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

Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source?

It is a blog. Although it lists 4 contributors in addition to "editor" Brad Linder in the about page, in reality Brad Linder is essentially the only author in 2019 (1 exception), and there have been only 2 authors since February 2016.

I've been recently tempted to use it as a source, a couple times, to change a primary source to a secondary source, like magic; however, this seems wrong.

It was suggested to bring it up for discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:/e/_(operating_system)&diff=913365830&oldid=913365695

I'd appreciate other views. Below are more details. Thanks.

It has been used as a source for many articles in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

95 results

Sometimes it is called "blog" in Wikipedia References, sometimes not.

I believe it mostly re-words and repeats press releases, and blog posts by companies. An example, recently:

https://liliputing.com/2019/09/first-batch-of-purism-librem-5-linux-smartphones-ships-in-late-september.html#comments

versus

https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-shipping-announcement/

In the liliputing blog post above, comments seem to confirm this:

"Some Guy: ...Also, this article seems to have been posted before anything about this is on purism’s website."

"Brad Linder: I guess someone forgot to tell them that the embargo lifted at 11:00AM 🙂"

"Daily Deals" are almost indistinguishable from "articles." https://liliputing.com/category/deals

The about page calls Brad Linder editor; however, he is also the primary author, and the ONLY author for the last 8 months, with one exception by Lee Mathews on 8/26/2019.

It says, "Liliputing has been mentioned on hundreds of news, and technology web sites," and gives 11 examples. However, 1 - Computer World is a broken link, most are several years old, and 1 - Techmeme, "works by scraping news websites and blogs,..."

https://liliputing.com/about

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Brad+Linder+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

57 results

Lee Mathews https://liliputing.com/author/lee Last article 08/26/2019, but this is the first since 12/26/2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Lee+Mathews+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

1 result

Lory Gil https://liliputing.com/author/lory Last article 02/05/2016

K. T. Bradford https://liliputing.com/author/ktbradford Last article 08/20/2014

James Diaz https://liliputing.com/author/cybergusa Last article 09/16/2011

The site warns: "Disclosure: Some links on this page are monetized by Skimlinks and Amazon's and eBay's affiliate programs."

It is heavily loaded with affiliate javascript from MANY different sources, as seen with noscript, etc.

-- Yae4 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ugh. That site is basically a collection of advertisements. Guy (help!) 21:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Example of editing by readers:

Victor C: Brad, just letting you know, the WIN is mono. They had to remove the left speaker for the fan...

Brad Linder: Whoops! Fixing that now.

https://liliputing.com/2016/10/gpd-win-handheld-gaming-pc-quick-review.html , Reference 14 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPD_Win -- Yae4 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

While it's SPAMmy, It can certainly be used in a limited capacity. For instance on the Kodi (software) article, https://liliputing.com/2013/05/xbmc-running-in-linux-on-a-tv-box-with-an-amlogic-am8726-mx-chip-video.html is used to support that the software supports the AMLogic VPU chip. This is not an unreasonable use. Good to see that they make corrections to articles, which is good editorial oversight. It should not be used for anything other that plain, factual coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Making corrections after initially publishing inaccurate information, after readers point out the mistakes, is not "editorial oversight." Editorial oversight is having an editor, independent of the author, who catches mistakes before publishing. At this blog, the author is the editor, or vice versa. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Blogs do not generally update their posts. If there is the ability and will to recognize errors and omissions, that implies that there is some editorial oversight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I wanted to use infosec-handbook.eu (blog) as a source too, but couldn't because it doesn't meet the criteria. BTW, it also updates based on reader feedback (and has more active authors). If we use liliputing for that video, then we could use any blog with a fancy appearance and tons of advertisements as a way of including youtube videos. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What you were restricted in using that other website's content for is not up for discussion here.

We're not using the video itself, in the case I quoted, it's a specific discussion that is being used to support one fact. It is not generally reliable, as is the case with most other blogs. However, even blogs may be used under some circumstances. This is not a binary use vs. do not use situation, it's a large scale and judgment must be used to determine whether an entry can be used to support a fact.

Also, as stated above, it cannot be used to help determine if a topic meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The point was other blogs also do make corrections based on reader feeback, contrary to your claim.

Go down the list; Liliputing breaks most criteria: NO editorial oversight (aside from readers), self-published, blog, examples of making mistakes, sponsored content or primary purpose of showing you ads and getting you to click affiliate links. As I understand the process, if two of these discussions conclude it's a non-reliable source, then it goes on the "binary" list as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources

If that "one fact" is really worthy of being included, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Liliputing

Is Liliputing (liliputing.com) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog? — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Liliputing)

• Self-published source. I'll repeat what I originally wrote on 10 September: Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Advert-infested clickbait of no real merit and no evident quality assurance, much better sources exist. Guy (help!) 21:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally Unreliable Anything but a factual statement is not reliable. Cannot be used for GNG or other reliability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Should not be used as a source. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. (bot brought me here) Not anywhere close to the level of Wired, ZDNet, or even krebsonsecurity(Brian Krebs).---Avatar317^(talk) 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. . For Christmas' sake, I can blog that I am God, if anyone built a church for me, I'd instantly be an atheist. No verifiable facts, no studies, no external review, just a claim. Secondary sources are used for a reason, hopefully review and verification. I suggest either filing this in the circular file, file 86 or file 13, aka the bit bucket.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Liliputing)

• I've created a new subsection for the RfC to meet the "brief and neutral" requirement for RfC statements. Yae4 originally created the RfC in Special:Diff/919418976, but the RfC statement was too long to be transcluded into the RfC category lists. Discussion on Liliputing originally started at Talk:/e/ (operating system), then sprawled to other pages including Talk:Kodi (software). According to Yae4, Liliputing was used in 95 articles on 9 September, but this count has since declined to 12 articles   after removals. Pinging previous commenters JzG and Walter Görlitz as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer hardware task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Liliputing. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times, once again

The Epoch Times is currently listed as a questionable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and usually described as a "falun-gong mouthpiece" in previous discussions. They have recently come under scrutiny for being a Trumpian partisan outlet as well, to the point where Facebook banned them from further advertising on their platform. At the moment they still have those same video ads running on YouTube, with a guy snapping his fingers to changing headlines, using alt-right bingo buzzwords like "mainstream media", "hidden agendas", or "Russia hoax" that could've just as well come from a Trump campaign spokesperson. I think it is time to reclassify this website in the same category as the The Daily Caller and the National Enquirer. --bender235 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times (RSP entry) is currently classified under "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", but we haven't had any noticeboard discussions since the August NBC News report "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". Deprecating The Epoch Times would require consensus in a formal request for comment, which this discussion could easily be converted into. — Newslinger talk 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias does not make it not RS as such, usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a typical "biased source" and as such can be used per policy with appropriate attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times isn't a matter of bias. It's a matter that it deliberately and calculatedly publishes misinformation. It should be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bias doesn't make a source unusable, but intentionally misleading its readers does. The Facebook ban was for that sort of misinformation, which I feel is a decent reason to consider them unreliable - Facebook doesn't ban ads from news sources lightly (after all, doing so costs them money.) NBC News' coverage describes them as spreading conspiracy theories about Trump's political enemies, and the New York Times says the same thing, which would at the very least make them a WP:FRINGE source, not one we can really use for very much. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah this isn't just bias. In addition to more or less openly campaigning for Trump, they've got credulous reporting on Qanon and Pizzagate, as well as vaccine scaremongering, and viral cancer quackery. Reporting from NBC News, Buzzfeed make it pretty clear that they're pushing false or misleading viral content related to contemporary politics. This is exactly the sort of content that has no place on Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That does not look good at all... My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklist ASAP. How has this propaganda machine not been blacklisted yet? It's really remarkable—it couldn't be clearer that under no circumstance is The Epoch Times a reliable source, IMO. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support RFC I'm not sure if this came up the previous discussion, but the Washington Post also reported on some issues with Wikipedia's use of the Epoch Times at the entry for Hunter Biden. This search of main space links turns up a number of cases where they're cited for pseudo-science (this story at Past life regression, and heavy use of this crazy story at This Man), and it is still cited on a number of BLPs and on stories related to Trump-Russia (Joseph Misfud, Paul Manafort). It's even cited at the entry for QAnon. The site is ubiquitous on social media, and it looks just presentable enough that users might sometimes mistake it for a reliable source. Based on this, I think its worth establishing a general consensus. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Epoch Times

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Epoch Times (RSP entry)?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for news
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for news
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail (RSP entry)

— Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Context matters: Please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of The Epoch Times's news coverage, such as edition (the English edition at theepochtimes.com   and the Chinese edition at epochtimes.com  ), topic (e.g. Chinese politics, American politics, international politics, and Falun Gong-related topics), and year of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Epoch Times)

• Deprecate ASAP. Under no circumstance should this Falun Gong propaganda machine be considered a reliable source. The links provided by other users above make the source's utter unreliability crystal clear. For those new to the topic, I recommend this recent write up (The New Republic), think Russia Today—as the New Republic article puts it: "The Times has built a global propaganda machine, similar to Russia’s Sputnik or RT, that pushes a mix of alternative facts and conspiracy theories that has won it far-right acolytes around the world." :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 This isn't a good source, but judging by its complete usage, I don't see a reason for general prohibition on its use. The domains theepochtimes.com (English version) and epochtimes.com (Chinese version - is this RfC about both?) are used 1,348 times in Wikipedia. Most that I glimpsed through were rather uncontroversial, especially from the Chinese domain. The discussion above was rather insincere in my view. The Facebook advert ban was due to circumventing Facebook's political advertisement rules, not its news coverage. A QAnon story is being cited in support of deprecating it, but all I see in that story is reporting what the QAnon is, not advocating for it. Yeah, they also have more trashy stuff like the vaccine story as a "VIEWPOINTS" article, but so do many other lower-end sources like The Huffington Post. As for being pro-Trump: WP:PARTISAN applies and it should not be used for controversial statements. It's not feasible to deprecate all lower-end sources from the right-wing of the political spectrum. --Pudeo (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the Epoch Times, they are unaware of why they were blocked from Facebook ([1]). Whether that's true or not is unclear, as the source is itself not unreliable, but what is clear is that the Epoch Times is a propaganda outlet for Falun Gong—it's about reliable and journalistic as Russia Today. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The articles states If the Q posts are real, they may indicate that the Trump administration has established an alternate channel to speak to supporters, bypassing news outlets and social media altogether for something more direct. They're clearly pushing this as a plausible idea. Also: they were banned by Facebook because they created sockpuppet domains so that they could continue to run conspiracy themed ads that failed to meet Facebook's absurdly lax standards. This isn't just a low quality source. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. "Context matters" is not an appropriate approach for a source that just makes stuff up while claiming not to - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. I'd say close to RT or Global Times for Chinese politics and controversial statements, close to CS Monitor or Deseret News for general topics. Epoch Times is a publication associated with a new religious movement suppressed by China. It's obviously biased against China and its ruling party (thus WP:PARTISAN applies), but it runs both ways: Global Times is unlikely to be much better of a source for Epoch Times than vice versa. feminist (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The Epoch Times peddles unconfirmed rumours, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, and antivax propaganda, causing itself to be banned by Facebook. See NBC expose, Washington Post article, and NYT article. According to The New Republic, its European sites are even worse, and have become the mouthpiece of the far right fringe. -Zanhe (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate As per sources on the Epoch Times page they "peddle conspiracy theories about the 'Deep State,' and criticize 'fake news' media" and "its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• 2 As I said bias is not a criteria for exclusion. We can use it if we attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - per Zanhe above and MarioGom below. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• 4 (Deprecate) or 3 Some news pieces are just fine, but usually a more realiable source exists for the same events. On the other hand, they insist on pushing for WP:FRINGE theories, they use news pieces as a hook for conspiracies (see my comment in the discussion) and you cannot just single them out by excluding opinion pieces. This undermines the reliability of The Epoch Times as a whole. Their magazines include a lot of WP:FRINGE commentary of notable wingnuts and charlatans, which may be useful for attributed quotes of these subjects' views when they are WP:DUE. --MarioGom (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - per Zanhe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, would need a very strong reason to include this as a source for anything. Guy (help!) 12:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - The Epoch Times was founded as a propaganda outlet for a new religious movement and has, over time, gotten less reliable rather than more. While it was previously a relatively trashy outlet that was generally untrustworthy for anything controversial but might serve for routine, non-controversial information, it has transformed into a platform for pseudoscience, conspiracism and misinformation. The veneer of respectability and the ubiquity of Epoch Times newspapers in major urban centers makes it a substantial risk as a source of RS-looking misinformation on Wikipedia. We need to eliminate this source once and for all. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate both versions. A source that merely has a perspective (even a strong perspective) is usable, but a biased source that also spreads conspiracy theories or fringe theories in the service of their bias is not; it's clear that this source lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Since both versions are under the same management and seem intended to serve the same purpose, neither seems like a usable source. --Aquillion (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate This does not seem reliable, especially given its history of consipracy theories and support of what elsewhere could be considered Fake news. --- FULBERT (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate seems appropriate here because they publish conspiracy theories and hoaxes, and they've willfully mislead readers and advertisers. From what I can tell, the overwhelming majority of the content is unattributed aggregations of other news stories. The writers for the site are doing dozens of stories per day. Jack Phillips wrote 15 on October 8, none of those stories appear to involve any original reporting, and there are plenty of other sources for all of them. The content that is "original" to the site is garbage. They've repeatedly pushed QAnon, and now "Spygate", and their "wellness" reporting is rife with quackery. Stories like this one appear to be unmarked advertising, and they've given over a decade of breathlessly positive coverage of the Shen Yun performing arts company. None of that coverage discloses that the performing group is a project of the Falun Gong. Obviously there are worse sources out there, but this one seems to pose a high risk of causing a problem here because they have the look of a credible website Nblund ^talk 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. No reason for an encyclopedia to use such a low-quality publication. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2- per feminist and Slatersteven. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 (first choice) or "2" (second choice). Looks similar to Fox news or RT (Russia). My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate/Option 4 Too unreliable. If they have reliable articles, it will be covered by other news outlets too. The Banner talk 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 I dislike the trend towards deprecating sources willy-nilly. I think it should be reserved for extreme cases. I looked at some of the examples of allegedly "fake" reporting listed here, and my impression was that the Epoch Times was writing a story about something that didn't need a story written about it, but I didn't see anything that was obviously false. That said, I couldn't find a corrections page on their site, so I'd go with option 3. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• 1, 2, or 3 - depends on the context I think, and not a broad category. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 or possibly 3, per Nblund. If a person with a Wikipedia article wrote an opinion piece that appeared on Epoch Times, I'd first ask myself why they couldn't get it published elsewhere, and potentially use it with direct attribution, but never for regular news reporting. I don't think they'd tamper with other people's opinion pieces but that's a low bar. Anything Epoch Times can provide reliable coverage for should have reliable coverage elsewhere.-Ich (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Zanhe and others above. Bobbychan193 (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Epoch Times is an unreliable source, publishing alarmist "news" stories that are often fringe theories or conspiracy theories. Definitely not up to the standards of Wikipedia for a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - Epoch Times has always been unreliable for Chinese political news, but it seems to have been moving toward fringe conspiracy theories on a host of other issues, as others have highlighted. I don't think it meets our standards for general usage.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 / Deprecate: There's been weak to no support in this discussion for ET's journalistic integrity. Per :bloodofox: and Nblund: while the patently partisan bias alone isn't enough to justify its deprecation, there's been much ado about how far their writers will alter their stories to sway readers towards their own views. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 10:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: They cover conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. They're not trying to say any of that nonsense is true, just that it's a notable part of the discourse. And the "mouthpiece" argument makes no sense given that 99% of their article are not about that. Are newspapers started by Christians automatically mouthpieces for Christianity? Connor Behan (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Generally unreliable but not completely useless as a source in all contexts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• 2 to 4 Sometimes they have excellence interview with notable people. Sometimes their news reporting are so exclusively that either they have very good insider, or just fabricating the news. For example, claiming Sing Tao Daily (Canada) moved their editorial board to Mainland China. Matthew hk (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Options 2 To be evaluated case by case. Even NY Times publishes rot sometimes. Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 while I wouldn't support deprecating all religious sources, The Epoch Times seems to be one that clearly crosses the line and is perfectly willing to publish nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The Epoch Times)

• I was initially reluctant to start this RfC, but many editors in the above discussion proposed measures that should undergo wider community review. With 5 previous noticeboard discussions, The Epoch Times is a controversial source that deserves a thorough examination. Pinging previous commenters Bender235, Slatersteven, My very best wishes, Simonm223, Aquillion, Nblund, and Bloodofox as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newslinger: please clarify whether this would deprecate the Chinese edition (epochtimes.com - 519 uses) in addition to the English version (theepochtimes.com - 829 uses)? --Pudeo (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • ​That's a good question. The options are just suggestions and it's up to individual editors to specify which editions of The Epoch Times their classifications apply to. If there are two separate consensuses for the English edition and the Chinese edition, we would create a split entry on the perennial sources list, e.g. RT (general topics) and RT (controversial topics, international politics), and the editions would be treated differently. An opinion without a qualifier would apply to all aspects of The Epoch Times (including edition, topic, and time period) as a whole. I'll clarify this below the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pudeo:. I would say both English and Chinese edition of the newspaper, had very questionable news article. It depends on community want an outright ban, or examinate the news article individually. Matthew hk (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 04:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times pushes for all kinds of WP:FRINGE theories, not just QAnon and antivax as others mentioned. They have a lot of articles promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (The Communist Sexual Agenda, The Infiltration of Marxism Into Higher Education (Part 1 of 2)). Note that this is not confined to opinion sections, they also use news pieces as coatrack for it. Let's take Hundreds of Young Transgender People Asking for Help to Return to Original Sex: Report. If we wanted to use that story, we could just use the original from Sky News ([2]), since The Epoch Times just uses the Sky News report as a hook to promote theories about communists promoting homosexuality to undermine the family and so on. --MarioGom (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Note also the push for pseudoscientific theories on medicine such as functional medicine, promotion of bogus claims on cancer treatment by Cancer Treatment Centers of America#Controversy, etc. It seems related items have been used as a source in Wikipedia: Woman Has Spiritual Near-Death Experience, Cancer Cured as Result? --MarioGom (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine MarioGom (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Why are we even having this discussion? Did someone blank Wikipedia:RSCONTEXT without telling me? Does the FAQ at WT:V which has said "The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support" for years, suddenly disappear? This source, like every other source, can only be judged to be reliable in context. It's not "reliable" or "not reliable". As a general rule, this source is going to be "reliable for certain narrowly written and carefully contextualized statements". It may be best to use it with WP:INTEXT attribution. It may not be the best possible source for general information. But reliability is not a yes-or-no situation. The whole concept behind this RFC (also: an RFC on a high-traffic noticeboard? What's going on with that?) is flawed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We're having this conversation because the argument has been made that this outlet has equivalent reliability to sources like The Daily Mail and The National Enquirer while still being used as a source in multiple articles. As it is actively anti-reliable as a source, site-wide action is necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Was there a series of real dispute that editors had difficulty resolving? I'm not seeing evidence of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WhatamIdoing: Sources can be used in certain contexts even if they are WP:DEPRECATED. You may have to argue with someone who thinks that deprecated means completely blacklisted, but it should be ok otherwise if it is justified. Do you see any problem with this specific RfC? Or you are against the source deprecation process itself, or maybe the perennial sources list? --MarioGom (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm against anything that indicates to other editors that the rest of us think don't think they can figure out how to write a decent article without the rest of us telling them to follow some more rules first. People with a classical education might be thinking about the Woes of the Pharisees here, and I admit that it's not far from my mind.
      MarioGom, I see your account is just two and a half years old, so you probably don't remember when Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was taken seriously as a policy, when the article was more important than the rules, and when "You may have to argue with someone" to be permitted to do what was right by an article meant that a policy or process was fundamentally broken. If RS/P results in editors having to argue with mindless rule-followers about whether it's okay to improve an article, and if it's putting the emphasis on what's "allowed" instead of what's best for the article, then I'll be against it. If it provides practical help to editors writing articles, then I'll be all for it. Perhaps you can tell me which category you think it's most likely to fall into. So far, all I see is that the list grows endlessly, and it is largely populated by people who aren't creating much content, and largely used by people who aren't genuinely trying to figure out whether a source is desirable in a particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The way I look at it (certainly others may feel differently) is that, given the (absolutely appropriate) emphasis on Reliable Sourcing, the RS/P is an incredibly useful tool, especially for new editors who may not have a firm grasp on what constitutes a reliable source or know how to dig through the RSN archives. I know it certainly was for me. I also believe that its usefulness is directly connected to its accuracy, and these discussions help to improve that accuracy by giving an accurate measure of a source's basic credibility. Even RSCONTEXT says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Discussions like this help us assign a rough reliability, according to this exact metric, to sources. Yes, context is still important, but that doesn't mean that the New York Times and the National Enquirer should be treated the same, as if they each require the same amount of scrutiny to determine whether a given article in either is acceptable to cite for an article here. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • AmbivalentUnequivocality, could you explain that bit about RSCONTEXT better? I'm not sure how it relates. That sentence, in plain English, means "The New York Times, which has more than four thousand employees, is usually more reliable than little tiny newspapers like The Mulberry Advance, whose sole employee has to do everything from selling subscriptions to writing articles to sweeping the floor". I don't see how any discussion on Wikipedia could realistically "help to improve that accuracy", because "according to this exact metric", the only way for a source to become more reliable is to hire more journalists. The number of Wikipedians involved in these RFCs is irrelevant "according to this exact metric". "This exact metric" is about what they do, not about what we do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
          • WhatamIdoing Certainly. My reading on that sentence is slightly different than yours. I don't see it as being the same as "More employees = more reliable" because not all publications utilize their employees the same way. It is about how many people are actually engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing. More employees does not necessarily mean that they have more people doing those things. A large paper could employ thousands of people and still not commit any sizable number of them to fact checking, and a small paper could have relatively few employees but still conduct robust and thorough fact checking on what material they publish. It is what they do with their employees, and how well they do it, that matters. Yes, this metric is about what they do, but our part in it is elucidating what it is that they are doing. Our part is figuring out how robust their reputation for fact checking is, how strong their editorial oversight is, how readily they retract and correct errors. Publications that knowingly publish false claims, or unknowingly publish easily disprovable ones, clearly show a lack of such robustness. We can improve the RS/P by accurately assessing how well a given publication commonly meets these criteria. There is value in having a list that accurately represents the general quality of various sources according to the established criteria of what constitutes reliability, but to do that we must determine how well a given source meets those criteria. I believe that is something we can do, and I believe that discussions like this aid in achieving that goal. Treating every source as though they are all equally likely to produce reliable reporting seems shortsighted to me. Yes, reliability is about what they do. Our discussions do not make a publication reliable or unreliable. But our discussions do help accurately assess whether they are doing the things that are considered indicative of general reliability (Robust fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.), or whether they are engaged in behavior that is indicative of pervasive unreliability (Intentionally publishing false or misleading claims, pushing fringe conspiracy theories, etc.) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
      • WhatamIdoing: So if I understand correctly, you are against the deprecation of sources itself or this kind of RfC, but you have no particular concern about this specific RfC. I can understand that. It has certainly been problematic for me in the past. For example, when spotting an inaccurate story published at a sourced marked as generally reliable on perennial sources. But that's beyond the scope here, I guess. --MarioGom (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • That's the issue as I see it, and not beyond consideration here, that commentary must be distinguished from credible news, even in articles that are reporting some news. A neutral point of view doesn't sell many books or newspapers. Jzsj (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Frankly I think the use of newsmedia is generally inappropriate for an encyclopedia and leads to many of our woes surrounding WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT and WP:DUE across the site. When a newsmedia source compounds this problematic character by straight-up fabricating news to push a POV, well, if I think we shouldn't be leaning so hard on the NYT you can imagine what I think about such tabloids. And the Epoch Times, which was founded with the intent of being used as a propaganda outlet is one of the worst of a bad bunch. I'm sure an WP:IAR case might exist where deprecation might prove a challenge, but honestly I don't see it. And avoiding a 99% improvement to avoid a 1% chance of future impediments seems like weak cost-benefit analysis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • ^agreed. The consensus on deprecation can always change, but I have spent some time browsing the site, and I really haven't found a single story that appears reliable and not covered by a more reputable source. The Washington Post reports that the majority of the staffers are mostly part-time/volunteers rather than journalists, so it seems pretty unlikely that you're going to see any real reporting coming from them. Nblund ^talk 17:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
            • I agree with Jzsj's point. That's why we avoid {{one source}} articles. Librarians make a distinction between having "a balanced book" and "a balanced library": while there's a place in the world for a balanced book (history textbooks for schoolchildren spring to mind as an example), it's usually better to have multiple books (e.g., a book about a war that argues persuasively that it was all economics, a book that promotes the diplomatic aspects, a book that that focuses on the Great man theory, etc., so that you end up with a balanced view). But you have to read multiple sources to figure out where the sources differ from each other.
              Simonm223, it's always good to find an idealist on the English Wikipedia. ;-)
              Nblund, I believe that's true. However, the definition of "reliable" isn't "the most reputable source we could use for this statement". "Barely reliable" is still reliable. (IMO this source is probably "reliable enough" for some claims. You won't see me seeking it out, however.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Just a warning even about high school history books. It's reliably reported that conservative groups attend trustees meetings as in Texas and New York, and any trustee who approves of a book that criticizes capitalism or American democracy is "history". The few publishers don't take a chance with such books. To get a more objective course in American history one needs to use a college textbook. Jzsj (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Epoch Times. — Newslinger talk 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: VGChartz

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

---

Other than sales data, what would best describe the reliability of VGChartz as a whole? (More detailed query below.) ToThAc (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's already been informally established that VGChartz is unreliable for everything pertaining to sales data. One excerpt from a certain bureaucrat of a non-Wikimedia wiki even summed up the following here:

Due to its popularity and being the most immediately visible source when researching sales data, it's hard not to address VGChartz.

Much has been written about the reliability of VGChartz. As explained on the site's methodology page, it has access to data from an undefined sampling of "retail partners", filling in the rest by guessing based on various trends (while the aforementioned trackers do not have access to every retail chain and do some number of "filling in the blanks", they are proven to track a substantial amount of retailers, unlike VGChartz). The fact that VGChartz numbers have frequently been contradicted by more official channels and other anomalies (In one instance, the site reported the game Arc Rise Fantasia as a best-seller for June 2010 despite the game not being released until the end of July) have led to several sites banning it as a source. As far as the wiki is concerned, VGChartz is not reliable and should not be used as a reference for sales data.

References

However, I have repeatedly seen VGChartz cited in areas other than sales data; most of it is to cite release dates and companies behind certain games, with some relevant news articles as well. Moreover, most of the criticism towards the site is usually limited to just the site's methodology in obtaining sales data. And so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, what options would best describe VGChartz's reliability?

1. Generally reliable
2. Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (recommend better source)
3. Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (require better source)
4. Generally unreliable

Cheers - ToThAc (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (VGChartz)

• Option 4 per above. I also strongly oppose option 1. After some digging around, I learned that most of the articles on the site are user-generated content, while the news coverage could use better sources. ToThAc (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 - there’s already a pretty solid consensus on this amongst anyone who understands how Wikipedia defines an RS, and nothing has changed. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• It has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources for who knows how long. Why are we having an RFC about it? --Izno (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Izno: This is about addressing the reliability of other parts of the site (articles, news, previews, etc), not necessarily their sales data. ToThAc (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 - there have been multiple discussions on VGChartz that show it is unreliable. What makes this discussion any different? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Ive yet to see data sourced to VGChartz that cannot be sourced to better quality sources. --Masem (t) 03:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Seems it has a reputation for non accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 It's pretty clear that it can't be trusted. I've never seen it be viewed as reliable before, and we shouldn't start now. Nomader (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Not reliable. Comatmebro (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (VGChartz)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 02:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and Namcokid47: In case this wasn't already clear to either of you, I'm addressing the entire VGChartz website, not necessarily their sales data (which has already been proven unreliable). ToThAc (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that, and I am still opposing it. Nearly all of the content on there is user-generated, and lots of the articles are not in the best of quality. I still consider them unreliable. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. ToThAc (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)

Should The Gateway Pundit be deprecated? Or listed as generally unreliable? Or something else?

See thegatewaypundit.com  ; and for earlier thegatewaypundit.com discussion see earlier Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256#Among low-quality sources, the most popular websites are right-wing sources; along with other previous mentions at: 256, 250, 241, and 233. X1\ (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Gateway Pundit)

• Depreciate / Unacceptable as a source. It's a batshit insane far-right conspiracy blog. I don't know the difference between "depreciation" and "generally unreliable", but I support whatever ensures that this rubbish doesn't get cited here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for just about anything outside of their opinion, with in-line citations, in rare situations where their opinion is directly relevant; they're a blog with no particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (obviously.) That said, see my comment below - they're only being cited five times that I can see. As far as I can tell nobody is arguing that they are reliable anywhere for stuff outside that. We don't need to hold RFCs for things that are already universally-accepted; there are far too many unreliable sources in existence to enumerate them all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Aquillion, are you opposed to deprecating? X1\ (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable for statements of fact, and opinion wouldn't/shouldn't carry much weight in most cases, but as Aquillion says, it's not exactly a frequent problem. Certainly not opposed to deprecating if there's evidence it would save a nontrivial amount of effort. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• In the very least unreliable. François Robere (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable for anything beyond their own opinion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for ... anything. Given that it's a hoax/fake news site I wouldn't even use them for their own "opinion" since those could just as well be trolling. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate this fake news website known for partisan hackery and hoax articles. This is never an acceptable source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable, do not deprecate Clearly not a reliable site. No reason to deprecate as it clearly isn't being treated as reliable. We need to stop the deprecation game even with sites like this. Springee (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Springee, but they are often cited on Talk pages, per "everywhere search". Again, why do you say deprecation game? X1\ (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• You are free to disagree with the term game but I'm firmly against going around and deprecating sources left and right. I'm not sure how deprecation is even supportable under WP:RS. My concern is two fold. First, let's assume a number of deprecated sources are all talking about the same thing. That means there might be some WEIGHT for inclusion in an article. That doesn't mean we treat the material as reliable but I do think deprecated sources can help establish weight if not reliability of some information. Here is another problem [[3]]. An article about Mossberg cited The Daily Caller for a basic factual claim (company had produced X number of some shotgun). This isn't a critical fact but for readers who are interested in firearms the article is better for it's inclusion and it certainly isn't a controversial claim. The citation was removed since DC has been deprecated. Now do we actually think the DC isn't reliable for that particular claim? So the typical reply when someone brings up such a point is, well if it's DUE then a RS will mention it and we can source it there. So I looked. I didn't check every link but what I found was a Mossberg press release (likely the DC's source of information) and a number of firearms blogs and forums discussing the topic. None of those sources would pass RS muster. However, the fact that so many websites are talking about the production stat suggests that, for that narrow audience, this is something that improves the Wiki article. If DC were treated like we treat a low quality source like Splinter News we would use them cautiously but we wouldn't have editors seeking out all references and removing the citation or even worse, removing the article content with the citation. I see no advantage to marking such sources with a "kill on sight" order. So, even in a case like there where I would be very suspect of any claim made by this source, I'm against deprecation here because I think it is problematic in principle. Springee (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know if we deprecate sources only for the AP2 area, but that is where they are completely unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would be more comfortable with the concept if we specified something like AP2. Springee (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Presumably "AP2" is wp:AP2, correct? X1\ (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable in the slightest. Depreciate – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. soibangla (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate I'm not sure this is necessary, because it seems like they are essentially already de-facto deprecated since they're a widely recognized purveyor of fake news. I don't see any problem with formalizing that classification, though. Nblund ^talk 21:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable and OK with deprecating - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate The fewer of these blatant misinformation sites we entertain, the better the whole project will be. They have a tendency toward supporting conspiracy theories, don't fact check much at all and exist as a propaganda tool. An encyclopedia should not be depending on such outlets. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• In the very least unreliable. I agree with Simonm223 and most others, deprecate is appropriate. This source is perennial as noted by various contributors, particularly highlighted by Aquillion's everywhere search. It will be useful to point novices, contrarians, etc to the Wikipedia:RSP citation of discussion if it gets a place on the table (hopefully). I don't understand Springee's "deprecation game" comment. How is it a "game"? X1\ (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate X1\ and Simonm223 make excellent points. The source regularly reports on conspiracy theories under the guise of news, which immediately calls into question whether any of their genuine news coverage is tainted with the desire to drive readers towards their own partisan views. Their SEO is structured so anyone looking to affirm a personal bias could easily search for say, "Badger Party planning frisbee ban", and get something resembling a WP:RS that could be injected into an article and left standing as authoritative information until another editor eventually susses it out. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 05:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable not "Deprecate" Deprecation is an extreme option over-used but not consistently used (leftist sources are usually spared the measure of deprecation). We have good, workable guidelines in WP:BIASED which allow editors to use their judgment with sources like the one we're talking about. Deprecation when there's no signifcant pattern of a given source being used to prop POV up in our articles is itself deprecated in WP:NOTCENSORED. --loupgarous (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Leftist sources rarely engage in conspiracy theories treated as reportage. Those that do should be deprecated too. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Simonm223's Those that do should be deprecated too. For useful list of "Hyper-Partisan Left - Most Extreme Left", see here (collected by BullRangifer). X1\ (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see any appropriate sources on that list. Though I wouldn't call any of them extreme left so much as extreme anti-Republican with poor or non-existent standards for fact checking. Thx X1.Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate I'm a latecomer to this but can't see a good rationale not to. Given the 3 posts above I'll add that this treatment should be even, any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bingo! Doug Weller there is another thread here about Fox News talk show hosts (not the News division). "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." The same applies to them, and they should be deprecated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Doug Weller I support the sentiment, but the application is lacking. This is particularly noticeable in the area of criminal justice. Freddie Gray was hurt before he was put in the van, not while he was in it. Daniel Holtzclaw's conviction is laden with red flags strongly suggesting that he didn't do any of it. And the Duke Lacrosse case was proven BS long before the NYT, WaPo, etc. said so. Each of the above has been documented in voluminous detail on sites that often remain relatively obscure and/or are treated as "unreliable" by WikiConsensus, while media that push "mainstream" narratives that fly in the face of demonstrable facts escape WikiPunishment. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: provide RSs for your claims. X1\ (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I can do that in the Duke case.[4] In the Freddy Gray case, I have a source that is likely WP:RS via WP:USEBYOTHERS, namely [5], but even there, there are WP:SYNTH issues, as the conclusion is obvious from listening to the whole thing, but I'm not sure if it's stated explicitly. In the Holtzclaw case, there appears to be consensus that the sources are not WP:RS, and that's the problem. When it is determinable that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong, yet we continue to keep our definitions of what is and is not reliable, then exactly what kind of world are we living in.[6][7][8] Adoring nanny (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A YouTube video by Michelle Malkin is your purported source? The same Michelle Malkin who pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, defends the illegal imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, and says the Anti-Defamation League is conspiring with antifa activists to destroy Trump? Alrighty then. (And your first link is to a website self-published by a member of Holtzclaw's legal defense team.)

