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

Sources on Estonian police battalion

Sources:

• Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust, edited by Roni Stauber; chapter by Yitzhak Arad

• "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)

• The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; edited by Geoffrey P. Megargee:

• "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.

• In contrast, Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity states: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876)

Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."

The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very interesting that the West German investigation in the early '60s could not prove participation in the killing as I wouldn't think that they'd have any reason to whitewash the Communist gov't of the time. I think that what we have here is reliable sources on both sides, so I'd suggest laying out the evidence like so: "The battalion has been accused of participating in the killings of Jews at X, on Y, (sources) but a West German investigation in the early 1960s could not conclusively link its members to the action(source)" and let the reader decide. RSN isn't meant to decide which evidence is the "best", and that's all I'm afraid that we could accomplish here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be some clarification in the text of the second source, or possibly in any sources these themselves cite. I say this because the sources don't necessarily contradict. The first states the role the police played in the killings cannot be determined, whereas the second states that there is no evidence they participated in the executions. If the two sources are taking very different interpretations of "involvement", they might actually agree. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The talk page discussion mentions WP:WPNOTRS, and claims that we shouldn't use tertiary sources. However, WP:WPNOTRS doesn't really say that - it says secondary sources are preferred but tertiary sources are reliable also. In practice, we use specialty encyclopedias quite a lot, as they are often written by experts in the field they cover. I'd consider The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos to be a specialty encyclopedia that is probably quite a good source for information on its subject matter. And I'll also note that the three volumes of the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos are quite extensively researched and do actually include sources for most entries. I don't have the first volume available at the moment (even I quail at buying the books - they are pricey!) but I do have the second volume here at hand and a glance through shows every article has a list of sources as well as most having footnotes. I'd suggest getting the book through interlibrary loan and consulting whatever sources are used for the entry snippeted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And the work on Collaboration is also post-Cold War and the section by Arad would definitely be considered a reliable source for this subject, as Arad is a researcher in the field of the Holocaust in the Baltics. His work is most definitely NOT a tertiary source, it is in fact a secondary source also. He may be wrong, but its equally likely the commission was wrong also - especially if it based its conclusions on a West German commission from 1971, prior to the opening of many archives after the Cold War. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your point about the West German commission not having full access to archival data is a good one, but none of these sources can be impeached as they're all post-Cold War and the commission doesn't even have any Estonian nationals as members. I'd need to see the sources myself, to see which way the preponderance of evidence lies if I were writing this article myself. But really, this is disagreement between reliable sources and should be discussed either in the main body of the article or a footnote, not a RS issue at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we should take sides on either side - it appears to be a disagreement between sources ... all of which appear reliable. The ideal solution is to cover the controversy in the article. Both sides should be presented, and other sources brought to bear. A good start would be getting the Encyclopedia and seeing what sources it used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I would first also cite this close study in Estonian, that, based on historical documents and interviews with historians also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest the police battalion participated in the roundup of the Jews. And let me also point out that this is not a case of poor or missing documentation. The main discrepancy between the sources seems to be generality vs. specificity. The sources that claim the role of the police battalion may be generally reliable and use reliable PS but in this specific case either do not specify their sources or rely on indirect evidence, e.g. "The reports of this squad report many entries on "military action against partisans," a phrase which conceals punitive measures against citizens and the killing of Jews."

The dispute between the sources is not notable enough to warrant a passage in the article so my suggestion is to include it in a footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Ekspress source appears to be a general newspaper - at least I see articles on movies and other such topics on the main page of it. Google translate gives a very very rough translation which appears to be either a letter to the editor or an editoriak, which is supported by the translation of "PEKKA ERELT, EESTI EKSPRESSI AJALOOKÜLGEDE TOIMETAJA" which google gives as "PEKKA Erelt, Eesti Ekspress HISTORY sides of EDITOR". I'd suggest that the Ekspress is not exactly a scholarly secondary source here. Certainly, there appears to be a commission that does not think the brigade took part in the events. Unfortunately, an unsigned newspaper article is not a strong source contradicting the United States Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia of the various German labor/extermination camps, nor Arad, who is a scholar working in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Pekka Erelt is the editor of the history section of the Eesti Ekspress. His article may not be scholarly but it is investigative journalism. Even if we do not consider his own discussion, we should not dismiss the quotes by professional historians Meelis Maripuu, Argo Kaasik and Enn Kaup in his article. And again, this is a matter of specificity. The core of this problem is trusting a general RS over specific investigation on this matter. And, again, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity are not another opinion of 'a commission' but the conclusions of the commission established to investigate crimes by Estonian citizens. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:

• Novogrudok, Belarus received notoriety among Estonians lately. Allegedly, the 36th Police Battalion took part in the mass murder of Jews committed there in August 1942. At least, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is certain of it. The wording in the report by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity is more modest; the report, however, did not rule out the participation of the Estonians. (Not sure if "more modest" is the correct translation.) link

It seems to be an incident of significance & deserves more than a footnote in the article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Eesti Ekspress article was written in 2002, while the commission's work was still in progress, so obviously the commission "did not rule out the participation of the Estonians" at that time because it hadn't completed it's review of all the available evidence, including the 1960's West German investigation and post-war Soviet investigations. The commission's final report, published in 2006, concluded there was no evidence found relating to the participation of 36th Battalion. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

From the Talk page: The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found -- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you put too much weight on a criminal investigation of West German Police in 1960-70? I could understand your concern if they where investigating their own countrymen, but they spent four years investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Commission states on page 862 of their final report: According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.^[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note re: "investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union" -- presumably, the members of the Battalion retreated with the Germans and were residing either in West Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe; the Battalion's commander, Harald Riipalu, emigrated to the U.K, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't see how that is significant, given that the majority of the Battalion where captured by the Soviets. Upon what basis do you dismiss investigations of West German police? As I understand it, there was an issue in the late 1950's to early 1960's in regard to the Police investigating their own members who may have committed crimes during the Nazi period, but I think it is too much to claim that this would have impeded investigations of foreign personnel in the late 60's to early 70's. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions of the Commission

I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:

• "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.

"In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.

Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems that both The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad are paraphrasing this document you found, so obviously there would not be any contradiction. The basis of this appears to be the view that "fighting against partisans" was code for killing Jewish civilians. But it isn't clear how they arrived at that, as it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which devotes several pages to the activities of the Battalion and asserts there no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion. Are you able to access Gerlach's work and quote the original German here, perhaps that may shed further light, I've given the relevant page numbers above. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This document [I] found comes from the website of the commission http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/ and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I said it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which explicitly states "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". Do you have access to Gerlach's work Kalkulierte Morde, pp701-702? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have access to Gerlach. If I sent you an email, would you be able to scan and email the relevant pages from the main body of the report (assuming its in English)? I'd like to see more context around their conclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a pity, with you being able to cite more obscure German historians, like Sönke Neitzel and Wolfgang Schneider, in other articles, you may have also had access to Gerlach. I can scan the relevant pages, but I don't have easy access to a scanner, perhaps I could go to the local library over the weekend. --Nug (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I would look forward to it. BTW, Sönke Neitzel is not at all obscure. He is a leading German military historian; his 2011 book Soldaten: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying (with Harald Welzer) was a sensation in Germany. The book was published in English and is even available as an audio book. It's a fascinating read; I highly recommend it. See also this interview (in English):

• "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": video interview with Neitzel discussing Soldaten, via the official YouTube channel of The Agenda (TVOntario).

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: final ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally back, have been caught up in WP:REALLIFE. I've managed to scan the relevant pages and will post a link here in the next few days. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: Hi, do you plan to post here, or should I drop you an email? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that Yitzak Arad cites as his source the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory, which is the successor to the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. The Commission was disbanded in 2007 and Arad wrote in 2011. You need to check what the Institute says. If they are cited correctly, then we have to prefer what they say over the Commission. I do not have full access to the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia. The article may provide sources which can be checked. It was published in 2009, so it may be relying on the same info as Arad. This seems to be a case where an original conclusion was changed, but we cannot tell without looking at what the Institute says. TFD (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally got my scanner working and have the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia from the library. If anyone wants the scans of the article ... send me an email and I will send pdfs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Outcome -- the article has been updated to this version. The denials by the Estonian Internal Security Service look slightly WP:UNDUE to me, but I don't have strong feelings on that point. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The article Ambazonia doesn't provide verified source

1. Source. http://www.ambazania.org/1024_768/input/SCAPOFormallyProclaimstheRepublicofAmbazania.pdf Ambazania.org 2. Article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambazonia 3. Content ... (b) President Paul Biya is [also] guilty of treason for furthering and completing the treason of Ahidjo by bringing about the secession of the first defendant (East Cameroon) from the United Republic of Cameroon on February 4, 1984, reinstating its name "Republic of Cameroon" which had not been used since January 10, 1961. (c) That the break-away Republic of Cameroon continues, illegally and forcibly occupy the territory of the first plaintiff, which means the first defendant is guilty of an international offence of aggression and annexation, (d) The report made the Restoration of the statehood of the first plaintiff the starting point of restoration of legality.

My Observation: While i reading articles on cameroon actuality, i was redirected on the ambazonia wikipedia page, but, the information provided by the page doesn't provide verified source. i'm a citizen, and think that an encyclopedia must provide right information.

Question about a source in WW2 bio article

• Article: Karl Strecker
• Source: Haller, Uli (1994). Lieutenant General Karl Strecker: the life and thought of a German military man. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger. ISBN 9780275945824. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Prior Talk page discussion: Talk:Karl_Strecker#Third-party sources needed?
• Question: Does the book meet the requirements for reliable, independent, third-party sources?

The publisher describes the book as "The memoirs of a German general...". A 1996 review in War in History includes:

• "Nearly half of the book, 82 pages, is an introduction by the editor, Mr Haller. (...) It's a clever literary device to support a 90-page memoir which might ordinarily not constitute a book by itself. (...) If the General comes across looking bigger than life, the reason might be explained by Haller's opening sentence: Karl Strecker was my grandfather". source

The article is largely cited to the source above, including the discussion of the subject's ideological leanings, beliefs and self-assessment. Examples:

• He reacted with disgust at the Nazi's anti-Jewish pogroms and the purges of 1934…
• When the purges began Strecker considered resigning his commission...
• Strecker was strongly opposed to the invasion of the Soviet Union, believing that it would cost Germany the war. Etc.

