for Ball and friends, not a reliable source.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this should be heavily judged on Venezuelan politics. Venezuelan politics are a mess. Many journalists have spoken against the Venezuelan government and accusations by Maduro administration do not usually add to much. Also PanamPost has also been very investigative on Maduro's rival Juan Guaidó, even finding reported corruption scandals, see Reuters. On the Russian Troll affair, the Soviet Times, Greta Thurnberg and China articles, those are labeled "politics and opinion", we need to discuss news articles and not opinion. Additionally, even if Ball founded it, could you clarify what is his position in the publication? it is certainly not the only reporter, while in The Grayzone a moderate percent of articles are pure Blumenthal (its main editor). For the rest you posted, I have nothing to say, it should be weighted in, I guess climate denial and anti-China go along with their libertarian bias.--ReyHahn (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The anti-authoritarianism can be credited to their libertarian roots but there is nothing libertarian about climate denial nor is that a position that most libertarians hold. Climate denial is more a fusionist position and when found within libertarianism is pretty much only found within right-libertarianism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, Devonian Wombat also has a good point that their opinion and news articles blend together (sometimes within the same news and opinion categories). Overall, their website is a mess and promotes some dubious material.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per ZiaLater's and DW's investigations. Website clearly publishes false and misleading info deliberately—not as an oversight—and cannot be trusted to tell the truth. buidhe 00:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Again, it seems to soon to call option 4. As showed by my comment above Panam Post is considered reliable in some fields and some of their original investigations have been showed to be relevant and confirmed by sources like AP. For what I've seen it is at worst option 2 for SOMETIMES mixing opinions and facts without a clear label, which just demands precaution.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Up until now, nobody has provided a non-opinion article reporting false news. The publication could be easily labeled option 2, demanding precaution and saying that it can be partisan to (right) libertarian views.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: chill out. Respect WP:BLUDGEON as well as other people's opinions. It certainly *can* be option 4 and I would say that the stories already shared meet the standard for publishing false and misleading views but personally I don’t think they’re important enough to deprecate. I think thats something we should reserve for sources people are trying hard to use despite their unreliability, this source appears to neither notable or reliable. I certainly *could* have iVoted for option 4 though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood, I decided to modify the wording on the opening of the comment.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Also per my sources above, it appears to be certainly notable in South American news. Reliability is what we are trying to measure here.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that if a source posts false or misleading information negligently, it should be marked generally unreliable, if it does so deliberately, than deprecation is appropriate. buidhe 05:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Patric Cagle and Broken People YouTube sources, and groundlings.com

Resting bitch face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Groundlings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get opinions on this and this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Under WP:ELPOINTS, external links are generally not supposed to be used in the article body (outside of citations), and the groundlings.com links in these edits are not compliant with the guideline. The YouTube video from The Groundlings and Patric Cagle lacks independent sourcing, and should be excluded from the Resting bitch face article as undue weight; its use in the article on The Groundlings might be okay as a primary source, but should ideally be supported by an independent reliable source. On the other hand, the Broken People video was mentioned in the cited New York Times (RSP entry) article (If you’re up on your Internet memes, perhaps you’ve heard of its linguistic predecessor: “bitchy resting face,” which emerged from a parody Public Service Announcement), which makes it an acceptable primary source in the Resting bitch face article. — Newslinger talk 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, thanks for commenting. I was tempted to remove the external linking, but I decided not to revert again (partially or fully) without first bringing the matter here for other opinions. I feel similarly as you do on all of this.

Pinging StylishFedora so that StylishFedora sees this if StylishFedora hasn't already. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger and Flyer22 Frozen -- The video "Resting Bitch Face" was clearly uploaded to YouTube on October 11, 2011, years before the creation of the Broken People video. That can't be in dispute. The woman in the video is the same Patric Cagle shown on the Groundlings website bio page. The man in the video is clearly the same Nate Clark as the one on his personal website and the Groundlings bio page. Would an image of the Groundlings theater program from the September 12, 2011 production (showing writing, acting, and directing credits) suffice as supporting evidence? (Confused.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StylishFedora (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi StylishFedora, was that performance covered in any secondary sources? Performances that are not mentioned in reliable secondary sources are usually excluded as undue weight in articles unrelated to the performers, since they are not considered prominent enough to warrant a mention in the articles. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Newslinger, and thanks for the reply and guidance. I've been unable to find a secondary source that references that performance directly, but there is an article in LA Weekly that references another performance (also documented on YouTube) including the same two actors in the same show. If I tie them together and include a photo of the printed program from the show, would that suffice? —-- StylishFedora (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research, but unfortunately, that's not quite enough to make the connection. The secondary source needs to explicitly mention resting bitch face in relation to one of the following: the "Bitchy Resting Face" performance (preferred), The Groundlings, or the comedians in the performance (Nate Clark and Patric Cagle). Combining two different sources that don't explicitly make this connection is a case of synthesis, which falls short of Wikipedia's requirements. — Newslinger talk 20:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger Hm. The secondary source I'm trying to find certainly wouldn't reference the Bitchy Resting Face video, since the entire point of the original edit was to prove that the Broken People sketch was not the "original" Internet reference to the phrase as its editor claims, but rather the version written by Patric Cagle and posted to YouTube years before that one ever appeared. It's hard to understand how a video titled "Resting Bitch Face" -- clearly posted years earlier than the one referenced in the article which claims to be "the original" -- could not be a de facto refutation of the (internet) origin of the phrase, regardless of supporting secondary sources. (Doesn't the mere existence of the Resting Bitch Face video prove that point?) Is there a chance that the similarity of the titles (Bitchy Resting Face v. Resting Bitch Face) has caused some confusion here? -- StylishFedora (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger & Flyer22 Frozen - There's also an issue with the final sentence in the second paragraph of the Origin section of the Resting Bitch Face article, which is worded to imply that the term "Resting Bitch Face" is not, in fact, the original phrase and / or that the Broken People video is the origin of the term, both of which are plainly proven false by the mere existence of October 11, 2011 YouTube video. StylishFedora (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the Resting bitch face article doesn't claim that the phrase originated in the Broken People sketch. It just claims that the sketch was uploaded in 2013. The first sentence of the "Origin" section also includes an assertion that "the phrase dates back 'at least ten years'" before 2013. I'm not seeing any issues with the content in the article. The 2011 performance from The Groundlings doesn't meet the due weight requirement to be included into the article unless an reliable and independent secondary source is available that describes it in relation to "resting bitch face". — Newslinger talk 03:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger I disagree. Because the sentence that begins, "It has since gone on..." is in the same paragraph (and immediately follows) the "Bitchy Resting Face" reference, and because that sentence ends, "to become more commonly known," the implication is that the "It" of that sentence refers to the Broken People video as the origin of the phrase, which is refuted even by the NYT article, if not by the existence of the Patric Cagle video. The phrase was always "resting bitch face" so it did not "become more commonly known" as that. StylishFedora (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've changed "It" to "The facial expression" for precision. Although we're not able to use the 2011 video, this clears up the ambiguity. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree that changing the pronoun is enough. The very fact that the reference to the Broken People video is placed in the Origin section (instead of in the "Spread in wider culture" section) implies to the reader that the Broken People video is the origin. I think a fair argument can be made that the NY Times article which states the phrase was at least ten years old is more than enough evidence to specifically not include a reference to the Broken People video in the Origin section. Regardless, I removed the "become more commonly known" bit and now I think it's much clearer. Thanks for your help on this. StylishFedora (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. I've renamed the "Origin" section to "History", since the content does not clearly expain what the origin of the term is. I hope you find this satisfactory. — Newslinger talk 19:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

The Post Millennial for article Supervised injection site

I am not seeing much prior discussions on this source. I am considering using this source for the article Supervised injection site. They do have editorial policy posted. Graywalls (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say that most likely they follow into the "should be be attributed" category, as they have a pretty strong right-leaning bias, and despite what they may say about their "rigorous multi-level review process" they still have published misleading or outright false stories that fit their preferred narrative without proper vetting. They may correct them after the fact when called out on it by prominent fact checkers, but, combined with the heavily loaded language in which much of their reporting is written, it does not instill much faith in their reliability, at least not to the point where potentially contentious material could be stated in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no evidence that The Post Millennial has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for reliable sources here, particularly given that supervised injection sites are an issue at least bordering WP:MEDRS. If this study is actually as "bombshell" as claimed, there should be some mainstream and medical sources reporting on the issue. If not... well, maybe it isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that there should be better sources who have picked up such a supposedly groundbreaking study. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this and the related Needle exchange programme seem to be riven with poor sources on both sides - blogspot pages, sloppy journalism, primary sources from advocacy groups, claims presented as undisputed fact, etc. They could definitely use attention from folks with WP:MEDRS expertise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millennial is a generally unreliable source with a reputation for advocacy and spreading misinformation. Its not appropriate to use on any article except perhaps its own even when attributed. This is a bottom of the barrel source, especially when it comes to socially contentious topics like the one here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Horse Eye Jack:, do you have anything backing up the claim about its reputation for "advocacy and spreading misinformation"? That's a pretty contentious claim. Graywalls (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• General comment: The Post Millennial is a relatively new outlet, it has a right-leaning bias, and it produces both news and opinion journalism. There's definitely some variability with respect to the editorial rigour in their articles. With those caveats in mind, they are an increasingly influential and professionalizing outlet, and I would not agree that they "have a reputation for...spreading information." All outlets occasionally err and issue corrections (yes, even left-leaning ones!) and there's nothing remarkable about that. So treat with a bit of caution (e.g. if they use loaded adjectives, bear in mind that it may be coloured by an ideological bias, but the facts may still be true), and consider in-line attribution as needed.
• In this context: go ahead and use it. The article is just a lengthy summary of a report, which obviously exists, and which can be cross-referenced if there are any doubts. While a right-leaning political bias may affect the framing of the article, the facts appear correct.TheBlueCanoe 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Doesn't look reliable. As other editors have noted above, the site appears to be little more than a small, right-wing tabloid. For example, the site's "culture" column consists of little more than attacks on "SJWs" and feminists, about how America's churches "provide the most essential service of all", attacks on the ACLU, defenses of single-use plastic, etc. Articles in the "news" columns are similarly couched with right-wing talking points, and the "Coronovarius" column consists almost entirely of flattering reports of "anti-shutdown protestors" and negative coverage of politicians enacting these policies (with, of course, glowing coverage of Trump).

The site also appears to play quite loose with its coverage when it doesn't align with the narrative they present. For example, this header refers to a straightforward assault or "shooting" as a "shootout", which misleads casual readers. There was no exchange of gunfire (OED: Shoot-out: "A sustained exchange of shooting, a gun-fight.").

In short, the site appears to be essentially a tiny Breitbart, with a similar rejection of objectivity. I'm sure a closer look will reveal further issues. Whatever the case, I recommend finding a more objective source. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable (though it may be useful for Canadian political news, since some articles indicate that they have good access to party officials). Consider checking out The Post Millennial and past discussions on RSN regarding the source. A major issue is poor division between opinion and news (CBC 2019). Even for uncontroversial facts, I would prefer any more reliable source. This source has come up in BLP talk on a few occasions, and it has generally been deemed not up to snuff for that purpose (<1><2>). Jlevi (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• comment I'm seeing on here it's mostly factual, with a bit of right bias, however I am not sure if mediabiasfactcheck.com is considered a respected authority on wikipedia for source bias. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

MBFC is sometimes useful to see if they've linked anything reliable, but past RSN conversations indicate with strong consensus that the site itself shouldn't be used directly. Jlevi (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable per Jlevi and Bloodfox, who have shown misleading information and poor distinction between factual reporting and opinion. Since they are mostly aggregators, news should be cited to the original outlet. Attributed opinions are unlikely to be due weight. The CBC article says "The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. Approximately 75 per cent of the language in the policy is identical to declarations of principles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Globe and Mail and Torstar publications." (!) That's blatant copyvio, so WP:ELNEVER may also come into consideration. buidhe 23:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Probably avoid using it in the particular case mentioned above for the reasons NorthBySouthBaranof and Roscelese give: if the study in question is significant, better sources will cover it, and (especially as this is a MED-adjacent topic) biased sources are not ideal. As to the general case (of whether they should be used anywhere), they're certainly a biased source in my experience seeing other TPM articles I'd seen in the process of Wikipedia articles, and now seeing specific examples provided above, and plagiarizing their ethics policy(!) and being called out for inaccurate reporting elsewhere suggests they're also an unreliable source. (One might make the usual proviso that they could be reliable for statements about their own current staff, beliefs, etc, although as the Daily Mail RfC further up this page indicates, trusting an unreliable source to be reliable even about themselves can be risky.) -sche (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable; see here, here, and here. It's comparable to Breitbart in that it makes no distinction between opinion and news, was founded to stridently advance a particular political agenda, and has a history of playing fast-and-loose with the fact as part of that goal. Perhaps most notably, while they have an ethics policy, they plagiarized much of it from the Washington Post (see the second link.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Though I agree with questioning TPM's reliability in general, I would like to note that the second source you mention (regarding the libel notice) may not be entirely useful for this discussion. I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics to make a strong statement, but that piece is framed in terms of allegations and a lot of he-said-she-said. I don't think the piece ever makes a statement in the publication's voice. That may change if we see a a result from the court/libel case. Jlevi (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The Huffington post

Is this true "HuffPo is not considered a RS in general and must not be used in the context wherever there are doubts about its articles, as in this BLP. Removing what was not a position of AI" as a user has suggested at Piers Robinson?Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• To give actual context, Piers is a UK academic currently best well known for being part of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, including Vanessa Beeley and others that have alleged the Douma chemical attack was staged (see [48]), and that that the White Helmets were "actively involved in managing a massacre of civilians" (see [49]) and has been criticised for this in The Times [50] [51] and the HuffPost [52] [53], and has also been criticised for being a 9/11 skeptic in the latter, see [54]. All of the posts criticising Piers in the Huffpost are by the same author, Chris York, senior editor at HuffPost UK. Kashmiri thinks that the HuffPost is blanket unreliable and has been repeatedly removing the sources, citing them to be BLP violations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• well, we yellow-rate it and suggest attribution. Also, be super-careful it's an actual news article and not a contributor piece - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, I never said that HuffPo "is blanket unreliable"; I warned that we should not include controversial or defamatory information about living persons based on a HuffPost article – especially when the article author is a self-confessed "specialist in conspiracy theory debunking"[55], which simply means his writings are likely to be influenced by his personal point of view. BLPs are a tricky area and whenever there are sourcing doubts re. controversial information, it should rather be left out. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri I think that's fair, and I apologise if you think I misrepresented your position. I agree that I would rather use another source rather than the Huffington Post, but due to a lack of reliable secondary sources we are left with relatively few options. How do you feel about citing the WGSPM documents cited in the HuffPost articles directly, alongside the articles themselves? I am uncomforable with citing the WGSPM or Robinsons's writing directly, as these are WP:PRIMARY sources and feels uncomfortably close to WP:OR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is no reason to not use HuffPost. It's a perfectly legitimate news outlet and their journalists go to all the same briefings the paper newspapers' do. It's neither a tabloid nor party political. GPinkerton (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• The OP's initial statement makes it seem like HuffPo is not reliable. Wikipedia has reached no conclusion that it is or isn't reliable, as there's never been a broad RFC on the general reliability. It is treated as reliable by other scrupulously reliable sources which cite and quote it frequently, which is usually a hallmark of general reliability, but Wikipedia has not had the discussion per se. I would treat it as generally reliable for its factual and investigative reporting, and as with any source, including the really reliable ones, published opinion pieces and unvetted guest contributions are not news anyways. --Jayron32 04:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree there is no problem with citing news articles from HuffPo. The fact the particular journalist, a senior editor,[56] describes himself as "specialis[ing] in US politics, conspiracy theory debunking, and explaining complex stories in a way that won't make your head hurt" does not diminish his reliability, merely names his areas of expertise, which include the topic of the WP article in question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Scriptural texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § WP:RSPSCRIPTURE

 – Moved to the noticeboard, as this discussion has introduced new arguments not found in previous discussions. — Newslinger talk 12:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

About "Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources". Several related articles like David or The Exodus mostly don't follow this approach in the "narrative" section, which seems to work fairly well. The Exodus takes a mostly MOS:PLOT approach, While David has a lot of cites, mostly primary outside "tricky" stuff.

So I suggest we soften the "summarizes" somewhat, something like "though a MOS:PLOTSOURCE approach can work well regarding some scriptural stories." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC) I've linked this discussion at Wikiprojects Christianity, Judaism, and Classical Greece and Rome.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I too feel that MOS:PLOTSOURCE applies. Meaning that there is a big difference between "summarizing", which basically does not call for any source apart from the primary source, and "interpreting" or "analyzing", which should be based only on sources, to avoid original research. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Debresser, the problem there of course is that there are a lot of translations of the Bible and they are not all consistent, nor are they internally consistent within a given translation. Since Wikipedia isn't a Bible study I think we should avoid the "plot" approach. Guy (help!) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  That is of course correct, but that can be dealt with when it becomes a problem. There's still times when the PLOTSOURCE-approach works well, inconsistencies can be small and need not necessarily enter the "recap" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

user:JzG's argument that the Bible is a translation and any translation is per definition an interpretation, is taking things too far. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, no it's not. Translations can be (and have been) motivated by specific agendas. Some people assert that only the KJV is reliable. The NIV was based on a very thorough and scholarly review of the original sources but KJV believers spend endless hours arguing that the many differences are evidence for the superiority of the KJV. It's exactly what you'd expect from translations of centuries-old sources that were themselves written down long after the events they describe. Guy (help!) 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That strikes me of more of a problem with the King James Only movement than with using the Bible as a source for its own narrative content.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, so how do you handle a dispute between a KJV editor and an NIV editor? Or any other two editors with differing editions? Which one do we favour as correct? See my problem here?

