Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

To increase transparency and robustness of the process for classification of sources, increase the review requirement for actions that prevent use of a source. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Detail

Proposal 1: Add the following to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions:

A project-level RfC is required for the following:

• Any source that is proposed for deprecation (see also the list of deprecated sources);
• Any source that is widely used in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) that is proposed as generally unreliable (see also the list of perennial sources).

RfCs should be registered at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard using {{rfc|prop}}.

Proposal 2a: Add the following to the instructions for editors at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

You must initiate a project-level RfC when requesting blacklisting of any entry that is widely used as a cited source in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) other than those added by the spammer(s). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with after requesting blacklisting where there is ongoing abuse. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Proposal 2b: Add the following to the instructions for admins at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

A project-level RfC is required when blacklisting any entry that is widely used as a cited source in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) other than those added by the spammer(s). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with after addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse, with the expectation that it will be removed if the RfC decides against blacklisting. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Proposal 3: Add the following to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard:

Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}} and should run for at least 7 days. Contentious RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved administrator and consensus assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument.

This does not affect existing classifications or blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

1. Support 1, 2a, 3 (first preference); 1, 2b, 3 (second preference) as proposer. Discussions on source classification at WP:RSN typically have few participants, but may have substantial impact if problematic sources are widely used. This also applies to spammed sites that are targets for blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support the proposal in principle, but I can't comment on the particulars simply because I don't have much experience of this area. Deprecating and/or blacklisting a widely used source can have long-term effects on the verifiability of content in the relevant topic area and it should be done with a stronger consensus that one achieved by one or two editors. The one case that I've been involved in in the past didn't leave me with the impression that the process was a sane one: a website used in a few hundred articles was blacklisted on the strength of opinion of three editors (with a fourth one disagreeing), where the major issue appeared to be not any demonstrable unreliability, but those editors' dislike for the fact that the website was generating a profit from running ads while using public domain data. If a discussion is more widely advertised (like with an RfC), then the impact of personal whimsy should be less noticeable, and the outcome better defensible. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support per Uanfala, the basic principle that deprecating a source is a sufficiently significant step to take that it needs many more eyes on the discussion to do so. Otherwise a walled garden dictates. Is the occuramce also uncommon enough to warrant a notice at CENT? ——SN54129 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support all: significant steps ought not be taken without discussion. But this is not my area of expertise, and so I am also unable to comment on the particular mechanisms of each proposal. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Like Uanfala I was involved in a case where a website was blacklisted on ideological grounds. In addition to the benefits list above, this proposal will provide us with an audit trail detailing when and why a site was blacklisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose - because I cannot in clear conscience fully support it. I'm also of the mind that such a proposal should go to VP for wider community input. There would have to be clearly defined parameters before blacklisting/deprecating any source in an effort to eliminate potentially harmful ideologically based decisions. --^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose Based upon the village pump suggestion only, such drastic measures need to be more fully discussed with a wider audience.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
8. Support per Uanfala and SN. Deprecating a source and similar actions affect many articles and should follow our usual procedures for establishing consensus for proposals that have such broad effects (i.e., well-advertised RfC, left open for a minimum period of time, etc.). Prefer 2a over 2b. Since this proposal has been advertised on CENT and elsewhere, I don't see a problem with it being here as opposed to VP or another page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
9. Going on a segue here but feel free to count it as "Neutral" or rather, "why is this instruction creep needed?" vote: there are already discussions that take place on RSN and they are handled just fine (not seeing the demonstration of a problem). Similarly, if something is blacklisted by unilateral discretion, it can easily be removed from the blacklist before or after discussion (and again, not a demonstration of a problem). There's no need to add more instruction when we already have WP:ANRFC backlogged and tons of RfCs ending up with no result. The current approach of solving blacklisting with WP:BRD (make an edit, take issue, discuss!) and the fact that RSN handles these with/without "formal" RfCs is just fine. No point drawing a line in the sand, imo. --qedk (t 心 c) 20:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
10. Support for all this. Regulations of websites is serious business over time it can have big impacts across the project. Also RfCs should be broadly advertised not just in RS/N which can become insular. -- GreenC 22:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
11. Support,with the possible modification that sources of general interest require a community-wide AfC, not just one at the project level. We need a more realistic approach to RS: No source is entirely reliable, almost no source is totally unreliable. The best news sources, such as the NYTimes, have on occasion carried invented stories; the worst, like the Daily Mail, have on occasion carried genuine news that they were the first to report. The scientific journals of the highest prestige, such as Nature, have sometimes carried nonsense, such as the discovery of Polywater, or Duesberg's denial of HIV. Thesame goes for book publishers, and television networks, and almost anything else.. We properly take a skeptical approach to priary sources, for they need itnerpretation; the same is true for secondary sources as well. There is no substitute for intelligence and impartial investigation ofindividual cases. DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
12. Support Per above. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
13. I have mixed thoughts on these proposals:
    • Proposal 1: Deprecation already requires an RfC by definition, so proposal 1 would not change how sources are deprecated. Requiring RfCs for designating sources as "generally unreliable" is interesting, and I wonder how this would be implemented. Currently, new entries are created in the perennial sources list after discussions on this noticeboard are archived or formally closed. With this proposal, if a new entry would be classified as "generally unreliable", it would be put on hold until an RfC takes place on this noticeboard. This encourages editors to create RfCs for "generally unreliable" sources that were just discussed, which means that editors who participated in the previous discussion would need to repeat their arguments in a new RfC. While input from more editors is nice to have, I'm concerned that the repetition from back-to-back discussions would cause fatigue among the editors who participate in both the discussion and the RfC – especially for editors who frequent this noticeboard. There are two classes of sources for which I think the RfC requirement is unnecessary: self-published sources (by authors who are not subject-matter experts) and sources with a large proportion of user-generated content.
    • Proposal 2: I support proposal 2a/2b for cases involving reliability, but I don't think RfCs are necessary to blacklist sites that contain a large quantity of copyright violations or sites that dox Wikipedia editors. Also, would these RfCs take place on the spam blacklist noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard?
    • Proposal 3: This proposal reduces the minimum duration of RfCs on this noticeboard from 30 days to 7 days. It serves as a counter against proposal 1 (which increases the number of RfCs here) by making them more manageable. However, closers on the request for closures noticeboard typically put requests of RfC closures on hold until they are 30 days old, so there needs to be some cross-coordination to make this work. If proposals 1 and 3 were both implemented, and RfCs on this noticeboard were not closed promptly, we would end up with a large backlog of stale RfCs here. Despite this, I think RfC closers should be advised to wait until an RfC on this noticeboard is inactive for at least a few days before closing it, if the RfC is between 7 and 30 days old, to prevent the abbreviated RfC period from excluding opinions from editors who don't frequent this noticeboard.