Given the extensive citing of the source, the issues of WP:Weight and WP:POV also come to mind. Take this statement:

• [Strecker] claimed he was, by this time, having to inspect all communications from above in order to make sure that oppressive or illegal orders, such as the Commissar Order, didn't reach his troops, and countermanding those that did.

Given what is now known about the extent of the implementation of the Commissar order, the statement, even when presented as a claim by the subject, strikes me as undue. (See for example: Felix Römer#Research on the Commissar Order).

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the rest of the review cited above, but it seems sufficient to establish that the source, a biography cum memoir, written/edited by the relative of the subject, does not meet the requirement for reliable, independent, third-party sources. The discussion the Talk page has stalled, so I'm reaching out here for additional input. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The provided parsing of Arnold Krammer's review is...interesting. Every academic review of the book I've seen, including Krammer's, has been adulatory. The book, originally published by the University of California, is a biography which includes substantial letters and diaries from the topical subject, much of which was recovered from Polish and German archives by the author, a professionally trained archivist who is now on the staff of the University of Washington. Saying the entire article is "largely" sourced to Haller is overreach. Extra attention was paid to provide inline cites to potentially controversial or contestable material, inevitably leading to additional appearances of the best available source on the subject. Let's not start punishing that. All the above assertions are backed by analysis of contemporary correspondence. Nothing objected to is cited to Strecker himself. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Responding to various points:

1. I did find an Uli Haller at the University of Washington; if that's the right one, he works there as a Senior Director of Finance and Administration, not in an academic capacity.
2. Re reviews: I would be interested in seeing the rest of the review by Krammer. Would it be possible to get it?
3. Re other sources being used in the article. Another frequently used ref is Samuel Mitcham, who states (pg. 317) that Haller's book is "the source of much of the information on Strecker"; Mitcham is relying on Haller. These may be the "best sources available", but I don't the meet the requirements for independent, reliable sources, and should be used with care and with attribution when dealing with controversial matters.
4. I have another review on hand, from the German Studies Association, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Feb. 1998), by Mark P. Gingerich of Ohio Wesleyan University: "Haller's relatively lengthy introduction (...) is a clearly written account of political and military developments...". Gingerich writes that it is "marred by a number of factual and chronological errors", such as listing the wrong people who signed the Treaty of Versailles, getting the year of the founding of the Federal Republic wrong, etc. In total, seven such errors are given; their listing occupies about 25% of the review.

The reviewer then discusses Strecker's writings as the "more valuable" part of the book. In his conclusion, he notes, that ("criticism aside") students of German military and political history might find the book useful because it provides "excellent translations of relatively inaccessible primary source materials". Thus, the praise is for the primary materials, not Halle's introduction, which the reviewer finds "perhaps unnecessary" and error-prone. I would not describe this review as adulatory, especially as far as Haller's writing is concerned. I could email the review to anyone interested.

Even if the reviews were laudatory, this does not address the concern that the author / editor (Haller) is a relative of the subject and thus has a conflict of interest. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen two reviews, I'll see if I can find them. I'll definitely take the review you have via email. You can access my email from the topicon on my user page. Forgive me if I'm doubtful of your characterization of the overall tone in the cited review, but your presentation of the previous review was substantially skewed and not at all representative of what is available online. All the passages you seem to have issue with are sourced to the highly praised source documentation. The most potentially contentious passages are phrased as assertions by Strecker, not as statements of fact. Haller has an undergrad in History from Stanford and a Masters in Archival Library Science from Washington. He's well qualified to compile and interpret archival materials, even with the occasional minor contextual error, none of which seem to have been incorporated into the article. Aside from his familial relationship I'm not really sure what the objection is. We certainly don't make blanket rejections of biographies or related material from qualified, reliable sources simply because the author is a grandchild. Some of the most celebrated biographic material, memoirs, and collected works of historical figures are done by relatives. Picasso, George Patton, the Kennedy clan and the Roosevelts, off the top of my head. If you include autobiographies, and biographies authored by associates, peers, or friends the list becomes exhaustive. I'm not hearing a reason why this book should be brought into any doubt as a reference for the cited passages, or anything else in the article. Is there a specific objection to any passages based on any conflicting information? If not, this seems to be an objection in search of a problem, especially since you haven't even seen the reference you're objecting to. Also, the COI page you've linked to is not about references, but about editors with COI. RS are evaluated on their own merits. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I corrected the link so it does not go to the COI guideline; I should have included it simply as “conflict of interest” – my apologies. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased, maybe. But if we were to throw out every bio written by an acquaintance, relative, or disciple... Few bios are written by people who are neutral. Usually the writer has a relatively strong positive or negative opinion regarding the subject, which is why he chooses to write about the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd question the use. The author, being a close relative, is already a red flag, but the things that it sources seem to be an issue too. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Which passages do you find to be inadeqaulty sourced and how would you recommend they be modified? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Being a close relative isn't a problem so long as we can establish the source is still reliable, it just requires that you attribute them as belonging to a potentially biased source (WP:BIASED, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Alcherin (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware such attribution was done for any potentially contentious assertions when I wrote the article but if there are instances where that's not the case I'll go over it again. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Any time the sole source of a contentious claim is a book written by a close relative, it should cause concern. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Specific statements

@Largely Recyclable: A bit more good faith would be appreciated (re: “substantially skewed”, etc). I included the excerpts because they highlighted the dual nature of the work – biography/introduction by Heller, followed by Strecker’s own writings – and gave the key piece of information, namely that Haller is the relative of the subject. Until I see additional reviews, I also reserve my judgement on your assessment of every academic review of the book that you've seen being adulatory. 

General comments: The concern is whether the source, with an obvious conflict of interest, is suitable for statements in Wikipedia’s voice. Haller is not a professional historian; he’s an archivist by education, and while he’s qualified to compile his grandfather’s writings into a memoir, he’s probably not the right person to analyse the motivations of a German general during a tumultuous era. It’s unclear whether Haller’s editorial interpretations are correct; it’s possible that they are clouded by conscious or unconscious bias.

Here are several statements of concern, in addition to what I listed at the top of the discussion; they are cited to Haller and Mitcham (via Haller):

• While conflicted about serving the Nazi political order… – he did serve, didn’t he?
• His old Prussian devotion to soldierly duty won out… – the supporting statement from the subject is “my politics are obedience”; nothing about soldierly duty
• His ethics as a Prussian military officer continued to prevent him from joining any organized German resistance – see “obedience” comment from above
• In spite of his lack of political support for the Nazi, he was made commander … – He was promoted, so the lack of support could not have been pronounced, or this statement is simply not relevant. Just state that he was appointed.

In general, the article comes across as taking the Haller / Strecker / Mitcham sources at face value. They create, as Krammer’s review puts it, a picture of the general as “larger than life”. This sort of value judgements (abhorrence, soldierly duty, ethics) and editorialising language (in spite of, nonetheless, while) should be reduced / removed.

In addition, if these details and interpretations can only be found in a biased source, then their inclusion may be undue. I bring up the Commissar Order example again. It's likely that 100% of generals who served on the Eastern Front claimed that they ignored the order, countermanded it, did not pass it onto the troops, etc. It’s now known that 85% of the Wehrmacht Ostheer divisions implemented it, so Strecker’s claim is both unsurprising and extraordinary at the same time. In order to include this claim, we should really corroborate it via 3rd party sources.

Additional example (from the lead): [Strecker’s] religious beliefs and ethics caused strain with, and sometimes outright defiance of, the Nazi regime. In contrast, Krammer’s review linked above contains: “Strecker’s resulting National Socialist sympathies were all too common”. So, which one was it – “lack of political support for the Nazis” or “National Socialist sympathies”? Well, it could be both, depending on the timeframe or the interpretation of the materials, but I’m currently inclined to believe Krammer more than Haller.

Hope this clarifies my concerns. I can provide more statements that I would consider contentious, undue or not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia’s voice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the specifics. I'll review the article for all the points raised and make modifications or insert more immediately transparent inline citations. In reference to your disatisfaction with Haller's credentials, can you be more specific on your view of what credentials qualifies a person to conduct historical analysis? We briefly began this conversation earlier but didn't seem to follow through on it. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I will reiterate my concerns about the source:

1. Haller compiled writings by his grandfather, along with archival materials, and wrote an introduction; the source should be judged on those merits.
2. He is not a historian by education or profession, and has little standing on interpreting motivations of the German military commander class.
3. More importantly, writing about a close relative, Haller has an obvious conflict of interest; see WP:BIASED.

Separately, I interpret the reviews that I presented as rather dismissive of Haller's contributions: larger than life, unnecessary, marred by errors, etc. To me, this also speaks to lack of editorial oversight or fact checking; which is perhaps not surprising since the book is billed by its publisher as a memoir.

The case for the Haller / Strecker / Mitcham sources meeting the requirements of reliable, independent, third-party sources is weak. The section Karl Strecker#Interwar period and police_service is built on these sources almost entirely. If Haller is the only source that covers the inter-war period in detail, we don't indiscriminately use it just because no other sources are available.

Haller is currently used for 23 citations in total, while Mitcham (based on Haller) is used for 15. That's a matter of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, and is not addressed by adding "more immediately transparent inline citations". These sources are fine for basic facts of the subject's career (postings, promotions, etc), but Haller's opinions and interpretations are part of the "larger than life" narrative, built on potentially biased sources, and are undue.

Hope this clarifies. That said, I'd be happy to get additional perspectives, so please send or link the reviews that you mentioned. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Reviews?

Still waiting for the reviews… --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?

