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

Edit filter for the Daily Mail

(Formerly: Cross-post of WP:EFN discussion) A year ago, this noticeboard resolved that links to the Daily Mail would generally be banned on this project. The ban has never been technically implemented, however. A discussion was started at EFN last month to finally set the Mail filter to warn, but it fell off of the noticeboard due to lack of participation. I just rescued the discussion from the archives, and I thought that this time around I'd cross-post here, since the discussion is arguably more relevant to this board than to that one. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Make it so. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support No reason to not have this in my view. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This would be help a lot. We should also do this for Breitbart, and possibly others.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

what picard said. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecesary vanity tags that just waste volunteer time. --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh? This does the exact opposite, warning users of inappropriate citations before they commit, saving reversions. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't WANT them warned: he's using his comments at WP:EFN to relitigate the RFC. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm reviving this discussion with the hope of coming to a conclusion. I just had to revert WP:BDP content cited to the Daily Mail. It would be nice if this filter were implemented.- MrX 🖋 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Surprisingly, there still are over 27,000 articles in Wikipedia that cite the Daily Mail. Would it be necessary to replace these references if this filter were implemented? Jarble (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question Jarble. I don't know, but I doubt it. Perhaps PinkAmpersand knows.- MrX 🖋 22:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

On a technical level, no, nothing would need to be done. The filter would only catch edits adding references to the Mail; it wouldn't do anything to edits to articles with preexisting references. Also, while the support/oppose !votes here aren't unhelpful, they're just relitigating a settled issue. What needs to be decided is how to implement the RfC consensus, and I would encourage editors to comment on that matter at EFN (rather than here, since EFN has the ultimate say on this). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically wouldnt it flag up if someone edited a section/article with an existing DM reference? That would at least prompt people to replace it. (oh and support filter etc etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, has blacklisting been considered? I see that The Daily Mailer is blacklisted, but not the Daily Mail. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I'm not sure. That would be a good question to ask at EFN. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, if I understand things rightly, this is probably the best place to seek a consensus on whether to move forward (not the final decision) with blacklisting a source. With a consensus in hand, then a "nomination" at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would likely result in a blacklisting. Does that make sense? Should we start a new thread seeking an actual blacklisting, since that's different than the subject of this thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Ah, I see your point. I thought you were asking more of a technical question. Anyways, personally I'd be against outright blacklisting, since there's a decent number of cases where Mail links are permitted. A filter that warns but does not block seems more flexible than a spam blacklist that outright blocks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Then I'll settle for a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: No, that's not how the filter works. If you look at the source code, you'll see that it only checks whether the added text (added_lines) has a Mail link, not whether the article itself (new_wikitext) does. You can see for yourself: Go make a copy-edit to an article with a Mail link, and then check your own filter log. You shouldn't see an entry for the edit. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support its about time we do this.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support I see no valid reason that we should not warn users not to add cites to the Daily Myth.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Steven, did you mean to write "warn users to not add cites"? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• LOL, yes, a not in the wrong place, how DM of me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Censorship is not the answer. Likewise the discussion resolved that DM is acceptable in certain circumstances. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• The C of E, you do realize this isn't a ban, but just a warning to be cautious? No one is asking for censorship. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We "censor" things all the time. The blacklist has thousands of websites, many titles and word are blacklisted. The Daily Mail is not, by community consensus, a reliable source, so this should change nothing at all, other than saving people the annoyance of having to revert crappy sources. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to revisit the decision, C of E, just start a new RFC instead of trying to hobble it by the back door. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Seems to be a no-brainer. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support As long as this is limited to a warning, and limited to the Daily Mail, then it makes perfect sense as a logical extension of the previous decision. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A warning seems like it will save us trouble down the road without much risk of causing problems. Anyone adding a new reference to the Mail ought to be made aware of the decision regarding it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Aquillion's comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
• Support. It's time we implemented a decision we have already made. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC).
• Support I think this is like the third time -- we already have the consensus. [1]Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Edit filters should be used against sites that have been blacklisted. While DM is not to be used for factual aspects, it is not blacklisted - it can and should be used if the newspaper is the center of a controversy. I see a slippery slope where a source we've claimed non-reliable is on a filter, we would start including more, and that will make the situation worse. --Masem (t) 01:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional support so long as this is a warning and not a 'blacklisting', per logic of Aquillion above. Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and hopefully the 1st step to a blacklisting, the Daily Fail is an unacceptable source for any content. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary but I am open to convincing. I think XLinkBot would handle this just as well. That bot kicks in to revert the addition of blogspot links, and it works well (last I checked). ~Anachronist (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I have to agree. Daily Mail is not reliable as a source. Same story with Daily Express. Both are fake news websites who posts nonsense fear mongering, such as a non existent rogue planet called Nibiru or doomsday predictions. I do think both should be banned from the project. --LovelyGirl7 talk 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While some of the more modern editions may be "unreliable", what about the historic editions and context for certain subjects? Indeed we do have a number of GAs that are heavily reliant on DM so I fail to see how we should have a blind bot just go sweeping around. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? This'll just warn editors who try to add the link, not remove all instances Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting is separate, same with a bot that removes the links, this just is an warningand informs the editor with this template, and still allows them to add the link Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional support so long as this is a warning and not a 'blacklisting'. Wikipedia isn't censored. At this point The Mail's unreliability places it roughly in the same place as Breitbart, use with extreme caution and not for WP:BLP. loupgarous (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Daily Mail is not blacklisted. I think it is unnecessary. Daily mail is not an ideal source and is problematic, but it is not that bad.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Gino Gambino Bullet Club

We are currently in a heated discussion right now over the reliable sources added to Bullet Club member Gino Gambino and this user claims BLP and keeps reverting it so I was wondering if these independent sources are reliable [2]

[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan (talk • contribs)

Can you link to the diffs of the agreement? The last revert that I checked[4] is not really pointing to the sources that you have linked here. Excelse (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a source that another user have provided when added Gambino [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan (talk • contribs)

Cagematch? I don't see how it is supporting the information of him joining Bullet Club, though the information seems authentic: [6] Excelse (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse: Suggest you check out the talk page of the Bullet Club article. All the sources given so far have been proven to be unreliable by Addicted4517 per WP:BLP. Contentious claims require independent reliable sources. None have been given yet. NotMemberofBC (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Exclusive Video but only on "generally unreliable" DailyMail Site

While attempting to add statements by Seth Rich's parents to the "Murder of Seth Rich" Talk page for eventual inclusion in the article, I was informed by an editor that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC

So I am now inquiring about an exception, since the Daily Mail has an exclusive video interview with Seth Rich's father in which he states (on camera):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html (the video is embedded in the page, after some photos, and has a title "Seth Rich's father reveals son was joining Hillary campaign)

In the video, Seth Rich's father can be seen and simultaneously heard stating, "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him."

So, it appears to me that the truthfulness of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, and the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence.

This inquiry about an exception to the "generally unreliable" vote at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC is separate from any ongoing discussion to possibly include the quote in the "Murder of Seth Rich" article. So far, documentation of the job offer there has been suppressed. At the very least, it should be added as a reference.StreetSign (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason most editors at that page have given you for exclusion is not just that the DM is unreliable, but also that this is WP:UNDUE information that promotes a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

But one of the reasons given was that DM is "unreliable", and that statement influenced editors. My question here is if a published video of Seth Rich's father stating "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him." can be a reliable source. So, can it be a reliable source? StreetSign (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. No answer you get here will change whether or not that claim is due in the article. And the Daily Mail has a reputation for photoshopping images. If they could have altered that video (which they almost certainly could have done, though how well is another question), then the fact that no-one else reported on it speaks volumes about its reliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "no one else reported it"? That is deliberately deceptive. I have already reported that CNN and WashingtonPost have reported that Seth Rich's father said that Seth Rich told him that he received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Many other sources have published it.