      — Newslinger talk 11:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

14. Support proposal 1 and 2b but oppose proposal 3 as 7 days is too short, keep to 30 days as per RFC common practice, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
15. Support 1. We deprecate way too many sources. Neutral on the other proposals. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
16. Oppose all the proposals about the spam-blacklist. Spammers need to be stopped as soon as possible, and this proposal adds needless bureaucracy to the process without any reason to believe that it will actually change the end results. By the time the RFC closes, the source will have been removed by any article that was edited while it was open. Furthermore, these RFCs will very likely just amount to rubber-stamping the decision made by our anti-spam admins, and if it turns out to be a bad idea (e.g., an overbroad entry), then we'll have a mandatory minimum seven-day waiting period before the RFC can be closed. Process for its own sake, whether in the name of "community participation" or "transparency" (by putting the information on this page in addition to the pages where these decisions have been discussed for years), is not a Wikipedian value. What is a Wikipedian value is saying that we trust Guy, User:Beetstra, User:Kuru, User:GermanJoe, and all the rest to do their best, and to listen to us when/if we think their first choice wasn't the best choice. AFAICT that system has worked pretty well for us, and we should avoid tinkering with it.
    On a separate point, this page is so large that some editors can't participate on it. (Imagine trying to edit this on a smartphone. Or even to read this page.) So if you all really want to continue having endless RFCs to say that bad sources are bad – even in uncontroversial cases or about sources that nobody is actually using, both of which I think are inappropriate uses of the RFC system – then they really ought to be on a separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

    WhatamIdoing, I will blacklist material, reliable or not, where I see it clearly spammed by multiple editors that do not respond to warnings (or where I deem warnings futile like in cases of a handful of IPs with 1 edit each). I will not blacklist if the only reason that is given is ‘it is unreliable’, except if there is community consensus, and I think that this proposal is about that: sites that are not spammed, but should hardly ever be used as they are, generally, grossly unreliable. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

17. Support for any material where there is no evidence of spamming, which do not fall under the criteria of WP:ELNEVER, and which do not have a high potential for abuse (redirect sites). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe we should also tighten up the guidance on the conduct of RfCs, e.g. to ensure that they primarily address reliability of a source. This is especially important for politics articles, where there is asymmetric polarization in the media that causes frequent and heated arguments on Wikipedia. There are also credible reports of a repeat of the 2016 Russian social media and disinformation campaigns whose very existence is denied by previously mainstream conservative sources. It's not Wikipedia's problem but it's a problem for Wikipedia, and I think we should be ready for the heightened scrutiny we are likely to receive even when it is from bad-faith actors. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would generally oppose any language that imposes arbitrary cut offs. There is nothing special about "100", but if you include that type of language, people are going to treat it like gospel, as if there is something substantive that separates sources with 99 and 101 citations. GMG^talk 13:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, I thought about that. I don't mind adding an option to strike the numerical example. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• @JzG: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, heaven forfend that a complex issue could not be rendered in a way that pleases the bots. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you this is the effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think proposals 2a and 2b should be restricted in scope to apply only to blacklisting domains for reasons related to reliability. An RfC would be unnecessary to blacklist a domain that was widely spammed in clear violations of the external link spamming guideline (excluding the reliability criterion). — Newslinger talk 03:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  ^This. After having manually removed almost 1000 occurrences of "lepidoptereason ra.eu" from articles before having it blacklisted. It rarely happens, but it does. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  I also agree with this. We should put as much emphasis on verification and reliability as we can as some users can easily be confused with bias vs. reliability.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, so lepidoptera.eu was spammed. So was ZoomInfo (and I nuked all links). Playing devil's advocate, should we not blacklist and then have an RfC, as I propose, to ensure that there is broad support for removal? At least if it's used in pre-existing (clarification added) reference tags (which could have been more explicit, so I fixed that). External links is different. 1,000 articles is a big impact on the project. Even if the source is clearly unreliable, it's going to be better to have solid consensus for any automated removal. And in fact if we do it right we can probably get approval for a bot to remove all references to a site that has been through this process, which will save a massive amount of time. Guy (help!) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Let's not give spammers a target to meet. Being used in reference tags is not particularly relevant, WP:CITESPAM is the default nowadays I believe. MER-C 12:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This sounds backwards to me... I would think we would need an RFC prior to placing a site on the blacklist (whether due to reliability or some other reason) To determine whether the site should be added to the blacklist or not. Once a site is on the blacklist, however, we can automatically remove (and I don’t see a need to have additional RFCs before automatically removing).

Deprecated sources, on the other hand, are a different issue... these are discouraged, but NOT blacklisted (as they often have nuanced exceptions and carve outs attached to the deprecation)... so automatic removal is not the best solution. These need to be examined on a case by case basis, and additional RFCs may be needed. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist has over 8300 entries. Having an RFC "prior to placing a site on the blacklist" in 15 years would have required an RfC more frequently than every 16 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I am confused... How do you determine if something is spam vs legit sourcing without an RFC? Is there some alternative process? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Counter-question: How does one determine if a user needs to be blocked without an RFC? Or if a page needs to be protected? The point of electing administrators is to let some people enforce the community's policies in uncontroversial situations without having an RFC for every single action. The spam blacklist is primarily used to deal with the worst and most obvious cases of spam reported at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, just as WP:RFPP and WP:AIV are used for simple protection and blocking requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, not that it's especially relevant but actually it's analogous to the proposed blacklisting response. Abuse is dealt with expeditiously but is then subject to review either by the user appealing the block (up to ArbCom if necessary) or by the admin posting the block for review on WP:ANI, one of the most watched pages on enWP. Guy (help!) 12:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, the default for a deprecated source is to remove it. My standard approach would be to tag with {{deprecated inline}} and then after some time go back and remove the tagged sources. We should not raise enormous bureaucratic obstacles to removal of a source we have decided is crap. My issue is that the process for deciding it's crap is vulnerable to groupthink. And I say that as one of the group.

The reason for blacklist then RfC when there are significant numbers of references is to control abuse. We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. The blacklist controls abuse, most abuse does not involve substantial numbers of references in mainspace, because it's usually a simple matter of rolling back the edits of the spammers. The example that clarifies this for me is ZoomInfo. This was absolutelt spammed. I then checked the existing references and found a mix of good and likely bad faith additions, including what was almost certainly their people adding their archive url to a lot of references. Those archives are all now defunct, according tot he checks I did, so are worthless. The rest of the information cited to ZoomInfo was generally trivial and likely to be self-provided. I still think, in retrospect, an RfC would have been a good idea. It was discussed here in some detail, but only the usual suspects show up.

Bear in mind that the existing process for deprecation is a short discussion here, often with few participants. The default for blacklisting is even quicker. Turnaround can be close to real time and in some cases the person proposing addition, also actions it (not best practice but necessary to control spamming, same as speedy deletion nominations by an admin are sometimes done in one step rather than being tagged and left for a second pair of eyes).

It seems to me that best practice is to be more deliberative when significant numbers of existing references are affected. And recent experience, for me at least, backs that up. As an aside, I would also like to see a parameter in the {{cite}} templates to link to any discussion showing consensus to include an apparently dubious source (e.g. specific self-published books). A small and discreet checkmark could be displayed to say it's a qualified reference despite appearances to the contrary. Guy (help!) 12:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is confusing two different things - whether a source is reliable and whether a source is being spammed. Sources which pass all the requirements of reliable sources can still be spammed (whether by/on behalf of the owner/creator of the source or by unrelated third parties), and not all unreliable sources are spammed or otherwise added maliciously. The Spam Blacklist should concentrate on sources that are being spammed - the determination of which does not require an RFC as it depends on behaviour here (and on other Wikimedia projects) rather than the quality of the source. If we on en:wiki want to keep a separate blacklist covering sources that are unwanted for reasons other than spamming (such as unreliability or copyvios, then that is a different thing entirely.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  Nigel Ish, no it's not, it's handling two scenarios whereby sources might be rejected: blacklisting (which can happen due to spamming but may affect large numbers of references if the site has been abused, as was the case with ZoomInfo), or deprecation / "Generally Unreliable". Both of these can happen as of today with virtually zero input. I think that's a bad thing if the site has been widely used. Given your decision to reinstate vanity presses and blogs lately, I think you are of the same view: we should not be adding a site to a list which qualifies it for large scale removal from Wikipedia without some more input than we currently get. Guy (help!) 12:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated

Since I am the only one to !vote so far I have updated the proposals per comments above:

• Removed the number of references per WP:BEANS etc.;
• Clarified that links added by the spammer(s) don't count when blacklisting, so only pre-existing links.