Quick question: is this source here reliable to use it on the page for Growing the Big One? I am currently using it for the article; I am considering putting it up for FAC and I would like to know that source would cause an issue. Thank you in advance and have a wonderful day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm hesitant on saying yes it is reliable because I can't seem to find a list of writers, editors, etc. or any kind of fact checking. Meatsgains (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems like an WP:SPS. Unless there's evidence that they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, the default position is not reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Makes sense, thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just as an update. I have removed the source from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Citation of TV broadcast

It's long been my understanding that a TV broadcast may be cited as a source, even if it has not become available on permanent home media or in a Web archive. We even have templates for this. All that seems to be required is sufficient info to identify the broadcast and the material within it (e.g. show title, broadcaster, airdate, and time into the show). A published (including broadcast) source from a reputable publisher is valid, even if obtaining it would be difficult or costly.

At Talk:Steve Davis#World Team Classic match details is an ongoing dispute I've been trying to mediate, and it seems to be a stalemate. Someone has a videotape of a snooker match from BBC Sports coverage (back in the '80s) and wants to cite it for some details, and another editor objects because they can't easily or perhaps at all verify the source personally. I haven't been involved in something like this in a long time, and it's possible my understanding of WP:V / WP:RS no longer matches reality.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not just objecting to the broadcast on the grounds it is difficult to access (e.g. languishing in the BBC archive) but rather the editor who wishes to cite it provides no evidence at all that an archived copy of the broadcast exists anywhere other than his own tape collection. Betty Logan (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Question: Wouldn't a TV broadcast be a WP:PRIMARY source? If it's a primary source, I'd question the necessity to cite from it. Can the article do without this information (WP:WEIGHT)? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  Medium of transmission has nothing to do with primary vs. secondary. And primary sources are valid for many things, just not ideal. Whether the information should be included (per WEIGHT or per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE) is a valid "local" question about any particular fact/claim, but is irrelevant to the question I'm asking, which is whether live TV broadcasts (which may be secondary-source news material, or primary-source live sports or interview material, or tertiary-source documentary program material) can be cited at all any longer. Historically, they have been citable, though they are not ideal sources, because the only people who can verify them are those who also recorded them or can find a recording of them from someone else, or by getting it from the broadcaster somehow, or otherwise going to some trouble.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  Either way, it is not verifiable unless a recording exists in an archive somewhere. As for the WP:WEIGHT issue it is straightforward to source the result—which is the only real necessity for the article—but the other editor wishes to add actual match details. I also objected to the content on this basis too (the article has less detail on more important matches), but obviously that is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. I guess the real question that concerns this discussion is just how verifiable does a claim have to be? For the record I am not challenging the veracity of the editor's claim——I believe him and have find myself in his situation a few times—but IMO it goes against the spirit of the first sentence in WP:Verifiability if the editor provides no reasonable method via a citation to check the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  I agree that "cite video" does not remove the need for the source to be obtainable, beyond someone's personal VHS copy. It would be one thing if the video was from 2000s or so, where we know that nearly all video productions are archived, but we know the BBC took a while to get on the archiving train (see Doctor Who), so there's no assurance that a BBC sports recording in the 1980s had been kept. If one can show that it is generally possible to access other snooker broadcasts from that same period, then it is reasonable that we can do the same with this, and it would be okay. But without that, we shouldn't consider the source meeting WP:V. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  The answers I get here directly conflict with previous and still-ongoing discussion at WT:NOR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  I must agree with Betty and Masem here because WP:V states, "Source material {must have been published}, the definition of which for our purposes is {"made available to the public in some form}" also, WP:RS states, "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or {archived by a reputable party} may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." and "Additionally, {an archived copy of the media must exist}.". However, according to AGF, the editor wanting to use this source is a reputable third party who has an archived copy of the source. The only problem here is that it hasn't been "made available to the public", therefore it isn't "published" according to the Wikipedia meaning of the term. Although, if he were to post the video on a reputable video site, then one could argue it has been "made available to the public", therefore "published" for Wikipedia's purposes. Technically, it could be argued that the very act citing the source on Wikipedia is "making it available to the public", therefore "publishing" it according to Wikipedia terms, but that would be really stretching it a bit far I think. :) Huggums537 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  No, actually, that case, that would not be allowed, assuming the original work was copyrighted. If the only source the public can access is a copyvio, that's not acceptable. For all purposes, if the only archival copy that seems to exist is a VHS copy, that's not acceptable for WP:V. But let's say I gave that VHS copy to a NYTimes reporter, and they wrote a summary of it, then we've got an RS talking about the contents, and that establishes the WP:V we need (this is bascially the way some of the information on lost Doctor Who episodes is known, that experts have reviewed material that is not available to the public and reported what was in it). --MASEM (t) 18:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  That mostly makes pretty good sense, and I agree with you that going to the NYTimes journalist with the video would be WAY more reliable than going to Youtube with the video! (Probably safer too considering the COPYVIO concerns) However, that NYTimes article written by that journalist would still be based on a single VHS copy of a home video. Fortunately for us, the only requirement that I saw regarding this at WP:RS was, "an archived copy of the media must exist". I've never seen anything excluding home videos or single VHS recordings. So, I'm kind of wondering why your very good interpretation of a NYTimes RS seems to go against the kind of hasty statement you made saying, "if the only archival copy that seems to exist is a VHS copy, that's not acceptable for WP:V"? If the archival copy is good enough for the reporter, then it's good enough for WP:V, right? Huggums537 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  A NYtimes recap of what is on a VHS tape becomes a new RS, it doesn't change the RS nature of the VHS tape. And we know that the NYTimes is meticulous about archiving, so there's zero question that the source can't meet WP:V. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  Good point. However, if the new RS is different from the RS nature of the VHS tape, then what would be the purpose to requiring the archiving of the tape? I mean who cares how meticulous they are at archiving if we now have a new RS? Couldn't we conceivably just burn the tape after the recap is done since we now have a new reliable source and the tape alone was "unreliable" anyway? I still sense a bit of conflicting ideas. It's just weird because the only difference I see between going to a reporter and going online is the notability of NYT. In fact, he wouldn't even have to go to youtube, all he would have to do is post somewhere online that he has the video archived at his residence along with all the relevant details and make an invitation to his home for anyone who wants to see it. It would be made available to the public and there would be no COPYVIO. So, really the only difference we're talking about is the notability of NYT vs. the reliability of this editor. But, when you boil it all down we're not even talking about that difference either because the difference there is night and day. NYT is obviously more reliable than any single editor. However, the question is not who is more reliable, the question is, wouldn't it be reliable enough if he did that? Huggums537 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The text that the editor is attempting to add to the article appears to be "He captained England to victory in the State Express World Team Classic, beating Ray Reardon in a tie-break frame to clinch victory for England over Wales in the final. Earlier in the tournament he won a similar tie-break against Australia's Eddie Charlton, despite needing a snooker with just three balls remaining in the tie-break frame.", which, if accurate, can surely be cited from something other than his claim. Right? So why don't people spend their energy trying to verify or refute the text via other sources? Softlavender (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• If it matters to anyone, I've gotten numerous unreleased 1970s/1980s TV material (either transferred to DVD screeners or FTP) from the BBC in the course of researching certain matters 7 years ago. The company that sells the footage (once called BBC Motion Gallery) has changed hands a couple of times since I dealt with them (I actually think its handled by a division of Getty at this point). That said, the episodes I obtained were not sports tournaments, but some of them were even more obscure. I would not be surprised if they retained and digitized nearly everything from back then. Only in the very dark ages did they ever record over something. You'd be surprised -- there is always a need down the line for someone to replay or re-air bits of obscure footage, which is why they save it. Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll reiterate that if we have reasonable good assurance that the BBC recorded and archived all material from this period, just that access may be behind an expensive WP:PAYWALL, then that still meets the demands of WP:V for being publicly accessible. I don't know enough here to justify that. I use the Doctor Who example that we do know the BBC at one point did not care about archiving. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I can tell you how to obtain official archived footage of Dr Who episodes from the 1980s. It's a rigmarole and it's expensive, and you have to sign a non-distribution license (or pay a distribution fee if you are going to air part of it), but it's there in their archives. Softlavender (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm talking about Doctor Who missing episodes which did change their archival policy in 1978 -- but that doesn't assume me that regular news/sports broadcasts were also kept. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Again, if you want to know whether they still have the footage of this sports broadcast, I can tell you how to find out. Someone who knew I had the unreleased TV footage I previously referred to queried me via email about obtaining her own copies earlier this year, so I researched the information of how to contact the current iteration of BBC Motion Gallery. They have all of their footage catalogued and searchable (by them) by who appears on screen, title of show, date, length of broadcast, description, major crew, etc. Softlavender (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
        • I can't speak to sports broadcasts (but I can tell you how to find out), but I got 1980s news broadcasts from the BBC Motion Gallery: for instance, an episode of Newsnight from 1984; Breakfast Time from 1985; etc. Softlavender (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Y'all are confusing the "made available to the public" part. If the footage was ever broadcast on TV, or otherwise publicly screened somewhere, then it was made available to the public. So we already know it meets that criterion. Whether it still exists somewhere as an archive is unknown but probable, and I can tell you how to probably find out if anyone cares. Softlavender (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  Softlavender, I like your interpretation of "made available to the public". I found this at WP:PUBLISH

• A film, video, CD, or DVD distributed to theatres or video stores; a radio program including its contents actually broadcast; a television broadcast; a streaming video or audio source on the Internet; a song recording distributed to a public;
• A transcript or recording of a live event, including: plays, television programs, documentaries, court trials, speeches or lectures, demonstrations, panel discussions, or meetings, a song sheet;