"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you."

reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e

and on CNN:

"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"

reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html

Do you believe that all those sources were altered too? StreetSign (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's so significant that it should be added to the article, other sources will comment on it. If nobody else cares enough about this Daily Mail interview to talk about it, then there's no point putting it in the article, reliable or not. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of a "deliberate deception" is a personal attack and is prohibited by policy. I might also point out that you, yourself admitted that it was an exclusive video. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking only to the context of whether or not the source can be used and not to content issues of undue weight, the source in question is Seth Rich's father, not the Daily Mail. It is a primary source to a recorded statement made by the father. As such, all due caution must be made when using the source and any interpretation of the source must be extremely limited. It's my opinion that its reasonably sources the statement "In an interview with the Daily Mail, Seth Rich's father said his son was..." and then the verbatim quote. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? We shouldn't use the DM, we should be using the Washington Post and CNN. @StreetSign:, if you knew that those other sources existed before you posted here, why are you arguing we should use the DM? From what you've said, it appears that you are here not to get the text added to an article, but to get the DM used as a source. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on who OP should or shouldn't cite; I'm not involved in the content in the article and have no desire to be. The original question was whether or not they can use the Daily Mail's video as a source and it's my opinion that they can, in a limited way, as explained above. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I have no interest in DM at all. And I have no interest in conspiracy theories. I did notice that the Seth Rich article did not contain any mention of the job offer from the Hillary Clinton campaign, even though his father spoke about it on more than one occasion with reporters, and considered it significant in some way. I posted on the Seth Rich Talk page, and was immediately accused of supporting conspiracy theories. Someone eventually even deleted my posts and those of everyone who responded. At no time did I change the actual Seth Rich article. I was informed that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC

And after reading it I concluded that an exception was a possibility. Once again, I don't care about DM at all. I did not even know DM existed. The video itself is clearly reliable, contrary to the claim by MjolnirPants above. The video, as pointed out in another reply above, a Primary source, so it should not be excluded.

I do understand that editors do not want to promote a conspiracy theory. Neither do I. But it does not seem right to suppress the job offer on that basis. There are many examples on WP, notably the Lee Oswald article as one example, where some facts are seized upon by conspiracy theorists, but they belong in the article anyway, because they are facts that contribute to understanding the background of the story. I don't think that we want to engage in anything equivalent to editing Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin. Seth Rich's father made these statements. They have been reported. They have been deliberately excluded from the Seth Rich article, using a variety of weak excuses. The authentic nature of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence, and it is independently supported by similar statements made by the father to WashingtonPost.

"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later in the video) "He had just found out that they wanted him."StreetSign (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

But in fact you are promoting the conspiracy theory, in your continued pushing of this topic. "Our son had a job offer at the Clinton campaign" is a small factoid, a minor detail of Seth Rich's tragically short life. It would be given no life or credence at all if it were not for the right-wing conspiracy theorists who seized upon it as a reason for his murder. There is literally no other reason to mention it, outside of the context of the whisper campaign. This is strikingly similar to those voices who pushed a few months ago mention that "Heather Heyer's mother said her daughter died of a heart attack" in the Unite the Right rally article. There's no cause to highlight that, other than to further the right-wing talking points that questioned whether the vehicular ramming caused her death. TheValeyard (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it was right-wing or seized upon by conspiracy theorists, what matters is if is mentioned by the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you rather smashingly failed to get the point. Seth Rich's watchband was torn in the incident, his girlfriend's name is Kelsey, whom he met at a polling firm, and Seth also Seth attended a fraternity brother's wedding the summer before. We as editors discern what is notable, what is trivial, and what is undue, the sort of disucssion that usually does, and in this case did, take place at the article talk page. The consensus was that who Seth Rich was going to work for is trivial, except for the conspracisists. TheValeyard (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Seth Rich's father did not consider it trivial. He disclosed it in separate interviews. The documented quotes are

"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign."

"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered."

"He had just found out that they wanted him."

I don't see you complaining that the bike rack (already in the article) is trivial. StreetSign (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when WP:SETHRICH'SFATHER is no longer a red link. TheValeyard (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:INCLUDEEVERYTHINGSETHRICHSFATHERDEEMSIMPORTANT? (SCNR) Regards SoWhy 11:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We can easily differentiate between a documented, published fact and a conspiracy theory. The fact belongs in the article. The conspiracy theories do not. Attempting to repeatedly suppress the fact with obstructive tactics is wrong. StreetSign (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me try and explain something to you: It doesnt matter if you think it is wrong or right, if the editorial consensus for an article decides that something shouldnt be in the article, it doesnt go in. It could be 100% fully sourced to a reliable secondary source in a cast iron publication - if the consensus is that the information is WP:UNDUE and should not be in the article, then it doesnt go in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That does describe the situation more accurately than the excuses that were given by other people. We have documented proof (including a video, and published accounts on CNN and WashingtonPost) that Seth Rich's father said "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." but there are a relatively few editors who have taken control of the article and will not permit it to be in writing on Wikipedia. They label anyone who wants to publish the fact a "conspiracy theorist". They will eventually be overruled. They will not be able to keep Nikolai Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_historical_photographs StreetSign (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to declare the Daily Mail an unreliable source (and I think we should) we should do the same to the Daily Express

It may be a Fleet Street paper, but its website has become a mecca for conspiracy craziness:

See here.

Also here; simply typing the name of a pseudoscience conspiracy theory into Google gets three results from the Express. Serendi^podous 08:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No opinion one way or the other, yet, but your links only provide that the Express talks about conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories and is well trafficked. I was unaware that the Express was being treated anywhere as a reliable source to begin with. Has this been an issue? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

They don't just talk about it; the leading headlines feed into the paranoia surrounding the supposed theories. Serendi^podous 10:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we should not use any of the UK tabloids as RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Trinity Mirror has just purchased the DE so it might be best to see how the buyout impacts on the content. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• As I've said before: The unusual step of taking a formal RFC to produce a concrete finding that the Daily Mail is essentially always unreliable outside of being cited for opinion was unique to its particular case. The Daily Mail is definitely not the worst thing people have tried to cite in Wikipedia (not by a long shot); in fact, the reason it required an RFC and a formal decision was because it was exactly on the border where some people would constantly remove it on sight, while others thought it was usable. If a source is obviously unusable to virtually everyone, there's usually no need for an RFC - you can just remove it, go to WP:RSN if there's objections, and direct people to previous WP:RSN discussions if it comes up a lot. Going through the whole giant RFC process is only necessary when a source is both so bad that it can essentially never be used for facts, and has enough defenders or popularity that we need to a big centralized RFC like that to settle the question and avoid constantly wasting time and energy on it. I don't think the Daily Express requires that right now. Which isn't to say it's usable - I'm all for removing it on sight - but I think for now we can just go with "remove on sight, go to talk or WP:RSN if people object." --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And Daily Express is also known for their nonsense fear mongering as well. I don’t really think it’s reliable honestly if you ask me. —LovelyGirl7 talk 21:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Mail, Express, News ... Anybody wanting to source stuff to these tabloids is either up to no good or utterly WP:CLUEless. If something's worth's including it will be covered in a decent source. So find it! Alexbrn (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Ditto the Sun and the Mirror. Unreliable tabloids. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with much of the above, particularly comments from Aquillion. We should lean against its inclusion as a RS with the understanding that there may be an exception from time to time depending on the situation. Betty's comments surrounding a recent change of ownership also has the potential – even if it is a remote possibility – that the publisher's content quality could improve over time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• This is a misunderstanding of the situation. The reason for the Daily Mail issue is that over an extended period a lot of time and effort went into explaining why the Daily Mail was a terrible source for almost all its modern (rather than historic) uses. It was far and away the worst of tabloid journalism - and went beyond tabloid journalism into outright fabrication of interviews etc. That is why the Daily Mail was singled out. The Express, mirror and other tabloids etc are examples of variable reliability tabloid journalism, but they are not close to approaching the level the Daily Mail was at, both in terms of unreliability and time wasted here on ENWP. As Aquillion points out, if a source is unusable to virtually everyone - standard editorial consensus will usually mean its not allowed. If you want to cut down on the use of tabloid journalism in articles and biographies, hold an RFC to alter the various policies and guidelines to prohibit it (WP:RS, WP:BLP etc would be a good start). Personally I would get right behind any amendment to BLP that disallowed material based solely on tabloid journalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over reliance on working paper, related to immigration

Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), and myself are in a dispute over whether a working paper by a PhD student at York University meets our standards regarding reliable sources. The paper is from October 2015, never made it to publication, and apparently is only accessible today via Wayback Machine (an indication that the author herself abandoned it). The paper in question is here. Additionally, there is a media article based on (and explicitly referring to) this very same working paper, that Volunteer Marek thinks serves as an independent verification of the claim the original working paper was cited as source for.