Does this help? Guy (help!) 12:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you essentially proposing that we expand the scope of the blacklist to cover deprecated sources as well as spam? If so, I would oppose. While deprecated sources ARE usually removed, there are nuanced exceptions when they should not be... and thus deprecated sources must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, no, I am saying that when a site has been spammed but is widely used as a source, we should follow up with an RfC to decide what o do about the existing uses, part of which will be to assess whether it was, in fact, reliable in the first place. Guy (help!) 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok... my confusion stemmed from the fact that your proposal #3 focused on deprecated sources, and not spammed sources... but if you are now limiting the discussion to just spammed sources I can shift from opposition to neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy's statement We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. In this regard, I think that 2b is a bit better than 2a; I like the sound of The RfC may be initiated concurrent with addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse more than The RfC may be initiated concurrent with requesting blacklisting. But, to me, neither option really seems clear about the chronology that is being envisioned here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  XOR'easter, sure. And I am happy to tweak it, but I think you understand my intent: blacklist then discuss. Controlling abuse comes first. Guy (help!) 20:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• My concerns are that it opens the door to POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and it does so in a big way, particularly in controversial topic areas like AP2, climate change, religion, etc. Perhaps if there was stricter adherence to including only the facts rather than opinions, and we paid closer attention to RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and NEWSORG, we'd be just fine. All of WP should not be run on the same premise as Project Med; i.e., strict adherence to WP:MEDRS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, I think you may have entirely missed the point. Right now, blacklisting and deprecation can happen with minimal oversight, sometimes only one or two people opining, and they are rarely advertised outside a narrow bubble of editors. The intent here is to impose a minimum requirement where noe corrently exists, and to require thorough review for blacklisting where currently there may be no consideration of usage in articles.

  In other words, not doing this makes the thing you say you fear, which is the current practice, continue to be the standard.

  If you think it's not robust enough then feel free to propose alternatives. Guy (help!) 17:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, there are some things on which we agree, others I will study. Thank you for the explanation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The number of RFCs

My main concern is about the number of RFCs we've been holding, and the relatively poor justification for most of those RFCs. I'd like to see rules that focus attention on sources that have both of these qualities:

1. are actually being used (including proposed uses, e.g., on the talk page), and
2. the resulting disputes (please notice my intentional use of the plural) have been difficult to resolve.

That means that we have RFCs on Daily Mail and similar sources, but that we use our long-standing, normal, non-RFC discussion processes for whichever website popped up last week. If that means that they don't end up on the source blacklist, that's okay with me. We do not actually need a list of what editors thought, generally at a single point in time, about hundreds and hundreds of sources.

This RFC doesn't address any of my concerns, and I'm concerned that it will have even greater Tragedy of the commons-like effects on the overall RFC process. Y'all need to use the sitewide RFCs when they're important, not as your first approach to resolving a dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We often spend more time and energy debating a single AfD. I'd rather get it right than worry about a relatively small number of consensus discussions. Regulating entire websites is serious business it can impact thousands of articles and even result in articles being deleted if their sourcing is knocked out. -- GreenC 21:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I very strongly doubt your claim that a single AfD discussion "often" gets more participation than RFCs on this page. It looks like the one below (Poynter) has 15 editors and more than 3,000 words in it. That's not something we experience "often" at AFD. That's three times the length of last week's attempt to delete an article about Wikipedia, which was an unusually popular subject for an AFD nomination.

This page is running an average of about a thousand page views per day. The RFC subject pages get maybe a hundred. If the first thousand page views aren't good enough for you, then the next hundred probably isn't going to make a big difference to you. But they can make a big difference to the RFC process. That's why I want you all to be judicious about this. Not every single discussion needs to start out as an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslaundry on OpIndia

Is Newslaundry (newslaundry.com) a reliable source for the following content in the OpIndia article, removed in Special:Diff/944447105?

A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines targeting the leftists, liberals and Muslims. Mainstream media and the political opposition (esp. Indian National Congress) were oft-criticized; posts published by OpIndia Hindi from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. On February 12, OpIndia had organised an ideological seminar featuring prominent figures from right wing intelligentsia; Newslaundry noted the seminar to have spread communally charged conspiracy theories about the Kathua rape case, equate the Shaheen Bagh protests to formation of mini-Pakistan and engage in other Islamophobic discourse.

References

See related discussion on Talk:OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Do they have an editorial policy? I cannot find it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics, Talk:OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Newslaundry is an unreliable source with a clear bias and no indication of factual reporting. We should not allow Wikipedia becoming a platform to document feuds between the partisan sources in question. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable: According to this, they won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for their "investigative reporting".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable According to their about page they have won a lot of awards recently on the subject of investigation reporting and their work covering gender and human rights. But I couldn't find an editorial hierarchy. According to their hiring page, it looks like their reporters cover a variety of areas rather than having a "beat" and there isn't information about leadership. But I think the awards count for a lot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - No information on leadership or editorial policy. As a new media site much like OpIndia, no certification from IFCN regarding fact-checking (which AltNews, cited in the article under criticism, has).Pectore^talk 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable We have no way of knowing if the editor also writes for it, they appear to have no editorial policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• They do provide some information at this webpage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable No published editorial policy. Clear trait of bias as noted by some wiki editors. No redressal mechanism in case of feedback, I tried approaching them with no success. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable for OpIndia and other Right wing portals atleast. They’re in dirty spat with each others and regularly publish such stories which don’t have much factual accuracies. If we’re going to consider OpIndia (I think we already did) as unreliable then this also falls in same line. — Brihaspati (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable and generally reliable. Newslaundry was awarded the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards in 2015 for their extensive coverage of a political scandal in which members of parliament (in both the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party and the centre-left Indian National Congress) and other well-known people misappropriated US$15 million of taxpayer money through public sector undertakings for their personal or business interests. This five-part series is archived below:
  1. RTI Investigation (part 1): How politicians use PSUs as cash-vending machines
  2. RTI Investigation (part 2): How Vijay Darda used power ministry to further his business interests
  3. RTI Investigation (part 3): How ministers milk PSUs for ads and sponsorships
  4. RTI Investigation (Part 4): Corruption allegations surface against a BJP MP
  5. RTI Investigation (part 5): PSUs are an easy pool of money for politicians to dip into

The extent of the corruption exposed in this report is impressive, and the research involved multiple Right to Information requests. "The Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, the most prestigious annual event in the Indian media calendar, is a recognition of the highest standards of journalism" in India, just as the Pulitzer Prize is the most renowned form of recognition for American journalism. Newslaundry also won two Red Ink Awards, in 2018 for their coverage of the Kaveri River water dispute, and in 2019 for their coverage of a police cover-up of civilian casualties in Sukma.

It's misleading to compare Newslaundry to OpIndia just because neither is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Newslaundry is a news site, not a fact-checking site, and the IFCN only certifies fact-checking sites that are "dedicated solely to checking the discourse of politicians or detecting viral hoaxes in social platforms". Additionally, OpIndia was explicitly rejected by the IFCN in 2019, while Newslaundry never applied for certification.

Finally, Newslaundry puts a byline with an author name on each of the pieces they publish. That's better than The Times of India (RSP entry), and it's sufficient for a generally reliable publication. Newslaundry is like the Indian version of The Intercept (RSP entry), and has even more prestigious awards. — Newslinger talk 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable - per Newslinger. In addition, it also doesn't sum up that they would be factually inaccurate while also winning high prestige awards, I've yet to come across an allegation of misreporting against them which even mainstream media agencies face from time to time. Though there may be a degree of editorialisation in their content so care should be taken regarding that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable has a dedicated staff, uses bylines, has won awards for its journalism, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - No editorial policy available on the website. Concocted click-bait stories based on imagination. Retracted after clarification from the office of President of India. It published fiction instead of fake news. Not trustworthy.
  1. Newslaundry spreads fake news about president's puri visit Shubham2019 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

     Newslaundry was covering an alleged event that was initially covered by The Times of India, News18, and Times Now – other reliable sources. When the press secretary to the President denied the incident, Newslaundry officially retracted the story, demonstrating a strong reputation for error-correction, which is identified in WP:NEWSORG as a hallmark of a reliable source.