I forgot to mention that we know an archived copy exists on home VHS, but how can you find out if it exists "officially" elsewhere? I'd like to know. Huggums537 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A personal VCR-recorded tape is not an official archived copy, any more than a newspaper clipping in someone's attic is an archived copy of a newspaper. That said, the sales office for archival footage from the BBC is: http://www.motiongallery.com/. The email is on that link. As you'll notice, it's now managed by Getty, which is a slick corporate giant and not the friendly company I dealt with in 2010. Anyway, since it's a sales office, you'd have to do some convincing about why you want to know if the footage exists and what you plan to do with it as a customer. You'd also have to provide all the information that is known about the episode: title, date, who appears in it, description, etc. Then the salesperson would hopefully send that info to the BBC and they would search their database keywords to see if they have the program. There may be another way to go about all of this but I don't know of it; perhaps a Brit (especially someone in the TV or film industry) might know (I live in Hawaii). Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information. I appreciate it. However, "an archived copy of the {media} must exist" over at WP:PUBLISHED suggests very strongly that they are making direct reference to audio and video recordings as opposed to textual material such as newspaper clippings. The meaning is further supported by the preceding two sentences, which make reference to "multimedia" and even by making sure they clearly distinguish the difference with, "Like text sources, {media} sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited". So, it becomes abundantly clear that a whole [stack of] newspaper[s] would not be an archive any more than a newspaper clipping in this context since the reference is specific to media, not text. This being the case, I think there was an unfair comparison made between the video our editor has in possession, and a newspaper clipping in the attic. Also, I found nothing anywhere that the copy must be "official", only that "an archived copy of the media must exist". If anyone can find any exclusions for personal home videos of any kind, please let me know because I need to be aware those guidelines. Huggums537 (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Professional, commercial home video issued by the studio is not the same as a personal recording of a TV broadcast made on someone's VCR, which is what we are talking about. If the editor in question had any form of professional commercial home video issued by the studio, then this entire discussion would not even be happening. Please read or re-read SMcCandlish's OP. Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been to the article talk page, plus the talk pages of everyone involved including Betty Logan, SMcCandlish, and the editor who owns the "personal" video. Not to mention all of the relevant guideline pages. So, I'm extremely familiar with what we are talking about. I guess it probably only seems like I don't understand because it's unfathomable that someone would argue contrary to presumably deeply entrenched beliefs about the interpretation of guidelines. It's important everyone be aware that by saying you don't think I understand the simple difference between a "commercial" or "personal" video is, in effect, only a polite way of implying I must be plain stupid, and this, after already refusing to give my earlier submittal any kind of a fair comparison at all. At any rate, even if the editor had a "professional, commercial video" we could still be having the same discussion because it's entirely possible, no matter how unlikely, that one might possess such a video which might be the only existing copy and therefore could still face the self same relevant issue of unverifiability that our "personal home video" in question faces. But, why we are discussing hypothetical situations in avoidance of my straightforward suggestion that archived means "digitally preserved", not "professionally made" only to make implications of severe stupidity is beyond me. Huggums537 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Also, I found nothing anywhere that the copy must be "official", only that "an archived copy of the media must exist". We expect material that meets WP:V can be legally obtained (even at great cost and/or time). A home video tape of a 1980 program (which is default under copyright) is technically a copyright violation, though possessing it for personal use falls under fair use -- but that still fails WP:V's legal availability requirement. We're not going to point people to use illegal tools to determine if WP:V can be met. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Layperson-oriented book by the American Academy of Pediatrics

• Source: I am wondering if this book is MEDRS-compliant: The American Academy of Pediatrics New Mother's Guide to Breastfeeding. Author = American Academy of Pediatrics, publisher = Bantam Books, date = 2017, pp 79-80.
• Articles: Breastfeeding and Latch (breastfeeding)
• Examples of content: "If the baby's latch is not optimal, the mother can break the suction of the baby's mouth by gliding a finger along the breast and into the baby's mouth" and "It is important to correct a poor latch within a few days to prevent a reduction in the mother's milk supply."
• Comment: Presumably we like the author and the publication date. Are we OK with the fact that it's a book for a non-professional audience? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the way its being used, but I think many of the same cautions applied to school textbooks in this essay would apply here. It may contain accurate medical information, but may vastly oversimplify in order to appeal to a lay audience, and so it should be used sparingly and with caution. Also, regardless of the quality of the source, Wikipedia should probably avoid offering stuff that looks like medical advice. Nblund ^talk 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That is very helpful. I hadn't thought of the oversimplification issue. Thank you. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Fox News a RS on issues related to Hillary Clinton?

When it comes to the issue of Hillary Clinton, Fox News (i) is not a reliable source and (ii) is not an indicator of notability. Since 2016, Fox News has promoted a number of falsehoods, hoaxes and debunked conspiracy theories in its straight-up reporting, as well as in its opinion shows. This was most prominent in its extensive promotion of falsehoods concerning the Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory[1]. The Seth Rich conspiracy theorists hold that the Clinton campaign or the DNC murdered Seth Rich. Even though the reporting on Fox News was shown to be false within 24 hours, Fox News did not retract its Seth Rich stories until a week later. Unlike normal ethical news organizations, Fox News did not apologize or publicly explain what was wrong in the stories[2][3]. The promotion of the false Seth Rich story coincided with the breaking of the James Comey memos in the Russia investigation that garnered wall-to-wall coverage in all normal ethical media outlets.[4]

On the same day that the campaign chairman of the Trump 2016 campaign was indicted by special counsel Mueller, an event that garnered wall-to-wall coverage on all normal ethical medial outlets, Fox News led with coverage of the rehashed 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' Uranium One story from 2015[5], suggesting wrong-doing of Clinton.[6][7][8] Even before Fox News ramped up its Hillary Clinton coverage last week (when it was revealed that indictments in the Russia probe were forthcoming), normal ethical news outlets noted that Fox News' coverage of Clinton was obessive. Here's the Washington Post on 16 Oct 2017: "on no other media platform does she dominate headlines as she does on Fox News. All year, the network’s commentators have covered Clinton’s post-campaign life and comments as breaking news, often with screaming “NEWS ALERTS,” as if the long wars of 2016 never ended. Fox’s coverage of Clinton has synced up with its cable news competitors only a few times, most recently when Clinton began the American tour for her memoir, “What Happened.” Since then, Fox has continued to put Clinton at the center of breaking news stories..."

Fox News' coverage is problematic in general, what with its promotion of climate change denial, birtherism, lies about other media outlets[9], sycophantic Donald Trump coverage[10][11] and with numerous studies in top academic journals showing that Fox News increases Republican vote shares[12][13][14][15], but if there's any one issue that Fox News is not a RS on (or an indicator of notability in terms of WP:DUE it's on issues related to Hillary Clinton. There are serious concerns with the accuracy and notability of Fox reporting on Clinton. Apologies if this post was malformed (this is the first time I'm making a request here). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC) -EDIT- This is what Fox News just did in the last 24 hours[16]. It's an every day thing at Fox News: everything from willful distortions to outright hoaxes. And there are editors here who still maintain that this is a reliable news outlet because 'both sides the same'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No agreement or disagreement with the above views, but just saying it might be worth posting or linking to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to use Fox News as the sole source for a factual claim about Hillary Clinton, but reliability is usually context-specific, and there usually aren't blanket prohibitions on sources. Is there a specific Hillary Clinton claim being referenced here? Nblund ^talk 17:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