Your apparent personal belief that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong about Holtzclaw is irrelevant to the encyclopedia and can have nothing whatsoever to do with article content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's typical of the type of response I get on this. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to take the considerable time and effort that would be required to determine who has it right and who has it doesn't. It is frustrating to see people respond by lashing out at me and/or the sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: You appear to be off-topic on judging whether The Gateway Pundit should be deprecated , or listed as generally unreliable , or something else? Citing a book is fine but irrelevant, undisclosed-podcast.com is irrelevant, HoltzclawTrial.com is inappropriate, National Review is considered per our table to be debatable, and YouTube is generally unreliable (depends on subsource). In your arguments, using only "generally reliable" sources will add credibility. This isn't the world per your what kind of world are we living in comment, it is Wikipedia and Wikipedia is built on generally reliable RSs, not wp:OR. We remove wp:OR and unreliable RSs, and in some cases we are obligated, by law to remove them. If you are interested in the topics in which you commented and gave sources, that is fine, but this RfC thread is on judging The Gateway Pundit as a source, not a casual forum, see WP:NOT. X1\ (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable Gerntrash (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Gerntrash: "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? X1\ (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. It's far too unreliable. They regularly push conspiracy theories and lies, often from the Trump administration, passing them off as truth. "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." (Doug Weller). -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - I see it as misleading, sensationalist clickbait. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable. No corrections page for example, and definitely no reputation for accuracy. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? X1\ (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• No. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: elaborate. X1\ (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, in light of your uncivil question to me in another thread on this page, I'll decline to elaborate. I am asking you to disengage from my vote. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. Unreliable source that peddles conspiracy theories. Autarch (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. As above - might as well formalize this, since there is no need to ever cite this. Neutrality^talk 01:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. I don’t think I need to elucidate the reason why per the other comments. There’s clearly a majority consensus emerging in favour of deprecation. We can’t allow shades of grey when a publication this unreliable spreads conspiracy theories and fake news. The amount of discretion required to determine whether anything from this source can even be referenced, let alone to what extent, is clearly an undue burden on editors, and likely to be an exercise in futility. Better to wash our hands of it, and not permit arguments to made based on such a ridiculously unreliable source. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Symmachus Auxiliarus, reason she why? X1\ (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Corrected. I tend to edit from a mobile device these days with a tiny screen, and autocorrect either modifies things to an incoherent degree, or adds some spectacularly horrible predictive text. Thank you for pointing this out. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Symmachus Auxiliarus. I want to understand what you were saying. I make a disconcerting amount of writing errors. Hopefully I catch at least some of them. X1\ (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The Gateway Pundit)

• Is it actually being cited anywhere? A search finds only five uses in article space. Most of those should be replaced, but it's not exactly something pressing enough to require an RFC (with such a small number of cites, all of which look easy-to-replace, you can just replace them and open a discussion leading to an RFC if someone objects and you can't hash it out.) I'm not sure we need to bother with RFCs when it seems like virtually everyone agrees the source is unusable already (and are not using it.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say the important question is not how often is it used at this very moment, but the more difficult to answer, "How often do people try to use it inappropriately and how much time is wasted discussing it?" Deprecating a source can be a huge time saver, assuming there is consensus that the source is bad enough to be worth deprecating, and there is actually time to be saved. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hrm. A search for everywhere rather than just article content does turn up 86 uses (mostly talk.) Even then, though, it seems to be mostly new / inexperienced users bringing it up, and it's pretty clear that every time it comes up people are just like "no, you can't use that as a source." Most of the time they didn't seem to know WP:RS is a thing, so that conversation would still have to happen. --Aquillion (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• There were some attempts to use it in 2016/17 before and after the election. Not so much now. It's possible these attempts could renew as we get closer to 2020. Volunteer Marek 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Aquillion is "Hrm" a reference to Ḥ-R-M? X1\ (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecating a source because it might be abused in the future is political censorship. It seeks to usurp editors' judgment generally to apply the WP:BIASED guidelines because a given source might be abused - but no significant amount of such abuse is evident. Using the RFC process to censor future edits to the encyclopedia by prior restraint needs to be examined in the light of WP:NOTCENSORED. --loupgarous (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Vfrickey: the only prediction we have is by using past evidence, so we go by a sources' "track record", and for this one it is not good. X1\ (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "ProPublica" (October)

Should ProPublica be listed as a generally reliable for news coverage? Or something else?

I see the issue; Should ProPublica be listed as a generally reliable in its areas of expertise? Or something else? X1\ (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

See propublica.org   and everywhere search in wp; and for earlier ProPublica.org discussion mentions see wp:RSN Archives: 132, 178, 213, 246, 251, 263, and 268. X1\ (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated lede sentence per feedback. X1\ (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Bolded the lede to make the questions standout. X1\ (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (ProPublica)

• Generally reliable in its areas of expertise Generally reliable for news coverage. X1\ (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Updated my "vote" due to a couple of comments. X1\ (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Please name specifically what the "areas of expertise" are. And please provide the RS you used to support that set of topics as being their areas of expertise, thanks. Note: No WP:OR of inferring from awards please, only state language and the source you had per WP:RS, please *not* one of its partners. And you can ignore the table. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, the "partners" are a long list of reliable RSs ...? X1\ (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ The topic is please name specifically the “areas of expertise”, with preference to articles on ProPublica from independent sources — so preferably not a partner. If you didn’t have an independent source mentioning such or were just using a phrase without RS then just say so. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: Haven't even started a search. So let me understand, you provide non-RS (see below) when RS is requested, and you want me to not use RS, such as "generally reliable": The Atlantic , BBC , Bloomberg Businessweek , CNN , Financial Times , The Guardian , Los Angeles Times , Mother Jones , The Nation , New York , The New York Times , The New Yorker , Newsweek , Politico , PolitiFact , The Sunday Times , Time , Vanity Fair , Vox , The Washington Post , Wired ? Or other RS, such as: 60 Minutes, ABC News, CBS News, Center for Investigative Reporting, The Center for Public Integrity, CNBC, Consumer Reports, Frontline, NBC News, and NPR News? X1\ (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• You just answered the question with “haven’t even started a search”, which I think means your input was from personal impression vice a source. I haven’t checked your list above, but yes independent source would indeed mean one not among the 47 (?) listed as their partner, and independent source input is preferred. A good source should not be used as RS on itself or its business partners. That would still leave thousands of sites for possible commentary on them ... London Times, Toronto Star, NY Post, FoxNews, The Independent, Globe and Mail ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• User:X1\ You have not answered what “areas of expertise” are yet. Please list specifics, or presumption will be undefined = none stated = none. Your first phrasing here was obviously off, and I’m suspecting you’re unable to back anything up. WP:ONUS is on you to support your claim. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Besides all the areas in which they've received awards? --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Markbassett: can I use generally reliable RS? X1\ (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Preferably use sources not partners to them, otherwise I think any written stable and available location may be mined for inputs. It would seem necessary for any rating to have some details of area(s) or nature framing the evaluation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: as you insist on using "generally unreliable" or known biased sources so far, I request that you only use "generally reliable" sources from now on. It has been suggested that it may be foolish to assume good faith given your behavior here. I will considered all arguments you have made using non-generally-reliable sources to be specious and spurious. I request that you desist from behavior that can be viewed as disruptive. X1\ (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My input to first version of question Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not news coverage - umm, they can't be a RS for news because they don't DO news of the day. They don't cover what is happening with Kurds or Brexit this week, Canadian election results, the woes of Man Utd, or natural disasters and such. They do investigative pieces from a progressive POV, with a data analysis approach. ProPublica is respectably known and usually has a factual data-driven content, but they do have a bias that they're open about, and do not present a balanced picture which they also are open about. It's going to be about telling you a way to see something Wrong from a progressive view point and nothing much else. Very well done, but limited in scope and POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC) umm, Markbassett, are you attempting a joke? If so, this is not the time or place. X1\ (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC) User:X1\ ??? No, it's no joke, don't see why you would think it was -- they really are not news coverage. Which I thought your later !vote-change edit indicated accepting. The being limited in scope and POV - well, again don't see how you could read that as a joke, it's basically said on their website and mission declarations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC) @Markbassett: so you believe ProPublica can't be a RS for anything? X1\ (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC) User:X1\ the question asked was if “generally reliable for news coverage”, and my answer was no, because they don’t do that. Still don’t see how you felt that was a joke. I see there’s now a revised question “generally reliable in its areas of expertise”, which I haven’t responded to. As to whether they’re a RS for anything, that isn’t the topic and I’d prefer to just deal with the revised topic if anything. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Markbassett, Cheers X1\ (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Determine case-by-case - self-declared not balanced coverage, and expertise subject to author Mostly that editorial control and qualifications only extends to in-house writers. The external submitters and co- or re-published external pieces may differ. Generally seems excellent quality in writing and methods, but selection of facts and direction to analysis is self-admitted and noted by critics. In other words, this isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one, so conclusions are likely POV but reported data is likely reliable. Positive points for background of reporters usually being well qualified in the field, positive points for being explicit online in how they check and self-admitting their limitations. Minor negatives that with the analysis pieces I saw there seems no open access to raw data, and minor negative that I see no example of a retraction. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett provide RSs for selection of facts, not balanced coverage, isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one, likely POV, and previous request for RSs of progressive POV, have a bias, and do not present a balanced picture. Note: No wp:OR, only provide RS, such as from the table with . X1\ (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

1) User:X1\ ? I don't see any "previous request for RSs" so I'll start from here, and take your asking as giving me permission to ask the same in return. I presume you are asking about their internal reporters instead of noting that they have external submissions and collaborations of co- or republished material not done under the same editorial control. As I recall, I looked their self-declaration and then what others said about them, and did a couple Googles of them with some negative words.

2) Mission is "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"

3) Follow that with keeping bias out vs "investigative" - "First, it’s important to point out that ProPublica focuses mainly on investigative journalism, which is a particular genre that makes its reporting different than, say, political coverage. In most cases, investigative stories make an argument rather than just capture both sides of an issue. ... The stories often have a particular structure: Some person, government agency or other entity allegedly did something wrong and harmed others. Almost always, the wrongdoing is set against a standard — a law, ethical practice or norm. ... So on a certain level, some point of view is baked into investigative stories because, in many cases, reporters begin with a tip or data that suggests wrongdoing and then set out to determine if it occurred."

4) Externally, MediaBiasFatCheck rates them "Left-Center biased based on story selection that favors the left and factually High due to proper sourcing and evidence based reporting." It notes their collaborations are with 47 sources including reputable left leaning news organizations. Also it mentions "In general, their investigations look at corruptions and abuses of power. While ProPublica purports to be non-partisan, a review of their recent reports are aimed at right leaning politicians and their issues." This criticism was also mentioned (more colorfully) by The Washington Examiner ProPublica is the left's biggest muckraker you never heard of.

5) Example of criticism included their Surgeons Scorecard, as an example of Bad Data vs No Data. It was noted as setting off a firestorm, eviscerated in New England Journal of Medecine by Lisa Rosenbaum, and critiqued by The Rand Corp.

6) I think that'll do for a start - next I'll put a question back at you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, see request 19:37, 26 October 2019. X1\ (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• ah, I see it now, a few screens *down* from here VS above here. I’ll go put in a reply. Markbassett (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (2) "Mission" is a value showing strong bold/courageous investigative journalism, thus RS. You have made similar comments implying such things are a sign of weakness, odd. X1\ (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ “Mission” is always a goal, the thing one is stating one has an emotional prejudice and is biased about. Companies are biased about money in their field; Governments are biased about their nation, party, and power; Charities are biased on the topic they are pursuing. You don’t expect unbiased data from a Tobacco-area company or Government about cancer, and neither should one expect accuracy about drunk driving from MADD. An honest advocate presents *their* points and is open about having an agenda. One can only hope and check independent sources to see if there isn’t exaggeration or outright falsehoods. ProPublica seems open about their goals and methods, and the general constraints of the nature of the methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: you don't expect a government could be unbiased about cancer? X1\ (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ A Tobbaco-area government would have a vested interest in and be subject to influences in their region. This is an inherent and natural bias. They would be possible as having expertise and being vocal on the topic, but it should be handled as a WP:BIASED RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (3): again odd that you believe this statement represents something other than "generally reliable" RS. X1\ (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ seems odder that you’re saying RS yet unwilling to give any consideration to ***their self-declaration of limits*** ??? Seems they would be RS for that. Usually self-claimed flaws are accepted and self-claimed expertise is checked. Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: your use of three *, three ?, and the words "limits" & "flaws" are indicative of WP:BATTLE-mentality, and is not Wikipedia:5P. X1\ (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ still the conundrum remains of holding ProPublica RS yet unwilling to give ***any*** consideration to ***their own declaration of limits***. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (4): the Washington Examiner is listed as with a Summary including Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source; can't you find a non-biased source to use as an RS? X1\ (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Mmm... would that mention of WE partisan be indicating WE remarks are suspect because ProPublica is left-bias? Markbassett (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your fishing, Markbassett, is indicative of WP:BATTLE mentality, and is not Wikipedia:5P. X1\ (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Seemed like saying WE is partisan was only relevant if PP is their opposing side. It’s plainly visible that WE wrote a criticism at the given link, so no other point was visible. Markbassett (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, Media Bias/Fact Check site looks interesting, I'll check it out. X1\ (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• X1\, MBFC is not reliable in the slightest (as several discussions on this noticeboard have conclusively shown). The site is basically one random dude's opinions. It's not surprising in the slightest but still incredibly disappointing that a highly active editor in American politics, Markbassett, cites it as a reliable source while he attacks one of the greatest journalistic outfits as unreliable. Just further proof of why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Snooganssnoogans, I see MBFC is "generally unreliable" . X1\ (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (5) "Surgeons Scorecard": I don't have access to either Medscape.com or NEJM.org; so not respondable. X1\ (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ - that’s odd, I seem able to get into the sites at least. Oh well, existence and nature of criticism description is at MediaBiasFactCheck and is easily findable by google at multiple other venues. That medical community is not entirely happy with scores nor method of scoring seems hardly EXCEPTIONAL anyway - just proceed from ‘major and noted medical publications objected to ProPublicas scorecard’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: why after Snooganssnoogans' warning would you persist in using a "generally unreliable" source such as MBFC? Are you attempting to make a mockery of the wp:RSN process? X1\ (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ why do you persist in not just proceed from ‘major and noted medical publications objected to ProPublica scorecard’. This seems a moot Ad hominem since the leads to partners and WE criticism are objective fact. If you want to google up someone else saying they have partners and critics, feel free. Simply accept that the medical community RS authority is relevant. Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• User:X1\ - ProPublica stated some limits about their own nature, WP:MEDHRS gave criticisms of their scorecard, and yes they have been criticized by others. Please give up the WP:IDHT and accept the obvious objective reality and move along, or at least give up on the apparently endless moot pings. And again, no area of expertise actually is specified so you might want to propose some, but that’s up to you. Over & out Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have seen the controversial ProPublica § Surgeon Scorecard section. X1\ (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand your Redlink. X1\ (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• @X1\: and @Snooganssnoogans:, you aren't going to convince @Markbassett: so why bludgeon the discussion? It's unlikely a consensus review would decide that ProPublica is not a generally RS. I don't think Markbassett's concerns were unfounded but bias in this case doesn't mean not generally reliable. X1\ and Snoog, the attacks on Mark for using MBFC are very flawed. I understand Snoog has a dislike of the site and it thus far does not meet our RS standards. That does not mean the site is wrong nor that it can not be used in good faith as a point of talk page discussion. It only means that our standards for sourcing article content are not met. The MBFC has been cited by NPR and several other news organizations as a subject matter expert rather than just a mention. Recently an MIT study used the source as the gold standard for testing a computer bias algorithm. Again, we shouldn't assume that just because a site doesn't meet Wikipedia's RS standards that the information is bad. The accusations of bad faith editing thrown at Mark for daring to use it are an example of the old three fingers pointing back at the accuser. I would suggest just dropping this discussion as it will make no difference in the outcome of this RfC. Springee (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hello Springee. Thank you for joining the discussion. Please provide a link to the NPR link cite that attests to MBFC's credibility and several other news organizations as a subject matter expert to which you speak. To In what do they say MBFC is a subject matter expert? You need not provide a link to an MIT study used the source as the gold standard for testing a computer bias algorithm unless it more relevant than it first appears. X1\ (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable in its areas of expertise When ProPublica does analysis, their number-crunching is reliable. But before they get to crunching numbers, ProPublica designs their studies to test what is generally a partisan hypothesis. They've done good work with the New Yorker in exposing ethical abuses surrounding commercial "storefront" stem cell therapy and their work's been deemed reliable by third party commenters such as medicinal chemist Derek Lowe in his "In The Pipeline" blog. They are useful and reliable on some stories, especially on the technical arguments surrounding contentious issues such as net neutrality (where they would be a good part of a balanced survey of informed opinion on such subjects). As with any openly partisan secondary source, editors ought to review the guidance in WP:BIASED before and while citing ProPublica. --loupgarous (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Vfrickey: could you provide RSs for the openly partisan claim? X1\ (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for all purposes - Five Pulitzer Prizes in 12 years of operation. Widespread recognition and republication in other sources. Zero evidence of any problems with their reporting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all purposes - The arguments presented by MarkBassett are mind-blowingly bad. Just one reason of many why editing in American politics is dysfunctional. ProPublica is top-tier journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable I took a glance at their site and saw this[9] article about "the climate apocalypse to come", which gives me considerable pause. There is no concrete information about this "apocalypse" other than a statement that planned power blackouts are apparently a taste of it. I find the lack of a concrete definition concerning. They don't say what is going to happen or when. The fact that there are predictions of global warming and its consequences does not help them. If an "apocalypse" is coming, they should say what they mean by that. I am therefore going to have to say they are not reliable. Furthermore, their site is obviously WP:PARTISAN. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: please provide RSs for the claim of obviously WP:PARTISAN. Your glance appears rather unfounded, as I see nothing not RS in the Abrahm Lustgarten article on 2019 California power shutoffs you apparently gave as evidence. Using a hyperbolic term in a title has been all-too-common in recent years; not evidence of non-RS. Provide evidence of your Not reliable claim. X1\ (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Adoring nanny: see within the link you provided high quality RSs such as NPR.org, NYT; the article was co-published with New York Times magazine. X1\ (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Adoring nanny: presumably, you understand WP:IDL is not the same as Not reliable. X1\ (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Adoring nanny, since you are not providing any backing for your comments, but providing a source to refute, am I to assume your first reaction was just I don't like it? If so, strikeout your "Not reliable" comment. There are eight "Generally reliable", one equivocation, and your (currently) unbacked "Not reliable". X1\ (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, where we strive to provide reliable information, we have an article about Global warming, and the Timeline of the far future states that in 1.3 billion years, Eukaryotic life will probably die out on Earth due to increased Solar luminosity. But we don't have an article on The coming climate apocalypse because it's a hyperbolic claim that lacks clear meaning.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: did you even read the article you provided as evidence? The content of the article, you provided, is not a hyperbolic claim. And for the title: "Apocalypse" (ἀποκάλυψις) is a Greek word meaning "revelation", "an unveiling or unfolding of things not previously known and which could not be known apart from the unveiling".; so by that meaning and by the meaning of something dreadful it fits. If your power has gone out &/or your home has burned down &/or you or your loved ones have been harmed or even killed; you might very well completely agree with the word choice in the title: i.e. still RS. X1\ (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I did. This is becoming uncivil. Please stop badgering me. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, I've struck the only word I imagined you could find uncivil, and unbolded. I am disappointed to see you say you feel badgered. This is not about you, the wp:rsn thread is to determine the status of a source, preferably something resembling a consensus.

There ten eleven that fit "generally reliable", one that says Generally seems excellent quality, and your's which is not only not "generally unreliable" it is "Not reliable" (never reliable, so presumably closest to "deprecate"). "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and your comment is an extreme outlier. You have shown no backing evidence and your argument appears to be lacking in merit; which leads me to believe you either have personal animosity toward the source and have been unable to be objective, or you are here to be disruptive. Both would imply you are "not here". X1\ (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Corrected to "eleven". X1\ (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary. X1\ (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for all purposes - In 2019 alone, so far, this decade-old organization of more than 75 journalists has won dozens of journalism awards, including a Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing. Anyone who calls an organization for investigative journalism, much honored for its factual accuracy, as "obviously partisan" is betraying their own political bias — like those who dismiss such factual science as evolution as somehow "liberal." I don't even know how this isn't a WP:SNOWBALL discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please strike per WP:NPA. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's ad hominem, yes but still nothing that needs be struck out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Direct quote from WP:NPA -- "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" Adoring nanny (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the unsigned comment directly above uses "affiliation" correctly. What the commenter quotes refers to: "Well, he's a member of the ACLU / NRA / New York Yankees, so he's wrong." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Found and added signage missing from above. X1\ (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You are arguing that "betraying their own political bias" does not refer to a perceived affiliation. I believe it does, specifically perceived political affiliation. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No. I am not saying "Don't believe him because he's a Democrat" or "Don't believe him because he's a Republican." It is absolutely factual to say that anyone who claims the neutral ProPublica is "obviously partisan" is commenting based on their own personal views and not on objective reality.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per their Pulitzer Prize and otherwise incredible work. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable ProPublica is used extensively by news sources, it makes no sense to think PP itself to be just reliable in areas of expertise. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. I’ll respond to Mark in that while ProPublica typically practices investigative reporting, they’re similar to the AP in that they break the news, and outlets pick it up after, as you’ve noted. Also: when picking up an article outide their bureau, it’s subject to the same editorial control and vetting. This is fairly standard, and as far as I know, they’ve never had to issue a major retraction. As the evaluations of the journalistic community’s generally say about ProPublica: “this is a journal for journalists”. It has one of the highest calibers of reputation in journalism internationally. Republication is part of their standard business model. Lastly, it has no professed bias, as you claim. The founders were once asked whether their political leanings would affect the content, and you can clearly see their response in the article. Bolstering that, their reputation is generally regarded as just supplying good journalism. It shouldn’t matter matter whether they’re a 24 hour news television channel, or a newspaper that simply repeats the investigative journalism of others. They’re about as reliable as you get. It’s not a source that regurgitates the news, but breaks it. None of your objections are rooted in any policy I’ve ever read. As far as WP:DUE, I had no real opinion before, burn simply commented on the sourcing and your mid characterization of it. But given the multiple secondary sources that have started pouring out since, it’s clearly worth a few lines. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Symmachus Auxiliarus "it has no professed bias, as you claim" is disproven in my later quotes near the top of them professing such. Note the nature or cautions for WP RS from statements on mission "the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform" and Balance "investigative stories make an argument rather than just capture both sides of an issue" and POV "some point of view is baked into investigative stories". This is simply the nature of their doing exposes in Progressive topics, it is what they forthrightly declare and raise money to do. Similar to muckraking is a part of the classical Progressive Era. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. Highly reputable, Pulitzer Prize-winning publication. This is not a close call. Neutrality^talk 01:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all purposes. Reputable, awards; there is nothing to assume publishing of "fake news". My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, exactly the things we look for in a high-quality source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (ProPublica)

• ProPublica#Awards is rather impressive. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Context? Has this been challenged somewhere? What was it being used for? I've not seen treating PP as a source be controversial in the past. If it's been unclear, it would be helpful to link past discussions (plaintext mentions of archives doesn't do much more than a search bar would). If past threads have been clear, we can just add it to RSP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Specifically, the RfC was spawned by this comment, but I have seen other surprising comments during semi-random general browsing. I have generally thought of ProPublica as well-respected investigative journalism RS, and with impressive detail at that. But I don't generally follow them, and only recently for the first time looked at their homepage. Maybe I have only seen the best quality works, may be it is on an author by author basis? So I wanted other comments. If some consensus-ish discussion is reached here, then I can point other editors it for reference. X1\ (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's ridiculous. The nature of ProPublica's work is the journalism itself, not the publishing. Its reporting is highly visible not because people visit its website but because publications like The New York Times pick up the stories. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• It looks like their concern is WP:DUE, not WP:RS (although they're somewhat related.) There are publications whose reputation is so weighty that when they give significant attention to a subject it is almost automatically WP:DUE; then there are ones that lack that automatic weight but which still clearly pass WP:RS. Without regard to the question of which one ProPublica falls into (it's usually a much harder and more context-sensitive question to answer than whether a publication passes WP:RS), I don't think they're suggesting it's unreliable, so there's not much for WP:RSN to say. That sort of question usually goes to WP:NPOVN (and generally doesn't get an easy answer, because, again, it's tricky.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the concern was DUE -- whether ProPublica alone was enough WEIGHT to get an article into Presidency of Donald Trump. It was posted to the TALK within hours of going online. (I generally suggest NOT just doing a copy-paste of whatever was in the mornings feed, and a 48 hour waiting period for WEIGHT and more information to show up.) Since then a couple major venues seconded it, but of circa 25 major venues that's all so far. It also has some issues of being an esoteric statistic and being phrased as a comparison to Obama rather than an absolute metric or across longer time period, but mostly it just hasn't hit DUE for consideration yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: for the Archives;

132 = a PBS Frontline investigation, coupled with ProPublica, a journal for journalists, published by people who came from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. = i.e. among high-quality RSs.

178 = ProPublica used as an RS.

213 = News organizations using a third-party fact checking service = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.

246 = Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, which is a (high-quality) non-profit, investigative journalism outfit that prouces such investivative pieces but instead/in-addition to publishing on its own niche website, offers them to its affiliated partners that have a broader reach. See ProPublica, which follows the same model at a national scale. = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.

251 = from other reliable sources such as Propublica or the Guardian = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.

263 = ProPublica has an expressed interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." = strong journalism quality, strong RS.

268 = ProPublica used as an RS.

X1\ (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ - again, nobody is saying they do not do some quality work, we're just saying by their own statements (such as this 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing."') they're whole goal and methods are crusading for Progressive topics by showing wrongdoing, so ... only going to show the numbers that advantage Progressive topics, and actually only show numbers in a way that makes things appear Wrong doing. They don't do balanced views or get responses or seek alternative explanations or show something going right even on the Progressive side, they just seek for the expose. For any external writer guest piece, I couldn't say it's the same quality of editorial control but would say it's still going to fit to the model of limited scope and POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting criteria, but none of it is relevant to the source's reliability, while seeming POV-violating as well.--Ronz (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• So, Markbassett you believe spotlighting of wrongdoing is only progressive politics? I strongly disagree. Can you provide RSs to back the claims you are making? X1\ (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ no I said that was spotlighting of wrong-doing for Progressive topics. (I.e. About Immigration, Health care, Education... Civil rights, Criminal justice, Environment, Gender issues... they typically don’t spotlight wrongdoing for other concerns.) Investigative pieces seeking wrongdoing on Progressive topics are a description of how they’re focused. I have seen at least one piece other than ‘spotlighting of wrong-doing’, but just ONE seems rare. Feel free to try offering contrary evidence that most pieces are not exposes, or that most topics are not Progressive (or say Liberal), but I think you’re speaking contrary to obvious facts and their own self-declarations there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: why would you believe Immigration, Health care, Education... Civil rights, Criminal justice, Environment, Gender issues are "Progressive topics"? Donald Trump and his supporters would strongly disagree. X1\ (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Tbf that's not even evidence of bias, let alone unreliability. On the same note one could try to discredit e.g. a medical journal because it focuses on such a topic, and for the most part ignores a plethora of topics you haven't listed such as stamp collection and model trains. You could of course say that there exists a context of such sources focusing on this selection of topics being generally suspicious, but that would not be a statement of fact, but of politics. Daß Wölf 21:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ addendum, note the Progressive nature in reform and social topics (environment, Womens rights, FDA) with authors and journalists muckraking is basically that of the classic Progressive Era. Basically "Progressive" caries with it a Moral foundations theory framework of different topics, approaches, and criteria for seeing the world; one can have a debate a Conservative as a Liberal, and both POVs feel 'right'. "Progressive" does not mean "Democrat" -- it can be against "Liberal" (think recent infighting of branches of Democratic debates) and neither is necessarily Democratic in party. "Progresive" seems just one in the definition of terms, e.g. "Conservative" is not the opposite of "Liberal" or The Three Axis Political Spectrum and Political language is broken and we need to fix it. People might describe themselves as a mix, e.g. "socially progressive and fiscally conservative", and one can see "Blue Dog" democrats that are pragmatic, fiscally conservative, pro-defense, & appealing to mainstream values of the American public. ... "Progressive topics" is a descriptive, just go with it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: Medium is considered generally unreliable. X1\ (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• X1\, you beat me to it! It's a sad day when even defenders of the GOP and Trump recognize that an 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"' is a "Progressive topic", rather than a conservative topic. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be (back in Eisenhower's day) that the GOP prided itself on exposing corruption, rather than covering it up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, exactly! I love how "fighting corruption" is somehow "Progressive." All investigative journalism fights corruption and criminality by shining a spotlight on it. Unless one is suggesting that allowing corruption is "Conservative," then one can't suggest that fighting corruption is "Progressive." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

References

The Guardian

This newspaper has an inherent left wing bias in all it's articles, It's op-ed pieces are often anti-semetic. Why is it considered as a reliable source for anything?80.0.45.128 (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian is covered at WP:RS/P. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Here's a list of awards received by The Guardian and a list of past discussions on The Guardian's reliability. Do you have any specific examples that would support your claims against The Guardian's reliability? — Newslinger talk 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• The Guardian is an eminently RS. Apparently offense has been taken that it accurately describes Milo Yiannopoulos as "Far Right". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• WP:RS is about having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about being unbiased. A source simply having a perspective you find objectionable isn't sufficient to make it unreliable; see WP:BIASED. The question when dealing with such sources (and I'm not sure the Guardian would even qualify as such relative to news media as a whole) is whether its perspective or bias influences its reporting. There's a huge difference between a source like The Guardian that simply has a particular perspective and one that (for instance) was created to advance a perspective or which systematically has that perspective disseminated from above by a set of daily talking points as at Fox News; and even then, there's a difference between sources that work to advance a particular agenda (but do so 'fairly', ie. by reporting the news as it happens, if with a slant or with selective focus), and sources like the Daily Mail that just outright make stuff up, report stories with gross distortions, and otherwise don't exhibit the fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So? as has been said multiple times. BIas is not a reason for exclusion, if it was Fox would be banned, its not.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I almost feel that we ought to clarify that policy a bit to make a division between sources that have a clearly identifiable perspective (which to some extent all sources have, though they differ in how much it influences their tone and how much effort they make to erase it from their coverage), and sources that are intentionally biased, ie. they get daily memos from above telling them how to slant their news or were created with the intention of influencing politics. Currently WP:BIASED lumps the two together in a way that is somewhat misleading - the former are far more reliable than the latter and, when high-quality, generally do not require in-line citations, whereas the latter should be avoided. The Guardian, obviously, falls into the former camp; they have a perspective, yes, but there's no indication that they push it in any formalized way. While it's true that you could technically describe both Fox and The Guardian as biased, there is a substantial difference - Fox's bias is formalized and part of its institutional mission, which is a much more serious issue. (And I don't mean to make this just about Fox - it's also a major issue when people try to use think tanks as sources, citing WP:BIASED. Yes, they're sometimes usable, but a think tank generally exists to advance a particular perspective, so they have to be used far more cautiously than a source that lacks institutionalized bias. In particular it can be presumed that sources with such bias will often omit or downplay details unflattering to their position, even if they are fully-reliable otherwise.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

All bias media sources, Fox included should not be used as a RS for any project such as this. If a source is not centre and independent, then you cannot trust what they are reporting is true, or what facts are being ommitted to suit the bias of their articles. But if this is how wikipedia works then so be it. It will continue to be a joke in scholarly circles. Kind Regards J 80.0.45.128 (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia (RSP entry) is not a reliable source, and I would certainly hope that no academic publication directly uses content from Wikipedia, except for the purpose of studying or quoting Wikipedia itself. All readers are advised to exercise due diligence when using Wikipedia for research.