     As an aside, you're using "The True Picture" (thetruepicture.org, formerly thetruepicture.in), a site that was thoroughly discredited as a questionable source by a 2018 investigation from The Indian Express and a 2018 report from Boom (a fact checker that is certified by the IFCN). The Quint has additional coverage of the exposés. These analyses show that "The True Picture" is closely affiliated with BlueKraft Digital Foundation, a company that "has been involved in promoting various government initiatives, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s book ‘Exam Warriors.’" From this, it's clear that "The True Picture" is unreliable and has a strong conflict of interest. — Newslinger talk 09:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

     This reply is clearly not satisfactory, Newslaundry concocted a casteist angle in the issue. None of the articles cited give a hint of this angle. This was the reason they had to retract their imaginative story while others did not. It was clearly written to promote enimity between the communities and cater to a certain narrative to attack the government.As a side note, this kind of ideological reinforcement is being done by portals like Newslaundry, Altnews,Wire,Quint,Boom,NDTV. All of which are reinforcing each other's position and being cited in a circular manner to counter/manage the narrative or ideological resistance being provided by the portals of contradictory ideology. OpIndia, Republic,Swarajya, TheTruePicture,MediaBias fact check, Fact Hunt all are being campaigned against in wikipedia. The articles which attack the left wing portals are certainly written in Right Wing Portal and vice versa. Yet only one way citations are allowed i.e. against Right Wing Portal. Therefore there is no WP:NPOV.

Either wikipedia has a policy of not allowing different ideological point of views or we seriously need to re-evaluate why all right wing portals are outright dismissed as unreliable/deprecated/questionable and left wing portals are treated as gospels which can't be wrong and don't need to be questioned. Shubham2019 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not a reason to reject a source. We dismiss sources that can be shown to knowingly and willingly publish falsehoods which they do not retract.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Your argument against Newslaundry depends solely on criticism from a questionable source ("The True Picture") against a properly labeled "opinion" piece from Newslaundry. As the piece from Newslaundry was retracted before it was archived, your claims are unverifiable. The fact that Newslaundry is willing to retract errors is a positive attribute. Compare that to OpIndia, which has yet to retract their coverage of a fake letter falsely attributed to a Muslim body president, for example.

If the right-wing sites you listed were reliable, they would be recognized with awards and favorable coverage from other reliable sources. But, the IFCN – a politically neutral organization – rejected OpIndia in 2018, while it certified Alt News in 2019 and Boom (boomlive.in) in 2019. Newslaundry won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award and two Red Ink Awards, while OpIndia has never won any significant awards. These are some of the reasons Newslaundry, Alt News, and Boom are considered reliable, while OpIndia is not. Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) was discussed three times on this noticeboard, and is considered unreliable because it is self-published, not because it had any discernible overall bias.

The neutral point of view policy requires us to represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis added). — Newslinger talk 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I wrote to the Newslaundry editorial team and this is what I heard back...I don't think there is any problem sharing the relevant portion of the email message:

Thanks for reaching out.

We are currently redesigning our website and we'll have a page explaining our editorial policy on the upgraded site.

Of course, like any credible news organisation, our work goes through a series of editorial filters before it is published. I believe the quality of our work testifies to this. Mr Raman Kirpal, cced in this mail, is our managing editor. He's an award-winning journalist with several decades of experience in the industry and he takes the final call on what appears on Newslaundry.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I inspected the source code of older versions of Newslaundry's home page, and noticed that Newslaundry switched its content management system from a (possibly in-house) platform based on AngularJS as of 16 January 2020 to Quintype as of 22 January 2020. While most of the site has already been migrated to their new platform, there are a few pages that are currently only accessible through archived versions. This includes Newslaundry's About Us page, which includes a list of Newslaundry's staff and a list of Newslaundry's owners (with percentage ownership specified for each owner). This transparency reflects favorably on Newslaundry, and I expect to see the editorial policy when the site finishes migrating to the Quintype platform. — Newslinger talk 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Newslinger and others. I'm impressed by the apparent transparency (website transition confusion not withstanding) and their response to Liz. My only comment is that it might be, perhaps, that we should take any news items towards OpIndia (and similar sites) with a grain of salt per the concerns about an apparent on-going spat. Waggie (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable Do they have any Editorial Policy? Half baked stories with facts missing in most of there reporting, completely biased source. Santoshdts (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable They don't have a well defined editorial policy. The news reporting is mixed with biased opinions. They generally lampoon and criticises other media sources. There is a clear lack of objectivity. They have also published fake news in the past.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have a reliable source to back up the "fake news" claim? — Newslinger talk 06:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  They published a news story on the President of India, which was denied by the President's office. Newslaundry is not important enough to be covered by other reliable media portals. There are a few sites like these which are engaged in trashing each other online based on ideological differences, they publish hit-pieces on each other at random intervals, their editors and reporters fight on twitter. There's a clear lack of objectivity.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Your comment strikes a false balance between Newslaundry and the near-unanimously condemned OpIndia, and excuses OpIndia's unreliability as "ideological differences". Unlike OpIndia, Newslaundry corrects or retracts all of its stories that need doing so. — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Published editorial policy

Per WP:NEWSORG news organizations do not have to have a published editorial policy. Thus, it looks like many of the above comments are irrelevant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

True they may not publish them, it does not say they do not have to have them. Thus any argument based upon "I have no idea what their editorial policies are" are valid, they may not be strong arguments but they are still valid. Our criteria is "has a reputation for fact checking", whilst no publishing editorial policy is not an indicator they fail this, the lack of one is a good indicator they may not have such a reputation. After all if I have no idea how they decide what to publish I cannot know it is fact checked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The (near-unanimous) consensus is in favor of the proposal. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Should generally reliable sources on the perennial sources list be added to CAPTCHA whitelist, so that new and anonymous users can cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA? — Newslinger talk 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Background

Wikipedia uses the ConfirmEdit extension, which is an anti-spam feature that requires IP editors and newly registered users to solve a CAPTCHA before they can add a citation or external link, unless the linked website is on the CAPTCHA whitelist. The CAPTCHA whitelist makes it easier for new editors to add content that references "known good sites", which are likely to be appropriate citations or external links, and unlikely to be spammed.

There are currently 103 domains operated by 76 sources that have been designated as generally reliable on the perennial sources list after being reviewed on this noticeboard:

103 domains operated by 76 generally reliable sources

aljazeera.com aljazeera.net arstechnica.com arstechnica.co.uk ap.org apnews.com theatlantic.com avclub.com bbc.co.uk bbc.com bellingcat.com bloomberg.com buzzfeednews.com csmonitor.com climatefeedback.org cnet.com cnn.com theconversation.com thedailybeast.com dailydot.com telegraph.co.uk deadline.com deadlinehollywooddaily.com deseretnews.com digitalspy.co.uk digitalspy.com economist.com engadget.com ew.com ft.com foxnews.com theguardian.com guardian.co.uk theguardian.co.uk haaretz.com haaretz.co.il thehill.com hollywoodreporter.com idolator.com ign.com independent.co.uk ipsnews.net ipsnoticias.net ipscuba.net theintercept.com jamanetwork.com latimes.com metacritic.com gamerankings.com motherjones.com thenation.com nymag.com vulture.com thecut.com grubstreet.com nytimes.com newyorker.com newsweek.com people.com pewresearch.org people-press.org journalism.org pewsocialtrends.org pewforum.org pewinternet.org pewhispanic.org pewglobal.org playboy.com politico.com politifact.com propublica.org theregister.co.uk reuters.com rollingstone.com rottentomatoes.com sciencebasedmedicine.org slate.com slate.fr snopes.com splcenter.org spectator.co.uk spiegel.de thewrap.com time.com thetimes.co.uk thesundaytimes.co.uk timesonline.co.uk torrentfreak.com tvguide.com tvguidemagazine.com usatoday.com vanityfair.com variety.com venturebeat.com theverge.com vogue.com vox.com wsj.com washingtonpost.com weeklystandard.com wired.com wired.co.uk zdnet.com

The above excludes:

• Forbes (RSP entry), which shares a domain with the generally unreliable Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry)
• buzzfeed.com, which is no longer used for BuzzFeed News (RSP entry) after it moved to a separate domain

Some of these domains are already on the CAPTCHA whitelist, and would not be added again.

