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

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Breitbart again

The edit at issue:

Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said “It is absurd to have movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”

IHO, Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions by its commentators clearly presented as opinion. The material has been repeatedly excised with comments: The "consensus" on BRD doesn't override WP policies involving questionable sources, they can't make claims about 3rd parties, reverted to revision 636802416 by Gamaliel: Per WP:BRD and WP:BLP concerns; please discuss on talk and reach consensus before edit warring to include contentious material, Dubious source commenting directly on living individuals, should be used with caution and only after consensus for inclusion, Undid revision 636723525 by Srich32977 (talk) Breitbart is QS and multiple past noticeboard discussions have concluded that it is not a reliable source, and Contentious claims about third parties is against wp:qs and wp:aboutself. Such quotes can only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Again IMHO, the comment about "movie critics" is not directed at specific individuals, and is clearly an opinion about some critics who are not named or singled out here. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review. seems to have a result, as did Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review. which had a clear result - that is the cavil that it is not RS for opinions fails in a nanosecond. Leaving only the claim that WP:BLP is invoked for the reference to "movie critics". As the primary issue is asserted in the edit comments to be the one of WP:RS, this board is the place for discussion. Collect (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that Breitbart has a reputation of any sort for high-quality movie reviews, or for movie reviews at all. Maybe we should source movie opinion to third-party independent reviewers with actual reputations for offering critical opinions about movies? There are plenty of bloggers and questionable sources that write about movies they've seen; that doesn't make them RS for movie opinions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is a reliable source for its own opinion, but the issue isweight - who cares what its opinions on film critics is? TFD (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that there are potential WP:Weight problems, but that is a different issue. The question before us is if it is a reliable source for its own opinion in this matter, and the answer to that question I think is yes. --Obsidi (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. If this is a questionable source, it can't be considered a reliable source for article content regarding its opinion about third-parties. That goes beyond WP:WEIGHT, it's from the WP:RS guideline.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but in this case, I don't think what they are talking about meets WP:BLPGROUP. --Obsidi (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about BLPGROUP. Third-parties are defined more broadly in WP:RS. Questionable sources shouldn't be used for opinions on third parties.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable Source, Breitbart.com meets all the requirements set forth in WP:IRS, just as does the Huffington Post. It is partisan, just as Salon and Huffington Post are, but that does not make any of them unreliable. See WP:BIASED regarding Breitbart.com and others I listed. This board is not about weight issues that is for WP:NPOV/N.

I agree that at least in my opinion Breitbart is as reliable as Salon and Huffington Post, and probably more reliable then Rolling stone after this most recent UVA Rape Story (I mean talk about a poor reputation for checking the facts). In the past it has been considered a WP:Questionable sources but wp:Consensus can change. --Obsidi (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that its reputation has improved. Consensus could change, but that involves more actual agreement on the source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of course Breitbart is reliable for its own attributed, quoted opinions. The section in question is explicitly covering political commentary reaction to a political documentary (that means subjective opinions), and contains political punditry from sources like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, and others. Singling out the most prominent conservative news/opinion site for exclusion, one which employs professional reporters, editors, and critics (unlike many of the section's other, leftist sites), is not only absurd on the merits but would constitute a gross WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't excluded from that page, it has at least another quote that is specifically about their opinion of the movie; the other opinion sources you mentioned are about their opinions of the movie, not each other or the general state of movie reviewing. There's no indication that Breitbart is a usable source for article material from its editorials, or to describe whether people are too liberal to review films.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has already been found reliable for the film review on the basis that it's reliable for its own attributed opinions, so there's no legitimate, rational basis for asserting that it's somehow not reliable for its own attributed opinions on other topics, particularly ones where expertise is less of a factor. The controlling factor on inclusion would be WP:NPOV and due weight on a case by case basis, not sourcing policy. The section in question here is explicitly dedicated to political commentary, which Shapiro's article about the reception to this particular movie undeniably falls under, and there's no policy basis for prohibiting commentary about the reception to the movie in film articles (indeed there are numerous examples of such quoted opinion on receptions, particularly where there's some controversy at play). As long as the opinion is properly attributed it's allowable and important for us to cover. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not follow that Breitbart should be used as a source for general "political commentary" just because there was an RfC that thought a single review of a movie could be used, in a limited context. Please understand: Found usable for one context, never means found usable for all contexts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It does follow because the sourcing argument being used against it is the same rejected in the first RFC. Not only is this a similar situation (actually one that should be less, not more, restrictive, as I said above), but it's the same freaking article. RS status depends on context, but established precedents aren't irrelevant. VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

One use is not an established precedent, as has been explained many times. Looking at that RfC, more than a few supporters indicated Breitbart was a generally questionable source and shouldn't be used for more than a movie review. WP:RS says that opinions about groups, even very loosely defined, should be given more care, not less. Now, you're repeating yourself, so I can only repeat the policies. There's not much point in doing that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It establishes a precedent if the same issues are at play, especially in the same article. And no, most respondents approved Breitbart as RS because its own attributed opinions were being quoted. There was nothing singular or magical about film reviews somehow being ok when other opinions weren't. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Breitbart.com is not a reliable source and qualifies as a questionable source as outlined by multiple facets of WP:QS.

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts" Even the WP article for Breitbart.com outlines multiple instances where the site did little to no fact checking and/or published stories that were blatantly false or had no evidence to support them. On Politifact Breitbart.com appears with a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating and has hosted numerous other blogs/articles that received "mostly false" to "pants on fire" ratings. Other news outlets have criticized Breitbart's lack of fact checking including the Washington Post, New York Magazine, and The Daily Beast.

"Questionable sources are those that have...an apparent conflict of interest." Conflict of interest is defined in WP:QS to include "Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors" Breitbart.com writes multiple articles promoting Fox News polls and their parent company which also advertises on the site. They have also written and published articles attacking their competitors like the New York Daily News when Shapiro called them "hacks". The WP:QS "conflict of interest" goes on to say "news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors." This article exposes an apparent conflict of interest in an article published by Breitbart.com. The sources for conflict of interest also go on to say "They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company." and "a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood." Breitbart.com has multiple apparent conflict of interest as defined by the references in WP:QS.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional" This is backed up with multiple sources referring to Breitbart's articles, authors, and positions as extremist.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that...rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip" This can be observed by reading numerous incidents on the WP breitbart.com article in the "Controversies" section. These instances include the "Friends of Hamas" controversy, the "Paul Krugmen" hoax, and the Loretta Lynch gossip story.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views...that rely heavily on...personal opinion." Breitbart.com relies heavily on its personal opinion blogs/articles from numerous contributors and editors. They rely so heavily on it that even the lead for the WP article refers to Breitbart.com as an "opinion website". It's not rare to see opinion pieces plastered all over their front page while only a few links are actually credited to "Breitbart News".

Breitbart.com is a questionable on multiple accounts. The funny thing is that it only needs to meet one of the identifiers to be considered a questionable source and here it clearly qualifies for multiple identifiers. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A wall of text rehashing prior discussions on the RS/N noticeboard which repeatedly found Breitbart to be RS for opinions cited as opinions seems a waste here and the added implicit claim that Breitbart is so extremist as to be anathema is absurd. It is cited by WaPo, NYT, LAT etc. which would belie the claim that it is somehow to the extreme right of the KKK or the like. Sorry -- this has already been discussed - and dismissed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's questionable on multiple counts. This isn't a "dismissed" concern just because you disagree with the assessment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And banging the opinions cited as opinions drum ignores the fact that WP:RS does not treat all opinions the same. Being found reliable for some opinions not about people, does not translate to being found usable in articles for any opinion, and especially not about third parties. This is true of all sources, not just Breitbart. Every time you assert that Breitbart is a usable source for any opinion, you're misrepresenting actual policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

At least four discussions on the article talk page and at noticeboards disagree with your demurral. 0 for 4 is not a strong case for your position. Including at an article talk page closing of an RfC Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review? et al. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a simple, simple point. Being found as a usable source for one item, doesn't whitelist it for all items. The RfC you point to is for a movie review, not an opinion about people. Looking through the archives here at the RS/N, I can't find any other discussions where Breitbart wasn't challenged as a questionable source. Your "et al" doesn't exist.

Those discussions don't override policy and you're trying to dismiss the arguments made with your own strawman argument. WP:QS clearly outlines when questionable sources can be used as reliable sources for their own comments. This was never in contention because it's clearly outlined in the policy. However, WP:QS and other policies do limit where questionable sources can be used as reliable sources. That's the part you and others have repeatedly ignored in the RFC and in the discussion. This issue has been raised by myself and others and ignored by you. WP:QS says they should ONLY be used on material about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. The WP article "America: Imagine a World Without Her" is not material about breitbart.com or Shapiro, nor is it an article about one of the two. So WP policy is clear that it can not be used. Now, on the WP Ben Shapiro article, if you want to say "On may 20, 2013 Shapiro criticized leftist film critics panning a movie" then you could use Breitbart.com as a reliable source because it would act as a primary source for material about itself. That's what those clauses in WP:QS apply to and they clearly include the aspect of the RFC that you and others are clinging to, but also include where and how it can be used and where and how it can't be used. You know, the part that you keep ignoring.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The criteria for assessing a source's reliability include a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Breitbart websites do not have such a reputation. In fact, quite the opposite: they have a reputation for publishing misleading or false information, often about living people, in service of their political agenda. (Examples include the deceptively edited videotape which led to the resignation of Shirley Sherrod; a news article falsely claiming that Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy; and publishing recklessly false criminal allegations which cost a private citizen his job; see [1] and [2], among others).

  It's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reliability depends on context, and this context is about a subjective, attributed opinion in a section dedicated to such opinions and currently including them from far left blogs like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, etc., not for supporting facts in Wikipedia's voice. That said, I dispute your characterization of Breitbart. Breitbart did not edit the Sherrod tape (and indeed posted the video they received for the crowd reaction, not the comments seized on by other media outlets; it's not their fault a panicky administration jumped the gun and fired her for the wrong reason). By contrast, NBC actually did selectively edit a 911 tape to make George Zimmerman look racist and infamously rigged vehicles to explode in a fraudulent consumer reports investigation, CBS used a forged memo to try and sway a presidential election, CNN's chief news executive admitted after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 that for years the network had buried stories of atrocities and given Hussien's regime relatively favorable coverage in exchange for greater access and falsely accussed the US military of atrocities in the Tailwind scandal, The NY Times published numerous totally made up stories by reporter Jayson Blair in a major journalistic fraud scandal, a rabidly biased BBC drove one source to commit suicide after twisting his comments about Iraq for their own agenda, and there was massive irresponsible and inaccurate media coverage by numerous outlets (esp. the NY Times, NBC, and CNN) on issues ranging from the Duke lacrosse rape scandal to the recent Ferguson and Rolling Stone "gang rape" stories. I could go on and on, with more examples from these outlets and others. In at least most of these cases the fraud was discovered by outsiders, often conservative media. The outlets in question typically responded initially by digging in and doubling down on their fraudulent stories, only reluctantly issuing retractions and/or firing people as pressure grew. Don't even get me started on the serial dishonesty of blogs like Media Matters, the Daily Kos, etc. that are currently quoted in the section for their subjective opinions, and lack the type of professional editor/reporter/critic teams that Breitbart employs. The bottom line is that linking to 1-3 examples of alleged malfeasance by Breitbart, particularly when you're linking to leftist sources and the malfeasance is arguable at best, doesn't prove anything more about Breitbart's reliability than the above scandals do about those sources. Though, as I said above, it's irrelevant to this issue anyway since we're merely discussing attributed, quoted, subjective political opinions. If anything, editors who seek to exclude the internet's most prominent conservative site from a section explicitly dedicated to covering political pundits' opinions on such flimsy grounds forfeits a great deal of credibility when it comes to assessing sources, applying policy, and editing in a neutral fashion. VictorD7 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfection is hard to achieve, and is not required for a general reputation for reliability. Yes, arguing from small sets of examples is problematic. But overall, all I can say is that "it's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Except your assertions are not only disputed, but you totally ignored the fact that we're discussing attributed quotes by political pundits, including political group blogs that have no editor staff (unlike Breitbart), so "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" don't enter into it. As for your baseless personal shot, beware the boomerang. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think NBC News, or CBS, or the New York Times don't meet our criteria for reliability, then you should definitely raise that concern elsewhere on this board. However, it's not relevant to a discussion of Breitbart's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or lack thereof. MastCell ^Talk 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I pointed out that the argument used to attack Breitbart's reputation was pitifully inadequate, but that's a tangential issue. More importantly, its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is irrelevant to its reliability as a source for Shapiro's quoted words, unless you think the source is so untrustworthy that it can't be trusted to accurately relay its own editor's comments. VictorD7 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've told him how red herring arguments aren't relevant numerous times, I'm glad someone else understands that basic concept of reasoning and critical thinking.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything you're spewing are red herring arguments, as is the notion of "reputation for fact checking" when we're talking about covering attributed, subjective political pundit opinions, not news sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we're talking about the reliability of a source and WP:QS specifically identifies sources that rely heavily on opinion pieces as questionable sources. So it makes ZERO sense to try and argue that because it's an opinion that suddenly it's reliable because WP policy explicitly says that sources that rely heavily on opinions are questionable and that they have very limited use in WP, limited to use on material about themselves. Again, that's why you can't make a false dichotomy on global climate change between "support/against" and then start citing Ken Hamm's opinions all over the place. Those opinions are mainly derived from questionable/self published sources and are limited to content about Ken Hamm himself. Also, if the source, Breitbart.com, is questionable then it quotes from it certainly can't be used to make contentious claims about others. That's directly in WP policy and it's not a red herring argument as it directly applies to the quote and source in question. You might want to look up what a red herring argument is.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is no more a questionable source than CBS News, the Rolling Stone, or MSNBC.

