Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RfC: Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series

Is the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A recent RfC determined that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht WWII-era German propaganda broadcast may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour. Two of these mentions are sourced to the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series by UNITEC Publishing:

• Schumann, Ralf; Westerwelle, Wolfgang (2010). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – Der Jäger von Malta [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – The Hunter of Malta] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 706989728. ASIN B003ZNZTGY  (18 May 2014). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used at Joachim Müncheberg)
• Steinecke, Gerhard [in German] (2012). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 802538281. ASIN B008AIT9Z6  (4 January 2013). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used at Hans Philipp)

The series was previously discussed at RSN and is currently under discussion at MILHIST. –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Most people who took part in discussion had no idea what is the Wehrmachtbericht and whether it was on honor or not. What K.e.coffman wrote is original research and misleading. Wehrmachtbericht was a honor. There are 1,182 individual soldiers mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, out of millions of soldiers who served in the German Army.

I quote from a research paper who deals with the Wehrmachtbericht and the German fighter pilots[1]:

’’To examine the effects of public recognition, we focus on mentions by name in the German Armed Forces daily bulletin (Wehrmachtbericht). This is for several reasons: Mentions were rare, and reserved for recognizing spectacular accomplishments such as a particularly high number of enemy ships sunk or fighters shot down. Second, mentions became known instantly over a wide area, being broadcast on the radio, published in the press, and distributed at command posts throughout German territory. Third, mentions in the daily bulletin were largely unexpected. There was no mechanical rule that entitled a pilot to being mentioned. Fourth, mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht are a fleeting form of recognition, providing the recipient with no tangible token of appreciation beyond elevating his status in the eyes of others. For all these reasons, we consider the mentions in the daily bulletin an ideal source of identifying variation for analyzing the effects of status competition.

Mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht were embedded in an elaborate system of awards and medals operated by the German armed forces.’’

My view on this is clear that for all mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht the Wegmann, Günter, ed. 1982. “Das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Gibt Bekannt‐‐”: Der Deutsche Wehrmachtbericht: Vollständige Ausgabe der durch Presse und Rundfunk veröffentlichten Texte. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag should be used and is very reliable as is used as a source for K.e.coffman favorite book The Wehrmacht By Wolfram WETTE which deals with war crimes and propaganda (see chapter 5 notes The Legends of the Wehrmacht’s “Clean Hands”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.46.144 (talk • contribs)

Comparable to Mentioned in dispatches? - Donald Albury 22:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

In some respects, Donald, I would agree. Especially in that they were named in widely distributed official government bulletin as MiD recipients were in the London Gazette. It also appears that they were in fact treated as an honour per the research paper linked above and other sources already discussed at WT:MILHIST. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No, not comparable because the available sources do not make this connection. If such sources exist, this matter can be raised at Talk:Mentioned in dispatches#Question on the Wehrmacht Report or Talk:Wehrmachtbericht. At present, neither article mentions the other. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, that they were similar is BLUE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to provide sources attesting to such. This can be done at Talk:Mentioned in dispatches#Question on the Wehrmacht Report, as this discussion is somewhat off-topic. The RfC is about Ritterkreuzträger Profiles from UNITEC-Medienvertrieb, not the Wehrmachtbericht itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• I see no reason why not. Nothing has been produced here so far to make me question the reliability or accuracy of the content of the books themselves, the reliability of the authors, or of the publishing house, and I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty. Perhaps others with better German skills can find something, and I would be happy to revise my position if such was forthcoming. The publisher has about 180 different titles on specialist military subjects including the French Air Force and Cold War military exercises as well as this series. Titles from this press (and from this series) are held by state and university libraries in Germany including the Bundeswehr University Munich, and it seems to be a publisher similar to the Bloomsbury Publishing imprint Osprey Publishing, a specialist military publisher, not academic quality but nevertheless reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• As this research paper says[2][3]: “Mentions in the daily bulletin were amongst the highest form of recognition used by the German armed forces. A typical report would only mention major events at the different fronts, listing gains and losses of territory or individual battles. Mentions were rare. During the entire war, fewer than 1,200 men were recognized in this way (Wegmann 1982), out of 18 million German men who served. Mentions by name were introduced in April 1940. One of the first soldiers receiving this recognition was Erwin Rommel for his role in leading the German armored thrust into France in the spring of 1940. A typical example of Wehrmachtbericht mentioned in dispatches is Hans‐Joachim Marseille’s mention on June 18, 1942: First Lieutenant Marseille shot down ten enemy planes in a 24 hour period in North Africa, raising his total score of aerial victories to 101. (Wegmann 1982)”

The principal awards for valor were the Iron Crosses and the Knight’s Cross. In addition, soldiers could receive a mention in the daily bulletin. This was one of the highest forms of recognition available in the German armed forces. Like Meintioned in Dispatches wikipage it differs from country to country. In Wehrmachtbericht some soldiers were mentioned multiple times, not necessarily because of receiving the highest award for valor the Knight’s Cross, but also by spectacular accomplishments such as a particularly high number of enemy ships sunk or fighters shot down (see the example above). Then there were also units and ships who were mentioned. Wegmann, Günter, ed. 1982. “Das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Gibt Bekannt‐‐”: Der Deutsche Wehrmachtbericht: Vollständige Ausgabe der durch Presse und Rundfunk veröffentlichten Texte. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag had been used as a source for The Wehrmacht By Wolfram Wette and in the research paper above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiorandI (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Who is the publisher, do they have a good reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Using sources that are beyond reproach is the best option. Misterbee1966 has already provided sources of this kind to show the report was an award. That is enough. The editors of MilHist chose to disregard those sources, despite advocating the exclusion of such mentions on the basis that reliable sources are lacking. It is a strange stance. Dapi89 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that its a good idea to re litigate the long-running RfC on the Wehrmachtbericht here, not least as it ended in a fairly clear consensus and this it isn't an appropriate venue for the re-litigation to occur. The question asked at the top of the thread is whether some German-language sources are RS. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment on author de:Gerhard Steinecke who wrote Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many]. According to his German Wiki article, Steinecke studied history in Berlin from 1965 to 1970. He was the museum director of de:Schloss Kuckuckstein and later in Nossen. In 1984, he was released out of politcal reasons (not stated which) by East Germany. Following the German reunification, he wrote a variety of books about the history of Meißen, Philipp was born in Meißen, and other history related topics, see also Literature by and about Gehard Steinicke in the German National Library catalogue. Professor Jonas Flöter, in his book Eliten-Bildung in Sachsen und Preussen: die Fürsten- und Landesschulen Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal und Pforta (1868-1933) [Elite Education in Saxony and Prussia: the Prince and Country Schools Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal and Pforta (1868-1933)], thanked Steinecke for his contribution, see pages 11, 470, 471. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Has the content of the de.wiki article been verified? It appears to be entirely unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Cheap military pulp serial with an emphasis on images. These works are popular history, directed at a certain audience. Editorial oversight is completely unclear and unlikely. If there is virtually no reference to these publications, neither critical nor endorsing, that does not speak for their reliability, but for their neglibility. --Assayer (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable - Editors wishing to attribute Wehrmachtbericht references to these sources have failed to demonstrate their reliability or compliance with the inclusion requirement. "I don't see why not" is not a strong argument, particularly for a source that was added before the more stringent criteria were established. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable: obscure, dubious publications. I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty is not how Wikipedia establishes reliability under WP:IRS. Being so obscure, such publications do not attract attention from reliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable: obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS. buidhe 08:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945

Is Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? –dlthewave ☎ 05:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A recent RfC determined that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht WWII-era German propaganda broadcast may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour. Three volumes of Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 appear as sources for mentions in a number of articles:

• Stockert, Peter (1996). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 1 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 1] (in German). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-9802222-7-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Hermann-Friedrich Joppien and Josef Priller) (Amending to add Heinrich Bär) –dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Stockert, Peter (2012) [1997]. Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 2 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 2] (in German) (4th ed.). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-9802222-9-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Friedrich-Karl "Tutti" Müller and Friedrich Geisshardt)

• Stockert, Peter (1997). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 3 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 3] (in German). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-932915-01-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Theodor Weissenberger)

–dlthewave ☎ 05:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• As in the above RfC, I see no reason why not. Nothing has been produced here so far to make me question the reliability or accuracy of the content of the books themselves, the reliability of the author, or of the publishing house, and I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty. Perhaps others with better German skills can find something, and I would be happy to revise my position if such was forthcoming. Stockert's works on Oak Leaves recipients are held by state and university libraries in Germany, as well as the Bundeswehr University Munich library, and Friedrichshaller Rundblick appears to be a small publisher of historical books, with about 80 titles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you confirmed that the source describes the mention as an honor? This content was added before the new sourcing requirement was in place, so we cannot presume that it complies. –dlthewave ☎ 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• These books are very reliable especially for awards including mentioned in dispatches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DioandI (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Again same question as above, who are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable - Editors wishing to attribute Wehrmachtbericht references to these sources have failed to demonstrate their reliability or compliance with the inclusion requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 18:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable: obscure, dubious publications. I see no reason why not is not how Wikipedia establishes reliability under WP:IRS. Stockert also publishes in Pour le Merite-Verlag known for is historical negationist, xenophobic and pseudo-scientific publications. Being held in university libraries is not an indicator of reliability. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable: obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS. buidhe 08:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Daily Caller

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Daily Caller?

• 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

— Newslinger talk 10:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: If you support option 4, then you are also supporting option 3. Option 4 is a subset of option 3, since all deprecated sources are also considered generally unreliable. If I had the chance to rewrite the RfC statement, I would have renamed option 4 something along the lines of "option 3A". — Newslinger talk 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• 4 [shifi] $ A personal preference for facts over personal profit. cygnis insignis 12:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

*Option 4 give some of the stuff I have read they are deeply problematic.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 for the issues regarding preference for profit over fact, for the issues of the obvious extreme right skew and for bordering on WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS territory tbh. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 I'd place them somewhere between HuffPost and Breitbart, which means that it should generally be avoided for facts, but its opinions fall under WP:RSOPINION. This means a blacklist is inappropriate. feminist (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Blueboar's point that context matters. feminist (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'd go with Option 5 as well. feminist (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and if you insist that we have to pick one from Option 1-4, I'd still say Option 3 is closest to my view. feminist (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5: Context matters. How a source is used, and what it is used for has to be considered. The Daily Caller is primarily a news analysis and opinion outlet (as opposed to a news reporting outlet). As such, it should be treated similarly to the way we treat op-ed pages in old fashioned "dead tree" (print) news outlets... it is certainly reliable when used as a primary source - supporting attributed statements as to the opinion and analysis of its contributors.

Whether it is reliable for some specific fact ... a lot depends on the reputation of the specific contributor (some have a better reputation for fact checking than others). Yes, the Daily Caller does make mistakes (as do all news outlets)... however, it has a fairly good reputation for acknowledging those mistakes and issuing corrections - and issuing corrections is an important factor in determining whether a news source is "generally" reliable (or not). Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

For the purposes of the perennial sources list, "option 5" is equivalent to option 2 (unclear or additional considerations apply). Context always matters regardless of how The Daily Caller is assessed. WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of questionable sources for uncontroversial self-descriptions even under option 3 (generally unreliable for factual reporting) and option 4 (publishes false or fabricated information; deprecated). — Newslinger talk 01:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 I can't think of a specific case where having this as a source is worth the trouble it's caused and will probably continue to cause. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  Can you give some examples of the “trouble” it has caused? Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: My pleasure. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