It's not as if there is any shortage of independent scholarly analysis of every single word of the Bible. We can easily defer to a secondary source that analyses all the various translations and describes the consensus view. Guy (help!) 18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, to me that question is akin to "how would you solve a despite between an editor pushing a fundamentalist view of the Bible and one who isn't." The KJB was written 400 years ago, no (reasonable) scholar believes it is infallible and we should obviously use more up to date translations. Anyway, this question is not particularly useful in the abstract: what specific detail of e.g. the Exodus narrative is affected by it?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich Riddle me this: how did Haman meet his end? Hanging? Impalement? Crucifixion? Something else? On what was he punished - was it a beam, a stake, a tree (literal or otherwise), a gallows, a gibbet, or a cross (however constructed) that he prepared for Mordechai's execution? The complexity of this question is dwarfed by the question, for instance, of what Jesus is supposed to have carried towards his own execution, or of what is meant by the word "σταυρωθήτω!" Is it "he on rode ahangen" or " Impale him!" or "Let him be impaled!" or "He should be crucified!" or "Let "him" be crucified" or "Crucify him!"? All these English translations are in common circulation and none should be used without scholarly citation.GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no disagreement on how Jesus died. Using The Dream of the Rood as a "common translation" is a strawman argument. As for Haman, if there really is disagreement, then it should obviously be discussed somewhere in the article (which it is). But that's not a normal problem, and simply listing various premodern translations is hardly going to make your point. As I say, modern, scholarly translations should be used.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich You obviously haven't read either Cook's Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World or Samuelsson's Crucifixion in Antiquity! I don't know why you mention the Dream of the Rood, I have not brought it up; the only pre-modern translation of Matt. 27:22 I have used is the 10th century Wessex Gospels. The rest are all contemporary, in-print translations. Look harder, and you'll see ... GPinkerton (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, the fundamental point is sound. Various translations are inconsistent, and we are not allowed to decide which one is right. We should always use secondary sources. Can you imagine that there is a single verse in the Bible that has not been analysed by at least a hundred scholarly secondary sources? Guy (help!) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, by that standard we wouldn't be allowed to summarize any work that has been translated into English based on the work itself if there were more than one translation. But I guess that is actually what you think about plot summaries in general, so props for consistency I guess. My own contention is that issues in translation are generally so small that they aren't likely to cause problems. If they do, then the issue be discussed elsewhere and then it isn't really a problem again.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich Now that is a strawman argument! This isn't about "any work that has been translated into English". It's about scripture, which according in each case to a vociferous minority, is not fiction and needs to be treated differently. GPinkerton (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, cf. for instance WP:RNPOV. There's no reason for us to treat the Bible differently than any other source. If you can make an argument about Bible translations, it should be applicable to any translation used.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia is exactly the reason WP:RSPSCRIPTURE exists. The majority of scripture is considered fiction by the majority of people and can therefore never be a reliable source, even for its own content. There is ample reason to treat the Bible exactly the same as other scripture. GPinkerton (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not according to MOS:PLOT. Applying it differently to narrative religious texts is a blatant double standard.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the Bible ought to be a sufficient source for its own plot. Where there is dispute over wording or differences between versions this can be noted with reference to secondary literature.—Ermenrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 26 May 2020

Ermenrich It should be obvious by this stage that the Bible's whole "plot" is fundamentally contentious, ambiguous, and very far from agreed-upon, to say nothing of the wording, the entirety of which is constantly in dispute, or even the text itself, which varies enormously in length, arrangement, and subdivisions depending on who you ask or who happens to be editing Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the status quo wording is preferable, not just due to the issues of translation but also because these issues are compounded by differences in interpretation by different religious groups (not to mention the blurry line between pure plot elements and rules/theological principles that are based on the "plot") , as well as the inherent age and obscurity of many of these texts (an example off the top of my head, it's far from trivial to establish what's going on in Genesis 4:23–24 just by looking at the Hebrew Bible itself). That having been said, I don't think that we need to take an axe to existing high-traffic articles that have a PLOTSOURCE approach; IMO having the status quo and enforcing it leniently will make for less of a headache than loosening the classification and opening the door for editors to start arguing that their interpretations of the text need to be included. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  Either way, there's nothing wrong with improving The Exodus plot with secondary sources, PLOTSOURCE encourages that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Remember that though RSPSCRIPTURE started as BIBLE (I think), it's not just about the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that nothing should change about policy. All summarizing is necessarily interpretative, and there is no benefit to Wikipedia editors adding to the huge volume of existing exegesis. Wikipedia is not a Sunday school, a madrassa, or rabbinical conference. There is plenty of secondary and tertiary material to cite, and nothing will be gained from resorting to original research on the content of ancient texts. Absolutely nothing should be referenced to scripture alone! GPinkerton (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody is discussing changing a policy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, see below, that I propose to change this guideline (not policy) a bit. You yourself proposed an small addition above. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Explanatory supplement to a guideline, even more not-policy ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I personally think that it is better to use more lenient wording, because in case of disputes or inconsistencies, secondary sources are anyways going to be necessary to resolve those disputes or inconsistencies. Keeping the more stringent approach in the guideline gives rise to the very real possibility of editors who wil insist on a stringent approach and start removing large pieces of material from the project. We can't count on editors to use a lenient approach, and I've seen policy/guidelines fanatics just too many times in my over 10 years here.

All that is needed is to remove the words "or summarizes" from the guideline. As I said, the difference between "summarizing" on the one hand and "interpreting" or "analyzing" on the other is huge, even when taking into account that any summary is to a certain degree an interpretation. There is definitely a tension between WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and MOS:PLOTSOURCE, and this would be the easiest and best way to resolve it. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why should editors not remove large amounts of material from the project if it doesn't meet policy? What's the value of keeping it? GPinkerton (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE? If you see The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative as problematic, it's preferable that you fix it instead of remove it, since it's quite probably well-covered in sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, because saying the material "doesn't meet policy" is not correct, according to MOS:PLOTSOURCE (and WP:COMMONSENSE). Even if it were unsourced, there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information. Only unsourced information that is challenged should be removed, and why would anyone challenge such information, which nobody is saying that is not true? In general, information has intrinsic value, and it hurts me to see you write words like "What's the value of keeping it?". Debresser (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Information has absolutely no intrinsic value - what a bizarre thought! I challenge such information, and I remove it per WP:UNSOURCED and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. You say: " there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information" but that's just not true. All information has to be verifiable. If it's unsourced, it's unverifiable and must be removed, per WP:V.

Read WP:V again, unsourced=/=unverifiable: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Then PRESERVE mentions that removal can be a bad idea, compared to other solutions. The policies both apply, bizarre as it may seem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I see the existence of the entire article as problematic; the whole article is plot summary of Book of Exodus. I have proposed merging the two articles, since their subjects are identical . GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that'll happen, but we'll see. And WP:PRESERVE will apply to other articles too, like Book of Exodus, which is similarly sourced in the Summary section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: WP:PRESERVE does not trump WP:DON'T PRESERVE, which certainly applies in the instance of the exegetical and duplicated The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative section. GPinkerton (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

IMO, WP:PRESERVE applies to the plotsections in the articles mentioned in this thread, since there are likely to be sources in abundance, and anyone can start using them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The "plot" belongs in its proper article, the Book of Exodus. There is no call for a plot summary of Pride and Prejudice anywhere other than in the article Pride and Prejudice; we don't need it, for instance, at Early modern Britain or British Empire. I don't see why the plot of the Book of Exodus is any different. GPinkerton (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

And to me it seems natural to describe the tale of the Exodus in The Exodus: [57], as long as we have that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Plot summaries do not deserve their own articles. GPinkerton (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, the article The Exodus covers far more than a "plot summary", it discusses the potential mythical and historical sources of the belief in the Exodus event as well as the development of that belief until the compilation of the Pentateuch, and its cultural significance.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Quite. All topics properly covered under Book of Exodus (history of its composition, legacy and behaviour of its adherents, &c.). GPinkerton (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have said something like what Ermenrich said, if I had been awake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, not at all. The Exodus takes place over four books of the Bible, it isn’t all contained in the book of Exodus.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: As mentioned elsewhere, that is entirely untrue. The Exodus is the departure of the Jews from Egypt, and that happens in Exodus. GPinkerton (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that this above back and forth between Ermenrich and GPinkerton demonstrates the pitfalls of having editors interpret even the plot of religious texts without recourse to secondary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, It most certainly does not, it illustrates the pitfalls of an editor not actually looking at the articles they are discussing. See [58] The Exodus sage in the Bible incorporates events in Egypt after the death of Joseph through the Israelite departure, the wilderness wanderings, and the Sinai revelations, up to be not including the conquest of Canaan. The account, largely in narrative form, spreads over four books of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so Rosguill, this branch of the discussion is very Exodus-specific (my fault, perhaps). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Or see more authoritative definitions:

The Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt. The story of the Exodus is contained in a series of narratives in the book of Exodus. It became the epitome of God's power to rescue his people.

- The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (2000)

The biblical traditions concerning the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt are mostly preserved in the second book of the Hebrew scriptures.

- The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001)

The Exodus, the escape of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt under the leadership of Moses, is the central event of the Hebrew Bible.

- The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993)

Israel's departure from Egypt.

- Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (2 ed.) (2010)

You can see plainly that the sources treat the Exodus as the events of Exodus. This illustrates the pitfalls of falling into pits. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this discussion but I write primarily in the field of religion, which has at times included areas of the Bible, so I have an interest. I support Gråbergs Gråa Sång's suggestion as both practical and realistic. Comparing different translations demonstrates no substantive shift in meaning in 99% of cases, so that's not a real obstacle. There are some real disagreements, but in most Bible articles, those disagreements are not pertinent to the topic, and when they are, they are worthy of articles all by themselves. Those should be mentioned and linked. "Interpretation" includes application and recommendations--"values attached meaning"--and everyone agrees there is no place for that on WP, but a plot summary does not need to be an interpretation. It can and should be simply a summary. I vote in favor of Gråbergs Gråa Sång suggestion, since it basically just acknowledges the reality that this is already being done with some success. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton Now you are just confusing "unverifiable" with "not sourced". The first means that it can not be verified. The second means that it can be verified, but a source is not present. Completely different things. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: No, the latter means it could be verified if there was a source. If there there is not, it is not verifiable. We are not speaking of Verificationism, but verifiability in Wikipedia. Unsourced=unverifiable=completely the same things. GPinkerton (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. Who says there is no source?? There is first of all a primary source, which is the Bible itself. And there do exist many secondary sources as well for the Biblical narratives, just that we don't need to add them per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. Debresser (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources. It is not appropriate to use scripture as a primary source for anything, still less itself. MOS:PLOTSOURCE does not obviate the inability of scripture to be a reliable source of anything, and MOS:REALWORLD calls for the treatment of such narratives to be independent of the in-universe narrative. I argue MOS:PLOTSOURCE is designed for Wikipedia articles that deal with actual narrative works; it might be appropriate at Book of Exodus to add material cited to Exodus itself, but it is not appropriate anywhere else. It is not appropriate to use scripture as an unqualified source of information on any article not dealing with the scripture itself. GPinkerton (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I think it's worse than that. PLOTSOURCE is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS allowing the cliques of genre fans to engage in what amounts to critical review, using Wikipedia as a publishing venue. It gives carte blanche to film fans to, for example, include intricate trivial plot details and showcase their diligent fandom. I am sure that the intentions are generally pure, but the result is great swathes of content that relies solely on individual Wikipedians' observations of primary material - often visual, not based on text that you can check - and that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. OK, it's a rather fundamentalist view, but I have seen too many blatantly interpretive "plot summaries" to be at all sanguine about this. Guy (help!) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, plot summaries are fine for universally acknowledged fiction, but summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis, which does not match Wikipedia's aims of reflecting scholarly (and not rabbinical or exegetical) literature. GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What makes PLOTSOURCE a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I do not think plotsource can be used when there is not only more than 3 but more then 100 versions. It seems just a recipe for edit wars over whether or not witches should live or silly text like "according to the NIJV Hop is the greatest, but according to the RNIV its Hope, whilst the ININV says "and hope if the glowiest".Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this discussion is getting held up in the weeds. On the one hand some editors would like to do away with MOS:PLOT altogether and are arguing on those grounds. On the other, editors are arguing that different translations of the Bible are different - which is true to an extent. But it's not as though we don't possess original texts of the Bible in languages other than English. A number of the issues that have been raised so far deal with issues that arise from translating from the Septuagint or Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew/Aramaic of the Old Testament or Greek of the New Testament. Such bldifferences can easily be mentioned and dealt with. Obviously every text or language has ambiguities, and every translation is different, but this is not generally a problem when, for instance, you're summarizing War and Peace based on translation. Whether in the Book of Exodus the Hebrews are said to build "treasure cities" (KJV) "supply cities" (NRSV) or "store cities" (Jan Assmann) is not really a major issue for summarizing what happens. Nor is the different ways that a verb meaning "to execute" is translated, whether it be "impale" "crucify" or "hang": they all have the result the person in question is to be killed. When something rises to the level of being a major dispute between translations, then of course scholarly sources need to be used to comment. But such cases are extremely rare. I have yet to see a single convincing example of where the "translation problem" makes a major difference for summarizing the plot of a narrative Biblical book.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that (unlike a novel) everyones translation is the authoritative version. Nor is it simple a case of "house, home or building". It it witch or poisoner? Nor is the Christian bible exactly a faithful translation of the Hebrew text (and that is the original version of the old testament).Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether a particular group considers "their" translation authoritative is irrelevant. Scholars look at the originals, and Wikipedia summarizes scholarly knowledge. If there's a major difference (poisoner or witch) it can very easily be noted. Most such differences are not large, however, and we should show an obvious preference to modern, scholarly translations over older translations that are 1) less accurate and 2) do not reflect contemporary language and usage.

Anyway, I think I've made my position pretty clear. I'm going to bow out of this discussion rather than repeat myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If I read you right, we should identify and resolve the inconsistencies by our own analysis? I hope I am misunderstanding you there. It is really pretty simple. In all of literature there is no work that has a greater volume of secondary analytical sources. Not even Shakespeare comes close. Using primary sources is unnecessary. Guy (help!) 16:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If by "our own analysis" you mean "we should use a modern translation and note discrepancies between major modern translations if there are any with recourse to secondary literature," then yes, that's what I'm saying.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy's point is excellent, the Bible is the most examines commented on and analysed book in human history. I doubt there is one word that has not been mulled over in countless RS. Why do we need to even use it, what is the text that is being argued over here?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the discussion was started because The Exodus currently bases most of its plot summary on the last four biblical books of the Pentateuch themselves.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The text of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, see beginning of thread. And though I only used biblical examples, I didn't foresee the discussion becoming this bible-centric. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So why not use secondary RS instead?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself: 1) most secondary sources do not summarize the content of all four books in more than a cursory way. At best they mention specific episodes and analyze them 2) the NRIV Bible was on hand and I naturally assumed it could be used the same way as I could the Aeneid according to MOS:PLOT.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing stops that, certainly not MOS:PLOTSOURCE, and it is welcome where it happens. But it didn't occur for the editors of the plot-sections David, Solomon, The Exodus, Book of Exodus, Book of Genesis, Gylfaginning etc to do so, I'm guessing because the "better primary than nothing" mindset is out there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading then NIRV makes a number of changes to the Hebrew text.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Im sure that it does, but these are mostly syntactic as I recall. At any rate, what significant changes does it make to the Exodus narrative beyond details? We’re summarizing, not quoting after all.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the whole reason why a (say) film plot is RS for its plot is because Col. Robert Neville, M.D is a US army doctor Vs mutants led by Anthony Zerbe (in its original form), but you could not use that as a source for the plot of the novel (even though there are many similarities). So we should also use the original (and only the original) of (say) the OT.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea that some Hebrew text or English translation based on it is somehow more reliable than one based on Greek or Latin is some very special special pleading! Texts considered holy are very often mainly translated and edited by religious minorities (all religions are minorities) and their translations are inherently POV as a result. There is no possibility of neutrality in deriving Wikipedia's NPOV from scripture without the mediation of reliable scholarly sources (i.e. ones not written by the religions themselves centuries ago). Scriptural translations, however new, cannot be neutral or reliable, and that is not their intended purpose. GPinkerton (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, there is not single authoritative version.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Ermenrich and others, a simple summary of the "plot" of a biblical story line can be sourced to a modern translation of the text itself, if anyone wants to add a secondary source they can do so but it should not be a requirement.Smeat75 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Coming over from WikiProject:CGR, I agee that in principle, the Bible itself is an adequate source for its own contents, provided that the interpretation of those contents should be sourced to reliable independent sources. Even though many passages in every book of the Bible have been commented on or disputed, the general narrative itself is usually straightforward. Where disputes arise as to the meaning of an unclear passage, or something that could be translated with two or more plausible meanings, or either literally or metaphorically, then of course additional sources are needed. But simply reporting a straightforward summary of any book should be non-controversial, and the Bible shouldn't differ in that respect from Pride and Prejudice or Winnie-the-Pooh. Which, I might add, might be good for calming down after disputes like this. Hunny, anyone? P Aculeius (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: My contention would be that scriptures differ from the examples you mention by their inability to be read without making a symbolic or interpretative judgements. For instance Numbers 31 might be summarized thus: "Moses orders the genocide of the Midianites, the Eleazar and the Israelites obey and secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children, and then Moses organizes the division and ritual purification of the Midianites' property among himself and his warlords at Moab." That's what the text says happened. But doubtless this is not how Biblical exegesis frames the matter (i.e., the typical victim-blaming is usually employed in theological commentary). A straightforward summary, but perhaps not an uncontroversial one. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Numbers" 31 is a perfectly good source for the fact that it says something. What it means, or why it says it, requires an independent source. But the fact that it says it doesn't need another source. P Aculeius (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That is far from a neutral summary of the contents of Numbers 31 GPinkerton. Using the term "genocide", not in the text, is an interpretation which would certainly require a secondary source as would "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children" which is also an interpretation, not what the text says, similarly using the term "warlords".Smeat75 (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smeat75: It is neutral. The words genocide, concubinage, and warlord are not in the text, but we don't summarize narratives by rearranging the original words but describing the events. Using terms like "warlord" summarizes the content of the text's "officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle", while "genocide" is the term used to describe the deliberate massacre of all the male Midianites, all the adult female Midianites, and the confiscation of their possessions, all of which Numbers 31 says Moses organized using the more wordy rhetoric of "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him". Moses orders virgins to be spared "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive" adding that they are "for yourselves". I don't really know how describing this process as genocide and concubinage can be controversial at all! It does, however, demonstrate that without secondary sources summarizing scriptural events will not be to everyone's satisfaction. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No of course we don't use the exact words only in a different order but that is a very slanted summary of Numbers 31. A neutral summary would say something like "ordered them all killed" not genocide and "you can keep the virgin girls for yourselves" rather than "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children". Certainly if anyone wanted to use such POV terms they would need to be referenced to a secondary reliable source but a neutral summary does not.Smeat75 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I said that "Numbers" 31 is a satisfactory source for what it says, but I didn't use GPinkerton's wording, which was irrelevant to the point I was making. Obviously it's a questionable description, since it employs anachronistic terms, and seems to be applying modern sensibilities to a description of events that may or may not have happened, thousands of years ago. Naturally any summary needs to be neutrally worded—which is not to say that it can't say anything positive or negative, just that as editors we can't add our own opinions to the way that material is presented by the source. That's what independent sources are for. But it has no bearing on whether the a writing is an adequate source for its own contents. P Aculeius (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Honestly, my recollection of MOS:PLOTSOURCE is that a huge part of the reason for it is because so many works lack secondary sources on their plots - if we were to remove it we would have very little to say about many works at all. Additionally, the reading and interpretation of the plot of most works (especially ones that have few secondary sources) is generally uncontroversial. Both of these rationales are as wrong as it's possible to be in the case of scripture. MOS:PLOTSOURCE even says Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. Obviously that "sometimes" applies here and the "otherwise" does not, which means PLOTSOURCE does not apply to scripture; but if there's confusion, perhaps PLOTSOURCE should be rewritten to more clearly state that if secondary sourcing exists we are required to use it and not primary sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• In my opinion, referencing a Biblical verse generally leaves less room for distortion than referencing a secondary source. While everyone has an agenda, it is much harder to fit an agenda into a word-for-word translation than into a freerunning discussion of the Bible as well as whatever other subjects one wants to discuss. Also, the reader can easily look up a Biblical source themselves, while an academic secondary source is more difficult to verify and its reliability much more difficult to verify. If someone will object that Biblical translations are often by biased religious groups while acceptable secondary sources are by academics, the response is that there also exist Biblical translations by academics. If there is a specific point in the Biblical text that is disputed (like "genocide" in the example above), then that's the moment to bring a secondary source which summarizes the controversy while giving each side its proper weight. Ar2332 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. That argument would apply to all primary vs. secondary sources; you are essentially arguing that a primary source is always better than a secondary one, which is exactly the opposite of policy. We can argue whether it is acceptable to use primary scriptural sources in the absence of a secondary source, or whether citations to primary sources need to be removed on sight rather than waiting form someone to do the legwork of replacing them; but it is non-negotiable that a (reliable, high-quality) secondary source is absolutely required in any situation where "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic" text is required,. which is the vast majority of what we do. It is vital that secondary sources will always completely replace any editors's personal statement or interpretation of a primacy source, and it is policy and that we cannot cite entire sections solely to primary sources (certainly WP:NOR is a stronger policy than MOS:PLOTSOURCE.) It is easy to say "everyone has an agenda so let's just use the primary source", but what you're ignoring is that when an editor performs WP:OR using a primary biblical source (something that I would argue is almost inescapable when citing one), we are reflecting their personal agenda as a random anonymous editor; whereas secondary sources have reputations and weight that can be used to evaluate them. Our articles should reflect the writings, interpretations, and focuses of reliable, established scholars of biblical text (or the equivalent in terms of reputation and reliability.) They should not reflect the personal musings, interpretations, focuses, or readings that anonymous editors bring to the primary text. That means that as a matter of policy we should always strive to minimize the extent to which we cite religious texts as primary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a complete misstatement of policy. Primary sources must be used with caution, but they are not inherently unreliable, nor should they ever be removed "on sight". In the case of what a work of literature (not limiting that to fiction, which is what PLOT and PLOTSUMMARY explicitly apply to; while the Bible may not rise to the level of a formal history, and relates many events that are not of a historical nature and not susceptible of proof, it certainly isn't "fiction"—but this is beside the point I'm making here), the work itself is necessarily the most authoritative source for its contents. Where translations differ in some meaningful respect, or different manuscripts give different versions, then of course additional sources are needed—additional, shedding light on what the original text says. In the case of an example cited above, "Numbers" 31, it would be absurd to depend entirely on secondary sources for the content, without citing to the source in which it occurs—particularly as "Numbers" 31 is likely to be the only account of those precise events that secondary sources have to analyze—although of course they may be able to compare what is said with other passages and other events for which additional material is available.