I am sure there are editors here would would love to see this bias source be deemed non-reliable. Lets not do that. Breitbart.com is just as reliable as other bias sources, such as Huffington Post. So let us leave it at that. If it's a weight issue this is not the noticeboard to discuss such matters, but WP:NPOV/N--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what WP qualifies as a questionable source has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions about other sources. The qualifications are explicitly outlined in WP:QS. So your red herring arguments based on false equivalencies are irrelevant and are logically fallacious.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you personally added partisan bloggers' quotes from the Huffington Post currently in the same section it's difficult to take your claims seriously. You also apparently support the numerous leftist quotes from other blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion that currently reside in the section, and haven't tried to remove a single one. Of course your flawed interpretation of QS has already been rejected by RFC, explicitly finding Breitbart RS for its own attributed opinions (material about itself) there to boot. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Partisain bloggers has nothing to do with the reliability of a source. Opinions from reliable sources are allowed to be partisan and biased, but that only applies to sources that are considered reliable by WP guidelines. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source by nearly every single identifier described in WP:QS and I've specifically outlined them above. Also, I didn't interpret WP:QS, I've quoted it directly and an article about a film does not qualify as "material about itself". That's not interpretation, that's a basic understanding of the english language. Furthermore, the RFC ignored my arguments which is not rejection. Again, you misinterpret and misrepresent what actually occurred in the RFC and is happening here again. You and others blatantly ignoring WP policy to pursue red herring arguments or put forward arguments already refuted.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your own argument asserts Breitbart is "QS" because it "relies heavily on personal opinion", so the sources you support being partisan blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion most definitely is relevant to reliability, by your own logic. Given that, and the rest of the debunked nonsense you've repeated here, the most charitable interpretation is that your own understanding of the English language is lacking. VictorD7 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's merely one aspect of my argument and it's explicitly listed as an identifier of a questionable source in WP:QS polciy. Furthermore, the reliability of other blogs has no bearing on the reliability of Breitbart.com. That's why this is a red herring argument because an assessment of the reliability of other blogs is not relevant to an assessment of the reliability of Breitbart.com. Nothing in WP:QS policy mandates a comparison of sources to each other to establish reliability. Instead, they list empirical qualities that make a source a questionable source and Breitbart.com meets nearly every single one of those qualities, making it a questionable source. Also, though it's not relevant, those other blogs are from sources that are generally considered reliable, have a reputation for fact checking, and have meaningful editorial oversight. That's why those blogs are considered reliable since they are the extension of a reliable source. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, so there is no reliability for Breitbart.com to lend to its blogs. Though blogs are primarily opinion, the reliable sources I've previously referenced are not reliant primarily on opinion. This is contrary to Breitbart.com whose almost entire front page is filled with hyperlinks to opinion pieces and even its own WP article calls it an "opinion website". Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source and you've done NOTHING to actually refute the arguments above. Your rebuttals have mostly evoked a "But mommy, those other sites do it too" mentality which is a logical fallacy to begin with and is a false equivalency because most of those other sites/blogs more closely adhere to WP reliability standards than Breitbart.com does.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm exposing the numerous and intellectually fatal internal inconsistencies in your position, illustrating the fallacy of embracing it. And this noticeboard's sections frequently include comparative mentions or lists of other sources, so that's a lame dodge by you. Also, not that it matters to your QS interpretation since you've conceded your championed sources rely heavily on opinion (making them "questionable" by your logic), but none of them have been found "RS" in any conversation I've seen, while Breitbart, contrary to your claims, actually has been explicitly found to be RS by consensus, and on the article in question to boot. In fact they all have roughly similar or worse reputations than Breitbart. Again, most of them are merely opinion blogs, while Breitbart is a large, diverse news/opinion institution that employs teams of editors, reporters, and critics.VictorD7 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing you've exposed is your inability to construct a valid argument based on WP policy. After all of these responses you've YET to actually quote WP policy that says that questionable sources are determined by comparing them to other sources. On the other hand, I've quoted multiple parts of WP policy that do define questionable sources and explained in detail how Breitbart.com meets the qualifications of a questionable source. Again, your mentioning the RFC is pointless in determining whether Breitbart.com is a questionable source, since WP policy explicitly states that Questionable Sources should only be used as reliable sources on material about themselves. So a source can still be a questionable source and be reliable for opinions about itself, HOWEVER those sources/opinions can only be used in material about THEMSELVES which is the part you and the RFC blatantly ignored. Furthermore, your baseless assertions do nothing to refute the arguments made above. First of all, I never engaged you in conversation about other sources because I know it's a logical fallacy. Secondly, we never established whether those other sources were heavily reliant on personal opinion like Breitbart.com is. This is why your argument is also a false equivalency. The fact that you keep repeating this irrelevant and logically fallacious argument shows the dire situation you're in when it comes to trying to pretend that Breitbart.com is not a questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

To the extent your drivel here approaches coherence in places, it only further annihilates your own position while confirming mine. The RFC explicitly found Breitbart reliable for its own film review on the article, complete with a link to the review and article section in the RFC intro and everything, directly contracting your "QS" characterization and attempt to limit the source's use here. The RFC didn't "ignore" your argument, especially since the intro also linked to the discussion where we each laid out our arguments. It rejected your interpretation. I've refuted your position by quoting from numerous policies and guidelines explicitly stating that attributed opinions aren't held to the same standards as facts in Wikipedia's voice, observing that your characterization of Breitbart is disputed, examining the impractical empirical impact your interpretation would have on Wikipedia, and exposing your one sided application of your own invented policy, a gross WP:NPOV violation. You also provided no evidence supporting your preposterous claim that discussing more than one source in a discussion is somehow a "logical fallacy" or against policy. That you're actually implying there's dispute over whether sources like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, Slant, Indiewire, the Huffington Post, etc. rely heavily or entirely on personal opinion shows how desperately dire your own situation is. VictorD7 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your strawman arguments are indicative of your inability to substantiate your position. Never did I say that "discussing more than one source in a discussion is...against policy." It is a red herring issue, though, which is substantiated by understanding the definition of a red herring logical fallacy. Sorry, but the reliability of other sources is not relevant to the reliability of Breitbart.com. The only way it would be relevant is if I or others were arguing that WP should be represented by the "strongest of sources" which is not my argument. My arguments and others' arguments hinge on specific WP policy which you have NOT refuted. Instead, you resort to strawman arguments and red herring arguments, instead of addressing the policies. Also, linking to something is not addressing it or "rejecting" which actually requires comment on the arguments made and a valid refutation, neither of which were provided in the RFC. Again, you keep saying "interpretation" but there is none, I quote directly from WP:QS and WP:Questionable which explicitly limit questionable sources like Breitbart.com to "material about themselves" and furthermore, say that they can NOT make contentious claims about others. Sorry, but you nor a RFC gets to ignore WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Exposing the absurdity of your interpretation (in part) by showing the hypocritical and inconsistent way in which you seek to apply it is neither a straw man argument nor a red herring, as it gets to the heart of how logical your interpretation is. I and others have quoted from QS and other policies too. A difference of interpretation exists, including the meaning of "material about themselves" and how it applies to attributed quotes. You simply ignoring that doesn't make it go away, nor does your refusal to answer whether the other film critics and pundits quoted should be removed since they fall under the same QS criteria you attempted to single out Breitbart for give any credibility to your position. WP:NPOV is policy too, and you can't violate it. The RFC linked to the discussion where I did refute your QS argument, you repeated it and I addressed it in the RFC itself, and the closer directly told you when you pestered him on his talk page that the community was unpersuaded by your QS argument. The RFC consensus finding itself is in direct contradiction to your QS interpretation, as it finds Breitbart reliable for its own film review in that article. Policy and guidelines also speak of a hierarchy of sources, implying comparisons where editors seek the best one(s) they can find for certain situations, but that's a tangential note here. There is no rational, policy based reason to exclude Breitbart film reviewers and pundits, especially while leaving in the section's others. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Was the open RfC regarding Breitbart's reliability in this context announced here? It's on the article's talk page. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would say that Breitbart is a textbook questionable source (as mentioned above, it has always been considered that in the past, and I'm not really seeing anything that would change that), especially due to its reputation for poor fact-checking. Simply having a political POV doesn't necessarily make a site questionable in all contexts, but having such an extensive history of fact-checking errors in combination with a style of writing that frequently blurs the line between opinion and fact certainly does. It can still sometimes be cited to illustrate the opinions of its commentators, like any other questionable source, but only when a more reputable site supports the relevance of those opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have never seen a discussion establishing a consensus that Breitbart is "questionable", and your assertion about its alleged "reputation" is disputed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• well, yes, you are disputing it. based apparently on ignoring the multiple sources presented the definitely show its questionable nature and none providing evidence that any sources see it as reliable. such a "dispute" is hard to give credence to.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• False. Lots of editors are disputing it, the invalid arguments against the source have been addressed, and numerous sources citing it, especially for its own opinions, meaning they view it as reliable for at least such purposes, have been provided. Again, I've seen no discussion establishing a consensus that Breitbart is "questionable" or non RS at all, especially for its own attributed opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with Breitbart is that its accuracy is not only dubious, but sources are often actively misrepresented. Consider the recent case with the Gun control articles, where a newspaper story claiming that general crime figures are being under-reported in the UK was spun by Breitbart into an article about how UK gun law wasn't working as gun homicide was clearly increasing. This is not simply synthesis, but actively untrue; there was no suggestion from the story that was the case, and it would actually be impossible as firearms crime is reported separately - something the writer would have known. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How does that affect opinions from notable persons cited as opinion? Breitbart falsifies editorial columns to make people have different opinions that they write that they have? I generally feel that where an opinion is properly cited as opinion that fretting about anything else is worthless. Collect (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There are really two parts to citing an opinion. First, of course, you need a source to prove that the person actually said that; Breitbart is a valid source to prove that one of its authors said something, since that doesn't really require that it be a WP:RS. However, you usually also need a source to show that their opinion is relevant per WP:UNDUE, which is usually more complicated; Breitbart can't be used for that because it's not a reliable source, so in most cases any quote from Breitbart has to be accompanied by another, more reliable ref to show that the specific opinion or author being quoted is relevant. WP:UNDUE states that we're supposed to give weight to opinions based on their coverage in reliable sources, essentially (this prevents people from just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article); to quote Breitbart in an article, you therefore usually need a second source to show that whatever quote you're inserting meets that standard. --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, multiple facets of WP policy relies on sources being considered reliable and Breitbart.com is clearly not one. However, I don't feel you need to look at the specific various policies that limit their usage to reliable sources because WP:QS and WP:Questionable both limit the usage of questionable sources to material about themselves. That whole concept is what prevents people from "just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article" and it remains consistent throughout multiple WP policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge that Breitbart is RS for its own authors' opinions. That's the question here. WP:UNDUE is determined on a case by case basis, can't be properly addressed on this noticeboard sans context, and in this case involves a reception and explicitly titled "Political commentary" section quoting numerous subjective political opinions, including from blogs like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, and Salon.com ("questionable?"). The whole point is to cover the reaction to the film by salient political pundits from across the political spectrum. That said, regarding DUE, as the chief conservative website, the opinions expressed by Breitbart authors must be covered in such a section to avoid a gross WP:NPOV violation. I suppose one could say that Breitbart's noteworthiness in this context is established by other sources frequently citing it and/or documenting its extremely high traffic ratings. More specifically, Ben Shapiro himself is notable by Wikipedia standards, meaning he rates his own article (unlike most of the other pundits quoted in the section, and he's a UCLA/Harvard Law trained political scientist and media analyst who is a multiple times best selling author, has been interviewed as a professional pundit on virtually every major media tv network, and has had his work cited by countless media outlets. All this firmly establishes him as a political pundit worth quoting if we have a section dedicated to such punditry, and since he wrote an entire article about the reception to this film we would be derelict in omitting it, especially since his view is so widely shared by the population. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, trying to maintain NPOV doesn't mean that questionable sources suddenly become reliable and merit inclusion. Find a different source that's reliable instead of trying to include a questionable source which multiple WP policies explicitly prohibit.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Might you show me where opinions properly cited as opinions are likely at all to be falsified? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Might you make a rebuttal that relevant to the arguments being made?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