And how did this “cause trouble”... were editors trying to cite these reports? Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'm not PeterTheFourth, but I imagine Peter was saying the Daily Caller was essentially the trouble. I know I believed the Caller's reporting on Imran_Awan was accurate until recently, so there is that. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 01:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• 1 In fact, this is my opinion on a great many sources. Opinions must be cited specifically as opinion is the corollary to this position. The main problem is that most journalists now rely on press releases for almost everything they write. Indeed in a study of "medical articles" almost every newspaper used press releases for a vast majority of their articles, and I doubt that this is then untrue of almost any topic where press releases exist. Factcheckers on articles being written are virtually non-existent any more. For any publication. Ask Der Spiegel. Collect (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 based on the usual source. This does not contradict Collect's point that churnalism is a huge problem in all media these days. Michael Marshall lists a number of tells, the most obvious of which is the prominent naming of the article's source in the third paragraph, with a lack of any other obvious corroborating or independent source. "Your house is in danger from zombies!" with, in para 3, "According to Fred Undead, marketing director of Undead's Zombie Insurance Policies Lts, the risk has been recognised by a large increase in policies against zombie apocalypse". But Daily Caller is not just doing that - churnalism certainly makes vast swathes of the Caller's not-obviously-bullshit content actually bullshit after all, but the core issue is the usual right wing bubble problem of positive feedback and ideology being given greater precedence than factual accuracy. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's one thing to consider Ad Fontes Media while determining the reliability of a source, another thing to be completely reliant on it. You're going to have to provide more evidence than that. feminist (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not completely reliant on it. I use it to inform a single question: is this source unreliable because it is slapdash, or because it is propaganda. Daily Caller is propaganda. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Bad question. No reason was presented for bringing this up. It's an established news source and overriding WP:RS policy for yet another ban should not be the result of an out-of-nowhere RfC with zilch evidence of a problem or dispute that affects Wikipedia seriously. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The above is a valid point, is there any evidence this is causing problems here that need to be solved?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The most recent discussion of The Daily Caller on this noticeboard is a 2018 RfC that was closed without extended discussion (possibly because it asked for a general assessment of 3 very different sources). In that RfC, most editors asserted that The Daily Caller is unreliable. The second-most recent discussion is from 2013, which is stale under WP:RSP standards. The purpose of this current RfC is to gauge current consensus, as there is reason to believe that past discussions are out of date. Note that the current RfC's opening statement links to the WP:RS guideline, and asks editors to express opinions according to that guideline. I didn't explain my reason for starting this RfC in the opening statement, because it is supposed to be neutral and brief. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 5 While I can find examples of inaccurate reporting and controversial backgrounds for some of its editors, I cannot find any informed commentary about the general accuracy of their reporting. So why not say there is no evidence that it is a reliable source? In that case each time it was used would have to be evalutated on a case by case basis. I cannot think of any reason why it should ever be used. If it is the only source for a story, the information lacks weight. And there are obviously better sources when stories are well covered. TFD (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Not quite as loopy as Infowars or Worldtruth, but their bias is massive and their lack of respect for accuracy not far behind. This is one of those sites that makes me wonder why we're always selecting out the Daily Mail for criticism and letting these even worse ones through. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5. It is not well-established so context matters. BLP considerations apply to all sources so we shouldn't be emphasizing it for TDC. The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young. I'm not convinced by the above comments and I especially oppose the horrible option 4. wumbolo ^^^ 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose option 4. The DM RfCs do not set a specific precedent and we have to look at each source individually. While the DC has published false information, it doesn't seem serious enough to blacklist it. Headlines shouldn't be examined at RSN. wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  For clarification, The Daily Caller has not been awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and it has published opinions/columns attacking Pulitzer Prize winners (e.g. "Credibility Of Pulitzer Prize Takes A Hit By Rewarding ProPublica’s Liberal Bias", "Will WaPo Have To Return The Pulitzer For Wesley Lowery’s Ethical F**kup?", and "Wesley Lowery Brags At A Party: I’m Getting A Pulitzer!"). — Newslinger talk 02:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I did not say that it did. I compared TDC and Vox, which are similar at a glance, but differ in reliability because of the high-quality journalism at Vox. wumbolo ^^^ 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't think you would say that, but your sentence could be read that way because the word "it" could refer to either publication: "The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young." versus "The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young." Just a clarification, not an accusation. ​— Newslinger talk 09:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I also can't find any information about Vox winning a Pulitzer. Did you mean something else? — Newslinger talk 09:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I misremembered this Vox discussion, sorry. Also, I believed that "e.g." worked as a comma and I apologize for the ambiguity. I have striken my !vote because it was based on a false premise, and I have written just a !vote opposing option 4 until I can decide to support a specific option, after more evidence is presented. Thank you very much for understanding and checking my !vote. wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 The Daily Caller is hot garbage. See below. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 4 Perhaps I have missed something but I see nothing here that has shown an issue on Wikipedia. I see instances where they are unreliable and others where they are fine. Without evidence of an issue what is the point of this RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 If it wasn't enough before, their story about a nude selfie of a new member of Congress they don't like, that was fake, convinced me to !vote. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000, At what point was that story unreliable?... was it their initial version that reported how other people (not them) thought the photo was real... or was it the subsequent (clarified) version where they explicitly make it clear that the photo is fake? Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they did have to reverse it after criticism, so quickly that they goofed the first time and broke links. They have been attacking this person and ran this story with the typical “some people say” language found in bad sources. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

To stress what is discussed below, the problem text that was changed was strictly limited to the headline that was used. And headlines are not considered in any way an RS regardless of the source behind it. --Masem (t) 22:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood. But, if they’re willing to include the photo, and put that in the headline (which is as far as some folk read); that appears well over the irresponsibility line. I was wavering between options 3 & 4 and was pushed over the line by this, even though we don’t use headlines. O3000 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should judge the reliability of a media source by its headlines... regardless of how accurate and reliable the actual reporting is? Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 I thought it was obvious that this website is extremely unreliable due to its unmitigated devotion to being unethical and flat-out lying. Somehow they make Fox News seem reasonable and measured. Trillfendi (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Routinely falsifies claims, see https://www.politifact.com/personalities/daily-caller/

  Only two false statements in total? That is impressive. wumbolo ^^^ 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

100% of statements evaluated are false? That is indeed impressive. Just not in a good way. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 Pretty much the antithesis of a reliable source. Their extreme and unabashed political slant aside, it's not a great sign when most of the article about them is devoted to well-sourced instances where they deliberately published falsehoods. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 By my reading, there's no real difference in option 3 vs. 4 in terms of reliability, but that generally unreliable sources are WP:DEPRECATED when there's a real risk that editors might cite them. I think that risk might exist with the DC partly because of its popularity and partly because they once had pretensions of doing serious reporting. Still: I actually haven't turned up a lot of instances where they've been cited improperly, and I'm worried that we're venturing down the path of creating a sort of endlessly contentious media shitlist when we don't need one. Nblund ^talk 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4, or, failing that, option 3. They clearly present intentionally false and misleading stories; the only real question is whether people are actually trying to cite them enough to make the red tape of overt depreciation necessary. Personally, I've noticed a recent uptick in people trying to cite them, which suggests that sort of measure might be needed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4', without a larger consensus on this "deprecated" system. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Racist, white supremacist, science-denialist publication that churns out outright false or intentionally misleading information to smear opposing movements and public figures. Their history of (un)reliability is self-demonstrative, with the latest example being claiming that they have a nude photo of an active congresswoman. They have absolutely no problem with going out of their way to violate the basic tenets of journalism and they clearly know what they're doing. Worse than DailyMail in a sense, since at least DailyMail doesn't publish material that encourages political violence. Outside of ABOUTSELF, it should not be used to cite anything. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  So you'd support banning the New York Times for publishing material encouraging the murder of 100,000+ civilians? wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Remind me again that some irrelevant whataboutism is absolutely helpful and encouraging. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

We need evidence to support option 4. (Which was there in the Daily Mail RFC). Having a far-right bias is not the same as fabrication of material. --Masem (t) 16:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Senator Senator Bob Menendez rape allegation, turned down by multiple RS as being dodgey?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Snopes provides plenty of examples. The problem though is that this is anecdotal evidence. No one expects that any reliable source, except holy writings, to be 100% accurate. You need to determine the inaccuracy rate and compare it with a similar publication we consider reliable or find a journalism textbook that evaluates its reliability. TFD (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I can accept that a source can be considered dodgey or generally unreliable based on the impression that other sources give to it, as part of determining whether to select from options 1-3 above. Jumping on a few words of text from an internal memo to blow that into a full-blown controversy, that's a good reason to call something unreliable - but let's not pretend that other sources don't do that. Just that most other good sources try to back it up with as much evidence as possible before making the accusation, whereas the DC in the case of Menendez jumped immediately. But that's all reason to keep the source unreliable particularly for contentious topics, but not unusable where they are reporting on less contentious material.

I'm specifically looking to find a case where they have publish outright factually wrong information, fully mis-reported people's words, or other true fabrications of the news (and without the editorial responsibility of correcting their mistakes), as was shown in the previous DM RFC, as to make the work as a whole untrustworthy. --Masem (t) 18:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

For persistence, their climate change denialism would seem to be the longest running. Any meta-commentary I've read also seems to mention US politicians and their mix of whitewashing those they like and simply making up stories about those they don't, but I'm no follower of US political infighting. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I really really don't feel comfortable blacklisting a source (aka effectively Option 4) based only on their bias or POV. If they are outright making up/fabricating stories (in contrast to exaggerating on trivial but truthful events as with the Menendez story) that's one thing, but that should be shown. --Masem (t) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Today provides evidence of The Daily Caller presenting false info. They shared a fake nude photo purporting that it was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. See here for more. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't read that Vice article that way at all. First, its a headline, which for any source we have determined should never be treated as RSes since they are often written by a completely different person. Secondary, as Vice points out, they replaced the headline when it was called out to them, which shows a minimum of journalistic integrity. The body of the DC article never made the claim, as Vice points out. So no, that's not evidence. (And further, I read the original DC headline that it has used cautionary language, not claiming it as fact in DC's voice as being such a nude, but that it was what a online user claimed.) --Masem (t) 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Masem: So, at best, DC passed along a nude photo from an online user claiming it was AOC after it had been debunked by Reddit, titling the photo with her name, and adding the headline "Here’s the photo some people described as a nude photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." "Some people"? That's how they do journalism? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That's tabloid style, and that's a good reason to already slot the DC as generally unreliable especially around BLP articles, but I'm specifically focused on trying to identify why it should in Option 4 that would effectively blacklist it if we're mirroring the 2017 Daily Mail RFC. Sleazy presentation and reporting is sleazy, but it is not creating false information that shows that we should bury DC from any use. --Masem (t) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Caller article says, "New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has enemies, and they’re not shying away from releasing a phony nude picture of the newest, youngest member of Congress."[4] (My emphasis.) Sure it's bad taste and the original headline (“Here’s the photo some people described as a nude photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”) uses weasel-wording. But headlines and photographs are not reliable sources regardless of the publication.

Here's a recent misleading headline from the New York Times: "Veselnitskaya, Russian in Trump Tower Meeting, Is Charged in Case That Shows Kremlin Ties." The headline in CNN is "Russian lawyer at Trump Tower meeting charged in separate case." The NY Times article falsely implies that she was charged in connection with collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

Note: at the bottom of the CNN article it says, "CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to reflect that Veselnitskaya was charged in connection with the money-laundering case." So apparently they too originally published a misleading headline.

TFD (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

So... regarding the supposed AOC story, the DC reported it accurately (explicitly saying it wasn’t AOC)... but Vice reported inaccurately (by claiming that the DC said it was AOC, when the DC didn’t actually say that). Good case for perhaps saying Vice is unreliable... not a good case for saying DC is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar: the DC changed its headline. The original said that "some people" said it was AOC, without acknowledging that it was fake. DC's explanation for the AOC headline is that “eager editor made a misjudgement as to the framing.” (emphasis mine) - which doesn't speak very well for their editorial process. On a similar note: The Daily Caller also claimed Alica Machado was a porn star. The Bob Menendez story was apparent fabrication which DC still appears to have never recanted. They also employed Charles C. Johnson, who almost exclusively traffics in nonsense. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where they would be a usable source for news. Nblund ^talk 22:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The original headline never acknowledged it as fake, but never acknowledged it as real. I agree that there's much better ways they could have presented that initial headline, but the headline wasn't declaring the photo was real. And again, headlines should never be touched or considered in context of RSes; they are written by people at these place to grab your eyeballs, not to necessarily fairly summarize the story. So this is really not a strong piece of evidence that shows fabrication of news stories. --Masem (t) 22:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand that - I was specifically responding to Blueboar's claim that Vice mis-characterized the headline - they didn't. Headlines shouldn't be cited, but it's worth noting that the "editorial process" appears to have made the article less factual, rather than more factual. I don't believe the DC has been caught red-handed in the process of fabricating a quote (is that the consensus standard?) but they've got a long history of "reckless disregard" sins against journalism: Charles Johnson's claim about David Kirkpatrick were based an obviously satirical source - and the DC's "corrected version" only half-assedly says the claim "appears to be a fabrication". The discussion of DC's work in this report, especially the article discussed on page 120, seems to indicate that it the outlet is actually involved in creating fake news, rather than just passing it along. I'm dubious about the usefulness of deprecation all together, but I have a hard time imagining any scenario where we would consider them trustworthy for anything of note. Nblund ^talk 23:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

My primary concern here, in the wake of the 2017 Daily Mail RFC, is that we have editors jumping to want to blacklist (spam filter) sites that should absolutely be treated as unreliable sources in cases of BLP or contested topics, but where they still may have some, possibly yet identified, utility for other features, such as being a fair RSOPINION source. DM was blacklisted because of clear evidence showing they were altering opinion pieces, eliminating even RSOPINION uses, but since then, I've seen people use the same logic that because a site is on the blacklist that RSOPINION can never apply and strip these sources out when they are only being used for RSOPINION (eg like Breitbart). Identifying DC as a highly unreliable source per Option 3 seems like a no brainer, but before we take Option 4, making sure that is fully justified if they are truly fabricating material to make it wholly unusual to blacklist them for all of WP. --Masem (t) 23:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RSOPINION is more limited than most people think it is. It says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. The final sentence is pretty important. My concern is that I feel a lot of people read WP:RSOPINION as saying that you can use absolutely any source as long as you slap an in-line citation on it, even if it's otherwise worded as fact (ie. "Joe Schmoe of the Daily Caller says that John Doe is a serial killer.") That's not how it works - even for an opinion piece, we rely on them being published in a reliable source to provide a degree of fact-checking; it is their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that gives an opinion piece cited to eg. the New York Times op-ed page more weight than random uncited musings by a Wikipedia editor. The last paragraph of WP:RSOPINION (which unambiguously bans sources that fail to provide reliability from being used in a WP:BLP, even for statements of opinion) makes this even more clear. I feel that if an opinion piece in the Daily Caller or the Daily Mail is notable, worth citing, and passes the bare minimum of fact checking necessary for us to cite it, then it ought to have been referenced in a secondary source, and we can cite it indirectly through that. Beyond that, weakening the WP:RSOPINION limits to allow absolutely anything to be cited for opinion invites editors to essentially argue by proxy (dropping whatever op-eds or unreliable sources they agree with into the article), which makes for unreadable walls of text cited to terrible sources. Requiring that opinion pieces be published in things that generally otherwise pass WP:RS (as WP:RSOPINION suggests with its example) ensures a level of WP:DUE - simple publication in an RS can be taken to mean that that source is putting the weight of its reputation behind the idea that this is an opinion worth considering. The Daily Caller has no relevant reputation, its endorsement carries no weight, and, therefore, I would argue that citing an opinion piece from it is no different from citing a blog or forum post - or allowing an editor to write their opinion into a Wikipedia article themselves. What, in other words, does a cite to the Daily Caller add that signing the same opinion with four tildes does not? WP:RSOPINION must clearly require some criteria or there's no meaning to providing a source at all. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• For the sake of getting some third party criticism of the DC in here... The Columbia Journalism Review has written about it several times. In several places it notes how The DC tries to take itself seriously and talks up its own journalistic integrity/rigor, but CJR tends to undercut that kind of claim (my sense is it CJR might be a little more forgiving if not for this). Some of CJR's critical quotes:

• July/August 2011: "But when The Daily Caller has reached for the big scoop, the results have been less impressive. Headline-grabbing exclusives—mostly intercepted e-mails and tweets and attacks on media rivals—have exploded across the web before fizzling under scrutiny. Sexed-up headlines burned above stories too twisted or bland to support them. Quotes were ripped out of context, corrections buried, and important disclosures dismissed."
• July 9, 2014: "The Menendez “scoop” isn’t the first instance in which the Caller has seemingly strayed from its stated journalistic mission. In 2011, the site reported that the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing to hire more than 230,000 new employees, which would amount to a mind-boggling 1,300-percent growth in its workforce. It did not walk back the claim, even when it was shown to be untrue. The next year, proving hyperbole plays online, it called President Barack Obama “a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble.” Employees have tweeted racist and sexist remarks, for which the Caller has subsequently apologized. This doesn’t mean that all the Caller’s journalism is suspect, but it does suggest that the site isn’t what Carlson said it would be."
• September 8, 2018: "...the dream of a rogue outlet of hard-hitting, conservative journalism was never realized. And the site withered from there. Right now the site highlights sensationalist stories about “illegal aliens,” justifiable homicide, and a hit piece on Beto O’Rourke."
• Then there are a number of articles on specific stories, like this one about Obamacare from 2012. And this one from 2011, with the subheadline "Daily Caller mistakes opinion for fact." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

{Note that these articles were not written by the Columbia Journalism Review, but by individual contributors.) Reliability is not a bipolar dichotomy, but a continuum. These articles have a similar theme: Tucker Carlson has failed to achieve his goal of combining the reliability of the New York Times with a conservative editorial position. No one questions that. I think though that David Uberti's comment in the Columbia Journalism Review is probably a good description: "This doesn’t mean that all the Caller’s journalism is suspect, but it does suggest that the site isn’t what Carlson said it would be." Ironically, his story itself contained an error, since corrected, that the sources used were Cubans. That would seem material, since Uberti said he thought they were working for Cuban intelligence. Incidentally, most of the problem reporting at the Daily Caller dates to 2011-2012, just after it was founded in 2010. There were similar problems in other online news sources when they were initially founded. TFD (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Menendez story happened in 2014, the Machado story happened in 2016, and the AOC story happened today. I don't see anything that indicates that they have a long-term trajectory toward reliability: in 2017 they published a piece by Jason Kessler without noting his connections to the United the Right rally, and they kept another white supremacist on the editorial staff until just a few months ago. Nblund ^talk 02:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: without disagreeing with most of what you've written, I'm not sure what you mean by these articles were not written by the Columbia Journalism Review, but by individual contributors. Are you saying they operate like Forbes "Contributors"? Or that they are on the website rather than the magazine? If the latter, that's not true of the first of the three. For the other two, is the CJR website considered less reliable? (actually asking, not rhetorically). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In journalism, publications invite writers to present opinions. For example, they may ask pro-Clinton and pro-Trump writers to explain the last election. Those writers express different opinions and do not represent the opinion of the publication. You might for example read an opinion piece in the New York Times by John Bolton that says the U.S. should remain in Syria until the year 3030 and another opinion piece by Rand Paul that says they should leave next week. That does not mean that the esteemed paper says they should leave next week or in a thousand years but that they have published articles by two different writers who disagree with each other.

Nblund, a lot of horrible people are reporters. It has no relevance to whether or not they are accurate. Newton was eccentric, but I am not tempted to test the laws of gravity.

What worries me is that the criterion for banning news media is not reliability but ideology. The Daily Caller, the Sun, the Daily Mail are not great news media but they meet Wikipedia's criteria. If we want to ban right wing publications, let's put that into policy. Because using anecdotal evidence can be used and will be used against any publication. Let's not forget that the most reliable media promoted the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. That fake news story was used to justify a war that led to over one million deaths and cost the U.S. trillions of dollars.

TFD (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Should we ban The Washington Post because Muslim Brotherhood supporters contribute opinion pieces to it and aren't properly described in the byline? Not to mention that Jamal Khashoggi worked for them. wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Muslim Brotherhood Supporters"? And blaming newsmedia (which issued corrections and followups as soon as the falsehoods became known) for the false pronouncements of the Bush administration, when Colin Powell has even admitted that the administration lied to him and fed him false information so that he would appear genuine by saying things he believed true based on them withholding the full story from him? (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/colin-powell-u-n-speech-was-a-great-intelligence-failure/) TFD, Wimbolo, I am getting the feeling that you're not really describing things in accuracy here and I can't help but feel that you're doing so deliberately. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, considering the tendency of Wikipedia to ascribe reliability to media ventures that make profit and the consequent tendency to treat far-left media (eg: itsgoingdown.com, newsocialist.com, rabble.ca) as unreliable, I'd suggest being stricter about far-right sources isn't outside the bounds of current policy at all. However I've also been quite clear that I'd like to see WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS adopted as policy, and that would as a side-effect make the vetting of racist and nationalist far-right news sources much stricter. Also, I've often mentioned that I feel Wikipedia is nowhere near strict enough about newsmedia content in general. In particular I find the dependence on news for recent political articles creates WP:RECENTISM and constant WP:NPOV problems; often we'd be better off saying nothing, or expressing only a brief summary about current political events until such time as they become matters of historical record. Whereas, the tendency to treat whichever preferred news source's 24 hour news cycle churnalism as fact is the current de-facto political method. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This, exactly. There's a unsettling trend that editors want to outright ban sources with extreme views because soley of extreme views. That should not be the case, though one can argue and demonstrate how extreme views generally may points towards fabrication and outright lying to get their view to work. To say we should blacklist a work because their viewpoint is so far off center is not really acceptable while at the same time editors routinely ignore RECENTISM and write about the current public opinion. It creates a feedback loop not geared towards the long-term. Hence why my concern on DC here is if they have actually falsified or faked stories that makes them wholly unreliable to be blacklisted. --Masem (t) 16:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is the intent, but the kinds of "NotosourcesIhate" (why not "NoCommieSources" or "NoIslamistsoruces") attitudes tends to turn me off their arguments. I have no issue if we can all extremists sources of any political persuasion, but not if we single out one side for being "FeCKNGGGG!wrong", and indeed resorting to such language tends to turn me off as well. If you cannot argue without getting angry and shouting "Semprini!" I really start to wonder how much validity your argument really has.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty clear that my objection was with news media in general being a snake pit of WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM problems such that anything that isn't a top-shelf source shouldn't be used. And the DC is definitely a bottom-shelf media source. However credit where credit is due, that was a great Monty Python callout there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

And that is my point, you started off "TRUCKINGNAZIS" then said something I agree with, but it looked like your main point (the one you started of with) was "FundingNAZISLIKETHIS". If you had just made your point about the press in general I would have agreed. Your argument read more like "I hate their politics, but better make it sound like I am being all reasonableness" then "They are unreliable". This is why tone, attitude (and language) are so important (I suppose I could write an Essay "no Fucking fucking" about it). Note I am not being clever, but this is what spell checker wanted, so why not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about the ideology here: The Daily Caller paid someone to report on an event that they themselves were organizing, without disclosing the connection. When they were caught, they initially kept the articles up, and then scrubbed his byline without explanation.

Here's my question: is there any scenario where we would look at original reporting from the DC that isn't covered elsewhere and conclude that it is reliable enough for inclusion on WP? Original reporting like this article, where a journalist heroically struggles to work "George Soros" and "Fusion GPS" into the same sentence, or this, where an anonymous source reports that David Malpass is a great guy? Would we ever trust any of this? Right leaning outlets like the National Review and Washington Times employ journalists who do some worthwhile reporting in niche areas - which I think is what distinguishes them from outlets like the Daily Caller that really have no apparent interest in actual news. Nblund ^talk 17:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Every major news outlet does original reporting. Here's TDC's exclusive interview with Trump about Brenda Snipes [5], and here's CNN summarizing it [6]. What if CNN didn't mention the interview? We would have to cite TDC. wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any scenario where we would look at original reporting from any source that isn't covered elsewhere. If it isn't then it lacks weight for inclusion. Something that Trump said which was ignored by CNN and the rest of the mainstream media would be too insignificant to mention. In this case we would only report the parts of the Daily Caller interview that mainstream media carried. Banning the Daily Caller will not keep out material, allowing it as a reliable source will not introduce material. IOW whatever we do will have no effect on article content. TFD (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 Biased, but not fake news. It should be used with caution. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"There's a unsettling trend that editors want to outright ban sources with extreme views because soley of extreme views." says Masem. I submit that this is incorrect, multiple people in multiple discussions on this page have described their objection not in terms of "soley of extreme views" but with regards to real concerns about the reliability of information provided on sources like the Daily Caller and Fox News. Mastcell and I provided detailed lists of reasons why we found Fox News to be problematic in terms of RELIABILITY issues, and each accusation that editors like us are merely engaged in some sort of "I don't like it" on the views is the definition of strawman tactics and incivility. Please treat us with the respect we deserve for discussing in good faith the FACTS involved rather than just blanket accusing people of viewpoint bias to shut down discussions with a heckler's veto. But to quote Mastcell directly from his comment (emphasis mine), "I and an IP editor both presented evidence, above, that FoxNews is both politically biased and unreliable. My hope was that we'd have a discussion about that evidence, but I've gotten used to disappointment." 73.76.213.67 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Also many of us have argued that all news media should be be seen as not inherently reliable, its just that we have to start somewhere. Personally I would like to see all news media depreciated for a given period after an event (and by that I mean no news stories released before a given time period).Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments: The above is a suggestion that make too much sense but politics (of this supposedly neutral board) would likely not favor. "All news media" can be unreliable and end up giving retractions and redactions all the time. On this board I am seeing attacks, even sort of masked as satirical or "jokes", See: Why are more right wing sources considered unreliable than left-wing sources?" and "The liberal bias of facts", and we are considering if "right" or "right-leaning" (see Fox below) media should be "censored" depreciated. I can see discussions that portray someone leaning "right" as being uneducated or less educated, for the wealthy, and smears in that direction. That should likely be on a user page or essay and not here. I don't mind getting into these types of discussions but this is where serious consideration should be centered on the general "reliability" of sources brought here regardless of politics.

Unless the name is changed to something like "Liberal political news reliable source noticeboard", or consideration of "suggesting" two political type sources be used on every instance (classifying the political stance of sources), then the actual "reliability", "depreciated", or "unreliability" is far less confusing than a multi-tier RFC with "options" that seemed to be considered. All news sources will be biased: This is argued because it is true. Trying to make a determination of reliability based on the political stance of editors here is paramount to censorship. If a site gives "fake" news it should be blacklisted. Since we are likely not going to discuss "suggesting" The Wikipedia Breaking News Department to wait for sources to be vetted, before reporting breaking news, then "cleanup" after the fact would be the only option and not a topic of this board. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia really want to be a platform for the same organization that gave Jason Kessler a platform to promote Based Stickman and only pulled it after somebody died? [7] - as well as inaccuracy this isn't a run-of-the-mill conservative media source. It's the shallow end of the neo-fascist pool. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, I agree it should not be an RS, but the issue should (and only) be reliability, not POV.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because a source is deemed reliable or in this case, not deemed wholly unreliable, does not mean WP is committed to repeating everything that work publishes. If we know a part of an RS is bogus information, we can overlook it. --Masem (t) 15:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

My comments were about using "political bias, one way or the other, as a means of classifying the "reliability" of a source. Most news media declare that the opinions of the reporters may not be the opinion of that media vehicle. Yes, that is just legal mumbo-jumbo to mitigate possible lawsuits, and no, we don't want "fake" news advanced on Wikipedia. To me, tearing down any historical statues or monuments is a mistake. I can't even imagine why there would be a need for a "white civil rights" group or rally, and think words like "white supremacist" should only be used to denote some historical context, and has no place in our society as well as "white nationalists". All of these conjure up meanings of a person or organization that does, or may, promote (or agree with) some possible genocide. That is why any Wikipedia editors that check sources should at the very least be given an "atta-boy" and a very good reason to have this noticeboard. However, since not one person on here can claim with credibility that certain sources are always unbiased, then trying to take a Wikipedia political stance as reasoning for excluding or deprecating (spelled it right this time) a source, because of a political stance or leaning, can lead to censorship.