Another request concerning this whitelist was made just over a week ago at "CAPTCHA exemption for reliable domains". — Newslinger talk 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CAPTCHA whitelist)

• Support as proposer. The CAPTCHA whitelist improves accessibility for new and anonymous editors. The listed sources have already been vetted through this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support to improve accessibility and remove unnecessary red tape, these captcha processes are particularly difficult for visually impaired people, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support to improve the user experience and therefore editor retention. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but what's stopping users from editing WP:RSP to bypass this restriction? feminist (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • OK I see that this proposal doesn't actually add RSP links to the CAPTCHA whitelist in real time, but rather involves manually adding the links to the whitelist. Support. feminist (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - and I will consider to add this capability to User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-whitelist-Handler (well, I will likely copy-and-paste it to a next handler) to make it easier to handle these requests. IMHO, they should just be added with a rather low bar - as long as they are properly logged and tracked it should not impose many problems. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Adding my late support as well if it's still needed. I don't see any objections to this, so I'd go ahead and implement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support no brainer that would make it much easier to cite good sources. buidhe 02:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, it's a no-brainer really and just makes sense. >>BEANS X2t 13:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per Newslinger's comments above. ~mitch~ (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support the principle, oppose the list as given unless there's significant further pruning. A lot of those are "generally reliable" in a particular topic but I wouldn't trust them to give me the time of day outside their specialist area. (Do you really want the newspapers gleefully running "Wikiped:ia considers Playboy a more reliable source than most national newspapers" headlines? That's what all you supports above are voting for, and I guarantee that at minimum the Daily Mail is eagerly watching this discussion.) ‑ Iridescent 13:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Should have been done a long time ago. I see Iridescent's point, but the CAPTCHA is there stop bots, not people. If there's a human editor who thinks that Playboy is a suitable source for magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, yes that's a problem, but having to type in a CAPTCHA won't stop them. Adding a site to this list isn't a declaration that it's "extra reliable", just that it's very unlikely to spammed by a bot. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (CAPTCHA whitelist)

Notified: MediaWiki talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability, Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Beetstra: If there should be a low bar for the whitelist, we could also add domains of sites classified as "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" to the list. Should I create a separate proposal in this RfC for the "no consensus..." domains? — Newslinger talk 13:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Newslinger: that list is endless, especially when knowing that we have likely never discussed 99% of the reliable sources (we discuss for being perceived not reliable, not the other way around). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sources listed as reliable on WP:VGRS and WP:A/S should be added as well. I'm currently compiling a list of potential additions on User:Feminist/CAPTCHA exemptions. Feel free to use it and work on it as you wish. feminist (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• There are also some lists over at WP:New pages patrol/Source guide discussions about reliable sources for specific regions/contexts. However, these pages are quite early in development and don't yet have much discussion. Might be useful in the future. Jlevi (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I've requested closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist. — Newslinger talk 03:20, 21 April 2020 (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: Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) is a generally reliable source for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Is the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) a reliable source for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations? — Newslinger talk 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The IFCN's website (ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org) includes a list of signatories that have been certified by the IFCN. — Newslinger talk 14:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey (IFCN)

• Yes. The IFCN evaluates sources for compliance with a code of principles (summarized here, detailed here) that are in line with what is expected from reliable sources. The assessments (example: Snopes in 2018) are in-depth, and include examinations of the fact-checker's article quality, methodology, funding, staff, commitment to nonpartisanship, and track record of performing error corrections. Although the Poynter Institute has never been discussed in detail on this noticeboard, past discussions indicate that the Poynter Institute is not questioned as a reliable source when it is mentioned, similiarly to the Columbia Journalism Review. — Newslinger talk 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• No. Some of the financial backers are neutral but some appears to be for-profit and political influencers and have controversial backgrounds.

Here's what I have found. Poynter (IFCN) have had received major funding from some controversial entities as follows.

• Facebook is a highly controversial entity that is alleged of stealing and selling the private user data to advertisement agencies and political parties and have also tried to influence the political views of users.
• Open_Society_Foundations whose founder and chairman is George Soros, who according to the his Wikipedia page is "a well-known supporter of progressive and liberal political causes" and a controversial figure.
• Charles Koch Foundation is another controversial entity backing IFCN. According to Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers, the Koch brothers have made significant financial contributions to libertarian and conservative think tanks and have donated primarily to Republican Party candidates running for office.
• Google News Initiative is an entity created by a for-profit and controversial company, Google.
• Open Society Foundations, Omidyar Network | Luminate Omidyar, Tides Foundation are funds managed by tycoon Luminate Omidyar who is alleged of having given large sums of money to causes that are active in left-wing politics

Looking at the past backgrounds of these investors/backers, the neutrality of the IFCN is in question since it is an entity that accredit news portals as verified news fact-checkers globally via some middlemen (who again are politically influenced by some means). This is a serious issue and some of the accredited fact-checkers in question (whose founders/associates are actually involved in publicly bashing out other-side political leaders or ideologically/religiously different groups of people) are involved in publishing targetted and one-side political write ups. Ironically, IFCN is also involved in rejecting requests from the sources which are politically/ideologically have different views than its existing verified fact-checker signatories. Because Wikipedia treats IFCN and its verified signatories as reliable sources, this is a serious threat which is deliberately being used as a powerful weapon whoever talks against them even with the valid evidences. Also, whatever is being published or circulated by such IFCN verified signatory fact-checker websites is considered as a final truth which is a dangerous thing, in my opinion. I would like to propose that IFCN (and its verified fact-checker signatories) should not be treated as reliable sources of the news. If this is not possible, then at least allow other news websites to be considered equally reliable which have been targettedly called as black-listed by these IFCN verified fact-checker websites. This decision can ensure that there is no monopoly of IFCN on judging the fact-checkers as it posses the power of being one today since Wikipedia (editors) trust all those IFCN-verified fact-checkers and doesn't trust at all those who are rejected or have been bashed out targettedly by the IFCN-verified ones. Vishal Telangre (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

The Poynter Institute lists 22 major funders. The widely discredited George Soros conspiracy theory, which is often described as antisemitic, has no bearing on the reliability of the Poynter Institute or the IFCN. Additionally, you've listed funding from both liberal (e.g. George Soros) and conservative (e.g. Charles Koch) entities, showing support across the political spectrum. For-profit companies donate to nonprofit organizations all the time, and a nonprofit organization does not become a less reliable source by accepting funds from a for-profit company, especially when a vast number of commercial publications run by for-profit companies qualify under the reliable sources guideline. It is true that OpIndia has been rejected by the IFCN, and considering OpIndia's propensity to publish false or misleading information, the rejection is a positive indicator of the IFCN's reliability. — Newslinger talk 18:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Rejecting an applicant doesn't make IFCN reliable rather it make it more questionable. The IFCN's credibility becomes untrustworthy when the its verified signatories have one-sided idelogical views rather than fact-based neutral views. An example is AltNews who is owned by by Pratik Sinha who has anti-Modi, anti-BJP, anti-Hindutva and anti-right-wing, pro-leftist views and is a member of a political organisation (mentioned in his Twitter bio) that is involved in targetted bashing of current prime minister of India and is inclined towards left-wing political parties and individuals. Just makes all connections fishy. This is one of the examples of the specific-agenda views of the entities associated/verified by IFCN. Vishal Telangre (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

So they're biased because they're funded by non-profits, and businesses, and progressives, and conservatives, and libertarians I guess. That's certainly a unique analysis. GMG^talk 19:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Your false allegation that Pratik Sinha is "anti-Hindu" is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy unless you can back that up with a reliable source. OpIndia, a site that is essentially the Indian version of The Gateway Pundit (RSP entry) (which was deprecated in a 2019 RfC), is not reliable and the IFCN is correct to reject it. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No false allegations. I have attached reference to the website (it redirects to altnews.com now) run by the same man which had published articles expressing similar views. Vishal Telangre (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The false "anti-Hindu" allegation is not the same thing as the term anti-Hindutva. — Newslinger talk 09:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like you missed my edits. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've changed "anti-Hindu" to "anti-Hindutva" in Special:Diff/945975817. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 09:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pratik Sinha himself spread fake news amid COVID-19 pandemic to disturb the situation from his official Twitter account and later when authorities found out that it was indeed a fake news, he tweeted with an apology.