He did. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• As multiple editors have noted Breitbart is reliable for a statement about what is said in Breitbart.

This is yet another case of people choosing the wrong policy to argue about. This isn't a reliability issue... It's really more a DUE WEIGHT issue (and there are other policies and guideliens that we have to consider as well). The question isn't may we cite Breitbart for Breitbart's opinion (clearly we may)... the question we should be asking is: should we mention Breitbart's opinion in the first place?

That is more an editorial judgement call... The section in question (discussing the reception of a movie) can basically be boiled down to this: Reviewers with a liberal political bias panned the movie, reviewers with a conservative political bias praised it. The rest of the section consists of examples of liberals panning, and conservatives praising. The question is... do we need the examples (I am not sure we do), and (if so) which examples should we use?. There are lots of reliable conservative news outlets that reviewed the movie... and most of them essentially say the same thing that Breitbart says. This means that while we are allowed use Breitbart... we don't have to use Breitbart... we could use one of the others instead.

In other words... the debate that we should be having is: Given that the conservative viewpoint is that the movie was great... what is the best conservative source to use as an example of that viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Once you determine what weight is merited, the articles/opinions used to express that weight still must meet WP reliable source criteria. That's the part that's relevant here. You, as an editor, can't take a facebook post from Joe and quote that as the representation of the conservative viewpoint. Yes, there are numerous policies that need to be considered in every edit, but this is the relevant one that we're discussing now.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

and it is not reliable for claims made about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes This continual attempt to argue this issue is getting quite old. It appears simply to be an attempt to wear everyone out until they give up. Arzel (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

YES Ranks in the top 500 (US) on Alexa, and is as reliable as any of the top liberal sites. We accept the NY Times, a self-admitted liberal site as reliable despite its gaffs and mistakes. [3] [4]. [5] [6] [7], and I can go on and on. Atsme☯^Consult 15:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• No -- as demonstrated above (with reference to our own article on Breitbart), this source is squarely in the category of WP:QS. Ideology & politics have nothing to do with it -- what matters is that this source has a notable history of getting things wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• QUESTIONABLE source, at best - The more I edit Breitbart (website) and research sources for the article, the more I realize that Breitbart has a troubling history of purposely misrepresenting sources, deception, exaggeration, trickery, sloppy fact checking, inadequate retraction/correction, and poor editorial oversight. I'm sure they have published some factually correct articles, but so much of their content is riddled with political commentary and inaccuracy, that it's difficult know what to trust. For our purposes, they should be avoided as a source of factual information. As a source of opinion, there may be some golden nuggets amongst the fool's gold, but their opinions should never end up in Wikipedia unless cited by well-respected sources (see WP:USEBYOTHERS).- MrX 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Um -- I take it that Breitbart forced boston.com to run the Krugman story and also forced a large number of other sources who used that story syndicated by boston.com? Sorry -- it appears that you are more desirous of removing it as a source usable for opinions cited as opinions than in actually following what the WP:RS page says. I would note that my position on opinions being usable when cited as opinions includes RT and a host of sources I do not agree with (including Breitbart, Pravda, and whater such source you might name), but saying that copying a syndicated story means they deliberately and "purposely" engage in "trickery" and "deception" is an invalid argument here -- we carry scads of "political commentary" from scads of sites, and the only valid issue here is whether that commentary is from a person notable in the field of such commentary - meaning their opinion is citable as opinion. Including RT commentary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Interesting question. Boston.com was somewhere in the middle of the chain of reporting the hoax as a real story. My comments about deception apply more to cases like "Friends of Hamas" story. My comment about trickery applies more to cases like ACORN undercover videos, in which their reporter posed as a prostitute to trick ACORN. Commentator notability in the field is a criterion that we should consider, but we should also make sure that the opinion itself is notable, as evidenced by being cited by other sources.- MrX 17:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia isn't a valid source (circular), and numerous news outlets have conducted undercover reporter investigations with hidden cameras where they sought to "trick" people and institutions to see how they'd behave. There's nothing wrong with that. The "Friends of Hamas" story simply saw a Breitbart reporter state what a Senate source had told him, and the story was characterized as such. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Breitbart can write whatever they want, or trick whomever they want, but it they want to be taken seriously in the field of journalism, they need to check their facts a little more often and stop making things up.- MrX 22:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I reject the premise about "making things up" (even your examples don't support that), and it's mostly just hard core leftist partisans who give Breitbart no credence whatsoever. Breitbart is the conservative equivalent of the liberal Huffington Post (beware Twitter "witnesses"!). The NY Times actually has been caught making stuff completely up, for an extended period of time to boot, and many think outlets like NBC, CBS, and CNN are more in need of your advice than Breitbart is. Since Breitbart is a very busy, high traffic news site employing reporters and editors and so far managing to avoid the major journalistic fraud scandals that the sources I just listed have been scorched by, there's no reason to single it out as supposedly unreliable. Facts presented by Breitbart on a daily basis are generally reliable, as evidenced in part by how flimsy and subject to interpretation your own two examples are (presumably your best shot). Breitbart is certainly reliable for its own authors' attributed opinions. No argument otherwise has even been advanced. VictorD7 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• If the above is what you are proposing as the basis for Breitbart's reliability, then add the nytimes.com to the top of that list - their mistakes are even bigger: [8] [9] Atsme☯^Consult 17:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The NYT has a 160+ year history of reporting, with 114 Pullizers. That they fell for a government-created misdirection is regrettable, but so did most other media. Reliability does not require perfection. And why you think the opinion of a WallMart corporate shill casts doubt on an article criticising WallMart is somewhat unclear to me. Breibart.com, on the other hand, has an 8 year history, and about one major scandal per year, even ignoring the overall bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

1 user loves this. - That's almost exactly what I was going to say, but I was too lazy to actually type it.- MrX 22:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok - so you're saying we can excuse mistakes by the NYTimes based on their history and Pulitzers, but we don't excuse mistakes made by others? Excuse me, but Snowden didn't even trust the Times, a pretty major blow for such a major story. [10]. PEW Research published the following a few months ago: [11] The 21st Century is an amazing time. Regardless, this isn't about NYT, it's about Breitbart, so I grabbed this link for you: [12] Atsme☯^Consult 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not put words in my mouth. But worded more neutrally: Yes, we do tolerate occasional mistakes by otherwise quality sources. We lose confidence if the proportion of mistakes is big enough. You seem to be at some kind of shotgun argumentation now - the decision of the Times not to publish a certain story may be regrettable (although, of course, in this case its hardly a sign of liberal bias, but rather the opposite). But it does not affect the reliability of stories they do publish. Why do you think the fact that Breibart gets its readers from Facebook and conservative echo chambers relevant? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I promise not to hand feed you. As for the NYT having a liberal bias....well, read the following: [13] As for their mistakes, please don't make me list them because as you stated above, they have a 160+ year history. Whoosh! Let's save that argument for a NYT debate. I do find it rather disconcerting that the liberal bias that dominates WP today absolutely challenges everything conservative, which in itself is POV and explains why there are so many disputes at ANI, etc. I don't typically cite any sources before I check multiple trusted sources (you call them reliable) to see if they corroborate the story. I did a brief stint as field producer/shooter for CNN years ago - back when the news was actually the news. I've written articles for various pubs & newspapers, published my own, and I've also been the poor sucker who was interviewed, so I have a pretty good handle on the way things operate. That's why I try to check several different sources before I use any of them. It's hard enough to get away from the political pundits, therefore the least we can do as editors is corroborate the information among the sources. I tend to keep a close eye on the anchors and reporters who break away from the politically and/or corporate controlled media, and an even closer eye on the ones who have the intestinal fortitude to blow the whistle. Bottomline, Breitbart is as reliable as any of the others in mainstream. They've ruffled a lot of feathers over the years, but oh well. That's the business of reporting. They ALL make mistakes. Do your homework, and don't believe everything you read. Check out multiple sources, and move along. Atsme☯^Consult 03:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ramzy Baroud

Source in question: Ramzy Baroud, 'The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists,' Counterpunch November 27, 2014.

Is Ramzy Baroud writing for Counterpunch a reliable source for facts concerning the obscure Marxist splinter group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine?

I tried to raise a discussion on this, providing detailed sources that showed that the text at 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack was false, by citing Baroud's article. This was dismissed by a mechanical reference to an, to me, inconclusive debate back 6 years ago, at RSN. I don't think a single, dated, unsatisfactory discussion here can be taken as binding for eternity as though it were established policy. My view is that one must examine the quality of the source (Baroud, not Counterpunch), the standing of the author, and the nature of the material requested to be used. It turns out that later sources I turned up confirmed what Baroud had documented, yet regardless of this (a good test of reliability) some editors just refuse to accept him, since the article appeared in a journal they appear to dislike.

Counterpunch 'muckrakes', a perfectly legitimate branch of Investigative journalism which was the particular area of expertise of its founder Alexander Cockburn, and of one of its leading writers Patrick Cockburn, an expert on the Middle East. It specializes in getting over authoritative opinions that are not aired in the mainstream press. Counterpunch exposed the New York Times presentation of the fabricated data leading to the decision to invade Iraq (and was cited by mainstream historians like Chalmers Johnson for doing so. See his The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, Macmillan, 2007 pp.351,352,363,364). The mainstream source got everything wrong, and Counterpunch proved it. It publishes ex-Wall Street financial experts turned academics like Michael Hudson, Reaganite economists like Paul Craig Roberts, retired CIA analysts like Franklin C. Spinney, U.S. Senate national security expert and Congressional Budget specialists like Winslow T. Wheeler, Christian political conservatives like William S. Lind, historians like Robert Fisk, Israeli Knesset figures and pundits like Uri Avnery and Ari Shavit, historians like Gabriel Kolko, Peter Linebaugh and East Asian specialists like Brian Cloughley and Gary Leupp. None of these are known for their ideological brow-beating or slipshod use of facts, for example. To the contrary. They are polished, notable and established experts in their respective fields.

As to Ramzy Baroud, he is an Arabist, has 3 well-received books to his credit, and as a journalist, publishes widely in such mainstream press outlets as The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Times, Arab News, The Miami Herald, The Japan Times, Al-Ahram Weekly, Asia Times, Al Jazeera etc., as well as working on a late doctorate at Exeter University. Baroud's Counterpunch article is scholarly, analytic and cites all the statements by links to the relevant primary sources in Arabic etc., so they can be independently confirmed.