In my opinion this does not meet our WP:RS standard for reliable sources. But as the dispute is bordering on an edit war now, I ask for a third opinion here. --bender235 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

For what its worth, it often takes many years for econ papers to go from WPs to published in peer-reviewed journals, in part because scholars present papers at conferences to get important feedback, and in part, because econ journals are slow as hell. So, the notion that the paper has been retracted is extremely likely. Through Google Fu, I can see that the scholar presented the paper at a conference as recently as July 2017. I don't have strong opinions as to keeping/removing working papers, but I think we should keep this one, in particular since the paper has been covered by other sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A working paper by a PhD candidate alone should not be taken as a reliable source; without publication, its not been subject to peer-review, and without that, a relatively unknown PhD candidate is not an expert. But I would agree that if you have RSes pointing to the paper, then the conclusions of the paper as reflected by the reliable sources can be included, but one should be careful to take other aspects of the paper not mentioned by it as fact. --Masem (t) 18:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Any news site can look around for something that supports the viewpoint they want supported. That doesn't mean it should get into this encyclopedia simply because it says what some editors might want to hear. Dream Focus 18:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I said the paper should be presented through the eyes of the RS, and not taken outside of that by itself (at least, while it remains unpublished). And yes, the Bloomberg piece is opinion, so that should be even more caution on the wording. "(So and so), writing for Bloomberg, supported the need for immigration, pointing to a 20xx working paper that suggest tech sections can benefit from such an influx." (or something like that, I'm scanning the BB article). Just can't use the working paper alone without the referencing source. --Masem (t) 18:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As close as I can tell, that paper wasn't really published in any sense of the word. It was submitted to the conference, but I didn't see any indication that it was selected. The fact that it was found through the website doesn't really indicate to me that it was published through them, and not placed there for members to review for selection. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit more digging, and I found the paper was accepted and set to be presented on June 13th at the Druid 2016 conference. So I retract what I said about it not really being published. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Presenting a paper at a conference is not equal to publication after a peer review process. If this paper's conclusion hold under scrutiny of peer review and result in a credible journal publication, we can still add it later. We have time, we're not in the business of churnalism. --bender235 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was equal to publication after a peer review process. My point is that it meets our minimum requirements for being considered published. And while I'm not a fan of low quality sources filling up Wikipedia, I try to limit reasons to exclude based on written policies. In this case I thought it wasn't what would be considered published, and I was wrong. This doesn't mean I support inclusion. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Pretty much in agreement with Masem. A working paper, by itself, is not sufficient sourcing (subject to change once it's formally published in the scholarly literature). If the working paper has been covered by independent, reliable secondary sources, then the material is potentially acceptable for inclusion, in the context of those reliable sources. Bloomberg is generally a reliable source, but the Bloomberg piece in question is an opinion article, not news reporting—so it should not generally be used for statements of fact. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• We use reliable secondary sources reporting on the paper to gauge its notability. If someone in Bloomberg commented on it, the information in the Bloomberg article pertinent to the paper and only that, not any content not touched on by Bloomberg, is notable enough for inclusion. But is the person making the statement of opinion notable enough we ought to include his opinion? Our article on Leonid Bershidsky shows that he's a journalist who has covered the subject matter in question for Bloomberg and other news media. I'd say that gives him enough notability that he can be quoted on what he finds significant about the paper. loupgarous (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

thearda.com

• Source: http://www.thearda.com/learningcenter/religiondictionary.asp#F
• Article content: "Faith healing is the practice of prayer and gestures (such as laying on of hands) that are claimed can elicit divine intervention in spiritual and physical healing, especially the Christian practice."
• Discussion: [7]

Discussion

The issue is whether thearda.com is a reliable source? It's moot. Several definitely reliable sources will also provide similar definitions. Here is Oxford Dictionaries: faith healing; American Heritage Dictionary faith healing. These dictionaries do not say "especially Christian" or specifically refer to laying on hands. Are they necessary to your purposes? In my search, I also found an article that appeared in Science, which is the second-most prestigious science journal in the anglosphere: "The Science of Faith Healing" Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is not if the definition is apt; it's whether the source is good (for the purposes of adhering to WP:V). Alexbrn (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

To anyone who might be interested, there is an open request for comments which relates to reliable sources and categorising faith healing as a pseudoscience that people might like to visit. This follows a previous request for comments on the same issue that was held some time ago.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"thearda.com" is simply the website of the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). They are an online information source, collecting data about American and international religion. "The archive now includes both American and international collections as well as features for educators, journalists, religious congregations, and researchers." It is not an independent organization. It is currently co-funded and effectively owned by:

• Lilly Endowment. A "private philanthropic foundation" with headquarters in Indianapolis. They support and fund studies in Christianity and theology, though they do not seem to be affiliated to any particular version of Christianity.
• The John Templeton Foundation. A "philanthropic organization" with headquarters in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. They fund research in religious studies, various sciences, and (recently) genetics. Officially they are non-denominational in questions of religion. Unofficially, the founder supported Christian fundamentalism, the Foundation is politically conservative, with long-running ties to the Cato Institute, and has been repeatedly accused of the biased nature of the research it funds ("research toward religion-friendly conclusions"). Interestingly, it is also a vocal critic and opponent of the intelligent design movement, as a representative stated that "intelligent design and creationism were "blasphemous" to both Christians and scientists".
• The Pennsylvania State University. A university associated with the Commonwealth System of Higher Education and headquarters in State College, Pennsylvania. Formerly an agricultural science, it has expanded to a Public Ivy university: "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor... attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races." "The 2016 Academic Ranking of World Universities ranks the university 77th among universities worldwide and 41st nationally." No outstanding religious affiliation. The University is otherwise known for various discrimination cases (mostly against African-Americans) and the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.
• Chapman University. A private, non-profit university with headquarters in Orange, California. Formerly known as the "California Christian College", it offers secular education on multiple subjects. However, their motto is "ὀ Χριστòς καì ἡ Ἐκκλησíα" (Greek for "Christ and Church") and they have a long-standing affiliation to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (Protestants). Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News as a source for text on PragerU

Can this Buzzfeed News article[8] be used as a source for the following text?:

• Much of PragerU's early funding came from the fracking billionaire Wilks brothers. The organization has a $10 million annual budget, of which it spends more than 40% on marketing.

Another editor disputes that Buzzfeed News is WP:RS and insists that this piece in particular is an "opinion article". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is an opinion article by Joseph Bernstein, not a news article. A better source is clearly needed. If that information is true, it needs to be supported by RELIABLE secondary sources, such as BBC, New York Times, Reuters, etc. Not "buzzfeed".--יניב הורון (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The author's description is "BuzzFeed News Reporter" and "senior technology reporter for BuzzFeed News". There's nothing to suggest that this particular article is an opinion piece. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Phrases like "And yet the Donald-sized lacuna in PragerU feels weird and denial-ish." are not signs of objective reporting but an opinion piece (From what I see, Buzzfeed has no subheader to distinguish between news and opinion, so we have to make judgement calls). Buzzfeed, while nominally an RS (but nowhere near the equivalence of NYTimes), should not be the sole source for controversial statements, and searching around, while Buzzfeed is not alone in the claim about Wilks funding PragerU, the few other sites reporting it are even less of an RS, so it definitely should be handled carefully. In this case, I would insert "According to Buzzfeed, much of PragerU's early funding came from..." to at least avoid stating it in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 13:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wilks information can also be sources to Mother Jones at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/inside-right-wing-youtube-turning-millennials-conservative-prageru-video-dennis-prager/ through https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/30/conservatives-spend-millions-proselytizing-school-children/ , and allegedly (I'm not going to do the work) through the underlying documents (990s, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) which are filed publicly by the Heavenly Father’s Foundation and the Thirteen Foundation. Carte Rouge (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a surprisingly good article for buzzfeed, and the Mother Jones and Rewire.News articles are more than enough to demonstrate the info is reliable and due. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Masem that we can state "According to Buzzfeed.... " in order to make it clear it's an opinion piece, and to avoid placing a notable (and usable) statement of opinion in wikivoice. loupgarous (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, Rewire's article mentioned above did go to the effort of looking at the public tax documents to identify how much Wilks' organizations put towards PragerU. I don't know how much we consider Rewire a RS (I've not seen it until this week, when it came up when I was searching for details on a current SCOTUS case), but Mother Jones (generally a RS) pointed to them. I would still include the source that did the work in the statement in question. (Eg "According to research by Rewire, much of PragerU's early funding ..." ) --Masem (t) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- the byline is to "Joseph Bernstein, BuzzFeed News Reporter". This is clearly news reporting, not an opinion column. I would treat BuzzFeed News as reliable in this case. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This looks much like a solid news article. Note that "told BuzzFeed News" is repeated eleven times. Buzzfeed news articles are usually okay and quickly skimming through this article I saw nothing alarming.