Pratik Sinha Twitter @free_thinker

I retweeted a tweet earlier of an account claiming to be a medical professional and stating that they're out of supplies. Turned out that it was an imposter account, and wasn't a medical professional. Such people are de-legitimizing a genuine issue faced by medical professionals.

Mar 24, 2020

References

Vishal Telangre (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It is commendable that Sinha apologized for retweeting someone after he realized the original tweet was from an "imposter account", especially considering that the retweet was done on Sinha's personal Twitter account, not Alt News's Twitter account. Using Sinha's retweet correction as "evidence" against the IFCN-certified Alt News is a very long stretch of an argument; it is unsurprising that the IFCN-rejected OpIndia published an article along the same lines as your argument. Even if the retweet were done from Alt News's Twitter account, the correction would be a positive point: the IFCN expects its signatories to publish error corrections, as outlined in its code of principles. — Newslinger talk 07:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Vishaltelangre, That's... novel. In the real world, a body that never rejects any applicant is not thought to be terribly discerning. As to Sinha, I don't know if you've realised it, but critical analysis of the government of the day is a core function of journalism. Failure to do that is one reason why Fox News is not reliable. Guy (help!) 08:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Pratik Sinha, as cited above, he do not have neutral idelogical and political views. He rather have published articles only targetting a specific person (to be specific, India's current PM, Narendra Modi), related ideology and that person's political party. That makes him and his organization (AltNews) an unreliable source since the published articles show the similar views. If someone is a hater of a specific ideology then how can his organization be trusted as a reliable source which published most news stories that majorly targets a specific community? Vishal Telangre (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not established that Alt News is biased, especially considering that Alt News was found to be compliant with the IFCN's nonpartisanship policy when it was accredited in 2019. Wikipedia articles are generally allowed to use biased or opinionated sources, but generally not allowed to use questionable sources. OpIndia is a questionable source because it regularly publishes false and misleading information, not because it is a far-right pro-Hindutva publication. — Newslinger talk 09:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Vishaltelangre, he doesn't have to have unbiased views. Alan Rusbridger is not a fan of the Tory Party, but he ran a highly respected newspaper that comments with some authority on what the Tory government does. Guy (help!) 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. IFCN is an authority widely used and cited by other reliable sources. Reuters, CJR and others cover it as a positive contribution to factual reporting. It's not for us to second-guess those sources, especially when the motivation is that we like a source it says is unreliable. Guy (help!) 08:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes as it is considered reliable by sources such as Reuters, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes they appear to have a good reputation for reliability and fairness. I view their broad base of donor support as a positive. Glendoremus (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, good reputation for reliability and fairness, strong WP:USEBYOTHERS. Neutrality^talk 19:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes agree with what Newslinger said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The fact that the IFCN has given a positive assessment of a factchecker is evidence they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That does not mean that it is conclusive evidence, but that without evidence to the contrary we would accept their findings. I don't think it matters who funds the project. We should look at the reputation of the sponsor, which is a journalism school. TFD (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - I'd venture to say far more reliable than several of the fact checking sources we're using now, particularly those fact-checking sources founded by individuals whose backgrounds didn't provide one any comfort in knowing who was checking the facts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Newslinger, and the lack of credibility in the arguments against. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes they are reliable, IFCN is one of the best in the business. If they don’t meet the bar for WP:RS I don’t think anyone in the space does (which would be a problem for us). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes clearly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. Yes, but with concerns. I've been skeptical (cough) about Poynter/IFCN for a while, and previously had some discussion in context of another "fact check" (blog) site.[1] In my view, Poynter/IFCN is another "news" publisher, similar to many others. While they may be "non-profit," they still have to cover their expenses, and that creates obligations, and lack of independence, just like with other publishers. For context, I feel Wikipedia's blacklist approach should abandoned in favor of a more metric-based approach, used article by article. Unfortunately, objectively rating each individual article proposed as a source takes more effort. So, Poynter is a publisher, and IFCN is their "fact check" arm, to take advantage of a current trend, but it doesn't make everything they publish, or every rating by IFCN, a "gold standard." Some other comments:

• Reuters is a "signatory." [2] Thus Reuters citing IFCN is not independent, but more like conflict of interest. They have mutual interest in endorsing each other.

• Snopes withdrew from both Facebook and Poynter/IFCN. According to Poynter/IFCN, this was due to "bandwidth" and using "a manual system." According to snopes, it was due to the compensation being inadequate.[3][4] Poynter/IFCN published an article on Snopes.[5] The point is Poynter/IFCN is not a disinterested party.

• Poynter/IFCN published an article about DARPA disinformation efforts, and questioned their ability to use software for more automated fact-check type efforts.[6] Could it be Poynter is concerned about competition with their business?

• Poynter uses wordpress, as well as associated plugins and advert/tracking networks. This reflects poorly on their capabilities, and may indicate a conflict in some opinion publishing (see criticism of DARPA above).

• Poynter re-publishes PolitiFact publications. It's with attribution, but it demonstrates lack of independence in operation.[7]
• -- Yae4 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  This RfC does not seek to make the IFCN the sole arbiter of whether a fact-checker is reliable; the RfC statement asks whether the IFCN's assessments are generally reliable (and should be used in conjunction with other available reliable sources) when determining whether a fact-checker is reliable. The IFCN is not independent from PolitiFact (RSP entry), since both are operated by the Poynter Institute; however, editors are free to assess the evidence presented in the assessment for PolitiFact on its own merits. Snopes (RSP entry) was previously paid by Facebook (not the IFCN) to fact-check content on the social network; Snopes ended the partnership with Facebook because Snopes did not consider it to be the best use of resources. WordPress powers many reliable sources, including the websites for Time (RSP entry), Variety (RSP entry), and NiemanLab; a website's content management system is not related to its reliability. Most of the top million websites use web tracking, including the sites of many reliable sources, and the presence of web tracking has nothing to do with reliability. — Newslinger talk 07:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm changing my "vote" to Yes, with concerns, because in balance they seem about as "good" as other "reliable" publishers, and better in some ways. It is predictable, however, when IFCN is on the RSPS list, they will become the default primary arbiter. It's also concerning there were zero "Not Compliant" issues in Opindia's archived review, but somehow they were "rejected" in the end, for being partisan. Everyone is partisan... I think they lack independence too much, and they have been misleading or contradictory, despite their transparency efforts. For example, in one place they say, "The IFCN does not publish fact checks and is therefore not eligible to be a signatory of its own code of principles..."[8] However, in another place they acknowlege, "Poynter also houses the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact, which is the largest political fact-checking news organization in the United States."[9] So, one side of the house does not fact check, but the other side does, and they don't hesitate to review and endorse their own fact check arm. The technology issue was raised to point out they (1) are comfortable with criticising DARPA, a potential creator of a competing technology for IFCN business, while they are criticized by Snopes for relying on manual methods (poor technology); (2) By being one of the million who use typical website monitizing methods, they are one of the million who are motivated to "drive" eyeballs to their site(s), rather than being unique and completely preventing those conflicts of interest. So, a site's CMS technology isn't the only indicator, but it is an indicator, and "advert infested" (which is implemented with site CMS technology) has been used as a criticism. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• No. Poynter recently had to retract a list of fake news sites that included The Washington Examiner and other reliable outlets. Poynter took down their list after widespread backlash. Illustrates that Poynter is quite fallible and should not be taken as gospel: https://www.poynter.org/letter-from-the-editor/2019/letter-from-the-editor/ --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The Washington Examiner and other reliable outlets um ok: There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel B. Lewis (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (IFCN)

• The International Fact-Checking Network's evaluations are commonly used as a metric for determining whether fact-checking organizations (such as Snopes (RSP entry), Alt News, Boom, and OpIndia) are reliable. Recently, some editors who argue in favor of the reliability of certain pro-Hindutva publications (including Swarajya and the IFCN-rejected OpIndia, which are also being discussed in the "OpIndia and Swarajya" noticeboard discussion) have criticized the IFCN and IFCN-certified fact checkers on a variety of grounds. (See Talk:OpIndia § IFCN Rejection in the Lead Section and Talk:Swarajya (magazine) § Neutrality of the article in question for details.) This RfC aims to resolve the question of whether the IFCN should be used to evaluate the reliability of fact-checkers, which are in turn used to source claims in articles. — Newslinger talk 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Is there some serious debate about this source? GMG^talk 15:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, see the following:

  • Talk:OpIndia § IFCN Rejection in the Lead Section
  • Talk:Swarajya (magazine) § Neutrality of the article in question

  ​— Newslinger talk 15:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I've requested closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). — Newslinger talk 03:24, 21 April 2020 (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: Is Global News generally a reliable source for news and current affairs coverage?