In reply to Cptono's note about editorial control over content. Well, why is it partisan I/P editors never raise queries about quality control the following sources used throughout the article, none of which is known to exercise editorial control on fact checking, none of which to my knowledge has a reputation for reportorial or in depth accuracy by area specialists, and many of which are dubious. The answer is, they are all, save 2 'friendly' to a POV (which Baroud's article is not).

• Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned.
• The Hindu
• Al-Araby
• Israel Hayom.(once in Hebrew six times in English), a free distribution paper created by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate on behalf of the Israel PM Binyamin Netanyahu. Notoriously partisan.
• The Jewish Press, an orthodox hence sectarian community newspaper.
• Algemeiner Journal notorious partisan
• Jspace community paper
• PFLP website Primary Source
• The Daily Star (Lebanon) (3)
• Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts
• La Información Dominican Republic University newspaper
• Sputnik (news agency) mouthpiece of the Russian federation, i.e., political.
• Daily Sabah Turkish paper created this year
• The Hollywood Reporter
• New Jersey Jewish News

Independent outsider reviews of this issue would be appreciated. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with inclusion for the following reasons:

• CounterPunch has historically been less than suitable here at RSN (attribution has been a way to use it for prominent opinions by established writers)
• Regardless of the author's merit's, what CounterPunch deems appropriate to publish and what they have potential editorial control over is problematic. The source has been called "extremist" but I think it is safe to simply say that they tend to have some sort of agenda and are contrary to the point of sensationalism ("edgy" is a nice way to put it). I question the appropriateness of a needlessly long quote and even giving it a potential page hit through the ref section.
• Ramzy Baroud doesn't seem that prolific at a glance. I'm not as familiar with the writer as others but nothing jumps out as so important that it receives weight (attributed in the text or not). A Google search shows what could easily be considered a heavy bias.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Question. We are under an obligation to be neutral and coherent in our application of policy. If these are your criteria, why have you raised no objection to the many sources I have cited above, which have been used to document the article. They all fail the high bar you set for Counterpunch(none of those sources, furthermore, can boast of the quality contributors some of whose names I have listed as published by Counterpunch). Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop it. I have raised my objections (as did a few other editors on the talk age). We should wait for others to chime in instead of dragging your IDIDNTHERERTHAT to AE..Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Both you and Epeefleche have misinterpreted (see below) a RSN discussion. It is perfectly normal to request clarification as to why you object to Counterpunch and a Palestinian author, while quietly accepting sources all over that page that are POV-pushing, mediocre, and fail RS. Neither on the talk page, nor here, will either of you clarify this point. I too certainly think this should be reviewed by independent outside editors, but in the meantime, I am perfectly in my rights to request that vague pronouncements and a failure to actually do anything but rehearse an opinion be clarified. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I believe it is long-settled here at RSN that Counterpunch is not an RS. This is especially the case for anything controversial. I see no reason to change that judgment. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't settled, and your judgement is a mischaracterization.

11 editors pitched in. 3 were neutral. One was dismissive. 7, a majority, tended to suggest it was citable for opinions if the author was notable, or the opinion of 'substantial interest'. I.e. whether Counterpunch is citable or not depends on who is writing, and the editorial circumstances (substantial interest of point cited, which is the case here).

• ChrisO posed the question. No longer active. Neutral
• PelleSmith (corrects hostile characterization of Noam Chomsky, a contributor to Counterpunch) neutral
• Itsmejudith (corrects characterization of Robert Fisk (a Counterpunch writer) as left-leaning. Neutral

• Jayjg. Negative (‘strong political agenda and bias’ a 'left wing version of [[FrontPage Magazine’)
• Zeq (banned editor): ‘CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts.’
• Relata refero. No longer active. removes links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right.
• Crotalus horridus No longer active. ‘None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself.’
• Merzbow (No longer active: ’I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right.’)

• User:Blueboar
• User:eleland
• User:Nishidani (Agree with refero, i.e. ' It depends on who writes there.')

So, back in 2008, in a short discussion, Counterpunch was not dismissed out of hand. The majoir commentators put an unless/if condition on citation. Both Epeefleche and Cptono are taking it as a thumbs down, when the verdict was mixed and conditional. Secondly, the question I posed is not whether Counterpunch is reliable, but whether a notable author specializing on the I/P area, who, unlike all the other newspapers cited in the article, examined the primary Arabic sources, and correctly noted what the newspapers on day one failed to note, is citable. If we say he isn't, we are potentially laying down a precedent that a notable author/specialist cannot be used to correct an error on Wikipedia if his views are only cited in a non-mainstream newspaper. That is fatuously absurd.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is now another discussion below on this. To get things on track, it would be awesome if people completely involved could discuss if:

A) Counterpunch is reliable?

and

B) Is the author Ramzy Baroud's and/or his column significant enough to warrant inclusion?

Edit in question: here. Article is 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack (by the way, if we had another source we wouldn't have to even worry about it)Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We should not give carte blanche to Counterpunch as a reliable source - although I can see the appeal to editors who want to push controversial points. However, in this particular case I think it's reasonable to cite it, since it's reasonably well aligned with what we get from genuinely reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob -- Tx ... I think, actually, that the rubric is that where there are "genuinely reliable sources" that state x, and others such as Counterpunch that state "close to x", we are to cite to the genuine RSs for the proposition they support. Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, EP, Baroud gives a very detailed analysis, not 'close to x', but 'x' and much else (w, ..y,z). The article is far more comprehensive than the other newspaper reports, which (a) got it wrong or (b) got it right but were minor 'RS' not quite your western mainstream press, and were overlooked. The question is not therefore 'Is Counterpunch reliable' (I don't think any mainstream source is reliable in itself, and try to multiple-source in this area to make sure details are not partisan). The question is, 'Is Ramzy Baroud's article a qualitatively solid one' for the detail in question, and only secondly, 'does its appearance in Counterpunch invalidate it as a source?'Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop replying to everything. We can't get a reasonable consensus going when you run away with the conversation. You are obviously outnumbered on the article. You failed to create a neutral request here. We finally have an outside editor providing some reasoning but you just won't stop. So far we are looking at 4 editors to 1 with 1 involved going your way. No one else is going to chime in if you won't stop commenting. Just shut up for a couple days and let it run its course. This is why you get bullied.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with wiki boards? Questions are asked, and discussions take place. Through rational exchanges, a consensus is met. One does this to avoid mere vote/opinion stacking. This is the procedure I follow, and your repeated interruptions of my attempts to engage with interlocutors in a thoughtful analysis of the issues is, as you allow, 'bullying'. Wikipedia is not Athens, still less am I Socrates, but you are behaving like a sulking Callicles in the latter part of the Gorgias. I regret personalizing this, but you keep needling, rather than addressing substantial points. So let's drop the animosity.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned (@Nishidani)

It's not correct information. It was banned as radio station before 10+ years and I've already notified you that there is legal Galei Israel station in this radio niche. What we are talking about as a source now is Israel National News - one of many different quoted sources in a broad Israeli media spectrum.

• "Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts"

What about CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc. so criticized for their bias in Arab–Israeli conflict? :(

• "Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, The Jewish Press" - what else? :) as "Notoriously", "partisan", "orthodox", "sectarian" (what about Ynet, Walla!, Haaretz ownres, sectarian...?)

Such your private & negative characteristics have no sense without concrete examples approving their not-reliability. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Israel National News was rendered legal by a law that was then repealed, so it appears to operate without a licence. It is used all over Wikipedia and is thoroughly opinionized, with an overwhelming concern for reporting emotions and weird theories. No respectable journalist writes for it. All the other sources are browbeating, sectarian and not mainstream. I don't use them, but I don't run a campaign to elide them at sight automatically, without even consulting the cited page to evaluate it, as several editors are doing.

As noted above - Counterpunch is usable for opinions cited as opinions. It is not specifically known for fact reportage, nor is it considered a secondary reliable source for claims of fact. At least per discussions here. Collect (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with attribution. But the question is not about Counterpunch, but whether a scholar and widely published journalist like Baroud, when he publishes, not an opinion piece, but an analysis of numerous Arabic reports regarding an obscure group of militants, can be summarily dismissed simply because his report was published in Counterpunch. Our stringency about RS is not ideological, but functional: it aims to ensure factual reliability above all. It is being used however, selectively (against anything that throws light on the higher intricacies of Palestinian factional politics) here, by editors who reflexely remove Counterpunch at sight, and let the blogging opinionizing of minor Israeli sources pass without challenge. This is what I find deeply disturbing. No coherence in editors' excision of material.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion on CounterPunch is done. Is the author Ramzy Baroud and his column significant enough to warrant inclusion even with attribution? Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I err, but the outside consensus was that there is no intrinsic reason to deny citation of Counterpunch, that we are not beholden to the 2008 discussion, and that citation with attribution if the author and his views are notable is acceptable. Only Collect and User:bobrayner has taken the trouble to add a comment here specifically on Baroud, i.e. 'is usable for opinions cited as opinions,' echoing his other remark that 'Opinions of people notable in a field should always be allowed when properly cited as their opinions.' Given that Baroud is has a solid journalistic curriculum in major mainstream newspapers, I can't see any objection from four of the five disinterested editors who have commented (User:The Four Deuces; User:Collect; User:Binksternet, User:bobrayner vs User:Thargor Orlando who, by the way, said the 2008 discussion is not informative). The rest of us are partisans, and our views have no weight.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

TechRaptor

I would like to get opinions on some articles from TechRaptor. Its reputation is rather nascent, but I don't think that is a basis to dismiss it out of hand. Here are Alexa statistics[[14]]. It is third-party published material, not user-generated, and it has an editorial structure. It has and enforces a code of ethics[[15]] for its contributors, indicating editorial control. There are specific examples of corrections and retractions.[[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]] There is no evidence of conflicts of interest or specific failures to correct errors. I think its unreasonable to expect more than this from a source for claims that are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

It is proposed to be used in the article Gamergate_controversy for the following claims:

From [[20]],

1. An attempt was made to boycott the game SeedScape based on the developer's identification with Gamergate.
2. The incident caused a dramatic increase in support for the game on Steam Greenlight.

From [[21]],

1. Information about investors in Polytron, developer of the game Fez, was leaked in August 2014.
2. Kellee Santiago made a monetary investment in Polytron in 2009.
3. Kellee Santiago was the chair of the Indiecade awards jury in 2011, when Fez won Best in Show.
4. The chair of the awards jury bears primary responsibility for coordinating the juror process.
5. Santiago recused herself from voting, based on her financial interest in Polytron.

From [[22]],

1. Edward McMillen, developer of Super Meat Boy and Binding of Isaac, believes that in specific instances IGF jurors have voted to "help out" particular developers rather than on the basis of the submitted games.

From [[23]],

1. The Warehouse Group, a New Zealand retailer, has made a decision to cease offering all games and movies rated R18.
2. This decision was motivated by criticisms of Grand Theft Auto V, particularly its depictions of violence against women.
3. Grand Theft Auto V features much more violence against men than women and generally disincentivizes violence against women.

Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

To pick just one item out of your shopping list: the story implying skulduggery by Kellee Santiago. It's written by a guy identified as "BA in Computer Science from NJIT and is a fledgling software and video game developer." The story is predictably dire and inaccurate. To the website's credit, they do publish a correction by Indiecade that says Kellee Santiago recused herself (ie: there is no story). These fellows are literally amateurs. Not a reliable source. No news website with a functional journalistic process in operation would have published that false story. --TS 23:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There were no inaccuracies in the article, even before being updated with Indiecade's statement. It would be easy for a person to draw incorrect conclusions without the update, but that was the state of the best available information prior to Indiecade's input. Rhoark (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a rule, reputable news organizations will not publish articles making negative claims or implications without first seeking a response and comment from the person or organization accused. In this case, the non-story nature of the "story" would have been revealed prior to publication and there would have been no reason to proceed with such unfounded implications. This is as per the SPJ Code of Ethics, which states that ethical journalists should Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing. Sending a single request may or may not constitute "diligent" efforts.