I didn't vote for Obama and so far survived. I also didn't vote for Trump and hope to survive, but I support border security, as did Congress during Obama's term. This means I am for border security regardless of the political arguments being left-wing or right-wing, though I pretty much stay away from "political" articles and don't care for "breaking news". Where does that politically place me and maybe others just wanting to source content? The way I see it, this does not matter because unless content provides undo bias, that would be article content concerns and not reliability of a source. My question would be, when a source is "deprecated" do editors go about removing all these sites "per consensus at AFC discussion" or seek to replace such sources or tag them? If a source shows bias but is otherwise reliable is that not an indication of needing balance over "permission" to remove a source by using a "maintenance" scheme? I have suddenly become bored of apparently trying to crusade for "equal treatment" of sources from a political point of view. Have fun, 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)

I'm suggesting that the extremity of the position DC holds, combined with its history of falsification both point toward unreliability. Fascism is not a doctrine known for truth and honesty. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

And this kind of argument will put people off of your stance. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to fight the great fight.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

But their positions do matter, both in terms of assessing their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and in terms of assessing whether the false or misleading stories they've published in the past were deliberate. Bias or the politics of a source alone are not a reason to depreciate them; but when a source has a pattern of publishing false or potentially-misleading stories, it's reasonable to look at their politics and biases in order to determine whether those were accidents or part of an intentional effort to mislead readers and manipulate the public by publishing untruths. Everything about the history and politics of the Daily Caller implies the latter. Outlets like Vox, Slate, the The Economist, or The Wall Street Journal, for instance, have a clear point of view, but nothing about their politics implies that they wouldn't be committed to the truth as they see it; and their errors (which are far more rare) don't really form a clear pattern based around that point-of-view. By comparison, the Daily Caller absolutely adheres to a bare-knuckle, politics-as-scorched-earth culture-war perspective, which is something we have to take into consideration when evaluating them - and, more importantly, they've published false or misleading things in a specific pattern that seems intended to advance that ideology. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Notable Names Database

Should the Notable Names Database be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. This might be stale according to WP:RSP but I am convinced that this should be deprecated; I'd like to point to a comment here from exactly ten years ago by DreamGuy: As far as I am concerned, that one should be in our black hole list (emphasis mine), seemingly predicting the deprecation of the source. As for the arguments, there is no evidence that NNDB does any fact-checking of its content. It is full of gossip like suicide attempts, drug use and criminal records, and it is connected to notorious gossipers [8] [9].
  I don't know what Jack Schofield meant with this article in The Guardian [10], but it kind of shows ironically that this is not a good website and should be avoided. It also mentions its feature to generate "lists" of people with various attributes, e.g. lists of alumni, which I do not want to see used on Wikipedia. NNDB also has a feature to generate "maps" of people's connections, a well-known tactic by conspiracy theorists.
  This website is like IMDb but much, much worse. There are many Wikipedia biographies (I think thousands) that cite this website and I believe that an edit filter would help new users to avoid this website. While there may not be much evidence of fabricating facts, this source has almost zero WP:USEBYOTHERS and it has an unknown way of getting its information [11] [12]. Note that I'm citing blogs because no serious reliable source bothers to talk about this website, even though I've found a handful of articles in Adweek, Los Angeles Times etc.
  I would not oppose adding this source to the spam blacklist as well. This website has a Wikidata property, but I don't know if it is relevant here. There's also a forum thread about the reliability of NNDB [13], which unsurprisingly does not find any evidence of reliability or a measure of accuracy. wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. NNDB (RSP entry) is a tertiary source, and some of the sources it draws its information are questionable. From a cursory search, it looks like most of the biographies on the website cite Wikipedia as a source (e.g. Mark Hamill, Patti Smith, Jesus Christ), which makes NNDB an unacceptable circular source. This was previously brought up in a 2007 discussion. NNDB also frequently references IMDb (RSP entry), which mostly incorporates user-generated content. Altogether, NNDB is not usable as a source because it's based on sources that would not be acceptable in Wikipedia. The fact that NNDB is used to support claims in numerous biographies of living persons (uses of nndb.com  ) leads me to support its deprecation. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes because there is actual evidence of harmful use of NNDB as a source. feminist (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Editors may use the site to identify info on a Bio page but they absolutely must collaborate that with a known RS ad use those RS for the citations. --Masem (t) 04:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak yes only because by nature it focuses on people, otherwise I would have preferred it to remain discouraged but not deprecated. @Wumbolo: This website has a Wikidata property, but I don't know if it is relevant here. (NNDB people ID P1263) It's not relevant; Wikidata is using it for authority control. They also have a property for Quora. @Feminist: What harm are you talking about? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  The main problem is that this source is mainly used on BLPs, which generally require more stringent sourcing standards. feminist (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. It is too weak a tertiary source, and its lack of fact-checking (editorial controal) basically makes it a form of WP:UGC, rather like IMDb except with serious BLP issues that push it across the line.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional Yes - If the statements made by the other editors are correct, it should be deprecated. I haven't researched the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm

Should the user-generated music databases Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

None of these should be cited as sources, but discogs.com is a reasonable external link. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, sorta, as it's debatable whether we really should be linking to Discogs. My opinion is that links to RYM and Lastfm should be banned on all articles (with some reasonable exceptions), and that links to Discogs should simply display a warning as such. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No user generated content should not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Remind me: does an edit filter flag all instances of external links being added to articles, or only those contained in references? If it's the latter then I'm fine with this proposal. feminist (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  The daily mail filter checks for all links, but a filter could be created that checks only links within references. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support, but only if the edit filter is restricted to references, and does not cover external links. Discogs is similar enough to IMDb, which is allowed for external links at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. — Newslinger talk 08:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I imagine that might be difficult to implement on a technical level. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The ideal solution would be to implement a regex-based filter rule, as documented at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format. If this isn't practical for some reason, we could add these domains to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList as an alternative. — Newslinger talk 11:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I did think that regex could be possibly used for this, but how exactly would it determine what a reference is? Usage of ref tags? How would we avoid false positives? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

​User:XLinkBot uses <ref> tags for this, and it works quite well. It would be difficult to parse wikicode with regex, so User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList might be the best solution. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support for Rate Your Music and Last.fm, but not for Discogs, in light of technical restrictions. — Newslinger talk 12:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for Discogs, which is, per Michig and Newslinger, a useful external link; it's not clear that we have a problem with Discogs that needs to be solved with warnings (let alone banning). Treating it equivalently to IMDB (user-generated and so unsuitable for formal citation, but high-quality and so valuable in other capacities) is advisable. Support for RYM and Last.FM, neither of which contribute much in the way of valuable content. Chubbles (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support for RYM and Last.fm and Oppose for Discogs per Chubbles. feminist (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post editorial

1. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/open-doors-slamming-gates-the-tumultuous-politics-of-us-immigration-policy/2017/01/28/b646ea48-e57a-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2uXbmEFJfd7NIfx5Ux3prT5d8qh3kIG1m4cp8lJXyWP46jlR1LMp2NIKk&utm_term=.4d68ddf422e5

2. Immigration Act of 1924

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_Act_of_1924&diff=880851867&oldid=880851814

The citation appears to be an op-ed, so I'm not sure if it should be included. My personal view is that it shouldn't be.

The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I would characterize that as "opinionated piece" as it speaks with a more casual, personal tone, but not strictly an op-ed. And in any case, the 1924 Act targetting Italians too seems to be readily sourcable to other works too from a quick google search. It would be better to use a historian than a news paper if possible (Eg first book hit on Google gives me this) --Masem (t) 02:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Masem: usable, but a specialist source would be preferable to this WaPo piece. feminist (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States — Newslinger talk 03:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hornet Stories (hornet.com/stories) and Unicorn Booty (unicornbooty.com)

Hornet, an LGBT social network that appears to be a hybrid of Facebook and Grindr, publishes news stories on their website. The stories have named authors, but I can't find a masthead or list of authors.

On the Facebook article, I noticed a citation to unicornbooty.com added in 2015 that redirects to Hornet's primary domain. Taking Unicorn Booty's CrunchBase listing and defunct Twitter account into account, it looks like they were acquired by Hornet and then rebranded into Hornet Stories.

Domain uses:

• hornet.com  
• unicornbooty.com  

Is Hornet Stories a reliable or usable source? (Please refer to this diff and this Hornet Stories article if you don't want to generalize.) — Newslinger talk 14:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Is facebook or Grinder?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No, but I don't think Facebook or Grindr publishes original news stories. Hornet acquired a media company and now operates it alongside its social network. — Newslinger talk 14:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Which one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

They acquired Unicorn Booty, whose articles were migrated to Hornet Stories. — Newslinger talk 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Still seems like its a social network site, and I can find not real information about what unicorn Booty was (beyond a GBT news and pop culture site, which tells me nothing), given there apparent to be no separation of one form the other.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies — Newslinger talk 03:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Omnivoracious: The Amazon Book Review for material on the Adam Hughes article

Is this Review on Omnivoracious, which appears to be in a different format from the user-generated reviews, of a greater quality, reliability-wise, than those reviews? I'm looking for material to add to the Adam Hughes article on the 2010 collection of his work, Cover Run, and can't find any secondary sources, but this review has lots of material that I could use to add to the passage on that book, and Alex Carr, the author of the review, may be a notable person, but I'm not sure if it's the same Alex Carr as I've come across through Google. Anyone? Nightscream (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books — Newslinger talk 03:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Amazon Book Review (f.k.a. Omnivoracious) is an interesting source, since it is owned by Amazon (as indicated in the copyright footer), but also has a list of editors. The site is certainly not independent enough to qualify any book for notability. Since the editors/writers are employed by Amazon to promote the books, and none of them are well-known, all of their reviews should be considered undue weight. However, the site does claim to offer interviews with authors, which are probably usable for the author's attributed statements, but not for showing notability. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  According to the biography of this particular Alex Carr, the reviewer doesn't appear to be a notable person. — Newslinger talk 03:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sludge

Source: [14], and specifically [15]

Article: PragerU

Content: The source is used three times in the article.

First and second are here:

The second-largest donor is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[4][15] Other donors include the Morgan Family Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Donors Trust, and the Minnesota-based Sid and Carol Verdoorn Foundation, led by former C.H. Robinson CEO Sid Verdoorn.[15]:

Third here:

A video entitled "The Suicide of Europe", which featured author Douglas Murray, was criticized for providing false or misleading statistics about immigration in Europe.[15]

It does not appear to me that this source has editorial control. See [16]. It seems to be something like a confederation of bloggers, but I'm not sure I understand the model they're using. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• PragerU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kotch, Alex (December 27, 2018). "Who Funds PragerU's Anti-Muslim Content?". Sludge. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

On the source itself: I'm not sure I understand the model either, but it certainly isn't an impartial organization, despite the pretence to neutrality. On the question of Prager's funding, this information could presumably be corroborated independently, in which case inclusion of this citation would seem unproblematic. But the editorializing about Douglas Murray is more murky; unless I missed something, the article cited doesn't actually offer a single example of Murray giving "false or misleading statistics" on immigration. TheBlueCanoe 21:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of the funding info can be corroborated with reports from Buzzfeed and Mother Jones. But not all of it: this fellow seems to have done some original reporting. I guess I'm unsure whether we should rely on it for the material that isn't corroborated. As for Sludge's criticism of Murray, this was directed at Murray's claim that, by 2017, 'Muhammed' was the most common name given to baby boys in the UK. Sludge cites a report from the UK office of National Statistics showing that 'Muhammad' (excluding alternative spellings 'Mohammed', 'Mohammad', and 'Muhammed') is the tenth most common name in England and Wales in 2017. This does not tend to inspire confidence in the quality of the reporting! Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. And even so, this would not be a misleading statistic on immigration per se, but on naming patterns.TheBlueCanoe 04:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sludge appears too young to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Sludge was founded in 2018, built upon the Civil blockchain journalism platform (See Colorado Sun and Draft:Civil Media Company). I've not looked thoroughly, but I could not find clearly reliable publications citing Sludge.

The credentials of the author, Alex Kotch (http://www.alexkotch.com/), aren't bad.