But the sentence "Much of PragerU's early funding came from the fracking billionaire Wilks brothers." is clearly problematic because it is pulled from the source. The sentence must be inside quotation marks, and should be attributed in the text in order to avoid plagiarism. ASAP. Politrukki (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Two users removing my scholarly citation accusing the scholar is not scholar enough. Kindly verify

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

---

Source : Title=A Survey of Hinduism 3rd ed.| Author=Klaus Klostermaier | publisher=SUNY Press | isbn=978-0-7914-7082-4 | page=25 Article : Bhimbetka rock shelters Content : I am merely adding the opinion of Klaus Klostermaier about the significance of Bhimbetka Rock shelter paintings, and its not to validate any claim by me. It is only merely adding more valuable content to the article. This is the opinion of Klostermaier which infuriated above mentioned two wiki-users

"Nobody has as yet interpreted the religious significance of the prehistoric cave paintings at Bhīmbetka (from 100,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE), which were discovered only in 1967, and we do not know whether and how the people who created these are related to present-day populations of India. These show, amongst other objects, horses clearly readied for riding. According to the “Invasionists” horse breeding and horse riding were an innovations that the Aryans introduced to India after 1500 BCE.

I added a scholarly citation of Klaus Klostermaier to an article Bhimbetka rock shelters . He is a prominent German-Canadian scholar on Hinduism and Indian history and culture and has a PhD in "Ancient Indian History and Culture" from the University of Bombay in 1969.

Two wiki-users named User:D4iNa4 & User:Doug Weller are removing the above mentioned citation added by me.

One of them , User:Doug Weller, is specifying 3 reasons for this.

1. He is saying Klaus Klostermaier is not an archaeologist. So his opinion can't be included in this article.

But this is an article related to Bhimbetka rock shelters, and what is wrong in adding any scholarly ciatation related to this? why are these wiki-users insisting that only an archaeologist's opinions can be added to this article? Does this article has any speciality which other wiki-articles does not have?

2. He is saying Kalus Klosermaier is not a reliable source

Klaus has a phD in Indian History and culture. Isn't that reliable enough, to express his opinion? Please note that i am only adding more scholarly content related to Bhimbetka Cave Paintings, to the article and not trying to validate any claim.

3. He is saying the dating of Klaus as the cave painting being older than 10000 BCE is wrong.

But archelogical Survey of India in their publication has clearly stated that the cave painting in question here is of mesolithic era. (that is before 10000BCE) So Klaus is very correct in his dating.

Above all, why all this fuss about adding a citation by a scholar. Why these two users are so scared against the opinions of Klaus, is what i dont understand. WHat is wrong in adding an opinion by a scholar like Klaus? If they have any citation from any other scholar which criticize the opinion of Klaus, they can add it also. Nobody is prohibiting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banasura (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The painting describe in the source publication is the one on p.39, and describes it as mesolithic/historic, not simply mesolithic. This new editor says that "This is an article regarding Bhimbetka rock shelters, and we can add anything related to it." Besides the fact that the author is a historian commenting on a field where he has no expertise and making claims about dates that are not backed in the article, there is another issue about dating the mesolithic in Central India. Dates for the mesolithic vary around the world, even within India. For instance this bookArchaeological Excavations in Central India: Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh says "Though regular occupation in the caves appears to have been given up by the end of the Mesolithic times, probably by the end of the 1st millennium B.C.," note that it says Mesolithic times lasted into the 1st millennium BCE. More importantly it says that "In shelter III C-50 the entire flat ceiling, some 10 m long and 5 m broad, is filled with paintings. Most of the paintings are in red or white colour but occasionally paintings in green or even yellow colour are also found. The paintings can be assigned to three cultural and chronological phases : (1) prehistoric (2) transitional, and (3) historical. The paintings of the first phase are dominated by wild animal life. Among the animals depicted are the cattle." "The paintings of the transitional phase suggest the impact of the Chalcolithic culture. Men are seen grazing and riding animals, implying knowledge of domestication. The motifs used for filling the body of the animals recall designs on the Chalcolithic pottery. Animal figures tend to lose naturalism and begin to be disproportionate." So not even mesolithic perhaps. Which is presumably why UNESCO calls it mesolithic/historical. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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

EarthRef.org seamount catalog

So I am a little unclear about whether the Seamount Catalog at Earth.ref is a reliable source. There are some parts of the website that suggest it's usergenerated, others which suggest it is not. I am only interested in the coordinates for individual seamounts (such as the ones here), which I need for the article I am drafting at User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Musicians Seamounts - the current coordinates are too approximate/rounded for my liking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I cant't tell whether it's user-generated, but even if it is the site is run by scientists from Scripps so there's expert oversight. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

On the Issues

As far as I can tell, the reliability of the website On the Issues has never been addressed here. I see this website used as a source on political biographies fairly often, and I'd like to get community input on its reliability. A specific example is at Don Bacon (general). Another example is Jackie Walorski. It seems like On the Issues aggregates information on political stances from a variety of sources--candidate websites, speeches, newspaper articles, candidate questionnaires, Vote Smart surveys, etc. The reliability of the information they gather is probably generally good, although not necessarily. My main issue with whether or not we should source from it is one of cherrypicking. You can see that the website covers a lot of issues, and it's typical on a political biography to see one or two or three issues picked from this source and highlighted. My question is, how are we deciding which issues to highlight? I think a reasonable answer would be that we should highlight issues that are also covered by other reliable, secondary sources--so perhaps this is more an issue of due weight. Although it could be that On the Issues isn't reliable at all, since their editorial process is unclear. I apologize if this is the wrong venue to host this discussion, but I think it would be really useful to get some general guidance on this. Thanks in advance. Marquardtika (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz for Jewish-Polish relations and WWII in general

Partly a NPOV issue, this has RS implications as well. At present we use Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's writings as a source in over 100 articles (and we might have attributed views (sourced via other sources) beyond that) - source search. In particular I would like to point out the following illustrative examples:

1. 1951 Mokotów Prison execution - used to source The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968. (beyond the lack of context of 1968, most other sources say Piotr Śmietański died the same year, in 1951 died of tuberculosis in the prior year, on 23 Feb 1950) - it seems this is also the source for him being a "Polish Jew" (in the cats of Piotr Śmietański) which does seems to appear elsewhere (including the Polish Wikipedia or this Polish article and based on his name (Piotr (Peter) is not a name Jews of the period would used (Saint Peter not being a Jewish favorite)... Nor does Śmietański seem Jewish or his father's name Władysław, his mother Anna could be) and WWII bio outside of the ghetto do not seem likely (nor sourced beyond the 1968 Israel blurb).
2. West Polesian microlanguage - Its composition is said to be 40 percent Ukrainian, 5 percent Belarusian, 5 percent Polish, and 50 percent Polesian. I'll note that the Russian Wikipedia (and sourcing there) disagrees with this (the existence of Polesian itself seems to be contested by some).
3. Polish Operation of the NKVD - framing the communist action as an ethnic genocide. e.g. The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish, It is also the largest killing of ethnic Poles in history, outside any armed conflict. in the lede. He is also used attributed to refer to this as a genocide.
4. The Holocaust in Russia (also in Jewish partisans) - sourcing In October 1943, 600 Jewish and Russian prisoners attempted an escape at the Sobibór extermination camp. About 60 survived and joined the Belarusian partisans. In Eastern Europe, many Jews joined the ranks of the Soviet partisans: throughout the war, they faced antisemitism and discrimination from the Soviets and some Jewish partisans were killed, but over time, many of the Jewish partisan groups were absorbed into the command structure of the much larger Soviet partisan movement.
5. Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 - attributed (but without a proper description of who Chodakiewicz is) statements that Historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz estimates that in the first years after the war, the Jewish denunciations and direct involvement in the pro-Soviet wave of terror, resulted in the killing of approximately 3,500 to 6,500 non-Jewish Poles including members of the Home Army and National Armed Forces. in contrast to In "After the Holocaust," Chodakiewicz states: "In sum, probably a minimum of 400 and a maximum of 700 Jews and persons of Jewish origin perished in Poland from July 1944 to January 1947.".... unattributed use: Many Jews did not wish to remain where their previously large communities in Poland had been decimated by the German occupation; many fled the imposition of the Soviet backed political regime which persecuted the bourgeoisie and religion, including Judaism; many aimed to pursue the Zionist objectives in Palestine..
6. Przytyk pogrom - in which our account is quite different from the account in some other Wikipedias as well as in This Day in Jewish History 1936: Pogrom Erupts in Przytyk, for Which Jews Would Be Blamed or Encyclopedia Judaica: Przytyk, Poland (in which the subsequent Polish judicial actions are framed as a travesty of justice, in which the victims were persecuted for defending themselves). Significant portions of the article are sourced to Chodakiewicz, and a significant portion of the text is attributed to him (without context beyond "historian"). He is also used unattributed - Peasants who broke the boycott were beaten; Jews offering their services in the surrounding villages were also physically attacked. and a few others.

As to why such use might be troubling, particularly without context - Marek Jan Chodakiewicz has been called out by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2009 and in 2017, as well by Never Again Poland and Hope not Hate 2017 Hope Not Hate on Chodakiewicz. Chodakiewicz's activities have been criticized on two separate fronts:

1. Political activities (mainly in Polish) - Chodakiewicz is a frequent media commentator and writes in a number of (understatement) right-wing Polish media outlets, as well as appearing in political rallies. For instance at a National Movement (Poland) rally (a party well to the right of Law and Justice) he said "We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!"[9][10]. In 2008 he wrote that Barack Obama was once a Muslim, a radical, and associate of communists.[11][12]. In 2017 he wrote about genocide against whites and South Africa.[13][14]. You may view a collection of recent writings in Do Rzeczy [15] on subjects such as restitution of Jewish property, George Soros, gays, Polish complicity in the Holocaust and the wrong dominant narrative. This is all mainly in Polish, but has received coverage in English when he helped organized Trump's visit in 2017 Newsweek, and has spoken at a The Social Contract Press event.[16][17].
2. Writing on history and geopolitics (mainly in English). His work has been sharply criticized by a large number of scholars, who note that he "represent the "most extreme spectrum" in "contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of historical writing". Some reviewers have said that "intellectually and morally unacceptable interpretations", being part of a "ethno-nationalist historiography" trend that promotes "an image of Poland as only heroic, suffering, noble, and innocent". He has been criticized for rejection Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom. Laurence Weinbaum has compared this to pseudo-scholarly screeds. Historian Jan T. Gross said that "The guy is an ideologist of the radical right, I don't have any doubts that he's anti-Semitic." While Polish-Canadian historian Piotr Wróbel said that "he would never use a phrase or adjective that would clearly identify him as an anti-Semite", but "There is no doubt whatsoever that he doesn't like the Jews.". While he does receive some praise - it is for the most part limited to certain Polish circles.

References

While mentioned briefly in previous RSN discussions (e.g. here in the context of whether citing an unreliable source would make it reliable), Chodakiewicz has not been discussed as a source previously here to the best of my knowledge. What would be the appropriate use of Chodakiewicz on the English Wikipedia?Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Corrected Smietanski's date of death.(per [18], [19], [20]).Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Chodakiewicz appears to be taking a strong position. So do many historians. Throwing out a historian because he has a strong position would set the wrong precedent for Wikipedia. Compare say the famous British historian E.H. Carr, who was an avowed Marxist, and is not thrown out because of that stance, on the contrary he is generally accepted to be one of the most highly respected historians ever. There are plenty of other, more extreme examples of positional bias. The Wikipedia solution is to clearly and carefully flag that position and balance that with other sources when using the source. Refer to WP:V (section on neutrality linked to WP:NPOV): "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y". I can see that a complication with this solution then might arise because Chodakiewicz passes the test of verifiability but takes a position on obscure topics without any available balancing sources. In those cases the solutions are to (i) clearly flag his positional bias in the articles on obscure topics - if that observation of a bias can itself be referenced to reliable sources - and (ii) take up the articles about obscure topics at the notability noticeboard. Lastly, and I have touched on this before, Wikipedia would see his ethnic or national identity per se as irrelevant to our assessment of his reliability: us making that an issue runs the risk of WP:KETTLE. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  I did not make his national identity an issue (for the avoidance of doubt - it is not an issue in my mind). I did present the issues raised by a few organizations (SPLC, HopeNotHate, NeverAgain) and notable historians in relation to his Political activity (which happens to be in Poland and mainly in Polish - and I don't think the SPLC (et al.) picked up on this because this was in Polish - this probably would've been a red flag for them in any language) and historical research (in English).Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can confirm that the above claims are largely falsified. For example the claim that "in 2017 he wrote about genocide against whites and South Africa.[14][15]" is absolutely false, in fact Chodakiewicz writes "there isn't a genocide against whites in South Africa""Ludobójstwo jeszcze to nie jest". So this claim is absolutely false.Icewhiz was informed about this already[21], therefore I am quite surprise he repeats this falsification. Other claims are also largely false or misleading. For example he doesn't write that Obama is a muslim, or communist. He does write he was born to muslim father, and he associated with radical left in his youth.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, I am citing the SPLC: That seemed particularly obvious in July 2008, when he wrote in Najwyzszy Czas! about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who he claimed was at one time a Muslim, a radical, and a friend and protégé of communists whose mother was a "feminist, social-liberal, hippie and a fan of F.D. Roosevelt." [22], In January of 2017, he penned a piece lamenting what he called the “ongoing genocide against Whites” in South Africa. The term “white genocide” is a common white nationalist trope, with many pointing to South Africa and falsely claiming that white people are systematically massacred by people of color.[23].Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You were already informed that Chodkiewicz states there is no genocide in South Africa. His article states clearly that there is no genocide. Why are you repeating a false claim that can be easily confirmed to be false by quoting what he writes? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment

As to the beginning of the statement by Icewhiz, it seems that a large part of it is strange opposition to describing Soviet crimes and atrocities, I am afraid that seems to indicate a very strong POV. It is widely known that Soviets engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide against Polish population. Sourcing information about this is not something controversial as Icewhiz alledged.Is Icewhiz disputing that NKVD and Soviets conducted ethnic genocide against Poles?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz thank you for the clarification. My rationale above remains unchanged. For the record, I'm not here to defend Chodakiewicz and he happens to be one of the several historians who I would be rather cautious about. If the SPLC has a view on Chodakiewicz, it's reasonable to accurately include that view when he is mentioned as an authority in our articles. In principle I would support you adding such balancing content, and I would need to see how it's phrased on a case-by-case basis.
• It has been alleged by sources that Chodakiewicz has a problem with certain ethnic groups. You have been very gracious in apologizing for inadvertently appearing on one occasion to have made a sweeping statement about an ethnicity yourself [24] . There was no need to apologize to me personally as my comment was purely a signpost about community standards.
• To provide what I hope you will take as helpful feedback, I did perceive something in the phrasing of this filing that seemed to indicate that part of your problem with Chodakiewicz is in his ethnicity, as if that had any bearing on his reliability as a source. At least one other editor, Volunteer Marek, has noticed you doing this elsewhere. So my perception may be because this filing appears to be part of a wider disagreement that you are in, which is reminiscent of the early stages of various ARBEE conflicts of the past, several of which I'm a veteran of, some of which ended up with permanent user bans. If administrators eventually have to get involved in the wider disagreement, everyone's conduct is on the record. So now is a time to take stock.
• Don't take the WP:BAIT. No matter the conduct of our Wikipedia equals, we need to ease up on using phrases such as "this [insert country of origin] ethno-nationalist has crept..." [25]. All countries, including yours and mine, have their ethno-nationalists. People don't like being called an ethno-nationalist, or someone who creeps. Sanctioning administrators reviewing conduct like it even less, and could define it as personal attack. You might be on a noble mission, and it might be the right time to have a think about whether the way in which that mission is being pursued could eventually get you into trouble.
• Finally, I am grateful for your kind mention of my work at Jedwabne Pogrom [26] - which in the first place is thanks to you very rightly raising the issue of bias in that article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Any historian who writes about historical times such as these yet never raises anyone else's hackles must be a very boring and lazy historian. It can be said that Chodkiewicz's writing upsets quite a few people, but that is not by itself a reason to exclude him. The opinion of organizations like SPLC that are not historical experts is especially irrelevant (but with due care could be mentioned in the historian's own article). Where Chodkiewicz disagrees with other experts about a historical event, we can give both opinions in conformity with NPOV. Zero^talk 23:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally Piotr Skrzynecki is an example of a halakhicly-Jewish Pole called Piotr. Such usage in mixed or secularized families was not unusual. Also, the surname Śmietański is indeed Jewish; see it and several slight variations in this list. I have no information about this particular Śmietański, just that the argument against him being Jewish is very weak. Zero^talk 00:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Point taken on Jewishness and mixed families - his alleged immigration in 1968 is contradicted by most sources stating he died in 1951. I have not located a source (beyond Chodakiewicz's 1968 Israel claim) that he was Jewish - though it is possible there is one out there.Icewhiz (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Did a bit more digging. Seems he died of tuberculosis in the prior year, on 23 Feb 1950.IPN, Polish Journal article, Polish newspaper, making his participation in a 1 March 1950 execution unlikely. The Polish Wikipedia (did not assess beyond this) lists Aleksander Drej as the executioner in this 1951 execution. Chodakiewicz's The claim of a 1968 emigration were made in are source on-wiki to his blog on salon24.pl Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC) modified per re-reading of the source and MyMoloboaccount's comments.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Another falsification I am afraid.Chodkiewicz doesn't write that he emigrated in 1968.In his blog post he states that he doesn't know what Śmietański fate was" Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?""Interesting for example what was the fate of people like executioner of Mokotow Piotr Smietanski". Rest of the blog post btw describes the persecution Jews suffered from Soviets/Communists. I am worried that each time I check your source it turns out to say something else that you claim, and your statements turn out to be false or misleading.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not make the claim originally. It was made, but some other editor(s), on 1951 Mokotów Prison execution The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968.. And also on: Piotr Śmietański According to Chodakiewicz, he emigrated from Poland in 1968 to Israel, but other historians disagree.. That the text presently main-space on enwiki - which is currently supported by this inline citation. I'll note that the "Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?" question appears in a new paragraph immediately after Około 20 tysięcy osób pochodzenia żydowskiego zdecydowało się na wyjazd za granicę. Nie ma jeszcze szczegółowych badań profilu tej grupy, ale wydaje się, że wielu z nich to zwykli ludzie. Mała część marcowej emigracji to SB-becy: kilkaset osób związanych było z aparatem terroru. (20,000 people of Jewish origin decided to go abroad ... Most ordinary, a few hundred associated with SB's terror apparatus). The question would seem to be tied to the immediately preceding passage - however I agree this is inappropriate use of the source.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as WP:RS?

On its masthead WikiTRIBUNE self-identifies as WikiTRIBUNE^PILOT

On its subscriptions page, founder Jimmy Wales writes, "We are launching … We are a tiny operation today with big ambitions for the future. Your support will help us to improve the technology and hire more journalists."

At its Help & FAQs page, the introduction begins, "Since we launched the pilot site…."

Clearly, WikiTRIBUNE remains a tiny pilot site still in launch phase, with an admitted deficit in technology and journalists.

My question therefore is: Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as a WP:RELIABLE source?

WP:QUESTIONABLE cautions us, "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."

In my opinion, given its startup nature, limited resources, and unproven track record, WikiTRIBUNE should not be cited by editors within Wikipedia articles. We could proactively avoid disputed references by expressing a consensus to that effect. KalHolmann (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See the instructions at the top. Source, article, material the source is being used to support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, here is the information formatted as you request.

• Links to past discussion of the source on this board: None found questioning reliability.
• Source: https://www.wikitribune.com/story/2018/02/20/cryptocurrencies/venezuela-launches-the-petro-the-worlds-first-sovereign-cryptocurrency/50555/
• Article: estcoin
• Content: "[…] after Venezuela with its Petro.[4]"
• Diff: after Venezuela with its petro

Thanks for your guidance. KalHolmann (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In this specific case, I dont have a problem with the source. The main problem is the entire sentence is really one of synth - the first two sources dont say EST is the 2nd (mainly because at the time they were being research and written I dont think the Petro had been released) and the wikitribune source does not say the Petro was the first. Its source a + source b = conclusion c. Which we try to avoid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the "article" is written by one named and six unnamed contributors (that is, unnamed at the top of the story, and whose "names" do not indicate reportorial or journalistic expertise), and is constantly changeable. A source which can be changed at any moment, by unnamed persons, is clearly never a "reliable source" any more than Wikipedia is. The "comments" page has an interesting comment by a person who asks "I think an interesting story would be whether a US citizen would be breaking the law by buying this. ..." This clearly suggests that a person in some presumed control of the source used is specifically asking that his point of view or question be treated in the article. Sorry, but I fear I consider WT to not yet meet WP:RS rules. Collect (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously not a reliable source for any assertions about anything. Alexbrn (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Estcoin appears also to have major copyvio problems, alas. Collect (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like it falls under WP:USERGENERATED because it is a user-generated website. Wikitribune may be as reliable as Wikipedia. We don't use Wikipedia articles as sources either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no. Its a bit more complicated than that. Stories are generally written by staff writers then updated (I gather in a way akin to our pending changes) by contributors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:USERG, as currently written, allows the use of content from user-generated websites if it was written by credentialled members of the website's staff and not by anonymous contributors, so I guess the pre-updated version, if available, would be okay. If Wikitribune takes off, we might have to put together something specifically addressing whether and how to use it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Given its Jimbo's baby, it might be worth asking him to lay out the exact editorial process for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Like Wikipedia, WT contains a history tab for article which shows all revisions (e.g. [27]). Since all changes need to be approved by the editorial staff, it's less Wikipedia and more Citizendium. Imho, it should not be treated any differently than a regular newspaper that corrects itself when readers point out mistakes. Regards SoWhy 14:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Are the people on the editorial staff credentialled? We do the same thing on Wikinews, and everyone there is an anonymous volunteer, as here.

If Wikitribune publishes first drafts with the expectation that there will be mistakes to be corrected, then yes it is different from a professionally published paper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As I understood it the idea was to include relevant updates, not publish riddled with mistakes to be corrected. eg a news item on a current event might be updated more quickly with new information, pictures etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The staff consists of credentialed journalists, like Peter Bale and Holly Brockwell and there is an editorial process. So basically a normal newspaper, with the added benefit of quicker updates and eventual corrections. Regards SoWhy 15:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ratings from a twitter account

I would like to know if it can be reliable to use a Twitter account as a source for daily ratings. For example here was previously discussed about this, they did not give me an exact answer. An article where the source is used is Por amar sin ley among others. The Twitter account is Produ. It's from a company that publishes content about series and more. In fact, the account is official. It is verified. Your website is this, but there are always problems to be able to navigate in it.--Philip J Fry / talk 00:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm, that's a tough one. My first instinct is to say that Twitter is not a WP:RS. But I see that the Tweets you're referring to are Nielsen ratings. Do they exist somewhere on a website? It would be better to be able to link them to a website rather than Twitter, but I'm not seeing a huge issue with using the Tweets in the way you are doing. Marquardtika (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If they are just Nielsen ratings then we can just cite them from a third party website. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If its nielson ratings from a nielson verified account then its a primary source and can be used accordingly. But if its nielson ratings there should be sources available other than twitter (do nielson not publish them elsewhere?). Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no more websites that publish ratings daily, only Produ does, I've got forums and blogspot where they publish the content, but I do not know if it's safe to use them as sources.--Philip J Fry / talk 20:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If no other source publishes them daily, then does another source publish them at some larger interval? The main complaint about Twitter in this case is that the Tweets aren't always available long-term. Why not update the article using Twitter at first and then come back in a week or a month and add the slower source then? Then it won't matter if the Tweet is deleted later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Tweet as an RS