It is not "original research" to report what is said by a primary source, as long as that account is explicitly attributed to it, reasonably accurate, neutral, and verifiable. If anybody can read "Numbers" 31 and see that it says what it is cited for, then there is no problem. And of course if what it says doesn't match what an editor writes about it, or the wording of the article isn't appropriate, that should be addressed by revising or rewording the article, not by removing the source: secondary sources are just as susceptible to being mischaracterized in an article as primary sources. Note, I am not contending that secondary sources are unimportant. They are essential for the interpretation of the material contained in primary sources. But we do not remove primary sources because the secondary sources for interpreting them are lacking, nor simply because secondary sources have been cited. It isn't always necessary to have primary sources, but there's nothing whatever wrong with using them, provided they're used appropriately for the content of what they say. P Aculeius (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton said above "summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis". A statement I completely disagree with. Summarizing is not the same as exegesis. A good summary will try not to interpret at all. It is precisely because of this distinction that I am of the opinion that the words "or summarizes" should be removed from WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy that PLOTSOURCE is a bad idea in general, although perhaps unavoidable if there are few sources discussing the plot (although arguably the solution is that marginally notable films and so forth should just be deleted). Without enforcing secondary source requirements it is very easy for editors to do as GPinkerton is demonstrating. For scripture it's especially unjustifiable because there are so many sources discussing it. We should try to use the most reliable sources to avoid cherry-picking the sources that might be pushing a certain agenda with their interpretation. The Oxford Companion to the Bible and The Cambridge Companion to the Bible seem like good places to start. buidhe 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this discussion, I have to admit I'm not quite clear what the central point of this dispute actually is. Are we talking about providing a summary of the book of the Bible in the article? I don't see why WP:PLOT doesn't apply: what any article wants is a concise summary of the written text, with enough detail so a reader can identify which book of the Bible it is, not some paraphrase. (And if the summary is hung up on differences in translation, I suspect that is a warning that the summary is going into too much detail.) Is it about how to use statements from the Bible in other articles? Is there any reason not to treat it as we do any other primary source? We cite it for basic facts (e.g. David was king of Judah & Israel, with chapter & verse), then turn to secondary sources to explicate the text, if it is unclear. If there are significant differences in translations of the passage, & if it matters to the article, IMHO we provide the word in question (from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) & again turn to secondary sources to explicate the text. Just because the Bible is a religious text shouldn't mean we handle citing it as a source any differently than, say, The Iliad or Pliny's Historia Naturalis.

But these are obvious solutions to this problem; having written this, I feel like I'm lecturing experts in a subject about which I audited a single class. Since there are a number of intelligent editors here I respect, I must be missing what the point of this discussion truly is. -- llywrch (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I found everything you've said perfectly common sense too, Llywrch, but as currently written WP:RSPSCRIPTURE states that Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. I guess some edits take this to mean that a summary of the content of say The Exodus from the Bible is in violation of this guideline. I haven't really understood most of the arguments put forth in favor of limiting summaries of biblical narratives in this way, which mostly hinge on (honestly, extremely detail-oriented) differences in different translation and the fact that various groups hold only their translation to be correct. It could indeed be that there's some degree of talking past each other here.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Added this discussion at WP:RFCLOSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC Revisiting Hackaday

Hackaday is currently listed in the WP:SOURCEGUIDE as "no consensus" per the previous discussion. In the previous discussion, the editorial policies was not discussed. These policies are posted on their website at https://hackaday.com/policies/

When you contribute content to Hackaday, you retain ownership of the copyright, and you also grant permission to us to display and distribute it. In addition, you are responsible for the content of that material.

Hackaday has no responsibility for the content of any messages or information posted by readers. We, in our sole discretion, may or may not review, edit, or delete from the service any material which we deem to be illegal, offensive or otherwise inappropriate. The tenor of the projects we feature on the service regularly use items in ways they were not originally intended (hack) and readers must understand the implications of this. Hackaday makes no guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of content or the result of accessing and using information on our site. We shall not be liable to anyone for any damages resulting from information found on the service, even if damages are the result of inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other cause. The opinions expressed by our editors and contributors are their own and not those of Hackaday.

We reserve the right to unpublish or refuse to unpublish anything for any reason or for no reason whatsoever.

With this new information taken in to account, I'd like to reconvene discussion on use of Hackaday as sources. Essentially, the only editorial oversight seems to be that they only choose to host or not host submitted contents. I argue that this source should be considered unreliable for factual accuracy, fair due weight presentation and notability building purposes just like HuffPost and Forbes contributor articles are treated in WP:RSP. Graywalls (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am the Editor in Chief of Hackaday. First off, thank you for considering our site as a reliable source. We do indeed have an editorial practice that oversees all articles published. All contributors are paid for their work and have contracts making them part of our writing team. We follow editing practices that ensure every article is edited and fact checked by one of the editors (there is no circumstance under which anyone publishes their own work without an editor reviewing it, including me). You can review the of our current contributors and editors on the about page. We do not accept content from outside of our writing team, and we do not publish sponsored content. The policies page that Graywalls linked to is quite old, having been published in 2014. It doesn't reflect our current system which has been in place since 2015, and needs to be updated. Szczys (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• If so than all pre-2015 content is likely unusable. buidhe 23:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• I hold the position that Hackaday contents should be treated as WP:SPS and doesn't rise much above WP:BLOGS with very limited use in factual information (what are the qualifications of the editors?) and unusable for supporting notability of other organizations. The editorial policy explained by the involved staff member here is quite meaningless without the editorial policy clearly being published on the website itself. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hackaday RfC

• Option 1: May be useful for satisfying verifiability, but should not be used for purpose of determining notability.
• Option 2: generally reliable.
• Option 3: It's a blog. Generally unreliable for factual reporting and should be treated as any other WP:BLOGS
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Hackaday RfC response

• RS Depends on context - seems fine on actual articles and technical content. Really this needs to note subsections about, -- the article space is separate from the blog area. Just like cspan or cnn here the webzine section has editorial control and paid writers, a mix of created content and curated collection; the blog section does not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable regarding the article space. The writers are experts in their fields, they have a technical background and they do not seem to feature articles that are outside the scope of the expertise of the writers. I agree with User:Markbassett. I also think that Hackaday can be used for establishing notability. Dwaro (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Sina.com

Which of the following describes reliability the news outlet Sina.com? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• 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 as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Sina)

• Option 3 or 4, no editorial independence, no reputation for fact checking, and no reputation for reliability. Per "Independent commercial news portals or news sites such as Sina or Tencent do not have the autonomy to produce original news content, and instead can only reprint news articles from state-run news outlets (Esarey and Qiang, 2011; Stockmann, 2011).”[59] and [60]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• None, no assessment required: Sina doesn’t create original news content and only posts articles from other sources. Therefore the reliability of an article posted on Sina is purely based on its origin news source, with Sina playing no greater role than a search engine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• None. Sina is only a news aggregation website, so no effort should be made. That is all. Wo.luren (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• None: News sources of nearly all levels of quality and fact-checking can be found on Sina. The reliability of the sources should be based on the groups they are created by, not just simply the aggregation site that they are being hosted on. For example, something like "Foresee the Next Ten Years' Luck" written by Xiamen Astrological Culture is definitely not an WP:RS, while other articles being hosted on the site like "Capital 'Fake Marriage' Agency Business Set to Price Dump", written by Economic View, part of China News Service are much better sources. K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)} 15:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not applicable: Per KK, and the second link HEJ provides is irrelevant to this "survey". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Sina)

Relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Fan Bingbing#Sina.com and Talk:The New York Times controversies#Unreliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I’m a little confused, shouldn’t the reliability be based on the underlying news source? E.g. a Xinhua article posted on Sina.com should just reflect the reliability of Xinhua. If that’s what this is about, then there’s no real point of assessing Sina.com separately. The source article is usually clearly marked.
  Or are we assessing something else? — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I you happen to run across a link to a reliable source on Sina (or The Daily Mail or Infowars for that matter) you can use that source just as if you found it through Google. Nobody will know your secret. This noticeboard section is only for cases where someone tries to use Sina as a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Guy Macon: I agree. Does Sina post any of its own content? I thought it was a news portal. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Its used on dozens of BLP pages where the underlying source (Chinese state media) would be inappropriate, in this case here we have @CaradhrasAiguo: who has asserted that they both publish original news stories and are generally reliable. Sina is used as a source 15 times on Fan Bingbing, the BLP page this discussion started on. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
        • @Horse Eye Jack: Looking at the Sina sources in Fan Bingbing, they also say which Chinese newspapers the articles were taken from. I don’t think there’s any need to assess Sina itself since all of their content is taken from elsewhere. The reliability of an article posted is based solely on the origin of the article, not on Sina.
          In other words, this RfC is pointless unless someone gives an example of a Sina-original news article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
          • That is exactly the claim I’m reacting to, @CaradhrasAiguo: says "Sina News reliability should not be impugned”[61] and claims to have refuted the First Monday (journal) article "I was not citing the reprimands to support the argument for reliability, merely as evidence to bolster the fact they do not 100% "reproduce content from official news organizations”.”[62]. It would be helpful if they would come here to explain their argument. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
          • @MarkH21:@Guy Macon: turns out they do exist: [63][64]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Looks theres more! Idk why I ever took MarkH21’s word that the Sina sauces in Fan Bingbing say where the content comes from other than Sina, a solid half don’t [65][66][67]. 5/10 are sourced just to Sina, one is a broken link, One is sourced to Sina Weibo, one is sourced to "Daily News", one is sourced to "Times Business Daily" and one is sourced to West China Metropolis Daily. At least from this snapshot they seem to overwhelmingly characterize the reprints/summaries of official sources as their own work. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
            • @Horse Eye Jack: If you search for those articles, alternate Sina links show that they come from other sources. For example, the first one is attributed to Qianlong News Net. The second one is from NetEase Community. The third one doesn’t seem to be an article? The fourth one is attributed to International Online. The fifth one was reposted attributed to Golden Sheep Network - New Express (and also posted by People’s Daily attributed to CCTV International). It just takes some digging.
              Per your own quote:

              Independent commercial news portals or news sites such as Sina or Tencent do not have the autonomy to produce original news content, and instead can only reprint news articles from state-run news outlets
              — Esarey and Qiang, 2011; Stockmann, 2011

              — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
              • Is that level of digging possible for a non-Chinese speaker? At the very least it seems we have an issue here if we can only find the true source for the information through a deep web search in a language other than english. It also doesn't appear that any of the sources which have been uncovered in this second layer of digging are suitable for use on a BLP. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
                • All I did was Google the article title. One could use Google Translate and find the exact same information (the name of a different news site).
                  But the point is that Sina does not inherently have reliability since it does not create content. Otherwise, this RfC would be a blanket appraisal of hundreds of different local and national news sources from China. I suppose one could do try to do that by making some generalities, but such an RfC would need to at least be rephrased (e.g. RfC on all Chinese state-owned media) so it’s clear that that’s what’s happening. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
                  • I tried doing it using google translate and was not able to return all the results you did, it also seems like an unnecessary amount of work to do when that sort of thing is supposed to be in the citations. Should we perhaps blacklist Sina.com so that only the actual sources can be added? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
                    • Huh, I literally just Googled the article title or first few words to find the alternate links, but yes the citations themselves should really give the original source rather than Sina. However, not all of the original sources or their article information (author(s), original date, etc.) are available online, so that’s not always possible. For that reason, I don’t think that deprecation nor blacklisting (which is much stronger than deprecation) would appropriate. Treat it like syndicated content from other news aggregators, just with the assumption that the underlying origin is some state-owned news media (and therefore of low reliability for controversial topics). — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
                      • Is there a way besides blacklisting to make a popup that says something along the lines of “Sina is an aggregator of Chinese state media, please provide a citation to the underlying source rather than Sina” when you try to cite it? I think at this point its clear that we shouldn't have links to Sina itself on wikipedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
                      • Not that I’m aware of, but edit filters perform the somewhat complementary task of logging (besides other functionalities) edits of predefined types.
                        However, I don’t think that it’s necessary because of what I said earlier. Sina has its place some of the articles that it reposts are not otherwise available online from their original news sources. The underlying articles are not very reliable source for most uses, but they have acceptable uses in certain scenarios. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
                        • Hmmm I guess that is an edge case in which it could arguably be used, I’m not sure I’d trust an article that can only be found on a news aggregator because there is no way of checking whether its been retracted etc so full verification isn't possible. I like the idea of an edit filter, but I probably lack the technical capabilities to construct one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a request for comment (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at WP:RFCST. — Newslinger talk 09:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry this is my first time making one of these, does this work? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. I've added another RfC category and the tracking tag. — Newslinger talk 00:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I withdraw the RfC if the underlying content dispute ceases to exist? CA has changed their tune and is no longer arguing that Sina is a reliable source in their own right which means as far as I can tell nobody is arguing that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually I take that back, in identifying the sources credited for the articles I came across two that are only credited to "Sina Entertainment” [68][69] so they do in fact seem to publish under their own name. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

More nobility fansites

Should almanachdegotha.org, chivalricorders.org, www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha, jacobite.ca and englishmonarchs.co.uk be deprecated? Guy (help!) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295 § RfC: Three genealogy sites, there are some more sites that appear to be nobility fansites rather than reliable references.