On media bias, our neutral point of view policy requires us to balance biased sources with sources representing other perspectives in proportion to their due weight. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (WP:DUE) The result is a neutral article not obtained by limiting ourselves to extremely neutral sources like the Associated Press (RSP entry) and Reuters (RSP entry), which would unnecessarily restrict our coverage, but by forming an accurate reflection of the world around us. — Newslinger talk 22:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Grauniad has a solid reputation for fact-checking and draws clear distinctions between news and editorial content. It has won many awards for high quality journalism. It is a reliable source. Guy (help!) 16:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• While I generally dislike the use of news media as a source, so long as we do allow that any news media source should be used as a reliable source, the Guardian should. And I say this as someone who has been quite critical of Guardian reportage on a couple of topics; for instance, the Guardian was quite credulous both in its publication of Wikileaks data and also its reiteration of poorly sourced information in China stories. However, with that said, the Guardian has much stronger fact checking, editoral standards and corrections policies than most other news outlets. No news outlet is perfect, and Wikipedia is definitely too dependent on them in general. But the Guardian should be one of the last outlets we walk away from, not the first. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• The only thing I would simply be careful with on the Guardian is that they've taken a firm stance that climate change is real and they will fight disinformation related to it, so when it comes to how they write about climate change deniers/skeptics in terms of opinionated thoughts. eg if they started saying "This idiot John Q Smith thinks that a 1.5degC rise is normal.", we'd be very careful in repeating that on WP (best I know, they haven't done anything like that). Otherwise an RS. --Masem (t) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ah... climate change is real. François Robere (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Wow! Any source that doesn't take a "firm stance that climate change is real" is not a RS, and any editor who doesn't take such a stance should be topic banned from that topic area IF they push denialist opinions (forbidden WP:Advocacy) on those topic pages. The evidence is right up there with the theories of gravity and evolution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's not the question of whether CC is real or not, its how they would treat those that deny it with derogatory language because of the Guardian's firm stance to support that climate change exists. They can call people climate change deniers/etc. just fine, just that if they stoop to more derogatory terms, that's part of this "bias" and we should avoid including. --Masem (t) 02:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masem:, I don't believe you that the news side of the Guardian said, "This idiot John Q Smith thinks that a 1.5degC rise is normal," or anything remotely similar. Link, or it never happened. Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a hypothetical. I have never seen, nor would expect the Guardian to go there with a statement like that. But if they ever should, we should be careful of how to use that.--Masem (t) 04:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Masem:, the only other area I'd recommend caution is agricultural topics with the Guardian, as they don't have a great reputation for fact checking there or go too far into sensationalism (compared to say NPR that has a better track record) That's a little different than what you're bringing up, but in both cases, it wouldn't be a WP:SCIRS source and should have limited usage at best anyways. For this overall conversation, it's probably best for people to acknowledge it's not always a blanket reliable source, but the exceptions can be subject dependent or where source advocacy might go too far as you bring up. Too nebulous to discus further though except on a case by case basis. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• What you mean, Kingofaces, is that you disagree with them on agricultural/environmental issues. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• The Guardian doesn't outright fabricate stories, unlike The Daily Fail, but there are certain areas where caution should be exercised. It has put out anti-semitic stories in the past (see https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/06/averting-accusations-of-antisemitism-guardian) and probably should be topic-banned in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area. It is probably fine for most other topic areas though. Betty Logan (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Since The Guardian made the necessary corrections ("The words were replaced and the articles footnoted to reflect the fact"), I don't think this is enough to exclude The Guardian's reporting on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Guardian apologized for using politically incorrect language, and retracted the language when they received objections. — Newslinger talk 02:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as its op-ed pieces "often being antisemitic" is concerned, it's probably worth noting that Jonathan Freedland, "a leading liberal Zionist in the UK"[10], "was executive editor of the opinion section of The Guardian from May 2014 till early 2016"[11]. He and other Guardian journalists such as Jessoca Elgot also write, or have written, for The Jewish Chronicle.
As far as "all" its articles having a leftwing bias is concerned, writers from its list of contributors such as Max Hastings, Mark Lawson and Simon Jenkins might disagree.
    ←   ZScarpia   10:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian on Hong Kong protests

Is this Guardian article 'Society is suffering': Hong Kong protests spark mental health crisis a reliable source for citing that at least nine suicides have been linked to the 2019 Hong Kong protests? feminist (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Might be best to attribute it, but yes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, this is good RS. Does not require explicit attribution, except saying something like "reported/reportedly" to not be in WP voice. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. I would attribute this to The Guardian since I don't see other sources explicitly corroborating the "at least nine" figure. Most sources acknowledge the suicides without providing a number. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not in this instance, no. The article says "Since June, protesters have tracked at least nine cases of suicides that appear to be directly linked to the demonstrations." (Emphasis added). Well I mean I sure don't trust what "the protesters" say. We can't, much as we support them; their job is to make the government look oppressive, not be pedantic with their facts, and important job it is. It's just not a job that fills our needs.

The Guardian then turns this into "Nine suicides have been linked...". They don't say by whom. So that moves it a bit away from pointing out that original source is going to be very biased.

And then they have "Public health advocates, NGOs and counsellors say the number of calls and threats of suicide they have received has increased..." (Emphasis added). Assuming that this is true and either The Guardian has had an independent fact checker call these people (using the reporters notes) OR they have a vigorously enforced "get your facts wrong three times and you're fired" (or whatever) policy for their reporters -- and I don't know if either of those are true, but assuming -- a bunch of calls and threats does not equal nine people dead. Ditto the Hong Kong U. study showing "It is not just the protesters who are at risk. A study by Hong Kong University released in July found nearly one in 10 were suffering from probable depression, as well as an increase in suicidal thoughts, from 1.1% at the start of this decade." One in ten of whom is not made clear, but it says "It is not just the protesters...", so I assume the population of Hong Kong generally, so we are still a long way from nine actual protestors dead.

And in fact and FWIW, the main interviewee of the story, Niko Cheng, also remains alive.

There is one -- one -- anecdote given: "Lo Hiu Yan, a 21-year-old piano student, who fell to her death from an apartment building on 29 June. She had written on a wall: 'Hong Kongers, we’ve protested for a long time, but we shouldn’t forget our faith. We must keep on'." OK. Even assuming that this is reported accurately, what are the names of the eight others and why are they not given in the article.

Don't get me wrong: I like The Guardian, in fact I look at it most days, and they are reliable for most facts and I've used them myself. And of course we all support the Hong Kong protestors. But The Guardian is not an utterly unbiased Fair Witness, I don't really trust Lily Kuo (the writer) and her editor to not have been a little loosey-goosey considering the subject, and the entire piece looks rather one-sided (did the reporter seek out an opposing view, anyone who might have said "well, we don't know if there are really nine people dead or if it's just a legend"). We don't want to pass along a Martin Šmíd type situation. Herostratus (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable - the Guardian is a reliable source end-of, in this case the figure should be attributed in the text but the sort of speculation above is personal opinion with no factual backup, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, like anyone, I might be wrong or I might be right, or more probably somewhere in between. But to dismiss my work as unfounded speculation and uneducated opinion is not helpful to what we are trying to do here, and arguments by assertion is not how we are supposed to roll on this board. So far the vetting of this ref, in total, has come to:

1) "Yes" (for attributed use)

3) "Yes, this is good RS".

2) "Reliable" (for attributed use)

4) "Reliable -- the Guardian is a reliable source end-of-[story?]" (for attributed use)

5) My contribution, which I guess is "personal opinion with no factual backup" if you like. =/

It's not a headcount here. There's nothing wrong with chiming in with a quick one sentence personal assessment of one's considered belief about a publication in general, and we're busy and sometimes that's all we get. But it's not really enough. It's just the best we can do, mostly. But anyone who believes that a source is going to be correct in all instances, to a level of confidence that we can take it to the bank... well, there aren't many such publications, and The Guardian sure isn't one of them.

Attributed use is a cop out because this is not an opinion, a review, or an interpretation. Nine people are dead or else they're not. It's not a matter of "According to Pinkcney Pruddle, the play is actually a metaphor for the manufacturing of ice cream" or whatever.

It there was a good chance that the statement was true, that'd be different. But there isn't. It's at least reasonably possible that the statement is not true. In fact, if I had to bet, my guess at this point would be that it is probably not true. If it's true, what are the names. How can we not know the names. We know the names of the Nine Martyrs of England and Wales, the Nine Martyrs of Cyzicus, the nine victims of Charleston, and forth. What's different about these nine. Get me the names for starters and then we can talk. At any rate, "who knows, it might be true" is a pretty low standard for including statements of fact in the Wikipedia, it says here, even attributed inclusion. Herostratus (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It is potentially a matter of interpretation, since whether a suicide is linked to the protests or not isn't necessarily unambiguous or clear-cut. And we can use in-line citations for statements of fact in situations like that - "CNN reported that..." and the like. This doesn't cast the figure into (much) doubt, but it makes it clear who is doing the counting. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• The dispute, as I understand it, isn't over whether it's reliable, but where or how to cover it (which isn't really an WP:RS issue.) It can definitely be covered in the article text, although I might use in-line citations if nobody else is saying it or other estimates differ. But I'd object to listing it in the infobox, because that gives the impression that this is a concrete official death toll and that no other deaths occurred, which isn't really what the Guardian source says - this is one small facet of the topic, worth covering in the body, but not appropriate to put in the infobox on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You understand wrong. I dispute that the source is reliable. Herostratus (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I understand the question as , should we include content that appear on newspaper but in fact a direct quote. I would say generally no, but sometimes as a context, such quote may have a merit to add to wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no quote. The Guardian itself says "Since June, protesters have tracked at least nine cases of suicides that appear to be directly linked to the demonstrations" and "The nine 'protest suicides' fuelled the early stage of the movement" (and, in the articles sub-heading, "Nine suicides have been linked to the wave of unrest"). No one is quoted.

So I guess the larger question is, how do we handle material that reported by a newspaper with no attribution to any individual person, and that probably isn't true? How is it helpful to the reader to throw stuff that probably isn't true into the mix, attributed or not? Could we say "According to The Guardian, the death of Martin Šmíd set off the Czech Revolution", even tho Martin Šmíd doesn't exist and never did? After all, we are not saying that he did. We're just reporting the true fact that The Guardian said that he did.

Except... that'd be misleading. We're not here to mislead the reader, is all.

How is the helpful to what we are trying to do here. And (in this case) can the reader go to the ref and figure out for herself it it true? She can't, beacause there's no evidence in the article. No one is quoted, no names are given, no documents are referenced, no investigation is done, only vague evidence is presented. (That'd not prove that those quotes or documents aren't lying for polemical reasons -- depends on who is quoted or what the documents are -- but at least it'd be something for crying out loud. we can rely on The Guardian to, almost surely, not make up people to quote or invent documents. The Guardian is reliable in that sense.)

I mean, just ugh. What is the point of all this. Person asked if the source was reliable for the fact. I vetted it and found that it isn't for this particular fact and demonstrated why. All I get is pushback with no actual counterargument. I get that the Hong Kong protesters are the good guys, but baseless propaganda for the good guys is still baseless propagands. Good grief.

Well I've made my point. It's the Wikipedia not the Herostratuspedia. If y'all want to print untrue things I can't stop you can I. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Is wikispooks.com a reliable source or should it be deprecated?

I see we use it in a number of articles[12] but take a look at their article "Conspiracy theory" - the quotes are theirs, most of their articles don't seem to have scare quotes. The lead says ""Conspiracy theory" is a label given to ideas which challenge an official narrative, held by people who are pejoratively termed "conspiracy theorists". This stems from the US deep state's efforts to promote the "lone nut" theory of the JFK assassination. The concept was later developed into a general purpose enemy image used to try to prevent the connection of deep events that the commercially-controlled media presented as isolated incidents. Post 9/11, it is the subject of pseudo-scientific study to limit freedom of speech by promoting the idea that the holders of such opinions are inclined to violence and deserve to have their civil liberties removed, in particular by subjecting them to internet censorship.'"

I'd argue that this is a site that should definitely be deprecated. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with that argument. Content is user generated "The site is written by volunteers", and "a few pages here have imported material directly from Wikipedia", and "The idea of "fake news", launched in 2016, appears to be a counterproductive attempt to boost flagging faith in corporate media". Seems about as reliable as an anonymous conspiracy theory blog. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No evidence of reliability. Guy (help!) 10:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No its not an RS. It seems to be another Wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• ”Depreciate” is the wrong word. I would simply call it Unreliable. “Depreciation” implies that there are at least some rare instances where it would be OK use it (example: when we depreciated the Daily Mail, we made an exception for its sports reporting) and, in this case, I can’t think of any situation where it would be appropriate to use it. We simply don’t consider user generated websites reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, yeah - obviously not a reliable source, and we should be taking a careful look at any of the pages you linked there that use it as a citation. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Obvious wiki is obvious. Having said that there is no need to actively depreciate such obviously unreliable sources. The number of such obviously unreliable sources is endless, and the vast majority are well covered under existing policy and common sense, without needing to evaluate them individually. GMG^talk 14:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Blacklist. Open wikis including WikiSpooks are categorically unreliable, as they are self-published sources that present user-generated content. If WikiSpooks is being cited inappropriately, it can go straight into the spam blacklist alongside Examiner.com (RSP entry) and Lulu.com (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 08:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, this is just another wiki and therefore not an RS. However, it is currently used only in 4 main space articles. No reason to blacklist which is the last resort against extreme spamming. Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  The spam blacklist is actually used more commonly than that. If a couple of editors add links to a spammy domain (e.g. a promotional self-published website about title loans or VPNs) to just a few articles, that domain would be eligible for blacklisting. The eligibility threshold for the blacklist (in terms of spam volume) is higher for websites that are more reliable and less promotional. — Newslinger talk 09:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not an RS clearly per our policy. We do not "deprecate" non-RS, we remove refs to them and warn the (very possibly) unsuspecting novice editors. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?

Please see the request for comment at § RfC: Quackwatch.

WP:SPS says: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (emphasis in original)

Prior RSNB discussions

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Stephen Barrett "Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?" Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#QuackWatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Plural medicine, tradition and modernity (Mentions Quackwatch and whether a book criticizing Quackwatch is an SPS, but no discussion about Quackwatch being an SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Quackwatch etc (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery "WP:SPS allows for this sort of sources "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.": This guy meets this with flying colors for the field of medicine and of quackery in medicine" but no actual discussion about whether Quackwatch is an SPS Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (Discussion about SPS in the last four comments of the thread) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 146#Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist? (No mention of SPS, but the article being discussed is a BLP) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 148#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 223#Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet (Discussion about Quackwatch, No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 252#Climatefeedback.org (a climate science fact-checking website) "[Climatefeedback.org is] Not technically WP:SPS. In order to be "self-published", a website must be under the sole proprietorship of a single person or definable ideological group. This is not the case with this source which is simply a fact-checking website. Compare Snopes, TalkOrigins, or Quackwatch" Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

Is Quackwatch a WP:SPS? Should it be excluded as a source on WP:BLPs? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Depends, no it should not be used (as long as it is an SPS per wp:sources for opinions about people, it could be used for critical analysis of their claims (but it would have to be their claims, not them).Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why are we starting this discussion when the discussion at BLPN is ongoing? GMG^talk 16:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

And [[13]] and [[14]]. But this is (I think) a better venue as this is about RS policy and what constitutes an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a self-published source and should not, per WP:BLPSPS, be used in BLPs or as a source on living persons elsewhere. That includes not using it for their claims. If there are no RS discussing the claims, then don't include those claims. Otherwise, we're violating WP:DUE, then violating WP:BLPSPS to demolish the UNDUE additions. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

As this is already being discussed at WP:BLPN#Quackwatch as a source on living person articles, is Quackwatch a SPS? it's not a good idea to bring it here as well. I wonder what would happen if there was a big disagreement between the two forums? Doug Weller talk 19:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• To avoid the potential for conflicting results... I suggest we simply close this discussion, and invite everyone to participate at the discussion at BLPN. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. BLPN is clearly the wrong place to talk about whether a source is a SPS. I propose that we recognize that the BLPN discussion is in the wrong venue and make the move in the other direction, leaving a link. Please respond in the "Proposed move" section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• We've been having this exact discussion about this exact article for over a decade, for the exact same reason: Null demanding that QuackWatch be removed, issuing legal threats demanding that, and sending people here to argue for it. The conclusion is always the same: QuackWatch is a reliable source for discussion of quacks and quackery. Guy (help!) 23:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• What Guy says. ∯WBG^converse 05:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Then WP:RSPSOURCES needs to be changed, because it does not say that. So it is giving the wrong advice, and is misleading, thus this will not go away.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Quackwatch is an SPS. Yes it should be excluded as a source for BLPs because is not a reliable source for BLPs (and probably most everything else) per WP:BLPSPS. It is self-published and it appears to lack independent editorial control. WP:USEBYOTHERS is weak. It is cited by publishers like the New York Post, AlterNet, the Daily Beast, Fox News, and Time. Although less of a concern, there is no evidence that the editorial process is independent of the commercial interest of the site (referral income from medically related products/services). On background, the owner of Quackwatch is a Psychiatrist who has not practiced medicine for 26 years.[15] Even if this blog were not self published, the principle that, if something is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it will have reported by other reliable sources, applies.- MrX 🖋 11:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Question - If the argument is that Quackwatch is SPS, and thus not appropriate as a source in a BLP... what about non-biographical articles about fringe medical practices or theories? Can we use it to say the practice or theory is “quackery”... but NOT use it to label the main proponent as “a quack” (etc). Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

To that point, if we had enough information for a standalone article on an fringe medical practices, that would 100% need to be supported by MEDRS-based sourcing (otherwise it would fail MEDRS). And to that end, if we are truly talking a fringe medical practice, the MEDRS sourcing is going to point that out, eliminating the need for QW, or at least no longer making it the only source to call it out. --Masem (t) 14:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is about BLP's only. There is no blanket ban on SPS's (as far as In know) for anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok... now let’s explore the grey area: non-biographical sections contained within biographical articles. It is not uncommon for a BLP about fringe proponents to contain a section outlining their theories/practices. Can SPS be used in these sections? Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would (as we do about ourselves) comment on content not the proponent. So it could be used to critique specific ideas, but not to call them names.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this source should be used anywhere without attribution. I also don't think we should WP:LABEL people as quacks or things as quackery, and certainly never in Wikipedia's voice. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should be used with attribution.

If reliable sources label people "quacks", then we do so.

Labeling things "quackery" (or something similar, such as "pseudoscience") is often required per FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is a content guideline, and as a guideline does not 'require' anything, it suggests.Dialectric (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quackwatch should not be used for biographical information where BLP applies. Quackwatch most certainly can be used in articles about a living person. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• While there may be some merit to limiting the use of SPS for talking about the person, experts can still be used for content about the person's actions and claims. QW and Barrett are such experts. BTW, keep in mind that much of the content at QW is not written by Barrett, so SPS does not apply. Those who appeal for blanket deprecation of QW are pretty clueless about the website and its content. This must be done on a case by case basis, just as with any other website. That is also the consensus in the many RfCs about QW. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a SPS and in any case its expertise is in fake medicine, not biographies. If an actor says they never get colds because they drink orange juice, then (depending on how they feel about them), tendentious editors will change the lead in their article to "actor and quack medicine advocate" and half the article will be about why vitamin C does not prevent colds. Besides, if information about an individual is ignored in mainstream media and reliable published books and articles, it lacks weight for inclusion in a BLP. TFD (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

Dictionary.com[16] A theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot: One popular conspiracy theory accuses environmentalists of sabotage in last year's mine collapse. A belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group: A number of conspiracy theories have already emerged, purporting to explain last week's disappearance of a commercial flight over international waters. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public: Merriam Webster:[17] A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators The Free Dictionary:[18] A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act. The belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied Collins Dictionary:[19] A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely. Lexico (Oxford):[20] A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event. Your Dictionary:[21] Any theory that purports to explain something by ascribing it to collusion among powerful conspirators: a usually dismissive term implying that the theory is far-fetched, paranoid, etc. (Definition is from Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition) Wiktionary:[22] A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. [1960s] (Dismissive, derogatory) Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish. Usage notes: The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form. ...but of course we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so please see: Britannica: [23] Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy... The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories is typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources. Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR):[24] A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quackwatch is perfectly appropriate for articles on BLPs and is not really a SPS. It is peer reviewed. It is published by an organization with a reputation for accuracy. It deals with a topic area in which a lot of people are trying to promote themselves and provides a rare bit of balance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James, Quackwatch should be used for BLPs--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you are confused Quackwatch today with how Quackwatch operated 11 years ago. Today it isn't published by an organisation - it is fully owned by Steven Barrett. It is also not "peer reviewed" in the academic sense, but instead Barrett sometimes (and not always) has articles checked by an anonymous expert before he publishes them. It may well be a reliable source, but to say that articles written by Barrett, edited by Barrett and then posted to Barrett's own website by Barrett based on Barrett's decision to do so are anything other than self published is a bit of a stretch. - Bilby (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Describing Quackwatch as 'peer reviewed' threatens to degrade the concept of peer review. The site currently has no public peer review policy, editorial policy, or ombudsman; together, this typically indicates lower quality and reliability. Along with the indications that this is largely the work of Barrett himself with little outside input, describing this site as a SPS or personal blog seems more accurate than describing it as 'peer reviewed'. Dialectric (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just want to point out that "use as a source on BLPs" is not the same as "use as a source about living persons". An SPS can be a reliable source on a BLP article if it is used to verify information not about a living person, but it cannot be a reliable source for any information about a living person even if the information is only mentioned in passing within a non-BLP article. The key is what information the source is used to support, not whether the source is on an article primarily about a living person. This distinction should be made clear, particularly if we are having future discussions or RfCs on this topic. feminist (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Quackwatch as a source on living person articles, is Quackwatch a SPS?

I wasn't aware of the BLPN discussion when I posted this here, but now that I know about it, let be say that BLPN is the wrong place to talk about whether a source is a SPS. I propose that we move this BLPN discussion here, the correct venue, leaving a link. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh who cares. That's bureaucratic silliness. Consensus is not dependent upon venue. GMG^talk 00:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is. Different venues attract editors with different interests and expertise. If you ask a question at BLPNB you get responses from people who are particularly interested in BLP issues. In this case there is nothing specifically related to BLPs to decide. Everyone agrees that if Quackwatch is an SPS then it must be excluded from BLPs, and everybody agrees that if Quackwatch is not an SPS then it is a reliable source that can be used on BLPs. The only question is whether Quackwatch is or is not a self-published source.

If you ask the same question at RSNB you get responses from people who are particularly interested in classifying sources, which is what we are trying to do here. Yes, there is considerable overlap in interests, but you can't ask a question about, say, paid editing at the No Original Research Noticeboard and expect that the answer will be the same as it would be if you posted the question at the Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard where it belongs.

When you put a question in the wrong place, the editors who are best at answering that sort of question tend to miss it. So posting questions in the proper venue is important. There is an essay on this at Wikipedia:Use the right venue which says "If you try to start a discussion in the wrong place, it won't be seen by the right people" --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You were not aware. Now you are aware. It is best to keep centralized discussion centralized. GMG^talk 02:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Centralization is good. I like centralization. I am perfectly willing to move the BLPNB thread here, but for some strange reason I suspect that you or someone else will object. I am NOT willing to close down a thread that is in the proper venue just because someone posted a similar question in an inappropriate venue earlier. I would also add that pretty much all of the previous conversations on this (see my list above) have been here on RSNB. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the venue for discussing RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Far from bureaucratic silliness, there are multiple tangible benefits to discussing things in the places designated for them. I won't attempt to enumerate them here. Oh who cares. For starters, Guy Macon, Slatersteven, and me. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please move the two conversations to the RSNB? I would do it, but I am past my quota for being called a pedophile nazi bedwetter cabal leader for this month, and it is only the 4th... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved from BLPN

There has been a discussion about Quackwatch being used on articles for living people. [25]. User Bilby says Quackwatch should not be used on articles of living people because it is a self-published source [26], and has removed Quackwatch as a source from some articles.

What is the consensus on this? This is the first time I have seen someone describe Quackwatch as a self-published source. User Bilby says "Quackwatch is a self published and partisan source. While it is reliable on scientific matters, under BLP policy we are not allowed to use an SPS to make claims about a living person." Is this right or not? The problem is that Quackwatch is being used on hundreds of Wikipedia articles for living people. I would hate to see Quackwatch removed from these articles, as it would take a lot of time to find replacement references. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I will not comment on SPS, but will on "partisan", it may well be. The problem is that it is by experts in the fields it tackles. Thus I think that "partisan" is a non starter.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok if consensus has changed, but Quackwatch is listed on WP:RSP as "Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert". Barrett does have an advisory committee, but according to Barrett that committee numbers "1000's", so I assume that they don't have direct editoral control. It is fully owned by Steven Barrett, although about 11 years ago it was managed through a non-profit he set up. Barrett says that some (most?) articles are reviewed to check scientific claims, but not all articles are reviewed [27], and that news articles are not usually reviewed prior to publication. I checked the list of recent articles, and all are authored by Stephen Barrett. As far as I can tell, Barrett publishes it himself, writes the articles, and uses his community of advisors to check scientific claims, but ultimatly is the author and the one in editorial control.

From my reading, it is a self-published site that gets input from advisors and is written by a subject-matter expert, which seems in keeping with WP:RSP. On scientific issues it should continue to be seen as written by an expert and used under WP:PARITY, and as a respected expert Barrett's opinion on issues and people are valuable and worth mentioning. But in terms of factual statements about living people presented without attribution, I see it as a good quality self published source, but ultimately still self published. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

All news media are published by themselves SPS means the person writing it has also published it. Thus an article by Barrett on Quackwatch Would be an SPS, an article written by someone else published there would not be.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

But we list is as an SPS, as such it is not (according to policy) admissible to use in a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I have yet to find a recent article written solely by someone other than Barrett. No article listed under "recent articles" on the site was, but I'm open to the possibility that some are written by other people and would not, in that case, be self published. - Bilby (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Just on the above, I've found some articles with someone else as the author. So far all were published between 15 and 20 years ago, but in that sense those articles wouldn't be self published. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm uncertain why Quackwatch is being treated as an WP:SPS. However, assuming it is, my question is how strict the blanket prohibition on using reliable expert WP:SPS sources for BLPs is. I know there is a carve-out on WP:SPS for WP:ABOUTSELF (vexatious though it may be). Is this another place where there is an exception? No questioning that Quackwatch is published by experts. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We did have a series of RFCs about a year ago on this, with apparant consensus being that we don't want to make an exception to BLP for fringe topics [28]. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• My take on BLPSPS is to make sure that there is some type of editorial control on the source to make sure that this is not one person venting on a BLP without any serious fear of repercussions. The editorial control means that a serious accusation has been vetted to affirm (to the source's best knowledge) to be true or likely to be true. (That still might turn out wrong as recently happened with the NYTimes, but editorial control also means they redact statements and issue erratas to fix that). We assume that that editorial control does not exist at an SPS. (It's also why BLPSPS allows only the BLP's own SPS to be used to back claims about themselves and only about themselves, they are the only person they can talk with authority on).

So that question now turns to whether Quackwatch is an SPS, and while it seems to meet that, the fact that 1) it has a volunteer network of experts in the field to review quasiscience/medicine claims with the site owner then writing that information up, 2) does appear to have some type of process that while I would not call "editorial", is there to make sure that their volunteers are not slandering BLPs per [29], and 3) has often been cited in mainstream sources as a reasonably expert source, means to me that it should not immediately be taken as a BLPSPS, but I would strongly recommend not have it as the only source pointing out a BLP of quackery, because of the fact that most of the volunteer experts are anonymous at QW. I would find it hard that in relation to a BLP, QW would be the only such site. --Masem (t) 14:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I take issue with removing Quackwatch because there is a larger picture here. If we start removing reliable skeptical websites like Quackwatch from Wikipedia because it is apparently a self-published source, then this will also effect other valid skeptical sources. Robert Todd Carroll owner of a website Skeptics Dictionary which is similar to his book The Skeptic's Dictionary. Have a little search for the Skeptics Dictionary (skepdic.com) on Wikipedia. The source has been used many times on articles for deceased and living people in relation to their pseudoscientific claims. Are you saying we should remove this source as well? Brian Dunning's Skeptoid website is also used many times on Wikipedia in regarding to living people's claims. I do not believe we should be removing any of these sources. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We have polices for a reason, and they apply to all. Ask to change policy, do not ignore it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So are you personally going to remove Quackwatch, Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptoid from hundreds of Wikipedia articles of living people? I think not! 81.147.137.6 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Mostly they won't be being used incorrectly so it won't be a concern. - Bilby (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's usually fine. Attribute it. Make sure it is about FRINGE claims. Take care with it's use. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• We've been through this before. Quackwatch is self-published, and self-published sources are not allowed on living persons per WP:BLPSPS, even if written by experts in the field as permitted by WP:SPS. (And note that "expert" means an expert in the field under discussion, not a generic scientist.) If you want to change the policy, please go to WT:BLP, but bear in mind that a relatively recent effort to change it failed. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• SarahSV, you forget that we are not discussing legitimate "fields" of scientific endeavor. You wrote: "'expert' means an expert in the field under discussion, not a generic scientist." If the field is a legitimate scientific "field", then that certainly applies, but the "field" of quackery and health fraud detection and exposure is a very different animal. The pseudoscientific "experts" in the "fields" of quackery they practice are sometimes simplistic true believers, but they are also often sneaky criminals.

To understand this, look at the endeavors to expose counterfeit money. The real expert is the trained federal agent (Barrett, Doc James, and other trained physicians and scientists), not the counterfeiter (Gary Null, Samuel Hahnemann, Hulda Clark, Max Gerson, etc.). They know the basic principles of science and can recognize BS when they see it. Experts like Barrett and James Randi take this to the next level. They have so much experience dealing with quackery that they also recognize the various types of tricks that quacks use in their claims and practices, tricks which can often fool the ordinary physician or scientist. So these people are experts in the "real thing" AND the "fake thing". It's true that "Training in identifying counterfeit currency begins with studying genuine money", but it goes much further, and that's why we can't depend on ordinary doctors as experts in quackery, and why Barrett's expertise is so valued by federal and consumer protection agencies. His books are valued classics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• You really need to think differently about this. While there may be some merit to limiting the use of SPS for talking about the person, experts can still be used for content about the person's actions and claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, the distinction between a person and that person's views is a distinction without a difference. Can you post two things here, please? First, can you post examples of Quackwatch articles not written by Barrett? Second, can you give examples of the "tricks which can often fool the ordinary physician or scientist" that you mention above, that only people like Barrett can spot? Finally, if as you say Quackwatch is used as a source by mainstream reliable sources, then we can use those sources instead. That's how we normally handle primary sources and SPS that we don't want to use directly. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• It should be treated as an SPS if the publication belongs to the single moderator (Stephen Barrett). However, some usage on BLP pages is fine, as on page Jim Laidler, where the subject (Laidler) has published something on Quackwatch. Besides, I do not see it used on many BLP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It is being used on quite a few BLP pages. I just counted about 38 pages (that was only a few minutes looking). I think we are all in agreement that it can be used if Stephen Barrett is not the author of the said article. For example, one popular article on Quackwatch that has been used on BLP pages is Jack Raso's Dictionary of Metaphysical Healthcare. If Stephen Barrett is not the author and the said author is an expert, then there should be no problem using Quackwatch on BLP pages. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you check that many of these people are no longer living? If so, that could be checked, but a lot can depend on context. If this is clearly a defamatory claim by the moderator with regard to a living person, then yes, such claim should be removed per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

81.147.137.6, using Quackwatch as a source for living people is a policy violation. The only exception is if the author of the Quackwatch source is the subject of the BLP. That is the sole exception to BLPSPS, namely that you can be used as a source about yourself even if self-published. Otherwise no: not articles by Barrett or by anyone else. BLPSPS is part of a core content policy. Also pinging Bilby. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That was what the last RFC determined. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the link to RFC or any previous conservations about this? Users still do not know what the consensus is on this even though you have explained it here, I didn't know about it either. It be worth making this more public so future users know about it because I am sure this will be raised again in the future. Thanks 81.147.137.6 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Desclaimer: I started to copyedit the Gary Null article which I do see is using Quackwatch as a source. I will not be editing sources on that article. However, use of Quackwatch in a BLP article is a policy violation. Especially, as editors, we have to diligent if we dislike the living person, do not respect him or her and worse. We must be the ones who are neutrally driven knowing Wikipedia is not the place to "pay back" the subject of the article, alert the reader, nor do we have the right to attempt to destroy a reputation. It's very, very simple. The source is not compliant. If there are other compliant sources for the same content why would we even consider a non-compliant source. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I see a long drawn out discussion below which I missed when I wrote this. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Break 1

Bilby, the key is in your words here: "But in terms of factual statements about living people presented without attribution, I see it as a good quality self published source, but ultimately still self published."

It should not be used "without attribution". Barrett's opinions are the opinions of a notable expert and can be used, but with attribution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Often QuackWatch is the best source on the subject in question, as good sources when it comes to alt med are often few and far between. If used it should of course be attributed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Doc James and BullRangifer: no self-published sources can be used about living persons. WP:BLPSPS is part of core content policy. Ignoring it may have legal implications for individual editors and for Wikipedia. It's not a question of attribution. It's whether there is an editorial process, a fact-checking process, a publisher willing and able to take legal responsibility. All those issues inform and curtail what organizations can publish about living persons. This editorial structure is entirely absent when it comes to SPS. That's why we don't allow them in BLPs, unless it's the BLP subject talking about themselves. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• The source is peer reviewed. It is published by Quackwatch. So not really self published. No different than using a paper published by Richard Horton in the Lancet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James interpretation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quackwatch is owned and published by Barrett, so yes, if he publishes articles he wrote himself on a website that he owns and is the editor of, then he is self publishing. The Lancet is published by Elsevier, not Horton, and Elsevier in turn is owned by RELX. Lancet has a peer review process through which only 5% of papers are accepted, most of which are rejected in house and don't make it to the full peer review stage - if they do they are reviewed by at least three experts in the field. According to Barrett, Quackwatch articles may be checked by another person depending on the topic and how coinfident Barrett feels about the material, and most news articles undergo no peer review. I don't see that the two are comparable. - Bilby (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's right. Something published in The Lancet is not remotely comparable to something publishing on one's own website. See WP:RS. - MrX 🖋 15:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• And even the WP:ABOUTSELF carve-out in WP:BLPSPS isn't carte-blanche if a self-published statement about a subject was seen as unduly self-serving. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I would take that to mean about the person themselves, but would not apply it to other content in an article about the person, such as the work and claims of the person. If that is not clear in the policy, it should be made clear. We always handle content and person(s) in articles differently, just as we do in talk page discussions (discuss the content, not other editors). This is where we need to use some common sense.