Is Global News [10] a generally reliable source for news and current affairs coverage? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Current usage:[11]

Generally reliable a well regarded mainstream news source from a country with high press freedom. Reliable for both Canadian and international news. They made a minor error in misattributing three seconds of footage, but nothing to indicate a systematic issue (according to Columbia Journalism Review) since they apologized + issued a correction. buidhe 20:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

---

A normal news site as far as I know. Per instructions at the top of the page "Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source: how did you come to consider it worth questioning? - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi TheSandDoctor, I'm doing noticeboard maintenance and noticed that this discussion is pinned and labeled as an RfC, but does not use the {{rfc}} tag. Would you like to upgrade this discussion into a request for comment, or would you prefer to unpin the discussion so that it could be archived? I note that Global News, as a well-established news organization, is considered generally reliable by default under the WP:NEWSORG guideline unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. — Newslinger talk 03:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Unpinned --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup....second most international awarded news network in Canada.--Moxy 🍁 03:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable It is part of one of Canada's three major broadcast networks. TFD (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Mainstream Canadian broadcaster. Reliability not in dispute. El_C 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable major network, with no flagged issues, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Using The Washington Free Beacon in politically related BLPs - is it an RS?

I decided to raise my concerns about an edit at WP:BLPN#Use of The Washington Free Beacon for what looks like a BLP violation on an article about a political candidate but there are also RS issues, particularly about using it in BLPs. It's not mentioned at perennial sources. Doug Weller talk

For BLP information no. Its salacious and would need a top line source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Using the Washington Free Beacon as a source for anything is a bad idea. Using it for a BLP is a particularly bad idea. Guy (help!) 14:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source and should be marked as generally unreliable. They have made various false claims, such as "Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar held 'secret fundraisers with 'Islamic groups tied to terror'" and that "Europe Poised to Put Warning Labels on Jewish-Made Products". According to The Daily Beast, their reliability has decreased following the election of Donald Trump. Maybe we could do something similar to what happened to Newsweek?----ZiaLater (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate These examples are not just getting the facts wrong, they show intention to mislead. Therefore, the source should be deprecated. buidhe 02:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate per Buidhe. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally not reliable. Do not deprecate. I looked at their site for a corrections policy or a corrections page. I couldn't find either. That's a baseline criterion for reliability, and they fail it. That said, mixing up Islamic Relief USA with Islamic Relief seems like an awfully thin reed for deprecation, which I think should be reserved for extreme cases regardless. The Free Beacon is nowhere near an extreme case, so I oppose deprecation. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable If they say it happened, it probably did, but there are a lot of better sources out there, so why would anyone use it anyway? TFD (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate a source that publishes islamophobic conspiracy theories such as the ones above with an additional intent to publish misleading and downright false information should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Meltdown on 2020 Coronavirus epidemic in Sweden

There's been a discussion on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Sweden going on for two months. Discussion however appears meaningless, as there's a never-ending edit war going on in the background. Any and usually gets silently removed within days, and WP:INACCURATE is foreign language. The sources for the text isn't a problem at all, but when it comes to the stats the article is a total train wreck. And there sure is a lot of stats on the page. We have a bunch of charts, a table, a case list, a time line and an infobox. But if you visit the article looking for a number of cases on a specific date, you can easily find five numbers all contradicting each other. Probably more. This has gotten out of hand long ago, and the problem is bigger than just a conflict about sources, but I don't know where to take this?

today's discussion, current talk page, archived talk page, archived talk page

To give you an idea of the absurdity of it all, I'll give an example of a "source" for 5(?) charts:

"Datasource of some of the following charts are Public Health Agency of Sweden official data compiled every day at noon, also presented by ECDC and WHO. Others are from databases that compile region reports later every day, showing slightly different numbers."

Any help would be much appreciated, and much needed.

Reason Magazine and reason.com

There have been some recent discussions about whether Reason Magazine is a generally reliable for news, facts, and as an attributed source about itself for commentary, analysis, and opinions. I would like to float the following to see if there is consensus for it. Suggestions for wording changes are invited.

Reason Magazine and the associated website reason.com are generally reliable for news and facts. Reason has a self-described libertarian bias and much of the content is commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should always be attributed and considered to only be reliable sources on themselves.

Is the above an accurate description?

Somewhat related:

Here is reason's editorial board of experts: [12]

Here is mediabiasfactcheck.com's analysis:[13]

"Editorially, Reason takes Libertarian positions such as low taxes, free markets, low regulations and socially liberal position such as Marijuana legalization and pro-abortion rights. Politically, Reason falls within the Right-Center category based on economic positions (right) and socially liberal positions (Left). These positions often put Reason Magazine at odds with President Trump’s agenda regarding tariffs and free trade."

"A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check."

"Overall, we rate Reason Magazine Right-Center biased based on story selection that favors Libertarian positions and High for factual reporting due to mostly proper sourcing and a clean fact check record."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To avoid having newsinger repeat themself, MBFC is a self published source that is considered unreliable on the perennial sources list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Dumb mistake. I should have checked. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for facts though with the usual caveat that if they are publishing a claim that seems outlandish with no corroborating sourcing or sources that agree with them, carefully weight inclusion and attributed as necessary. --Masem (t) 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And yes, I agree with the bolded wording as given. That matches my feelings, understanding of it. --Masem (t) 16:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable -I agree with Masem and Guy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable for facts, opinions are likely to be WP:UNDUE: The problem with Reason is that like many other online publications, virtually all the content is marked "commentary", "policy brief", or "working paper". Opinion pieces, by definition, aren't considered reliable for facts. Policy briefs, such as this one, are also just opinions. Their working papers eg appear to be original research and studies that were first published on Reason, not in an academic journal, and therefore non-peer reviewed primary sources which have quite limited application in terms of what they could be cited for. It's hard to find any content on Reason that would be considered generally reliable for facts. Libertarianism is a minority view in the US and almost every other country, so opinions are likely to be undue weight. buidhe 23:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally not reliable The objective of Reason from the beginning was to present conservative opinions. It does not report news, but presents a conservative analysis of news. Since opinion pieces are rarely reliable, it cannot be rs. Also, it doesn't make sense to source facts to opinion pieces, when they merely repeat what has already been reported. TFD (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  That is incorrect. First of all, Reason is a libertarian website and magazine, not Conservative. More importantly, we don't discount sources due to their ideological bent - MSNBC is left-leaning, but reliable, and Fox News is right leaning, but reliable. We consistently refer to 'analysis' provided by reputable, reliable sources, of all ideologies. There is no difference between quoting Politifact's analysis of various claims (of which there are hundreds of examples on Wikipedia), and this article by Reason, similarly analyzing claims made about Dr. Oz, for example. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  "Generally not reliable" is pretty strong when I already proposed wording that includes :much of the content is commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should always be attributed and considered to only be reliable sources on themselves."