• almanachdegotha.org   - virtually unreadable, no About page that I can find, no evidence of an editorial board.
• chivalricorders.org   - now defunct but archives also show no obvious evidence of reliability.
• www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha   - Angelfire-hosted "Online Gotha", appears to be a one-man project.
• jacobite.ca   - another one-man project, Jacobite fansite run by an enthusiastic amateur but no editorial board and no relevant academic status.
• englishmonarchs.co.uk   (added 22:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)}

There's another one which looks on the face of it to be reliable:

• almanach.be  

It looks OK, but I am a bit suspicious. Thoughts? Guy (help!) 09:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support deprecation at least of chivalricorders.org, www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha and duses|jacobite.ca. Not sure about the other two. Almanach de Gotha was the Royalist genealogist handbook in the 19th century, I don't know how reliable its modern revival is.Smeat75 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it was. And Online Gotha has nothign to do with it. Guy (help!) 22:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sure these have cropped up before and found wanting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Depreciate all I agree with Newslinger that these sites (perhaps aside from the Angelfire one due to usage and Almanachdegotha.org as it does appear to officially represent the modern publication, even if in its modern form it isn't all that notable) aren't worth adding to the Perennial Sources List, as they are used only around 100 times. Guy, I don't see why you find reliable about the .be one, there's no indication it is definitely the online verison of the Almanach de Bruxelles, which I can find essentially no reference to on google outside the initial 1916 NYT story, so I'm not sure that the original publication is even notable. The online version is totally inaccessible without a subscription, hasn't updated the copyright on the website since 2012 and looks exactly like all the other nobility websites, there's no reason to think that it is reliable merely because it charges a subscription and has an unsubstantiated connection. I would say that the original Almanach de Gotha published up through 1944 is reliable, though I have no opinion about the revival from 1998 onwards, though it appears not to be all that popular, as the official twitter account has less than 1,500 followers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I had more followers than that on my original Twitter account! Online Gotha is not affiliated with the revived Almanac de Gotha, as far as I can tell. It's a fansite. Guy (help!) 22:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, it says on the website "Welcome... to the Official Website of the Almanach de Saxe Gotha the Online Royal Genealogical Reference Handbook Der Saxe Gotha Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels" And it also claims on its website to be © 1995-2020, 1995 being the same year that the rights were sold. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hang on, gotha1763.com   also claims to be the official website for the book, and has a much sleeker website, yet appears to have nearly the exact same follower account and automated messaging on twitter as the .org site, It also claims to have some kind of relationship with the King of Spain and Prince of Monaco, the Prince of Belgium and the Duke of Somerset? What? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Almanachdegotha.org (Almanach de Saxe Gotha) is run by a, err let me be kind and say a special individual, who claimed to have re-established the Holy Roman Empire. The website trades on the respected name of the Almanach de Gotha and I see it has now added another respected publication, the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, to its handle, so it cons people. The genealogies were copied from the Online Gotha, the other texts from Wikipedia, so the genealogies are probably reliable at least.... The website Gotha1763.com is the website for the Almanach de Gotha books, so does not list its genealogies online. - dwc lr (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@DWC LR:, fair enough for .org, but how do you know Gotha1763.com is legit? Its website is admittedly much better looking, but its official twitter account, looks almost exactly the same as the .org one and I can't find any proof of its legitimacy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I’ve consulted their books, but their website has no use as a source because they don’t list their genealogies online (like some of the websites listed at the top), they are only available in the books which can be brought via their website direct, the publisher or book stores. It looks like .org just copy and pastes the tweets days later, .com always tweets first. The .org person is loopy so I’m not surprised. - dwc lr (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate all per the reasons given by nom.Smeat75 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment chivalricorders.org, before its demise, was published by Guy Stair Sainty who appears to be a credible authority—see my comments in later section. I would not include it among the others. Choess (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Choess, it appears to have been self-published without editorial oversight, though. Or am I missing something? Guy (help!) 08:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG I was thinking it would fall under WP:RSSELF, although some manual pruning might be necessary if it's being used to source BLP. I'll look at some of those links... Choess (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage

• burkespeerage.com  

The Burke's Peerage website (which appears to be official) is cited over 500 times on Wikipedia, and the Book Volumes appear to be cited several thousand times. Burke's Peerage is obviously a much more notable and storied institution than the self published fansites, so I think it's worthy of its own separate subsection. My questions are: Is the website a reliable source, and does it have a separate reliability to the historical book volumes? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for genealogy, most of the rest is supplied by the subject so I don't have a strong view. Guy (help!) 15:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• If the book is reliable, why wouldn't the website be? A reference work that's been around for almost 200 years is not going to start dumping stuff on its website that's worse in quality than what it puts in print. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nyttend, the issue is whether the information is independently vetted. For example, if Sir Bufton Tufton says he's a member of the Garrick and his interests include falconry and tiddlywinks, does anyone check that? Guy (help!) 11:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Burke's decides who they want in the edition, and ask the subject to tell Burke's about themselves. It's little more than UGC. ——Serial ^# 11:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable per genealogy, indifferent on the rest, as per Guy. (I think the question of how one could check interests in falconry and tiddlywinks precedes that of whether they are checked.) I can't seem to find any information on how they do or don't check entries (are they wholly credulous? do they send round a list to Brooks's of claimed members to catch would-be social climbers?) The New Yorker fact-checkers report in 2014 that Burke's and Debrett's are part of their reference library and used at least for genealogy. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between what's on the subscription part of their website and what goes into their print products (indeed, you can't order a print edition at present). They do include "American Presidential Families", which was prepared by Harold Brooks-Baker when he controlled the Burke's name but not the rights to publish the "Peerage and Baronetage"; I would be more skeptical about the quality of that work, but that should be dealt with in the context of individual claims. Choess (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Debrett's

• debretts.com  

Debretts.com is currently cited over 1,700 times, seemingly also primarily for biographical information, and, of course, for etiquette. Many of the links appear to be dead, several example archives of People of Today from 2012 can be seen here, here and Keir Starmer. Debrett's is obviously a storied institution as well, being the longtime publisher of Debrett's Peerage, which again appears to be cited several thousand times. My main concern is that for the biographical information, particularly the (seemingly defunct as of 2017) "People of Today", it appears to be a Who's Who sort of thing where the information is simply solicited from the person without any fact checking, which would make it a self published source (see this letter to Architects' Journal). Debrett's is best known as an authority on etiquette, so I would tentatively consider them reliable in this area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Mixed. Peerage is as reliable as you get for the kinds of things it publishes, but last time I looked people of today is basically pay to play. Guy (help!) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The letter to Architects' Journal suggests that (at least in 2004) the entries for People of Today were solicited by Debrett's, and that the author did not have to pay to be included (but was strongly encouraged to buy the book), which in my eyes makes it at least a better source than Marquis Who's Who (admittedly an extremely low bar), which does engage in the pay to play behaviour you describe . I would concur that both Burke's and Debrett's Peerages are reliable sources for genealogy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Marquis chose a deliberately deceptive title, and I have no idea why Who's Who did not do them for dilution. Guy (help!) 11:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable, with some unease about People of Today. Per my comment above, Debrett's and Burke's are the two standard reference sources for the Peerage. Choess (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Cracroft's Peerage

• cracroftspeerage.co.uk  

Yet another fansite with no indicia of relaibility. Guy (help!) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable For the same reasons as the other sources. I can kind of understand why Newslinger had an issue with all the self published sites on the Perennial sources list, but self published "Peerage" sites are such a consistent genre of problematic sources that they absolutely deserve a collective entry on the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Toki Pona

Can anyone weigh in on the reliability of some of the sourcing for this article, Toki Pona?

• A reddit thread [70]
• Wikibooks [71]
• A blog [72]
• A google site [73]
• Google play documents [74]

As an uninvolved editor I reverted an edit a week or so ago, that was cited to this google site. The editor has now reverted and left me this message at my talk. I'm pretty sure all of the items I listed above fail WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:SECONDARY (and that was just a quick glance at the references for that page, there are undoubtedly more), but I'd appreciate some input. Also, @Devbali02: Heiro 18:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Disruptive editing: repeated addition of badly sourced information by Devbali02 --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

In the email message[75] Devbali02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claimes "The website in question, https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji, is the official website of sitelen Emoji." The page is referenced at https://github.com/holtzermann17/toki-pona-emoji/issues/3 and references https://www.reddit.com/r/sitelenEmoji and https://www.facebook.com/groups/486127038880577/ so I think we can treat them all as WP:PRIMARY sources for Sitelen Emoji. The question in my mind is this: is there any WP:WEIGHT evidence that justifies making any mention of Sitelen Emoji anywhere on Wikipedia?

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Emoji_Set_of_Sitelen_Emoji_as_of_April_2020.jpg

Finally, this edit[76] makes my think we are either dealing with a COI editor or a misleading username. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of WP:OR, WP:COI, and WP:SELFPROMO at that article, on top of the WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY issue. But I do not know enough about the subject, and do not have time to comb through that article to figure it all out. My list above was literally from a quick glance at a few of the references. It needs a thorough going over though. Heiro 23:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Response to the claims that this is a COI: I don't have my name mentioned in the most recent edit. It is important to understand here that Sitelen Emoji is not "an organization." It is neither a company, nor a non profit, nothing. It is simply a writing system for toki pona. Yes, I am involved in it, and have made certain tools for it. But as was mentioned in the edit, sitelen emoji is simply a set of emojis chosen by the community. I do not own sitelen emoji. If you want, another person knowledgeable about sitelen emoji can make this edit. But since your allegations may have resulted from confusion as to what edit you are reversing and what sitelen emoji is. You should look at the text in the edit for what it is. I have also posted this on another user's talk page, where this discussion is ongoing. Bali (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bali, you admit being the same "Dev Bali" who (in your own words) "compiled earlier attempts to create one Sitelen Emoji" and "made an android keyboard that makes using the script like pinyin for Toki Pona". You have a clear conflict of interest (COI) regarding Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona.

Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. Plase obey the following rules.ou:

• avoid editing or creating articles about Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your Sitelen Emoji website;
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Devbali02's {{Connected contributor}} template on Talk:Toki Pona be removed or not? I may be wrong, but I don't think they contributed anything to the current article. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Press Releases

Can press releases be considered realiable sources? In the article VITAL the press releases below are used 9 times as inline references: GlobalNewsWire; Businesswire; EurekaAlert; The Corporate Counsel. If NO, can secondary sources based on the same press release be considered reliable? See the links to Busines Insider, Vice, Fortune, Multitudes in the article. Thank you for your advise. --Postconfused (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For attributed claims, yes. And for nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

They're primary sources. If you have long slabs of article sourced only to press releases, they should probably be removed - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify - the problem is usually not an RS one - it's WP:UNDUE, it doesn't connote notability, it's promotional, etc. In harsh sourcing environments, e.g. cryptocurrencies, the press releases and their claims should generally just be removed. In less harsh environments they might be useful; they're definite evidence the company said the things in the press release. But they don't connote notability of the fact, or that it should be included.

Secondary sources closely based on the press release are considered churnalism, and are functionally not much better than a press release - an article backed only by a wave of churnalism is likely to die at AFD, for not meeting WP:NCORP.

The article VITAL (machine learning software) has proper RSes that talk about the thing independently; it might be an idea to cut it more strictly to those. But that's an UNDUE thing, not an RS thing - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you David Gerard. Unfortunately, the article did not die at AfD. No consensus(!?), despite the fact that the Columbia Business Law Review  Corporate Management in the Age of AI and the New Yorker clearly stated that such press release was incorrect and exaggerated and "it was a lure for gullible outlets". Now I am going to rewrite the article but I wonder if the press releases and related churnalism can be removed. Once again, thank you for your advise!Postconfused (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Press releases have zero usability for establishing notability. They're useful mostly for expanding and supporting factual claims for which a reliable source has already mentioned. "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." from WP:SPS. Moreover, we don't include anything on the face of earth that's verifiable WP:ONUS Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As someone who largely works on scientific articles, I would say that citing a press release that accompanies a scientific paper is essentially pointless and only the paper itself should generally be cited, as the press release generally adds nothing that isn't in the paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seconded - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia thanks for your comment. Would you consider the following three peer reviewed journals in the same article reliable? Multitudes, Critical Times (Duke Press) and the Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (ref, 13, 17, 18)? They just quote the press releases or the above chournalism. --Postconfused (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Postconfused:, the ref "Coding Time " in Critical Times (Duke Press), which is a Critical theory analysis made by a scholar well known for his work in Critical race theory, is absolutely post-modernist nonsense, it looks like the computer science brother of the Sokal Hoax, "Algorithmic memory is made up of myriad data points, latent until invoked, static until plugged into algorithmic movement with a beginning and end in exactly that order, formulaically bounded" What? I'm not sure it would be worth citing as attributed opinion of a humanities scholar or not, but it has absolutely no scientific merit as a critique. The Multitudes article is considerably better written (at least in auto google translate to english), but I think the author does not have a clear idea of what an algorithm actually is. I can't read the last article as it is all in Mandarin. For the two articles I can read, the question is not on their reliability, as they are for the most part opinion pieces, but whether citing them consitiutes WP:DUE weight. I definitely think the citation to the postmodernist scholar is undue weight, but I am iffy about the Multitudes one, maybe the section should be re-named to responses? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia Thank you bery much, I really appreciate your feedback. Postconfused (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, not least because the press releases habitually grossly misrepresent the research and its significance. Guy (help!) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vector Marketing

• Vector Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking for opinions: is this article considered a reliable source for sourcing a lawsuit against Vector Marketing, specifically for the claim below?

In 2003, a recruit who was successful in a lawsuit against Vector for failing to adhere to labor laws in New York, co-founded a group, Students Against Vector Exploitation (SAVE).

The source in question is authored by the group whose co-founder initiated the lawsuit. This seems to fail WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:SECONDARY.

This is the existing source on the page for the lawsuit claim above, which bears no mention of a lawsuit. Because of this, the existing source was replaced with a "citation needed" tag and another editor reverted that edit claiming the source is verifiable. After starting a discussion on the talk page, the only source that was found to backup the lawsuit claim is the above article in question. Looking to get additional opinions from other editors.

As a side note, sourcing seems to be an ongoing issue on this page and could use some extra set of eyes. For example the Popsci source was previously discussed here and subsequently removed from the page, yet it is currently on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayepaolo (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

​I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a request for comment (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at WP:RFCST, and use a brief and neutral statement as the first signed comment in the discussion. — Newslinger talk 07:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• No. This is not independent ("submitted by SAVE"). Guy (help!) 11:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong Free Press

Could Hong Kong Free Press had requested for this source [77] and [78] for democracy protests and Tiananmen massacre vigil ban in Hong Kong, including China. --TheMuscovian (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheMuscovian: Sorry, what is the question? — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It means it reports and stories about Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, and some topics about COVID-19 pandemic. --TheMuscovian (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I still don’t understand. Are you asking whether the Hong Kong Free Press is a reliable source for those topics? — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

@Germash19: has been editing the article of List of the busiest airports in Europe for years, and has been adding the same reference citing outdated, old, and geographically wrong images from Encyclopedia Britannica. Claiming that Krasnodar, and the Krasnodar International Airport is located within Asia, when it is entirely within southern European Russia, in the western extremity of the Russian Federation, and the North Caucasus is generally considered a part of Eastern Europe.

Now, coming to his point that the southern part of European Russia, is apparently within the Asian continent, as he claims, is as absurd as it seems. If you follow the map shown in Encyclopedia Britannica, which is clearly wrong, and shows that the North Caucasus is outside of Europe, and is a part of Asia, it seems like the North Caucasus is an exclave of Asia not even connected to Asia or Asian Russia by land, and is rather located within Europe. The image also excludes the smaller European portions of the transcontinental countries of Georgia and Azerbaijan. It is also not like that Krasnodar is located close to the divider of Europe and Asia, the Ural Mountains, and the Caucasus, that he keeps adding the reference that apparently the airport is in the boundary of Europe and Asia, and also a bold claim that it can be considered in Asia, without citing any other references or sources supporting his claims. The Krasnodar International Airport is located within the city of Krasnodar, which is located in Krasnodar Krai, a federal subject of Russia, which is clearly located in Eastern Europe, which borders the Black Sea, and is separated from the Crimean Peninsula by the Sea of Azov. In fact, he also believes that Sochi, a seaport on the Black Sea coast of Russia, is also in Asia. So, according to this reference, the highest mountain in Europe, Mount Elbrus, which is located in the North Caucasus, is also located in Asia, so why is it considered European then?

Here are the references: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danloud (talk • contribs)

References

They may not be alone [[79]]. Do you have an RS that contests this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The reliability of Encyclopedia Britannica has been extensively discussed before, see WP:BRITANNICA Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the used definition of the Europe-Asia boundary. If my memory serves me right, we were taught similar boundary in high school (with Mont Blanc as the highest mountain in Europe) - that was some 20 years ago. Books I have at hand (an old school atlas and small seven part encyclopedia) put Elbrus outside of Europe exactly like Encyclopedia Britannica. Pavlor (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Germash19:@Danloud:@Slatersteven:@Pavlor: As far as i know, European Russia covers the whole part of the Russian Federation west of the Ural Mountains, including North Caucasus, the northern part of the Caucasus is generally considered a part of Eastern Europe. See these references: [80][81] However, South Caucasus is an area disputed about whether its in Europe or not. The map used in Encyclopedia Britannica excludes whole Southern Russia, European portions of Georgia and Azerbaijan, which are located in the southern part of the Caucasus, and suspiciously includes the European portion of Kazakhstan, which is almost never considered a part of Europe, and never added on the maps of Europe.[82][83]

Southern Russia is the southernmost point of European Russia, where the western part borders the Black Sea and the eastern part borders the Caspian Sea. Krasnodar is a city located within the federal subject of Krasnodar Krai, on the Russian Black Sea coast, which is also narrowly separated from the Crimean Peninsula by the Sea of Azov, if Krasnodar Krai was within the limits of the Asian continent then the Sea of Azov is a divider between Europe and Asia, just like the Ural Mountains or the Caucasus Mountains, which is it not, it is a sea in Eastern Europe. Also, recently Russia inaugurated the Crimean Bridge, which connects the Russian mainland (specifically Krasnodar Krai, which we are talking about here) to the Crimean Peninsula. It surpassed the Vasco da Gama Bridge and has been halted as the tallest bridge in Europe since 2019, [84][85][86][87][88] so if whole Southern Russia was indeed in Asia, the Crimean Bridge is a bridge connecting Europe and Asia, just like the Bosphorus Bridge, which it is not. Mount Elbrus is located in the North Caucasus, and is indeed the highest peak in Europe.[89][90][91][92]

So the output is that Southern Russia, including North Caucasus is generally considered within the European continent, the map used in Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, and i must admit i have never seen that map anywhere else, and this is also the first time i have seen a map of Europe without the southern part of Russia. The map also excludes a few European bits of Russia across the Ural Mountains. Krasnodar and Sochi are both within Europe, and not at the boundary of Europe and Asia, and absolutely not within Asia, as the reference claims. Horope (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Horope, see also WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a question for WP:RSN. The best solution is an RfC to determine the consensus definition of Europe to be used in the article, because one could clearly argue this either way in good faith. Guy (help!) 15:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:NPV: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." The article has two points of view on the location of Krasnodar airport (Europe and Asia). Danloud and Horope delete one of the opinions about the location of the airport.--Germash19 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Cartographic history comment Horope Krasnodar Airport is definitely in contested territory. Any time in the past three thousand years it would clearly be considered on the Asian side of the Black Sea. But since the 19th century the more expansive definition using the Urals as an eastern boundary for Europe has come into play but is not universal, and further disputes exist on where and how to draw the (entirely arbitrary and non-natural) boundary joining the Urals to the Caucasus. (Which were important in a lot of Soviet committee meetings that decided which SSR should have which territory) Classically though, it would seem very bizarre to put the Caucasus or eastern Black Sea littoral in Europe, when the standard divide was, and in many contexts remains, the Aegean Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Don River. The idea of the Urals forming a land boundary came very late to the party. Maps illustrating the vagaries of this are here: Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth#Europe_and_Asia. GPinkerton (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Kerch Bridge also appears here: [[93]] GPinkerton (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Horope's and Danloud's definition of Europe agrees with that of the wikipedia article, so if there is a dispute about the eastern boundary of Europe then there needs to be a broader discussion on the issue, otherwise I would favor their position for internal consistency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I agree that this is a geography question not a RS question --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Well, @Germash19: is back again restoring his edits on the List of the busiest airports in Europe, without giving any explanation on why he did it, and not citing any sources, or discussing the matter here. He is going to keep doing this, because nobody warns him or takes any actions. Just like Danloud said. Horope (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Facebook

Should Facebook be subject to a warn edit filter, and/or added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which reverts the use of a source in <ref>...</ref> tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old (Per the IMDb discussion on this noticeboard) to discourage misuse? Facebook is currently cited over 60,000 times on Wikipedia per facebook.com  . Facebook is currently described at RS/P as "Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight." 15 specific Facebook pages are currently on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Facebook is also specifically cited at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources as an example of "unacceptable user-generated sites" Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Facebook)

Please state clearly if you support or oppose the use of an edit filter, XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, or both