Sorry for bringing this here. Text has been removed from articles Spectre_(security_vulnerability) and Advanced Micro Devices which is widely covered by RS, such as Forbes, CNBC, CNN, and numerous tech sites. At Talk:Spectre_(security_vulnerability)#Reversion_of_AMD_text_on_Spectre, editor @Dbsseven: is insisting that another source disputes the text. That source is a tweet from someone the editor claims is an expert. My question, is this tweet [28] a reliable source? Apologies if I left anything pertinent out. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

O3000's objection to edits based on the tweet source is "incomplete" (and potentially disingenuous), as multiple other RS also support that the same position as the tweet. I am trying to find consensus for language which includes the two perspectives each supported by multiple RS. (As for the tweet itself: it is from a expert in the field and well within WP:SPS, as previously discussed in the talk page). Dbsseven (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If a tweet is by an expert then yes it is RS. So the only question then becomes is he an expert?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The expertise of the Tweet author has already been discussed on the talk page [29][30] Dbsseven (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me but this is you just saying he is an expert, not what makes him a notable expert, what does his Wikipedia entry say?Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that is "me saying" anything. However, to be clear, I can find multiple sources who have published this same author, some the same publishers Objective3000 cites. [31][32][33] (And while their own WP article is a standard for the notability of expertise, I do not believe it is the standard for expertise.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The claim is: Ryan Shrout is the founder and lead analyst at Shrout Researchand the owner of PC Perspective.. But, Ryan Shrout, Shrout Research, and PC Perspective all appear to be missing from WP. If he's an RS, you'd think there would be something. O3000 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And there are no WP articles for the authors of sources you cite Jordan Novet, joseph f kovar, ERIC DAVID, BRAD MOON, and wallace witkowski. Let's try to apply the same standard here. Dbsseven (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t use primary sources. I refed secondary sources that are in WP. O3000 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Is your argument then that these authors are experts when writing for these publications, but lose expertise when not? Either they are experts or they are not, IMO. (And I believe this is exactly what WP:SPS states.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:IRS. The sources I used are RS. They have reputations for fact checking. This is why we use secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read WP:IRS, and WP:SPS is a subset of that policy. Dbsseven (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have seen no other sources posted that agree with this tweet, and as for disingenuous, please let's keep this civil. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

RS stating AMD shares the position of the tweet [34][35]. Another source stating that other RS were interpreting [36]. If you disagree, that's fine. But I have brought these up before, so to say there are "no other sources" is to misrepresent the discussion. Dbsseven (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I misrepresented nothing. Your refs all agree with the original text that was removed. O3000 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Only if read selectively. Yes some cites say there was a change. But not all. And some reiterate AMD position of no change also. To state only half the story is an incomplete synthesis WP:SYN. Again, I think we need to be clear what AMD said and what was said about AMD. Dbsseven (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

All the RS say the position changed. But, you are going off topic. Is this two sentence tweet starting with "It seems" and suggesting other media are unfair to AMD, RS? O3000 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not all do. The tweet and [37] (and AMD itself). And according to WP:PST 'analysis' is exactly what secondary source are expected to do. But on the issue at had the same source (tweet) is unequivocal about AMD's position. Dbsseven (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your source says in its first sentence: Advanced Micro Devices Inc said on Thursday its microprocessors are susceptible to both variants of the Spectre security flaw, days after saying its risk for one of them was “near zero”. How can you think that means there was no change in position? The same type of wording can be found in source after source. It’s why the markets were in turmoil. The two sentence tweet you want to use alludes to all the sources being wrong. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Because if you read the second sentence it says In a subsequent statement Thursday, AMD said there was “no change”... and the forth sentence But investors believed... (And markets have nothing to do with WP or the discussion here.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This appears to have gotten off topic. My point to include a statement saying "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y" can be well supported by multiple RS for both points. I believe this to be fair prose to build consensus around. 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would avoid using a Tweet by itself for a controversial statement, but RSes noticing a tweet would then be reasonable to point to and/or quote the tweet if it is considered relevant. This is even the case if the tweet is from a verified Twitter user and a known expert in said field; it's better to have RSes tell us why something is important when it comes off social media then make that judgement ourselves. Something uncontroversial, that's less a problem. --Masem (t) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Masem and Slatersteven for your input. Would you mind chiming in on the bigger picture, related question? I suggested the prose: "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y", and believe the cites clearly support both X and Y were stated. (In this case the tweet and other sources reiterate "AMD said Y".) Is this fair consensus language to maintain NPOV? Dbsseven (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's my read of the RSes quoting the tweet, agreeing with him. Seems properly neutral to give attribution ,etc. --Masem (t) 20:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Basically, all of the sources say that AMD changed their position (since they did). They use different words: changed, reversed, admitted, backtracked, etc. Yes, it's fine to add that AMD denied this. O3000 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay Objective3000 (and Masem if you like). How about this for firm consensus language "Some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2." Dbsseven (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable. But, this is the wrong venue. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Why unacceptable? You had no objection a moment ago. I literally replaced X with "this was a change in AMD's position" and Y with a quote from [38] Please explain. Dbsseven (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

AMD changed their position. That's what the RS say. You want to add a denial, fine. Use the original text that was edit-warred out of the articles against WP guidelines, and add a denial. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 I have not edited the Spectre article since January, and only a single edit. Your frustration of edit-warring is with someone else.

Combining the original text and new prose: "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. When AMD later released an optional firmware mitigation, some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2." More agreeable to you? Dbsseven (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what happened. The timeline is wrong and some is weasely and misleading. "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD denied that there was any change in their position." O3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this, as to state "However..." is to suggest a contradiction. (Disputed by AMD and some sources.) Can you clearly state what was weasely? IMO, better to keep it factual and state what each source says, rather than interpret ourselves. How about: "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. When AMD later announced an optional firmware mitigation would be released, some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2."@Masem: (or anybody else following), outside opinion? Dbsseven (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It was a contradiction. A dramatic contradiction that caused billions in movement in the markets, making it notable. RS even stated that AMD would take advantage of the fact their chips weren't vulnerable to gain market share against Intel. A "fact" that turned out to be wrong. This was a very large event. AMD found they were vulnerable. They came out with an "updated" post and erased their original claim. Every respected source I've seen says it was a change. Maybe a few percent of RS that reported didn't report that there was a change. But, "some" is highly misleading. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It was only a contradiction if you read "near zero" as "absolute zero", which those in the know would tell you that is not true; anyone that says "absolutely zero vunerabilities" in computer-related terms is lying or speaking to marketing. That did scare investors hitting 4% of their stock price, but from a technical standpoint, AMD's not changed anything.--Masem (t) 21:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to add that there was a period of time for about half a day on Jan 11 when news reports published about AMD being affected by Specter 2, and AMD's clarification that "their position hadn't changed". Most good RSes talking about it either are reporting both sides, or mention "after this story was published, AMD issued this statement...", that I can find. I am 100% sure there are sources "stuck in amber" in that half-day window that do not include AMD's updated statement and thus make it appear AMD switched positions, but we should be looking at the larger picture of RSes, which do make it clear that AMD maintained they were at still "near zero risk", rather than take those fixed RSes that suggest otherwise. --Masem (t) 21:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reading the story from sources, here's how I see it: Specter is reported, AMD around Jan 3 makes a public statement that says there's a "near zero risk" that AMD chips are affected from Specter 2. Then around Jan 10 it is shown that Specter 2 can affect AMD chips. AMD's investors get wary and its stock drops. By Jan 11 AMD gave a statement that they are aware some AMD chips are vunerable to Specter 2, but then make sure after these press stories come out that they haven't changed their position on the "near zero risk". Which, from a technology standpoint, seems perfectly true- a statement of "near zero risk" is not a promise of 100% free, and they're still standing by the fact that AMD chips are still near zero risk of Specter 2, but they are working and making tools available to help protect users to try to move "near zero" to "zero". This is standard practice in the industry, and that's where the aforementioned Tweet is coming from. This makes the word "denied" a bit of a problem, because I'm not seeing AMD necessarily being challenged that they changed their view from RSes, just that the way stories on Jan 11-12 published about this made them issue the statement that they still maintained their position they were are near-zero risk. Likely published in regards to articles like this [39] (The "backtrack"). Eg [40] clearly shows AMD issued a statement after the first bunch of press stories went out.