As Nblund says this question cannot be answered without a specific source and specific text. Whether Sean Hannity is reliable for claims about Clinton's health or foxnews.com is reliable for claims about the FBI's investigation into Tenex are two different questions. What can be said is that blanket removal is not appropriate. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Fox is reliable as any other major WP:NEWSORG like bbc,cnn and etc--Shrike (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be extremely cautious of calling out "ethical" news sources. We judge based on journalistic integrity (which are elements like redacting stories that are wrong, editorial oversight, etc.), ethics have nothing to do with it, since the question becomes "whose ethics are we comparing that to?" I would agree that case-by-case, certain stories at Fox News should be dismissed as "reliable" for coverage of Clinton or other principally Democrat-related stories, but the bulk of their news is just reliable as as CNN and others. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The non-editorial (i.e. not Hannity, same goes to editorial content on other outlets) Fox News is just as reliable as other news sourced about Clinton. And by just as reliable I mean they are all awfully biased to be pro or anti Clinton. To build a balanced view of such a subject you need sources from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The non-editorial content is also deplorable. Your views on news outlets are bizarre. You should familiarize yourself with the concept of 'false balance'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Re "The non-editorial content is also deplorable": Do you have examples? Their non-editorial content reads much like CNN and BBC from my experience. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Seth Rich BS was part of Fox News' 'news reporting'. As was the blatant misrepresentation of Jake Tapper in the last 24 hrs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read much about the Jake Tapper stuff (which is apparently just happened), so I can't say anything about it at the moment, but FNC did retract the Seth Rich story. This shows they care about having correct coverage, even if they don't retract everything that you wish they'd retract. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Like I showed in the OP, the retraction came a week late, without an apology or explainer for how it went wrong, like normal ethical news outlets would. The story was built on the shoddiest foundation and would never have been published unless to hurriedly distract from the Comey memos. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Fox News did offer a note on the Seth Rich story after they retracted it. Sure, they didn't say "we apologize," but they admitted they did something wrong and retracted the story. They were not silent. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• We didn't disqualify CBS after they got it wrong about George Bush. We didn't disqualify CNN after the Operation Tailwind scandal etc. All major news orgs get it wrong sometimes. Trying to single out FNC for a blanket prohibition on a particular person is dicey. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Normal news outlets publicly apologize, explain where they went wrong in their reporting and sack staff when the reporting is completely atrocious. FNC stood by its Seth Rich reporting for a week, and nobody got reprimanded for it. Which makes sense given that the Seth Rich story did what it was supposed to do: give the liars and conspiracy theorists that make up the bulk of Fox's cast of opinion hosts something to distract its viewers with while normal news outlets were reporting on the Comey memos. It is not normal that journalists say that their own outlet's coverage is an "embarrassment", "laughable" and saying it "does the viewer a huge disservice and further divides the country" and that it is "another blow to journalists at Fox who come in every day wanting to cover the news in a fair and objective way".[17] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course context is important. I have used Fox News as a source on occasion, but have always avoided them on anything political given their history, the histories of their founder and owner, and statements that they have made in the past. The subject of Hillary Clinton is particularly sensitive. As an example, their legal expert two days ago.[18] I think we need be very careful using Fox in this particular context. And, there are so many reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless "Judge Jeanine" contributes legal analysis to foxnews.com or news broadcasts this is not relevant. Jim Acosta, CNN's White House correspondent, is openly feuding with President Trump. Should we be equally skeptical of CNN's coverage of the president? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that is part of her job. And, I don't remember Acosta yelling "lock him up". Apples and oranges. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be comparing Jeanine (a political commentator) to Acosta (Senior White House Correspondent). Acosta at CNN should be compared to his FNC counterpart John Roberts (journalist). We should differentiate, in general, between the commentators and regular journalists at FNC, with the latter including James Rosen (journalist), Chris Wallace, Trace Gallagher, Shepard Smith, Neil Cavuto, and Bret Baier. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• For any news outlet, it is important to draw a line between news reporting and news analysis/commentary. Fox’s news analysis and commentary on Hillary is definitely biased... but their news reporting is fairly straight forward and mostly neutral. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • My sense is Fox "News" is essentially GOP propaganda.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC) A Fox employee said, "Fox feels like an extension of the Trump White House."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Which time slots on fox do you consider propaganda? Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
      • My sense is Fox is mostly unreliable, although they're thrown in a few real reporters to try to give their "news" some credibility -- but overall it's GOP propaganda, and really shouldn't be used in Wikipedia imo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Just because your sense tells you something doesn't mean it's actually the case. FNC has more than "a few" actual journalists working for them, and that's even more apparent if you read their website, even though they do like to have commentators on their primetime TV slots (similar to how MSNBC likes to have left-wing commentator Rachael Maddow on their primetime, or how they used to have Al Sharpton during primetime). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support excising Fox from HRC topics. When it comes to Clinton, Fox is best known for their conspiracy theories. In any case, if something is notable, I'm sure that NYT / CNN / WaPo / ABC News / NBC News etc. have covered it and Fox is not needed to begin with. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be better said that if two sources (of opposing biases) agree on a fact, that it enhances the reliability of *both*? Wouldn't then it be beneficial to include both sources in order to enhance the reliability of Wikipedia? I don't see where topic-banning a news source does anything but shed doubt on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A claim doesn't become more reliable if it's supported by one reliable source and one unreliable source. Note that nobody is calling into question the RS status of a source such as the Wall Street Journal, which has a conservative leaning by all accounts but is recognized by any sensible person as a top notch source (one that I've used frequently as an editor). Fox News is akin to Salon or Media Matters, none of which I recall citing as an editor. What I'm calling for is a carefully designed topic ban for a news source with a record of falsehoods, misleading stories and obsession on one specific topic (both in news reporting and opinion). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the scope of this not-at-all-neutral proposal is quite excessive. Such decisions, when necessary, should be made on a case-by-case basis. Lepricavark (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the specific case here is Hillary Clinton. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. As I said, that scope is quite excessive. Lepricavark (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Reliability always depends on context. A source may be reliable for one claim, but not another. It must always be judged on a case-by-case basis. If you go to the instructions at the top of this page, there is more detail on what exactly this means. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The editor is going through articles removing Fox News claiming it's "not RS." Can someone please put a stop to this? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated to the usability of Fox News. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time to do this myself, but please post a notice on their talk page asking them to stop. If they continue, report them to WP:ANI and an admin can block them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) The editor has accused me of harassing them. If others agree a warning or complaint is appropriate it would be better and more effective from someone else. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Observation: This edit looks fine to me: "The WaPo article covers this: the uranium was shipped to Canada for processing, then returned to the US. The FactCheck.org link says that attempts to export would require "other approvals", unrelated to Clinton. Fox is not a RS as you are well aware of". The comment above has an appearance of "block shopping", and is consistent with the harassment claim by the OP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC) I'd like to note that James Lambden after harassing me today has now by my count (i) followed me to nine Wikipedia pages that he had never edited before, (ii) reverted me on those pages for spurious or ill-founded reasons and (iii) on nearly every occasion been reverted back by other editors who found his reverts to be baseless. Is this acceptable behavior? I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia rules on this, but following editors around and indiscriminately reverting them seems like an obvious detriment to the Wikipedia project. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC) @Snooganssnoogans: Here is a Wikipedia "rule" - you don't make unsubstantiated accusations. Post diffs of the 9 pages I had never edited before today. Post diffs of my 9 spurious reverts. And post diffs of others' reverts of my "baseless" edits, or strike your accusations. K.e.coffman I understand you may feel Snoogans is helpful to your cause but encouraging his behavior is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Please reconsider. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC) While this is RSN, not ANI, I'm curious -- which cause do you have in mind? Please feel free to elaborate on my Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Note: Lambden follows, stalks and harasses editors who he thinks don't align with his political agenda. He was doing it to me for awhile, going through and just blind reverting my edits, or showing up to articles he's never shown an interest in just to "Oppose" whatever position I took. He then started doing the same thing apparently to Snoogans. IIRC there was another user before me which he also did this too. In each case, when confronted about his creepy behavior he would turn around and try the "nah ahh, you the one harassing me" defense, which is like the most often used tool in the toolbox. Since he affects a quasi-professional writing style (which some people mistake for civility where actually it's mostly just a passive aggressive way to be a jerk) he's been given a pass on this behavior in the past. But a serious sanction here is way over due. Volunteer Marek  18:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC) VM has followed me to a number of articles and unrelated noticeboards (as we see here) simply to attack me. His comment has nothing to do with the reliability of Fox News. Here are some among dozens of similar comments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. When I object or suggest he restrict these comments to disciplinary noticeboards he calls my objections harassment. This has gone on for months and with multiple editors including another commenter in this thread within the last hour. It appears to be a tactic to discourage ever reverting his edits. I am preparing a formal complaint. In the meantime I would greatly appreciate if someone collapsed these comments so we could return to relevant discussion. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Like I said, Lambden always tries to play "uh uh, you the one stalking me" card. It's bullshit. The fact that multiple users have complained about precisely that specific behavior of his illustrates it's bullshit. He can spin and weasel all he wants but his edit history speaks for itself. And oh, Lambden, you're "preparing a formal complaint"? Haven't you been doing that for, what, like two years now? You still have that little black list in your user space that got you in trouble before, or did you finally remove it? Your user page is still the same exercise in trolling, I see. You do know that sort of shoots your credibility dead like a possum when you make these false accusations against other editors, right? I guess it's hard to help oneself. Volunteer Marek  00:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Whenever I see something hatted, I always make sure to expand and read it, even if otherwise I would've even noticed it. Volunteer Marek  05:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Are we removing CNN from articles about Trump? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Fox is RS, if people feel it is to biased, well we have ATTRIBUTEPOV for a reason. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket disqualification. Fox News publishes a variety of content. Some of the journalists working there are highly regarded by their peers and their newsroom reporting is a RS like that from other US broadcasters. Some of the content on their website is more like a media blog than newsroom reporting and should be treated with caution. There are obviously strong and divergent opinions among journalists on political controversies, so their content may be treated per WP:BIASED. Eperoton (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Fox is GOP propaganda.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- perhaps, if we narrow the focus to Uranium One, to begin with, would excising Fox be acceptable? WaPo has an article on why and how Fox's coverage of the deal is incorrect: "The repeated, incorrect claim that Russia obtained ‘20 percent of our uranium’". Fox's claims are notable enough to have other outlets cover them. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - this request for a blanket disqualification is clearly too broad and feels like a crusade (are we to ban it from every topic tangentially related to HRC too?). If anything, WP politics coverage has a systemic bias with overall too much of a reliance on mass-media, daily news sources as opposed to book sources. In political areas, WP lately feels more like "The Free Tabloid that Anyone can Edit". Any political topic of more than about a year old should be migrated off daily news sources as soon as possible. -- Netoholic @ 05:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - as a blanket ban. However I would be cautious of having Fox News as a single source, I see it more as giving a second opinion or as a source for something that is then properly discussed elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. To be blunt, most sources have some sort of bias. I don't think FNC is more biased to the right than most other sources are biased to the left. A blanket ban is unwarranted. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious: are Breitbart and Gateway Pundit in your view reliable sources? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Start a discussion on those and perhaps I'll comment there. This is about FNC. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• What I'm getting at is that a lot of editors appear to have a warped and 'false balance' understanding of media whereby outlets that deal in hoaxes and falsehoods are seen as equivalent to reliable sources with left leanings because "both sides the same". Note that I'm not nor would I ever call for the removal of the RS status of a high-quality news outlet with conservative leanings, such as the Wall Street Journal. It sounds like a lot of the editors above must believe that ShareBlue, Media Matters and Salon are about as reliable as the Wall Street Journal because 'both sides are the same' or does the 'false balance' only extend to one side? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I know what you're getting at. Your agenda is not exactly hard to see. And since MediaMatters and Salon keep getting used on Wikipedia, I fail to see where you are finding this great imbalance. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Fox "News" is paid GOP propaganda. CNN is a reliable news source. Equating the two is borderline thuggery. I've long said that Wikipedia can be corrupted by paid contributors who infiltrate the encyclopedia to advance an agenda. There's really no way to prevent that from happening.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• We've all heard you claim that FNC is GOP propoganda. Is it necessary to keep jumping into other discussions to repeat it? As for your nonsense about "bordeline thuggery"... well, addressing you over that inane remark is most likely a waste of time.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is that there are many more mainstream sources that lean left, making Fox stand out in opposition. Fox news has just as many issues as other mainstream news sources. Natureium (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

See, this is where a lot of editors are: the reliability of news outlets is besides the point in their mind. They want to allow Fox News because it is biased. Just because one news outlet leans left then that must mean that every rubbish source on the right must be accepted. Note that nobody has questioned the RS status of the Wall Street Journal, an actual RS with conservative leanings. What's being disputed is the RS status of a news outlet that is as questionable as Salon, Media Matters and ShareBlue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anyone wanting to allow Fox news "because it is biased", just people pointing out that all news sources have bias. And you haven't shown anything demonstrating the equivalence between fox and salon, media matters, and shareblue. Natureium (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

" I don't see anyone wanting to allow Fox news "because it is biased"" - you pretty much imply it with your statement: "there are many more mainstream sources that lean left, making Fox stand out in opposition". Basically you're making a "Yeah, it's total shit, but at least it's the right color of shit" argument. Volunteer Marek  18:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting that the Wall Street Journal is conservative? "The Pew Research Center found that the Wall Street Journal is read by people of all political leanings and is the only news source that is more trusted than distrusted by people all across the political spectrum." And additional data can be found [19]. Natureium (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it freakin' is. The fact that you dispute that sort of says more about where your own ideology lies on the political spectrum than about WSJ. And of course all kinds of people read it. For stock quotes if nothing else. So what? I read Breitbart. Doesn't make it a paragon of militant centrism. Volunteer Marek  18:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you are fighting your hardest against the sources I provided (Pew Center and University of Michigan Library Research Guides) makes your political bias perfectly clear. I'm providing objective data. Natureium (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not "fighting" against your sources - I'm just pointing out that you have no idea how to understand the data. In particular, who reads it, does not determine whether a source is "conservative" or not.