As to legal liability, if we are REpublishing claims made on the internet, even false and libelous claims, we are covered by a legal ruling which involved Stephen Barrett himself (the irony!): See: Barrett v. Rosenthal. Only the original publisher can be sued. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are good sources when it comes to alt med few and far between? Could it be that the content is not notable (in which case policy says it should be excluded) or that more reputable publications don't want to attach their names to the kind of statements that QuackWatch makes? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Зенитная Самоходная Установка, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources. This is the policy that enables us to cover these fringe topics. See my outdented comment below about this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This might be more an aside, but I'm getting the impression from those that really want to keep QW that there seems to be a need to make sure that WP calls out on people that are engages in pseudo-science/alternative medicine/etc. - the stuff at the FRINGES - to remind readers this stuff is FRINGEY. When there is clear scientific-based claims (MEDRS/SCIRS) to demonstrate the FRINGE, that's fine, but I'm reading between the lines here and it looks like there's a drive that even when the FRINGE factors aren't covered in MEDRS/SCIRS sources, that there's a need to make sure to call out the apparent FRINGE (eg in this case, using QW as the key source). I clearly understand that when there is something proven to be FRINGE by MEDRS/SCIRS sourcing that we make sure that that's well established to avoid giving readers the impression that the FRINGE may be true. But we seem to be dealing with cases here of suggested alternative medicine/etc. where subject-matter expert editors on WP can see the suggested science is FRINGY ("Eat nothing but chocolate to lose 50 lbs in a day!") but no appropriate RS has commented on that, outside of something like QW. At that point, is it really our place to try to make sure that this is identified as FRINGE, or should we be waiting for more sources to do that? I mean, we should be very wary of also including claims that are not backed by MEDRS sources, that's one thing. If a person is notable for this hypothetical chocolate diet, but we lack MEDRS to support it or refute it - outside QW - we may not be able to treat it as FRINGE and only as asserted claims. (Which to that end, UNDUE tells us it is inappropriate to go into excessive details about said claims). That is, we should consider what sourcing gives us to be able to distinguish between appropriately-sourced disproven FRINGE and yet-validated asserted claims, and from reading comments about, QW should only be the source making that distinction. --Masem (t) 14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If a Fringe source cannot be identified as fringe except through reference to Quackwatch or other WP:SPS sources, WP:FRINGE would suggest the page should be deleted. I know there's a strong sentiment against "wikipedia is silent on this issue" WRT quacks and pseudo-medical cons, but otoh, an encyclopedia is not a clearinghouse of all information everywhere, and not every quack needs an article here exposing their quackery. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that if the only facet a BLP is notable for is a yet-proven-or-disproven FRINGE concept like a fad diet, then we are better off not covering it per MEDRS. But there will be cases of people already notable for other things that then add in this type of fad diet or other PSCI concept to their resume, which gets covered in non-MEDRS reliable sources. Do we remain completely mum on that? I don't think we can, but we can keep the nonsense to a minimum by inline attribution and only making the very top level assertions. "Dr. Smith later introduced his all-chocolate diet, which he claimed helped to stimulate the body to consume fat and lose weight." -- and nothing else until at least some MEDRS stepped in to call it bad science. Using QW for that purpose seems wrong. --Masem (t) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources often applies to the situations where QW is good to use. Many alternative medicine subjects are so fringe that they are ignored by peer reviewed and other mainstream sources, but QW and a few other RS will still examine and comment on them. This helps us stay true to our mission, which is to document the "sum total of human knowledge." Unfortunately pseudoscience, quackery, and scams are part of that reality, and we should not leave a hole in our coverage because the big name university sources don't comment on some of these fringe issues which are very notable in fringe sources we can't use, and which cause death and suffering to so many. QW serves us quite well by bringing a science-based mainstream POV magnifying glass to the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

But again per WP:V, if something is not covered by good RSes, we should not try to coerce "poor" sources to make that inclusion, and to me, that would include trying to disprove quack science. And if what Bilby says is true about QW being not seen as an RS from a previous RFC, then we can't QW as the only source disproving quack science without violating BLP. --Masem (t) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I'm not sure where they get the idea that "QW being not seen as an RS from a previous RFC". Most RfCs about QW have rated it a RS, sometimes to be used with caution, and sometimes to be attributed, but never an unreliable source we can't use. I suspect a misunderstanding or an exceptional situation due to a specific misuse of QW. No source is reliable in all situations, and all sources are unreliable in certain situations.

There is a lingering misunderstanding about QW created by an ArbCom case filed against me by a fringe medical person who came to Wikipedia with the sole purpose of attacking me. They were indeffed. The ArbCom decision contained some unfortunate wording which implied that QW was an unreliable source. Much later we got that wording changed to remove the slur. Follow the links here: User:BullRangifer#Vindicated_regarding_AE_case_and_Quackwatch!

QW is generally a RS for alternative medicine, fringe health claims, and quackery subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where the RFC that SarahSV/Bilby have mentioned is linked, and I think its necessary to see that to comment further. --Masem (t) 17:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Here the link from above to the RFC: [30]. The issue seems to be that a WP:SPS is not appropriate on a WP:BLP regardless of whether it is otherwise a WP:RS, with no consensus for an exception for WP:FRINGE topics. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I never knew about those RfCs. They were both withdrawn. A quick scan of the page shows that QW was only mentioned in a positive manner, but I may have missed something. The bottom line is that the RfCs were withdrawn, so the previous RfCs about QW still apply, and there is no exception made for BLPs. The same rules apply to QW as to all other RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the rule is that a RS that is a SPS cannot be used on a BLP. The same rule applies to QW. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The way I read that close and discussion, it basically means there's no concensus to "weaken" BLPSPS for FRINGE-related topics. Which is what I suspected and echos my point above about whether we are supposed actually call out fringy stuff that no real RS has actually called out fringe. And leaves the question if QW is an SPS or not. My guy from everything I read says "yes", but again, it can be used if other RSes have already called out the quackery. --Masem (t) 18:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

...are not allowed on living persons... @SlimVirgin:, you're the only person using that phrase. What does it mean? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

...cannot be used on a BLP. @Wallyfromdilbert:, you use similar wording. What does that mean? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The phrasing is awkward and ambiguous. You mean that such sources cannot be used about a person who meets BLP criteria? --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, what do you find awkward about it? WP:BLPSPS says (bold in the original): "Avoid self-published sources: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I asked for clarification for what you wrote. Your response doesn't help in the slightest. Your phrasing isn't what I'd consider grammatically correct, but at best is awkward and ambiguous. Do you mean that such sources cannot be used about a person who meets BLP criteria? --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm not sure what you mean. We're talking here about living people who have biographies on Wikipedia or who are mentioned in other articles. When writing about those people, we must not use self-published sources, unless the source was written by the person in question. In other words, if someone is writing about themselves, it does not matter whether the source was self-published, but otherwise it is not allowed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing that you used, that I quoted, was unclear. You've now clarified it to my satisfaction: Such sources cannot be used about a person who meets BLP criteria. If you'd like further clarification from me, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• QuackWatch is a reliable source, cited by government websites and other authorities. it is not solely the work of one person, and even if it was there is no blanket prohibition on use of self-published sources in biographies - if we applied a "no third party self-published sources" rule and decided that QuackWatch is self-published we would arrive at the absurd situation where Null's claims could be repeated from his own mouth without rebuttal, since the reality-based community largely ignores him. We are being lectured on policy by User:Зенитная Самоходная Установка on the basis of their whopping 2,131 edits, and they came here because they read about this on Gary Null's website. Which is also where the earlier nontroversy was stirred up. Null tried to sue WMF to have this material removed a decade ago, the case was dismissed. He's recently started sending legal threats to editors. The cynic in me would think he has a publicity drive coming up and wants to purge Wikipedia of reality-based commentary on his activities.

M Quacks and charlatans hate QuackWatch. They have been demanding its removal from Wikipedia for as long as I've been here. The normal policy is to ignore them. I suggest we apply that now. Guy (help!) 23:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• JzG, Quackwatch is self-published. It's not a question of us deciding that. It's Stephen Barrett's website. Whether it's a single or group blog makes no difference. You write that without it "Null's claims could be repeated from his own mouth without rebuttal". But can those claims not be ignored instead? I've noticed this a couple of times with Holocaust denial. Wikipedians add their claims in detail, then use self-published sources to demolish them, because no Holocaust historian has addressed the details they're writing about. But there's a reason they don't bother, just as there's a reason scientists don't bother to demolish the claims under discussion here. By reproducing them, we're arguably spreading them, then we need SPS to demolish them. Is there not a way of writing the bio with non-SPS reliable sources only, perhaps a much shorter version? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• So basically you want to make an ad hominem attack against me, and then argue that we need to disregard BLP policy because it's more important to right a great wrong by exposing quackery, than it is to uphold a high standard of integrity and accuracy when it comes to biographies. What about Blackstone's ratio. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• The difficulty lies in writing about ideas viewed as harmful when there are few sources. Do we let a bad idea stand (e.g. no one died at Sandy Hook or Jews did 911), or do we use whatever sources we can find to make clear they are false? With the two examples I've given, there are lots of sources, but when you go off the beaten track you find fewer. You're then left with an ethical dilemma of how to present the information fairly and accurately. People do the best they can. I'm not familiar with the subject of this BLP, and I deliberately haven't looked in any detail, because I'm trying to respond to the principle not the particular. But it's hard not to notice the wide range of topics he covers. It would be difficult to have developed expertise in all those areas. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• To me it seems like Quackwatch sits in a sort of gray area when it comes to being an SPS or not. However, I also think that policies, including WP:FRINGE, explicitly prohibit "the absurd situation where Null's claims could be repeated from his own mouth without rebuttal". FRINGE states: "Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. Attempts by inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, are prohibited." and WP:BLPBALANCE: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all". By my reading, taken together the policies are pretty clear; if a fringe position has not generated enough notability to be covered by reliable sources, it has not generated enough reliability to warrant mentioning it in an article, as doing so so without rebuttal would certainly give the idea undue weight. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• SarahSV, you write: "But it's hard not to notice the wide range of topics he covers. It would be difficult to have developed expertise in all those areas." That's a red herring, as expertise in illegitimate topics is not necessary (even though he has it in many of them). You forget that we are not discussing legitimate "fields" of scientific endeavor. See my in depth response to you above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, when I wrote "It would be difficult to have developed expertise in all those areas", I was talking about the BLP subject. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes...? That ("those areas"...plural) is what I was talking about....the person(s) and their false claims. When that is your sole professional interest in life, it's easy to become familiar with the people who make the false claims, and the unscientific nature of the claims. It's not at all "difficult" for someone like Barrett to do that. Millions of other people also have great expertise over myriad topics in their special areas of interest. That's not an unusual claim. It's the nature of the beast for experts. They are supposed to be able to do what is "difficult" for non-experts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, I think we're talking past each other. When I made my "difficult to have developed expertise" comment, I was talking about Null, not Barrett. For example, according to WP (I have not checked this), Null has expressed a view on the HIV virus. But he is not expert in that field. Ditto with many other claims. That was my sole point. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• SarahSV, Oh my! That changes everything. Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Break 2

So basically what's going to need to happen is that Gary Null meets Jimbo at a cocktail party and makes a compelling case to him that his biography unfairly portrays him as a quack and therefore needs to be drastically truncated or deleted. But maybe those two don't attend the same cocktail parties, so such a chance meeting wouldn't happen, and even if it did, it's not like Gary is a celebrity.

Isn't there a Wikipedia:BLP ombudsman around here? No? I guess Jimbo is the de facto BLP ombudsman, since he's the only one who really has the clout to go against the administrative establishment in cases like this. If you really want to ensure the highest standards for BLPs, there has to be someone with authority to take action even in the absence of community consensus to enforce the BLP rules; and that would have to either be someone appointed by the WMF, or some elected position, or someone designated by the ArbCom, or something. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's extremely unlikely. Null has in any case already tried to have this material removed through legal action and the case was dismissed. Guy (help!) 22:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Зенитная Самоходная Установка, Guy is right. That is extremely unlikely to happen, especially from Jimbo:

Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans":

Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

We do not allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these articles shows that we must be doing something right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So are we now going to re-write wp:sources, because that is where people will go to check on a sources admissibility?Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well...QW does seem to be pretty unequivocally self-published. When I looked into it, I expected to find that it was a registered non-profit with some type of definite governance structure. Apparently it used to be, and they've now dissolved that bit in favor of being openly a personal website. So I'm curious to what extent we actually need to cite it. In the case of the first reference in Gary Null, as it turns out, we don't need to cite QW at all. We can instead cite a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper, who themselves quote Quackwatch verbatim. Voila. We actually improve the sourcing of the article by citing a secondary source, which presumably has vetted the SPS for relevance and accuracy.

The second citation, well it already has two books supporting it.

As for the third citation, hmm. Looks like we can instead cite Science-Based Medicine in their piece here. They actually do seem to be an established organization with a diverse board of editors and contributors, all of which seem to have a lot of fancy acronyms next to their names. A Yale clinical neurologist, a surgical oncologist, some pharmacy and anesthesiology. Seems to check out fairly well.

So I guess my question is, what bit of content are we actually arguing about?..the bit that is only supported by QW where no better source is available? GMG^talk 12:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That for me is the issue, why are we using an SPS when we do not need to, what function does it serve. It looks like a reverse of "I don't like it", and that seems to be it, Garry Null does not want us to use it so we must use it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't care at all about this Null fellow, and little about Quackwatch, but the integrity of Wikipedia behooves us to attempt to find sources better than just one man's website. (I should note that I do deprecate the usage of Quackwatch, as one man's website does not notability make.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

We can surely debate the merits of the principle behind WP:PARITY, and I surely have had occasion to do so. It's probably been a year or more since I needed to drop an RfC on the issue, something to do with blogs and external links IIRC, though I'd be hard pressed to even tell you what article it was about. But what we should be able to all agree on is that PARITY ought not be an excuse to use poor quality sources out of convenience rather than necessity. If we want to cite crappy sources out of convenience, well, RationalWiki is that-a-way, and this ain't it. GMG^talk 12:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A point to consider for those worried about FRINGE PSCI topics getting far too much coverage without the ability for using QW to call out its nonsense, in that WP:BLPSELFPUB exists too - excessive coverage of the details of a PSCI theory on a BLP would be "unduly self-serving". And even if there are normally-good RSes covering the PSI nonsense without calling out that nonsense (which becomes hard to believe), we can certain limit how much in the medical claim area is said by relying on WP:MEDRS to keep any non-peer reviewed claims - outside of high level summaries - out of these articles too. We can't call out quackery if we have to rely only on QW for that, but we can clearly limit how much of that quackery gets into WP. --Masem (t) 13:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• No - Does not fit the definition. ∯WBG^converse 18:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Winged Blades of Godric, what definition are you using? Quackwatch is run and (it seems) written by one person. There's no professional editorial oversight, no one who can say (with authority) "No, we're not going to publish that on this website." SarahSV ^(talk) 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• SarahSV, there is professional oversight, so your "No, we're not going to publish that on this website" statement is really bizarre and reveals you know little about the website. It's not a blog or a wiki. It's true that Barrett writes many of the articles, but there are probably more by other subject experts, and then there is also the fact that it's the largest database of documents, books, legal rulings, etc. on the subjects of medical history, quackery, health care scams, dubious practices, official government reports, reports by consumer protection agencies, etc., and much of that is only available at QW.

That massive amount of material is not written by Barrett. So if there is any question about SPS, it would only apply to articles written by Barrett, and you have no idea how many people helped gather that information, proofread, and give input, on those articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, there is no one who can say to Barrett, "no, we will not publish this on Quackwatch." If I'm wrong about that, and there is indeed an editor-in-chief and a publisher, and a staff that they control, please point them out. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV. That was not immediately clear to me from what you wrote: "There's no professional editorial oversight, no one who can say (with authority) "No, we're not going to publish that on this website."" It is correct that Barrett is the "Editor-in-Chief" at QW. He is the top "professional editorial oversight" at QW. Is there something wrong with that? Is that different than so many other websites and magazines where there is an Editor-in-Chief and a staff?

Even if he were the only author of all the content at QW (which is not the case by a long shot), he's still a recognized subject expert, and Wikipedia allows us to use such subject experts as sources in many situations, even if they write it on their own blog or other website format.

The relevant question here is whether we can use articles written by Barrett at QW (an SPS situation) in a BLP. (This MUST not be about QW as a source in a general and non-specific sense.) If there is any question about that SPS issue, then we should make it clear in the policy that this applies only to comments about the subject (person) of the BLP, not to the dubious claims they make, which are then described in their BLP article. It should be allowed that the subject expert, even a SPS, can be used for commenting on the person's claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• And, we might as well stop using Gorski's articles over SBM. ∯WBG^converse 05:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• SBM is published by the New England Skeptical Society, rather than Gorski, so I don't think that is a concern. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a thread over at RSN now, can we please not discuss this in half a dozen different forums?Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, Quackwatch is not a reliable source for BLPs (and probably most everything else) per WP:BLPSPS. It is self-published and it appears to lack independent editorial control. WP:USEBYOTHERS is weak. It is cited by publishers like the New York Post, AlterNet, the Daily Beast, Fox News, and Time. Although less of a concern, there is no evidence that the editorial process is independent of the commercial interest of the site (referral income from medically related products/services). On background, the owner of Quackwatch is a Psychiatrist who has not practiced medicine for 26 years.[31] Even if this blog were not self published, the principle that, if something is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it will have reported by other reliable sources, applies.- MrX 🖋 11:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  and probably most everything else Consensus says it is a reliable source. You're not going to change minds by repeating strawman arguments. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you care to link to the RfC where consensus was established that this blog is a reliable source? I'll wait. - MrX 🖋 16:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Quackwatch_an_SPS_and_thus_not_allowed_as_a_source_on_BLPs? Collapsed at the top of this discussion are a list of past discussions on the topic of the reliablity of Quackwatch, based upon Barrett being an expert at identification and analysis of quackery. You'll see the "he's not practiced medicine" strawman repeatedly. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If your complaint is that his retirement 26 years ago was central to my argument, let me assure you, it was not. I have looked at the other discussions, and I not finding any consensus that would permit us to ignore our core content policies. If I've missed it, please point it out, otherwise I will assume that it doesn't exist.- MrX 🖋 17:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My complaint is that this appears to be an IDHT situation. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I appreciate your input in the AmPol2 area. There you're an expert, but here you seem to be out of your depth and reveal little knowledge or understanding of QW and Barrett. QW is anything but a "blog". My comment above may enlighten you a bit. In fact, read this series of comments. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The only "oversight" documented on QW is a legal team (who aren't even named) to handle those potential issues. Barrett's team of volunteers are anonymous so we have no idea who they are. --Masem (t) 18:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Really? The only oversight documented on QW is a legal team?

"Are your articles peer-reviewed?"

"It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail. Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts. News articles are not usually reviewed prior to posting. However, the review process does not stop when an article is published. Complaints or suggestions from readers may trigger additional review that results in modification of the original version."[32]

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Who are those that oversee them? What are their names? Note that I am not saying the guy's lying nor are what he is publishing incorrect... but in the context of BLPs (About a person or the ideas they have presented), we have an extremely high standard as an encyclopedia to avoid questionable sources that put doubt onto a person. I go back to the fact that if no one else but QW has commented on the quackery of a BLP's claim, that wouldn't be sufficient to include. It is one source without any of the rigor expected of MEDRS. But again, we also don't give that much space for the quackery in detail, as we do not allow unduly self-servicing material. The checks and balances are there without having to make the SPS QW as an RS. --Masem (t) 21:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, that's an interesting take, but it's mostly your unvalidated opinion wrapped in an ad hominem. Your linked comment is unsupported by evidence and raises more questions than it answers (Professional oversight by who? Articles by what subject matter experts, published where?) If you would care to advance an argument that this self-published website should be elevated to the status of a reliable source, then you have the onus to show that it fits within the framework of our long-established policies. In my mind, the best way to do that is to show that other reliable sources routinely cite it, that it's under some sort of independent (from the author) editorial control, and that it has a reputation for fact checking. - MrX 🖋 18:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, sorry about that, but I don't know any other way to say it. (I'll comment on your talk page, as this must not derail the discussion.)

The attempt here is not to "elevate", but to "demote". Even more specifically, this is about a SPS/BLP situation, not a general RS situation.

QW has a long-established general status (by numerous RfCs) as a RS here. Now we're discussing whether it is a BLP violation to use this SPS. I contend that this specific rule should only apply to comments about the BLP "person", but the SPS source can still be used for comments on that person's false claims in their BLP article. That distinction is not apparent in the BLP policy, and we need to fix that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Could you please link to one of those "numerous RfCs" establishing Quackwatch as a reliable source? I asked an editor the same thing a couple of hours ago and all I got in return was an insult. - MrX 🖋 20:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, this is from the top of Talk:Quackwatch:

Enjoy. There's a lot of stuff there, and I suspect there are other RfCs that are not included. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

None of those (old) discussions were closed, or indicative of a broad consensus as far as I can tell. Proper RfCs seek outside input. The 10 year old Arbcom amendment (which barely passed) only says "The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned;" That's way different than saying "Quackwwatch is a reliable source".- MrX 🖋 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So there are no proper RfCs by today's standards? Is that a problem for say RSP? --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. Perhaps you could restate the question.- MrX 🖋 11:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant if we simply work from the RSP entry which does not indicate broad consensus for general reliability. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, you wrote: "...only says "The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned;" That is not correct. Motion 1 (which you reference) did not pass. Only Motion 1:1 passed. (It's the very last words on that page.) QW had been considered a RS before that ArbCom, but ONE admin put ONE misleading word ("unreliable") in a header (a provenly false "finding of fact"), and that action placed the status quo acceptance of QW as a source into question. Unfortunately no one noticed the implications of that mistake at the time.

After that, friends of quackery kept pointing to the ArbCom decision as permission to remove the existing QW sources from articles. The Amendment fixed that problem by removing the word "unreliable" from the header, thus ensuring the existing status quo acceptance of QW as a RS would no longer be questioned. (Now you're questioning it?!) Now editors can't point to that ArbCom case and use it against QW. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification about the correct amendment. However, I would not regard it a declaration that that quackwatch is reliable per se. It doesn't really matter anyway, because in the ensuing ten years, I think we have trended toward more stringent sourcing requirements for controversial content, especially for BLPs. An RfC will be initiated soon, then we can calmly determine where consensus lies. - MrX 🖋 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I welcome such an RfC. It should be very specific, not about the general use of QW. Failure to limit that discussion will create a serious cluster fuck that will invalidate any decision. (A general RfC could occur separately and after the end of the specific RfC.)

It needs to focus specifically on the use of articles by Barrett at QW (SPS) in BLPs. It must recognize that this only applies to the articles written by Barrett at QW, not to the website as a whole, because most of the content at QW is not written by Barrett. It may appear so when one looks at many of the articles on the index page, but that's just the surface of a huge database of information and content authored by others. Let's get this right. Muddled RfCs are disruptive nightmares. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a workshop below. I believe we need to determine consensus about whether quackwatch is a reliable source and whether it's a self-published source (which actual seems self-evident). If his website is an index to other sources, then we should simply use the other sources, if they are reliable. Problem solved.- MrX 🖋 17:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Summary to date

The questions discussed above can be summarised as:

• Is QuackWatch a WP:SPS;
• If QuackWatch is an SPS, would it be an appropriate source in Gary Null and other BLPs?.

Differences break down according to a divide: editors who normally specialise in WP:FRINGE mainly support use of QuackWatch, editors who mainly specialise in WP:BLP tend to oppose, and editors who are brought here by Gary Null firmly oppose.

Other known relevant facts: This has been under discussion for this specific article for many years. Gary Null sued WMF a decade ago to have QuackWatch removed as a source, the case was dismissed ([33]).This predates Jimbo's well-documented statement that our policies on this are "exactly correct" (WP:LUNATIC). Null has also issued legal threats in recent months against wikipedia editors (including me) in substantially similar form to his case against WMF in 2009, leading to the banning of Nealgreenfield, identified on-wiki as his legal representative, and likely sock Fela Watusi. One lead promoter of his agenda is Rome Viharo, self-identified on Wikipedia as Tumbleman. The Null article has seen other SPA / IP attempts at whitewashing over the years but the current press for change seems to be part of a new and concerted campaign by Null. Зенитная Самоходная Установка was attracted to this dispute by commentary from Gary Null. Concern has been expressed to some of us via email that Зенитная Самоходная Установка is a Tumbleman sock, this is not factored in, and we operate on the assumption of good faith at this point.

Past attempts to use Wikipedia to promote Gary Null resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own (delete and redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival (delete and redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaccine Nation (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIDS Inc. (no consensus, now a redirect). The fundamental problem is that the reality-based world pays very little attention to Null and his work, but he is widely perceived as a dangerous proponent of nonsense due to the pervasive nature of his claims (e.g. the fraudulent "death by medicine" trope that medical malpractice is the third leading cause of death in America and his promotion of the equally fraudulent Burzynski Clinic). He is considered significant by charlatans and skeptics, and pretty much nobody else, on the face of it. Guy (help!) 11:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

While Null's opinions and actions regarding Quackwatch are interesting, they are also largely irrelevant. Just as I would be opposed to Null dictating that we cannot use a source, I'm also opposed to him forcing us to use one. Ultimately, the questions are much simpler than anything to do with Null: Are articles by Barrett published in Quackwatch self published; is Quackwatch reliable; and what are the policy limitations on how Quackwatch can be used in BLPs? - Bilby (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No his opinions are not irrelevant. This debate is happening because Null is insisting that QuackWatch be removed. I see no evidence of any involvement here other than that caused by his repeated attempts to remove QuackWatch, going right back to his failed legal case. QuackWatch has always been a source in this article, there's long-standing consensus that it's a reliable source, and the continual drama around QuackWatch on this and other articles is caused entirely by the repeated attempts by defenders of quackery to have it removed, necessitating endless relitigation based on exactly the same facts - aka "keep asking until you get the answer you want".

We should know, at root, who's asking for a thing, and in the end it always turns out to be the same: proxies for Null. It's not a new request it's a repeat of the same request that's been consistently rejected for over a decade. Guy (help!) 12:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As you may recall, the debate started because I replaced some Quackwatch references on List of food faddists with non-self published sources. It had nothing to do with Null when we started this. - Bilby (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As you may recall, WWI started because Gavrilo Princip assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. However this started, it wasn't long before Gary Null fans jumped in, then the regulars at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard responded, then we were off to the races. Also whether Quackwatch is or is not a SPS is the question we are discussing, so please don't beg the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

*Bismark anxiously looks at the camera and slowly looks away.* GMG^talk 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I'm the one asking to keep this focused on whether or not it is an SPS, rather rthan try and bring Null into the issue. - Bilby (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The consensus as summarized at RSP is Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert...

From my perspective, Quackwatch is fine for information identifying and addressing FRINGE claims in articles. BLP has nothing to do with it. SPS has nothing to do with it. Quackwatch is a useful source for a skeptical POV to address FRINGE issues when no better sources are available. (It's fine in/on/within a BLP article when used properly.)

Quackwatch should not be used for BLP information. (It should not be used about a person that meets BLP criteria.) --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I listed all previous RSNB discussion in the collapsed list Prior RSNB discussions at the top of this thread. Please tell me which one suports your claim "The consensus as summarized at RSP [Is this different from RSNB?] is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I linked the RSP entry, which is supposed to summarize all discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Brain Fart. For some reason I temporarily lost all memory of that page. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have said, until it is removed form out list of sources as an SPS it is an SPS and thus cannot be used for information or opinion about living people. It can be used to say "Garry Nulls theories are quackery" It cannot be used to say "Garry Null is a quack". If (however) we now find it is not an SPS the question is moot, and our page on perennial sources needs changing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#SPS now says "Quackwatch is a self-published source (disputed)" and will say so until we have reached a consensus.

I suspect that we may end up with an RfC on this, but I beg anyone considering posting an RfC to post a pre-RFC and gathering comments on the RfC wording and the proposed location for posting it first. We have had far too many cases recently where someone posts an RfC and someone else immediately responds by claiming (rightly or wrongly) that the RfC is invalid, deceptively worded, posted in the wrong place, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Workshop on Quackwatch RfC

Superseded by § Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC.

Since there is disagreement over multiple aspects of Quackwatch, I agree that an RfC is the best path forward. The RfC should determine community consensus on these three factors:

1. Whether Quackwatch is generally reliable in its areas of expertise (i.e. alternative medicine and/or quackery)
2. Whether Quackwatch is a self-published source (and restricted from being used as a third-party source for living persons)
3. Whether Quackwatch is a biased or opinionated source

Here is one way the RfC could be structured:

RfC format suggestion by Newslinger

RfC: Quackwatch This RfC asks editors three questions about Quackwatch: Is Quackwatch a generally reliable source for alternative medicine and quackery? Is Quackwatch a self-published source? Is Quackwatch a biased or opinionated source? (Insert signature here) Context matters: For each of these questions, please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of Quackwatch's content, such as the author(s), topic, and date of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. Generally reliable? Is Quackwatch a generally reliable source for alternative medicine and quackery? Survey (Generally reliable?) Discussion (Generally reliable?) List of past noticeboard discussions on Quackwatch's reliability: QuackWatch (2007) Quackwatch (2007) Plural medicine, tradition and modernity (2008) Quackwatch (2008) Quackwatch etc (2008) Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery (2009) How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (2010) Quackwatch (2012) Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist? (2013) Quackwatch (2013) Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet (2017) Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs? (2019) Additional noticeboard discussion on Stephen Barrett: Stephen Barrett (2007) Two additional discussions at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine): Is Quackwatch a reliable source? (2015) Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline (2015) An Arbitration Committee case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal (2007) Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal (2009) Self-published? Is Quackwatch a self-published source? Survey (Self-published?) Discussion (Self-published?) Note: Self-published sources should not be used as third-party sources for living persons, per WP:BLPSPS. Biased or opinionated? Is Quackwatch a biased or opinionated source? Survey (Biased or opinionated?) Discussion (Biased or opinionated?) Note: Biased or opinionated sources are typically used with in-text attribution.

Please feel free to adapt this into your own version, or suggest something different altogether. — Newslinger talk 05:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Just tossing out ideas here; should there be urging readers to actually read the polices by adding language like "...as defined at WP:GREL and WP:RS" instead of just linking to the policies? Or maybe a sentence at the top explicitly asking them to do that? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Would this work?

Questions with explicit links to policies and guidelines
Is Quackwatch a generally (WP:GREL) reliable source (WP:RS) for alternative medicine and quackery? Is Quackwatch a self-published source (WP:SPS)? Is Quackwatch a biased or opinionated source (WP:BIASED)?

— Newslinger talk 07:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Great! The RfC is ready to go. If any other editors have suggestions or objections, please share them as soon as possible. — Newslinger talk 07:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely support separate survey and discussion subsections for each question. It's Be Kind To Closers Month! ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, no, it's not ready at all. Put on the brakes. See my comment at the bottom. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say three is irrelevant as it is not an RS restriction. It will just generate debate that will not in any way have any real benefit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Three is irrelevant. Don't do it. That rabbit hole leads to madness. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest dropping #3 per Slatersteven. It would only tend to complicate the RfC. Other than that, I think this wording would be the most wworkable:

1. Is Quackwatch a generally reliable source for alternative medicine and quackery?
2. Is Quackwatch a self-published source?

I also agree with Mandruss about separate survey and discussion sections, and enforce it mercilessly. - MrX 🖋 11:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

About question #3: it's common for the perennial sources list to note when a source is perceived to be biased or opinionated. A quick browser search in WP:RSP reveals 35 instances of the word biased and 19 instances of the word partisan. Right now, WP:RSP § Quackwatch states: "Some editors consider Quackwatch a partisan source (disputed), citing a 2007 Arbitration Committee finding." Question #3 would definitively resolve the issue of whether the RSP entry should mention perceived bias/partisanship at all, and the compartmentalized format of the RfC should prevent any disagreements on #3 from affecting the discussions on the other two questions. — Newslinger talk 11:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

A key part of the ArbCom finding was that it was partisan. I'm open to letting that sit, but I wouldn't want to discount that because it didn't get asked here.- Bilby (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Concur Q3 is irrelevant. We are allowed to use biased sources. Whether QW is biased or opinionated is neither here nor there. Simply: is it self-published, is it reliable, is it usable for BLPs? Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree also that Q3 is not needed. Additionally, we need to be sure we steer clear of the concept of "BLPs" or "BLP pages" as things for which SPS's cannot be used. BLP policy applies to biographical informational wherever it is. Some content on a BLP page is not biographical (for which a SPS may be okay); conversely biographical content can occur in articles which are not biographies (and so an SPS would not be okay). For this reason I think Q2 should simply be "Is Quackwatch a self-published source", as WP:BLPSPS would obviously then apply. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well put. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar, just could not quite put my finger on what it was. I kept separating the two out and then came back to "but its not two questions".Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I see a problem with "Q2 should simply be 'Is Quackwatch a SPS', as BLPSPS would obviously then apply." My problem is the lack of obviousness to those who !vote on the RfC and to those who apply the result of the RfC. It is far from obvious to someone who doesn't deal with this sort of thing all of the time that a support !vote for "Quackwatch is a SPS" is also a support vote for "Quackwatch cannot be used as a source for calling a obvious Quack a Quack." I think that the two things should be explicitly connected so that every one knows what they are !voting for/against. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That would then create a problem where we are running an RFC to see if policy should apply to a policy violation. I don't see that as a viable approach. If there is a problem with the policy, the policy needs to be changed. - Bilby (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, we need to be careful with our language. Writing that "Quackwatch cannot be used as a source for calling a obvious Quack a Quack." is an example of (mis)use that turns people off, turns them against QW, and is also inaccurate. We would never use QW in that manner. QW doesn't even use the word "quack" about people, AFAIK. Its content is much more nuanced. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, it's partisan in the same way we are: it is biased towards empirically established fact and against woo. The entire universe is biased in that way. Guy (help!) 17:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I welcome a very specific RfC on the use of articles by Barrett at QW (SPS) in BLPs. Don't blend it with an RfC about the general use of QW. Failure to limit that discussion will create a serious cluster fuck that will invalidate any decision. (A general RfC could occur separately and after the end of the specific RfC.)

It must recognize that this SPS/BLP issue only applies to the articles written by Barrett at QW, not to the website as a whole, because most of the content at QW is not written by Barrett. It may appear so when one looks at many of the articles on the index page, but that's just the surface of a huge database of information and content authored by others. Let's get this right. Muddled RfCs are disruptive nightmares. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I am annoyed by the fact that this entire debate has been prompted by a quack sending his followers here often enough that eventually a few good editors who err on the side of fairness towards cranks and charlatans (IMO sometimes to excess) have been sucked in. We can't have articles on quacks and charlatans that exclude the leading reality-based sources on quackery. Guy (help!) 17:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Problom is policy says we do not use SPS for information about BLP, Null is alive, we list QW as an SPS. So we must either change the policy on using SPS for BLP's or declare that QW is not an SPS. What we should not do is create special rules for Mr Null, one way or the other.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that we either comply with our own policies or adjust them, but ignoring a policy doesn't seem appropriate. If there are places where a source is really needed an RFC specific to that article and content is a way to go, or as has been suggested here, a general RFC. I'm not sure suggestions editors are being sucked in is a fair assessment of editors complying with policy. I know nothing about Null and don't care to know but pushing aside our own policies can be a precedent we don't want to set. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As the one who - unfortunately - triggered this, it had nothing to do with Null, and wasn't even in relation to claims about Null. It was a straight out case of using an apparant SPS for claims about living people on a different article. This focus on Null is not relevant. - Bilby (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. My comment was a disclaimer since I eventually noticed in my copy editing of the Null article that Quackwatch was source used and that Null was mentioned here. The use of any self published source can be a issue so no worries about bringing up a topic that generates discussion. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you are correct. We need to revise the policy to make it apply only to comments about the "person" (subject of the BLP), not to their false claims. That would resolve this problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Since neither the ArbCom case or any previous RfCs about Quackwatch as a RS have ever mentioned this conflict between the BLP/SPS issue and how we use QW and other RS in these types of fringe articles, I wonder if that BLP policy language is of later date. Does anyone know? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We had a series of RFCs a year ago led by Jytdog about this issue, arguing that we should make an exception to BLPSPS and reword it to allow the use of self published sources on fringe BLPs. The first was withdrawn and restarted by Jytdog, the second was closed by Jytdog when it was clear that the proposal was not going to get consensus. They are archived here. - Bilby (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the second draft of the RfC continues at § Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC. — Newslinger talk 09:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Straw polls for Quackwatch RfC

Let's determine what the RfC should ask, and how the questions should be phrased. Feel free to add more polls to cover any other areas of disagreement. — Newslinger talk 01:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Bias/partisanship

Should the RfC ask a question on whether Quackwatch is a biased or opinionated source? — Newslinger talk 01:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Bias/partisanship)

• Yes. It's common for the perennial sources list to indicate when a source is biased or opinionated. (Source descriptions in the list contain the word biased 35 times and the word partisan 19 times.) I'm not fond of linking to the 2007 Arbitration Committee finding, since ArbCom's remit covers disputes on user conduct, not article content. This question allows the community to determine whether Quackwatch should be classified this way. — Newslinger talk 01:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. It's a daft question that has a nebulous relation to the WP:PAGs. So if, for example, a source is "biased" in favour of medical evidence and against fraudulent claims what does that mean? Probably, that we should use it. Just saying a source is "biased" means little – I'd like to know what problem people think an answer to this question solves. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes The current situation is that we use the ArbCom description. That may or may not still hold, but it is worth asking to see if the consenus now is different from ArbCom's, rather than staying with the older finding as the default. - Bilby (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No - I don't think it would help in the determination of if the source is reliable, and if it is an SPS. Remember, someone has to close this future mess.- MrX 🖋 14:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. Such sources are expressly allowed by our NPOV policy. To then single out a source and label it, in Wikipedia's voice, as "biased" or "partisan" appears to be a dissing, negative, judgment. That's wrong.