To that end, I would take Objective's phrasing and rework it as: "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'". --Masem (t) 21:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem That seems accurate and clearly spells out the details. I suppose walking through the nuances is the best way to keep NPOV. Works for me. Thank you. Dbsseven (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Here’s the problem. There is no reason to believe the risk is any less with AMD than Intel or ARM chips. This is a difficult flaw to hack. But, it would have eventually been hacked and near-zero was misleading. Keep in mind that near-zero is infinitely higher than zero. When they made the original statement, AMD stock shot up and Intel sank as the statement was clearly made to suggest AMD chips were safer. Then AMD had to “update” their statement to say they were, in fact, vulnerable, which the markets had been led to believe was not true. RS quickly published new stories using various words to show a change in AMD’s position, with the resulting corrections in the market. Yes, AMD tried to say well, we didn’t say zero. But, they clearly suggested they were nearly invulnerable. And, this was false. This is why it was so heavily covered in the financial sources, as well as the tech sources. But, your text is closer. O3000 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

AMD knew marketing and legalese speak. "Near zero" protected them from any liabilities should someone have tried to sue them "But you said...!" Were they manipulative given the position Intel was in? Probably. However, we as editors can't read too far into that. I'm trying to see sources that talk about the stock prices around this period, and it's clear Intel too a huge hit on Jan 3 and thereafter, while AMD had a small drop on the Jan 11 bit, but I see nothing at the current time suggesting that AMD's "near zero statement" was meant to cash in on Intel's probably on Jan 3. I'm not saying those exist, but without those, we can't presume AMD was doing anything malicious, even though anyone tech-savvy probably could see something along those lines here. --Masem (t) 22:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. And, I've never suggested adding much of what I said above. I think we should just report what RS reported. RS overwhelming stated that there was a change in AMD's position. I've never had a problem with adding a denial. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm spot checking sources, but I'm not seeing an overwhelming number of sources saying it was a change, except for those that failed to add in what AMD said later, which I would never call a denial, but a maintain or clarification of what the said. --Masem (t) 22:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, obviously a source that didn't update isn't relevant. Any source that actually followed the story would have updated. Not sure what you're looking at. The top financial and tech sites all used words that meant change, usually in more stronger terms. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this sources in a search, can you provide some links? I am not seeing any normally reliable site immediately that has the late Jan 11 statement from AMD and still maintains that AMD "changed" (or any variation of that) their stance on their "near zero risk" statement, but this is also not something very easy to search on. --Masem (t) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

[41], [42], [43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49] I can find more if you wish, but have to get some work done. The reversal was a huge story. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The first CNet one does not include the restatement from AMD that there was "no change", nor the ZDnet one, nor the CNR one, and the only one that really uses a "change" language seems to be the CNR one that calls it a backtracking. The CNBC one I don't see anything suggesting a change, nor the Fortune/Reuters story (those two I've seen). At best, this is why I think one can say something like "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. In response to media reports that felt AMD had reversed its previous statement, AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'". (emphasis is new from above). And to tie it back to what started this, it does appear other tech experts agree with AMD that they never changed position with respect to "near zero". The problem sorta becomes we had this burst of coverage around early Jan, but nothing else much about AMDs part in this (Intel, on the other hand, has class action lawsuits lined up the door), and so we can't read too much farther into what we reported them, which I feel my sentence above is about the most neutral, non-OR, accurate summary of the events. --Masem (t) 00:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that all sources don’t include the AMD claim about no change. I never asked for that claim to be included as it’s ridiculous. But, I’m OK with inclusion, although it’s embarrassing to AMD. Class action lawsuits are extremely common against deep pocket companies. They can be mentioned, but mean little and would mean a very long list over time. AMD did NOT have any fixes when they made their correcting statement. They weren’t close. Indeed, they stumbled badly in attempting rollouts of fixes (as did Intel and Microsoft). I don’t see any particular value in including these stumbles in the AMD and Intel articles. Maybe in the Spectre article. This is March and most PCs affected by all manufacturers are still not fixed. I don’t see where you come up with most tech experts agree with no change in position. Nearly every source says there was a change (well, because there was). O3000 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that when I read all the stories, from Jan 11 onward, the stance in the long run seems to be taking AMD at their word - they did not change their statement about "near zero risk" they issues Jan 3. Only sources on Jan 11 make something that suggests AMD changed or backtracked, but that's why AMD released the statement on Jan 11 to be clear. Since we're not a newspaper, we summarize from the longer-term view. I agree we should recognize that some initially saw that as a change, but that AMD clarified it was not. --Masem (t) 02:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we please settle on a consensus? It seems like we're going 'round in circles. Objective300, has noted they're "OK with inclusion". I believe Masem's proposed language covers all bases, perhaps adding something like "some commented that this was a change in AMD's position..." if necessary. I think this would address all issues. Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am adamantly opposed to the word “some” as it is just plain wrong. All of the sources say AMD changed their position, using various verbs. This was an important event. Of course later stories weren’t talking about the changed position, because that part of the story was over and they were then talking about efforts to fix the problem. A problem that AMD originally suggested was Intel’s problem; not a problem of all manufactures using speculative execution techniques. O3000 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking through the sources you're providing, but it's definitely not "all" or "most" of them that suggest AMD changed position. Some did, no question, but it's hard to verify it was "many" or "all" sources from what you've provided as links. --Masem (t) 16:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're seriously being hung up by a single adjective, lets find another. "several" or "particular" both appear suitable as-well. Dbsseven (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I provided nine refs. One was before the AMD change, so it can’t have known AMD was going to change their statement. Of the other eight, seven indicate a change in AMD’s position, and the other uses fuzzier language which still indicates a change in how readers perceived the two statements. Of course the reason for this is that AMD admitted on the 11th to something they did not admit on the 3rd. Which was why the markets flailed. AMD changed their position as reported by the vast majority of RS. We should not be using weasely language. O3000 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see it that AMD was being accused of changing their stance. Instead, nearly all these stories revolve around the issue of the tech meaning of "near zero risk" (conservatively allowing for error) and the layman's take of "near zero risk" (that there should be no issues). The press took AMD's statement on the 3rd as the latter, and so reacted that way. But AMD and others reporting on the tech side are clear that the new Specter 2 vulnerability announcement wasn't conflicting with their previous "near zero" statement. Yes, the markets still reacted to the reporting, so ignoring how the media reported it is not appropriate, but we shouldn't take the tone that some used that AMD lied or changed position (at least factually). I'm find with saying "several sources claimed AMD changed their position on this Jan 11 announcement", as long as that is attributed. --Masem (t) 18:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The blue-check means its a verified account, so the person is 100% who they claim to be. The question is - Is Ryan Sprout himself a reliable primary source? DarkKnight2149 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe he is in a subject area that caused billions of financial moves in a couple weeks. But, even if he is, it’s a silly tweet saying that it “seems” that those he likely considers competitors have some ulterior motives. It really explains nothing, provides zero evidence of anything, provides no sources or rationale. Looks like just an offhand tweet. It pales in comparison to top financial and tech articles. WP:WEIGHT O3000 (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The financial consequences are irrelevant to WP editorial decisions, at issue is "AMD said X". A discussion financial consequences could be included in a separate part of the Spectre article but are off topic here. (And yet the author is also published on the same financial publishers Objective3000 cites, CNBC and Marketwatch. [50][51] So expertise in the intersection of technology and finance can certainly be discussed.) Nevertheless, the tweet is unequivocal of AMD's technological position, which is the relevant topic here. And not the only cite of this, also. Dbsseven (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)