I think it's also pretty funny that you cite the fact that a source "is more trusted than distrusted by people" as evidence of it being NOT conservative. Which of course implies that conservative sources should be distrusted. Are you sure that's what you wanted to say?  Volunteer Marek  18:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying, that what the source is saying. It's a direct quote, because I didn't want to introduce any of my one ideas by summarizing it. And the article says that it's trusted by people identifying as being on both ends of the political spectrum. Not just that it's the only news source, regardless of leaning, that is more trusted than untrusted. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Natureium, I think the Pew Center report may not really show what you’re suggesting. For example, I subscribe to the WSJ. I read it for the business news. I trust more than distrust the WSJ for business news. I don’t even read the WSJ political news stories because I have seen far too much wildly biased nonsense. But, I would say I trust the WSJ more than I distrust it for what I read in it. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Fox News has been well-known to propagate lies, debunked conspiracy theories and deliberate falsehoods about Hillary Clinton. They have become effectively a Donald Trump state media outlet. A prime example the other day was the arrest of former Trump staffers, which Fox bizarrely turned into Hillary Clinton being at fault, again, somehow. The mutual back-slapping between Trump and Fox on Twitter and TV is proof of that. Despite getting so much wrong they do not issue any form of corrections which suggests they are a questionable source - "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities." Let's stick to policy here, not personal opinions. Policy is clear that Fox News would not be considered a reliable source for BLPs. AusLondonder (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• 'Oppose' Editorials of any news source have bias. Fox news is reliable as a source for some statements, and may not be for others. Banning a mainstream news source because it has made mistakes, similar in scope to many other mainstream news sources, clearly only serves to support your viewpoints. Natureium (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about news reporting, as well as editorials. The news reporting is unreliable. When normal ethical news outlets make errors in reporting, they: correct and retract immediately, apologize and if the errors are egregious, fire staff. Fox News does not do that. Furthermore, the employees at normal ethical news outlets do not regularly chastise their own news outlets for their abysmal journalism, like Fox News employees regularly do with their own. Why is that? But yeah, "both sides the same", "there is no truth", "there is no such as RS" and *insert postmodernist claptrap*. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support , but I think it should be not RS for any fact (and yes I would include CNN in such a ban). I am of the conviction that most news organs are now so unreliable for basic facts that most should be blocked from being used.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Who says CNN is impeccable? CNN deletes false story on Trump ally's links to Russia: 'It was a massive f*** up So going by the logic here CNN should never be used on articles dealing with Trump Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, one difference is they correct their shit, Fox doesn't. They just move on to the next piece of bullshit without ever admitting they were making stuff up. That's actually one way to tell a reliable source from a non-reliable source. Volunteer Marek  18:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Except that they do make corrections. Maybe not every time. Maybe not every time you think they should. But they do make corrections, so your claim is not entirely accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Fox news spews insane, unverified propaganda unlike any other outlet. Comparisons to CNN are a false equivalence. Wikipedia can't start trying to filter RS per subject though, it's doomed to failure. Either FNC is RS for all topics, or it's not. In the case of HRC and the DNC, their cheap nonsense is often countered by serious news outlets, which can be used to either 1) fill in the context which FNC intentionally leaves out or 2) refute the claim entirely in which case it can be stricken. #twocents. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• If this is a proposal to blanket ban Fox News then I oppose it. If this is a proposal to blanket ban Fox News from anything to do with Hillary Clinton then I'm neutral. In general, there might be some things its reliable for, even in this topic area. Such instances however are most likely rare. I would put it in the "possibly but not probably reliable, use with caution, and only when other sources don't contradict it". Volunteer Marek  00:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, after just watching Fox News spread a hoax conspiracy theory as well as spinning the Rand Paul thing so hard that it's basically lying, yeah Support, and just for Hillary Clinton stuff. It's just not a reliable source at all anymore. Our reliability criteria are independent of whether a particular source is "conservative" or "liberal". We shouldn't give Fox News a pass - when it's clearly become unreliable over the past two, three, four years, gradually - just because we feel like we should have some prominent "conservative" outlet in the "reliable" column. It's jumped the shark. It's down there with InfoWars and Breitbart. If it no longer satisfies our criteria for WP:RS, then that's not our problem. Volunteer Marek  05:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:COMMONSENSE. "It claims to be 'news'" doesn't magically equate to "it is reliable and the publisher is reputable", especially when it's been amply demonstrated that such an assessment consistently fails for a particular source and publisher. Fox News is not at all reliable or reputable for anything involving liberal versus conservative political matter. While, yes, "reliability always depend on context", FN is programmatically unreliable in this context. FN is a reliable primary source – in the limited contexts in which primary sources are reliable – but only for what some particular person's opinion is (WP:ABOUTSELF), be they a Fox talking head or someone being interviewed. It's unreliable for assertions of fact beyond that, if there's any left-versus-right political dimension to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It's not just me claiming that Fox 'News' is GOP propaganda but [ New York magazine, Salon magazine, Huffington Post, Slate magazine, Newsbusters, U.S. News, Politics USA, Paste magazine, the New York Times, the Washington Post -- mainstream journalists see Fox as GOP/Trump propaganda. It's become an organ of the state like Pravda. Fox "News" shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Opinion pieces are opinion pieces.

• Yes, let's not use op-eds to prove that FNC is a giant op-ed. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is the opinion of mainstream journalists that Fox "News" is GOP propaganda. For example, Fox downplaying the Mueller investigation and is part of a "giant fog machine" according to Vox; Fox fabricating the Seth Rich story, instead of talking about the Manafort indictment, it focused on cheeseburgers and candy; Slate describes Fox as offering "a light, sugary sip of fascism". Any time Fox is used as a reference in Wikipedia, it downgrades our encyclopedia to GOP-pulp.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, so people who work for left leaning publications like Slate or Vox have an opinion. Big shocker. And that whole AV Club thing is misrepresentation. At one point, a picture was taken that shows FNC covering something different, acting as if the Manafort story is the only topic allowed to be covered and that all stations had to cover the same things in the same time frames. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment I really do think those voting support should be TBANNED for US Politics. This, if passed, will become yet another nail in the coffin of Wikipedia. We don't need to add fuel to the fire that we're a laughing stock. Those claiming Fox is a propaganda arm of the GOP is just as guilty of bias. Every news source has some sort of bias, whether it's Fox or MSNBC or CNN. Those claiming that only Fox should be banned yet are fine with CNN or MSNBC is just as guilty. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References