Regardless, there is no reason to include a debunked allegation that amounts to nothing - contrary to what the headline still claims, there is no evidence of a conflict of interest at Indiecade. The fact that someone properly recused themselves from a situation of potential conflict of interest is not likely to be newsworthy or encyclopedic. The fact that the only source discussing the situation - and the only source making such an allegation - is TechRaptor, suggests that it isn't a real issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Their Staff page includes an editor with no editing credentials and many, many writers, none of whom appear to have previous journalism experience or degrees. I find very few sources responding to or reposting their content, which is not only a sure sign that they lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but also that nobody really knows about them. Their Facebook page has under 1400 likes and they are very prominently looking for Patreon funding. (Seriously, that ad is on every single page.) And they do change.org petitions, apparently. That just seems...odd for a news source. According to a previous discussion, they pay per article view—which they admit—and authors have stated they edit their own articles and TechRaptor itself does not do any copyediting. This is the very definition of an amateur, unreliable source. Woodroar (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The people involved do not seem to have a lot of experience, and the site has not had a lot of visibility. For which claims do you feel that makes them unreliable, and why? Rhoark (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For all claims, short of the exceptionally rare circumstance we would use them as an SPS about TechRaptor itself. Look, WP:V requires that we "[b]ase articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and TechRaptor doesn't have that reputation. Even if they were factually correct in every article published from now on, it takes time to build that reputation. It's not like The New York Times hired some schlubs off the street, printed a few copies and were considered reliable overnight. That takes time, sometimes years, especially if they start by making amateur mistakes like NorthBySouthBaranof mentioned above. But that's really what they are: amateurs, and it will be some time before they gain a positive reputation for us to consider using them. Woodroar (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel like a determination of reliability for innocuous facts ought to be capable of being made within the next 6 months, otherwise this is becoming a backdoor requirement that sources themselves be notable as topics. Rhoark (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand WP:V. We don't accept just any source to support claims that you feel are innocuous. Sources must be reliable, full stop. In the case of claims regarding living persons, they have to be impeccably reliable. We really only accept questionable sources when being used to support claims about themselves, and only in very specific cases is that allowed. This isn't one of those cases. Sure, you can try adding questionable sources to articles—as long as they aren't BLP claims—but they'll probably be removed eventually and per WP:BURDEN you won't be able to add them back. It's better to start with proper sourcing in the first place, especially since we're dealing with a controversial topic. As far as notable sources go, that isn't a requirement, but in many cases it goes hand in hand: sources must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and that typically means other reliable sources are writing about them; so if we don't have an article, it's very likely that we'd be able to write one. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I had hoped by posting this here it would attract more attention besides the usual suspects from the article talk page. Rhoark (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

9/11 sources

Are these reliable sources for 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Gordon Farrer

1. Farrer, Gordon (November 5, 2010). "Don't get caught in the web of conspiracy theory truthiness". Sydney Morning Herald – Smh.com.au. Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved May 30, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Charlie Brooker

2. Charlie Brooker (July 14, 2008). "So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you? You probably also think you're the Emperor of Pluto Charles Brooker for The Guardian Unlimited July 14, 2008". The Guardian. London. Retrieved September 20, 2009.

Charlie Skelton

3. Charlie Skelton (September 11, 2009). "9/11 anniversary: a lovely day for a spot of protesting at the BBC Charlie Skelton for The Guardian Unlimited September 11, 2009". The Guardian. London. Retrieved January 9, 2010.

Peter Tatchell

4.Peter Tatchell (September 12, 2007). "9/11 – the big cover-up?". London: Guardian News and Media, Ltd. Archived from the original on 10 January 2010. Retrieved January 12, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

911truth.org

5. Multiple uses of this website... Griffin, David Ray, PhD (December 4, 2005). "Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93: The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales". 911Truth.org. Retrieved October 28, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It is "reliable" for what it says its members think/believe, BUT only in context of specifically attributed material "911truth.org members believe X" and generally only when the beliefs have also been noted and commented upon by third party actual reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Site hasn't been updated in years, so you will have to still look elsewhere if the matter requires some updated information. VandVictory (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

911review.com

6. Multiple uses of this website... "Operation Northwoods". 911 Review.com. Retrieved June 7, 2010.

It is "reliable" for what it says its members think/believe, BUT only in context of specifically attributed material "911review.net members believe X" and generally only when the beliefs have also been noted and commented upon by third party actual reliable sources. (belated sign) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Also look at the content being sourced to them, which includes social and psychiatric commentary.--Theamazo (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If a video accompanies a text by an 'alternative' news outlet does this affect our definition of RS.

In the area I work in, much of one side of a complex reality is ignored or underreported, though covered in part by sources I personally try not to use except when the context or authorship of the piece seems to justify using them.

At Skunk (weapon), some editors are claiming that

• Haggai Matar, 'WATCH: Police spray putrid water on Palestinian homes, schools,' +972 Magazine
• Annie Robbins,'Videos: Jerusalem Skunk,' Mondoweiss

cannot be used.

These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers. They are of high relevance to the Palestinian side. Haggai Matar and Anni Robbins are journalists. Matar writes in Hebrew, worked for Haaretz and Ma'ariv, and won the 2012 Anna Lindh Mediterranean Journalist Award. Annie Robbins's works for Mondoweiss. I am less sure that she fits the profile, but her article is not what we normally understand as blogging. It is documented reportage.

The objection is that these are blogs. +972 Magazine has quite a lot of journalists who publish in Israel Hebrew newspapers, and some like Larry Derfner, former editor for the Jerusalem Post and Mairav Zonzein are published in mainstream Western newspapers, and mainstream Jewish journals like The Forward.

The two articles in question hosted by +972 Magazine and Mondoweiss contain videos illustrating the journalists' reportage. Does the presence of videos documenting what the text refers to validate these as sources specifically for what the article describes? My view on such borderline cases is contextual, whether the article informs, or rants, or just opinionizes. I see both of these specific articles as examples of straight reportage of an otherwise underdescribed (in Western mainstream media) events. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I know I have no real expertise here, but my guess would be that the Matar piece would qualify as a reliable source, based on the reputation of the author, and that the Robbins piece might qualify as corroboration of Matas if such were deemed to be required. I would tend to agree that blog posts which are obviously of an opinionated nature probably can't be used, but I think we have in the past found that blog entries of some newspapers and news sources do qualify as reliable, and if these meet similar criteria, as I think they probably do, they would qualify. The presence of videos in some sites, like perhaps Joshua Bonehill-Paine's website, given the, um, reputation of the site and its author in general, might be different, but those would I think be separate cases from this one. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Blogs that can be presumed to have decent editorial oversight - New York Times, BBC etc - are usually ok. Are these comparable? I must add a pet peeve: we do a lot to ensure that people with poor sight are not massively impeded here on Wikipedia (I know that we are not perfect) but I've been seeing a lot of videos of late and they are almost always useless for the deaf. It is because I am deaf that I can't comment here on whether, for example, the video is being used in an original research manner, an analogous example of which can be seen in a thread at Talk:Bhagat Singh today where someone tries to extrapolate a religious belief from appearance in a photograph. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish I knew of a way which we could use to maybe do something like wikisource does on some pages, like for instance this one, which could be set up to show the video on one side and a transcript of the audio on the other. I'm not at all sure that we could necessarily do that without some real copyright problems, or maybe extremely high standards of content, to not intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent what is being said. I honestly don't have a clue what could be done there, but maybe the foundation might be able to arrange transcripts of some sources on one of the sites. Maybe. But that would probably have to be done by the foundation itself. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Both articles have text accompanying the videos. In my understanding, blogs are rightly viewed as extremely iffy in so far as they are personal views, and we try to build up the data base of our articles on facts. When one has, with +972 magazine, an on-line medium that does a lot of translating of what the Hebrew press reports, is run by professional journalists, many who have solid curriculum vitaes as professionals, and report otherwise relatively neglected issues, with an accompanying video that 'verifies' that we are not dealing with personal opinions for an incident or event, but objective occurrences, then I think our rationale for challenging the 'blog' is substantially weakened. The editors opposing this material are opposing it because they mechanically erase at sight anything on their black list dealing with the reportage of incidents in the West Bank. They do not, to my knowledge, show any passion or alacrity for applying the extremely stringent reading of RS they use here, to any Israeli-interest events. I don't think this blatant instrumental, partisan use of rules shows any concern for wikipe4dia's factual objectivity. To the contrary it uses a rule to violate NPOV coverage. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why this question arises at all. May be because it based on such incorrect base as:

• "These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers"

See the following examples which I found in one minute:

• IDF uses 'skunk bomb' in Bil'in demo jpost
• Jerusalem: Between Ferguson and Damascus jpost
• Land Day: 1 reported killed in Gaza ynetnews
• Jerusalem Arabs: Police using riot control means for collective punishment haaretz
• Jerusalem mayor orders crackdown on Palestinian area to curb riots haaretz

... & besides of

• Israeli use of skunk water fuels anger in East Jerusalem ft
• Israeli Skunk Spray Effectively Dispersing Violent Arabs (2 Videos) jewishpress
• Unrest by Palestinians Surges in a Jerusalem Neighborhood nytimes
• Israeli ‘skunk’ fouls West Bank protests arabnews

So I do not see any need in those biased & not reliable sources. In my opinion, NYT, Haaretz, and arabnews is more than enough :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is underreported. I've searched extensively over the 6 year period in which it is, according to observers, used frequently, and found very little information. To call a source 'biased' because it reports a Palestinian POV is not to understand that in Wikipedia, NPOV consists of balancing POVs. Most of what strictly qualifies as 'mainstream press' coverage in the I/P area comes from Israel and the United States, and the reportage is notoriously skewed to one side. Any incident involving Palestinian violence gets world-wide massive and detailed, ongoing coverage. Most incidents reported in Ma'an News Agency as violence to Palestinians has no echo in the Western press. There are 10 incidents per diem on average of violence or clashes throughout the occupied territories, and you're 'lucky' to see one reported in a week in the mainstream foreign press. Systemic bias is at play, and while I subscribe to a strong reading of WP:RS in my editing, I have no problem in using minor sources as here where I approached a minor Israeli news outlet as usable if the information is otherwise underreported. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, What I wonder why does it have to be reported on every single incidents you found? For that you opened a page List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 or 2014 or 2013. You have on the page the fact it was and is still used, you have names of places, you have a few examples and then you move on and criticism of the way it is used by Israel. At some point the article seemed like an index for any news reports you could put your hand on.

Do you now put on article for Tavor any time it was used? I don't compare and I think the Skunk article should reflect the problematic use but between that and obsessing over it, there is a big distance. Ashtul (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish. I've been silent for 8 years on the fact that editors have dedicated an enormous amount of their time and mainspace on a unilateral classification of types of violence of Palestinians against Israelis. The Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel alone has twelve articles registering by year rocket attacks. User:ShulMaven's Silent Intifada, which started out as the usual monocular focus on a series of incidents in which Palestinian acts of terrorism were highlighted, was hived off, by common consent, into a List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014, which I helped then build, and then created the new page for this year. The premise of POV-pushers creating this stuff is that an incident is worthy of article-length description if an Israeli/Jew is injured. These are all well-covered by RS. If an editor like myself reports violence against Palestinians, rarely in an article, mostly in lists, then the sources are fine-combed to complain of violations of a very rigid reading of WP:RS. That is the point here. Any source is fine for violence to Israelis, but only the New York Times etc., if they ever notice,(which they don't mostly) is a valid source for violence to Palestinians. When you have videos reporting an event attached to an article, written by acknowledged Israeli professional journalists, this should pass all reasonable standards for WP:V and WP:RS. Yet one group grouches.