Overall, I think the ref is ok for basic statements of fact, as in the funding information. Information from interviews should be fine as well, attributed to the interviewee. If used for opinions of the author, the content should not be in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there any difference between citing this source and citing a group blog? I see no difference but that this source isn't calling itself a group blog. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to use it unattributed as a source for facts stated in Wikipedia's voice. "Once the platform is fully launched, Sludge will be accountable to holders of the Civil token, who will use internal governance mechanisms to affirm the integrity and commitment to journalistic standards of Sludge..." just doesn't sound like the kind of fact checking I would like to see in a reliable source. It sounds more like fact-checking by upvote. And, though it's not an automatic sign of non-reliability, their platform is pretty unabashedly biased, as are the majority of their headlines. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

To tackle a more specific aspect, about the video and the claim therein, Sludge would appear to be a little wrong about the statement being false. Muhammad is the most popular name when taking into account variations on spelling: As explained by this BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45559619) "The rankings are based on names with the exact same spellings.... Muhammad (3,691 boys) and Mohammed (1,982) combined would still not be more popular than the traditional spelling of Oliver. However there are other variations on the name, such as Mohammad (837), Mohamed (269) and Muhammed (450) that would make it more popular if they were all counted as the same name." Of course, it would probably be Synth to use this source to counter the claim in the article, but it does show that they have shoddy oversight when it comes to fact checking. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The point about the name has been well taken, and that material is no longer in the article. However, unfortunately, this is the only source we have for some of the funding info about PragerU currently in the article. And its also the only source we have for one of the quotes that currently appears in the article. I think the argument for relying on Sludge here is that the author's credentials are decent and we have no alternative source. But the identifiable errors in the reporting are a concern. And our guidelines clearly say that blogs aren't appropriate sources, and I don't see how Sludge differs from a group blog. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

At the very least any information sourced from Sludge should be attributed to Sludge in text, and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Even then, given the other issues, I'm not so sure it's a great source for facts. I would be inclined to agree with you that it should probably be treated more like a blog.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Telesur

Being involved in Venezuelan articles for some time, I will often encounter Telesur as a source. My question is, is Telesur reliable? ----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

In past discussions, Telesur has been discussed as "propaganda" of the Venezuelan government and has been more recently described by a reliable source, Newsweek, as "routinely criticized as a biased media outlet that promotes unfair and incomplete reporting" and "has also been charged with being pushing favorable propaganda for its government sponsors, particularly Venezuela".[Newsweek] The founder Aram Aharonian initially predicted Telesur's "multinational backing will be reflected in its direction, which will make it impossible for one interest to dominate" though a decade later, Aharonian says "I think that this initiative was burned. Because instead of being a Latin American channel, as it had to be, it ended up being an external channel of Venezuela".

The Venezuela Conspiracy Theories monitor (yes, it has been cited by BBC) has endless amounts of conspiracy theories linked to Telesur, including several 9/11 conspiracies 12, how Obama created ISIS, links between "Masons" and "Zionists" with the Venezuelan protesters, Nutella bribery and that Hugo Chávez was assassinated. Telesur has also spread conspiracy theories about potential state bans of conspiracy theories. The Telesur page has been deleted twice by Facebook (Sputnik trying to defend Telesur) in a similar manner to that of Infowars and other conspiracy sites.

Hopefully some of these links are helpful and we can determine how reliable Telesur is. Thanks for your thoughts in advance!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have said not very reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I will add that RFCs are supposed to be neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Just noticed this after I performed the edit. Sorry!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I would also want to apologize if this RfC entry does not seem neutral (I just realized this upon this entry). This is information that was available and I am not familiar with RfC procedure, so again, sorry.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• As reliable as any other newsmedia outlet Either we accept that ownership of media implies a specific bias, in which case Telesur is biased, but so is the NYT or the BBC, or we don't accept that premise, in which case the ownership of Telesur is irrelevant. Now I'll preface this by saying, as always, that I feel we should not have as much dependence on newsmedia in general in current affairs issues, however the refusal to accept Venezuelan media sources as reliable while unquestioningly accepting American and British news sources as reliable is, in fact, a massive failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. So while my preference would be for us to slow the rate at which Wikipedia updates articles about recent events, any attempt to exclude a newsmedia communicated perspective on a political conflict on the basis of blanket reliability of a class of media (ex: state owned by states that we don't like (you'll note that few people are pointing out that the BBC is state-owned)) should be treated for the hegemonic propagandizing it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Valid point, is there any evidence they actually falsify stories, or are just biased?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any evidence of falsification of stories, and that goes double for the specific context of this RfC - which challenges their use as a source for information regarding the evolving political situation in Venezuela. And again, I'm not suggesting that they aren't biased. I personally subscribe to the notion that all newsmedia has an implicit bias described by their ownership. CBC has a Canadian state bias, BBC a British one, China Daily has a Chinese state bias and Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, and all the rest of the corporate owned news organizations have a clear and pervasive pro-capital bias. This is why I feel, on a general note, that newsmedia has become too pervasive on Wikipedia as a source. It's true that sources don't have to be neutral but we depend far too much in general on news as a source of truth regarding disputed current events. Now with that said, I think that as long as we allow the treatment of capital owned newsmedia as reliable, we should also allow the treatment of state owned newsmedia as reliable, even when we, as wikipedia editors, are not aligned with or fond of those states. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that BBC is actually public owned (yes, it does receive some state funds... but so do organizations that exist to investigate the UK government), and both CBC and BBC will frequently challenge their own country. And we can accept some state sources and not others - we can easily determine reliability and neutrality based on how a state source presents their own country. Does it ever challenge its government when something sketchy comes up? The amount of criticism the BBC gives British politicians and Brexit proves its NPOV and RS because of how it does not just unwaveringly promote the stance of its nation's leader. Comparatively, TeleSur will spin every report into making Maduro look good, including blatant lying. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think they meant bias towards their country not the government specifically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The argument seems to be based on abstract generalizations. Telesur and the BBC or NYT are not similar, not if we compare their actual editorial behavior. Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable; they don't just bias, they lie to cover up the humans rights violations of the dictatorship. There is evidence of falsified stories on our own Wikipedia page. When even Rory Caroll and Nikolas Kozloff call it propaganda, that's pretty bad. And it's propaganda from a regime widely known and sanctioned for narcotrafficcing and other criminal activities and human rights abuses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I might be missing it, I can see a lot about not saying stuff, nothing about outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Security and intelligence officials have been afraid that Telesur may be used by Russia for "fake news" and electoral interference. (Spanish) Allegations of "fake news" about Ukraine (Spanish). Alleged cooperation between Russian media and Telesur to disseminate misinformation. (Center for International Media Assistance) Telesur began rumor that El Chapo had placed bounty on Donald Trump. (Snopes) Just some information regarding Telesur and alleged false stories.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Except Telesur did not start the El Chapo rumour, they repeated it as fact (but then so did others). The others are better, but I am not sure I trust government bodies or statements any more then government run news organs. Can you give an example of then making up a story?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Except they did. The original "story" was part of "a satirical article". Telesur either repurposed the "story" or had some issue with fact-checking a self-described website used for "satirical purposes only".----ZiaLater (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That just makes then no worse then the other sources that repeated it blindly (as they did).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This from the last RSN discussion: "Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda")." Gregory Wilpert is an ardent chavista, and even he is calling it propaganda.

"Employees treated as if they work for a political party" (eg chavismo); is not a reflection of journalistic standards we expect from a reliable source. This is a pattern of not just mistakes, but intent.

Errors of omission when consistently contrasted with errors of commission show a deliberate pattern-- that is, lies. The difference in reporting a situation in Argentina vs in Venezuela (promoting peace) is a lie.

The incident with the Miami reporter was a propaganda designed to deceive: is that not called a "lie"?

Random google, first hit, here. Propaganda= they lie about something everyone who follows Venezuelan reporting knows: "shot by unidentified assailants on motorbikes", means shot by colectivos, which are the government's armed thugs. That entire article is a lie, to distort who is doing the killing. Here's another way they can lie in a report like that: saying someone is "under arrest for the murder". Under arrest has no meaning in Venezuela, where human rights violations, including throwing people in prison with no trial for crimes they didn't commit, are thoroughly documented by humans rights organizations. And, the person "under arrest", if they shot the right kind of person (anti-government) is released or never charged as soon as the hubbub dies down. "Possible paramilitary activity", well, yes, the paramilitary armed by the government: just another way of saying colectivo. Armed paramilitary thugs doing the government's enforcement.

Just some samples; I could read more articles and give you more if you want. Yes, they lie, but with relative ethics and morals, we call it something else. This is not just bias, like say the difference between National Review and The Nation. It is propaganda designed to further a criminal regime, human rights violations, and a dictatorship. IF you really want outright lies, then you don't understand the nature of propaganda, which is to take a less-than-half truth and twist it into something you can use to dupe people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This comment also touches on something that can be used as a comparative: I would, for the right info, use Venezuelanalysis as a RS. Yes, it's owned by a Chavista. But is it at least vaguely neutral and accurate on protest news for both sides? Yeah. Not trusting TeleSur isn't merely because it's a state source or because it supports Maduro. It's because it breaks all the rules of journalism to be Maduro's personal cheerleader, which any outlet could do, it just happens to be this one - and whether accurate or not (most likely not) we can't accept an outlet that we have no faith in to even try acknowledge the full picture. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. I knew the BBC comparison would be drawn, so I would like to quote an excellent book that I've read: La devastación chavista: Transporte y comunicaciones, by Antonio Pasquali (ISBN 9788417014148). Pasquali precisely explains the difference between the state-owned/state-funded television networks in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela, explaining the concerns of bias that existed when it was founded, and that it could favor a government or another. He continues saying how currently the BBC is praised because of its journalist integrity and impartiality, quoting as one of the reasons that it relies on public resources and not advertisement. What's the point that Pasquali makes? The difference between a government and State, which at least in Venezuela are terms usually confused. The BBC was founded in 1922, 96 years ago, while both Russia Today and Telesur were founded in 2005, only 14 years ago; reading through Wikipedia:Perennial sources, it doesn't seem there are doubts about the reliability of the BBC. Telesur has not operated in Venezuela with a different funding other than from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, while I understand this is the same case with RT. I think it has also been discussed how former directors and journalists regret how Telesur has turned into an unreliable channel; when Argentina changed from government, the state retired its funding. Most important of all, I wanted to say this but not before explaining all of this: naming the CBC, the BBC, China Daily, Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, among others, only distracts from the main topic in question: Telesur, and it does not answer whatsoever on the question regarding its reliability.

Last but not least, I wanted to give my two cents on some of the lies and fake news published by Telesur: Progovernment protest in the Yaracuy state near a Metro station, where there isn't even a subway; quoting a White House official that doesn't exist (more information here); US military bases in Costa Rica; Student killed by security forces was killed because of antigovernment protests; Worker hit by tear gas cannister "fell" in a construction camp; Brazilian football team supports Lula da Silva. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Depends My general impression is that Telesur is not reliable for news about Venezuela (with the exception of reported statements of opinion from PSUV officials), but that their reporting outside the country is generally as reliable as any other mass media station. Before we toss aside the BBC comparisons, let's not forget that the BBC has admitted to using the British secret service to vet employee candidates and keep out "subversives", after lying about it for decades. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That note about the BBC had no relation to the rest of your argument, as well as misrepresenting the actual facts which were trying to exclude 'radicals' - they take people from across the political spectrum, but not extremists who might put their own bias into reporting. Damn, you must really not like the BBC to bring them up for no reason other than to shade. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• • See the section Telesur (TV channel)#Political bias. They are not biased just in Venezuela's own politics, but also in foreign countries according to their political relation with Venezuela. Macri, president of Argentina, is a vocal critic of Maduro, and they do not treat him any less harshly than they would with Guaido, Capriles or López. Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. This is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet, as is widely acknowledged. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). This not the kind of thing to build an encyclopedia from. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • • Comment Then by such standard we should't rely on BBC, VOA, F24, etc... Lets not forget that CNN, NYT, Fox News, etc... are too guilty of propaganda, if you want to remove TeleSUR then you should do the same for other media outlets or do you have double standards and want to force such onto Wikipedia? Its not that wasn't already enough for Sputnik and RT, say what you want, but hypocrisy is evident. Just look at media conduct for support of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, remember the Gulf War? TeleSUR is not reliable according to people who don't like their reporting regardless if its true or false, lies or facts. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet. News has bias. See my statement above. Unless we're going to blanket bar news sources as an RS (something I actually could get behind) having a bias should not preclude reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This is so ludicrous I'm not even going to attempt to respond. Neutrality^talk 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Because you can't, that is the truth and you can deny it. Their coverage is biased and propagandish. Lets not mention other media outlets like CNN nor American government being selective about journalists to have some or all control of the narrative. Media coverage of the Gulf War RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

      It is certainly not a very convincing argument for his case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

      User:Simonm223 So why did you oppose Epoch times? --Shrike (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

      • Neutrality has it right; if you start from the place that the NYT is propaganda, there is no place else for the discussion to go. (And I'm no fan of the NYT.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        • We can start from BBC of all, look at their disgraceful coverage of Corbyn from supposed neutral unbiased news outlet. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• Comment. The Economist and Reuters, two allegedly reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, doing some unbiased reporting on Venezuela. emijrp (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Now I wonder how will people in here that assert TeleSUR is unreliable source are going to explain why Reuters and others are neutral/unbiased despite having Guaido prominently on their page and lets not forget that in many many media the prevalence of Pro-Guaido articles shows extreme bias, let alone when anything neutral or "pro"-Maduro gets only published in opinion sections like Bloomberg when experts in law like Noah Feldman are brushed off which is like brushing off Stephen Hawking when it comes to physics. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

    Please see the False balance article (and the corresponding policy for Wikipedia articles at WP:FALSEBALANCE). Not all views deserve equal publishing space. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • They did not place an image of Guaido because they endorse him in some way, but just because he's in the news. There's no conspiracy. Cambalachero (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Not only is it the fact that they are not reliable, this is not a debate of the likes of New York Times against Fox News, it's not that simple. Telesur is known for the fabrication of news for political gain or to divert attention to factual news, regarding the economic crisis (according to them, an economic war), the scarcity of public goods (a conspiracy of the few private companies left in the country with the help of the US), the murders of students during protest by the police (allegedly they were killed by "right wing" paramilitaries), and so on. Their job is the misinformation of the public, and to no matter what, present the Venezuelan government and their allies as the good guys fighting a long standing battle against bogus enemies. --Oscar_. (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics — Newslinger talk 02:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• • The false analogy fallacy is a common trick of left-wing supporters. When someone points to them something that is wrong with their stuff, they select a reputable and superficially similar item, and claim that "if you say that about us, you should say the same about them". Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Options

As seen above in other RfCs and to keep my entry more neutral, which of the four options do you consider for Telesur's reliability?