• Oppose as it is acceptable for self source of minor details such as date of birth, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's odd. My facebook page has my date oif birth wrong. Thank goodness it isn't being used as a source for my date of birth. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: is this an oppose for XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which only reverts the use of sources in references for unregistered and new users with less than 7 day old accounts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support warn edit filter and XlinkBot Facebook is almost entirely user generated content, and is extensively used in WP:BLP articles, which require high quality sourcing, which Facebook falls far below. While I agree that it may be useful in limited WP:ABOUTSELF circumstances, Facebook links should be used only with caution by experienced editors and preventing new users from using Facebook would help curb problematic usage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Hemiauchenia - Admittedly I've used Facebook I believe twice here so extreme caution should be used with it and I agree with Hemiauchenia only experienced editors should be able to add it and even then if should only be added if necessary and in exceptional circumstance. –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose since I oppose the use of edit filters in principle. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both—the cases where Facebook should be cited are very rare, inexpienced users are most likely to misuse. I think the helpful effects outweigh the harms from this filter. buidhe 22:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't spam-filter it (yet), it has its uses, but an edit filter is definitely appropriate. Do we have an edit filter as yet that completely blocks additions by IPs and non-autoconfirmed users? - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose setting such an edit filter to disallow. Support setting it to warn. Oppose the bot because it sounds needlessly bitey. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose bot. When I saw this, I immediately thought of a potential use — a notable person who has a Facebook account but doesn't have anything close to an official website. In general, I believe it would be 100% appropriate to link that person's Facebook site: either the person doesn't care about his privacy and makes lots of stuff visible, or he does care and restricts what's online. With this in mind, bots shouldn't go around removing newly-added Facebook links, since a likely good-use situation exists. Maybe do a filter that warns and tags, but new users can still be productive in this kind of setting, so at most we ought to warn them that it's a bad idea most of the time, and make it so someone can easily go around checking such edits. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: It is a social media website in which people can claim anything without any verifiability and others would believe them. Even its owner has admitted the spread of fake news and hoaxes over it and has done little to curb it. A website with such content should not be allowed here. Also if it is listed on WP:RS as unreliable, allowing to use it will give users and readers the impression that we don't follow our own policies. I disagree with Nyttend over a notable person having only a Facebook account. Even if they do, they can create a LinkedIn profile which would be more acceptable. Fully agree with David Gerald about an IP filter. IPs are mostly the cause of vandalism here and I've seen only a few IPs who contribute something worthwhile. They should be encouraged to create an account none-the-less. It is not like you have to pay to create an account. One can stay anonymous under an account as well. I also support the bot only if it warns the user after it removes the Facebook link from the article. If the User continues, they can be warned from an actual user and then reported at WP:ANI for disruptive editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting - unless anyone can prove that Facebook is reliable enough. Not only is it unreliable due to the nature of content monitoring, but it is also being overrun by conspiracy theorists and fake-news-wielding communalists (people who discriminate by religion) in the USA and India respectively. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 02:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both, Facebook is still a useful, albeit unreliable, source, and including a warning filter for everybody would create the presumption that it should never be used, which is just plain wrong. Automatic reversion is also a bad idea, as that is Bite-y and would harm content more than help it, since there are quite common legitimate reasons to cite Facebook. this is an absolutely awful idea. Specifically, it would decimate articles on politics, very often a person has an account on there which serves as a campaign website. Also, this is not even going into the fact that Facebook can function as a perfectly good primary source. Blacklisting Facebook or putting a filter on it is an absurd overreaction that would have horrible consequences for Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Devonian Wombat, eh? No it wouldn't. It would simply remind people before they add Facebook to check WP:SPS. Guy (help!) 08:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  That’s a good reminder for me to double-check what the person making the proposal is actually saying. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support warn+tag as MediaWiki:Tag-deprecated source, oppose bot as only humans can verify whether a Facebook link is appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support filter for new users, oppose bot as it would be biting to automatically remove content that new editors think that they have added. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 06:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support this. A "warn" filter doesn't stop it being used, but it will remind people that citing Facebook groups and other such crap is a Bad Idea. Looking at filter logs for 869, the XLinkBot addition is also justified. Guy (help!) 08:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. There are legitimate use cases for Facebook links — for example, I've seen professional organizations make announcements on their Facebook pages before/instead of their own websites — so we should allow such links in principle, but guard against them being introduced willy-nilly. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support including blacklisting or any other restriction. There is nothing reliable about Facebook, as it applies to being a source. Any information can be fudged, verifying accounts is not easy (and in some cases, not possible). Nothing about it qualifies as a primary, secondary or tertiary source. From the perspective of sourcing, it is actually less reliable than a forum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the reliability depends on who is posting on what on Facebook et al. For example WIN News posts news stories to their Facebook pages - example at "RUGBY UNION". Win News Sunshine Coast. Maroochydore: Win Television. 25 May 2020. Retrieved 26 May 2020. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• I should've pointed out the stories are posted to those pages after they have been broadcast on TV. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose autorevert/blacklist, warning is ok I hate Facebook on many grounds but there is insufficient evidence given of these links being a bad enough problem to warrant interfering with editor judgment in such drastic ways. Per WP:PRIMARY, a self-published post usually isn't a good source; but per the same WP:PRIMARY, it sometimes is. Wikipedia should run on good judgment on these matters, rather than mechanized bots and filters. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support If the only good source for a claim is Facebook, then it is not notable enough. For discussing personal posts, it is not good enough per WP:BLP.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both, but especially the bot, since auto-reversion is an extreme measure that should be reserved for specific, extreme cases. In general, I don't see any evidence of a problem requiring a solution here. An official Facebook page is not any more reliable than an organization or individual's website, but neither is it any less reliable. For the classic situation of notable person/organization using their Facebook page (alone) to post a noteworthy fact or statement, the best practice is what it always has been: to link to both the actual primary source and a reliable secondary source discussing it. But best practices aside, just as bad content is better than no content, bad sources are better than no sources. Quality is iterative, and any measure that discourages editors from providing the actual source where they found information is iterating us in the wrong direction. -- Visviva (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Warning may be helpful, automated removal or preventing of edits is opposed It's settled policy that there are limited situations in which specific material in Facebook might be acceptable as a source or external link. If editors want to change that policy then that should be done explicitly and clearly and not through the imposition of an edit filter or other technical means. ElKevbo (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both, and change the policy to get rid of this and other commercial "social media" apps completely, for multiple reasons. 1. Social media services are unreliable. 2. Social media services are not Web sites, they're apps: they won't load properly without running their non-free malware-spyware JavaScript, so anything sourced to them is unverifiable for everyone who cares about that; linking to them is incompatible with the Wikipedia idea of free culture. 3. Social media apps are inherently advertisements for their own services, making links to them spam. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter. A spot check indicates that most of the existing citations to Facebook do not qualify under the WP:ABOUTSELF policy, and should not be used to support article content. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

voltairenet.org

• voltairenet.org  

Is voltairenet.org a reliable source? [94] It seems to be a collection of fringey pro-Russia, anti-EU editorials with little indication of editorial oversight. buidhe 05:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Most of the stories are written by Thierry Meyssan, "a French journalist, conspiracy theorist and political activist". Guy (help!) 10:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)`
• It seems that original of article(could not post link here) is from GlobalResearch which is blacklisted site by itself --Shrike (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Voltairenet

Should voltairenet.org   be (a) deprecated and (b) removed as a source and added to the revert list? Guy (help!) 10:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Deprecate and remove. This is a self-published source, run by Thierry Meyssan, "a French journalist, conspiracy theorist and political activist." It is used in over 130 articles, often for contentious content about living people. Guy (help!) 10:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Deprecate and remove. Per Jzg comments also it probably reprints sites with copyvio violations like the article in question which orinaly appeared on GlobalResearch --Shrike (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Deprecate and remove per above. buidhe 12:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Deprecate and remove per everyone above. –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Deprecate and remove republishing articles from the blacklisted GlobalResearch Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

boredpanda.com

As per this, Bored Panda is used in 72 places. I believe them to be reliable only for proving the existence of somethings (like Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster becoming a meme), but I’d like to know if the site is really reliable enough for other uses, or whether it is simply unreliable. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 10:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Clickbait bollocks. Guy (help!) 10:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable Another low quality listicle site, As a general rule, any website which predomiantly consists of listicles and other lowest common demoninator content that looks like it was made to be shared on facebook can generally be considered unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources unacceptable as primary for Anti-fascism?

User:Rupert loup removed the following as "primary" "Political scientist Antonia Grunenberg describes "anti-fascism" as a "strange term, that expresses opposition to something, but no political concept", and points out that while all democrats are against fascism, not everyone who is against fascism is a democrat; in this sense Grunenberg argues that the term obscures the difference between democrats and non-democrats. Tim Peters notes that the term is one of the most controversial terms in political discourse. Norman Davies notes that "anti-fascism" originated as an ideological construct of Soviet propaganda: "'anti-fascism' did not offer a coherent political ideology. In terms of ideas, it was an empty vessel, a mere political dance. It showed its adherents what to oppose, not what to believe in. It gave the false impression that principled democrats believing in the rule of law and freedom of speech could rub along fine with the dictators of the proletariat, or that democratic socialists had only minor differences with Communism." Michael Richter highlights the ideological use of the term in the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc, in which the term fascism was applied to opponents of Communism regardless of any connection to historical fascism, and where the term anti-fascism served to legitimize communist rule."

and this as "Primary opinion WP:PRIMARY"

"The diversity of political entities that share only their anti-fascism has prompted the historian Norman Davies to argue in his book Europe at War 1939–1945: No Simple Victory that anti-fascism does not offer a coherent political ideology, but rather that it is an "empty vessel". Davies further asserts that the concept of anti-fascism is a "mere political dance" created by Josef Stalin and spread by Soviet propaganda organs in an attempt to create the false impression that Western democrats by joining the USSR in the opposition to fascism could in general align themselves politically with communism. The motive would be to lend legitimacy to the dictatorship of the proletariat and was done at the time the USSR was pursuing a policy of collective security. Davies goes on to point out that with Winston Churchill as a notable exception, the concept of anti-fascism gained widespread support in the West, except that its credibility suffered a serious but temporary blow while the USSR and Nazi Germany coordinated their wars of aggression in Eastern Europe under their Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact."

I don't see it. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• Er, really? On the face of it, all that is perfectly fine. In fact better sources than a lot of content we have. Guy (help!) 13:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Looks like a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY and a failure to clarify their objections to the content in your discussion. I would say that a series of attributions to random authors causes the text to read as a bibliographic narrative rather than a summary of the topic. Who are Grunenberg, Peters, Davies, and Richter that their views should be highlighted? Do other scholars look to them and their works as making important contributions on the topic? That's not an argument for outright removal tho, and i don't see any policy or guideline based objection to the content. fiveby(zero) 13:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Fiveby, well, Antonia Grunenberg and Norman Davies both have author links, and the other two are peer reviewed papers in respectable journals, so the answer appears to be that yes, others do look to them. In fact this looks like its pretty squarely the area of expertise of Grunenberg, especially.

  Maybe the argument is closer to WP:SYN, rather than WP:RS (clear pass) or WP:UNDUE (unlikely given the author credentials). Guy (help!) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  When reading outside WP, and an author mentions another's work i tend to assign some importance. Whether the author agrees or disagrees with the view he is calling attention to it for a reason. When i see another author quoted it's because he has either phrased something so well that it nicely summarizes a topic or perfectly illustrates what is so wrong about their view. When reading WP articles i must reverse that assumption and assign less weight. Maybe it's something that editors couldn't agree how to incorporate into summary test so by default it ends up as an attributed statement. Maybe it's just something an editor googled and inserted because it matches their POV and is only there because it is "RS". Compare the number of attributed statements in some articles to other works, much more than usual and much, much more that other encyclopedias. Anyway that argument probably goes far beyond what most editors would see as WP:UNDUE, but would readers agree? fiveby(zero) 18:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, definitely - and there are many more scholarly publications. It is an inadequate term and has been throughout its history in Europe with no distinct definition. See journal article What Fascism Is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept by Gilbert Allardyce, and Marcel H. Van Herpen's book Putinism pp 116-126, Defining Fascism: The “Thin” Method ...an ideology in which national revival (palingenesis) has a central place, and that it is populist and ultra-nationalist and thereby “precludes the nationalism of dynastic rulers and imperial powers before the rise of mass politics and democratic forces (…), as well as the populist (liberal) nationalism which overthrows a colonial power to institute representative democracy. There are countless books and articles by historians and academics that corroborate the term's inadequacy, and the inability of scholars and historians to succinctly define it because it takes on so many different forms. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, that's fascism, though, not anti-fascism. Much of the issue with defining fascism is people being overly careful not to violate Godwin's Law when describing white supremacists, as far as I can tell. Antifa doesn't seem to care about such philological niceties, as it defines white supremacy as a thing it opposes. Guy (help!) 15:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  But Guy don't we first have to know what fascism is before we can say for certain what it isn't? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, we don't, no. There's a presumption that members of the Antifa movement should, but even then, their statements seem to imply a definition of what they oppose that does not require it (e.g. opposing white supremacism, which may or may not be fascism). Guy (help!) 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  You mean the organization or individuals that define themselves as "Antifa"? Organizations or individuals don't need to have a single exclusive ideology, being ant-white supremacist doesn't cancel being anti-fascist. At least there is no such statement in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Rupert loup, I suggest you report any antifa activists who do not apply the correct definition of fascism, to the Central Anti-Fascism Council.

  Which, as the sources make rather clear, doesn't exist.

  This is not unique of course. Not all white supremacists are neo-Nazis, for example. Guy (help!) 21:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Guy I don't understand what are you trying to say. I'm referring to how the sourced content in the article describes anti-fascism. The article describes anti-fascism as "opposition to fascist ideologies", the current Wikipedia consensus on what fascism is in its own article. You said "Antifa doesn't seem to care" as if there is an authoritative organization that defines what antifascism is. Now you say that there is no centralized Antifa authority, so how do you know that "Antifa doesn't seem to care about such philological niceties" if there is no such thing? Why an individual/organization is not antifascist because they say that is against white supremacy? Why individuals/organization being opposed to things that "not require" fascism exclude them of being antifascist? Did to be and antifascist you need to be only and exclusively against fascism and nothing else? Or maybe is the use of fascist as an insult toward someone that may no be a fascist that cancels being opposed to fascism? That's what are you talking about? Going back to the sources here, if the statements in the sources are not reported in reliable secondary sources then those theories are fringe. WP:FRINGE: "For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." So in short, what is and what is not antifascism depends on those secondary sources. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Richter and Peters are in the article, I don't know why are included here. This is a very controversial topic, and an argument from authority is not good enough. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. To be a secondary source it must be an analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Maybe I'm taking it wrong but Davies don't cite any secondary source there. I don't know where he gets that "the concept of anti-fascism" was created by Stalin? The article states "Organizations such as the Arditi del Popolo and the Italian Anarchist Union emerged between 1919–1921, to combat the nationalist and fascist surge of the post-World War I period." Davis already recieved criticism before. The same with Grunenberg, which primary source is referring when she said that anti-fascism is not a "political concept", and what has the "opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals" to do with that falacy of "democrats are against fascism, not everyone who is against fascism is a democrat"? Rupert Loup (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Since they're notable scholars their primary opinions are probably due in the article, but we should also look for alternate scholarly views as to what anti-fascism is before assuming that the current article is neutral. buidhe 01:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not understanding why they're viewed as primary sources. The passages quoted above are both fine. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Because secondary sources are based on primary sources. In which primary sources are based there? Rupert Loup (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, those are reliable secondary sources. A primary source would be a propaganda pamphlet from the '30s, not scholarly works written seventy years later --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If they are secondary sources then on what primary sources are based? Rupert Loup (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • That is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
      • How is irrelevant? If they don't rely on primary sources they can't be secondary sources. WP:SECONDARY Rupert Loup (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
        • • Ohh I see, actually they could be using secondary sources themselves. But we do not dismiss an RS because we were not there at the editorial meeting. If it is RS we assume they can be trusted to have done their homework, we do not have to check it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
        • It is irrelevant because we don't need to know what primary sources they relied upon. Even if they don't tell us what they are, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Whether it's an essay based on the totality of the author's professional research, or an article based on some specific primary documents, it doesn't matter. Published books and articles written by academic experts in the field of political science specializing in anti-fascism are exactly the sort of sources we should be relying upon for this kind of content. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. For verifiability in this controversial subject it needs well documented sources. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
            • Frankly, your demands go beyond exceptional, and you don't seem to even know the difference between primary and secondary sources. The only "documentation" necessary is the reputation of the authors and publishers. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• These are reliable sources, but may not have been used appropriately in the article for different reasons. They are primary sources for the views of the authors, but secondary sources for dealing with anti-fascism. They are scholarly assessments of anti-fascism, but the question that should determine their inclusion is not an RS issue; it is a DUE issue. i.e.: are they typical of scholarly assessments of anti-fascism, or are they minority views? should they be balanced with other scholarly assessments, including ones that are more sympathetic to anti-fascism? are they talking about anti-fascism in general, or about a very specific moment in time in one country? I think Rupert Loup might be right to question their inclusion, but wrong to call them primary sources.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Newsmax reliable for the best Catholic Colleges?

Newsmax has declared The Catholic University of America to be one of the top 40 Catholic Colleges in the United States. These types of lists obviously have some level of subjectivity inherent in them. Are they a reliable source for this type of claim on that university's article? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• See WP:RSP. Newsmax is a very poor quality source, and has no obvious expertise in this field. Articles on colleges are prone to inflation with puffery, this is exactly the kind of thing we should not be including. Guy (help!) 15:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, I did check RSP, and found there was no consensus for it as a source. That's why I brought the specific example here. The same was true of Business Insider below. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, what that means is that it's a crappy source but conservatives like it, basically. See also https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ which shows it firmly outside the mainstream of reliability.

  If Newsmax is rating institutions, then it's almost certainly doing so on political grounds. But there are loads of sources that are known and respected for educational ratings, so we don't need crappy ones run by right-wing commentators. Guy (help!) 17:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe for "And according to...".Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Business Insider reliable for an underrated college?

Business Insider has declared The Catholic University of America to be one of the most underrated schools in America. They've used an objective measure to determine which are over-, under-, and properly rated, but it may or may not be the best way to determine this. Are they a reliable source for this type of claim? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

USNews is a RS for ranking. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, Thanks, but that's not really what I was looking for here. Business Insider actually uses US News' rankings in their own analysis. What do you think about using BI's rating? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, Business Insider is (as the name suggests) a business magazine, mainly known as an outlet for PR. Why would you use their interpretation of more reliable sources? This is not an area they are known for. Stick with the USNews ratings. Guy (help!) 17:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Its a listicle with an interesting but dodgy methodology. It compares college ranking with mid career salary of people willing to report. Its a primary source of its own research. Since BI isn't expert in college ranking I would say it is not reliable for content in wikipedias voice. Since it is primary I would say it is undue.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is The Tower a reliable source for information regarding programs at CUA?