There is one difference, in the work I do in this area: I define the article to refer to all incidents of violence Israeli vs Palestinians, as well as Palestinians versus Israelis, in accordance for once with WP:NPOV. I don't scour for results. I read the newspapers, and add events as they occur, and have an impact on either side. I don't obsess. I watch what editors do, and try to ensure that this encyclopedia comprehensively covers all sides to a conflict, rather than being a vehicle for one state's complaints.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Jews of Capitol Hill: A Compendium of Jewish Congressional Members

Is this source [24] a reliable source for labelling living and dead persons as "Jewish" where no other sources in their articles make such a claim? I would note this book includes people of "Jewish ancestry" on any type as "Jewish". Kurt F. Stone has no apparent academic credentials other than writing two books about "The Jews of Capitol Hill". [25] gives his c.v. -- he is a rabbi, and teaches at Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University but his c.v. does not seem to establish him as an expert in the field AFAICT. He is not a Professor AFAICT at either university.[26], [27] ("Adjunct Instructor"). Scarecrow Press generally appears RS otherwise - but I am concerned about using this particular source to simply label people as "Jewish" especially since at least one was specifically Roman Catholic in life as far as I can tell. I would also ask separately - is being buried in a "Jewish Cemetery" proof of self-identification as "Jewish"? Thanks to all. Collect (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as I created an article on wikipedia about Female Lieutenant Governors, I am now focussing on creating on for Jewish members of Congress. There are articles on wikipedia about members of Congress being Asian, African-American, Female and LGBT, I thought it would be a nice edition to add one about those who are Jewish. I have sourced the editions to my article so the information is neither incorrect nor wrong. SleepCovo (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment of an uninvolved editor. Jewish is not just a religious designation it is also genealogical. Rabbi's are usually reasonable experts on the topic of being Jewish as they have specific criteria laid out that they must follow. But I make no determination on the book itself or this person. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

However, could a Rabbi designate someone as Jewish by Jewish law without that person being Jewish in an otherwise meaningful sense and/or without them wishing to be identified as Jewish. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Such as not being in any way self-identified as "Jewish" noting the many discussions about people adding "Jewish" because of "Jewish name" or "Jewish grandparent" etc. Where an author is only an "adjunct instructor" the person is not specifically to be regarded as a scholarly authority. It reads far more like a selection of anecdotes about people with Jewish names than a sourced book -- which it is not (one reviewer pointed this out as a problem - as it contained simple errors about people he knew). The removal of problem examples was reverted -- including a reversion of a strange typo ("Suceeded from the Union" I found a strange way to describe a person). Scholar.google.com shows a marked paucity of anyone else even mentioning the books en passant. BTW, a rabbi can not define a person to be Jewish who does not so self-identify. Collect (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment or two on the last point. Of course a person can be Jewish who does not self-identify. As with a newborn, born to Jewish parents. Separately, Judaism is not just a religion. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation. The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law [Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co.] [The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press] Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Only just noticed this. Those are all points, dear EP, made in the lead of our articles Jews, an atrociously bad piece of WP:SYNTH and selective highlighting and erasure of alternative sources, that falsifies a hugely complex inframural refusal to agree on a viable definition (that, I think, is one of the wisest things the Jewish traditions bequeaths the rest of us - the indefiniteness of the category. Classically, 'Jews' are as much the creation of anti-Semitism as of anything else. In any case Brandeis was writing in 1915, without the wisdom of post-Holocaust hindsight. I suggest you, on behalf of his deceased spirit, read Alain F. Corcos, Who is a Jew? Thoughts of a Biologist Wheatmark,2005, or at least the intro. Both he and his brother Gilles were born to French Jewish parents, survived the Nazi genocide and emigrated to the U.S. Corcos, a molecular biologist, decided he wasn't 'Jewish', he thought the term a misnomer. His brother Gilles self-identified as Jewish. Both were right. There is no legitimate definition from any group, outsiders or insiders, that can objectively fix such a subjective and deeply complex, intimately personal issue like identity, which is no business of others to determine. For him, you're Jewish if you practice Judaism (whether as a convert or as someone satisfying rabbinical criteria, it doesn't matter) Suffice it to read Raul Hilberg's chapter on this to realize how fraught this is with dangers. There is a refreshing and rare sanity in Wikipedia's policy of denying editors the right to define biographical subjects in terms of any ethnic 'brand' that would not be acceptable to the subjects themselves.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem is this has been discussed many times on Wikipedia - always with the same result. We do not call a person "Jewish" because they had a Jewish ancestor, or have a Jewish name. We do not call a person "Jewish" in any BLP per WP:BLPCAT without strong sourcing. The book presented does not even give its sources, or any footnotes, has no sign of being fact checked, is not written by a person with academic credentials in journal publications, or any publications other than being from an "adjunct instructor" who wrote two books on the exact same topic.

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Is fairly clear, I trust. Collect (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another comment. It appears that this page isnt the only WP article on the subject. List_of_Jewish_American_politicians seems to be a rather well sourced list that includes members of Congress. While it is off topic for this page, I wonder if WP really needs two pages on this topic. AlbinoFerret 15:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't like these classifications,in fact I detest them, but they're here. I think as Collect says, one has only to include self-identifiers, duly attested by reliable sources. Barry Goldwater had Jewish ancestry on his father's side, but was raised Episcopalian. Religiously he was not Jewish, in rabbinical terms he wasn't either. He occasionally noted his Jewish roots, as I suppose he occasionally mentioned his maternal Anglo-Saxon Protestant roots. Since, as AlbinoFerret notes, there is a better sourced page on the same subject, this article should perhaps be merged into that, always taking care to source the new claims accurately (self-identification).Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Barry Goldwater was just added to the Jewish members of Congress list [28] Will someone please set that editor straight on the rules for labelling anyone with Jewish ancestry at all as "Jewish"? Thank you! Collect (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure it is rs. But the author only says that these people are in his opinion Jewish. (See p. xv[29]) He is clear that other people may have different opinions. Furthermore it is a tertiary source about a topic that has been "largely overlooked in the history books." So it is of pretty limited use as a source anyway. TFD (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

On p.xiv, there is the example of LaGuardia, another Episcopalian like Goldwater, who was, unlike Goldwater, in rabbinical terms a Jew, since his mother was Jewish. But the author fails to note that LaGuardia did not self-identify as Jewish, rarely mentioned the connection and preferred to see himself as Italian. He mentioned his mother's origins only when a Jewish opponent, Henry Frank, smeared him as an anti-Semite, and, wonderfully, challenged the latter to a debate in Yiddish, which he spoke, but Frank didn't. Italian Jews lived in one of the least anti-Semitic countries in the world at that time (according to Zeev Jabotinsky) so these factors did not matter as much as the political and cultural identity.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree with Collect - I think that's the second time in recorded history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Arba'een

See also: Talk:Arba'een § Wikipedia policy

Please help us evaluate the following sources for the article Arba'een. The link after each item takes you to the citation as used in the article.

1. The blog of "Faith Leader, Theology Lecturer, Author" Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi on huffingtonpost.co.uk.[30]
2. Al-Alam News Network, owned and controlled by the Iranian state.[31]
3. Shaykh Saleem Bhimji of al-mubin.org, "Translators, Publishers & Distributors of Islamic knowledge based on the Teachings of Prophet Muhammad and His Illustrious Family", writing on al-islam.org.[32]
4. IslamicFinder's scripted Hijri calendar.[33]

--Anders Feder (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This older discussion dealt with some parts of current request. Mhhossein (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Myswar.com

Does anyone have any idea if this is to be considered reliable or not? From what I can see some of the information seems to be added by registered users; I've tried to register in order to figure out how much but something failed during confirmation. I'm specifically wondering if the credits listed are user-contributed or added in other ways. Bjelleklang - talk 15:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of this site, but based on the About page, it's either a user-generated content site or a fan site, neither of which are considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I suspected, thanks. Bjelleklang - talk 20:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources for an article about The Colony in Malibu

I'm a tea house host helping a new editor who wants to either create a new article or add info to an existing article. Here is the draft article which has been rejected several times: Draft:The_Property_(Malibu_artists_colony)

I'm wondering about all the refs he currently has there. They all seem borderline to me, not great but not necessarily invalid. The specific refs are:

A book by Jay Ruby called Coffee House Positano: http://www.upcolorado.com/book/2726 I searched for this book in my local library (San Francisco... and the system searches all libraries in the city) and also in the Link+ system which is a collection of academic libraries in the Bay Area and didn't find the book in either although I did find that Jay Ruby has other published books in the system.

A story in a small local paper called the Malibu Times: http://www.malibutimes.com/malibu_life/article_3d0d3bdf-4267-50fb-a6c8-6d6fee3654e4.html Not sure how credible small papers like this are.

An article in a journal called Anthropology Now also by Jay Ruby called Studying Sideways in Malibu: http://anthronow.com/current-magazine-cover/september-2014

The two options we are considering are either writing a new article about "The Colony" or (probably more likely) adding the info to the existing article about the Coffee_House_Positano Do any of these references seem strong enough to establish notability for the new information about this artist colony that grew in the ashes of the Coffee House? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Question reliability of source on renaissance writer.

Dear all,

I am having a bit of a problem with the book History of the Popes by Joseph McCabe (London 1939). Mr. McCabe, who never had formal education in history, "was an English writer and speaker on freethought, after having been a Roman Catholic priest earlier in his life."

In the article for Pope Leo X (1475–1521, one of the Medici, confronted Martin Luther) we find this statement:

Two of the leading papal historians of the time (...) shared a belief that Leo engaged in "unnatural vice": these were Leo's governor Francesco Guicciardini, who wrote "At the beginning of his pontificate most people deemed him very chaste; however, he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to that kind of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named" (...)

The statement has a reference to page 409 of McCabe's book.

The problem is that Guicciardini's text is very old and anyone with internet connection has access to lots of editions. All of them contain the first part of the citation: that at the begninning of his pontificate Pope Medici was known to be chaste and of good morals. It so happens that in every version of the text, the second part of McCabe's quotation is missing.

Anyone with internet connection has free and immediate access to the following editions:

Italian (original language):

• A XIX century edition, Florence 1836, page 418.
• Another XIX century edition, Paris 1837.
• A XX century edition, Florence 1929, page 49.
• The italian wikisource version.

German:

• Darmstad, 1849: "Er wurde fur keusch gehalten und fur einen Mann von vollkommenen Sitte." Page 66.

French:

• London 1738: "la réputation qu'il avoit lui-même d'être liberál, poli, & de moeurs irreprochables", page 317.

Spanish:

• Spanish Manuscript: "estimado por casto y de perfectas costumbres", page 958. Copied by hand 1691-1697.

English:

• London edition of 1753: "the reputation of a chaste person and of unblameable manners", page 144.

None of these include anything similar to what McCabe quotes "he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to that kind of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named".

I ask your opinion, because to me it seems as if McCabe had quoted the first part from Guicciardini and invented the rest. I believe that McCabe's book should be considered "not reliable", and that the false quotation should be mended to reflect what Guicciardini really said. What do you think? El Huinca (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only looked at the English translation (page 114 btw, not 144) and didn't find anything resembling the second half. I tried searching the book for various phrases that might have been used but couldn't find anything. I have seen several quotations probably originating from McCabe though, such as the "Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to the Mid-Twentieth Century"[34]. They also claim to quote Guicciardini, but doesn't make it clear what edition was used. Based on what I've seen I'd say that the book should be regarded as unreliable, but given how many other sources there are that uses the quote it should probably be mentioned in the article somewhere. Bjelleklang - talk 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a strange one. On the one hand, multiple sources don't include that sentence, which points toward the unreliability of the sole dissenting source. But on the other hand, Joseph McCabe appears to be widely cited and quoted, and I find no sources commenting on his faulty quotations, so I'm not sure we could consider him unreliable. I am unable to find any sources speaking to this discrepancy, either, so any explanation we give would be WP:SYNTH. It may be that we state by source: multiple sources say X, and Joseph McCabe says X+Y. I could also see an argument for WP:DUE, where were simply go with the words favored by the most translations, which doesn't include the second sentence. Of course, whether or not Joseph McCabe is reliable is irrelevant at that point. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Curtis on Vladislav Surkov

User:Sayerslle has used a link [35] to a YouTube clip of a segment from the television program Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe broadcast in December 2014 to support the following claim in the Vladislav Surkov article, 'He also backed anti-Putin parties, but then said that this was what he had done, with the result that uncertainty arose as to what was real, and what fake.' For convenience, an apparently accurate transcript of the segment may be found here: [36] The excerpt in question is a short piece by English documentary film maker Adam Curtis. Curtis is a reasonably well-respected documentary film maker. However, my concern about this as a source is the use of weasel-words in the source itself: 'those who have studied his career'. It is very unclear from the transcript whether the statements are supposed to be factual, are the opinions of the unnamed 'those who have studied his career', or are the opinions of Curtis himself. Additionally, the claims made are so vague as to be unverifiable. He is claimed to have backed anti-Putin parties, but these are un-named. He is claimed to have said himself that he did this, but where and when he said this is un-stated. This is biography of a living person so we need good sources for claims. It seems to me these claims are currently poorly sourced, and I would like to see them removed unless better sources can be found. I post this here in case anyone can provide another perspective. - Crosbie 08:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

this is the guardian in 2013 - He was considered one of Russia's most deft politicians, crafting Russia's system of "managed democracy" and steering its powerful propaganda machine, mainly via control of state-run television.