If QW were extremely partisan and biased in the sense that it lacked reliability, it would be justifiable to express caution, but QW is just the opposite. It is biased in the way a source should be. It is biased toward truth and scientific facts, toward ethical marketing, toward consumer protection, and against false claims. Is any of that a bad thing? It has the same bias toward truth held by fact-checkers. It is the oldest and most notable fact-checker of health care claims. We should not do anything to make that look like a bad thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• No. Accusations like "Quackwatch is biased" and of course the classic "Wikipedia is Biased" are what motivated my to create the essay at WP:GOODBIAS. Wikipedia really is biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls in a fundamental way. We say that, when it comes to cleaning laundry, laundry detergent works and laundry balls don't. Unlike some of the other areas covered in my essay, the makers of laundry balls have yet to send an army of shills to Wikipedia to protest about our anti-laundry-ball bias, and we haven't been sued over our coverage of the topic, but it would not surprise me if they did. As far as I can tell, Quackwatch has not covered laundry balls (The Straight Dope has[34]), but if they ever do I am confidant that they will share our anti-laundry-ball bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. As long as the go-to is the ArbCom decision, which should not be used at all per the scope of ArbCom. My bringing it up at RSP was because of this scope. Misuse of the decision has caused ongoing problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, this is getting a bit out in the weeds. Reliability is not a measure of bias, nor visa versa. It just so happens that many of the sources we've outright depreciated also happen to be hyper-partisan. That may be because these sources have consciously sacrificed factual accuracy in service to political objectives (no way Orwell hadn't read his Machiavelli after all), or (my personal opinion) it may be that people who are hyper-partisan tend to be hyper-partisan because they're not very good critical thinkers to begin with. But it is perfectly acceptable for two reasonable people to look at the same sets of facts and draw different conclusions; that's in the neighborhood of bias. It is not acceptable for one of them to fudge the facts to support the opinion they've already made their mind up about. That's reliability. Besides that, things like pseudo-science and conspiracies are not a partisan issue. There are as many essential-oil-touting, crystal-wearing, big-pharma-fearing, new-age hippies on the left, as there are bigfoot-hunting, deep-state-fearing, race-obsessed country bumpkins on the right. Gullible ignorant people come in all shapes and sizes.
  I couldn't care less about ArbCom's opinion on the matter. The pontifications of ArbCom are wholly irrelevant to the editorial decision making process, whether they think so or not. GMG^talk 18:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Background for the ArbCom.... As the subject/victim of that ArbCom case, I know a bit about its background and why comments about "content" made their way into the wording, even though that should not have happened. One of the Arbitrators is a supporter of certain forms of quackery, and therefore skeptical of QW. He should have recused himself, but he didn't. On the contrary! Based only on his own quack-friendly biases and the accusations of pushers of quackery, and before any evidence was presented, he wrote up the list of "findings", some of which were BS, but they remained unchanged. He basically set me up right from the start. Fortunately other editors mounted a very strong defense. Those BS "findings" are the ones which have caused problems for QW. As a defrocked lawyer, that Arbitrator should have known better. "Findings" are written after looking at the evidence, not just the accusations by pushers of quackery. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• No QuackWatch represents a scientific / evidence based perspective. It is not biased but often analysis sources that are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Bias/partisanship)

• Note that the phrase biased or opinionated is a synonym for the term partisan, and both WP:BIASED and WP:PARTISAN point to Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources. The only effect of designating a source as biased or opinionated is that editors are advised to use in-text attribution for that source. Sources are not considered less reliable based on bias alone, if it does not affect the source's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. — Newslinger talk 01:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: The "problem" solved by this question is that it's unclear whether in-text attribution is recommended when using Quackwatch. I suppose the question could directly ask whether in-text attribution should be used, rather than ask whether Quackwatch is biased/partisan. (The effects are the same.) — Newslinger talk 07:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see how that would apply, and think we're in danger of constructing a bureaucratic decision tree which works against the WP:PAGs. So, for example, if a source is "biased" in favour of medical evidence (a kind of WP:GOODBIAS perhaps) attributing its comments would violate NPOV as described in WP:ASF. Would we really have to say "According to Steven Barrett, squirting coffee up your bum will not stop the progression of cancer"? If we are to say QW is "biased" we would need to say how exactly it is biased and what the consequence of that "bias" is (not necessarily that attribution is required). I'd prefer to fall back on the existing WP:PAGs which deal with all of this adequately already. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BIASED, a section of the reliable sources guideline, states that "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate". Your comment indicates that you do not consider in-text attribution necessary for uses of Quackwatch in many cases, and you can express that opinion in an RfC asking either the proposed question on bias/partisanship or a question on in-text attribution. — Newslinger talk 07:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Asking whether QW should always be attributed would be a different question - an even more daft one. We have guidance on when attribution is necessary already, and it's more nuanced than this question would suggest. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• The question would not ask whether Quackwatch "should always be attributed". — Newslinger talk 08:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Let me approach this from another angle. A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding described Quackwatch as "unreliable" and "partisan". A 2009 motion modified the 2007 finding: it no longer describes Quackwatch as "unreliable", but still describes it as "partisan". However, the arbitration policy specifically states that "The Committee does not rule on content". An RfC question on bias/partisanship would allow the community to take over the determination of whether Quackwatch is "partisan" from ArbCom, since content disputes should be handled by the community at large. — Newslinger talk 07:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Arbcom does not legislate on content (let alone a committee of 12 years ago). So this is not a problem that needs solving. Saying a source is "partisan" absent of context is pretty much meaningless. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Editors have been referring to the ArbCom finding in past discussions (2007, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2015). Although the ArbCom finding doesn't directly apply to content discussions, the finding's use of the word "partisan" has a real impact on editors who evaluate specific cases of how Quackwatch should be used in articles. — Newslinger talk 11:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, and it's a negative impact, making what is a good bias appear to be a negative thing. We must not perpetuate the problematic nature of that ArbCom. Read the comment I just made about the background for that ArbCom. Then you'll understand why we should distance ourselves from it and that "biased" and "partisan" wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia RSs can be non-neutral in tone. However, I believe the real question is whether a RS is reliable for the content it references as well as being verifiable. While Quackwatch presents opinions from multiple authors, I don't see that content has oversight from a board of reviewers, specifically experts in the particular areas they are writing about. Verifiability states sources must be "attributable to reliable, published sources." Quackwatch is attributable to single persons with no apparent oversight which is not a publishing model. WP requires that we look at the quality of the publication as well as the author. As well, when writing about health related subjects MEDRS must come into play. Right? The difficulty which has been mentioned several times in this discussion is how to source fringe-to-the mainstream content, especially health related content.

Possibly the question we should be asking is, is Quackwatch verifiable? Then we have to ask, how do we include content for which there is no verifiable reliable sourcing. Or do we? My suspicion is that these days we are likely to find sources which are verifiable and reliable even for non-mainstream sources and can bypass Quackwatch for these better sources.

RS are only reliable per the content they are referencing; editors, though, have the right to bypass on an individual basis, with consensus, policy. What this RfC seems to asking for is the carte blanche use of this one source in any situation. I'm not sure that's something we can agree to for any source let alone one that is not verifiable or reliable. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The question "Is Quackwatch verifiable?" is essentially the opposite of the question "Is Quackwatch a self-published source?", since WP:SPS is a part of WP:V (although WP:SPS also contains an exception for subject-matter experts). I believe the questions proposed in the straw poll below, § Self-published status of authors, give you an opportunity to address concerns with Quackwatch's verifiability. I'll start another straw poll on a question about Quackwatch's general reliability, which will hopefully get to the center of your "carte blanche" concern. — Newslinger talk 04:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The straw poll is at § General reliability. — Newslinger talk 04:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. So are we also going to label all sources one inch to the left and right of center as biased or opinionated, because that's the nature of the beast? Few sources are totally fact-based and unbiasd. That's a very rare thing. Do you see the consequences of us dissing, in Wikipedia's voice, a source? That's what we'd be doing. That's not right. We should leave that type of commentary to RS we use in articles, but not here.

QW is biased toward the scientific POV, ethical behavior in medicine, and toward consumer protection, and that is a good thing, but our labeling it as "biased" makes it look like a bad thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) is labeled as biased or opinionated because it's an advocacy group, but there is still consensus that it's generally reliable. The perennial sources list tries to measure bias and reliability independently. — Newslinger talk 03:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood my comment. "Wikipedia RSs can be non-neutral in tone." That is, bias and opinionated sources can be acceptable sources. I'm not discussing bias. I am asking whether sources that are not verifiable or reliable be used carte blanche. This has to do with oversight as in publication and author quality the usual ways we discern the quality of publication and so oversight. I am also suggesting we have a problem with writing articles where fringe to the mainstream sources and content may be necessary to create accurate content. We can solve that problem with individual consensus for specific sources, by bypassing lesser sources for better sources for the problematic content, or something else no one has suggested yet. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're responding to me, my previous comment was actually a response to BullRangifer. I'll respond to you above. — Newslinger talk 03:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Fixed in Special:Diff/924821657. — Newslinger talk 04:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying for BullRangifer. The indents are a bit confused. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Scope of arbitration: In his !vote above, Bilby says:

"The current situation is that we use the ArbCom description. That may or may not still hold, but it is worth asking to see if the consensus now is different from ArbCom's, rather than staying with the older finding as the default".

This appears to be a direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration, which says:

"The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed, and will make rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), so users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions. It will not do so".

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Having bias is not a consideration in whether something is an RS. Having an extreme bias is where there could be a case of asking "are they so biased as to be manipulating facts to their liking?" which would then lead to questions on reliability, but it is still not directly due to having a bias. QW's only bias is that they are against bogus claims of alternative medicine and the like, which is not an extreme position, so bias really isn't a question here. --Masem (t) 14:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Self-published status of authors

How should the RfC ask whether Quackwatch is a self-published source? — Newslinger talk 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1: The RfC should ask one question that applies to Quackwatch as a whole, e.g. "Is Quackwatch a self-published source?".
• Option 2: The RfC should ask two separate questions: one that applies to Stephen Barrett and one that applies to other authors published in Quackwatch, e.g. "Are articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch self-published sources?" and "Are articles written by people other than Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch self-published sources?".
• Option 2A: The RfC should ask one question that applies only to Stephen Barrett, e.g. "Are articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch self-published sources?".
• Option 3: The RfC should not ask any questions about whether Quackwatch is a self-published source.

Feel free to add other options to the list above.

Survey (Self-published status of authors)

• Option 2A. It is only Barrett's articles which meet the definition of SPS at QW. No other authors meet that definition. The idea of two separate questions is a bad idea with no legitimacy found in the definition of SPS, unless someone can find an exceptional example. No rule is necessary for such an exception, as we always use QW on a case-by-case basis anyway, and that's when we deal with exceptional cases. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. If we are going to be reductive, and determine reliability sans context, we should be properly so. The question as to whether there is any real editorial oversight of material published by QW, or whether it is essentially "user-generated", is not limited to only material authored by Barrett. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• That is not the remit of the proposed RfC. The discussions we have been having are specifically about the use of QW as an SPS in BLP subjects and articles. A general RfC on QW as a whole is another matter and these two should not be mixed.

Several RfCs have already ruled that QW is generally a RS, and therefore such an RfC is not necessary as nothing has changed since then.

Also, it is not "user generated". It is not a blog or wiki.

Reliability is never determined sans context. The suitability of every single RS we use is judged by the context in which it will be used, and that also applies to QW. It is not special in that regard. All previous RfCs have determined that it, like all other RS, should be used on a case-by-case basis. Not even the most notable and best RS are reliable in all instances, and even blacklisted sources are considered RS in very limited and specific situations. Context is always a factor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:RSP and related discussions (of which this is one) attempt to codify "reliability" (broadly construed; perhaps "usability" is better in this context?) of sources without regard to context or specific use of those sources. I am as yet far from convinced that this is advantageous to the purpose of building an encyclopaedia aligned to the WP:5P; but if that's what we're going to do, we should do it right. And if we're examining the self-published nature of QW, which is about effective editorial checks & balances or lack thereof, we should not artificially limit that to QW material written by Barrett in the RfC question itself. The mileage of individual Wikipedians may, of course, vary. - Ryk72 ^talk 08:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and think WP:RSP is a (bad) attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. It's not part of the WP:PAGs so can be safely disregarded but might lead less clueful editors astray. I would favour its deletion, frankly. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you think it's a net negative, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion at any time. The page is unlikely to be deleted considering the community support in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 59 § RfC: Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources? and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 60 § RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?. Proponents of fringe and conspiracy theories would appreciate the deletion of the list. — Newslinger talk 09:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As yet, I'm agnostic. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 If for no other reason than to ensure every option gets a hearing. I do not know enough about QW to make a clear judgement on whether it is generally (other then specifically in relation to Barrett) an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. People aren't going to just say yes or no - if they want to qualify their statement, they will when they make it. - Bilby (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 - There is no valid reason to pay any attention to articles from other sources that he re-publishes. Just use the other sources (if they are reliable). - MrX 🖋 11:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Any original reporting at QW should be reviewed for SPS-ness. For any reprinting of published material on QW, then we go to the original source and judge that (Peer-reviewed paper? Great! Medium.com post? Nope!). --Masem (t) 14:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. RfCs allow for open-ended responses, and closers are expected to examine any exceptions or qualifications mentioned in the comments. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Self-published status of authors)

• Note that any changes to WP:BLPSPS need to be proposed at WT:BLP. WP:SPS allows the use of self-published sources written by subject-matter experts, as long as the material is not about a living person. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• We should revise the rule to make it clear that the rule applies to comments about the person, not their false claims. Because fringe and false claims have little due weight, QW and other sources which debunk those claims would have the most weight, thus enforcing our status as a mainstream encyclopedia where SPOV rules. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That was attempted. We could try it again, but I'm not sure the result will change. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:. I don't think we no to do that. WP:BLP applies to biographical information. Ideas people express do not inherit the protection of WP:BLP. We already have policy on how to cope with fringe concepts: WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I have been reading the various comments about whether Quackwatch is a SPS, it occurred to be that by the criteria many here are using pretty much every independent (not part of a chain) small town newspaper is a SPS that cannot be used in a BLP. Most such newspapers have one person who writes most of the articles, decides what articles from the AP to include, does all the editing, and decides what to cover. Yet small-town independent newspaper reporting is the backbone of many BLPs. If the Frostbite Falls News reports that one of our BLPs did something noteworthy we use it as a reference without a second thought, even though the Frostbite Falls News consists of Fred, who owns the paper, writes all of the copy in the morning. and operates the printing press in the afternoon. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the realpolitik of BLP is that nobody wants the WMF (or the community) exposed to the legal jeopardy that would result if Wikipedia published defamatory/libellous content. Hence we are required by policy effectively to use sources where wise lawyers (or at least legal-savvy people) will already have run their wise eyes over it and headed off any such possibility. This is also, of course, the ethical course that best serves Wikipedia's mission to share only accepted knowledge. So far as I can tell, Quackwatch is fully lawyered-up and Barrett is acutely aware of the legal perils any mis-step would expose him to. Perhaps somebody should ask him? Alexbrn (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• If it can be shown that Frostbite Falls is an SPS, I am happy to have it removed under policy from BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• My point is that by any criteria you could name, if Quackwatch is a SPS then Frostbite Falls News (which I am using as a stand-in for pretty much every independent small town newspaper) is a double plus SPS. Either ban Quackwatch and most small town newspapers from BLPs or allow Quackwatch and most small town newspapers in BLPs. It isn't fair to use different criteria. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is actually 100% fair and appropriate. To me, it would be more appropriate to say that unless you can clearly show there is a standard "editing" team - one or more writers and at least one editor-in-chief or similarly titled position that does not frequently write but is validating content - then the work should be presumed in the current "new media" to be an SPS and not usable for BLPs. Having that distinction between writer and editor - so that unfounded claims don't get published without at least two sets of eyes that have looked at it - is what is necessary to maintain the BLPSPS issue. So by that definition, we still would have QW as an SPS. --Masem (t) 00:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I understand that Frostbit Falls was used as a stand0in. My feelings mirror Masem - if a source is an SPS, it can't be used to make claims about a living person unless written by the subject of the BLP. That includes the hypothetical Frostbite Falls or other smalltown newspaper, which I'd similarly be willing to remove. - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Barrett is acutely aware of the danger. He has been libeled and been in court many times. As a public person, it is hard for him to win, although Mercola settled out of court.

Barrett v. Rosenthal resulted in a legal decision (the subject of the ArbCom) which protects Wikipedia and its editors. It allows the REpublication of libelous material found on the internet, without any jeopardy to the REpublisher (IOW editors) or host (in this case Wikipedia). Only the original author of the libel can be sued. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

IANAL, but as I understand it, in British law repeating a libel can be as bad as originating one (hence, not too long ago, the famous Lord McAlpine case.[35]). Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

General reliability

How should the RfC ask about Quackwatch's general reliability? — Newslinger talk 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option A: The RfC should ask a question on whether Quackwatch is generally reliable, e.g.:

Is Quackwatch a generally reliable source for alternative medicine and quackery?

• Option B: The RfC should ask a two-option question on Quackwatch's general reliability, e.g.:

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Quackwatch?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for alternative medicine and quackery
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply

• Option C: The RfC should ask a three-option question on Quackwatch's general reliability, e.g.:

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Quackwatch?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for alternative medicine and quackery
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

• Option D: The RfC should not ask any questions about Quackwatch's general reliability.

Feel free to add other options to the list above.

Survey (General reliability)

• Option A: It is generally reliable for alternative medicine and quackery. As a mainstream health and medical source, it has been recognized for its value in these subject areas by numerous RS and agencies for many years. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It is the duty of editors to accept the decision of RS. They should not allow personal editorial opinions to trump what RS say. That's a violation of NPOV. Mainstream RS consider it a valuable RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• *Option D per Masem. General reliability is not the issue here. Only use of Barrett's articles for BLP persons, not their claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A or Option C. If we are going to be reductive, and determine reliability sans context, we should be properly so. No great preference as to the open question in A or the closed question in C. If a closed question, the third option ("generally unreliable"), while unlikely to receive great support, should be offered explicitly. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A or Option D I think this has been decided, it is generally reliable. But consensus can change.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• A. We just need to ask if it is reliable or not - if people want to choose one of the suboptions they can just do so in their comment. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A - The question should be open ended in order to get the best input.- MrX 🖋 11:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option D - The issue does not seem to be related to whether or not QW is sufficiently an expert reliable source for quackery absent any BLP issues. It is specifically whether QW is an SPS, and to that end, how BLPSPS overrides RS to allow/disallow its use in BLP and BLP-related articles. --Masem (t) 14:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A. The Science-Based Medicine RfC asked this question, and it turned out quite well. Quackwatch is held to the same standards as any other source: if other sources can be evaluated on their degrees of adherence to the reliable sources guideline, so can Quackwatch. Otherwise, we'll just end up having this RfC at a later time since there appears to be disagreement here. — Newslinger talk 20:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (General reliability)

• Question. Is there a typo above (two times)? I see The Epoch Times written there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks. I need to be more careful when copying and pasting. — Newslinger talk 07:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• In practice, QW is a source of last resort but it is also an excellent source when it's needed per WP:PARITY because often mainstream publications do not sully themselves with consideration of altmed nonsense like coffee enemas and so on. Other, better, sources for particular quackery topics are sometimes available (from e.g. the NHS, FDA, etc.). How to capture this? Something like "QW is generally reliable on WP:FRINGE medical topics and should be used in the absence of stronger sources". Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:PARITY allows editors to use marginally reliable sources that oppose fringe theories (including sources classified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply") to counter marginally reliable sources that support fringe theories (including sources used under WP:ABOUTSELF), and is primarily invoked when better sources are not available. Currently, Quackwatch (RSP entry) is classified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", and WP:PARITY is already in effect for Quackwatch in its areas of expertise (alternative medicine and quackery). If this RfC shows consensus to reclassify Quackwatch as generally reliable, WP:PARITY would play a lesser role, since Quackwatch would be considered usable in more situations even when WP:PARITY is not invoked. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Good point. I have often cited PARITY when defending use of QW. Some alternative medicine practices and claims are so far out there that no medical journals bother with commenting on them, but those claims and practices are very notable and dangerous, and QW deals with them. They serve a very valuable purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• The question of general reliability is not appropriate for this RfC. Stay focused on the use of Barrett's articles for BLP persons, not their claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC

The consensus in the first straw poll (to exclude the bias/partisanship question) is clear, although the other two polls would still benefit from more participation. Here's the second draft:

Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC

RfC: Quackwatch This RfC asks editors two questions about Quackwatch: Is Quackwatch a generally (WP:GREL) reliable source (WP:RS) for alternative medicine and quackery? Is Quackwatch a self-published source (WP:SPS)? (Insert signature here) Context matters: For each of these questions, please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of Quackwatch's content, such as the author(s), topic, and date of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. Generally reliable? Is Quackwatch a generally (WP:GREL) reliable source (WP:RS) for alternative medicine and quackery? Survey (Generally reliable?) Discussion (Generally reliable?) List of past noticeboard discussions on Quackwatch's reliability: QuackWatch (2007) Quackwatch (2007) Plural medicine, tradition and modernity (2008) Quackwatch (2008) Quackwatch etc (2008) Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery (2009) How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (2010) Quackwatch (2012) Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist? (2013) Quackwatch (2013) Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet (2017) Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs? (2019) Additional noticeboard discussion on Stephen Barrett: Stephen Barrett (2007) Two additional discussions at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine): Is Quackwatch a reliable source? (2015) Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline (2015) An Arbitration Committee case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal (2007) Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal (2009) Self-published? Is Quackwatch a self-published source (WP:SPS)? Survey (Self-published?) Discussion (Self-published?) Note: Self-published sources should not be used as third-party sources for living persons, per WP:BLPSPS. Changes to WP:BLPSPS are outside the scope of this RfC, and should be proposed at WT:BLP if needed.

What are your thoughts on this draft? — Newslinger talk 00:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

An RfC is totally unnecessary. Per WP:PARITY, Quackwatch is an excellent resource for alerting readers to the fact that the topic they are reading about is based on quackery, whether intentional or not. As discussed many times, normal scientists do not bother spending time and effort refuting every nonsensical claim and gold-plated reliable sources are not required to counter WP:REDFLAG topics. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree on this point. The question here was "Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?" So why has this morphed into a general question about reliability too? Also unhappy about linking to WP:GREL, a piece of content which is not part of the WP:PAGs, has unsufficient community weight behind it, and leads into dangerous over-simplification. The RfC should just ask whether Quackwatch is an SPS. Alexbrn (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The relevant straw poll is at § General reliability. — Newslinger talk 09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If there is consensus (in the above straw polls) not to ask any questions, we won't have an RfC. — Newslinger talk 10:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No issue with using it about theories, the problem is we say it is an SPS and SPS are blanket banned for comments ABOUT living people. So either we change policy, or declare QW not an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

QuackWatch is self published. We don't have the right to say it's something it isn't. We also can't change policy without wide community input. So we cannot here decide to throw out BLPSPS. However, sourcing fringe to mainstream content is a problem. If, as editors we cannot source the topic of an entire article with out going to a non-compliant source or no sources that article should not be written. If we are dealing with a topic like, "moon is made of green cheese" then we are dealing with a theory and we can almost certainly source theories with compliant sources. If we are dealing with content that is supported by compliant sources as in MEDRS topics and there are other views, and there are no good compliant sources for those views we could possibly with agreement go to lesser quality sources as long as they are added per their lesser weight to better sources. "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.", but also per parity "...The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

I question whether Quackwatch is verifiable and then reliable given it is self published, but there are instances where it may be all we have. I personally would never use it, given its reliance on sarcasm, hyperbole and generalization and in some instances is just not factual, and can be cherry picked to accent this kind of language in our articles, but I realize others do not feel this way, and understand it can be used best as Alex said above as a last resort.

The "bottom line" given the complexity of discussion here, and our policies and guidelines seems to be that the best use of QuackWatch is on an individual basis with discussion and agreement. No source is reliable for all content anyway. Just my opinion and will leave this others now. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The "bottom line" line for me is one of the appearance of integrity. We do not do the reputation (and therefore impact) of our articles (or the project) any good if we ignore our own rules to slag someone off (even if it is justified). No one (as far as I know) has suggested its not an RS for opinions about opinions, just it is not RS for opinions about the holders of opinions. Yes we cannot (and should not) change policy here. But that is (in effect) what is being done, BLPSPS is being altered or ignored when it suits certain opinions, and only a policy change can do that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it goes further than the appearance of integrity, to integrity itself – and this hinges on the question of whether QW is (in whole or in part) a WP:SPS. Answering that question will allow things to proceed with certainty and with compliance to the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is good, but please collapse the list of previous discussions and place it after the signature, but before the first section break. WP:PARITY is not a guideline that enjoys broad consensus, so it obviously can't override policies like WP:BLP and WP:RS. I think we have already established that there will be an RfC.- MrX 🖋 12:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is important to remember that the BLP restriction on self-published sources relates to statements about PEOPLE (ie we can not use an SPS to support a statement about the person who is the subject of the BLP). It does NOT relate to statements about theories, claims, practices etc (so, we can still use an SPS to support a statement about what that subject says). To put this another way: While we can not use QW to say that Dr X is a “quack”... we can use it to say that his claim that eating earth worms cures cancer is deemed “quackery“. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

True, what avoiut (say) "A promoter of Quakery"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No... that is still a statement ABOUT the person. We would need a separation ... something like: “a promoter of the earthworm diet, which is deemed quackery”. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is not up for deabte, it is whether or not it is acceptable for saying the former.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Although that may not an unreasonable approach, we've failed to get consensus for that interpretation when talking about BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is why we are here, if it is an SPS we need to then discus a change of policy at the appropriate venue, if it is not an SPS case closed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is all a bit of a nonsense anyway I think. Such a statement could be reformulated as (say)

Dr X promotes the green tomato diet with claims it can "cure all forms of cancer".[ref to Dr X's site] The green tomato diet confers no proven health benefits and has been characterized as quackery.[ref to QW]

So the insistence that QW cannot be used to say Dr X is a promoter of a quack diet is just syntactic pettifogging IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BLPSPS can be read to include statements about what a person thinks or does. Say a public figure, otherwise normal in all other aspects, asserts the moon is made of cheese and when pressed, stands by that statement, vowing he knows it is the truth. It would be inappropriate to use an SPS to talk about that fallacy absent mainstream RS sources that also point out the statement is wrong. Now, this is different from a situation where a person may be an an anti-vaxxer with their reasons for that falling in the same general lines that other anti-vaxxers give. If there was some need to include an SPS to dispel the fallacies of anti-vaxxing that did not talk about that person but about anti-vaxxers in general, that would be fine, as the SPS is not specifically focusing on the person. But as soon as the SPS turns to a piece that is directly about the person, their ideas or their actions, BLPSPS kicks in. --Masem (t) 15:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia and we are required to ensure fringe views are clearly described as such. Whether the moon is made of cheese is not a matter subject to WP:BLP. Using an ingenious "reading" of BLP to kick away one of WP's pillars would be ... problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP overrides NPOV for all purposes. Claims made about a BLP must be from RSes. If no RS has challenged an idea made by a BLP as quackery, it is not our place to call it out as quackery -- but at the same time, it is not our place to include the BLP's claim if no RSes have covered it in the first place (BLPs are not meant to be unduly self-serving so we're not going to re-iterate in-depth claims of quackery from primary sources). That's how we achieve the NPOV/FRINGE issues; if they are so fringe that only SPS are covering them, there's zero reason to include. --Masem (t) 15:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is really a different issue, and one worthy of debate, just not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think the core issues is specifically if QW is an SPS so that how it intersects with BLPSPS is handled. I don't think its status as an RS (SPS or not) on non-BLP pages about fringe medicine is in question: its got the right expertise for that when no names are involved. --Masem (t) 15:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP content must adhere strictly to NPOV, and NPOV tells us how to deal with fringe views. This is plainly written explicit policy. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Specifically, the WP:PSCI section of WP:NPOV, which directs the reader to WP:FRINGE for more info. Also see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

All of which talk about "Theories", not the people that hold them, nor can I see any mention of BLP's.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV does not state we must identify fringe views as fringe views, which is the point you argue. The sourcing has to be there to support it, otherwise that's engaging in OR. We need RS sourcing to identify those views as fringe to identify those views as such, and when we get to a BLP, that RS sourcing cannot be an SPS. But I will stress: between BLP, NPOV, and FRINGE, it is wholly inappropriate to include a BLP's fringe view in medical areas in the first place it is not discussed in any RS, thus eliminating the concern about disproving that view as FRINGE. That is, I find it really hard to believe there would ever be a case where we have good RSes that document a BLP's fringe medical view, and none of those RSes or other RSes describe the view as bad science or quackery to go along with it. --Masem (t) 15:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe that we have established that Quackwatch is a RS regarding pseudoscience and BLPs of pseudoscientists. What is still being debated is whether Quackwatch is an SPS -- specifically a self-published expert source that is considered to be a reliable source because it is produced by an established expert on the subject matter. My position is that Quackwatch is not an SPS at all and thus cannot be a reliable SPS. Other here disagree, and some here keep begging the question by assuming without evidence that we have already determined that Quackwatch is an SPS and using that as an argument in favor of us determining that Quackwatch is an SPS. These question-begging arguments are typically in the form of proclaiming that cannot use an SPS in a BLP without ever establishing that Quackwatch is an SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"we get to a BLP, that RS sourcing cannot be an SPS" <- you keep arguing that, but it's not part of the WP:PAGs, whereas BLP/FRINGE/NPOV are, and we are told to obey them strictly. BLP's prohibition on SPS's does - yes - apply to biographical information anywhere. But a claim in the realm of biomedicine is not biographical in nature (though it is a common misconception among arts types that scientific statements are a kind of self-expression). The problem would occur when RS (a mainstream news source say) uncritically reports some person's championing of something dodgy, and only a WP:PARITY source like Quackwatch bothers to counter it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP overrides NPOV for all purposes. As one of the original authors of WP:BLP, this makes it appear that you have a stupendous misunderstanding of WP:BLP. BLPs precisely must conform to NPOV, V, NOR - the difference from any other article is that standards of these policies are much higher. That's literally all - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that it is being argued that NPOV requires us to point out fringe medical/pseudoscience views, which may require weak sourcing like an SPS to do, but BLP does not allow the use of SPS for that. The way I would phrase it is that BLP requires meeting V/NOR/NPOV. but has special additions that enforce additional requirements beyond what V/NOR/NPOV establish. BLP does not weaken adherence to V/NOR/NPOV. --Masem (t) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"but BLP does not allow the use of SPS for that" <- that is a mis-statement of policy, pure & simple. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. I realize that the line "material about a living person" is the tricky part because it is very grey. A separate stand-alone quack theory is not material about a living person, but so often in disproving that theory, QW is making statements about the person's education, which is not allowed per BLPSPS (if QW is an SPS). Or, if we're not talking a full-fledged theory and are novel statements of opinion that trend towards quackery, it would be inappropriate to use QW as an SPS (if it is one) to criticize those since that's material about a person. Answering whether QW is an SPS is a key step, because if QW isn't, then all those issues vanish. But if it is, then becomes where is the line drawn where QW can be used on reporting on quackery of a theory without touching on the BLP themselves. --Masem (t) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody else seems to be finding it "very grey". Yes, the qualifications somebody has is "about them" (so no SPS for sourcing that!); whether or not (say) taking a dietary supplement is dangerous, or whether the earth is flat, is not information about a living person. NPOV tells us how to deal with fringe views, and BLP directs us to follow NPOV strictly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This (at its heart) is major part of the problem, BLP policy clearly states that nothing about a LP can be sourced to an SPS "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person...", to me never means never. So we go back to policy needs to be re-written, which is not in the scope of this RFC, or forum.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It may not be in the scope of this RfC, but the results of this RfC may well produce the arguments to be used in an attempt to tweak the BLPSPS policy wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think we need one example of a fringe theory or pseudoscience that is not called that in any RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A lot of these same arguments were rehearsed about Michael Greger's claims about diet (though the source in that case was Science-Based Medicine, not QW). This led to an RfC.[36]. Quackwatch is currently used in several biographies. From a quick search: Robert O. Young, Joseph Mercola and Eric R. Braverman - I haven't explored the wider sourcing for these people. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure its quite the same (but am not aware of the case), no one is saying we canont use QW for opinions about anyones views, only about them. As has been pointed out above much of this could be dealt with my re-wording. Which makes it all the harder to understand the opposition.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Young's page, as a starting point, I will say that is where QW is being used alongside non-SPS RSes (sciencebasedmedicine, a few other reports). Using QW to expand on those claims is fine, BLPSPS does not prevent that (presuming QW is treated as an SPS). It is when QW is the only source to point out fringe stuff. --Masem (t) 16:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally concerned about this - in times when we have a good source to use to reference a statement about a living person, using an SPS as well is unnecessary. If it is already sourced, we don't need need the SPS alongside it. If it is not sufficiently referenced by the non-SPS, we can't use the SPS to cover it. I see little value in using an SPS in addition to an RS in those cases, and some risk if we do. - Bilby (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is probably an issue beyond the present question of QW related to BLPSPS, but it is fair. As long as QW is going into more depth about claims made about the person already established in an RS, and not introducing new ones (in the case of QW, providing a more firm scientific basis why something is quackery), then it doesn't seem to run afoul of why we have BLPSPS. However, I do see BLPSPS being that hard line so would also agree with the point of why use QW if other nonSPS RS cover the same effective points. --Masem (t) 21:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If an SPS is making claims that no RS is making, even if that is simply a matter of more depth or details, then we're back in the realm of using an SPS to make claims about a living person. It is relevant, in this case, because QW has been used that way, and I've seen this a lot on fringe BLPs, where an SPS and a RS are both being used to source the same thing, but there is strong resistence to removing the SPS even when it adds nothing to the claims, and if it did add something we couldn't use it. But it is complex. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "no one is saying we canont use QW for opinions about anyones views, only about them" – that is precsiely what (I think) Masem is arguing. (quote above: "We need RS sourcing to identify those views as fringe to identify those views as such, and when we get to a BLP, that RS sourcing cannot be an SPS"). Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

OK then I (and I suspect all but one other person) have not argued that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also there is no point is discussion if QW is an SPS, that is for the FRC to decide. Do we have an agreement that this can be the basis of the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The original question was "Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?" I'm not sure why this has become so complicated. Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is a SPS is determined by whether or not they have independent reviewers (defined as lacking a conflict of interest) doing fact checking. Since proving a negative is damned near impossible, can anyone who thinks Quackwatch is not a SPS provide who the independent reviewers are? --Kyohyi (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would reviewers change anything? An SPS is a self published source. If the same person writes, edits and publishes the material, whether or not they also seek advice about the content, they are self publishing. The most getting people to advise on their content does is speak to reliablity - it doesn't change whether or not they are the one responsible for publishing their own material. - Bilby (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As others have said above, it's not necessarily so simple. What about this piece for example? Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

::Examples of self-published sources

Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including:

Blogs

Web forums

Wikis

Social networking sites like Facebook, Myspace, Google+, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Sites with user-generated content, including YouTube and Find A Grave

Business, charitable, and personal websites

So we go back to, looks like policy says it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The link provided by Alexbrn just above points out why this is a major BLP concern. That link, while demonstrating why the person's science is bad, starts by criticizing the lack of certain degrees or expertise. Absent any discussion of the medical/scientific theories, that information related to the person's expertise would be absolutely disallowed from an SPS on a BLP; that's exactly the type of stuff BLPSPS is meant to keep out without an RS to back it up. If we were discussing the quackery medical concepts only, we can still use that article, but we'd have to keep a 10 foot pole from including the claims about lack of expertise from that. This is where using QW becomes an issue as often, the disproving of the theory starts with challenging the BLP's credentials. If an RS was doing that, that would be fine, but not from an SPS , if that is what QW is. --Masem (t) 16:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also says this

If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published.