• 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

Pinging users previously involved: @Shrike: @Simonm223: @Neutrality: @Rosguill: @Jamez42: @Kingsif: @SandyGeorgia: @Slatersteven: @Newslinger: I expect these options will give a more definitive answer regarding Telesur's reliability. Choose an option and share it below. Thank you for the good discussion!----ZiaLater (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2: Telesur seems fine to me for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its allies/supporters. I do not see what the issue with using it as a reliable source for those particular statements would be.Simon1811 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think Option 3 Option 3 or 4 is the description that suits Telesur the best, given its history and the discussion above, specially on topics regarding Venezuelan politics and its allies. The arguments so far in favour of Telesur have addressed only bias or editorial line, but has not answered the concerns regarding its reliability. It has been established in the discussion that not only Telesur is biased, but usually misrepresents, omits or fabricates important information. However, it's also the case that Telesur has deleted erroneous news or corrected themselves in the past, which is why Option 3 is probably the most accurate. Pinging users involved in previous discussions: @Rsheptak: @Squidfryerchef: @SashiRolls: @E.M.Gregory: --Jamez42 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 Telesur is generally reliable for coverage outside of Venezuela, and for statements of opinion from the PSUV. It's also worth noting that Telesur used to be more reliable on all issues (including Venezuela) in its earlier years, and that it has become less reliable as a consequence of changes to its board of directors and advisory council, as well as Argentina's exit from funding the network. However, I'm unaware of a strict cutoff date at which point Telesur became less reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 Honestly, TeleSur is by and far worse than the Daily Mail, though I think the description in 4 is inaccurate for both of them. The Daily Mail is somewhat reliable for factual information - it's when it reports things that other news doesn't that you know it's lying. The same can be said for TeleSur except that it's less reliable for facts and may publish lies about a story that is told correctly in other news, making it Generally Unreliable (3). Note that generally, of course, means in general/for most things. The verbatim reports of half of Venezuela politician's words is an exception, not the rule, here. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 (first choice) or Option 3 (second choice). As I noted above, Telesur is widely acknowledged as a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). Neutrality^talk 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 We shouldn't use state media in countries that there is no freedom of press --10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)
• Option 4 --Oscar_. (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 for the reasons I've already stated in discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 If BBC, F24, VOA and other government news outlet are considered reliable so should TeleSUR. RBL2000 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

— RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Shrike (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3. The numerous unfavorable descriptions of Telesur in established reliable sources (from the section above) show that Telesur is a state-owned propaganda outlet similar to Sputnik (RSP entry), and should be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. In addition to my above comment: Telesur is unquestionably partisan, and all of its statements should be attributed. Editors should take care to avoid using Telesur to add content that constitutes undue weight, especially when more reliable sources are available. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. This is akin to Press TV. Per RSF, in the very low ranked Venezuela - "Arbitrary arrests and violence against reporters by the police and intelligence services reached a record level in 2017." - which is extra-legal. In terms of legal framework - "A 2010 law provides for sanctions in the event of any content “calling the legitimately constituted authority into question.” This has led to arbitrary arrests and defamation prosecutions.". Any factual un-biased reporting from within Venezuela is close to impossible - and is surely impossible for this state-funded propaganda outlet. I will note one significant exception - Telesur is probably reliable (as Press TV and RT/Sputnik respectively) for the views of the current (and contested) Venezuelan regime. Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Propaganda arm of the government, notable for slanted and false reporting about Venezuela. (Note that option 4 as written is unfair to the Daily Mail, a for-profit British tabloid that is not the propaganda arm of a government and which operates in a country with a free press.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 It is correct that bias is not, in and of itself, a reason to consider a source unreliable. But when that source distorts info, makes up facts and slander people to serve that bias, then it's not reliable. Not because of the bias, but because of the things done to serve that bias. And Telesur has crossed that line and burnt the bridges several times. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 I am still to see definitive proof they actually make up stories rather then repeat stupidity created by others. Until we decide (on a Wikipedia wide level) that biased alone if a valid reason to reject a source I cannot accept it as one to reject this source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Seems pretty clear that they routinely publish misleading/false information. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Burrobert (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

To be checked

These need to be checked. It is particularly troubling that Telesur is used to source many BLPs. This is way too many, and suggest that we may need to blacklist Telesur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telesurtv.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telesurenglish.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

Midway Mayhem

1. Source – Busch Gardens Tampa Cobra's Curse Construction Update 2.17.16 POV Tour, Train Reveal, Interviews! by Midway Mayhem
2. Article – Was in Cobra's Curse, I removed it to make sure its reliability and verifiability on this noticeboard.
3. Content – Used in a reference for the themeing of the ride, the queue area's show, how the trains are able to rotate, and what kind of restraints the ride has. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Usable as a primary source with attribution. The video contains a series of interviews with park employees, which are considered primary sources, and should be treated like information on Busch Gardens's website. (Any information provided from the interviewer that is not attributed to park employees should be considered a self-published source.) Secondary sources take precedence over this source in the case of any conflicts. Consider whether the information is due before including it into the article. — Newslinger talk 03:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks — Newslinger talk 03:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger; Appreciate it, and will take into consideration with sources on the article. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Government shutdowns in Europe

There's a discussion at Talk:Government shutdown about whether a failure to form a government in a parliamentary system (such as the 2007–11 Belgian political crisis) has been called a "government shutdown" in sufficiently reliable sources to cover it in the same article. More input is requested. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

World of Kamon/家紋World (harimaya.com/kamon) for Karita clan

Is World of Kamon (a.k.a. 家紋World) a reliable source for the Karita clan draft? Also, does this source provide significant coverage of the Karita clan? The source is in Japanese, and is difficult for me to assess. — Newslinger talk 02:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan — Newslinger talk 02:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy of Science and the Occult

The question was answered by the first reply. Everything after that is fringe pushing and responses to fringe pushing. Neither belongs here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following is used as a reference in the lead of Quantum mysticism: References Is it reliable the claims it is used to support? Any comments on any other sources used in the article would be most welcome. I am just starting to look into how munch pseudoscience has crept in to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC) The germane WP:RULES are WP:PARITY and WP:BLUE. About the author: https://www.thegreatcourses.com/professors/patrick-grim/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Are we now asserting that no Quantum Physicist source needs to be cited on conclusions made regarding Quantum Physics because such assertions are tantamount to claiming the sky is blue? Regarding the assertions made in the article, we appear to still be lacking a single Quantum Physicist who can substantiate. If the book at issue has one it would improve the situation. But again, I would like you to find a single Quantum Physicist supporting the case made, including this book if the writer can be shown to genuinely be qualified in this field. Mrspaceowl (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC) See demarcation problem: sometimes the debunkers are not quantum physicists, they're just debunkers or philosophers of science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Quantum physicists are experts in quantum physics and probably have no expertise or interest in mysticism. Quantum mysticism involves attempts to use quantum physics to "explain" various phenomena outside the field of quantum physics—a physicist is not needed to know such attempts are pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC) If then, we take it to be true that physicists and any other scientist, regardless of disipline, are able to consign a view to the designation psuedoscience, which I believe is our position at present, one question still remains: is the book at issue a reliable regarding the claim it is said to support? Does anyone wish to make the argument? Mrspaceowl (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Straw man. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC) The topic is currently: is the book at issue a reliable source regarding the claim it is said to support? Could you explain your appeal to straw man here? Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Straw man was about "which I believe is our position at present". Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Disregarding ambiguities of expression here: suggest refocus back on the topic at hand: is the book at issue a reliable source regarding the claim it is said to support? Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC) The WP:BURDEN that a highly reputed professor of philosophy of science cannot be an authority upon pseudoscience is entirely upon you. Full professor: check. Academic press: check. What else do you wish? Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Your previous link routes to a homepage for a site that seems to have no obvious affiliation to any credible scientific organisation and gives no backing to the assertion that they are a professor. Could you provide a link to prove that this person is a professor, that they have published substantially and, critically, what the actual views put forward in his book are? For example a quotation would be handy. Once we have that it should be simpler for us to figure out if their field of expertise is the correct one given the exact assertion/assertions made. Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC) That's what people at TTC do for a living: let full professors teach to the camera and sell such courses. Anyway, see https://lsa.umich.edu/cscs/people/post-docs-lecturers-visiting-scholars/pgrim.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC) This is a better source. It seems then that the person is a professor of philosophy, and thus would be placed to... hmmmm... It feels like we really need to know what the quotation from the book is as well. It seems that the most likely relevant field of those he is listed as occupying is philosophy of science. Thus it seems if the argument he is making concerns this, then it is likely a valid source. If the argument made instead directly concerns the science of quantum physics itself, or the current status of consensus of the physics community then it would not necessarily be considered credible. In the latter case, unless additional evidence can be given to show that he has spent some significant time studying not just philosophies of science, but also the general understanding of scientist regarding the concept of quantum mysticism as they exist in scientific communities. A subtle distinction to some, perhaps, but one of clear importance to reaching a unanimous judgment here, I feel. Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC) You're treading on thin ice. You have been told about WP:PROFRINGE: presenting this quantum flapdoodle as anything else than WP:FRINGE/PS is a violation of basic policy. We're not here to WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC) You're not really responding to the argument made above your own, but to something entirely different. I have not made a single argument here that would be covered by any of the rules you cite. Instead I am asking you to demonstrate why your source is credible and why his field is related. This is not in any way an unreasonable request, and I am being very patient and consensual here. Please reciprocate this respect by engaging with the reasonable requests made. Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC) You're the one trying to undo our WP:PAGs, the WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it is a bad source. Have your read WP:PARITY in its entirety? Yes or no? If yes, why do you insist to undo it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC) All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this. -- WP:BURDEN Mrspaceowl (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC) You're WP:Wikilawyering. WP:IDHT, WP:STICK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC) This is a shame, since I would have liked to come to an agreement that could have served the community at large here. It appears this was not saught by all. As per WP:STICK, debate over without any consensus reached. Mrspaceowl (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Your purpose around here seems to be undoing WP:PARITY. See WP:TE and there is an WP:ANI thread about you and WP:NOTHERE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC) As per WP:STICK you cited debate over. By common agreement. Period. Mrspaceowl (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a definition for what constitutes a "reliable source"?

From what I can see, neither WP:RELIABILITY nor WP:VERIFIABILITY provide a definition of what constitutes a reliable source. Rather, they provide guidelines and rules of thumb, as well as circular definitions and references to each other: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"; "source reliability falls on a spectrum... editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable"; "the more people engaged in checking facts... the more reliable the publication", etc. What they don't seem to contain is a simple, straightforward definition: "reliable sources are those that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information on a subject."

Is this correct, or am I missing something? François Robere (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Such a definition is a given, surely? Defining the common English word "reliable" as "can be depended on" is not useful, and trying to come up with a catch-all definition of "can be depended on" would be a disaster waiting to happen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We define mundane things like what is a "source" and what does "published" mean (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Overview), and we have endless discussions about aspects of reliability, such as context and age (also addressed there), but not clear definition of the end result, at least as far as I can tell. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE gives a pretty good definition. "Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...." I think makes it pretty clear. If a source has a consistently good reputation in regards to fact checking and accuracy, it is generally reliable. This board is where you can discuss the said reputation of specific sources, and WP:RSP is where you can see a list of various sources and the current consensus on their reliability UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a circular definition. What is a "reliable source"? François Robere (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It only looks circular because it uses the word reliable (although I would argue it is using it in a slightly different way). But there is much more to the definition. Take that word out, and it works fine. A reliable source is a source with a good reputation for fact checking an accuracy. The better and more robust the fact checking, the more reliable the source. The problem with "reliable sources are those that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information on a subject" is that it doesn't give any indication of WHY such a source is reliable. That's just repeating the dictionary definition of reliable: "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted." And therefore is even more circular, as it just removes the qualifications of accuracy and fact checking, and instead relies on just being labeled "reliable" and then defining the word. Replace the words with their definitions to see why: "A source that is consistently good and able to be trusted is a source that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information" is basically just saying "A reliable source is reliable" and it doesn't help any editor understand why a source they wish to use is or is not reliable. WP:RS is about giving people a definition that can be applied. If a reliable source is a source with robust fact checking and a good reputation for accuracy, those are measurable things that any editor can use to determine if a source they wish to use is reliable or not. "A reliable source is reliable" doesn't help anyone. "A reliable source is a source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking" is less redundant, more specific, and much more useful. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