At The Catholic University of America, AlmostFranics has removed a few statements here, and here, relating to a distance learning program at the University. ElKevbo restored some of it, believing (I assume) it to be a reliable source. The Tower is an independent, student-run newspaper. Are they reliable for statements about happenings at the university? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've made the same argument myself before, but college newspapers are not considered reliable, with very few exceptions (e.g. the Harvard Crimson). I assume that is the argument being made by AlmostFrancis (fixing the ping , you mis-typed, I do that all the time too). We should not use affiliated sources for promotional content. Actually we shouldn't have promotional content at all. Guy (help!) 14:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• No clue what RS of the Tower has to do with anything. As JzG said Its promotional content by an affiliated source and I removed it for editorial reasons. Something you could have found out if you had asked. Its also misrepresenting the source though. The Tower, too their credit, makes note that the info comes from a university press release and not their own reporting so.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  AlmostFrancis, I see. Your edit summary only said "college newspaper," which led me to believe you were saying you didn't think it was reliable. Personally, I think a college newspaper is reliable for something like this but would like to hear the opinions of others on whether or not they think it's appropriate. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  We can probably trust a college newspaper to accurately quote a press release, but as an affiliated source the fact that they covered something does not indicate that Wikipedia should cover it as well. - MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What specific part(s) of WP:RS is this source alleged to fail? I readily accept that a student newspaper is almost certainly not a stellar source - JzG's deference to The Harvard Crimson is baffling - but that's a far cry from being unreliable.

I also fail to see how the specific material that is being discussed is promotional nor do I see why there is a due weight issue given that we're only discussing a few sentences. But those are issues that should be discussed in the article's Talk page and not here. ElKevbo (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Tower does not have professional editorial control, it doesn't seem to post corrections, it this case it is partaking in churnalism, and I haven't seen any declarations of COI though they could just not be easy to find. I looked around and couldn't even find the official publisher on the website. What parts of RS do you think it meets?AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly fake royalcruft?

I found a link to the "Official site of House of Bagrationi - Imereti". Tos ay this looks fishy is to put it mildly. Its presence on the intertubes was brief, with the home page going from "under construction" in August 2018 [95] to a cybersquatter by October the same year: [96].

Is it just me or is this as fake AF? Guy (help!) 11:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems broadly consistent with Kingdom of Imereti and various pages linked from there. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bagrationi dynasty is a real thing, which was the ruling dynasty of Georgia from the 8th century through to 1810, when it was absorbed into the Russian Empire. (Not to be confused with the early Medieval Armenian dynasty of the same name). The Imereti refers to the Kingdom of Imereti, a breakaway kingdom of Georgia that was ruled by a cadet branch of the Bagratuni family as a vassal under the Ottoman Empire, which was also absorbed into the Russian empire in 1810. The website (as well as the Bagrationi dynasty wikipedia article infobox) claims that Irakli Bagrationi (born 1982), (which refers to him as "HRH Hereditary Prince Irakl") is the current "pretender" to the throne of the Kingdom of Imereti, and has two separate web pages dedicated to both the man himself and his ancestry. The facebook page of the website is still active (in georgian), which shows many images of Irakli. So I would suspect that the website was run by either Irakli himself of "Iraklist" monarchists. I don't think the information is likely to be outright fake but as a self published source by people trying to legitimize a "pretender" I don't think it can be considered reliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, and this and the rest of the walled garden looks to be the work of SuleimanL1982 who - amazingly! - has no edits outside this topic. Is http://www.georoyal.ge/?m=1000&id=76 another fake royalty site? Guy (help!) 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: do you think it's worth nominating David Bagrationi (born 1948) and Irakli Bagrationi (1925–2013) for deletion as well? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, yes. Guy (help!) 16:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

georoyal.ge pretty much the same as above, also a self published source trying to argue for the "legitimacy" of a "pretender" to a very minor title. Does not establish notability nor can be considered a reliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Deprecate. Ludicrous fantasy. Smeat75 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect this fails (big time) SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

More iffy sources from the fake royalty goldmine

This really is the gift that keeps on giving. New Internet law: for every abolished title, there is at least one crappy website claiming to be the true inheritor.

These seem very dodgy:

• historyfiles.co.uk   (actually looks nice but there's no detail on who compiles it. We already have many thousands of links to Spartacus Educational often added by the owner, but that doesn't set a precedent I think)
• kingsimeon.bg  
• http://greekroyalfamily.org   - may be valid, but looks bogus
• njegoskij.org   - appears dead, here's an archive [97]
• borbone-due-sicilie.org  
• btinternet.com/~allan_raymond  
• imperor.net  
• russianempire.org   (now redirects to a flashy site selling shit)
• nikolairomanov.com   - cybersquatter, here's an archive: [98]
• heraldica.org   - at least not insane, but no obvious reliability
• welfen.de  
• genealogy.euweb.cz   - pretty confident this was rejected ages ago as user-generated, I will search in a minute

Maybe legit:

• familiaregala.ro  
• royalhouseofobrenovic.org  

There are several refs to Guy Stair Sainty's websites. Some have come up before with an "unreliable, deprecate". The article says he is an authority on royalty, but since most of the content was written by drive-by WP:SPAs and GuyStairSainty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am not sure we need to revisit those. Guy (help!) 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sainty is a legitimate authority in the field, e.g., contributor to "Monarchy and Exile: The Politics of Legitimacy from Marie de Médicis to Wilhelm II" (2011) which AFAICT is a legitimate scholarly work. I personally would omit Heraldica, at least for now; its author, François Velde, is principally an economist, but has some published works related to medieval coinage and is described in this NYT article as an "amateur expert" on heraldry, and I find that the Routledge History of Monarchy refers to Heraldica as a "scholarly website". GBooks link. Whatever the merits, I think we can at least agree it's a qualitatively different proposition from most of these. Choess (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Choess, if he's cited in a RS then sure. Self-published websites not so much. Guy (help!) 21:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, then, yes, albeit marginally; the Routledge History does cite him and recommends him as providing an excellent summary of apanages and how they worked. There are some other scattered uses as a reference that come up in GBooks and GScholar. I don't think deprecation would be appropriate. Choess (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• genealogy.euweb.cz is self published unreliable, btinternet.com/~allan_raymond appears to be dead, as does imperor.net. njegoskij.org again self published unreliable, bulgarian, bourbon and two scillies and greek royal family websites look somewhat legit, might be okay under ABOUTSELF, welfen.de and nikolairomanov.com again self published unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As for historyfiles, their about page gives some interesting detail, I would still consider them a self published, unreliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2020 (

King Simeon, Greek, Two Scillies, Nikolairomanov, Romania, Obrenovic, Welfen were/are official websites. Sites like Online Gotha before, the .cz or brinternet site here will have been put together by people consulting Almanach de Gotha, Burke’s, other genealogy works etc. The reason they have been used is because the people who’ve edited the various Wikipedia articles probably don’t have access to the books so have used websites like these which are easier to consult (and others to verify stuff) and updated constantly. It’s pretty basic stuff they are used for, dates of birth etc but It’s fine to say they can’t be used (will they meet the strict Wikipedia definition of a reliable source, I assume not) , but genuine question, what happens next?

• Is the content they are used to support just going to get left in the article anyway?
• Will the refs be replaced with a ‘Citation Request’ with someone going to follow all of those up and delete in due course?
• Is someone going to go and replace all those website references by checking in other sources like an Almanach de Gotha etc?

So a bit like what are we achieving here if the content is staying anyway. Here JzG you removed Online Gotha but left [thepeerage.com which will probably be flagged up soon. - dwc lr (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel like it's worth noting that the reputable peerage books do have a significant number of citations, Burke's Peerage   and Burke's Landed Gentry   are cited over 4,500 and nearly 700 times respectively, ,Debrett's Peerage   nearly 4,000 and Almanach de Gotha   over 400, so it's not like noboody is consulting the books. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, that's perfectly reasonable: they are authorities for this stuff. Unlike the fansites. Guy (help!) 21:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, yup, that's next on the list, along with royalark. It takes time. As to what happens? Well, the problem here is years and years of POV-pushing by people who are writing as if these deposed noble houses are still consequential. If one is removing, say, the Daily Mail, then the claims are often easy to check: a quick google, you either find an alternate source or none, in which case the content goes. Here, for the most part, you find a sea of hits, all mirrors of Wikipedia or the fansites, and no RS. Many of the articles are on people who are supposedly "notable" only because of who their parents, grandparents or in some cases great-great-grandparents were. Wikipedia is not a directory of deposed nobility, we need sources about the people. My favourite was an article about a social worker that was formatted and titled as if she were an archduchess, {{infobox royalty}} and all. Frankly, a lot of us don't think the content is worth the effort of trying to source. But if you and others do then you are welcome to do so. The important thing to remember here is that wer'e not suddenly determining that a source is unreliable. It always was unreliable. It should never have been used in the first place. Guy (help!) 21:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing all of thepeerage's 9,500 citations will be torturous and likely take years, as we've seen with David Gerards herculean one man effort to remove all of the Daily Mail links Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I know exactly how difficult it is. Look at my userpage. Guy (help!) 22:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, I have already read your user page so I am familiar with your good work, which is much appreciated. As an aside, I've noticed that you describe Amazon links as "The Elephant [in the room]", and I agree that much of amazon link usage on wikipedia is problematic. Do you think it's worth proposing edit filters and Xlinkbot for Amazon links as I have proposed for Facebook, or are such measures already in place? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I wish we could. Guy (help!) 23:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, Now: what evidence do you have that [99] is genuinely an official site? Guy (help!) 21:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The removal of thepeerage's links is worth doing no matter how long it takes. There are wikignomes who will take on the task if there is a way to create a centralized location for those articles - maybe a category. This task would have been tailor made for an edit-a-thon but I don't know if those still occur. MarnetteD|Talk 22:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The biggest obstacle is the accessibility of replacement references. Most of the references to thepeerage.com can be replaced with citations to Burke's Peerage, which requires either an online subscription or access to a physical copy. I've sporadically worked on adding citations to Cokayne's Complete Peerage to replace thepeerage.com when possible, but it doesn't cover the younger children of individual peers, which is where it's most necessary. Copies of Burke's aren't uncommon in research libraries, so an edit-a-thon focused on this would probably make some good progress. Choess (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Another thought: would it be possible to do this as a two-stage process? Stage 1, remove links to thepeerage.com and replace them with the reference to Burke's given at the peerage.com and tag them as needing verification; Stage 2, verify that this information is, in fact, in Burke's. I'm not quite sure how to tag them, though; Template:Verify source is the closest thing I could find, but it's not quite the right thing. That would minimize the amount of time people actually have to sit around and flip through a hard copy of Burke's during an edit-a-thon (if they only have to carry out Stage 2). Thoughts? Choess (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If there not “consequential”/worth the effort (for a lot of you) then get the articles or the content deleted surely? That is a problem though that a lot of Editors have a very disparaging POV to royals, deposed or otherwise, think the deposed ones are fakes or fantasists for considering they are the heir to the throne of an abolished monarchy, refuse to accept that they are still referred to by a title because the “law says so”, think any source that refers to them by one is unreliable, wrong, misinformed or ignorant. I’ve largely moved on to other things now, but depending on the article I might step in with other new sources if I feel there’s something really worth keeping. A lot of old Almanach de Gotha’s and other works are available to view online if someone wants to trawl though those and update the references. So I’m just asking the question what’s being achieved here if we are saying these websites are not suitable for Wikipedia, which is fair enough, (off Wikipedia I would happily use a lot of these websites and have done for years as they are convenient and reliable just not Wikipedia “reliable”) then why is the “unreliable” information going to be left in the article, that doesn’t achieve anything, as far as I can tell it’s a whole load of work for no change other than perhaps make editors with a certain POV (which is fair enough everyone has a POV) feel better. Similar to the King Simeon site the Nikolai Romanov website was the official site of Prince Nicholas Romanovich of Russia (1922-2014). - dwc lr (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What has astonished me about this issue of deposed royals being called by their abolished title on WP is that the editors who do such things will admit that Austria and Germany for instance abolished royal and noble titles more than a hundred years ago, but they say "It doesn't matter, people still call them that, look here's proof, so we are going to have an article about this person on WP and call them His or Her Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke or Archduchess too." I don't think it's the actual subjects of these articles who are fantasists so much as the people who indulge in this phony "royal" fancruft.Smeat75 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I like to mention Hungary and their new transgender law, everyone knows Wikipedia has a “left” bias so I’m sure no one would make the case for that law being respected like they would insist with legally abolished titles not being used (maybe I’m wrong) because Monarchy/royalty are probably seen as a “right wing” topic by most editors. But if reputable Reliable Sources say someone is an Archduke or Prince, then that’s what they do. Most of them still use titles anyway, there’s nothing to stop them renouncing or changing their names if they wanted to. This has been a long established tradition for hundreds of years, the French royals didn’t just stop using titles when they were deposed and were never stopped being attributed them by serious publications and encyclopaedias, respected academics and authors whether it’s a source from today or a source from 125 years ago, but of course Wikipedia Volunteers are the real experts. Even recently take the Habsburg’s, only those born of approved equal marriages used to be Archdukes, the ones who were not were just Mr von Habsburg in the eyes of the Imperial House, then in 1990 the head of the Imperial House Otto von Habsburg recognised them as Counts von Habsburg, then later his son and successor Karl von Habsburg upgraded them all again to Archdukes (Imperial & Royal Highness). You may call these actions fantasy and make belief, but these families still adhere to their House Laws and one seems to care what the Austrian Republic and their sacred law thinks, it’s not illegal outside of Austria. - dwc lr (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This is starting to spiral into the place it usually goes (in my experience), where people start to get their views on the "worthiness" of the topic and the soundness of the hereditary principle confused with policy. While it is a very niche topic (like most of Wikipedia, really), dynasties (deposed or otherwise) and their right to bestow titles, and the membership of the nobility is still a subject of occasional academic interest (e.g., Noel Cox on the state of orders of knighthood granted by deposed dynasties under international law), and of some general interest, as evidenced by the continued production of standard reference works on the peerage/nobility.

There's nothing here that can't be handled by our usual policy on notability. Emperor Norton gets an article not because he was crazy and thought he was an emperor, but because other people were, broadly speaking, willing to indulge his pretensions. To the extent that the same courtesy can be reliably shown to be extended to the former dynasts of Bavaria, Austria, etc., there's no reason we shouldn't do the same; and likewise, we should reject titles that don't really propagate outside of the Internet. (I suspect the reason for the collision between popular practice in, say, referring to Franz, Duke of Bavaria and the legal status of his name in German law is that the laws forbidding titles were enacted to enable lawfare against monarchism as a serious political movement; conceding him the traditional style of a reigning Duke is palatable precisely because all parties involved realize that monarchism is a dead letter.) Choess (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Constant attempts at scrubbing and obfuscation at Falun Gong articles: Falun Gong, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, Li Hongzhi, New Tang Dynasty Television, etc.

Many of you here are no doubt familiar with The Epoch Times at this point, but far fewer editors are familiar with the broader organization behind this media entity. Here's a brief overview from a recent article from Los Angeles Magazine:

Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China’s government in 1999 … Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Despite its conservative agenda, Epoch Times took pains until recently to avoid wading into partisan U.S. politics. That all changed in June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he “beat China all the time.” In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a savior. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group’s leaders “believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party.

Source: Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online Archived 26 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine.

And according to NBC News:

The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.

The Epoch Times, digital production company NTD and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun make up the nonprofit network that Li calls “our media.” Financial documents paint a complicated picture of more than a dozen technically separate organizations that appear to share missions, money and executives. Though the source of their revenue is unclear, the most recent financial records from each organization paint a picture of an overall business thriving in the Trump era.

Source: Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online Archived 23 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine.

This is also happening here in Germany:

In the United States, the Times bills itself as the newspaper that President Donald Trump views as “the most credible” and the only one he trusts. The U.S. version of the newspaper is a far tamer version than its German cousin, but it has won over fans in the far-right with its exhaustive coverage of “Spygate,” a theory pushed by the president who claims the FBI “spied” on his campaign and a “criminal deep state” sought to undermine his presidency. Revenues for the newspaper have doubled since Trump took office, according to the group’s tax filings.

Source: Hettena, Seth. 2019. "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe". New Republic. September 17, 2019. Online.

Anyway, currently quite a few Falun Gong articles—Falun Gong, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, Li Hongzhi, New Tang Dynasty Television, Society of Classical Poets, and several more—are either in a state of either reading as essentially promotional pieces for the new religious movement or are the subject of daily attempts at scrubbing, like this attempt from today. This often occurs from single-subject, new accounts, or accounts with very new edit histories.