Yet his star has been steadily falling since Putin returned to the presidency last year and pursued a path of open repression over the cunning manipulation favoured by Surkov.[37] - the portrait is clear enough in RS whatever . Sayerslle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Sayerslle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I like Adam Curtis, but this film isn't a suitable source for a biographical article because it's light on detail and because Curtis is not well-known as an reliably uncontroversial filmmaker. It's a also a copyvio. Formerip (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

and the economist As the political mastermind for Vladimir Putin for most of the 2000s, Mr Surkov engineered a system of make-believe that worked devilishly well in the real world. Russia was a land of imitation political parties, stage-managed media and fake social movements, undergirded by the post-modern sense that nothing was genuine. ideologuesexit - the economist, the guardian, peter pomerantsev in the lrb - the portrait is clearSayerslle (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Chang a secondary source on these topics

This question arises from a few talk page sections here and here. In the Cheng article "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" Cheng makes two statements:

" No studies formally evaluated the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process or disposal of components, including batteries. "

From later in the journal article:

"No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production "

Is the Cheng article a secondary source on these subjects seeing as the source article itself expressly tells us there are no primary sources for it to look at or review on these subjects? AlbinoFerret 13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it still is. It is a review article and they performed a systematic literature search. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The only literature search (newspapers in this case) it did found information on advertising and battery disposal. Those are not part of the question, and in those areas, it is a secondary source. The question asks in the cases where there are no primary sources, and it clearly sets forth there are none, is this article a secondary source. AlbinoFerret 14:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to say what "Cheng" is. It's PMID 24732165 (actually the author is "Chang") and this is a review article (as PUBMED rightly categorize it). It is a secondary source of the kind favoured as WP:RS and in particular as WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how a source can be secondary without primary sources on these topics. It does review some newpaper articles on battery disposal. But that is not part of the question. In those areas it is a secondary source or review.v The question is, if there are no primary sources to review, is the source secondary in these specific areas? AlbinoFerret 14:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources are all the studies that the review reviewed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you talking past each other here? If the review itself says that on topic X there are no sources - then within topic X it would be a primary source (or a secondary for the information that topic X has no sources). On all the other topics Z,Y and V the source is still a review/secondary source, since for those topicareas it relies on primary sources. Correct?

So on some topic areas this particular review is partially reliable, and on others it is fully reliable. Just as with any other source :) --Kim D. Petersen 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a secondary source. The value of review articles is that in reviewing primary literature, they not only tell us what findings were important, but areas that are not covered well in that literature as well. In either case, a review is commenting on the primary literature it reviews. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 Just pointing out, there are no primary sources on the subjects in question. Chang sets that forth in the source in the quotes above. I am not questioning if the article is a secondary source on topics it had primary sources for, even poor ones, but the topics that source said it didnt have primary sources for. AlbinoFerret 15:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources for the two quotes you provided are the sources reviewed by the Chang for those topics. Maybe I'm just not seeing where you going very clearly, but are you saying that those primary sources reviewed by Chang do not support the general idea that "No study found/discussed X"? My feeling is that you're having trouble with the idea that the author made a statement about the studies they review, but don't cite a specific study. If that is the case, the author is citing all the studies they reviewed. If that isn't quite what you're getting at, could you clarify a bit more?

Kingofaces43 I will be happy to, the source did not review any primary sources in these areas, the source clearly states in in the quotes that the no studies exist. The only sources that Chang looked at that had anything to review were advertising and battery disposal. I excluded these areas from the question because they had primary sources. In the areas that Chang says there are no studies, he didnt review any, not even newspaper articles or poor reports. AlbinoFerret 18:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave the rest for my comment below, but if the review says there were no studies, then that is what they found. If there was some problem in the methodology that produced some bias, you'll need to wait for another review to correct it. It's not our place as editors to dig into that degree of scrutiny, that's the job of scientists publishing in the field. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is indeed a secondary source, and it is indeed a review, and thus one of the best sources within the med area. But i don't think that this is the question (see my "talking past" post above). The question should be: Is this source useful/reliable for information on "environmental impacts" in the disposal/manufacturing process - given that the source itself states that this particular area isn't covered by any primary sources, and thus must be conjecture by the authors of the study? (of course it can be used for the information that no information exists - but not aside from that) --Kim D. Petersen 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The source appears to state in general (from the quoted sections above at least) that environmental impacts are not well evaluated. That would be the synthesis of the literature in the voice of a secondary source and would be reliable for such in the article (assuming there aren't other sources to equally weigh). When authors are commenting on the state of the literature, that's a secondary source as it is based on the primary sources they evaluated. I can understand how statements of no study found (etc.) something can be tricky here, but those cases are citing all the primary literature they reviewed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem isnt the fact he is pointing out that no studies exist, The problem is he forms opinions on the environmental impact of component manufacturing where no studies exist for him to review. So statements like "A 2014 review stated that the emissions from making nicotine could be considerable from manufacturing if not appropriately controlled." in the WP article. When he states that no studies have been done in this area. AlbinoFerret 18:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I see, so that's a different question than what was originally posed at the top. What you quoted should be tweaked slightly if it is as you describe. A "could" in this context without a source to back it up should not be used to mean there is evidence of those emissions, but is reliable to say there is legitimate concern it may happen (would need further study, etc.). Basically, there's science-speak going on a general reader might not pick up on that could lead to the former conclusion rather than the latter. I'm ok with the current wording still in that context, but the main factor there is that the article is stressing concern rather than demonstrating known evidence. I'll take a read through the source and try to make more sense of it in a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I found the section is question (first full paragraph of ii56), which is a summarizing paragraph to the topic. It seems there are plenty of primary sources being discussed in the previous paragraphs between journal articles and patents. It doesn't sound like the scenario being described above. That's exactly what we're looking for from a secondary source to put into context the primary sources. "A 2014 review stated that the emissions from making nicotine could be considerable from manufacturing if not appropriately controlled." appears perfectly fine now that I've had the time to go through the it in terms of reliability for a secondary source. One could even drop the 2014 review stated prefix as we can state what reviews say in Wikipedia's voice typically, but that's up to the folks at the article. As long as the content isn't stating there is direct evidence, but rather the potential for high emissions, (as the quoted text does alright) this seems fine in terms of reliability too.Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I find this a curious response... 3 patents and a chemistry paper is "plenty of primary sources"?? There isn't even a review of papers on what practices or manufacturing process that are currently being used for producing nicotine. --Kim D. Petersen 13:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Plenty was relative to there being no primary sources as mentioned earlier for some reason. As I mentioned on my talk page though, it's not our job as editors to engage in peer-review, but relay what reliable sources say. Our job here is to determine what the kind of source is in relation to the proposed content. It doesn't look like the quoted statement is outside the purview of a secondary source as long as the content is mirroring the risk-analysis tone that there is a likely potential for issues rather than a definitive there are known documented issues. What has been quoted above seems to do an ok job of doing that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is a medical examiner's report a reliable source for a cause of death?

There has been a great deal of dispute on the Death of Eric Garner article about whether the medical examiner's report is a reliable source for Eric Garner's cause of death.

In short, an NYPD officer applied a restraining technique to Garner's neck prior to his death. The ME report states the following as the cause of death:

Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police

Numerous reliable sources (e.g., the Associated Press, The New York Times, Time, and NBC New York) have reported the medical examiner's conclusion. Additionally, in a surprising exercise, an editor contacted the medical examiner's office regarding the "choke hold" language to ensure that it appears in the report as claimed by reliable sources. The ME's office purportedly confirmed that it did in an email to that editor.

To my knowledge, no other medical expert has issued a finding as to the cause of Eric Garner's death. While some non-experts have offered their opinions that the restraining technique was a "headlock" and not a "choke hold," no other medical expert has (again, to my knowledge) contradicted the ME's finding that the compression of Eric Garner's neck contributed to his death. An editor has suggested that the medical examiner's conclusion be considered "disputed" due to these non-expert opinions.

My questions are as follows: under these circumstances, is the medical examiner's report a reliable source for Eric Garner's cause of death? If so, should the report be prefaced by the word "disputed," based on non-expert opinions?

NOTE: There is a pending discussion at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Eric_Garner, also regarding the choke hold language. It has featured some discussion of whether the medical examiner's report is a reliable source, but the focus has been primarily on BLP concerns. This is not an effort to forum-shop, just an effort to separate the issue of whether or not the ME report is a reliable source for the cause of death from those BLP concerns. Dyrnych (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that in general, a medical examiners opinion alone, is or should be considered a reliable enough source for cause of death that we can flatly state that cause as a fact. But if there is significant dispute and doubt about ME's opinion, even if only by notable non-experts, then the examiner's cause should not be flatly stated as a fact, and the dispute should be noted along side the examiner's opinion, though perhaps with due weight. Usually when persons are accused of causing a death, the cause itself is not disputed, only the identity of the person who caused it. When there is a dispute about the cause, the opinion of a single medical examiner is not considered conclusive. In these cases of unarmed deaths, the families and even the federal government, often commission a second autopsy, because they don't think one examiner's opinion should be relied upon to establish the facts.

In this case, there is the additional complication that reliable sources have reported the ME's opinion of the cause, and I am having a hard time getting across the idea that there is a difference between a reliable source confirming the truth of what the opinion of the medical examiner is, and the reliable source concluding that the medical examiner's cause of death, was in fact the true and correct cause of death. The reliable sources in this case obviously don't have access to the information needed to establish one way or the other whether the ME's conclusion was correct, because the autopsy is still secret. They report the ME's conclusion, but they don't make their own independent conclusion. Likewise, Wikipedia should report the ME's cause finding, but not flatly state that finding as a correct fact. Mindbuilder (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense to me. Lady Gaga is a notable non-expert. So are Carlos Chavez and Roberto Benigni. By that logic, we'd put their opinions up alongside the MD who is officially designated to examine and determine the cause of death? This argument is absurd on its face. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. The ME's finding/ruling/decision (not opinion) carries significant weight. Unless the ME's ruling is overturned, for example, by a court, it should be considered a fact. This is amplified by the fact that reliable sources have cited the ME's ruling, which lends credibility per WP:USEBYOTHERS. I see no reason to use the word disputed when reporting Eric Garner's cause of death, as that would be giving undue parity to a WP:FRINGE viewpoint.- MrX 20:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Treat as an RS unless or until there is some particular reason to question the ME's report then it should be considered an RS on the subject. The distinction between faithfully reproducing the ME's conclusion and supporting that conclusion independently is a canard; the ME is an expert on causes of death, conducted the primary research (the autopsy), and made a report whose contents have been verified through other means. It is not wikipedia policy to question the truth of statements made by RS's (in this case, the ME) as a general rule (see WP:V), and "notable non-experts" creating "dispute and doubt" do not present a compelling reason to do so. siafu (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO - If you put only clowns up against a medical examiner, then that gives the dispute the appearance of being ridiculous. But that's just a logical falacy. It's not just clowns disputing this. The accused, the police unions, pundits with audiences in the millions, martial arts experts, and a significant fraction of the Wikipedia editors of this story. The not chokehold theory may be a minority theory, but it is not a fringe theory.