By this definition, a new news outlet could not be considered a reliable source, since it would not have developed a reputation yet. Is that right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It would likely depend on the prior journalistic reputation of the people running the site. If, say, Robert Costa and Katy Tur started a new news site, we could likely view it as a reliable source fairly early on, based on the the credentials of those two reporters. A news site started by a person whose prior writing experience is exclusively of the partisan polemic or conspiracy-mongering sort, whatever their particular bent, would likely not be given such a benefit of the doubt. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much what NorthBy said. Anyone can call themselves a news outlet, it doesn't automatically make them reliable. If it was started by people whose prior work has been consistently reliable, and if the early reporting shows the hallmarks of reliability (Accuracy, fact checking, etc.) I would probably lean towards giving it the benefit of the doubt. But largely yes, I would be hesitant to view any brand new news outlet as reliable until there is a bit of history to review. The same way that when a new academic study is published we take into account both who published it and how it is received by the larger relevant community over time after publication. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have time, I'd appreciate comments from either of you about the source called "Sludge" listed above; I wonder how you'd apply what you're saying here to that case. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It is circular, but it can easily be resolved by removing the word "reliable", and presto! A definition for what constitutes a "reliable source". Why not do that? François Robere (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that. I think the word reliable should remain in the "Articles should be based on..." sentence, but I have no problem with adding a part that says something along the lines of "Reliable sources are published sources with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy." I guess it could be split into two sentences, "Articles should be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are..." UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've come across dozens of editors who don't know what a "source" is, confusing it with a citation, regardless of whether or not that citation was tagged on by someone with no idea where the information came from, when what it actually refers to is the source of the information. I literally came across so many editors who didn't know the difference that it was impossible to convince enough of the community that it was a problem with one or two of them for multiple years. I have yet to come across a case where having a policy or guideline that explicitly defines "reliable" as "can be depended on" would solve the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually have one in mind, which is how I noticed this. Regardless, regulations of all sorts tend to be specific and rigorous in their terminology for just those reasons, eg. defining what exactly is a "source". François Robere (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure we actually want or could agree on a solid definition of "reliable." There's a spectrum of reliability anyway - something reliable for x may not be reliable for y, and so on. --16:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we do and could, because the goal in all cases is the same: providing correct and accurate information. An overall definition that follow that goal isn't difficult to construct, I think, hence my ad-hoc suggestion above: "reliable sources are those that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information on a subject". François Robere (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Who decides what is correct and accurate? Reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors. Taking that out of editors' hands is the whole point. So your definition is a dog chasing its tail (speaking of circular definitions). Reliable news sources are, or should be, those who have a reputation for commitment to long-established journalistic principles. Signs of that: Firing a reporter for plagiarism. Willingness to go to jail to protect a confidential source. Degrees in journalism. Willingness to go up against a national government despite significant risk to the organization, as in the Pentagon Papers. Clear separation of news and opinion. And so on. NOT a sign of that: Publishing information that I feel is correct and accurate. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

See clarification below. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS does provide a definition although it may not explicitly state it as such. A reliable source is a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Per A Quest for Knowledge, in the Overview section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it makes it clear that reliable sources are those "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The document goes on to more provide a operational definition of a reliable source, which in many ways is better than a single sentence one. --Jayron32 17:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't actually. The full statement is: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation a reputation for fact-checking." It's not a definition but a guide, however if it was a definition it would be self-referencing. François Robere (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

To give my own weight to this discussion. Determining WP:RS is dependent on multiple factors, and not just reputation. Further, no one of these factors is wholly responsible for determining whether or not a source is reliable though a lack of one of these factors can make a source unreliable. First is independent editorial control, this will determine if a source is self-published or not. Another, which is commonly listed is a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy (though the statement doesn't answer whom the reputation must be among). The third that I am aware of is the level of the sources independence of a topic. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, it does not have a strict definition by design, as reliability is dependant on a number of factors as Kyohyi points out. Also (as the various relevant policy/guideline pages point out) not all sources are reliable in all contexts. Some sources are reliable for some material, but not others. When you start looking for a strict definition you will soon be disregarding otherwise perfectly useable and sources reliable for the material they are being used to reference. Reliability of a source can only be assessed correctly (with some exceptions) taking into account the source, the material itself, and the article in which it is to be used (context). Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

My view is in effect that there is no uncontroversial definition of RS. When you take into account the factors that have been mentioned, and do your best to come to a reasoned conclusion about whether a source is reliable, that conclusion is not always something everyone agrees with. In that case, you face the difficult task of trying to build consensus even though there is a difference of personal opinion about the reliability of the relevant source, and that can look like trying to persuade people by giving your reasons, and trying to think of a compromise that will make everyone happy. In this sense, personal opinion does play a role, but this is moderated by the requirement that there be consensus. Does that seem right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(I'll quote myself here, because I wrote it just now:) The goal in all these cases is the same: to provide correct and accurate information to the reader. An overall definition that follows that goal shouldn't be difficult to construct, hence my ad-hoc suggestion from before: "reliable sources are those that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information on a subject". All of the cases and all of our discussions follow from this simple notion, yet nowhere is it put in writing. François Robere (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

If it shouldn't be difficult to construct, why not offer one in a new sub-section below and then put on your thick skin as editors poke holes in it. After a week or so, be prepared to walk away from the definition.

I agree with the editors who state it is not an easy task as I have attempted to get even more simple concepts defined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I do believe this can be done to establish this whole system from first principles, just as other legal and philosophical systems try to do.

@Walter Görlitz: can you elaborate? François Robere (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to ping me as this board is currently on my watchlist.

changing the typo of "who" to "why" makes it easier to understand. If there's something specific that you do not understand about what I wrote feel free to ask, but what I wrote is understandable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to your experience trying to have "even more simple concepts defined". Could you elaborate on that? François Robere (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to know? I have done this three times in different forums. In some instances no change is made. For instance Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album article_style advice#Producer or production the editors got hung up on defining the role of a person being described rather than recognizing that the term is ambiguous, and to break the rule would be beneficial to the reader. In that case, we have maybe two dozen editors interested, and very few would actually comment. Here, we have many more interested and many more will comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Any successes? François Robere (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"Reliability" in sources is dependent on many factors. There is a role for discussion. We aren't just WP:MONKEYS. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's fantastic, Bus stop. I hadn't seen WP:MONKEYS before. Thanks for that. Good editorial judgment--there's no substitute, and it's hard to come by. And there are intractable disagreements about what the best editorial judgment is in a given case. While we can all agree that the reliable sources are the ones that can be depended on (i.e. relied on!), that is not the sort of definition that can settle disputes, since people who make different editorial judgments in a certain case will of course disagree about whether a given source can be relied on to consistently provide correct information on the subject at hand. There's a role for discussion. Some people around here act like there isn't, or that if you disagree with them then you're a troll or whatever. But that's not a reasonable view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Search the archives of this page for "YouTube" to see why we will never agree on a definition of "reliable", and why that's a good thing. If you opened an RFC to enshrine "YouTube is not a reliable source" into policy, you would get a lot of support from people who don't know how YouTube works and who don't really understand how Wikipedia sourcing is supposed to work, but they would be wrong and the proposal would need to fail. Context is everything in such cases. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Clarification: I'm not suggesting, nor have I suggested above, to disregard accepted criteria on "reliability". Rather, I'm pointing to the (glaring) lacuna of not having established what reliability actually is. What does it mean for a source to be a "reliable source"? A reliable source is not one that fact-checks, but one that we can rely on to give us accurate information; fact checking, editorial independence, etc. are all just mechanisms for providing that. We have rules and guides for everything: We define "what is a source" and "what does it mean to be published", where to place a comma in citations and how to format lists of biographies of music video artists born in the former USSR (you get the point...); yet in no place do we establish this basic notion that underlies all of our work here: "We're looking for sources that provide correct information." Everything else is just a means to that end; why not state so? François Robere (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems that what you call mechanisms are what others here are treating as defining characteristics. While I think some of our defining characteristics can be clarified better, I don't think changing the definition of a reliable source to "something that can consistently provide correct information" (yes this is a paraphrase) really clearly defines what is a reliable source. If anything I think that expression is more synonymous than defining. Better and clearer mechanisms (or as I would call defining characteristics) would work better in my opinion. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you accept a black box source that is verifiably correct in all or the majority of instances? If so, then all of these mechanisms are secondary. François Robere (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't accept things unless they actually exist. So you'd need to present to me, a black box source that is verifiably correct in all or the majority of instances first. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In reality most sources are at to some extent "black boxes": We have no idea of the editorial processes of the Daily Caller, which is up for vote above, but we judge it on its results. The RfC summary of the Daily Mail discussion stated that "[it] may have been more reliable historically, but..." - it makes no mention of internal controls like fact-checking. We cite and attribute "official UK sources" on the Skripal poisoning - sources on which we know very little about. Reliability, hence, is more than the sum of editorial processes that we can account for here. François Robere (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll refer to what I said previously, No one factor determines reliability, though a failure of one factor can make a source unreliable. In the case of the daily caller the argument is that the source doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. However, that doesn't mean if a source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy means it is de-facto reliable. Our policy on BLP explicitly calls out self-published sources as not meeting the reliable sources requirements in that context. So if we can't identify if a source has independent editorial control, it is treated as self-published. If it is self-published then it is not reliable for BLP's. This is independent of accuracy. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• We appear to be going in circles, honestly, if you cant after reading WP:SOURCE and WP:RS not at least begin to identify reliable sources as you use them, or at least understand that the way wikipedia defines the term is on a scale dependant on many factors, this is likely a problem with your understanding, not the policy & guidelines. Fact checking, editorial independence etc are indications of reliability, as the above two policy/guide make clear. As it stands this noticeboard is for discussion about specific sources reliability, not for general discussion about what reliability means. If you have a source in mind feel free to post it along with the article and material you wish to use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're completely missing the point if that's your conclusion of this discussion. François Robere (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

An exercise.

What is "reliability? It is being truthful (what then off ignorance?). Is it being factually accurate 100% of the time (what then if the fact (such as often happens in science)) turns out to be wrong in some way, Or is it only being right...the majority...most...some...occasionally (sod off cardinal Biggles now is not the time) some of the time, or of of facts that whilst as stated they are not untrue (most people who die stop breathing) but may not be exactly the truth? Or is it truth (OK Biggles you time is nearly here), Well we can have a whole debate about that (here we can have the same dig are religion we had at science, seems religion gets this one pretty much wrong all the time).Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"What is reliability?" Too often on Wikipedia, it means "this source agrees with what I want in an article". The sad truth is that modern media do not actually do real fact-checking before publication of articles due to the high costs involved, and the desire to be on-line two seconds ahead of the competition. In short "fact-checking" of new articles is essentially non-existent for those monetary reasons. Even "respected newspapers" take press releases and use them instead of actual journalism. Especially on science and medicine topics, and political topics for which they often use press release "memos" as their uncredited source. Add to that the insatiable desire for "celebrity gossip" afflicting the grey ladies of the newspaper realm as much as the "red hatters" of the tabloid realm, which means almost no "celebrity gossip" is fact checked at all. Does this sound too pessimistic? People hunt for "blogs" whose quotes can be used to support "A is an anti-Semite" or "B would kill all Arabs" or "C suggests using genocide as a goal" or the like of absurd overstatement (at the bare minimum). This may seem a bit like "the Emperor has no clothes!" but the gist is true. The Wikipedia belief in "reliable sources" is decimated by actual facts now. And too many "true believers" in whatever issue exists, fight to keep their turf clear of "wrong sources." WP:NPOV is close to deceased as a result. Collect (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with all of the above, but that (strictly) is not an issue about how we define reliability, but rather about how we enforce that definition. But the one thing it is clear we will not get (possibly due to the over worship of the 5th(?) estate by the nation that makes up the bulk of Wikipedia's editors) is that is not going to change.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Devil's advocate... That's all the more reason to define what we want from sources. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm game. I may BRD some and see how it goes. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• To paraphrase Justice Stewart: “we know it when we see it”. A reliable source is one that we (as a community) deem reliable. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Once there was a whole book written on 'what is a Republic', or, at least that's what its title suggests -- Wikipedia tends to write in long-form on what it tries out as working concepts and gives them short titles like, "reliable sources", so look to such pages to try to grok it, but most probably you will not just reading that, you have a better chance to learn in the doing off Wikipedia, and perhaps on, like in research and writing in school, or in professional life. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's why I noted above that we work from an operational definition, which seemed to get lost. The most important part of my comment above was the reference to operational definitions. Operational definitions are not invalid definitions, even if they are not explicit definitions. The reference you made to Potter Stewarts famous statement on obscenity is germane here as a great analogue for how Wikipedia treats reliable sources, especially as expanded on in other court decisions, such as those that establish community standards for obscenity. People looking for a definition expect an explicit one, but explicit definitions are often circular (What is an apple? It's the fruit of an apple tree. What is an apple tree? The tree that produces apples. That sort of thing). When we provide operational definitions, that is define something by what it does rather than by what it is, we are far more useful to people trying to apply the concept. Thus, we can define an apple operationally, but indicating what it looks like, smells like, tastes like, is used for, etc. "An apple is a fruit which has a waxy red or green skin, a white or tan flesh, sweet flavor, often used in pie making, etc." Any explicit definition we could give for reliablility of sources would literally be just a restatement of what every dictionary defines the word "reliablility" to mean. That's next to useless. Instead, we have a page that gives a lengthy operational definition of a reliable source, by explaining what reliable sources do rather than merely what they are, that is they have a reputation for trying to present verifiable facts, they independently verify those facts, they present information which conforms largely with what other equally independent sources, doing their own fact checking, have also arrived at, their primary purpose is to inform rather than to convince or advertise or entertain, etc. One of my favorite operational definitions of reliable sources is the CRAAP test, which I use with my students so they can self-assess reliable sources. It's a great starting point, because it focuses on how to recognize reliable sources. Again, the OP's fascination with the definition of reliability seems misplaced here. Look it up in Oxford or Miriam-Webster if you want; Wikipedia is not using the word in a specialized way, or any different way. It's a normal English word. What is more important is how do we find and use reliable sources. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  My entirely left brain (I have no right brain) tells me it would be possible to develop a source general reliability (SGR) score based on objective criteria. It wouldn't be a "last word", for various reasons including that some sources are reliable sources for some facts but not for others, but it would still be useful to be able to say that Source X is generally more reliable than Source Y, and by "this" much. Of course it would be a very difficult sell after certain factions realized that it would demote sources supporting their POVs; that's simply another negative result of our self-selected self-governance system. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not a chance of getting that to happen. Many of the discussions here result in "the source is reliable for α, β, γ, and δ but is not reliable for ᚠ", or sometimes "but is not reliable for anything else". The archives here are littered with those. So how to do you state that a source is more reliable than another? Are you asking about topic γ or ᚠ at the time? Are you planning on using it for a purpose for which it has been determined unreliable? I know that individual projects have lists of reliable sources and unreliable sources, but they do not rate them as more or less reliable (even though some editors may feel that this is the case). Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  I think I addressed that. The main obstacle would be political, not that it would be completely without merit or value. It's an example of a problem that is intractable because of core problems that can't be addressed under our system of governance. In my view that's at the root of many persistent Wikipedia issues. Of course that takes the discussion off topic and "meta", and I shouldn't be in this to begin with. I must get better at resisting the urge to enter discussions like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  This is a classic epistemological discussion. Actually we can define an apple objectively using any number of means (taxonomical, physiological, chemical); it doesn't matter how we label it, or if we label it at all. As for operational definitions: They may be easy to define and apply, but they're useless for re/definition (ie making new rules), as well as for cases where no rule exists; and since they don't stem from a clearly defined notion, they can contradict each other and you'll have no easy way to resolve the contradiction. And they're lazy, especially in an enterprise with as many policies, guides and essays as this one. Regarding dictionary-like definitions: Would that be wrong? A dictionary definition isn't useful outside of Policy, so why not enter one into it? Is it that different from explaining what verifiability, NPOV, civility etc. mean? As I said, I have a specific interest here because there are border cases which aren't addressed by any guideline, and when that happens you need principle. François Robere (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not aiming for epistemology at all. Apples are things that most people agree are worth eating, although the type and variety that one may choose to eat may vary by person. While SPAM are things that most people agree are not worth eating, although it existence benefits some. STICK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  The existence of "border cases which aren't addressed by any guideline" does not go away by quoting the Oxford definition of a word. We make decisions on the reliability of sources based on a number of criteria, depending on the nature of what the source itself is being used to support. WP:RS is extensive (but not exhaustive) of the sorts of things we look for when assessing sources. That's sufficient. Hard cases make bad law, which is why we don't use the "border cases which aren't addressed by any guideline" in order to decide how to write the guideline. You create policy for the broad middle, and WP:IAR covers the rest. --Jayron32 15:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Bigleaguepolitics.com a reliable source for an accusation against Rashida Tlaib?