These articles could really use a lot of work with reliable sources outlining developments in these circles since 2016, particularly the topics mentioned in the quotes above. If nothing else, these articles all really need many more editors keeping an eye on them to ensure that they do not revert back to promotional pieces parroting the talking points of the organizations they outline. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Some sources should be promoted for the sake of neutrality

Hello, I noticed that The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, and Newsmax are listed as marginally reliable, but that Slate, The Nation, and The Daily Beast are generally reliable. According to this chart <https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?v=402f03a963ba>, the former group of sources is placed at equal or greater reliability compared to the latter group. I believe that this is evidence of liberal bias here on Wikipedia that ought to be rectified. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As Stephen Colbert once said: "Reality has a well known liberal bias". The "Media Bias Chart®" does not make its methodology clear either and is just as subjective as Media Bias Fact Check, which is also considered unreliable on this noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Both of those websites have a methodology page. Media Bias/Fact Check uses a more simplified process, and they do not publish a chart, which is why I did not cite them. Ad Fontes Media has a more detailed methodology page including a statistically sound white paper and a rubric, and they claim to use a multi-partisan panel for evaluations. Could you please explain what, exactly, is not clear in Ad Fontes' Media Bias Chart? 70.122.40.201 (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Their methodology was to study a total of 1800 articles, and that's across over 100 news sources... so that's fewer than 18 articles per source. That's really poor quality analysis of any one source. And the minimum they covered for any one source is 7 articles, hardly a good basis to capture the general reputation of an outlet, particularly not to a four digit exactitude. So yeah, it's a dubious chart we should not be reworking our methods around. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources I mentioned in the opening post have more than eight evaluations linked on WP:RS/P. Certainly, Ad Fontes is not perfect, but it's better than Wikipedia's way, where only a handful of the most contested articles are submitted for discussion on this noticeboard to inform community ratings, and where there are no controls among the population of evaluators for an even distribution of political leaning. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you specifically cite the methodology section? The chart doesn't even say that the "liberal" sources you mention are unreliable, it merely states that they are "Opinion/Fair persuasion", on the Perennial sources entry for Mother Jones it states that "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." For Slate "Contrarian news articles may need to be attributed" and for The Nation "Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." These are not blanket statements of reliability, but stating that while the reporting is factualy accurate, you should use them with some caution. You have not presented any substantiative argument that Slate, The Nation, and The Daily Beast are unreliable. For a source to be unreliable, the questions you would want to ask are: Does it publish false or fabricated information like Sputnik news, Infowars or Opindia for instance? Does it publish misleading information? Does it have a reputation for fact checking and editorial control? I think all 3 of the "liberal" sources pass these guidelines. Reducing media bias to a number is essentially pointless, it is something that can only be measured heuristically. The last discussion on Newsmax was in 2013, so if you feel that there should be a new discussion on it, feel free to create a new entry on this noticeboard about it. If you look at the other two sources you mentioned (The Washington Examiner and The Washington Times) neither have had a proper, full discussion about their reliability, so feel free to open a RfC on them to settle the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood my intentions. I do not mean to diminish the left-wing sources, but to elevate the right-wing sources. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, you haven't presented an actual argument about why you think that The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, and Newsmax are reliable. Source reliability is not some weighted scale of left and right-wing sources, and each outlet should be evaluated on individual merit, not some meaningless WP:SOAPBOX about "bias". Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I could evaluate an individual article from each of those sources, but it would be best to do so within the context of a specific article, so that discussion is for another day. I am not here to convince people of conservatism, but this seems to be the best place on Wikipedia for a wide-ranging discussion on the neutrality of sources, if it exists at all. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources I mentioned in the OP are in the business of political, not scientific, journalism. By linking there, you seem to equate mainstream American conservative journalism with conspiracy theorists such as InfoWars, which is not a fair characterization. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is fair to characterise "Trumpism" if you consider that to be mainstream conservatism, as similar to Infowars, as both, on an objective level, engage in disinformation and conspiracy theories, see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, I'm certainly not comparing the sources you mention to OANN or the Epoch Times, but to be pro-Trump as an appeal to "balance" is a violation of WP:NPOV Hemiauchenia (talk)

Some of the sections in that article are about wrong predictions he made, differences of interpretation of complex data, or opinions that he changed his mind about. Yes, he has lied to the public, but lying is what politicians do. The media is trying to run up the score against Trump because it all started when he made a politically incorrect but true remark about illegal immigrants at his campaign announcement speech in 2015. "Respectable people" immediately disavowed him, the mainstream media rebuked him, Trump criticized them in return, and they've been going at it ever since. I only agree with what Trump does about half the time, but to claim that he lies more than any other politician is misleading. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a basic flaw in the argument at the very top of this section. It assumes without evidence that politically biased sources are unreliable and that politically unbiased sources are reliable. There are plenty of politically biased but reliable sources (we use them as reliable sources for facts while taking care when they offer up opinions or editorials) and pretty much 99% of the Internet is politically unbiased but unreliable. An example of the latter would be [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ], a completely unreliable website with no political bias at all. Another politically unbiased but unreliable website is [ https://pokemonblog.com/ ]. BTW, Stephen Colbert is a comedian and should never be cited as if his comments have anything to do with reality. Quoting him as if he was an authority is about as valid as quoting Larry the Cable Guy. There is bullshit that is popular among conservatives (creationism) and bullshit that is popular among liberals (antivax). As for media bias, yes, the nightly news leans liberal, but talk radio leans conservative, and I don't see any conservative complaining about the latter. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Looking more closely at the ratings, Newsmax is ~33, Washington Times ~31, Washington Examiner ~29. Meanwhile, Daily Beast ~34, Nation ~33, Slate ~31. The RSP entries for Newsmax, Washington Examiner, and Washington Times don't actually say they're unreliable but that they should be attributed and that more reliable sources should be used if available. The RSP entries for Daily Beast, Nation, and Slate all note some recommendation for attribution instead of saying "yeah, just state anything they report as a plain fact." Honestly, we need kind of a yellow-green for these entries (that or make most of the other yellow entries orange and the six sources being discussed yellow).
  Course, if we did go with Ad Fontes, since the scale is from 0 to 64, 32 (50%) would have to be the minimum threshold. That keeps the Daily Mail off the site, keeps barely keeps MSNBC on the site, raises the status of the Huffington Post and Vice News, and prompts us to boot Slate but also the Washington Examiner, the Washington times, The American Conservative, National Review, and Fox News. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ian.thomson, you say that like it would be a bad thing ;-)

  Ad Fontes is a two-axis chart. My benchmark is that a source should be in the "green box of joy" (most reliable for news in their parlance). I do not use HuffPo, MSNBC, Mother Jones, The Intercept, The Daily beast, Think Progress, News & Guts and the rest. Occasional opinion pieces in The Nation, due to its long history, might be acceptable with attribution, but generally anything outside the green box is a problem in a highly polarised world.

  The problem for conservatives is that the green box of reliability contains virtually no right-leaning sources. WSJ and IJR is about it. Travel across the pond to the UK and you will find numerous reliable right-leaning sources. The Times and The Daily Telegraph are considered reliable. The Financial Times is probably the most reliable factual reporter in the UK. These are not left-wing sources. On the left, there is a continuum, with accuracy decreasing as partisanship increases, which is exactly what you'd expect. On the right there is a huge gap between Reason and the New York Post, and Newsmax, Washington Times, Washington Free Beacon and the like. Right-leaning media are also less accurate on average for a given degree of bias, but that is a small difference, the big problem is the cluster effect around Breitbart.

  You can also see how things have changed over time. Version 1 of the Ad Fontes chart had Fox and National Review much higher up on the accuracy scale and much less biased. That has changed in my view largely because conservative media is required by its audience to defend Donald Trump, and objective fact checkers rate him as far and away the most untruthful president on record, routinely repeating false claims long after they have been conclusively demonstrated to be false. So in order to defend his statements against "liberal" (i.e. factual) critique, you have to decide what matters more: factual accuracy or tribal loyalty. And it's tribal loyalty that wins, hence the cluster of the right wing bubble around Breitbart at the partisan right / least accurate corner.

  There was a comment today on Breitbart, on an anti-Wikipedia rant written by The Devil's Advocate: "Wiki is about as reliable as the main stream media ...". Yes. Yes, we are. Guy (help!) 10:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I wouldn't mind that shift, but I figured OP would have a problem with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

See my 20:42 reply to Hemiauchenia. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This here is a great idea that I hope to see more Wikipedians discuss. It makes no sense to have some sources in green and some in yellow when the summaries for them basically say the same things. It reminds me of King Solomon's (allegorical) proposal to halve the baby: instead of drawing a line on this chart, we need to distinguish between journalistic organizations that do hard reporting from publications that are mostly opinion. For example, National Review and The American Conservative belong in the third level, because they are opinion magazines for ideologues, but so do The Atlantic and The Economist. Organizations that "get the scoop" should be in the first level, including AP, Reuters, and the BBC. I would argue that the Wall Street Journal, and not the New York Times, should enjoy higher reliability, since the WSJ enjoys support from across the spectrum <https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/>, while the NYT is more controversial. Did you see what just happened when they tried to host Sen. Tom Cotton? 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I could provide some examples of sources that are politically opinionated yet factual and sources that are merely centrist propaganda. However, I fear that to do so would further polarize this discussion. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that you don't understand what Wikipedia wants in a source, i.e. basic journalistic practice and not making stuff up.

You'd think this wasn't a high bar, and people could agree that this was a reasonable minimum requirement, but then I spend a bit much time answering the sort of WP:DAILYMAIL advocates who literally claim that the Times and the Daily Telegraph have left-wing bias, not like their lovely DM - David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The three American conservative news sources I listed publish a mix of factual reporting and opinion columns. I have endorsed User:Ian.thomson's "yellow-green" proposal, and I believe that those three sources would fit into that category. I don't know why you're bringing the Daily Mail into this, as I did not list any tabloids in the OP. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• The issue is straightforward: some people think that mainstream, and conservative are antonyms. This is not so. The opposite of mainstream is fringe. The opposite of conservative is liberal. The fact that quite a large number of conservative sources also espouse fringe views, to the point of being deprecated as unreliable, is not a problem of Wikipedia, it is a problem of the conservative media bubble, whose feedback loop places ideological purity above factual accuracy (“THE CONSISTENT PATTERN that emerges from our data is that, both during the highly divisive election campaign and even more so during the first year of the Trump presidency, there is no left-right division, but rather a division between the right and the rest of the media ecosystem. The right wing of the media ecosystem behaves precisely as the echo-chamber models predict—exhibiting high insularity, susceptibility to information cascades, rumor and conspiracy theory, and drift toward more extreme versions of itself. The rest of the media ecosystem, however, operates as an interconnected network anchored by organizations, both for profit and nonprofit, that adhere to professional journalistic norms.” - Benkler, Yochai,. Network propaganda : manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. New York, NY. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. OCLC 1045162158.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Guy (help!) 10:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps people think that because in journalism and comms. faculties, there are twenty registered Democrats for every Republican <https://www.natcom.org/sites/default/files/publications/NCA_C-Brief_2017_March.pdf>? And then the professional outlets hire their indoctrinated students? Go to Minneapolis and tell me that's not the result of a radicalized echo chamber. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I don't think Colbert is being cited as an authority, but the phrase has entered the popular lexicon due to its obvious truthiness. In short, "reality has a well known liberal bias" is perfectly cromulent in the context of an Overton window that positions the (globally) centre-right Democratic Party as "radical far-left". Guy (help!) 10:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(For those who don't know. "The other Guy" is a self-described liberal UK Liberal democrat, whereas I hold both major US political in contempt and question whether they are actually different in any substantive way. But we manage to get along even though it is obvious to each of us that the other is wrong.)

Yes, the US conservatives do mislabel the US liberals. but the opposite is also true. I do not believe for a second that anyone who posts that Colbert quote does so for any reason other than it being (to them) "obviously true". There are quotes that US conservatives think are "obviously true", such as "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views" by William F. Buckley or "Liberals are never capable of letting anyone else have a conviction of his own without at once meeting their opponent with abuse or even something worse." by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Note that I think those quotes are as full of crap as the Colbert quote.

So my question is this. Which major US political party is in favor of the US not being at war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger? Which is in favor of a smaller government with fewer powers? Which one will close down Guantanamo bay? Which one will reign in asset forfeiture? At least the UK gets actual choices instead of two peas in a pod. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I think that the truthiness of the Colbert quote is situational and largely refers to the conservative shibboleths of the time when it was said, which was 2006 (gods, was it really that long ago?). CO₂ emissions are causing catastrophic climate change, tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down, the Earth is billions of years old, abortion is safe, guns do kill people, being gay isn't a choice.

Today it's also clearly the case that when fact-checkers show conservative voices to be incorrect, this is portrayed as liberal bias, and in that respect the phrase retains its value. The central message of the conservative media right now is that when the mainstream (i.e. as-opposed-to-fringe) media contradicts a conservative message, it's because the mainstream media is biased against conservatism. This echo-chamber effect is well documented in books and studies.

And I think people are aware of this, at least on a subconscious level. A 2007 AP poll found that 71 percent of Republicans said it was "extremely important" for a politician to be honest, compared to 70% of Democrats and 66% of independents. The same question in a Washington Post poll of 2018 showed only 49% of Republicans holding that view, with no change in Democrats and independents.

Incidentally, I largely agree with you about political parties. Organised politics is as toxic as organised religion these days. It's a vehicle for interest groups to gain power, and little more. And I'm a Liberal-Democrat, not a liberal. Guy (help!) 16:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You won't find me defending the US conservative nutjobs, but Re:

"emissions are causing catastrophic climate change, tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down, the Earth is billions of years old, abortion is safe, guns do kill people, being gay isn't a choice",

Are not the following also true?

"Vaccines don't cause autism, peanuts and gluten are not harmful unless you have a specific medical condition, "Frankenfoods" and power lines do not cause cancer, denying that the only possible solution to climate change is an increase in the size and power of the federal government is not the same as climate change denial, new-age religion is not any more or less stupid than fundamentalist Christianity, Essential oils and crystals are not actual medicines, Berkley, California reducing carbon emissions while China increases them will not result in a significant reduction in global C02, Almond milk is not more "natural" than cow milk, and the homeopathic section at Whole Foods Market is not in any significant way different from a televangelist selling you a bottle of healing water."

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, yup, absolutely. And you'll find me on the front lines of all those things (don't get me started on glutenbollocks: I am coeliac).

The comparison is not entirely valid - for example, there's an obvious difference between the effect of gay marriage on those who are not gay, and the effect of banning it on those who are - but both sides do have blind spots. Historically they were as bad as each other. Right now? Not so sure.

That said, the question here is one of reliability, and one of the reasons I consider HuffPo unreliable is that they gave a platform for years to Dana Ullman, one of America's leading homeopathy shills. So: absolutely on point :-)

Also, can I just say that I am really happy to see you back on form. I look forward to your comments, they are always insightful. Guy (help!) 22:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

By "globally", you mean some cherry-picked western European and Anglopshere democracies, don't you? There's no way that the Democratic Party is to the right of the governments of the United Kingdom, Poland, the Muslim world, China, Japan, Russia, India, and Thailand. No party that calls for giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants should ever be considered to be on the right. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not to the right of the UK's Conservative Party, since that is dominated by the same right wing think tanks that infest US politics. But the Democratic platform is not dissimilar to that of Germany's CDU/CSU, for example. Actually that's quite apt as CDU/CSU is a coalition with CDU probably to the right of CSU. Sanders is centre-left, a Democratic Socialist like the Swedish and other Scandiwegian centre left parties, but he is not a member of the Democratic Party Guy (help!) 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Democratic Party is not to the right of the Tories. Did you mean to say "to the left of"? But by somehow citing Germany as a yardstick for political party ideology, you've only proved my point. I do not consider the CDU/CSU to be a socially right-wing party, since recently, they have allowed hundreds of thousands of migrants to enter every year. Although democratic socialism is already a century or two old, that does not make it any less radical, so they cannot be considered to be of the center-left. Center-left is the Whigs (British political party). 70.122.40.201 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is centre-right, in my view. To interpret that as a claim that it would be to the right of the British government is odd since the British government is currently very right wing. The Democratic Party is quite a long way to the right of the Labour Party, the UK's centre-left party.

The comment about free healthcare for "illegal immigrants" is a red herring. Not only is "illegal immigrant" not a legally defined term, the position of the Democratic Party is to provide healthcare for all Americans, so this is wholly contingent on whether you consider people who live, work and pay taxes in the US to qualify as Americans. That's a matter on which reasonable people may differ, and it is a single part of their platform. Pretty much every mainstream party in the developed world appears to support universal healthcare, after all.

A centre-right party supports social market principles and qualified interventionism. The Democratic Party certainly contains centre left elements, and some who are outright left wing, but they were recently offered a choice between what in Europe would be a social-democratic candidate and a christian-democratic candidate (centre left v. centre right) and chose the christian-democrat.

But it's not a hill I'm going to die on. Reasonable people may differ on whether the Democratic Party is centre-right, centrist, or centre-left. The point is that the cherry-picking occurs when asserting that the political centre is the midpoint between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. That's a US-centric view that ignores the historical position of US politics as centred to the right of the rest of the developed world, and of course ignores the fact that America's Overton window was fitted with warp drive technology recently. When Mitt Romney is the left wing of the Republican Party, you know something has changed.

And of course none of this is a reason for allowing sources given to conspiracy theory and fabrication in the name of "balance". Guy (help!) 10:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you meant to say about British politics in your prior reply. I was saying that the Democrats were not to the right of those governments, including the UK's. I knew that the Tories were to the right of the Democratic Party, but that was a point I was willing to concede, because the majority of the world's population does not live in Western European or Anglosphere developed countries under liberal or left-wing governments. Why do only the politics of developed countries matter to you? Whether "illegal immigration" is in the dictionary is irrelevant, and it is, because we all know what it is: It's when people enter a country without the government's permission. Therefore, it can be thought of as a euphemism for invasion. There is only one represented party in Germany that opposes it, namely the AfD. The Democratic Party satisfies all of the points offered on centre-left politics. The "progressive faction" tidbit seems to be one or two people's opinion, not a consensus. The Republican Party, however, cannot be considered to be too far to the right, because American political culture is formulated in the language of both liberty and equality. For example, many Republicans believe that the utility of the free market arises from the fact that it lifts people out of poverty, so they claim. I have previously refuted the idea that the mainstream right is full of conspiracy theorists, see my previous exchange with User:Hemiauchenia. Please stop attempting to discredit a legitimate political movement. The ideological posturing of political parties is only tangentially related to the purpose of this thread, which is to promote neutrality in Wikipedia's research. The problem is that you and a few others have engaged in name-calling. Let us focus on the solutions that have been proposed in this thread. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll chime in now, no we should not. If a source is dodgy it is so for a reason and we should not create a false balance (in the name of neutrality).Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This. WP:DUE does not mean "divide the issue into two sides according to the current split in American politics and crowbar in whatever terrible sources are necessary to keep them even." It means that reputable, high-quality sources are given weight in accordance to the prominence they lend a topic, with a goal towards having Wikipedia reflect the preponderance of reliable coverage, discussion, and analysis. In fact, WP:FALSEBALANCE specifically prohibits using lower-quality sources in an effort to "balance out" an article. Otherwise, people trying to crowbar articles into what they consider 'balanced' in an American political context would lead to results that would look severely unbalanced to most of the rest of the world; and someone who got most of their news from the types of sources listed above is obviously going to over-weight them. This shows the underlying problem of pushing for WP:FALSEBALANCE, in that in practice any particular weighting is going to reflect an editor's biases. We avoid that by weighing sources according to their reliability, expertise, prominence, and so on, not by trying to put a thumb on the scale to make it reflect our personal preconceived notions of what a 'balanced' presentation is. --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, these are not "dodgy" sources. The opening post simply demonstrated a double standard between Wikipedia's reliability ratings for a set of right-wing sources and for a set of left-wing sources, which were placed at about equal reliability according to an independent and impartial research group (I eyeballed it). As Jimmy Wales was quoted in WP:DUE, if there is a significant minority of scholars who support a position, which is true of most conservative causes, then name prominent adherents (with attribution). Somebody already linked to WP:GEVAL, see above. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The choice of sources and the placement of sources in that chart was pretty clearly chosen on order to get the inverted V shape they were looking for. I believe that the evidence shows that liberals and conservatives are equally stupid and equally vile, but that does not imply that liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning media are equally reliable. A lot of the sources that are reliable for facts lean liberal. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I have looked through their source data before now and I don't see it. I think actually that it's possibly an accident - their original presentation was different. And if you think about it, you'd probably expect something like that shape, because accuracy is likely to decline more or less as bias increases, right?

I mean, it could be true, but the placement of Guacamoley and National Enquirer would be anomalous on that basis.