@MrX - It is not wise to assume the truth of a disputed fact based just on the opinion of one person, not even an expert. It would not be good for Wikipedia's reputation to have the policy of assuming disputed facts based on the opinion of a single expert. That reliable sources and even I myself have cited the ME's conclusion, doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge significant dispute and doubt.

@Siafu - There is particular reason to question the ME's report. That the chokehold/headlock was only 15.3 seconds and Garner was still talking afterward are significant reasons to question it. They're not definitive reasons but they're significant. The contents of the report have not been verified through other means. A single expert only barely qualifies as a reliable source, and the general rule against questioning reliable sources goes out the window when there is significant dispute.

It's also important to remember in this debate, that the ME is an expert in cause of death, but I see no reason to believe that he is an expert or reliable source on the linguistic definition of the term chokehold. NYPD policy only defines chokeholds as that which restricts air, not blood. The ME actually ruled one of the causes of death to be "compression of neck". That doesn't necessarily imply significant impeding of air supply. It may only be restriction of blood flow. We don't know if the ME was using the same definition of chokehold. I don't consider the ME to be an expert or reliable source on that matter. Mindbuilder (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A single expert does indeed qualify as a reliable source, per wikipedia policy. Being just one person does not ipso facto impact the reliability of a source. siafu (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable, and everything that WP:RS means. A medical examiner should always be considered one kind of reliable source for this information. Their findings are not gold though. They can be wrong too. That means if there are other sources reliable for the claim, they can be used to dispute it. Say for instance we're editing a science article and add the content X causes Y sourced from one review. The producer of X disagrees with it, but we don't consider that a reliable source to dispute the claim. A new review concludes X doesn't cause Y, but Z did. At a minimum, we'd say the claim that X causes Y is disputed at that point. In the case of the medical examiner, they do not have the final say, but good enough sources need to be presented to either match or disprove those findings. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that the opinions disputing the medical examiner's report are particularly low-quality, as they mostly come from political pundits and parties who are directly interested in the outcome of the case (e.g., the police union). I'm not aware of any medical experts who dispute the cause of death, even without having performed their own autopsies. Dyrnych (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

An M.E.'s reports is supposed to contain his expert opinions as to fact - but do not establish those opinions as fact per se. The language used should be:

The M.E.'s report gave the cause of death as ..."

and not

The cause of death was ...

Just as we handle all opinions of experts or persons notable in the field. We do not and ought not assert infallibility to any such opinions on any topic. "Cause of death" is not the same as "weight" or "height" as being an empirical statement of fact. Collect (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: How would you apply this to the questions I presented? Dyrnych (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Even by Wikipedia standards, this is a ridiculously pedantic discussion. Determining a cause of death always involves some level of "opinion", at least in the way Collect construes opinion. The cause of death is determined by synthesizing available clinical, contextual, and pathologic findings. The medical examiner is the ultimate expert and legal authority in making such a determination. We should report the cause of death as determined by the medical examiner. If other well-qualified pathologists or medical authorities dispute the M.E.'s findings, then we should note that as well. However, to dismiss the M.E.'s cause-of-death determination as "opinion" is expedient (for some, I suppose) but fundamentally silly, since some element of subjective interpretation is inherent in any cause of death determination. MastCell ^Talk 01:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The medical examiner isn't the ultimate expert, he is just one, and one that is often not considered authoritative by the families and even the federal government who commission second or third autopsies, because they don't consider the ME to be reliable. We have a rather unusual situation amongst general expert situations here, because in most subject areas, other experts could render an opinion if the opinion of one expert was questionable. But in this case, it is not that all the experts agree with the ME, it is that no other expert can dispute the ME, because they don't have access to the body or even the autopsy report. An expert opinion should be considered even less authoritative when it can't be closely examined and challenged. Secret reasoning and evidence should be especially suspect at Wikipedia. Sources based on secret reasoning should either be considered not reliable, or barely reliable, and described as disputed when there is significant dispute, even among non-experts. Mindbuilder (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mindbuilder: That's all your OR. If there is only the official autopsy by the qualified professional who is designated NYC Medical Examiner, that constitutes the available fact. For this reason, the Medical Examiner's report has been cited by every RS which discusses the matter. There's no basis for WP editors to speculate about counterfactual scenarios. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mindbuilder: can you provide support for the claim that families and the federal government (1) often seek alternatives to the medical examiner's report (2) because they don't consider the ME's report to be authoritative? Dyrnych (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable source to confirm what was reported by the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time and NBC, all reliable sources in themselves. Until reliable sources report that it was contested and withdrawn, it would be OR to second guess a widely trusted expert. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Many here are still mixing up the difference between a reliable source reporting somebody else's conclusion, and the reliable source asserting the conclusion themselves. For example, many reliable sources have reported that the FBI says that their experts have decided that there is conclusive evidence that North Korea perpetrated the attack on Sony Studios. Does that mean the reliable sources believe that the FBI's evidence is conclusive? No, they're just reporting the FBI's claim. Can we state it flatly as a fact on Wikipedia that the FBI's evidence is conclusive? No. We can report the FBI's claim, because the reliable sources do, but we can't flatly state as fact that North Korea is responsible. As another example, many reliable sources have reported that Pantaleo said he did not choke Garner. Does that mean we can assert it as a fact in Wikipedia that Pantaleo did not choke Garner because reliable sources reported that claim of fact? Obviously not.

On the other hand, many reliable sources have flatly stated as fact that Pantaleo put his arm around Garner's neck. They don't say Pantaleo appeared to put his arm around Garner's neck. They don't say that the medical examiner concluded Pantaleo put his arm around Garner's neck. They just flatly state it as a fact that they have determined to be true to their satisfaction. That is the conclusion of a secondary source that has viewed the primary source of the video, and found it to be reliable enough and clear enough, that the fact doesn't need to be couched in terms of the opinions or claims of experts or others. When the reliable sources report it as an apparent chokehold, that is their implicit recognition that it might not be what it appears, and that they do not find enough reliable evidence to simply flatly state that it was in fact a chokehold, and that the chokehold caused the death. The reliable sources are not just saying, that since the ME claims it, then its a reliable fact without significant doubt. The reliable sources are recognizing the debate as significant enough to be worth mentioning, and so should we. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your FBI analogy is relevant, and the logic of second paragraph is a bit too tortured and convoluted for me to follow. I notice that a lot of people are telling you pretty much the same thing, here and in other venues, and you don't appear to be listening. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable source - The ME's report is an expert report and should be treated as such. It's also a primary source, so it's valuable to have reliable secondary sources (NYT, WaPo, etc.) supporting this. That said, the fact that the cause of death is disputed by various non-experts is notable, and should be given appropriate weight in the overall discussion of Garner's death. That said, the opinion of non-experts who have not had a role in the autopsy should not be treated as anything more than an opinion by a non-expert. Think Jim Inhofe's opinion that global warming is a fraud. It's notable because he's notable, but it can't be given the same weight as the conclusions of experts. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable source of facts If the ME report says something, and there's no other reliable source that says differently, the ME's report can be used as unattributed fact - that, in fact Garner died of the chokehold. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Acceptable primary source One of the situations where it is acceptable to use a primary source is when it is the subject of extensive secondary sources, as is the case here. It is probably also acceptable as a primary source in less controversial cases, even when not supported by secondary sources, as there is no weight issue in including cause of death, which is a de-facto part of any article about a deceased individual. CorporateM (Talk) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The huge difference between the reliability of experts here and in the global warming debate, is that with global warming, thousands of experts have been able to review the openly available evidence and reasoning. In this case we have just one expert with secret evidence and reasoning.

I'm perplexed as to why almost nobody is getting or even mentioning the difference between a reliable source reporting someone else's conclusion, and adopting a conclusion of fact as their own. Was the last paragraph of my 8:44 post unclear as it was for MastCell? Mindbuilder (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable. The ME report is, in the vast majority of cases, going to be the most reliable source for the cause of death. It does not need to be in-text attributed unless other reliable sources disagree (for example, other expert opinions who have examined the evidence). Yobol (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Have mites been ruled out as a cause of colony collapse disorder?

Sources

1. WP:MEDRS WP:SECONDARY literature review: Simon-Delso, N.; et al. (January 2015). "Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites". Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 22 (1): 5–34. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3470-y. Retrieved 6 January 2015. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help) It says: "persistent, low concentrations of these insecticides pose serious risks of undesirable environmental impacts.... their broad spectrum leads to undesirable effects on non-target insects" (citing Lu et al 2012 and 2014.)
2. WP:PRIMARY sources: Lu, Chensheng (Alex); Warchol, Kenneth M.; Callahan, Richard A. (2014). "Sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder" (PDF). Bulletin of Insectology. 67 (1): 125–130. along with the same authors' 2012 work.
3. WP:SECONDARY popular treatment: Tarlach, Gemma (May 9, 2014). "Pesticides, Not Mites, Cause Honeybee Colony Collapse". Discover. Retrieved 3 January 2015. It states: "researchers monitored 18 bee colonies — six in each location — from October 2012 through April 2013. A third of the colonies were exposed to low doses of the pesticide imidacloprid, while another third were exposed to the pesticide clothianidin. Both pesticides belong to the neonicotinoid class and are commonly used in agriculture. The remainder of the colonies were left untreated.... In January, however, while the control colony populations began to increase as expected, the number of bees in the treated colonies continued to decline. By April, 50 percent of the treated colonies had been wiped out, showing the hive abandonment pattern typical of CCD.... Researchers noted that one of the control colonies also was lost, but its thousands of dead bees were found inside their hive, showing symptoms of Nosema ceranae, an intestinal parasite. When CCD first emerged in honeybee colonies in the mid 2000s, N. ceranae was put forward as a possible cause. Subsequent research in Europe, however, has suggested N. ceranae was widespread in many areas before CCD and is not associated with the phenomenon." (emphasis added.)

Articles

Colony collapse disorder (CCD), as discussed at Talk:Colony collapse disorder#Mites ruled out, along with Neonicotinoid, and possibly Imidacloprid, Clothianidin and Fipronil.

Content question

Do reliable sources support the assertion that Nosema ceranae mites have been ruled out as a possible cause of CCD? If so, should this statement be included in Wikipedia's voice, or attributed to one or more of the sources? EllenCT (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a PRIMARY source. There are reviews coming out in this area all the time. Wait til a secondary source or two comes out that takes this into account. Every WP policy and guideline urges us to do that. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Simon-Delso review is a secondary MEDRS-grade review which clearly confirms both Lu et al primary studies. The secondary popular news treatment is included for its clear description of the experiments and their outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

For the Discovery source [3], it is not from an expert in the field. For anyone well versed in the topic, almost any primary study claiming to have figured out CCD is a huge claim that would require great evidence. That's one thing we'd need a review article to weigh in on to specifically state whether such a study is valid, or what potential causes have been ruled out or not. It is indeed a kind of secondary source, but not one reliable for claims made by the primary source. #1 just cites the primary source, but does not give a blanket confirmation to the study. There are other similar sources disputing the study as well, so I'm not seeing any rush to push content in here (none has been proposed yet). Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you claim that the Discovery source [3] misconstrues the primary study or its results in any way? Do you claim that the secondary MEDRS-grade review disapproves of any aspect of either primary experiment in any way? Which "similar sources" dispute the studies? The proposed change is the addition being asked about under "content question" above. EllenCT (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: my first interaction with User:Kingofaces43 involved my asking him what he considered to be reliable WP:MEDRS-quality "literature reviews supporting [his] contention that neonics are not toxic to bees or implicated in CCD," to which in reply he offered this source which was sponsored by Bayer Cropscience, written by paid consultants, and which purports to be a general review of toxicological findings, but in actuality is only a review of study methodologies. Since then Kingofaces43 has become extremely upset when I have brought this subject up, complaining about me for doing so several times on WP:ANI. He was also very upset and accusatory when I asked him simple, non-identifying questions to clear up COI issues, such as his job title. Since then, I used the opportunity of the recent Arbitration Committee elections to ask all twenty candidates whether they thought bringing up the issue facts was appropriate (Question 4 here.) I note that more than half of the candidates, and more than half of the winning candidates, indicated that it is appropriate to raise this issue. EllenCT (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)