I agree. I think WP has already gone too far with its blanket bans on certain sources. A case-by-case ban is more appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose ban: FNC is a reliable source like CNN and other mainstream news orgs, per WP:NEWSORG, and it is recognized as such by most people, probably except by commentators on the Left. Its editorial stance is more conservative than most of the other sources, but 1) we shouldn't equate the op-ed section of any news org (including CNN) with their actual reporting, and 2) it's OK to use sources with different points of view to get a broader picture of an event or debate (FNC vs. CNN vs. Mother Jones, for example). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Fox News is a mainstream source. Their normal reporting should be treated the same as the reporting of any other news source. If Fox is the only one to reach a conclusion then we can treat that as we would any other single source claim. If Fox and another source agree then both can be cited to illustrate it's not an isolated claim. Conversely if Fox is the only source and other sources disagree that can also be reported. Fox, like most other news sources also has editorial content which should be treated as opinion just like any editorial content. Springee (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose They comply with WP:NEWSORG without question. Blanket banning them for a specific subject is just absurd. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." This is not something that Fox News does. Fox let the Seth Rich story which was exposed to be false within 24 hrs stand for a week (allowing the network to deflect and distract from the Comey memos). Fox News has now in the last 24 hrs blatantly misrepresented Jake Tapper without correction.[20] This is standard for Fox. This is not how normal ethical news outlets function. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Fox News Insider is commentary. Also, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. all do the same. Your bias is really showing and needs to stop, lest you end up TBANNED from politics because you clearly can't edit without a NPOV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, what matters is that Fox News eventually retracted the Seth Rich story. Also, Snooganssnoogans, you're assuming that FNC had dark motives for waiting so long, when it is just as reasonable to believe they simply were skeptical of reports that the story was false or something more along those lines. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Fox didn't do basics in its reporting on the story (such as calling the FBI) and was exposed within 24 hrs by multiple other news outlets. There is absolutely no plausible justification for the delay in correcting the story (which was spreading like wildfire among conspiracy theorists, leading to the harassment of a murder victim's family) other than distracting from a real news story that reflected poorly on the Trump administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There are conspiracy theories everywhere, and your proposition is one of them. Not only do you have no evidence for it (other than "it's just got to be so", which won't fly here), but Fox's political commentators love talking about supposedly negative stories. Watch Tucker Carlson, and much of what you'll hear is him pushing back against what the other media orgs present as reflecting poorly on Trump, like the whole Russia thing, etc. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate that 'Fox News Insider' is commentary. If news reporting is conflated with commentary to the point that they are indistinguishable, then that's just one other reason why Fox News is unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Fox "News" isn't. Look at this bogus junk -- divisive commentary that Santa Claus is white.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you're confusing journalism and political commentary. There are both on Fox, and they are separate from each other there. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I realize this is but one day; but what is the obvious top story today? The tax bill, which has an enormous impact on Americans. Shares the NYTimes front page, above the fold with the NY terrorist attack. Nearly all of the WSJ front page, above the fold. What’s the top story on the FoxNews site? Hillary Clinton, a year after the election. This isn’t an opinion show. This is the main story on the Fox News site. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• When did that become the standard for reliability? Each network can choose what stories they cover, in what order and to what degree. Just because YOU think the tax bill should be the lead doesn't make FNC wrong. People magazine is a reliable source, but they aren't covering the tax bill either. Why are you so insistant that if a source doesn't conform to your ideal that they are not reliable? Sounds more subjective than objective. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Just because YOU think. I am not the NYTimes or WSJ. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for stating the obvious. I didn't say anything about the WSJ or NYT. I am talking about the opinion YOU are expressing here in THIS discussion. It is YOU that is saying that since the WSJ and NYT are showing a different story as their lead, this shows FNC is not a RS. The WSJ didn't say that. The NYT didn't say it. YOU said it. Got it? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the NYT and WSJ that the tax plan directly affecting American citizens and corporations released yesterday is an enormous story today and a claim about what Hillary Clinton (who holds no office, has no power, and hasn’t run for office in a year) may or may not have legally done in a private organization is a rather weird top story. We are on this page to give our opinions on the suitability of Fox as an RS on Hillary Clinton. I am merely pointing out an example of Fox’s dubious reporting on the subject of this section. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Except that you're not addressing reliability. You're addressing their choice of lead stories. That has nothing to do with reliability. Motor Trend isn't reprting on the tax plan at all, but they're still a relliable source. FNC IS reporting on it, just not their lead at that momenent. While you seem to understand that the thread is about FNC's reliability, you aren't addressing that. You are talking about their priorities, not reliability. Again, not objective, but subjective. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about bias related to Hillary Clinton (the subject of this section). Fox chooses to headline a story calling for an investigation of Hillary when there is a huge story that actual reliable sources are covering. A year after the election, Fox is still headlining anti-Clinton stories on the slightest pretext. O3000 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It troubles me that you can't see the point. You are talking about what they choose to cover and when they choose to cover it. Neither of those is a standard to measure reliability, which is the point of this whole discussion. Until you actually start addressing reliability, it's pretty pointless to continue entertaining your responses. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about an indication of biased reporting, which is a part of reliability. Until you understand this, it's pretty pointless to continue entertaining your responses. I’m done; You may have the last snark. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Since you don't understand the actual discussion and aren't even capable of coming up with your own snark, I'll just offer some sympathy instead. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Niteshift36 is spot-on. Different media sources have to choose daily which stories they think are worth putting on their front pages and which stories they should report on at all. Fox News apparently had a different opinion on which story to put at the top of their website than other mainstream sources. So what? The actual articles on its website are reliable regardless of where they're placed. Besides, we've been hearing about this tax plan for weeks already, and it's a good thing to uncover potential misconduct from a federal official, particularly one who the people almost chose to control the government. My point with all this is that reliable sources can have the discretion to chose which story they accurately covered to be on their front pages, and FNC's decision is logical regardless of what anyone thinks of it. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No misconduct has been shown by a federal official or anyone else. It appears you're repeating the kind of anti-Clinton stuff pushed by Fox that is under discussion here. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I said potential misconduct -- please read what I said properly. It appears you're the one jumping to conclusions on the Clinton stuff, just on the opposite side of the typical liberal's FNC viewer stereotype. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket ban. Decisions like this need to be dependent on what the source says and how it is being used. There is nothing wrong with using Fox News to support a factual statement (for example, "Clinton gave a speech in Middletown, USA on July 4"), but in general it shouldn't be used in support of subjective criticism. Deli nk (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Snooganssnoogans gives sufficient evidence that Fox News is a questionable source for matters of fact. This is separate from any issues about political viewpoint, distractions, or opinion pieces. Per policy, "questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Hunc (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Question given that much of FNCs content is outlandish propaganda unlike any other news outlet, what about just jettisoning them outright? There is enough RS for "landslide in Honduras" (or whatever other real news) that WP will get by without FNC. This solves the problem of trying to go issue by issue to decide where Fox News is factual, and where it's insane conspiracy theories. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Or we can jettison CNN and just use Fox, same thing different side. People who are advocating for the removal of Fox from RS are extremely short-sighted and unwilling to admit their own bias. I think this thread needs to be shut down already and further POV and pointy pushes should be stopped right away. Wikipedia doesn't need more negative news that is on point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Here's a study of CNN's coverage (originally from Harvard) and found it extremely biased and anti-Trump, [21], here's a journalist stating Trump is right that CNN is biased:[22] and here's a study on bias on all cable news channels: [23] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

CosmicAdventure, that FNC is not a reliable source is clearly not a given. The Harvard study is interesting: Fox was the most balanced of all major news organizations in covering the Trump Administration, with roughly half of all coverage being positive and the other half negative. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• A lot of this comes back to far too many editors sticking heads into the sand and refusing to want to discuss the situation of the media today, which is far less objective, and conflates op-eds with reporting, thus making nearly every political-based controversy article a battlegrounds for editors. Media has always been biased, but the bias only was limited to op-eds. Nowadays, since very few pieces are written without the inclusion of op-ed (opinionated journalism), the bias is a problem for us in trying to evaluate NPOV, NOR, and NOT, particularly when editors agree with the op-eds that are published on the side of bias that the mass media falls into. It doesn't make these sources no longer RS, but we have to be aware where the draw the line to what is factual reporting (and include that), and what is opinion which needs to be weighed both per UNDUE and per RECENTISM. That last part is simply not happening. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Correct, which is why I think this discussion should be closed. It will get us nowhere. As for Fox, people need to realize that it's a 24 hour channel and many of its shows (not the news) are news commentaries, similar to CNN and MSNBC Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Seconded - and this has had a significant effect on the neutrality of our articles. It is interesting (and alarming) to compare the time spent reporting fact vs reporting opinion on American cable news channels to others like the BBC and even Qatar's Al Jazeera. The unfortunate reality is proper journalism is an increasingly unprofitable business model. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. This discussion should be closed. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Meh Let me know when CNN doctors images or just makes up insane conspiracy theories about murdered DNC staffers. As for the Harvard study, Fox was "the most balanced" but you left out, interestingly, the critical qualifier "however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.". Ah, context, remember when it mattered? Go ahead and close this, Fox's insane lies are easily countered by legitimate media, and perhaps HRCs article is doomed to be a POV battleground where FNC bonkers claims have to be countered by actual real news. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not that you sound biased or anything..... But yes, CNN has been caught making up nonsense. Like when it claimed the US used sarin gas on Americans in Laos. Proven lie. (Then NBC hired the reporter) I guess CNN conotributors passing questions to HRC isn't a lie, so that doesn't count, but in 2003 when they showed fully automatic weapons firing during a story about a semi-automatic weapons story, that would be pretty darn close to the photo-doctoring you asked about. Or when they used pictures of Margaret Thatcher with a pedophile repeatedly during coverage of her death? Yeah, CNN is unbiased and pure as the driven snow. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait, 20 years ago CNN reported that the US used sarin on US troops 20 years before that? Scandalous! And obviously meant to discredit the Nixon administration 4 years after he'd died. Let me know when CNN repeatedly lies about the sizes of crowds for "conservative" events, or just peddles insane conspiracy theories about murdered DNC staffers. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, they lied about it to discredit the US government, headed by a Republican president at the time. But your claim wasn't solely about politics, just that they don't make stuff up. And note how you completely ignore the incident about using footage of auto weapons in a story about semi-autos. That's probably hitting too close to home for your example. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Uhm, the president in 1998 was Democrat Bill Clinton. No, my claim was not that "they don't make stuff up", my statement was that FNC is totally over the top in terms of their insane made up stories. This whole discussion is littered with unreasonable comparisons to CNN, and when I pointed out recent obvious conspiracy theories peddled as news for days and weeks on Fox, you dragged up one story from 20 years ago that CNN actually retracted. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

When has Fox News lied about crowd sizes? Repeatedly? The editors here who want to ban Fox News from Wikipedia are only bringing up a handful of false or questionable stories. Every media site, whether it's CNN, the Associated Press, etc., makes a comparable number of mistakes. Just this year, CNN and the AP were caught in some relatively serious cases of misreporting/fake news (CNN fired at least three people because of their incident, a false story having something to do with Trump and Russia). So why are the left-of-center editors only going after Fox here? Fox, like CNN, caught their mistakes and admitted they were wrong (as I pointed out with the Seth Rich story above). Fox News has a conservative and (relatively) pro-Trump editorial stance. So what? Their reporting is fine and not worse than the other outlets, which make just as bad mistakes at times. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's true, CNN found some misreporting and fired the people involved, when Fox and Friends just LIED (not a mistake, just told a crazy on air lie) that the memos Comey released were classified (they were not), who was fired? It turns out no one. Speaking of Fox and Fiends, there was the crazy claim of 100's of thousands of protestors the 9/12 rally, the lie about Michelle Bachmans crowd, the lie about Sarah Palins book crowd ... those are just from Wikipedias articles about fox news lies. I mean [24] vs [25]. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the ban. Fox News certainly has its biases (and more so than most news sources, in my opinion) but broad bans such as this that would take the place of thoughtful consideration of how each source is used in its context, it is an extremely bad idea for Wikipedia. As a general rule, any proposal that comes from an editor heavily invested in editing politics-related articles from a singular viewpoint should be automatically rejected because the motivation is almost certainly for the purpose of gaining an advantage in controversial editing. Peacock (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• oppose per PCock .Further Fox News like any other network they are accurate at times and at times has biases.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is really bad proposal. Instead, individually evaluate the appropriateness of a news source as it is used. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: As an apolitical editor (I say we should elect some socialists, libertarians, and greens, so we can be disappointed by someone new) it is obvious to me that some democrat-leaning editors think that any republican-leaning source must be unreliable, and that some republican-leaning editors think that any democrat-leaning source must be unreliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: It is a reliable media; in this context, source is reliable. Each media holds some concerns, does not mean, unreliability. Cite with NPOV. SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose All news media err and publish retractions as Fox did. If we add make Fox News Channel the second addition to the Wikipedia media blacklist, then we are going to have to question thousands of other sources. The best way to deal with stories that only appear on Fox is weight. If only Fox reports a story, it lacks weight. (The same applies to any news organization.)