See this. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Big League Politics isn't a reliable source about anything, really valereee (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• NOoooooo Not even close. The site traffics in conspiracy theories, including dangerous nonsense like Pizzagate, and it was founded by a guy who was unscrupulous enough to get himself suspended from Breitbart. It shouldn't be cited for anything, but especially not for a BLP. Nblund ^talk 16:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Damn. I should have looked for an article. Still, I guess it's worth having something here as a search of the archives turned up nothing. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I would say that the source is weak. If there were merit to these allegations, better sources would be available. I checked, and so far, I cannot find any. But to play devil's advocate, they apparently were right in at least one case now dominating the news cycle.[17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Even a blind dog still sometimes pisses on the tree. That doesn't mean anything. The site is in no way reliable, and should never be used for anything. If the story can be verified via other sites, use those with an actual reputation for journalistic integrity. If it cannot, then we cannot trust this site. --Jayron32 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Jeez...relax. I didn't say it was reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. This source has close connections to Breitbart News (RSP entry), which has been deprecated and blacklisted. Big League Politics has been thoroughly criticized by established reliable sources, including The New York Times (RSP entry), which described it as "an obscure right-wing news site [...] which has promoted conspiracy theories and written favorably about white nationalist candidates". NBC News called Big League Politics "a far-right website that often promotes conspiracy theories". The Washington Post (RSP entry) stated that Big League Politics has "reliably boosted Trump, attacked Democrats and liberal figures and written many articles promoting a discredited conspiracy theory popular among far-right conservatives". Big League Politics is clearly partisan, and all of its statements should be attributed. Content from Big League Politics is likely to constitute undue weight, and editors are urged to find more reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 02:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Australian paradox

I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Australian paradox about an article with multiple issues including RS and use of predatory journals, and I invite any and all interested parties to contribute there. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

informationcradle.com

Is informationcradle.com (used in 46 articles) a reliable source? It was the only English-language source I found that mentioned Stella Chung's marriage and subsequent separation [18]. On that page, the information about her marriage is almost the only information which wasn't copied and pasted from this star2.com article. (Almost all of the text in her Wikipedia article is unreferenced.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say it is probably not an RS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Copyright violation. InformationCradle.com copies the content of The World's Healthiest Foods. Compare https://informationcradle.com/health/health-benefits-of-cumin/ to "Cumin seeds" and note the design of the nutrition tables. I assume the rest of InformationCradle.com also uses scraped content. Try to find the original source that InformationCradle.com copied from, and ensure that the original source is reliable before using it in an article. Cite the original source (if it's usable), but never link to InformationCradle.com, as WP:ELNEVER prohibits links to copyright-violating material. — Newslinger talk 11:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Requested blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § informationcradle.com. — Newslinger talk 11:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

media bias chart from adfontes media

Many here are I'm sure already aware of this, but I have found this chart very valuable as a sort of cheat sheet. valereee (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking if that is an RS? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• It can be useful when you need a reminder for an off-the-cuff example of a particular type of unreliable source when talking about bias; and I suppose you could use it as a very quick check to get a sense of where the baseline for discussions over a particular source are likely to start or how it's likely to be received here. If you have multiple sources it can also be worth a quick glance at a chart like that to get a sense of which ones are strongest (although this board usually focuses on "reliable" vs. "not reliable", assessing which sources to go with when there are many to choose from is also a vital part of WP:RS and WP:DUE.) But ultimately it's just the opinions of one website with no real sourcing or explanation, so it's not like we can actually use it for anything more than a rough reminder. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Looks accurate to me. But then, who's to say I'm unbiased (or objective)? O3000 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While it looks broadly accurate to me, there are a few things in there that I found eyebrow-raising - in particular, it rates Newsmax above Fox News (not just above, but three whole tiers above it!) That definitely doesn't reflect the current consensus here, at the very least. --Aquillion (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO, Fox has dropped a couple tiers in the last couple years. Also, our Fox consensus is based on the news programs, whereas their rating appears to include all shows. Newsmax used to be awful and I would've positioned it lower two years ago. But, I haven't looked at their site in a couple years and haven't seen their TV network. O3000 (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

​Note that they have separate charts for all the parts of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and The Young Turks. Scroll down to see them. Their ratings place FoxNews.com just a little bit higher than Newsmax. — Newslinger talk 13:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the overall Fox rating is dragged down by a few shows -- which, alas, are among their most popular shows and oft quoted on the home page of their site. O3000 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: yes, the "Fox overall" rating isn't as helpful as the individual show ratings. Ditto the other major news networks -- Cuomo is rated lower than Early Start. @Emir of Wikipedia: just found it helpful in a rough way for sources I'm not deeply familiar with and as a way to check that I'm using the best source for a particular assertion, so I thought I'd share. Yes, it's just the opinions of one website, but they seem to be doing their best to be as objective as mere humans can be, and I've found that they roughly agree with WP consensus on many sources. Like I said, I use it as a cheat sheet. valereee (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, hi. For some reason your ping didn't work. The reason I said what I said was because I wanted to know if you were asking if you wanted to know the reliability of the chart. Discussions that are not about determining the reliability of specific sources, but about information to consider when analysing sources, should go on the talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia My ping probably didn't work because the first time I posted, I broke it. :) Whoops, sorry, about posting in the wrong place -- thought I was on a talk page lol! Another example of not-my-best-work! valereee (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes. Even if some say that the chart is not completely accurate it is still interesting, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of Indian news sources

An editor, Markbulb (talk · contribs) has contacted me and asked me to remove three films from the filmography of the article Parvatii Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), claiming that the sources provided are not accurate and citing WP:LIBEL.

The three sources are

1. The Times of India [19]
2. International Business Times [20]
3. Deccan Chronicle [21]

Diffs: I Restored removed content

Markbulb Requested removal et seq

There has been a discussion on the article talkpage around these films inclusion. He claims to have had a communication with the subject of the article, referring to her as a client, indicating that the news article sources for these entries are unreliable. I'm not sure how to judge this. The articles verify that the subject acted in the films stated. I also don't see how her being cited in these films (Nimirndhu Nil, Janda Pai Kapiraju, Maalai Naerathu Mayakkam) count as libel. --Auric talk 21:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not see how this is libellous either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for taking the time for looking at this issue. Firstly, I want to say - I am a huge believer in free speech and will never support censorship, so much so that I am a huge fan of Bitcoin and don't believe that our government should control currency.

Parvatii, is trying to remove these films from her filmography from the past few years, but it is unable to do so. I don't think my predecessors explained the situation well. Let me try to clarify the situation:

1) Parvatii, did sign for these films. Parvatii did shoot for these films. But, due to issues with the production team. She quit. 2) Majority of Parvatii's role was edited out. Apart from a 7 dialogue scene. This was used in the film without her consent - She is willing to testify this. 3) When Parvatii left the production, she made it very clear to the production team that they can't use shots of her that were taken. But did so without her consent. 4) Parvatii doesn't want to be associated with these films. She strongly feels that having these films in her filmography is defamatory in nature - as she quit and she didn't give consent to the production team to use her shots. 5) Parvatii did think of pursuing legal action against the production team, the time and cost involved didn't merit this course of action.

The movies in question is the same movie that was released in multiple languages.

Once again I really appreciate you guys having a look at this. I know its guys like you who are the real heroes of Wikipedia and are responsible for making wiki awesome!

Markbulb (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

183.82.130.43 (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware they are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Given what Markbulb says above, I think this is at best an issue for WP:BLPN, not this forum. The sources are reliable for the statements made and it seems she admits to being shown in some scenes, whether she agreed to it or not. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I would agree, this is a BLP matter, not an RS matter.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• It seems, USER:Markbulb, that you are not disputing the accuracy of the sources, but you instead want to WP:CENSOR them due to various objections the actress has with them being included in her 'Wikipedia Record'.

As such, this is the wrong place. If you really wish to get them removed, there are two routes; you might bring it up at WP:BLPN and attempt to establish a consensus that this information does not belong on Wikipedia. Alternatively, if you truly believe that this is "defamatory" and actionable, then you can contact the Wikipedia Foundation and discuss it with them; information on how to do this can be found here, under legal: [22].

What I would recommend doing, if reliable sources exist for this dispute, is creating a draft on the talk page of her article explaining the dispute and request its inclusion in the article per the procedures defined at WP:COI, and thus in this way you can provide context to the roles. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

To add to the above. If there is some off wiki dispute this has nothing to do with us.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

She strongly feels that having these films in her filmography is defamatory in nature - as she quit and she didn't give consent to the production team to use her shots.

Then her problem isn't with Wikipedia, it's with the "production team". Get back to us if you've settled it with them and if reliable sources care enough to comment on it. --Calton | Talk 16:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I posted this here because Markbulb's complaints seemed to be focusing on how those sources, which AFAIK were reliable, were reporting false news and I was getting concerned.--Auric talk 01:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com) for UGNazi

Are Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com, not to be confused with Hacker News) reliable sources for the UGNazi article?

Softpedia was previously discussed at "Softpedia Linux software reviews" and briefly mentioned at "Software review sites" and "Download pages as source for notability?". The site has a list of editors. The articles in question are:

1. "UGNazi Leaks 1.7 GB of Data from WHMCS Servers"
2. "UGNazi Hackers Leak Data from Washington Military Department"
3. "UGNazi Hackers Launch DDOS Attacks on CIA, DOJ Sites to Protest CISPA"
4. "UGNazi Attacks Wounded Warrior Project to Spite The Jester"

The Hacker News has an editorial team and a copyright footer of 2018. The articles in question are:

1. "Web Hosting software WHMCS vulnerable to SQL Injection; emergency security update released"
2. "UGNazi hackers attack on CloudFlare via a flaw in Google"

— Newslinger talk 11:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture — Newslinger talk 12:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

All Music Reviews

I have changed my mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotlandLaddie04 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)<

Which reviewers are you thinking of? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

He is referring to this, a reliably sourced genre he disagrees with wherein the Allmusic reviewer, Jack Rabid describes the song as "another solid pop single". Robvanvee 05:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting suggesting that a fellow Wikipedia editor would do something with a self-serving motive and not be forthcoming with that information? I'm totally shocked!

Regardless, not likely to happen. I won't offer a polling opinion, but will say that AllMusic meets RS and reviews there that contain prose are completely reliable regardless of who the author is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Websites are only blacklisted for severe issues that affect the usability of the entire source. If you disagree with one AllMusic reviewer's genre classification for a song, your best course of action would be to find other reliable sources (WP:RSMUSIC is a good starting point) that classify the song differently, and then include them into the article. Blacklisting would be inappropriate here.​ — Newslinger talk 05:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)