That said, the closer we get to the green box of joy, the greater consensus there is likely to be that a site is reliable. If I thought I could carry it I would propose that we exclude Mother Jones, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, The Intercept, Think Progress and so on, at least for notionally factual content. Vanity fair is fine for film criticism I guess. I'm not even that sure about Axios and Politico. Guy (help!) 22:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good idea. I support this and User:Ian.thomson's "yellow-green" concept. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Questions about the addition of the Praise & Criticism section to Jacobin (magazine)

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.

---

Does the Praise & Criticism section contain editorializing?

Does the Praise & Criticism section contain poor writing?

Is the sourcing in the Praise & Criticism section unreliable?

Are the topics chosen in the Praise & Criticism section worthy of inclusion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobin_(magazine) BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Only one of those questions is appropriate for WP:RSN. Here is the disputed edit in question. The most immediate thing I'd raise concerns about is that, per WP:CSECTION, "praise / criticism" isn't generally a good way to arrange sources; in particular, it involves editors categorizing sources as one or the other. Sections like that also have a tendency to become dumping grounds for random op-eds as editors on different sides try to engage in nose-counting, running up the numbers with random opinion cruft. If opinions are relevant to the topic (often they are not), the broad reactions should be summarized rather than broken down into a scoreboard like this. They also encourage people to dig up very low-quality or unimportant opinion pieces to "balance" the two, which should never be done per WP:FALSEBALANCE. That said, the sources:

• Vox, used with attribution; Jacobin has been described by Vox as the socialist magazine "winning the left's war of ideas". Obviously a reasonable source to cite when covering the question of "is Jacobin effective at what it's trying to do." Again, note that this is more specific and useful than "here's someone praising them!" and shouldn't be discussed in a praise section - if there are sources disputing this, ie. saying that Jacobin is ineffective, they should be grouped with Vox here, which is one of the many reasons a praise / criticism section is a terrible idea.
• The bit about Tucker Carlson is only mentioned in passing in Salon (the interview in question) and Politico (a secondary source with regard to that interview, but very much in passing.) This is enough to say that it's his opinion, though people might reasonably quibble over WP:DUE.
• I hadn't heard of New Left Review (cited to this), but they seem to be an actual academic journal, if one with an obvious point-of-view; they seem reasonable to cite in order to illustrate the New Left position on Jacobin.
• The New York Times opinion piece is notionally usable but what it's being used to say here seems trivial (calling Jacobin the "flagship publication of the new socialist left" doesn't add much.) It feels a bit peacocky / nose-counting; yes, it could be used to illustrate the subject's importance, but that's already demonstrated by non-opinion sources, so what does this add? This opinion piece is then cited a second time on Elizabeth Warren, in a context that doesn't seem very relevant to Jacobin. In general I would avoid citing an opinion piece in multiple places in the same article unless there is a clear indication that this opinion is particularly relevant (read: it has secondary coverage.)
• The Politico source above is cited here again, and this is where I begin to get a bit dubious. Why is this aspect important enough to get an entire section?
• The next paragraph is where everything falls apart (and I get the impression that the other parts were padding to try and crowbar this unusable source in, because this is the source that really tries to turn it into a controversy. With this one removed the whole section falls apart.) The podcast cites don't mention Jacobin, and are debatably self-published. The patreon posts are definitely self-published for our purposes and are not usable; and by my reading the entire section ultimately rests on them (the other sources barely relate Jacobin to the topic.)
• Then we have another paragraph cited to youtube videoes from the same people and no, just no. These are both unusable and at this point horribly WP:UNDUE. The entire Elizabeth Warren section and pretty much everything discussing her has to go; the few usable sources plainly aren't enough to support a section.
• I'm just gonna skim the rest. I'm dubious about Venezuelanalysis and Brasil Wire. Bread and Roses and Socialist Call have similar problems.
• Not buying the identity politics section, either. A cite to jacobinmag itself is reasonable to illustrate their views, but makes no sense in this "praise / criticism" section (though really, it feels like this was trying to be a section about Jacobin's views, and somehow morphed into a praise / criticism section in order to try and slip opinion pieces in.) The problem is that I'd question the way these particular pieces are being used in that it seems like the views of one Jacobin-affiliated podcaster (in a book review!) are being presented as the views of Jacobin as a whole. "Here's something someone said in a book review on their podcast" seems WP:UNDUE in context.
• The rest of the identity politics section has similar problems - citing individual columnists (often via youtube videos?) No.

There's a tiny bit salvageable here, but mostly this reads like a bunch of low-quality sources and opinion pieces slammed together to advance a few particular "controversies" as important. If these are actually relevant to Jacobin as a whole, there ought to be better sources covering it; if they reflect Jacobin's actual positions and history, there ought to be better cites to Jacobin itself rather than just a few opinion pieces or youtube videos. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 6 June 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.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Here I am, again, because it seems the virus lab leak/handling incident theory is being brought up in what seems to be reliable sources. But it has been relegated to WP:FRINGE so often now that I'm probably better to start here.

• People that need to be notified of this: @Swood100:, @Thucydides411:, @JoelleJay:. If you don't want to be included in further discussions about this please state it here.
• My question is: Are these articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists considered a reliable source for inclusion in Wuhan Institute of Virology or COVID-19 pandemic-like pages?
• Article 1 (most recent): https://thebulletin.org/2020/06/did-the-sars-cov-2-virus-arise-from-a-bat-coronavirus-research-program-in-a-chinese-laboratory-very-possibly/
• Article 2 : https://thebulletin.org/2020/05/natural-spillover-or-research-lab-leak-why-a-credible-investigation-in-needed-to-determine-the-origin-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

• Not seeing how the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists passes WP:MEDRS. Without that it's not really useful as a source in this context. It doesn't help that it is, ultimately, an advocacy organization - it's a reasonably well-thought-of one, definitely, and might be citable for uncontroversial statements about its area of expertise, but for a claim this WP:EXCEPTIONAL, on a topic that falls under WP:MEDRS, which falls into an area where its advocacy makes it comparatively biased (ie. the dangers of WMD), it's basically useless. --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: Is the origin of the virus really bound to WP:MEDRS? I find the example in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Unreasonable_sourcing_demands to be a pretty good summary of why it shouldn't. I am not implying that there is stonewalling, I just think the example is good. Is there any place (consensus) that I am not aware of that says that talks about the origin must follow WP:MEDRS? I find the origin of the virus could belong in some of those categories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?. Thank you for your input. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• We are talking about the origin of a virus that, within six months, has infected almost seven million people, and killed nearly 400,000 people. And the official numbers may well be low. Of course, any content about the origin of this virus must summarize published sources that fully comply with WP:MEDRS, except in articles explicitly about conspiracy theories or fringe explanations. Should the research as described in MEDRS sources change, then so too should the articles. As for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, it is an excellent advocacy publication to read to help understand nuclear weapons issues. But it has no established reputation for accuracy about the origin of viruses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• PhysiqueUL09, put simply: yes. Guy (help!)22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @JzG: Yes? Like it's reliable but can't be added? Or Yes, it can't be added? I know I won't be adding it anyway. I hope you read the thing, it's one of the most comprehensive piece of work about it. And it also expresses the fact that Trump and Pompeo basically shot the credibility of it by doing what they did. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  PhysiqueUL09, yes like MEDRS is required, and this doesn't meet it. Guy (help!) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not WP:MEDRS, and no evidence of any expertise in this field. Since this is a contentious claim (to put it mildly), this source seems inappropriate to me. Guy (help!) 10:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

LADbible and Joe.ie

LADbible is a is "social media and entertainment social publisher", that is among the most popular sites in the UK and is in the top 25 most viewed outlets on Facebook. It is currently cited around 80 times on Wikipedia per ladbible.com  . Joe.ie is also very popular among young people in the UK and Ireland, being cited Joe.ie   over 400 times, It describes itself as "JOE has always been and remains the go-to place for viral content in Ireland and is your one-stop shop for news, music, sport, fitness and everything else important that is happening right now." Apparently Joe.ie is in stormy water over using click farms to inflate traffic of a podcast, and is now in Examinership. While neither source is terrible top 10 xyz clickbait garbage like boredpanda, WhatCulture, etc, above the lowest of the low clickbait content, they are still low quality sources, being mainly proprietors of lowest common denominator clickbait content designed to be shared on Facebook, and I don't see any reason to cite them over more reliable sources. LadBible in particular ought to be systematically removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Another site, Dailyedge.ie (part of TheJournal.ie) is used over 100 times according to Dailyedge.ie  , the site is no longer updated as of Mar 29th 2019. Again, also looks like a pretty low quality clickbait source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• LADbible can die in a fire as far as I am concerned. Joe.ie is marginally less shitty but still a clickbait site with no meaningful editorial process and no obvious generation of new factual content. I've never seen DailyEdge. Guy (help!) 10:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • DailyEdge was TheJournal's "irreverent" tabloidish pop culture site. I see no evidence it straight-up fabricated, but I wouldn't use it as evidence of notability (similar to what I think of the Daily Mirror) - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Rbc.ru and rbc.ua

Are rbc.ru   and rbc.ua   reliable sources or not? I cannot read Russian or Ukrainian, but they were used to readd material that had previously been sourced to a conspiracy site. [100] buidhe 20:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• They are used on more than a thousand articles including Vladimir Putin, War in Donbass, and International Space Station. But it is difficult to find info on this source in English so hard to judge. buidhe 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, rbc.ua is RBC Ukraine News Agency. Russia’s Roskomnadzor blocked RBC Ukraine News Agency for “instigating the Crimean Tatars to war against the Russian Federation”. The cynic in me says it's probably reliable on that basis alone.

  Rbc.ru appears to be RosBiznesConsulting , a Russian company. It was at one point critical of the Kremlin's kleptocracy but that changed in 2017: [101]. I'm pretty sure this has come up before, the story rings a bell. It might be OK for inside baseball on Russian business but anything pertaining to Russian state interests I would treat it with great suspicion. Free and independent journalism is not really a thing in Russia right now. Guy (help!) 10:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I was thinking that they were the same site. buidhe 10:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  This one has a been a bit challenging for me. I’ve tried to avoid rbc.ru where feasible. But it does have fairly comprehensive coverage on some things and has been from time to time the only source, so I have used it if I feel comfortable with what I have in front of me. And, with that said, given Kremlin control of media, it’s hard to trust TASS or anything else. I think it’s ok but couldn’t give a firm statement. I guess we would have to examine how it’s being used and what it’s being used for. My Russian is adequate so if you have particular articles that I could review and see how it’s being used, maybe I can offer more of an opinionTastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I did pop in to The RS board on Russian WP and I think they have struggled with rbc.ru as well. Don’t know about the Ukrainian site TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would say evering before 2017 is reasomably reliable; everything after 2017 as reliable as any Russian news agency for example Interfax: reliable for reporting facts mainly concerning routine internal politics (Vladimir Putin yesterday appointed Ivan Ivanov a Minister of Truth); not reliable as far as some opinions, mainly concerning foreign policy are present (the US troops attacked freedom fighters in Syria using lethal gas; the Boston professor and world famous analyst John Smith predicted that the US would not survive as a state until 2021).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I might be biased, but I consider pretty much everything in .ua domain, with a very few exceptions, as a blog platform, so no, not reliable. I just has a look and I do not see them producing own content.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User warning templates

At the moment we have a user warning template set for unsourced material (e.g. {{uw-unsourced1}}) but nothing for problematic sourcing. This is a common enough problem that I think it might be worth either modifying the unsourced warnings or adding a bad sources warning to cover deprecated sources including predatory open access journals. In theory "unsourced or improperly cited" would cover it but the warning text is as below:

warning template text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
uw-unsourced1 Hello, I'm JzG. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. uw-unsourced2 Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. uw-unsourced3 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. uw-unsourced4 You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia.

I think that unsourced and improperly sourced are two separate issues, but maybe others think differently?

There is {{Uw-unreliable}}, but it lacks incremental warnings. FDW777 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, missed that, thanks. It's not linked in Twinkle. I'd like RC patrollers to be empowered here, because the majority of additions of crap sources go unchallenged. Guy (help!) 10:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not always clear which one to use for insistent re-adders of deprecated sources. Usually I go for {{uw-unsourced1}} with a note added - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses journal

AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, Editor-in-Chief: Thomas Hope, PhD, ISSN: 0889-2229.

Is this journal any good? Topic of interest is a COVID-19 related article in the current issue. The contents are interesting but I feel a bit triggered by the style. It throws a lot of shade at someone who has apparently been spreading conspiracy theories about the virus, after having done something similar with CFS some years back. The article is doi: 10.1089/aid.2020.0095 (person's name is in the article title so I won't post it here) and Wikipedia also has a biography of the person, which is similarly unfavorable. I'm asking mostly about the journal as a whole (since it published something like that), rather than about that particular article. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As it seems to be a peer reviewed and professionally edited scientific journal, yes I would say it is an RS. Not do I undersatnd why you are being so coy about who this is about its Judy Mikovits.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

See AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses. Published by Liebert, a respectable publisher. Not a huge IF though. What content is it supporting? It's clearly fine for the articles on Mikovits or Plandemic. Guy (help!) 20:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Fox News

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Fox News? foxnews.com   has been cited over 15,000 times on Wikipedia.

• 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 as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Additional question: Do local affiliate stations have a separate reliability to the main Fox News operation?

The last RfC on Fox News was in 2010, Fox News is currently described at the RS/P as:

FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG. The network consists of 12 news bureaus worldwide, including their New York headquarters. Several shows in the channel's news lineup include America's Newsroom, The Daily Briefing, Bill Hemmer Reports (replaced Shepard Smith), Special Report with Bret Baier, The Story with Martha MacCallum, and Chris Wallace anchoring Fox News Sunday. Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source. Editors should always exercise caution when choosing sources, and treat talk show content hosted by political pundits as opinion pieces, avoid stating opinions in Wikivoice and use intext attribution as applicable. The Fox News website maintains a form for requesting corrections.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Fox News)

• Option2: In view of recent events, their reporting seems biased towards information discrediting the protests. However, their factual reporting of non politically charged subjects stays adequate. That being said, I noticed that they give a lot of weight to POTUS since it was revealed that he was a regular watcher. Being nearly the only network giving him interviews. Feynstein (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fox News is a standard WP:NEWSORG, yes it may contain a bias (most RSs do), but does not mean it is not reliable. Fox also issues corrections which further indicates fact-checking. At this point it is beating a dead horse unless some substantive evidence can be presented on the contrary. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 (lean towards 2), the quality of the core network’s reporting has declined over the last decade. Care must be taken though, most network affiliates (such as WTIC-TV) remain generally reliable sources and I want any downgrade to be clear about that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Options 1/2. Option 1 for straight news reporting. Fox News's straight news reporting is very different from their talk shows like Hannity, Ingraham, etc. Their news department's bias appears more in what things they choose to cover than in how they cover it. This bias doesn't make it unreliable - almost all news orgs have some form of bias. However, given the network's close ties with Donald Trump, I think option 2 is warranted for coverage of Trump in particular.
  I don't think any outcome of this RfC should apply to content produced by local bureaus affiliated with Fox. In my experience those bureaus are no more or less reliable than other local news bureaus. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per User:Spy-cycle. Fox News does appropriate fact checking on their reports. This establishes reliability of their works in general and the fact that it is cited quite a lot means that most in wikipedia understand that it is a standard news organization. Furthermore, the others who say that it is not as reliable are going to argue based on subjective measures of not liking it with no empirical metrics. The fact that Fox News tends to have notable commentators like senators, representatives, etc that are notable right wing and left wing on shows like Tucker Carlson and Hannity's shows means they are not like Daily Mail. Also some heavy members of government like Mike Huckabee (ex governor and ex presidential candidate) and Jason Chaffetz (ex congress member) actually host some of the programs and this gives the network insider access to details on developing news. Furthermore, emotional reporting done by CNN and MSNBC does not demote them either. The point on reliability is not whether their stories end up to be true, it is do they have fact checking. Many news stories are developing so the details get confirmed and then rejected as time goes on and as more information emerges. CNN and MSNBC were wrong about Russian Collision, Muller Report, impeachment proceedings on Trump, and other stuff, but they would not be unreliable in Wikipedia's eyes.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, except for prime time "pundit" reporting about Trump. Speaking generally about, for example, articles posted to the website, Ad Fontes, an organization that analyzes and compares news sources, considers the website reliable. I agree with CactusJack. --Bsherr (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - didn't we just have an RfC about Fox News a few months ago? Did the OP check to see before calling this RfC?? Fox News is as reliable a source as the other cable news networks that also host pundits. The news is reliable, the pundits are opinion. See the write-up at WP:RS/Perennial sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. You can track how Fox's news output has moved over the last three to four years from a right-leaning mainstream source to part of the conservative media bubble. It's extensively documented in Yochai Benkler's Network Propaganda, and you can track it over successive iterations of the Ad Fontes chart. You can also see it in specific events such as the departure of Shep Smith. It used to be that Fox talk shows were junk, and Fox news broadcasts and websites were OK. Not so any more. Example: "the amount of coverage Fox News devotes to [Antifa] is preposterous. A search for “antifa” on Fox News’ website from November 2016 to the present returns 668 results, while “homelessness” returns 587, and “OxyContin,” 140. “Permafrost” returns 69. A decentralized, leaderless activist group with no record of lethal violence in this country, antifa has been skilfully transmogrified by the conservative media into one of the gravest threats facing Americans in 2019" [102]. The wall of separation between reporting and opinion has long since been blown away, and Fox is now the media arm of the administration. On CO|VID-19 it has published outright misinformation "Tara Setmayer, a spring 2020 Resident Fellow at the Institute of Politics and former Republican Party communications director, said what’s coming from Fox News and other pro-Trump media goes well beyond misinformation. Whether downplaying the views of government experts on COVID-19’s lethality, blaming China or philanthropist Bill Gates for its spread, or cheering shutdown protests funded by Republican political groups, it’s all part of “an active disinformation campaign,” she said, aimed at deflecting the president’s responsibility as he wages a reelection campaign." [103] I could go on. Fox has changed over the last three to four years, in a meaningful way, and we should recognise that. Guy (help!) 20:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Fox News)

• US media landscape has changed a lot since 2010, and not to the better. That being said, I am interested to see what concrete examples of inaccuracies on Fox's part that can be found. Talk shows on any network should never be cited for facts imo. buidhe 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• The local affiliates will make this a really tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe, my opinion is that the RfC from 2010 was outdated, as I agree that the US media landscape has changed greatly since 2010. Fox News tends to discussed a lot, so I thought it was worth opening a proper RfC to settle the issue. One of the main controversies about the factual accuracy of Fox News since 2010 revolves around the now retracted false claims that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks back in 2017, see this archive of the original Fox News article and these Politifact and Snopes articles, there are allergations that some of the quotes for the story were fabricated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)