Reboot this discussion, or close

Most of the above has nothing to do with reliability for matters of fact. Biased opinions are not material here. To declare Fox News unreliable, or questionable, we need evidence that it is more likely to propagate demonstrable falsehood, and less effective in correcting itself when falsehood is demonstrated, than other news outlets. Can anyone provide evidence that this is so? Or that it isn't? Hunc (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Evidence? Fox "News" predicts an antifa apocalypse today. Let's see if that happens.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence is literally Will the so-called "Antifa apocalypse" come with a bang or a whimper? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"The gatherings are being described as a kind of "Antifa apocalypse" on right-wing media, according to The Washington Post." How dare they report on what other media are saying 😂 Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether bang or whimper the Fox "News" report is bogus.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think Fox News is making this story up, you're absurd. There is at least one Antifa group (Refuse Fascism, which has its own Wikipedia article, suggesting notability) that says it will do these protests, and the Fox News story clearly is skeptical on whether these protests will actually go as R.F. is saying, and the Fox News story does not believe that R.F.'s protests are intended by the organizer to be violent. The fact that FNC has decided to give this story more coverage than other mainstream sources is irrelevant. The story is accurate regardless of that. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This is stupid. The "Refuse Fascism" article was created on September 12 just as this hoax was starting to spread. If anything that article should be deleted. The Fox News story is NOT skeptical, although it does make sure to ensure "plausible deniability". The fact that Fox News "has decided to give this story" - and by "this story" we mean a bullshit hoax and a nutzoid conspiracy theory which had/has the potential to actually get people hurt - IS in fact very very very very very very very very very relevant. Volunteer Marek  05:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Accurate? Nonsense. "Antifa apocalypse"? Nonsense. Fox "News"? NOT.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Close this already FNC is absurd, far more so than legitimate media, but the legitimate media treats them like a peer so they're RS. Simple as that. As for their insane propaganda regarding HRC, it's easily debunked by legitimate news media, so it appears she's the hero America needs, but not the hero America deserves right now. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not as "simple as that". Fox "News" is propaganda masquerading as a serious source of news according to TeenVogue, and treating them as a credible news source pollutes our encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but until legitimate media stops treating them as peers, until peer reviewed journals start calling them out, we're stuck with them and their insane propaganda I'm afraid. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Uhh, TeenVogue as a serious source for discussion of issues in the media? I would expect that we'd need a source like from the Pew Research Center or Columbia Journalism Review - expert sources that discuss the state of the media - to make that call. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you're trying to use Teen Vogue to support your view is a clue that you should reevaluate. Natureium (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Why? Why are we rebooting? There is clearly, very clearly, no consensus for the proposal. This reboot is simply another venue for those who backed the proposal to sit here and continue their tirades. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift is right; we have not generated a meaningful discussion of reliability. We have had a lot of off-topic discussion of bias. This needs to stop - or shift to an appropriate venue. Please either address the point of reliability for matters of fact, or close this discussion. Hunc (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This project page is Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The issue is whether FNC is a reliable source. Accordingly, this is the proper forum for this discussion. Whether we agree or disagree that FNC is reliable, this discussion (above) is relevant and on-topic. We just have not come to a consensus yet, so calls to close are premature.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for stating the obvious name of the page. This is the forum to discuss it....however, there is CLEARLY not a consensus to support the blanket exclusion of FNC from articles about her. Just saying "reboot" and starting the same discussion smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The discussion is above....the proposal clearly doesn't have consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see above, it looks like there are far more arguments against this proposed ban. Natureium (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Medium as a reference

Are we able to reference an article written on Medium.com? I think based on what I have read on here from a past discussion, the answer is no. So I would like to present this dilemma. I have other references are great, and I plan to use them. Only, one single line I want to say about the person is not provided anywhere else but on Medium. Maybe I am being too cautious, but I am new and have only edited before. The person is referred as an entrepreneur in the referenced articles. However, the person is really more than an entrepreneur. She is also the founder of her two companies but the other three references do not actually state that. Am I making too much of this and need to just say what the person is? Jrayewrites (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't medium just a platform for self-published and user-generated content? Would help if you could link the source in question, as the answer probably depends on specific factors like who wrote it, etc. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a "massively multi-writer" blogging platform and aggregator. There appears to be a minor level of curation involved, but it is not categorically secondary source material, but primary. So, pieces published on it can be used for things that primary sources can be used for, but not anything involving WP:AIES, because it's all essentially self-published.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Treat it no differently than one would any other primary, self-published source, i.e. according to WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

DNAInfo/Gothamist

Joe Ricketts just closed the local news sites DNAInfo and Gothamist (along with several other sites), and in one fell swoop, also decided to pull the site's archives also (replacing it with the closure notice), meaning we're left with probably a good number of pages where items are sourced to those sites, so archive conversions are definitely going to be needed to maintain the sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 22:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

over 700 links for DNAInfo. It might be best to request a bot to automate this. Perhaps cyberpower678 could help. Maybe the could do a reverse InternetArchiveBot where instead of archiving on a certain page it looks for pages using a certain source and then archives them? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

IABot does that. Just lookup the URL or domain and click Run Bot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also make sure to manually archive 'em at archive.is and webcitation.org. Google Caches may still be up, so use archive.is on those. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Strange redirect

My browser redirects http://www.library.nashville.org/research/res_nash_history_mayors.asp to the Wikipedia article, List of mayors of Nashville, Tennessee. Is this the case for you too?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder how that happened?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

All I can say is that it's was likely redirected by the site's webmaster. It's possible that they didn't want to maintain the page anymore... —PaleoNeonate – 04:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Very strange.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's the last non-redirect version: http://web.archive.org/web/20160314070753/http://www.library.nashville.org/research/res_nash_history_mayors.asp - I'm archiving it WhisperToMe (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think this is very, very bizarre...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an off-Wiki issue.The website has either chosen to redirect here or has been hacked. We can do little about either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon again

This was archived without comment. I need help to clarify a policy issue, so repost it here.

At Gilad Atzmon, material from a book's blurb was excluded, on the grounds that we don't cite blurbs.

I.e. editors cannot cite comments from a book's back jacket, in one admin's judgement. I'm fine with this, save for an ambiguity. The blurbs in question became controversial, and many articles subsequently cited them and their authors. Are these authoritative RS criticizing the blurbs and their authors usable for the blurb contents or not? Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, if the blurb has become a subject of controversy and has generated 3rd party coverage, then I don't see why this coverage cannot be included, subject to WP:WEIGHT, etc. I would not cite directly from the blurb, unless the specific wording is discussed / quoted in 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The blurb material is quoted indeed in several independent 3rd party RS. My intention is to cite the relevant material strictly as it is quoted in those sources, some of which are already used on the page in question. Not to do so, would be to imply that accepted RS cannot be cited in certain parts, a very odd position.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Source alert: Houston Press severe downsizing may affect RS status (November 2017)

Houston Press, a weekly alternative newspaper in Houston, is having a case of severe downsizing as almost all of its staff was let go: https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/11/03/houston-press-ends-print-product-cuts-staff.html and http://www.houstonpress.com/news/saying-goodbye-to-the-houston-press-in-print-9931333 - The paper is jettisoning its salaried staff in exchange for freelance writers.

I used the paper as a reliable source in Houston-related local interest articles (particularly in the arts and culture), but the loss of salaried employees and any decline in editorial standards means I may not be able to use post-October 2017 articles as sources. I think it's good for people to note severe downsizes of staff and/or financial problems at newspapers.

On a more personal note I liked the paper and will miss its print version :( WhisperToMe (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think if an editorial team is still retained then the RS status should not be affected, but rather that output will drop. It's always sad to see something you like being discontinued, and I can understand you missing it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to see the makeup of the remaining editorial staff... it was a small paper even before this happened. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

crunchbase.com/person information

• Naveen_Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• . crunchbase.com https://www.crunchbase.com/person/naveen-k-jain. Retrieved 4 November 2017. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I'm breaking down some new sources for the article (discussion here), and am not sure what to make of the crunchbase.com/person information added here. It looks to me like crunchbase.com is at least semi-automatically aggregating such profiles, not identifying where they are getting their information, and drawing heavily on public relations pieces. My initial thoughts are to treat it as a non-independent, primary source and to use it only to find information to consider for inclusion after better sources are found.

Used together with the GeekWire source, I think it's clear that Naveen_Jain is outdated as far as indicating all the noteworthy ventures that Jain is involved. There are NPOV issues to be addressed on where to include such info in the article and with what weight.

The article has a history of blatant coi problems, and I'd appreciate help. (I'd rather just step away and let someone else do the main reworking as we did in 2015.) --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology

I'm concerned that none of the cited sources in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Academy_of_Science,_Engineering_and_Technology as of 11/06/17, on which the content of the article depend, are RS. Please could more experienced editors advise on the best course of action. Thanks. Tonyinman (talk)

Monero_(cryptocurrency)

Can you please examine sources in my proposed addition to the Monero article - User:Fireice/Monero_Sandbox?

Even through I have a COI (User:Fireice) due to cryptocurrency holdings, I tried to keep a NPOV and include critical sources.

Most of the sources are academic papers, some are self-published, here is a breakdown:

• Noether, Shen; Noether, Sarang. "Monero is Not That Mysterious" - self-published pseudonymous paper, affiliated with Monero, used to support claims about basic workings of Monero
• Saberhagen, Nicolas. "CryptoNote Whitepaper" - self-published pseudonymous paper, not affiliated with Monero, again to support "how it works" claims
• Noether, Shen; Mackenzie, Adam. "Ring Confidential Transactions" - self-published pseudonymous paper, affiliated with Monero, used to support claim that Monero can hide the transaction amount
• Reynolds, Perri; Irwin, Angela. "Tracking digital footprints: anonymity within the bitcoin system" - published in "Journal of Money Laundering Control", used to support the claim that Bitcoin can be traced
• "A beginner's guide to Monero". medium.com - medium blog, used to support a very basic claim (that Monero has two sets of keys), that would be hard to understand for an average user in an academic paper (they private spend key is called "a" in CN Whitepaper and the private view key is called "b" in CN Whitepaper).
• Kumar, Amrit; Fischer, Clément; Tople, Shruti; Saxena, Prateek. "A Traceability Analysis of Monero's Blockchain" - published in "Computer Security – ESORICS 2017", used to support claims about problems found in the paper.

Fireice (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)