In determining whether a source is self-published, you should not consider any other factors. Neither the subject material, nor the size of the entity, nor whether the source is printed on paper or available electronically, nor whether the author is a famous expert, makes any difference.

As such work published on the site by other authors may not be SPS (It does also say forums and Wiki's which are often edited by people who do not own them), but nor does expertise render it an non SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

So from that it would follow that portions of Quackwatch (i.e. those not authored by Barrett) cannot be classified as WP:SPS? Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As I implied its not quite that simple "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of reviewers who are independent of the author (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course. Only the articles by Barrett which are only published at QW can be considered SPS, and that should be the focus of this RfC. Scrub all other considerations and simplify this matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's compromise: we can start the RfC on whether Quackwatch is self-published, since there is strong support for that question. If the RfC finds consensus that Quackwatch is self-published, or if there's no consensus, Quackwatch will continue to be classified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" – with a note that WP:PARITY is in effect for fringe topics. If the RfC finds consensus that Quackwatch is not self-published, we'll do a follow-up RfC to determine whether it's generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Quackwatch

Is Quackwatch a self-published source (WP:SPS)? — Newslinger talk 23:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Context matters: Please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of Quackwatch's content, such as the author(s), topic, and date of publication. The closers are advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. — Newslinger talk 23:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Quackwatch)

• No. See "Quackwatch is now an international network of people who are concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct."[37] QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, at least mostly, because the people who write most of the content are the same ones deciding to post that content on the website. It's important for editors to remember that "self-published" is not a term of abuse. It only means that the author and the publisher are the same person or organization. The same is true for, e.g., www.apple.com, www.coca-cola.com, and most other websites (with the significant exception of typical media outlets). So as a purely factual matter, if Stephen Barrett writes an article, and Stephen Barrett decides to post that article on Stephen Barrett's website, then that's self-published. It doesn't matter if Quackwatch is "now an international network", because the same definition applies: If "an international network" writes an article, and "an international network" decides to publish it, then it's self-published. However, articles by occasional contributors and people otherwise uninvolved in the organization are probably not self-published (because the occasional contributor writes it, but Stephen Barrett or that underspecified "international network" publishes it).
  There's always a tendency in these discussions to try to dodge the plain facts because it's inconvenient when we recognize that a source we like is somehow a WP:NOTGOODSOURCE – it's primary, or it's self-published, or it's not independent, or whatever. But I think the solution in that case isn't to pretend that this isn't (mostly) a self-published source. I think the solution is to invoke IAR or to adjust the policies and guidelines to accept these good sources even thought they don't happen to fall into the right abstract categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Quackwatch is now (and has been for the last 11 years) written, edited and published by Steven Barret on a website which he fully owns and controls. He does seek advice on some articles before he publishes them, (he notes that he sends some articles to advisers he selects if he is not confident with the material, and that he doesn't seek advice on news articles), and this helps speak to reliablity, but if an author ultimately controls all aspects of the publication process then they are self publishing. There are a small minority of articles on Quackwatch which were not originally published elsewhere but which are solely by authors other than Barrett - these should be considered on a case-by-case basis. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of editors have mentioned Quackwatch Inc. Quackwatch Inc was disolved by Barrett in 2008. Since then it has been solely owned and operated by Barrett. [38] - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, except the articles written by Barrett. The website is NOT an SPS. It's a huge database. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, Quackwatch is a self-published source (SPS). It is Stephen Barrett's website, and he writes most of the articles and controls the site. Contrary to WAID's post above, Apple.com isn't an SPS; it's created and maintained by a professional staff. Self-published sources are described in the sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, at WP:SPS:

  "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources."

Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources are never acceptable in BLPs unless written by the subject, and then only with certain caveats. This is an important safeguard in the BLP policy. It means that no individual can post something about a living person directly to their website, then use that post as a source on Wikipedia. It means that material about living persons has been checked before publication by professional editors and if it's contentious perhaps by the publisher's lawyers. For BLPs, we need to rely on sources with a professional editorial staff. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes As in my comments above [39] and per Slim Virgin. Add: if there is something really worth using as a source in QuackWatch it could possibly be found in another more reliable format. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, but among such sites it's reasonably reliable and has a good reputation. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, see LA Times (though that describes it as the skeptical blog Quackwatch), PSmag, CNN, The Atlantic (also describes it as a blog), New York Times, etc. The fact that many of these describe it as a blog IMHO makes it too dicey to use it directly for claims about a WP:BLP, but I do feel it's definitely a good source (with an in-line citation) for statements about treatments, theories, etc. Also, since I suspect this may come up, I don't feel that "this theory is wrong" or "this treatment is harmful" (on an article about the theory or treatment) is a WP:BLP-sensitive statement, even if the theory is unambiguously associated with one person - down that route lies madness, because it would rapidly extend BLP to cover nearly everything. --Aquillion (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, that The Atlantic inaccurately describes it as a blog, and that LA Times inaccurately describes QW as a blog (they accurately describe SBS as a blog) is problematic....for The Atlantic and LA Times. That means that they are not RS when it comes to describing QW. That is very careless writing. At least they use QW favorably.

  There is NOTHING about QW that is like a blog, not in the old sense or new sense. BTW, even if it was a blog, it would not be the comments from others which we'd use, only the content written by the recognized subject experts, and that is allowed here (except for Barrett's articles about a BLP person as his articles are SPS). Unfortunately, some still use the old definition of a blog (a personal public diary where others can comment, and that is the type of blog we deprecate) and don't see the development in use of blogs since then. It's just another website format, and some public persons, politicians, and companies choose that easy format as their official websites. QW is nothing like that. It does not use blog software or format. Besides, no matter the format, there is still editorial control by subject experts, and for the articles written by Barrett, he often seeks input from other subject experts, and he does have lawyers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly BullRangifer! Sgerbic (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Editorial control involves having an editor other than the author in charge of whether or not something is published. In this case Barrett seeks advice about some articles, but the editor is still Barrett, as he makes all the editorial decisions regarding the articles he writes and publishes. - Bilby (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• No except those articles written by Barrett not proofread or overseen by Quackwatch’s Scientific and Technical Advisors. Quackwatch has made an effort to let the public know that its articles were overseen by 152 advisors in 2009, and more than 1,000 over time.[40] I accept these statements in good faith. Also Quackwatch should not be called “partisan” because according to definition it is not “strongly supporting a person, principle, or political party, often without considering or judging the matter very carefully”.[41] By comparison or contrast articles by the Southern Poverty Law Center are not called “partisan” at WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Alternatively Quackwatch may be biased against quackery, but that's not a bias, just a normal, neutral and mainstream sensible position. CatCafe (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  A small clarification: the Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) is labeled as biased or opinionated in its entry, a term that is used interchangeably with the word partisan. — Newslinger talk 05:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• No per CatCafe. I give a "here here" to Cat's statement that it is not biased against quackery, it is just repeating the conscientious of science. It has a terrific reputation. Sgerbic (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Further comment - If the argument is that QW is not allowed because it is a blog because it allows comments, then SBM would also be a blog. If the argument is that QW is published on a website, then again so is SBM. Barrett himself is notable and even his comments about living persons when published on QW are RS as are all other comments from other notable persons. Those comments should always be qualified by "According to Steven Barrett ... " The definition that is written for this discussion is the problem and we should be discussing QW's use as a RS and NOT how it fits some wordy description that sorta sums up what we call rules. These discussions are really getting into the weeds. Is QW a RS or not? That is the question we should be discussing. And to that I say Yes. And keep in mind that these arguments against QW would also fit the discussion against SMB which I'm sure we would agree, would be ridiculous. Sgerbic (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• • QW isn't comparable to SBM. While I dislike the sarcastic tone of both, SBM has the oversight of multiple qualified editors in the fields of medicine and science which makes it a reliable source per our guides, and which at the least makes SBM a good source for relevant opinions. (As well, it might be worth repeating.) Sources are only reliable for the content they source but not for anything and everyhting. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, similarly to what Littleolive oil and Aquillion wrote, I think it's a good source that may be useable for scientific statements on a case-by-case basis (particularly when lacking opposing views sources in fringe topics), but not for biographies, as it is a self-published source. But even for scientific statements, either QuackWatch provides a good bibliography that we can directly use, or it's not and then it's only QuackWatch's opinion and not facts and then it's arguable whether QW should be used at all. The fact that there may be multiple authors does not change the fact that there is no systematic reviewing process, this essentially remains a blog. Essentially, I think we should treat it as any other self-published source, we should make no exception solely because we appreciate the source, as I think it's a dangerous path as I wrote in WP:NOBIAS. --Signimu (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No QuackWatch is peer reviewed and is published by Quackwatch, Inc. It is not like a self published blog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is (mostly) written, owned and published by one person (thus fits OUR definition of SPS), Expertise and accuracy are (as stated in policy) irrelevant for determining this. Now there may be evidence of peer review, but there are some statements that its owner publishes anything he likes the look of without peer review (thus may fail the SPS statement about knowing the publisher), thus I am not sure it is possible to say which have been peer reviewed or which are by his mates and have just been published as is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No because QuackWatch is peer reviewed --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - The answer to this question is a judgement call because of the loosey-goosey definition of "self published source" in WP:SPS. Quackwatch has characteristics of "claim to be an expert", "newsletters",[42], a "personal blog", a "group blog", a "content farms", and "internet forum postings"[43]. The website includes articles written by the owner of the website, as well as articles curated from various sources like forum posts,[44] conference papers,[45] other self published sources, and journals. The website owner has a medical degree and practiced psychiatry more than two decades ago, but it's not clear what qualifies him to declare a wide variety of subjects "quackery". I'm not aware that he has specialized training in the field of identifying and debunking quackery, although it's clear he is singularly devoted to that cause. The website has no editorial staff or independent editorial process that I can discern, and the idea that the website is peer reviewed appears to be an attempt to lend it legitimacy by co-opting jargon from conventional science publishers. - MrX 🖋 13:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, yes. One way or the other, it seems to be Barrett's website, to the extent that anyone else has input on the content it is at the discretion of Barrett, and Barrett it the final authority on all editorial decisions. Saying "lots of anonymous experts look at this stuff sometimes" sounds nice, but from what I can tell, it is still Barrett who decides what topics need outside input, Barrett who chooses these experts, and Barrett who decides whether or not to incorporate their recommendations. None of these accouterments make it not-Barrett's-website. GMG^talk 15:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Everything I can see here fits the definition of SPS almost to a tee. Almost everything is written or dictated by the owner of the site with no oversight. It is basically a blog from what I can tell. Also I see no signs of actual peer review so that is not an argument. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is (mostly) written and reviewed by Barrett, and published at a site owned by the author. Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, there's an editorial board/peer review going on and it's an authoritative source on quackery of all sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per CatCafe and Doc James. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Quackwatch)

• Note: Self-published sources should not be used as third-party sources for living persons, per WP:BLPSPS. Changes to WP:BLPSPS are outside the scope of this RfC, and should be proposed at WT:BLP if needed. — Newslinger talk 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment: Due to the contentiousness of this topic, a panel of uninvolved administrators will be requested to close this RfC. — Newslinger talk 23:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Talk:Quackwatch, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Doc James: Quackwatch Inc. was disolved 11 years ago, in 2008. - Bilby (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• According to Quackwatch the site is peer-reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Some times "It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail.". The problem is we do not know how often, or which are.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That is misleading to take the content out of context. Also see "Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts."[46] QuackGuru (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • And most is not all, so (again) we do not know which or how many. So any article (even if it is only about the science) may not have undergone any peer review process.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
        • That is another misleading statement. Most articles related to the scientific basis are reviewed by at least one expert, while others are reviewed by more than one expert. QuackGuru (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Which part is misleading? "some does not mean all"? or "we do not know which or how,many"? Ohh and it does not say "while others are reviewed by more than one expert." it says "Some are reviewed by many experts", that may well include all of those listed under "at least one relevant expert".Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
            • "And most is not all" is your personal opinion. Quackwatch did not say there are articles related to the scientific basis that are not reviewed. They explained most are reviewed by at least one expert and there are other articles that are reviewed by many experts. Everything else is speculation. QuackGuru (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
              • And if they had meant all they would have said all. "Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts." does not say all are peer reviewed. Also does it differentiate between news and "science articles"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
                • QuackGuru also left out the next sentence where Barrett states "News articles are not usually reviewed prior to posting". [47] However, having some articles checked before you publish them doesn't change who the publisher is - the author and publisher are still the same person, so it is still being selfpublished, even if Barrett seeks advice on some articles. - Bilby (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

winstonchurchill.org

Hello. Is winstonchurchill.org a reliable source for Racial views of Winston Churchill?

It's a piece of polemic,in a website dedicated to preserving his memory. It would be a reliable source for Richard M. Langworth's views on the racial views of Winston Churchill, but a neutral academic textbook or similar would be a better source to use. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I think OK with attribution, but I would.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done I used winstonchurchill.org's full text instead of the quotes used by BBC. Which, since the article is about racial views and not about chemical weapons, is the only needed part. Aryzad (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No, no, no absolutely not. You cannot do that. The discussion didn't mention that the proposal was to use this website to directly substitute its interpretation and analysis for that of the BBC. That is utterly unacceptable - in limited circumstances, this could be used to briefly present this source's opinion, as their opinion, but giving it priority over the opinion of an established, reliable secondary source like the BBC is absolutely WP:UNDUE. Evaluating how to use sources isn't just a matter of RS / non-RS; sources have differing reputations and weights. The BBC is obviously a better source here and needs to be given prominence, with Richard M. Langworth's personal disagreement given a single sentence to present a potentially WP:FRINGE view, if that. You cannot present his view as truth, hardstop, and I'm skeptical that you can even use his views to cast doubt on the BBC, since the difference in reliability and prominence is so stark. Your solution of presenting the quotes in a way that implies Langworth's interpretations without directly saying so is in some respects even worse, since it raises WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues - if Langsworth's position is to be included at all, it should be directly said that it's his opinion (and would have to be accurately represented as a minority position.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Churchill is among the most written about political figures of the 20th century. I don't know why we should need to use either a website or a news article as a source. The Guardian bit isn't a particularly good source in this instance either. It's a click bait article written by a person who seems to specialize in nothing but random click bait articles: How did my dad's Uber account get hacked?, The rise of passive-aggressive wi-fi names, and The etiquette of coffee shop lounging among their outstanding contributions to enlightened public discourse. GMG^talk 17:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Yes, there are many sources about the subject and a book, for example, is probably a better source; however, I don't think that BBC is unreliable. There are so many people who check BBC's articles. Aryzad (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

"The BBC" is not a monolith, and you cannot assume that everything published by the BBC is reliable simply because most content published by the BBC is reliable. In this case, this is an article by someone, who as far as I can tell, has no actual credentials in either history or Churchill, and whose only purpose at the BBC appears to be writing low-quality click bait, with no particular area of expertise to speak of. GMG^talk 19:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You are right; the article's author is also important. However, I still think the article is a RS, but using an academic source is obviously a better idea. I will try to find one. Aryzad (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Aryzad Just a quick note to add that I'm absolutely in agreement with GMG on this - there must be massively better sources out there to use than the beeb. It's a reliable source for news, naturally, and I'm not saying it's formally unreliable in this context, but it's just a bad choice for a subject that has been written about so extensively by academics in peer reviewed articles and monographs. We should be looking for the best sources, not just the first one that Google throws up that would probably pass the WP:RS test. Thank you for agreeing to try to find some. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Kissyfur

Is this IO9 Top 10 list that claims certain shows don't deserve to be remembered a reliable source regarding critical reception of the series Kissyfur? I don't think barely-known Top 10 lists with negative opinions aren't good sources. 73.123.30.85 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

IO9 is generally reliable, except for it's user-submitted section.

I'd say attribute it as opinion. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Listicles are essentially sets of passing mentions; not reliable per WP:RSCONTEXT. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it, but not for the reason of reliability. A source is scrupulously reliable for quoting or paraphrasing what it says itself. The fact that IO9 has rated a show on a list IO9 itself has published can be reliably sourced to the list itself. The question is: is IO9 a respected source of criticism such that its lists are worth including from an WP:UNDUE standpoint? That is, would someone expect such a list to carry significant weight, because IO9 is specifically well known for its criticism of cartoon shows? For a parallel example, let's take the list of 50 Greatest Players in NBA History as published by the NBA itself. I would expect such a list, notably compiled from the opinions of many of the most respected basketball journalists of all time, by the NBA itself, to carry significant weight, and so a player that appeared on that list would be worth mentioning in their article. The question is, what weight does IO9 carry in terms of critical journalism of cartoon series? Does it have that reputation? Or is it the equivalent of just one person coming up with their own list? Again, it isn't a reliability issue, which is about "Do we trust that the information we are citing is correct?" Of course it is correct, IO9 is correctly publishing it's own opinion. That's not a reliability issue. It's why should we care? That's an issue for WP:UNDUE. I don't know IO9's specific place in the field of TV show criticism, so you're going to all have to figure that out yourselves, but unless they are a "household name" in the field, I would err on the side of not including it. --Jayron32 20:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say it's technically reliable but probably WP:UNDUE. It could be used as one sentence in a larger paragraph covering reception from a variety of sources, but I don't think it makes sense to devote an entire section to, effectively, one brief item in a list. --Aquillion (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems more a concern about the overall lack of reception coverage in the current article version (and perhaps also the borderline notability of the subject) rather than a rationale to exclude the IO9 piece from being cited in the article under any circumstances (as would be provided by the "views of tiny minorities" part of WP:UNDUE which refers to flat-earth type opinions). I have searched for other reception coverage, finding only a similarly negative LA Times review so far (see also below), and started a broader reception section in the article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As others have stated, IO9 can be regarded as RS. Despite what 73.123.30.85 claimed here, neither the age of the article's author nor the website's former owners change that. Neither do reviews have to be positive to count as RS, as 73.123.30.85 appears to assume above.

Regarding the (offtopic) NPOV/UNDUE discussion: WP:NPOV asks us to reflect "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Searching for such views, it seems that the reception of this minor TV series in reliable sources may have been very limited (e.g. IMDB lists no professional reviews). Apart from some blogs which are way less reliable and relevant than IO9, the only other one I can find right now is the LA Times piece (one of the only two other RS already cited in our current article), consisting of one similarly negative paragraph. Considering this, IO9's assessment clearly seems significant here and should be included. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, IO9's opinion is not significant merely because no one else mentioned it. It is only significant if the greater world at large considers IO9's opinion on such matters worth listening to. Has the source built a reputation for critical analysis of cartoon shows or not? If it hasn't, then its opinion is not significant. --Jayron32 21:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody said "merely". IO9 is "a Tomatometer-approved publication", meaning that its TV reviews are considered to be significant by Rotten Tomatoes. In other words, the opinion of editors who consider them insignificant runs against the judgment of a reliable source (see also the Rotten Tomatoes entry in WP:RSP). BTW, it is also worth being aware that IO9 has already been cited or linked over 2000 times, often in articles about popular culture. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I never said it wasn't such a source. I merely gave you information so you could determine, and demonstrate to others, that it is such a significant source. If its reviews are held in such regard (and again, I am not saying that the actually are, AND saying that I am not saying that they are not. I hold no position on the matter) than they could be used. If they were not, then they should not be. --Jayron32 13:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek RfC

Newsweek has been discussed here several times this year (see [48] [49] [50]) but no real consensus around whether it is a reliable source has been reached. This RfC seeks to come to a consensus whether Newsweek is and ever was a reliable source. This is important as it is being used as a reference in thousands of articles newsweek.com  . This RfC is divided into two parts in order to find consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 1 (Reliability) and discussion

Question 1: Is Newsweek generally reliable in its areas of expertise?

• No. In the last two weeks it has been called a zombie publication by Slate and accused of selling off its legacy by the Columbia Journalism Review. The Atlantic article, the Wall Street Journal article and Politico article are among the many other publications that have covered Newsweek's decline; there are more if those aren't your publications of choice. It's a sad state for one of the great American newsmagazines to find itself in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, not anymore. Too many reliable sources have documented the current lack of journalistic quality. Schazjmd (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Sadly, not anymore. It is not currently publishing reliable stuff; it was once one of the three (along with Time and US News and World Report) largest and best respected weekly US news magazines, but alas it appears it is no longer. --Jayron32 14:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think it is still generally reliable - as many others noted during the most recent discussion. It does not mean everyone should blindly trust this or any other source. All news sources were criticized. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  While that discussion was relatively recent I would suggest the discourse has changed. The Slate article seems to have traction with other publications reiterating the Zombie line e.g. (NY Mag &The Ringer. I would also suggest that conversation didn't include the Atlantic or WSJ article. To which I could also add this from The Guardian or this from the Washington Post both from 2018 about the internal discord which has resulted in the CJR and Slate bigger picture analysis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Generally reliable. Most articles on WP editors want at least two sources, so this is one source. Lightburst (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• In broad terms, generally reliable, but my answer is better explained in Question 2. --Masem (t) 03:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I was going to say that it had declined but could still be used, but after reading those stories I'm leaning towards generally unreliable (and I suggest people commenting read them, too; they're pretty alarming.) The CJR source suggests a definite lack of fact-checking (Lack of knowledge on a topic doesn’t stop them from assigning stories, which has led to Newsweek wrongly declaring that Japanese citizens want to go to war with North Korea and incorrectly reporting that the girlfriend of Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was a polygamist). I'm also particularly concerned about the first paragraph of the Politico piece, which reads Despite the late hour, I dropped a note to an editor who took the story down off the website. You can see the link on Google, but if you click, you’ll get “Error 404. PAGE NOT FOUND.” There’s no correction, which is what a normal news company might post. Quietly removing a story is not the same as a correction, especially from our perspective - if someone cited that inaccurate story here, we would just switch to an archived link with no further correction. That piece goes on to list a series of similar errors in the next paragraph. More importantly, both these and other sources describe this as part of a general pattern of decline stemming from cost-cutting, rather than as individual lapses. --Aquillion (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards generally unreliable. I'm particularly concerned that they appear to just completely take down stories rather than issuing a correction or publishing something indication what was originally at the link was withdrawn. While we do have a problem with live updating stories randomly changing, it's IMO way over the line if a source just tries to erase history when they screwed up. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable but used with caution, removing incorrect stories shows sincerity even if it does make things awkward for us at Wikipedia. Also assessment of Newsweek based on articles in rival media should be treated with caution as a number of them have a vested interest in denigrating their rivals, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  I would suggest The Atlantic (as a monthly publication) and CJR (as a publication devoted to media analysis) are not rival publications. The fact that other also non-rival publications have picked up Slate's terminology suggest that the criticism from Slate isn't owing to being a competitor. To me a publication ceases to be generally reliable when they do things like pull a piece off-line rather than fact correct. No longer being generally reliable doesn't make them unreliable - it just means that they don't get an automatic presumption and we would have to do things like look at whether other RS have confirmed the coverage or otherwise reported on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Masem. That doesn't mean a single article can't be questioned (which should be generally true for all sources) but generally reliable. Springee (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per above arguments, and particularly the CJR coverage. That having been said, given the publication's household name status, I would anticipate further editorial shakeups and/or changes in ownership, which could put the source back on the right path. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 2 (Date) and discussion

Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is no when did it stop being generally reliable in its area of expertise (e.g. 2015, it never was, etc)?

• I would argue sources show it's not been reliable since it was bought by IBT in 2011 and there was a further steep decline in 2017. I would suggest it was generally reliable before then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, The Politico article points out "in 2016 the magazine was nominated for a National Magazine Award for General Excellence for one of just a handful of times in its 80-plus year history." (That was under Jim Impoco's leadership.) Also, it was sold in 2010 but not to IBT; they bought it in 2013. I just want to add that I found this RFC very sad. I haven't read Newsweek in a long time, but knew them as a respected periodical and I had no idea they'd crumbled so badly. Schazjmd (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Schazjmd, yeah I think that's fair. It's why I noted the dual cut-off. There was definitely good journalism done post-2011 but there processes and motivations were different. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Will just note that I think Jayron's sliding scale comment just below better encapsulates my thinking on its reliability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would say generally reliable before 2013, not reliable after due to the documented push for clickbait and page views after IBT bought it. Schazjmd (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• I would say that there's a sliding scale of reliability that looks good before the 2011ish time period, but gets progressively less reliable over time, however they still do occasionally publish good things, as noted above. I would say that prior to about 2011, I wouldn't bat an eye at anything cited to Newsweek, but the further we get from that, the more their stories should be cross-checked against other sources. --Jayron32 14:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree pre-2011 Newsweek was rarely a source to blink at in terms of quality and reliability. Since 2011, and moreso lately, it has slipped into clickbait journalism, with stories with no real meaning or impact, though they still have appropriate coverage. (eg [51] looks fine pulled from its front page). I would use a different source if it was possible for stories like this. But when it comes to stories like [52] this which I am amazed to even see there, yeeeeeah. Post-2011, Newsweek should be used with caution, but generally still reliable. --Masem (t) 03:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• That was a great assessment with great links. And I agree with you. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• As others have said, pre-2011 Newsweek is on par with any other major news publication. Based on the information available, I think that 2017 is when we clearly move into unreliable territory, with 2011–2016 comprising a gray area. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

General discussion

We should use only the best sources posible. If a source is questionable ( especially in the public sphere) we should default to maintain the Integrity of Wikipedia and find a stronger source.--Moxy 🍁 15:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

LifeSiteNews

I'd like to comment on the unreliability of LifeSiteNews, particularly this, which has been deleted from the Rebecca Kiessling article citing WP:RSP. The piece, written by the subject herself, was only intended to support claims about her date and place of birth as well as her views on abortion: diff. It was not written by the website, nor are the claims about abortion she makes in it included in the Wiki; it's a blog post that merely recalls her experience with abortion. So, while I don't necessarily question the consensus against the source, I think there should be an exception and not dismiss it outright. Perhaps we could just tag the ref with Template:Better source inline so other editors would be given a chance to provide a better one. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If there's no other source for the statement than a source that was deprecated at an RFC for extreme unreliability to the point of just making stuff up, then there are obvious problems including it in a BLP, of all places. Is there any mainstream RS coverage of these facts?

More generally, the thing to do with deprecated sources is not to look for reasons to include them anyway - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I should note, I'm not disputing the facts themselves - but LifeSiteNews is worse than a {{citation needed}} - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• LifeSiteNews is completely unusable as a source. We already decided that. Guy (help!) 10:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. We should not use the cite, their unreliability is so bad, we can't even trust that the article they have claimed has been written by Kiessling herself was done so. That's the point of the prior discussion. As David Gerard says above, sites of this level of unreliability are actually worse than a cn tag, and should be removed in cases like this, even if they are the only source. --Jayron32 14:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. LifeSiteNews is a notoriously unreliable source and should not be acceptable as a source for any article on Wikipedia. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes-LSN should not be used to report on facts, but I don't know when they've ever been accused of fabricating what someone told them. I see no reason why claims made by people through LSN should not be included. Display name 99 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes -I agree with Display name 99. LSN is a conservative catholic website, generally reliable, trusted by many leading catholic figures and leading vaticanists. Senior Vaticanist Philip Pullella just described it in 2019 in a Reuters article as "a conservative Catholic website that often criticizes the pope" and frequently uses it as a source (here or [here). New York Times columnist Ross Douthat used it as a source in his last book about Francis and the Catholic Church. I could go on and on. Claims made by people through LSN should of course be included. Thucyd (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Partially usable. Some portions of Rebecca Kiessling's blog post from LifeSiteNews (RSP entry) can be used in the Rebecca Kiessling article under WP:ABOUTSELF. However, WP:ABOUTSELF is very restrictive, and only applies to Kiessling's uncontroversial self-descriptions. It does not apply to Kiessling's claims about third parties. For example, in Special:Diff/924651825, the post can be used for Kiessling's birthdate and residence (if uncontroversial), but not for "In addition, she told Kiessling that she would have had an abortion if it had been legal at the time she fell pregnant with her. Kiessling's mother, though, recanted this six years later, saying that she was glad her daughter was born." because Kiessling's mother is a third party.

  For the general case, see the July 2019 RfC, which deprecated LifeSiteNews. Since RfCs are more broadly publicized than discussions, it would take a new RfC to overturn the existing consensus. It is unlikely that consensus has changed since the previous RfC, which is still recent. — Newslinger talk 10:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

News of the World

• newsoftheworld.co.uk   / newsoftheworld.com  
• News of the World

This paper was legendary in its day as a scandal sheet with an unusually loose association with both truth and journalistic ethics. I propose to tag and then remove the couple of hundred links we have to this site. Guy (help!) 10:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not technically the same as The Sun, but along those lines. It was famously disreputable for decades. Even as it had occasional genuine news scoops. Has it the same useful pretty-reliable status as the Sun and Daily Mail do for facts of sports coverage? (Though never material about the sportspeople.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Because of who is doing this, and how they're proposing to do this. I would support a TBAN against them doing anything similar, in thr future.

The NotW is trash. It is remarkable that we even have such links used as references. There is a possibility of some in a self-referential context being valid, but that's a separate situation.

But, all that said, I do not want (in the strongest possible terms) Guy to do another of these crusade runs. Particularly one expressed as ""remove the couple of hundred links we have", i.e. to remove all of them, and with no attempt at per-use review. We've seen this before, and these runs have not been a good thing. I raised the Daily Mail run just a week ago Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Daily_Mail_bulk_removals_(again). Despite the fact we have RfCs in place that we will not remove the DM automatically like this. We've also had the castles run, where Guy used WP:FAIT to remove a source he had no understanding of, then it was opposed on the grounds that the author of the site was being overly modest and in fact it ought to be regarded as WP:RS, because of the author's standing in that field. But by then, the damage was done.

Guy should not be making bulk runs like this. They are badly done (they leave stranded citations, and they remove RS sources to other sites, amongst other problems). They are also blanket runs, removing everything, with no attempt made at any per-use editorial judgement. For those two reasons, this is a bad idea.

It's also disappointing that Guy has taken the proposition "The NotW is not a fit source" and established a track record for his problem removals so bad that it's now a questionable idea that he should be doing something, when that's so evidently an overall good idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WTF? A topic ban for unsuspecting the NOW (a news paper closed down for wrong doing) is not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe try reading the paragraph above? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest you take it to ANI and not here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur that if you're claiming that this is intrinsically wrong, you need ANI or similar - if you think you have a case, you need to make it. You're not even discussing the paper, just ranting about another editor you don't like - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I will add you oppose based on arguments, not who makes them, that validates the oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's intrinsically wrong - and if I did, this would be the place to discuss that.

My point is that Guy has used this crusade tactic before, and has done so badly and with damaging effects afterwards. He has zero interest in cleaning up any such mess, it's just his edits, therefore they're self-justifying on that basis alone.

Should we make some effort to clean up and remove NotW sources? Probably.

Is Guy the person to do so? Absolutely not. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If you think Guy should be topic banned from removal of sources, the correct venue to bring that up is WP:ANI. Such a discussion should not happen here. Gather some diffs and build your evidence at WP:ANI and the discussion can happen there. --Jayron32 17:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you're explicitly not discussing the quality of the source, you're making an extended personal attack on another editor. If you think you have a case to make - that keeping known-untrustable sources is good actually, and Guy should be sanctioned for removing the known-untrustable sources - you need to bother making it convincingly. So far you're WP:1AM - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support deprecating the source and removing any inappropriate uses of it. So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness (there would be places where its use would be necessary; for example when used to cite a direct quote, etc.) however, wherever it is being used as an inline cite for anything said in Wikipedia's voice should be removed with extreme prejudice. --Jayron32 14:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• What does "deprecate" mean? It's a word I use a lot. But what does it mean in the WP content context? We seem to have never agreed this, and it's significant.

When "deprecate" is used in the context of the definition of formal standards, then it almost always means "We don't like this, we don't want to create any more of it, but we recognise that there's no way to make its existence go away immediately." So it begins by not creating any more instances of it. But it doesn't begin with a steamroller to remove all existing instances, and to leave gaps behind instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Deprecate means to express disapproval of and to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of/to seek to avert. I hope that helps. Also, sometimes a citation needed tag is better than using a bad source. The use of a bad source would imply that no one needs to find something. A CN tag alerts readers to research for a source. With sources of the lowest possible quality (that is, sources known to actively make things up rather than just be of unknown reliability), it is frequently better to simply remove them. As I noted, however, I have not advocated for 'remove all existing instances". I have listed places where it would be useful to retain the source in question, however we should simply not use the source to speak in Wikipedia's voice because it really is that bad. Other uses, where we make it clear we are directly quoting and attributing it to the source, may be useful. I will point out that when I said "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness" what I had actually meant was "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness". I hope that also clarifies it, since you seem to have misunderstood me there. --Jayron32 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• So you're using it with the meaning of "express disapproval of"? I can support that. But that's not the same as bulk, unchecked removal of them throughout.

Also there is a difference between avert and revert: I have no problem averting these, i.e. to avoid the creation of any more. But again, that's not the same thing as a bulk removal of them.

Rather than removal and {{citation needed}}, we also have a tag {{better source needed}}. It's intended for precisely this situation, nor does it imply the prior removal of the existing source. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, we're going to have to continue to disagree there. I agree that in many cases, the "better source needed" tag is appropriate; however not in all cases, and this particular source presents one where removing it is a better option. That isn't always true, or even usually true, but it is sometimes true, and this is one of those times, when I would rather have no source than this one. Secondly, and I'm going to repeat this a third time because you have missed it the other two times, I have not said that we should do a "bulk removal". I have said, and I quote again, "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness." I would be rather opposed to any sort of blind removal of sources just on the name; however where the source is being used to cite text in Wikipedia's own voice rather than to cite a direct quote with in-text attribution (for example, in an article where its unreliability is being directly addressed, and where direct quotes are needed to establish its wrongness), then we should of course not remove those citations. I could also probably, if given enough time, come up with other times we wouldn't remove it. So no, we should not remove them in a "bulk" manner, but we should still use the ones that are being used inappropriately, which would be anywhere the source is being used as an inline cite for text in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32, I remove deprecated unreliable sources when they are redundant to other, more reliable ones. Otherwise I tag the cite as needing a better source.

I remove predatory open access journals wherever I find them.

David Gerard also does some of this, but very few of us do, so without this effort, sources we all agree are worthless remain in Wikipedia untouched. Guy (help!) 09:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I've been systematically removing a lot of deprecated sources lately, on the basis that deprecated sources have been deprecated because we literally cannot trust them not to be lying nonsense, and they are actually worse than having nothing. News of the World is definitely that quality of source, by the way - there is no reasonable justification for using it as a source for anything, except maybe sporting facts, and then only in desperation. If Andy is opposed to this, he needs to make his case that keeping known-untrustworthy sources is good actually, and get the community to concur. "Deprecated" means "can't be trusted for anything." They absolutely should be removed, as should substantial claims cited only to them - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, I am not removing and leaving {{cn}}, I am tagging as needing a better source unless the source is redundant (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) in which case I am removing it altogether and leaving the other sources. So basically you're telling me I should be doing exactly what I am doing, but at the same time saying I should be topic banned for doing it. Guy (help!) 09:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• So your announcement at the top here, I propose to tag and then remove the couple of hundred links was false?

The trouble is that I don't believe your new claim. I've never seen you doing that before. I've not seen you use {{better source needed}}, but I've seen you remove citations altogether a lot, even when that blanket removal was being challenged here. As to (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) I've also seen you remove all of the citations in such a group, even when some were RS. And of course, when you create technical errors like that, even if you grudgingly admit them later, then you're never the one doing the cleanup work afterwards.

As already stated (and mis-read by nearly everyone in this thread) I'm not looking to preserve use of the NotW. But, given your demonstrated track record on similar actions, I don't trust your competence to do so. You seem confused as to whether you're immediately removing them or not. You keep using "deprecated", yet there is no definition of this term available, in the way in which you or WP are using it, so just what does that mean? (see the multiple definitions given above). You have taken the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC which did not support bulk removal and then cited them to justify exactly such a bulk removal. Yes, I see your actions as unsupported and inappropriate, and, more surprisingly, they even fail WP:COMPETENCE because your collateral damage keeps affecting non-targets as well. But you're an admin, so you're immune at ANI and there's no point wasting my time there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be an admission that you literally don't have a case - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: deprecate, remove, scour. NotW has always been a worse-than-useless source that is absolutely unsuitable for Wikipedia. I might make an exception for sporting facts if there's no other source - as with the Sun and Daily Mail - but that's about it - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• So are there further substantive non-derailing opinions on News Of The World? - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes and if it continues it should be take to ANI as disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And if you try your "Anyone who disagrees with me is being disruptive" scare tactic any further, guess where you're going? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you considered that this discussion perfectly fits the description at WP:1AM? Please cut it with the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate (personally I'd be closer to "kill with fire" but that's a disruptive opinion) I have removed all remaining citations to the News of the World on BLPs, so there are now none left. I still have plans to fix the 123 remaining BLPs that are citing The Sun. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to deprecating the source. Nor with how Guy has indicated they plan to handle it like adding a 'better source needed' tag. I would oppose replacing the source with a 'citation needed' tag as some have suggested for Daily Mail and I think here. As has been indicated, this can actually make things worse, as the Daily Mail may have details (often at least a time frame) which can make finding other sources easier. It would be better to simply remove the info as uncited which is technically justified for any uncited content. That said, it's IMO an open question about whether info sourced to a deprecated source should be treated exactly the same as uncited content. And in addition, although removing uncited content is justified, mass removing uncited content can be disruptive in some cases. (Although it's complicated. If someone comes a cross a BLP largely uncited, it will be difficult to find fault with an editor who pares it down to a bare minimum.) If editors are concerned that the 'better source needed' tag doesn't adequately convey the problem, we should consider some new tag to do so rather than causing problems for other editors by removing the info which may be needed to find another source. (I mean this isn't quite as bad as those who think it's okay to remove a dead bare URL, but still....) In addition, we can also consider delinking the source (making it so it's only text) if people feel that is necessary to help protect readers. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thinking about it more, technically we could probably also do something so the details are hidden to the reader but are still there. Ultimately there are surely many solutions if editors are concerned about the possible harm from readers reading the deprecated source which don't require us removing the source and replacing it with a citation needed tag potentially causing problems for anyone wanting to find a source. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  It's arguably a source whose claims can literally not be trusted, and such claims should be removed - particularly in BLPs. Though we'd need a proper RFC, which this isn't - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, my concern here was with the suggestions that instead of removing the content, we should remove the source and replace it with a fact tag. I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the content, although as I implied and elabourated in more detail below, the problem with removing content is while it's technical justified for any specific content, outside of BLPs, mass removing content across a whole host of articles simply because it's unsourced tends to be seen as disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have information in an article (and indeed a policy that explicitly says we should not be a random collection if information). It is down to those who want to retain information to find better sources, it is not down to us to keep poorly sourced (or unsourced) information.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Mostly agreed although I'm not sure if there's any likelihood of anyone disagreeing anyway. But the problem is, this doesn't change the fact that mass removing uncited info tends to be seen as disruptive, and will often lead to a block. And in this case, it's questionable if the info should be treated exactly the same as uncited. In other words, while removing any single instance of info cited to NoTW will probably be okay, removing it in one thousands instances may be a problem. BLP is one area you will probably be fine, but in other areas, I'd urge caution. (Don't believe me, go to Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Visit every article and remove any info with a citation needed tag. Do the same for the next page. See how long you last before you're blocked. For that matter, you'll probably find in many of those articles it's not the the tag part which appears uncited but a lot of it. If you want to really test the waters, try removing all the content that appears uncited.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: News of the World

Should News of the World be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail (RSP entry), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use News of the World as a source? — Newslinger talk 00:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (News of the World)

• Yes, but "deprecation" should mean what the word means, and what WP:DEPS says it means. It doesn't begin with, "tag and then remove the couple of hundred links we have". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate, at least from 2000 onwards. Was on the fence since although I find any UK tabloid dodgy, so far we have not come to an agreement that they should all be deprecated. And I wasn't particularly aware of details showing that this was one particularly known for just making up stuff etc like the Daily Mail. So was waiting to see what others provided. But upon further consideration, I feel we cannot trust any source with as terrible ethics as they had with the hacking and use of corrupt police. Technically their terrible ethics seemed to be in trying to uncover info, but if you're willing engage in such practices, who knows what on earth else you're doing? (The 'kidnap plot' is possibly one example of this.) I'd note that my support should explicitly not be interpreted as supporting replacing all NotW links with 'citation needed' tags. And any mass removal of content should abide by the same norms for any mass removal of content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate, if we must. I honestly didn't think we needed to bring this particular shrubbery as we're talking about a couple of hundred articles and the paper is defunct so no new ones are likely to be added. But since we're here: Mazher Mahmood was convicted and jailed; NoW was front and centre in the News International phone hacking scandal; their bribes to police were notorious, leading to at least one suicide; their anti-paedophile witch hunt led to a paediatrician and some rando who happened to have a neck brace being harassed. The Jam even wrote a satirical song about how bad they were. NoW was unreliable for the entire time it was online, IMO, and probably always. It was always a scandal sheet. Guy (help!) 09:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate Its a damn rag that cannot be trusted, and yes I think it means removes links to it, if its important then someone else would have mentioned it, we are not a catalog if random information. It is at least as unreliable as the Daily Myth, and unlike the DM had to be closed down due to its shoddy journalistic practices. They made stuff up [[53]], lied to Police [54]], and continued to lie about what they had been up to [[55]]. Nothing they ever said can be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate and purge - it's as deeply fundamentally untrustworthy as The Sun, which is also deprecated, and for the same reasons. This is even given NotW's occasional genuine journalistic wins. NotW links should be presumed literally worse than useless for reliable encyclopedic citation - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Depracate Red tops. Horrible things. Fit only for the nail on the outhouse door. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 10:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate as a news source, don't deprecate as a source for quoted commentary. Given its dominance of the UK market—at one point it was the biggest-selling English-language newspaper in the entire world—they were disproportionately influential, and I'd consider it completely legitimate to (e.g.) quote from a NotW film review in the 'reception' section of the article on the film. ‑ Iridescent 10:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate as noted above. Individual cases of its use can be discussed individually, but we should discourage its general use and remove it where it does not have specific consensus. Presumption that the source is illegitimate unless consensus establishes otherwise for a specific use. --Jayron32 12:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The selective banning of various media makes Wikipedia look partisan. Existing poolicies such as REDFLAG already prevent the misuse of stories published in NOW and all other publiations. TFD (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The NOTW wasn't "media" in the usual sense of the term, though, it was a mix of fabrications, pornography, and intentionally misleading commentary, laced with just enough genuine news to allow it to continue calling itself a 'newspaper'. (Although it's no longer with us, you can still get a taste of it at its spiritual heir the Sunday Sport.) Except on those occasions where we explicitly want to tell our readers specifically what the NOTW said, there are no circumstances when it will ever be a reliable source since any genuine story will have also been reported elsewhere in genuinely reliable sources. We should be treating the NOTW in exactly the same way we currently treat Victorian penny dreadfuls or Soviet propaganda; completely legitimate to use as a primary source when the reaction to something they published is itself the article topic, but never as a legitimate secondary source. ‑ Iridescent 20:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (News of the World)

• Historically, we have required an RfC for deprecation, since it authorizes the use of an edit filter (set to warn) across article space, and this needs community-wide consensus. Pinging previous commenters JzG, Slatersteven, David Gerard, Andy Dingley, Jayron32, Ritchie333, and Nil Einne as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 00:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • no reason not to nail this one down procedurally - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• "Deprecate as a news source, don't deprecate as a source for quoted commentary."

I would agree with this statement. What does it mean for our wording here? Does "deprecate" (in our WP sourcing context) implicitly mean that second exception? We can't fully cover the Falklands, or the diet of Freddie Starr, without mentioning The Sun in some self-referential WP:PRIMARY cases. No doubt there's similar for the NotW. Should such exceptions be recognised implicitly and automatically within the statement "This source is now deprecated on WP", or do we need to state that explicitly for each case? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: PolitiFact

I noticed that the perennial sources list circumscribes PolitiFact's reliability (because the only RS noticeboard about PolitiFact asked about its reliability for a circumscribed set of issues). It's therefore worthwhile to ask for clarity's sake:

• Should PolitiFact be listed as a generally reliable source? Or something else? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (PolitiFact)

• Yes, generally reliable. The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact of the 12-time Pulitzer Prize-winning Tampa Bay Times which is owned by the respected non-profit Poynter Institute is indeed a reliable source. Here's the last RSN discussion about PolitiFact: while it was not about 'general reliability', it did conclude with overwhelming agreement that PolitiFact was indeed reliable for fact-checking.[56] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  What sorts of things does PolitiFact publish aside from fact checking? --Jayron32 20:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I added clarification in the discussion section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable but that doesn't mean reliable in every case nor does that imply weight. Media Bias/Fact Check ranks the site low for bias and high for factual reporting [[57]]. However, there have also been at least a few recent articles suggesting the source has dropped the ball [[58]], [[59]]. Springee (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• MBFC is not a reliable source in the slightest. It has a ludicrous methodology, and is basically just one random guy's part-time work. The Fox News piece quibbles about how PolitiFact refused to label something as "false". The NR piece is an op-ed by someone who wants to hang women who have abortions complaining about how PF fact-checked one of his own statements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• What evidence do you have that MBFC isn't reliable? I get that it's not listed as a WP:RS but I'm not using it in an article so that doesn't matter. Funny that you would attack MBFC given it supports your views in this matter. The other two items show that PolitiFact isn't always correct or without some controversy even though in general I would agree it's a reliable source. Springee (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Funny that you would attack MBFC given it supports your views in this matter." Some editors edit in a principled consistent manner. A shit source is a shit source regardless of whether it supports my claims or not. Every time someone cites MBFC on the RS noticeboard, an angel dies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I'm sure many agree you edit in a consistent manner... and in a way that follows a set of principles. Springee (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, including for supplemental details that come up in the course of their fact-checking; but as mentioned above and below, the discussion that led to this should probably be over WP:DUE and not WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, as are other fact-checking sources. That limited RfC has no value for general application. PolitiFact is generally a RS, especially in their area of expertise, which is vetting claims that may or may not be false or misleading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. (edited to bold my view of the source - Q&A follows unedited) Where is this being challenged? It appears to be generally reliable but context matters. Guy (help!) 10:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Mark Levin, diffs in the discussion below. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ryk72, OK. So the question is not reliability (it's clearly reliable) but one of due weight. Guy (help!) 18:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Agreed the question there is not general reliability, but specific reliability (in the context of the proposed text); and of DUE and of IMPARTIAL to a lesser extent. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ryk72, It's both: generally reliable and specifically reliable for these facts. I'd stick with UNDUE if I were you. Guy (help!) 23:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed the specific reliability in the context of the proposed text at the article Talk page. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ryk72, incorrectly, IMO. But that is for the talk page. Guy (help!) 08:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans and others. Their fact checking is well researched and well respected by other reliable sources. I agree that the previous RfC was too narrowly focused. mediabiasfactcheck.com is not a reliable source; Fox News is a questionable source; and National Review is a partisan (mostly) opinion source.- MrX 🖋 11:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per MrX. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable Per clarifications made below. Now that I know what the source of the conflict was, I agree that the existing guidance is too restrictive. I have seen no evidence that PolitiFact publishes unreliable things, and lots of external evidence that the journalism world holds their work in the highest possible regard. I can think of no reason why its use should be deprecated, and we should not be afraid to use it to verify anything (within the normal limits of using sources appropriately and in the correct context). --Jayron32 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable; factchecks should be attributed. The outcome of factcheck should be attributed per RSOPINION. e.g. PolitiFact rated this claim as "mostly true" or similar. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Ryk72, Missed this comment, which IMO is spot on. Guy (help!) 15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for news, politics, and fact checks. Since the Poynter Institute operates both PolitiFact and the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), PolitiFact's IFCN accreditation is not an independent third-party evaluation. However, the assessments from 2017, 2018, and 2019 show PolitiFact making its own case that it is a generally reliable source. The assessments contain evidence of PolitiFact's strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, including its ethics policy, sourcing policy, funding disclosures, staff list, methodology, and list of error corrections. — Newslinger talk 01:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• What Ryk72 said. Generally reliable, but attribution required for the factual rating. feminist (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable-Politifact performs far more "fact-checks" on conservatives than liberals, and these are of dubious quality. It's an opinionated outlet masquerading as an impartial arbiter of truth. Display name 99 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, generally reliable., known for careful fact checking. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (PolitiFact)

What has changed about PolitiFact since the last discussion we had? Has there been a change of ownership or of who works there or of what they publish to lead you to believe that it is a different quality of source since the last time we went through this discussion? The last discussion was rather overwhelmingly that PolitiFact's individually fact-checking of politicians statements was scrupulously reliable, and that it's proprietary "percentage truth" calculations were broadly reliable and useful as a primary source with direct attribution to PolitiFact. That was fairly clear in the last discussion on both of those. So, unless you have a different use for the source than one of those two in mind (that is, do you find PolitiFact being used for something other than factchecking statements of politicians or to report on their own "truth scale" of percentages) OR you have some evidence that PolitiFact is not the same level of reliability that it was in 2016, I'm not sure what you expect to change... --Jayron32 20:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• The old RS/N discussion is specifically about PF's reliability "for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates?" and attribution for "reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate". In other words, PF is not "generally reliable". Editors have exploited these qualifiers and ambiguities to argue that PF is therefore not a RS in situations which do not revolve around political candidates[60][61]. I guess the ambiguity could also be exploited to argue that PF is unsuable for content which does not explicitly relate to fact-checking a specific statement... i.e. if PF provides background info on something. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like the results here will be used to justify inclusion of material in the Mark Levin article [[62]]. Presumably if PolitiFact is deemed reliable then all objections can be swept aside. Springee (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as how each objection to the material on the Levin article, with the exception of one about WP:RS, centers around WP:UNDUE, that's not the case. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Then there was no reason to open this RfC vs just referencing the old one. Springee (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Given that ambiguities in the last RS/N discussion are being exploited to argue that it's not a RS, then there is clearly a need to make sure that the perennial sources list clearly describes PolitiFact as "generally reliable". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you check the list before asking the question? It's listed here already [[63]] as "Generally Reliable". Springee (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The text in 'summary' adds qualifiers to its reliability. The sole purpose of this RfC is to get rid off those qualifiers to ensure that bad editors don't exploit the ambiguities and waste everyone's time trying to dispute that PolitiFact is a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why don't you be up front with your motivations/intentions and tell us what you think is wrong and link to the previous discussions and say why they were wrong. While you are at it, please ping those editors who objected last time so their concerns aren't lost. It looks like you are trying to do a run around based on a content dispute. Springee (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What on Earth are you on about? "tell us what you think is wrong" - PolitiFact should be described as generally reliable without any unnecessary constraining qualifiers as to situations when it's reliable. What exactly about this confuses you? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• That discussion seems like a mess. I agree that the discussion should focus on WP:DUE (which is normal when something is mentioned in only one high-quality source, and could reasonably go either way presuming we're just discussing a comparable one-line mention in the article), but three of the comments seem to object to Snooganssnoogans in particular, with two of them literally not offering any reason for their position beyond that. In any case UberVegan's interpretation of how we can use Politifact (which is the only thing that really relates to WP:RS) seems too narrow, but I'm not sure we need a separate RFC for that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is a misuse of the RfC process. Questions about reliability should mention the specific source and the text it is supposed to support. The first page to raise the issue is at RSN and RfCs should only be used if no result is found. Opinions expressed in the most reliable sources for example cannot be used as facts in articles. DUE is another important issue. Facts that only appear in Politico, or similar sources, lack weight for inclusion in most articles. TFD (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  The Four Deuces, yes and no. I think it's fair to ask the abstract question "is X a reliable source?", but in this case it's the wrong question because while the answer is "yes", it's the only reliable source to cover this matter, as far as I can see, so we have a situation where the significance of a fact for inclusion is being asserted on the basis of the existence of a fact-check. That is not really a question of reliability but of due weight. Guy (help!) 18:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• What are the current restrictions? So what are the current restrictions on the use of PolitiFact? If this RfC is going to supersede the results of the last one (which appears to have large number of respondents), what were the previous concerns and have the previous involved editors been notified? Springee (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  The problem, apparently, is not that there are restrictions, it's that the people are arguing that merely because it doesn't say that there aren't restrictions, there must be restrictions. At least, that's how I read the above discussion. They have latched on to some imprecise wording in a prior discussion to essentially restrict the use of the source, when the source is clearly scrupulously reliable. At least, that is my understanding based on the several explanations above. --Jayron32 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Jayron32, Not far wrong, I reckon. Unfortunately the current right-wing goal of getting people to equate mainstream with partisan left wing is working at a subconscious level: entirely impartial reporting that shows right wing figures to be liars, crooks or bigots, is seen as biased. The hyper-partisan left has also played a part, seeking to portray the mainstream as part of the establishment and therefore untrustworthy, but, to be blunt, they don't have the billions of dollars it takes to buy entire broadcasting networks and feed that into every home. Guy (help!) 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  To be fair, it looks like it was only one person. I'm not convinced it was worth this RfC just because one editor made a misguided suggestion, but whatever we're here now. Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail (sigh, yes, again)

I'm reviewing Daily Mail cites. We still have many thousands of these. Quite a few are in sports articles - the Mail's sports coverage is much less controversial than its news articles: the main issue with any link to the Mail's sports articles is the repugnant "sidebar of shame". I don't see much reason they would be a problem for simple stuff like signing fees and dates, though I would not want to use the Mail as a source about players' off-the-field activities, or anything with political or racial overtones. Should we ignore use of the Mail for simple statements of fact about sporting matters? Or should I continue to tag even these as needing a better source? Guy (help!) 12:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

For long time I have had these links on my user page : BLPs that cite The Sun Daily Star Daily Mail. The latter is gradually going down; we've currently got about 900 BLPs that cite the Mail and that's about half of what we used to have. The crucial action I take is to ensure the article is properly fixed by removing the Mail or Sun citation - that means either replacing it with a more authoritative source, or removing the claim entirely. For something like "On 21 March, Joe Blow's wife gave birth to their daughter Francesca<ref>[cite to Mail]</ref>", that can just just be removed per WP:BLPSOURCES. For something like a sports result citing The Sun, that needs to be checked against other sources and replaced carefully, which takes time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• The RFC that depreciated the DM explicitly exempted sports coverage from the depreciation. Also, please remember that depreciation is not an outright “ban” on using a source. There will be (rare) instances when the source may be appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Is there an RfC which deprecates the DM? Does it use that word? Does it define it? We have an ongoing problem where the term is being bandied about, but no-one agrees on what it means, and what the appropriate response is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Andy Dingley, more than one, as you know perfectly well. WP:DAILYMAIL for example. Guy (help!) 13:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• My ability to find the word "deprecate" in those RfCs, or more importantly a WP-standard definition for what we mean by that has been no more successful than your spelling of the link to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Previously, you were given three very closely related definitions of deprecate, from the two most respected dictionaries (Oxford and Merriam Webster) in the English world. The best definition here is the one from Merriam Webster that states " to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of". I don't know what else to do to educate you on the meaning of the word. It's plain English, as is the definition. It isn't a technical term, and it does not have a specialized meaning here. Regarding your other question, see WP:RSP, which lists 37 discussions around the Daily Mail, the most relevant one for us is the 2017 discussion here which reached the following conclusion, and I quote "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference." You'll note that the conclusion of that RFC does not use the word "deprecate" (though the words it does use contain a near perfect functional definition of deprecate as it is defined in the previously cited dictionary definitions) I hope that helps. --Jayron32 13:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Re: "I hope that helps", Has it ever helped before? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know as I've never thought along those lines. I don't really pay attention to things like that. --Jayron32 19:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• (Multiple EC) It was mentioned a few times at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 255#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail. It doesn't look like it was mentioned in the earlier RfC WP:DAILYMAIL as I believe the term only came to be associated with it after the RfC. The informational page Wikipedia:Deprecated sources was created while the 2nd RfC was ongoing. But prior to that a number of unrelated RfCs referred to the Daily Mail as being deprecated e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#RfC: Breitbart. I don't think there's any real dispute that the Daily Mail has been deprecated even if we don't have entire consensus on precisely what that means. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's the problem. Without an agreed definition, how do we go about "deprecating" it?

The term is well-known and well-understood, albeit within a very narrow field. But it's always used for its specific and subtle implication (as has been supported by the definitions given), which also fits with our situation here: "Stop doing any more of that, but we aren't able to simply remove all those which already exist". Specifically, blanket removal would generate first a rash of {{cn}}s, then likely a rash of removals. Unless we know that we're actually questioning the truth of something, not merely its sourcing, then that's far from being a simple improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Truth cannot be separated from verifiability at Wikipedia. Something is either verifiable (that is, shown to be true) or not verifiable, and things which are not verifiable should be removed (pursuant to expediencies such as giving people a limited amount of time to find new sources, etc). Truth, while it may exist outside of are ability to verify it, is not our standard here. The standard is verifiability, that is can you show it to be true. There is no functional difference between "don't know if it is true or not" and "not true". Something is either verifiable (able to be shown to be true) or not verifiable (not able to be shown to be true). --Jayron32 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should remove sports cites with less urgency, but there's no conceivable need for the sports cite. Surely, the DM is not the only record in the world for anything about a major sporting event? Just swap it out for something good. --Jayron32 13:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why would "sports" be any less problematic for the DM?

Now I don't like the DM, but this is mainly because of editorial bias, rather than inaccuracy. For sport I don't see a particular problem. But yet there has been a position advocated (and you've been the strongest advocate of it) that all DM must go. So why this relaxation here?

Also, wouldn't the factual aspect of sport (i.e. match results etc) be one of the easiest things for which to replace the DM? Isn't there still a specialist sporting press which is regarded as reliable? So from your past comments, surely each of these becomes a new tag type for "Replace DM with Sporting Life cite"? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sports would be less problematic because they have no record of fabrication or extreme bias in sports reporting, unlike their approach to other areas. Per the RfC. Which you participated in. Guy (help!) 13:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So what is "sports"? If we mean "David Beckham scored two of the winning goals", then we're both on fairly safe ground, and also easily able to upgrade that source to a dedicated sporting source. But is, "Gorgeous pouting David Beckham today launched another fashion line, seen here modelled by his wife and her peachy derrière" also "sports"? Where do we draw the line (as one of the most problematic non-brexit lines in contemporary UK newspapers) between sports and sports people? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, exactly as I stated: runners and riders, result, the like, fine, prurient content, not so much. Guy (help!) 13:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it's that hard to understand. While I didn't read either of the major RfCs that well, I assume this exception came about because it's far harder to mess up sports results. I mean sure you could say England won by 28-7 against Scotland scoring 4 converted tries to Scotland's 1, when in reality it was 9-3 to Scotland and no one scored any tries, but that's difficult and just weird so they don't generally do that. More likely would be careless fact checking like saying Jonny May scored the try when it was actually Kyle Sinckler, but I assume even that isn't particularly likely. Frankly if you want to ask about grey areas, it would be better to look at other stuff. For example, would it be acceptable to cite the Daily Mail story talking about how "Ref DESTROYS England's dream with TERRIBLE ERROR"? Is this source good enough to mention that there was controversy over some decision by a referee? What about if the story claims the ref's non selection for some future game is an indication the IRB is unhappy about the decision? Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's a UK paper. Factual accuracy is generally good (they want to avoid being sued), editorial bias is terrible (because they're expert at misrepresentation without provable error). So things like "European ref steals victory from plucky Engerlund and gives it to Remoaner Scotland" are much more of a problem, and I don't see "sports" (war without tears) as being any less of a problem there.

If it's just scores, then that's also the aspect most easily replaced. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I am finding a lot of trivia about sportsists cited to Daily Mail stories with lurid headlines invoking well-known Dail Mail tropes like "beach ready" or "flaunting" or whatever. That is trash and I am replacing them when I can with sources that address the newsworthy matter rather than turning to the audience with a barely-suppressed "PHWOOOOAR!", a failing regrettably common to many tabloids. Guy (help!) 15:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

One thing to remember - HEADLINES are never considered reliable sources (no matter which outlet we are talking about)... it’s the reporting after the headline that we need to examine when we judge reliability. I’m not arguing that the DM has a good reputation for accurate reporting, just that we need to ignore the fact that they use click-baity sensational headlines when making a determination of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, sure. The content is normally every bit as bad. Often a thinly veiled excuse for paparazzi photos of WAGs. Guy (help!) 17:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I personally you think you should spend less time whacking Andy around the head, and more time cleaning up serious BLP violations like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, check the history, Andy started the argy-bargy, not me. That is, after all, what he does. And if I had spotted that content I would have nuked it for certain sure. Not as a BLP violation (it probably isn't, it appears to be true) but because it's hopeless. I will review your maintenance pages, though - they look useful. I'm sure you've mentioned them before and I didn't bookmark them, my bad. Guy (help!) 13:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"not me" Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, funny, I don't see any commentary about you in that diff. Guy (help!) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Guy, are you so insecure that you can't take any comment on the issue here without seeing it as "argy bargy" and some sort of personal abuse? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the pair of you need to either report each other at ANI or shut up about each other.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't spend a lot of time talking about it or even thinking about it, but I also have problems with Andy Dingley's behavior. The best answer I have found it that when I see his signature I skip to the next comment without reading whatever he wrote. Responding just encourages him to post more of the same.

         Responding just 
         encourages him! 
                \ 
                 >') 
                 ( \ 
                  ^^` 

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• A related question which I just came across recently: What about The Mail on Sunday? They were founded by the same person and have the same owner, but have an entirely separate editorial staff. --Aquillion (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  This noticeboard has been mostly silent about The Mail on Sunday. It's not currently affected by the deprecation of the Daily Mail. — Newslinger talk 03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Aquillion, MoS had a different editor and the two were at loggerheads for some time, based in no small part on Geordie Greig's contempt for Dacre's transparent attempts to influence the news to fit his ideology - at least if you can believe Private Eye, which in this case you probably can. That said, much of the most biting criticism has focused on Mail Online, which remains appalling. The comments, the "sidebar of shame", the endless churnalism. I would never link to the Mail's website for anything. Guy (help!) 15:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Opinions in the Daily Mail

In the moratorium RfC, I was made aware that the Daily Mail RfCs (2017 and 2019) did not address opinions published in the Daily Mail. Is the Daily Mail a usable source of opinions that are not used under WP:ABOUTSELF? — Newslinger talk 12:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nosish I think they are reliable if they said it, I am not sure they are reliable for quotes from anyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• It depends ... are we talking about the DM quoting someone while reporting on someone’s opinion... or are we talking about someone writing an op-ed piece that is printed in the DM? I would say the DM is not reliable in the first situation... and in the second situation a lot depends on who the author of the op-ed is (and that is more of an UNDUE question than a reliability question). Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Opinions? Isn't that the aspect for which the DM is least trustworthy?

Yet again, a UK tabloid is not a US tabloid. The DM doesn't run "Elvis on the Moon" stories. But it does try to rig elections. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is a generic problem affecting a lot of sources. "According to X, Y - source, X saying Y". If it's not covered by other sources then it's WP:UNDUE. If it is covered by other sources then the primary source may or may not be appropriate, depending on local consensus relating to the actual content (e.g. we might well include a report on the BBC about egregious racism published by The Daily Blah, but choose not to link to the egregious racism itself). The main self-sourcing use of the Mail I'm seeing right now is Mail contributors' opinions cited to the Mail, particularly Mail bloggers. That fails UNDUE if not covered elsewhere. Mail blogs are not RS anyway, for the same reason as we already decided not to use Forbes contributor blogs as sources. Guy (help!) 13:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• If it's an Op-Ed piece by an expert or other authority on the subject then I don't see the problem (as long as it's attributed). I'd be careful about stories with "Celebrity X said Y" as the DM has been known to make those up as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I still think the general guidance of "If it can be confirmed in another source, use that source. If it only exists in the DM, pretend it doesn't exist" is probably best across the board. In the very limited case of directly quoting a person describing themselves in their own writing published in the Daily Mail, there may be some allowance to be made, but really, we'd need to see the exact Wikipedia text in the context of the article in question in order to decide if an exception is worthwhile. We should default to exclude in general. --Jayron32 13:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Jayron32, Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Even when self-courcing is unambiguously appropriate, we should still not include comments that have zero coverage other than by the individuals themselves. Guy (help!) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Only opinions of paid DM writers published by the DM should be consider usable, not opinions of others published by DM. One of the RFC pointed to a case where the DM was caught changing the statement of a third-party, so we cannot trust that DM is simply reprinting words quoted to them. Opinions of its paid writers seem to be fine, but then if they should be used falls into UNDUE territory (as with Brietbart, etc.) --Masem (t) 14:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Basically not. If it's only in the DM, there's probably no reason to run it. There may be exceptions. But basically, I think there's not much to gain from looking for reasons to use sources we already know can't be trusted - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Opinions, well that can be broad. I don't read the Daily Mail, but I remember some complaint at the time of the first RfC that we were throwing out "important" arts critics (I presume of theater, art and other "culture", and I hope not gossip culture). I was not sure that we were even throwing out any such, at the time, but can we first find out, Does the Daily Mail have such "important", "well regarded", or etc. professional critics of cultural arts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it does. But who are they well regarded by? Even Alex Jones has his fans. The Mail has names like A. N. Wilson, Bel Mooney and Craig Brown, for whom it's hard to say they aren't "big names". But then they also have the Piers Morgans, Sarah Vines, Liz Jones and Richard Littlejohns. Now we're into subjective issues of not trusting their standpoint, rather than saying they're unimportant. Can WP make such judgements neutrally? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your response was not very enlightening, the links you provided do not seem to link to people known for arts criticism (at least in thier Wikipedia articles), so your answer to my actual question appears to be, NO. And the ones you did not link, who knows (but really now, Piers Morgan? Arts critic?). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• You said cultural arts, rather than arts critic. Now Wilson is more literary than fine arts, but he'd surely qualify. Bel Mooney similarly: not the most artistic commentator, but you can't write her off as lowbrow. If you include theatre critics, these are the people you'd expect. Sarah Vine was arts editor at The Times, even if these days she's seen as the more politically interesting Mrs Gove. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I again refer to their Wikipedia articles and I can't see what you are talking about, so let's approach it this way, (Where on Wikipedia is the arts criticism at the Daily Mail written by Sarah Vine, Bel Mooney, or A.N. Wilson cited in Wikipedia?), and/or (What RS would you cite for the fact that any of these are known for their cultural arts criticism?). If it will help, see for example Chris Jones (drama critic). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, anyone who reads Private Eye does not take A. N Wislon too seriously. Guy (help!) 08:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I read Private Eye, I certainly don't. But I do recognise that others do. Can I, on that subjective basis, dismiss Wilson as not being a "serious" commentator? Similarly Vine et al. And where does that leave Brown, who writes for the Eye? We have to be very careful here to write in WP's objective voice, not that of a personal viewpoint. Much as might like to, I don't think we can write them off so easily. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• No. There are too many stories floating around about paid Daily Mail writers who, as a condition of employment, have to put up with material being published under their byline which has very little resemblance to what they had actually written. Yes, they gave permission for this sort of thing when they started cashing the paychecks, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept the fabrications as if the person credited actually wrote them. Nothing written in The Daily Mail should be trusted at all. Find another source that says the same thing and use that. If you can't find another source, don't use it at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am just going to leave this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • good Lord. At this point we may want to run a fact-checking sample over the sports scores too - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• As always, when using the Daily Mail, we should take care: per Jayron32, if statements can be confirmed through other sources, we should default to using those sources (of course); but our deprecation of the Mail should not go so far as to exclude the opinions of Mail writers, employed by that newspaper, and published within the Mail, as Masem so astutely notes. (Generally, though, I get the feeling that controversial opinions would naturally be covered by other sources, and we should use those in place of the Mail.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not quoted opinions, no, since they've been specifically caught manipulating those. I would generally avoid using even the published opinions of DM staff writers unless a particular piece has secondary coverage in a reliable source (in which case we'd use that instead) - while WP:RSOPINION does allow some otherwise-unreliable sources to be used for opinion, my feeling is that it's generally intended for opinion-pieces in otherwise reliable publications (ie. that's the example given.) We still trust that those publications will do basic fact-checking and will refuse to publish an opinion whose argument outright assumes something flagrantly untrue - the "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of editorial. We also trust that they verify the expertise and relevance of the author. None of that is stuff we can trust the Daily Mail for, so I would generally be reluctant to even use their opinion pieces outside of circumstances where it passes the threshold for WP:SPS. And in general the SPS comparison seems apt because - basically, the premise of WP:RSOPINION is that it applies to opinion-pieces in otherwise-reliable publications because publication there gives even an opinion a degree of reliability that it wouldn't have elsewhere. The Daily Mail doesn't grant that - how is publishing there any more authoritative or reliable than publishing in a blog? It's not totally unusable when WP:SPS or WP:ABOUTSELF applies, but I feel that cites to opinion-pieces in journals that are otherwise unreliable have to pass the higher WP:SPS standard (ie. established expert in a relevant field - obviously the DM itself can't be used to establish that expertise) and not the WP:RSOPINION standard. WP:RSOPINION is, mostly, for things like editorials in otherwise reliable publications. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Since the DM cannot be used to determine weight, then opinions published in it have no weight and therefore cannot be reported unless they are picked up in other publications that meet rs. TFD (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not exactly true. It is extremely rare to have any source discuss the relative weights of viewpoints in a topic of debate, and that evaluation falls onto WP editors to assess as per UNDUE. That said, either the case with DM is that they will share the opinion of one of the significant viewpoints offered in a debate , and because there are other such viewpoints to pull from, it likely isn't needed to pull DM's version; OR otherwise DM is pretty much isolated in its stance and at that point questions of FRINGE weight would come into play. In either case, it is nearly ever necessary to pull in a DM opinion for a topic, but there may be such a case as allowed per UNDUE. --Masem (t) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• No - douse it all in napalm per Guy Macon's link above. Daß Wölf 02:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• After considering the above, I come down generally with TFD's No, the publication is not RS, which renders it generally useless for RSOPINION (note the RS) - this makes sense as a matter of ordinary logic: the project has found the editorial process of the DM untrustworthy, so we can't trust that that editorial process publishes encyclopediclly useful opinion, either. If Masem's caveat means that it generally has no weight under DUE, OK, but it seems to still circle back largely to, not RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Opinions cited as such are generally usable. The "Ban the Daily Mail" viewpoint is primarily political. I, personally would ban every source for "celebrity gossip" known to man as being a far better "ban" than this "not really a ban" has turned out to be. Collect (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And do you know why the other Daily Myth, and the Snu and the Daily Excess have not been deprecated people arguing that if we do not depreciate the other Daily Myth we should undeprecate this daily Myth. It has not been those of us who wanted this Daily Myth deprecated who have fought for the other Scandal rags not to be.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I still think we need to distinguish between the opinions OF the Daily Mail (written by editorial staff), and opinions of published BY the Daily Mail (written by experts). For the second, the AUTHOR is more important to determining reliability than the venue of publication. If (for example) the DM was to publish an opinion piece written by John Bercow about Parliamentary procedure, it should be attributed to Bercow, but deemed reliable as expressing his opinion. Note, this is not the same as the DM reporting on something Bercow said. I am talking about Bercow himself writing something for publication in the DM. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Why we should never use The Daily Mail as a source

Let us consider the following story, published in The Daily Mail in 2017:

Porn really is bad for you! Lonely Japanese man who amassed a SIX-TON pile of dirty magazines died when it collapsed on top of him... and his body wasn't found for six months\

Go ahead an read it. Pay attention to the details. I will wait.

Now imagine that you are a Wikipedia editor and you want to see whether you can use the above in any way.

"Ah! First I need to will see whether any other sources confirm the story" You might say. That's what many Wikipedian's advise; if you can find it in another source, use that other source. If it is only in The Daily Mail, assume that is never happened, they will tell you.

[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]

Some of the above are pretty bad sources, but then again, do we really expect The New York Times to to feature somebody who died in a room full of porn?

If you happen to read Japanese, you might have noticed that The Daily Mail stole a story in the Japanese language from from The Nikkan Spa: 大量のエロ本に囲まれて孤独死…死後1か月以上経過した部屋のすさまじさ Here is a Google translate of that page. The Nikkan Spa published it on February 28, 2017. The Daily Mail story was published on March 3, 2017.

Yes, the man had a large porn collection, and yes, he died, but that's pretty much the only thing The Daily Mail got right.

His body wasn't found for six months? A lie. The real source says that his body wasn't found for over a month

He was crushed? A lie. He died of myocardial infarction, commonly known as a heart attack.

His name was Joji? A lie. The real source gives no name.

Found when the landlord entered the flat to find out why the rent had not been paid? A lie. The real source doesn't say who found the body.

Found dead in his flat by a cleaner? (wait a minute.. the same DM story says it was the landlord!) A lie. The real source doesn't say who found the body.

A bunch of sites have covered that fact that The Daily Mail lied about this specific story: [74][75][76][77] Again ,not the best sources, but most legitimate sources don't waste time documenting every time The daily Mail lies. Despite the many sites that talk about it being a lie, The Daily Mail has never published a retraction or correction.

Bottom line: Don't read anything in The Daily Mail. If you are foolish enough to read something in The Daily Mail, don't trust any other source that tells the same story unless it was published before The Daily Mail published it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but was it really necessary to make a new section for this when we have a discussion on the Daily Mail open above? --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was too long for that thread, and I didn't want to cut out any of the documentation. If you think it works better in the thread, feel free to move it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've moved this into a subsection of the other discussion, mainly to avoid adding another discussion entry to WP:RSP § Daily Mail. (The Daily Mail currently holds the record with 39 significant discussions, including 2 RfCs.) — Newslinger talk 08:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• No-one is questioning that the DM is frequently unreliable, to the point of fabrication.

The question is, what do we do about it? Is a blanket run to delete everything and leave gaps a good thing? Given that RfCs at WP:DAILYMAIL have already rejected that repeatedly, why are we even still saying that we should do so? Who wants to be one of those people whose response to losing an argument is to carry on with the same rejected assertions as if it never happened at all? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, we are here to provide our readers with the most accurate and relevant information we can. We do not serve them by having dubious or irrelevant information just to "fill gaps" in articles.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The Japanese porn story has become a millstone around the DM's neck, and it is mentioned every time WP:DAILYMAIL is brought up. However, it is no worse than "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" and umpteen other pieces of tabloid junk. I've said many times that the DM is deprecated as a source, but this is also true of the UK tabloids as a whole.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree and have started a few RSN threads on just that, but two wrongs do not make a right. Just because we cannot get the "Daily Diana princes of our hearts" or "The wonderful, throw away Snu" banned does not mean we should not ban the Daily Myth. In fact on more then one occasion such threads have been derailed by those clearly trying to get the daily Myth Unbanned (Yes I know it is not "bvanned" its shorthand) using just this argument.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

(OT: Hence the hazards of whataboutism, speaking of things that should be deprecated.) ―Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think it is worth emphasizing and repeating that formal depreciation is an extreme step which we only take in situations where a source is both systematically unreliable in virtually all cases and is nonetheless being constantly cited by editors. Both these things have to be true for depreciation to make sense. We're not trying to produce an exhaustive list of every single terrible source here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

We clearly want to remove all DM from BLP ASAP, but the RFCs poses reasonable steps to do this beyond mass removal (otherwise we'd have a bot or AWG users already having run through to remove). There are times that DM does not lie about BLPs (moreso for basic biographical facts) but it some time and effort to find a better RS for those sources. We should be running through to tag all DM links on BLP pages as dubious sources to encourage replacement, but a mass wipe is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 17:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Bendinger podcast for Anna Genovese

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Genovese. At that discussion, there was debate on whether this Mob Queens podcast, hosted by Jessica Bendinger, qualifies as an RS for the article Anna Genovese. What do you guys think? feminist (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your "keep" close is correct, considering the multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage in the Anna Genovese article. However, the Mob Queens podcast looks borderline: it's hosted by only two people (Jessica Bendinger and Michael Seligman), and some editors would prefer to see stronger evidence of editorial oversight before it counts toward WP:GNG. Since Anna Genovese is deceased, I would consider it a marginally qualifying source (equivalent to a book published by a lesser-known publisher) in light of the favorable press coverage of the podcast. If Genovese were a living person, the podcast would probably be restricted by WP:BLPSPS. — Newslinger talk 02:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think it's the kind of source that is best handled via direct attribution rather than simply as an unexplained inline cite. That is, in addition to the inline citation, we should state before information from it "According to the podcast Mob Queens..." and then put the information there. For information which is only able to be cited to a single source, without confirmation from other sources, that's the best way to handle it. --Jayron32 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Should proprivacy dot com be considered a reliable source?

The website appears to be native advertising, sponsoring several VPN providers, and also contains calls to action. It is cited in NordVPN.

An independent audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers has described the company's claims of not logging users' data as accurate. The audit refers to their service and server configurations as of November 1, 2018.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldosfan (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Unreliable as churnalism. ProPrivacy lists 7 named "Researchers" in their staff list. However, I don't see any use of the site by other reliable sources. The article is promotionally toned, with questionable excerpts like:

At present, the audit is only available to a pre-selected list of journalists. At bestVPN.com we were lucky enough to be among the first to see the results.

We were pleased to learn that the report fully endorses NordVPN’s no logs claims.

The domain bestvpn.com now redirects to proprivacy.com, but was not updated in the article. In a January 2019 press release published through PR Newswire, BestVPN.com described itself as a "VPN comparison website". Since then, the comparison shopping website has been moved to the "Reviews" section of ProPrivacy. ProPrivacy gives NordVPN a 10/10 score with affiliate links all over the page; the review does not mention NordVPN's March 2018 server breach, which was covered by The Verge (RSP entry) and CNET (RSP entry). It appears that the audit was not made available to reliable sources, only to affiliates like BestVPN. From this, I have no doubt that the ProPrivacy article is an unreliable piece of churnalism. As a whole, ProPrivacy is like a more biased version of CoinDesk (RSP entry) with an additional section of the site devoted to selling what they push in their articles. — Newslinger talk 02:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Newslinger's investigation as well as common sense. It appears to be a typical affiliate site. The text is likely based on a PR notice pushed down by NordVPN to the affiliates (if being cynical one could say for the purpose of deniability as well as appearance of multiple testimonies). Daß Wölf 02:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

New static Media Bias Chart 5.1

Announcement from adfontesmedia:

"Thanks for all your feedback on both the interactive and static versions of the Media Bias Chart! We are continuously striving to make this a better and better resource over time. We received quite a few requests to make the static version a little friendlier for downloading, zooming in, and printing. Specifically, we got quite a bit of feedback that though people appreciate the precision and data on the 5.0 interactive version of the chart, the overlapping logos on the static version made it harder to share and use in classrooms and presentations. Here's our solution!"

• New static Media Bias Chart 5.1

Enjoy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about papers from Annamalai University

200 papers with possible fabrication issues: https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2019/11/05/concerns-about-papers-from-annamalai-university/

Should we check those referenced in the articles? Nemo 20:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Church Militant

Church Militant (website) is a website founded by Michael Voris dedicated to Traditional Catholic point-of-view. I've rarely seen it used on Wikipedia and the few times I've used it myself (such as here) is only to cite the views that Voris and like-minded individuals have and never to back up key information or statistics in an article. None the less I find some of the articles on this website highly problematic and was wondering if it should be listed as an unreliable source on the list found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources.

In this article published by the website, the writer intentionally twists data on a Pew Poll to exagerate the data that Muslim support for ISIS. In this article the author claims that Eugenio Scalfari has proven that Pope Francis rejects the divinity of Jesus, probably one of the most ludicrous things to say about the head of the largest Christian denomination. These (1 2 3 etc.) all exagerate James Martin (priest, born 1960) activism for LGBT individuals. This article markes speculative accusations that Howard Hubbard promotted a ring of Gay priest, and then uses sexual abuse allegations as supposed proof of their earlier claims.

In additoin there is well documented evidence (1 2 3 4) of Church Militant twisting facts and stories to promote its traditonlist Catholic views. Given this and other evidence, I think that it is only fair to say that Church Militant is an unreliable citation and should be listed as such at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources so that new editors who perhaps are not familiar with WP:RS will know not to use it. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There are almost no links to it anywhere on Wikipedia. Is this really enough of a problem to warrant listing it as a "perennial source"? ‑ Iridescent 21:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Church Militant is a completely unreliable source that should never be used on Wikipedia. It is not an organization with a reputation for factual reporting, but a fringe extremist group that seeks to cause as much controversy as possible. It should be fully deprecated and banned from ever being used as a source on Wikipedia. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I say the same about this that I do about LSN. It should not be used to report on facts, especially when those facts are controversial, but claims made by people through Church Militant should not be excluded. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The New Republic on Quillette

There's a dispute over these cites to this piece in The New Republic discussing a list of "antifa journalists" published on Quillette and ensuing fallout. To be clear, the New Republic piece in question is not and would not be the main source used in the paragraph about the list and its fallout, which is sourced to eg. CJR as well; this dispute is just over whether The New Republic should be used to add more to the section. For a summary of important context, Kim Kelly (the author of the New Republic piece in question) was one of the journalists listed on Quillette's list of antifa journalists; she says, in this piece, that that may have endangered her. (Quillette’s “Antifa Journalists” List Could’ve Gotten Me Killed is the headline.) What, if anything, is this source usable for? How does it compare in reliability to this piece in The Independent covering the same topic? (That is, should one or the other be used, both be used in summary, both used separately with in-line attribution, etc.) Is the Kelly piece usable at all, and, if so, for what parts of that edit removing it; one particular consideration might be which aspects require in-line attribution, which was already present for one of the removed bits but not further down. --Aquillion (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

With attribution I see no issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I opined there, the Independent article is double-sourced and clearly identifies the difference between fact and opinion; the CJR article backs it up on the facts. There's no reason to doubt these sources. We can attribute the opinions in the Indie and state the facts as fact in Wiki voice or with attribution according to editorial judgment. Guy (help!) 17:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Life Site News (again)- or rather Crux News

Archbishop Carlo Mario Vigano became famous last year for publicly accusing Pope Francis of covering up for accused sexual predator Theodore McCarrick. However, Vigano himself was accused of ordering an end to an investigation into Archbishop John Nienstedt, who resigned his position after allegations of sexual abuse. Vigano provided documentation attempting to show that he did not order an investigation into Nienstedt to Life Site News, which published it. The content detailing this matter, as well as some other things, were removed from Vigano's biography here by David Gerard in response to Life Site News being deprecated.

I challenged the revert on the basis that per WP:BLP, Vigano's defense of himself against accusations of wrongdoing should be included in the article, the venue through which he chose to do so-whether LSN or something else-being irrelevant. We were quoting Vigano's claims about himself, not claims made by Life Site News. David Gerard countered that we don't know whether Vigano actually said what LSN says he said or whether he actually gave the publication the documents that it published. LSN has often been accused of twisting facts, but I don't know that they've ever been accused of fabricating entire interviews or pretending to receive documents that they actually didn't. Neverthetheless, in response to his objections, I re-added the material with a link to an article from Crux, a more mainstream Catholic source that does not have a reputation for ideological partisanship or distortion like LSN. I hoped that the fact that a reliable source considered the material genuine would put to rest the concerns of David Gerard that the interview and documentation were fabricated. I also re-added a statement that Vigano gave to LSN in response to Pope Francis's denial of coverring up for McCarrick and sourced it to a separate Crux article which covered it.

I was then reverted by JzG. Both JzG and Gerard are now arguing that the material should be left out not because it is unreliable but because it is WP:Undue. JzG has repeatedly called Crux a partisan source. I challenged him to support this accusation and he offered no evidence other than the fact that the source identifies itself as Catholic. He seems to think that no religious sources, even ones which, in spite of what he says, are nonpartisan, should be included in articles because they are undue weight. I think that this is absurd and intended to diminish the importance of religious issues. As I told David Gerard, just about everybody gives the standard "I didn't do it" defense when accused of misconduct. Vigano went beyond this and provided documentation in order to try to prove his innocence. If we focus on the accusations against him and ignore the evidence that he provided in his defense, that is a breach of neutrality and a BLP violation.

I propose that Vigano's defense of his actions and response to Pope Francis's denial be restored with citations to the Crux articles. Display name 99 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly a novel argument that a site that was deprecated for being completely untrustworthy and having a history of publishing false information - blatant repeated liars - must be included in an article on BLP grounds. I find myself utterly unconvinced that WP:BLP says anything of the sort. What wording in WP:BLP makes you think that this is a necessary move? What do the WP:RSes say on the case, and is there any reason that none of them went near his statements? The situation was covered in a lot of mainstream RSes, that are in the article - why did they leave this out? - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is Carlo_Maria_Viganò. and the discussion is at Talk:Carlo_Maria_Viganò#LifeSiteNews - editors on the page had come to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that LSN was a fine source to use - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Which part of WP:BLP do you think requires the use of a low-quality source in a situation like this? That seems counter-intuitive - the essence of BLP is that we require high-quality sourcing for BLPs. It doesn't require that the article look the way the subject would want it to, or even that we include every single possible detail (no matter how weak the sourcing) that could make the subject look better. If this information was published in a reliable source it would definitely belong in the article for WP:BALANCE reasons, which BLP does require - but balance, including balance for BLPs, requires weighing sources according to their reputation and reliability; what you're requesting here would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. I suggest you search for a better source that covers the material you want to add to the article, rather than trying to argue for this one. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard and Aquillion, there are points that I already made but I'm not sure you understood or paid full attention to. Let me spell them out again.

I understand that Life Site News has often been accused of twisting and distorting facts, but nobody has shown me any example of cases in which they were accused of going so far as to fabricate entire interviews or pretend like certain documents were given to them when they really weren't. So long as you are unable to find something like that, it is at best a stretch to say that LSN made the whole thing up.

The source that I am using isn't even LSN. It's Crux, which is a reliable nonpartisan source that reports on events in the Catholic Church and is currently widely used on Wikipedia articles documenting recent events in the Catholic Church. It published an article in which it discussed the interview and documentation that Vigano provided to LSN. The fact that a reliable source considers the interview and documents that Vigano gave to LSN genuine should put to rest any doubt in your minds about whether or not they are really what he said, and the fact that the source discussed it in an article should establish notability. Leaving the material out is a BLP violation because it involves discussing allegations of wrongdoing made against someone while excluding mention of the fact that the person published documentation in his defense even though the fact that he did was discussed in a reliable source. That reliable source is Crux. Crux is the source that I'm using David, not LSN. Display name 99 (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This situation looks similar to the one discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257 § A question related to the Daily Mail. — Newslinger talk 05:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, I misunderstood (your initial post was a bit wall-of-texty, so I sort of skimmed it - granted I'm the last person who should complain about that.) Crux is trickier than LifeSiteNews; I can definitely see the argument (which some people have raised on talk) that they might be WP:BIASED, but they do have a relatively decent pedigree as a spin-off of the Boston Globe, and they've discussed their independence. I think they're usable for the relatively uncontroversial fact that Vigano denied the accusations, but I would advise caution for the rest - Crux's coverage is more cautious than the coverage from LifeSiteNews (which is good, since it probably means they're less biased) but when you swapped the sources you didn't update the text to reflect that caution. For example, one key line in the dispute says this: He provided documents to LifeSiteNews to show that he did not order an end to the investigation. That's worded in a way that definitely states that he provided the documents and at least heavily implies they exonerated him. But the relevant text from Crux says this: Viganò also claimed Jeffrey Lena - an American lawyer working for the Holy See - went to the Congregation for Bishops and found documents “proving that my conduct had been absolutely correct.” That is, if I'm reading right, it presents it as Viganò claiming the documents exonerated him rather than stating it as fact, and they carefully put the statement of what the documents imply in a quote so it's clear it's just Viganò's opinion. We'd have to reflect that caution if we're going to use Crux as the source - this sort of thing is common when replacing an unreliable source with a reliable one, since WP:RSes tend to be more careful with their language, on the whole, and it's easy to overlook that. I would say that from that disputed edit, the back-and-forth where Vigano's denials are covered is fine (the simple fact that he denied everything is not very controversial, so it doesn't require a top-tier source anyway), the documents bit needs to be reworded to make it clear that it's just Vigano claiming that they exonerated him, and the quote from LifeSiteNews is possibly usable but probably WP:UNDUE given that it's only covered in one very specialized source. --Aquillion (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  Aquillion, the core question is, should we include a claim that there is exculpatory evidence, published in a site which we have deprecated due to a history of fabrication and repeated by a site that has an obvious dog in the fight, when that supposed exculpatory evidence has not been picked up by any of the multiple reliable sources that discuss the case. Let's not forget that LSN will not have fact-checked this too hard: the claims discredit the Pope and they hate him because he supports LGBT rights, and they have a history of fabricating stories or spinning them out of all connection to the actual facts when it suits their agenda.This debate exists only because no sources outside the walled garden have picked up the claims of exculpation. At the very least that seems to be textbook WP:UNDUE. In fact much of the article lends excessive deference to the opinions of people with a vested interest in the reputation of the Catholic church as "rebuttal" to weighty mainstream sources pointing to a serious problem. Guy (help!) 11:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see the argument that it's WP:UNDUE, especially given that the Crux version effectively minimizes it by treating it so cautiously. I'm just pointing out that even if we did use Crux as a source, the text cited to it would have to be toned down to make it clear that everything about the documents is just a claim by Vigano (since that's how even Crux treats it.) You described Crux as repeating Viganò's claims "largely uncritically" down below, but I don't think that that's true - the section reads to me as fairly skeptical. In a section titled "Viganò’s Denials", they describe the bits we're discussing as just things he claimed, note that they couldn't get confirmation from any of the people involved, summarize the letters in a fairly dismissive way, then list a series of followup investigations on their part that, collectively, make Viganò look guilty as hell (eg. In addition to O’Malley’s intervention in Rome, Crux has learned that Viganò was warned about the archbishop of the Twin Cities on at least one other occasion - this time by a prominent U.S. Catholic leader who asked not to be named, and who says he tried to persuade Viganò to take action.) I mean, look at the quote they chose to end the article on. Even the summary of his denials in the early part of the article is fairly skeptical (In recent days, Viganò has rejected claims that he tried to interfere in the investigation. Yet new interviews with some of the pivotal players - along with confirmations that two U.S. cardinals were involved to varying degrees with discussions over Nienstedt’s potential removal - suggest that question marks about his role have not yet been resolved) - essentially presenting their own investigations as putting Viganò's denials in question. Reading it carefully, this reads to me as more of a careful, straightlaced-speak rebuttal to the LifeSiteNews piece rather than an uncritical repetition of it. I feel like, when swapping one source for the other, people fell into the trap of "does it mention this at all" without looking carefully at the source's overall context. For another example, consider what they're implying when they drop Meanwhile, Busch has told the New York Times that he was aware of Viganò’s letter two weeks prior to its release - which according to his expressed timeline would have been just days before his Institute announced Nienstedt’s departure - this being Viganò's letter with accusations against the Pope, mentioned here, and Nienstedt’s departure from Busch's Catholic conservative Napa Institute. Think about what it actually means that Crux is connecting the dots on those timeframes (a connection not made in the Times source) - this is a genteel accusation of, at the very least, impropriety by Busch, implying that he removed Nienstedt from the Napa Institute only when it was politically expedient in order to "clean house" for an accusation against the Pope and bury a potentially embarrassing incident in Viganò's past that people could raise in response. What I'm saying is that taken as a whole rather than mined for one factoid, this article does not seem at all sympathetic to Viganò or his allies. Of course you could argue that Crux is taking the side of the Pope against Viganò - but either way, taking the article as a whole, I don't think they're on Viganò's side, and I think they're digging more deeply and carefully than you're giving them credit for. This sort of narrow, specific source does have some risk of being WP:BIASED, but it also gives them potential insight into connections other sources missed - as with the bit where they noticed the implications of the timeframe mentioned above. Regardless of how they're used here, I'd be reluctant to dismiss them entirely as a source without more reason to doubt their coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

LSN is a conservative catholic website, generally reliable, trusted by many leading catholic figures and leading vaticanists. Senior Vaticanist Philip Pullella just described it in 2019 in a Reuters article as "a conservative Catholic website that often criticizes the pope" and frequently uses it as a source (here or here). New York Times columnist Ross Douthat used it as a source in his last book about Francis and the Catholic Church. I could go on and on. Claims made by people through LSN should of course be included. Thucyd (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thucyd, LSN? Reliable? Not hardly. It's a hard-line anti-abortion site with a history of bias and sometimes outright fabrication, "Among other issues, a troubling headline about "beating baby hearts" resulted in accusations of witness intimidation." (see, e.g. https://www.snopes.com/?s=LifeSiteNews for other fabrications and distortions, and that's just one fact checker). It criticizes Pope Francis alright, that is exactly why it's unreliable in this context (the claims are disputed by Francis). The main reason it hates Francis is because he supports, as much as any Catholic can, LGBT rights. LSN is as hard-line homophobic as it is anti-abortion. Douthat may have used it as a source for what the fundamentalists think about X or Y, but it is certainly not reliable for claims of fact, especially for anything involving sex. Guy (help!) 11:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG If LSN is a reliable source for Reuters, a New York Times columnist, Associated Press, Catholic newspapers, etc., it is good enough for Wikipedia. Your political and theological views are of no interest here. Thucyd (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Being quoted in those sources doesn't make it a reliable source for them (and being quoted by a columnist has almost no value at all.) They're using it to represent an opinion, because it is a high-profile source that holds that opinion; this isn't the same as them treating it as a reliable source for statements of fact. WP:USEBYOTHERS isn't just about randomly mentioning or quoting or referring to a source; it means using it in a way that implies that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Absolutely nobody uses LSN that way, because it performs no meaningful fact-checking and is infamously inaccurate to the point of outright fabrication. --Aquillion (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thucyd, As Aquillion notes, I am pretty sure you are misreading this. The cites you mention are more like WP:ABOUTSELF quotes. We do have a consensus that LSN is not reliable: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#LifeSiteNews. This discussion is not going to overturn that, I think. Guy (help!) 16:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• The issue here is the uncritical reporting of claims of exculpatory evidence in a serious matter. We are having this discussion only because the op cannot find a single mainstream sources that covers it. These are claims published by LifeSiteNews - a canonically unreliable source - and repeated largely uncritically by a Catholic source. This is not about reliability (though the discrepancies and the original source underline that the content may well be unreliable), it's about WP:UNDUE. Claims by a Catholic that there are documents that contradict the evidence in mainstream sources, published on a canonically unreliable fundamentalist Catholic aligned website, rejected as such, then re-sourced form a largely uncritical repetition on another Catholic website. Why do none of the non-church-aligned sources cover this supposedly exculpatory information? Because there's no evidence its true, beyond the subject's own protestations? Who knows? We need reality-based resources, not apologia, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 10:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - that none of the many mainstream sources that covered this issue went near these claims is a massive WP:REDFLAG - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, I'm not saying whether the documents that Vigano provided actually do exhonerate him or not. They may very well not, and that's up to the reader to decide. All I'm saying is that for the sake of maintaining neutrality, we should include the fact that he published documents in his defense, whether these documents actually do defend him adequately or not being open to the reader's consideration. If you can think of a better way to phrase the text, I'd be open to it. How about: "He provided documents to LifeSiteNews which he said showed that he did not order an end to the investigation."

David Gerard, Crux, despite being a religious source, is mainstream in the sense that it is nonpartisan and does not have a reputation for poor factual reporting. That is why it is widely used on articles related to recent Catholic events. I'll try some arguments by analogy as I did with JzG on the article talk page. What we have here is a Catholic issue, which means that Catholic sources are likely to report on it in greater detail than non-Catholic ones. Do we consider events in U.S. politics unnotable simply because non-American news agencies didn't report on them? Or how about information in a science journal that wasn't published in the Washington Post or New York Times? That sounds ridiculous, but it makes about as much sense as what you're telling me. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Now that I've spent a while longer pouring over the Crux piece, here's my problem with that. By placing something in the article, you are giving it weight - implying that it is significant, or important, or has some relevance to the topic. In context, I do not feel the Crux source actually gives those documents much weight - it reads as if they present them, summarize them in a way that plainly dismisses them, then present broader details that undermine Vigano's claims. Especially given their summary of the documents, which is... not helpful to Vigano at all. One is literally just an earlier document by him denying that he did it, and the other is a vague note about "correct[ing] my interpretation of his instructions", ie. patiently retconning something Vigano previously said. (In fact, hold on, you say it's "up to the reader to decide", but how would they do that when your version omits how little the documents even say?) Pulling out just Vigano's characterization of the documents and leaving everything else (including the actual content of the documents themselves) would put WP:UNDUE weight on one aspect of their reporting in a way that misrepresents the source, especially given that no other reliable sources have covered this at all. I don't agree that neutrality means that we have to cover every single argument that Vigano makes in his own defense; and this one seems to be one that didn't go anywhere at all. Only one source we could remotely consider reliable even mentions it, and that one, by my reading, does so fairly dismissively. Insisting on taking something so low-profile putting it in the article strikes me as WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, I still feel like for the sake of impartiality, we should mention when someone publishes documents to try to clear their name and when such a fact is mentioned in a reliable source. In order to maintain the balance, I could accept also adding in the fact that the unnamed Catholic leader said that Vigano refused to take action. If you're unwilling to agree to this, I will have to accept defeat, but I feel that it's the best course. Display name 99 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99, you are moving the goalposts now. And no: we don't include "rebuttals" without sources that assess their validity.

Imagine if the Washington Free Beacon published an article saying they had documentary evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election by suppressing evidence of Manafort's corruption, and the Washington Free Beacon published an article noting it. Would we use that as a source? No we would not. Same here. No sources outside the bubble cover it, then neither do we.

As an argument, give me what I want and I will allow you to weaken it slightly with an anonymous comment" is unpersuasuive. Guy (help!) 17:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors

• Behind the Voice Actors

I've got a lot of cartoons, animated films, and voice actors on my watchlist, mostly due to hoaxes from bored children and unsourced speculation ("I'm sure I heard this actor's voice, so I'll go to Wikipedia and add it!" seems to be where many of the edits come from). So, I've been trying to find authoritative sources I can use to verify voice actor roles. Many sites list this information but are user-generated (such as the IMDb), not comprehensive enough (such as the American Film Institute), or hide their content behind a paywall (such as Baseline StudioSystems). So, that leaves sites like BtVA, which is used rather extensively on Wikipedia (about 1200 results from Special:LinkSearch). What opinions are there on the reliability of this website? See, for example Jeff Bennett (cited for birth date) and Jack Angel (cited for filmography). The last time I see this discussed here was 2013. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• • Well it's not user-generated and according to that 2013 discussion they do verify information with the primary source (with a green tick) so it's probably ok for basic information, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Regional editions of The Sun

Should regional editions of The Sun, including The Scottish Sun (Scotland; thescottishsun.co.uk  ) and The Irish Sun (Republic of Ireland; thesun.ie  ), be treated similarly to the main UK edition of The Sun (RSP entry)? Are there differences in editorial quality between the editions?

This discussion is a continuation of WT:RSP § The Irish Sun. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we'd need evidence to show that it was in any way different. Otherwise we can assume they're the same, and treat them as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, which for me means deprecating.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur - do they even have different newsrooms? - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Glasgow and Dublin. Different editors too. Although much of the content is syndicated. They're probably better papers (could hardly be worse), but not so that it matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, The Scottish Sun is technically The Rain. I've been there. I don't see any evidence the newspaper is any different, mind. Guy (help!) 16:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

David Eugene Smith on prehistoric ratio concepts

Dr. Smith is cited in the Ratio article in support of the thesis that

…the idea of one village being twice as large as another is so basic that it would have been understood in prehistoric society.

The reference is to Smith, David Eugene (1958) [1925]. History of Mathematics. Vol. 2. Dover. p. 477. While Dr. Smith was an authority on mathematics education, I find nothing to warrant this anthropological claim. Most pages of his book have abundant footnotes (I count 13 on one page), but the particular passage cited, which refers to the sizes of tribes and the lengths of straps, has none whatever. He claims, without argument, that ideas of ratio "are such as would develop early in the history of the race"—this seems an off-the-cuff opinion with no support from the fields in which Dr. Smith was expert. May I delete the claim from the Ratio article?

Peter Brown (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)