Here are four factual claims made in Reason that might be useful to satisfy WP:V on Wikipedia: (sample limited to their main page to avoid cherry picking). There of course are other policies such as WP:WEIGHT that might exclude the citation and there may be better, unbiased sources, but "generally not reliable" means "factual claims not usable for verification as required by WP:V."

• Four sheriffs in Michigan opposed the stay-at-home order issued by Governor Gretchen Whitmer. [14]
• Michigan's' updated stay-at-home order bans travel between Michigan residences such as vacation homes. Residents of other states who own such properties in Michigan are still allowed to visit them.[15]
• A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, who had tried to ban drive-in Easter services.[16]
• The World Health Organization regional office for Europe has encouraged governments to enforce measures which limit alcohol consumption during lockdowns due to the the COVID-19 pandemic.[17]

These are all statements of fact, not opinion, and are counterexamples to the false claims that "It's hard to find any content on Reason that would be considered generally reliable for facts" and "[Reason] does not report news, but presents a conservative analysis of news". (Also, Libertarians are not conservatives. How many conservatives want to legalize all drugs, legalize prostitution, completely open our borders, and withdraw all US troops fighting wars overseas?) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." While I am sure you can find many cases where the policy has not been followed, that does not mean we should not follow policy. The article you link to is clearly an expression of opinion, in this case that the media incorrectly reported the intent of Dr. Oz's statements. TFD (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• • +1 Exactly—we should follow our own policies. buidhe 10:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable If you need a recent example of them being more reliable than other mainstream left and right sources look here: [18] Pelirojopajaro (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Your link is to ... a piece in Reason. --JBL (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is another great example:

Compare the following claims in various sources:

• "The United States goes through over 500 million plastic straws every day, according to Eco-Cycle, a United States-based nonprofit recycling organization." Source The New York Times
• "In the United States alone, 500 million plastic straws are used each day, according to campaigners." --Reuters
• "We use 500 million plastic straws every day in the U.S. alone" --Time
• "With Americans using 500 million straws a day, the National Geographic calls them 'one of the most insidious polluters' because of the harm they cause to sea life." --The Guardian
• "Millions of straws are used once and then discarded in the United States each day, with some operations like the National Park Service saying some 500 million straws are discarded a day." --San Fransisco Chronicle
• "Every day Americans use — and almost immediately discard — up to half a billion plastic beverage straws. At least, that’s the figure widely used by environmental activists to explain why people should embrace going straw-less. It’s not clear where that number came from, but it seems credible..." --Los Angeles Times
• "Approximately 300-500 million plastic straws are used in the United States each day. " --Los Angeles Department of Sanitation (and they passed a law based on that number...)
• "Every day, Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws" --CNN
• "Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws every year, according to the National Park Service." --ABC News Los Angeles
• "It is estimated that Americans use 500 million straws per day" --USA Today
• "It is estimated that Americans use, and then dispose of, 500 million straws every day." --The Washington Post
• "The National Park Service estimates 500 million straws are used by Americans each day." --Fox News
• "The legislature finds that Americans use five hundred million disposable drinking straws daily, according to the National Park Service" --Hawaii State Legislature

Now let's look at what Reason said about it:

• "The original bad-straw-stat sin was the claim that Americans use 500 million straws a day, a number that popped up in just about every news article, blog post, or government press release on the topic before Reason revealed that its source was a small phone survey by a nine-year-old... the kid who gave us that 500-million-straws-a-day figure told USA Today, 'Why I use this statistic is because it illustrates that we use too many straws. I think if it were another number, it still illustrates the fact that there is room for reduction. That's really my message.' "[19]
• "The bigger issue is that claim that Americans consume 500 million straws a day. This stat, we know now, was produced by a 9-year-old boy; more reliable estimates put straw consumption at 175 million per day."[20]
• "News outlets writing about this issue—from CNN to the San Francisco Chronicle—unfailingly state that Americans use 500 million plastic straws a day, many of them ending up in waterways and oceans. The 500 million figure is often attributed to the National Park Service; it in turn got it from the recycling company Eco-Cycle. Eco-Cycle is unable to provide any data to back up this number, telling Reason that it was relying on the research of one Milo Cress. Cress—whose Be Straw Free Campaign is hosted on Eco-Cycle's website—tells Reason that he arrived at the 500 million straws a day figure from phone surveys he conducted of straw manufacturers in 2011, when he was just 9 years old. Eco-Cycle skews a bit more radical, with their "Be Straw Free" campaign -- sponsored in part by reusable straw makers -- that urges the adoption of glass or steel straws. Because we all know how good steel smelting is for the environment."[21]

Other news outlets have talked about the bogus 500 million figure, but only after Reason broke the story.

This did not require sophisticated investigative reporting either: many of the sources cite the National Park Service[22] or Eco-Cycle,[23] and both of those sources clearly state where the number came from. The news outlets simply did not bother checking, and either gave the number as if it was factual or attributed the number to the Park service / Eco-Cycle as if they came up with it instead of getting it from a 9-year-old.. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The statement in Reason that media "unfailingly state that Americans use 500 million plastic straws a day" is incorrect. As your examples show, they typically say something like "according to Eco-Cycle." Eco-Cycle got the number from 9 year old Milo Cress and still uses this figure.[24] USA Today published an article about the statistic in 2018.[25] The New York Times also published an article which says that since Cress' estimate, rigorous studies have been conducted that puts the figure between 170 million and 390 million straws per day.[26] Turns out that Cress' estimate was accurate considering the publicly available information at the time. But note the Reason article attacks the estimate based solely on Cress' age and does not publish the more recent informed figures which were then available. That's clear propaganda. Reason wants us to think that plastic straws do not present a problem and does this by attacking the original source of the estimate without giving us the actual figure because it is inconvenient to the narrative they want us to believe.

The most we can say is that Reason was helpful in drawing attention to the questionability of the numbers. But we had no way of assessing what they said until reliable sources commented on it.

TFD (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable in context Reason is primarily a source of commentary and should be treated as such. Much as we source basic facts from commentary material from sources like Washington Post, we should be OK doing the same from Reason. But any interpretations or conclusions which the article reaches should not be treated as fact and should be attributed. Springee (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for facts I agree with the summary. A quality publication with a particular political bent (not traditionally left or right in the US context), which mostly publishes commentary but performs adequate fact-checking on their articles. Comparable to other political news/commentary magazines such as Mother Jones or The Nation. feminist ^{Wear a mask to protect everyone} 09:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Apply extreme caution - Reason Magazine used to be right into holocaust denial, for example,[27], including a special issue dedicated to minimising and denying factual claims about the Holocaust and bringing on deniers to Just Ask Questions.[28] It's a magazine and website that exists for the purpose of political advocacy on behalf of its backers. That doesn't preclude fact-checking or stopped-clock moments, but it does mean that it'd be a yellow-rated source at very best, in need of application with great caution and attribution. I wouldn't use it at all except where unavoidable. Your bolded statement is not supportable without a caveat about their Holocaust denial, at which point the statement is self-contradictory - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Who/what is Pando and are they reliable for the claims in question? I didn't see them discussed in the RSN archives. Springee (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

They're a news outlet with proper editorial and journalism and so forth, and certainly were at the time - PandoDaily. Are you making a claim about the veracity of the report that Reason was into holocaust denial? Are you questioning the veracity of the reprint of Reason's holocaust just-asking-questions edition, suggesting it might be a fake? Please be specific in your objection - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of them. They don't appear in any RSN discussion save this one. The Wiki article on them doesn't offer much to go on and the articles you linked to started off with Koch conspiracy claims. It's not exactly easy to read the images on my phone. But I would say the burden is on you to show we should put weight on the claims of the Pando writer. I certainly don't see enough evidence thus far to assume they are correct vs mischaracterizing articles printed nearly 5 decades back. The claim you are making is a serious one. It would require some rather substantial evidence. Do we have additional sources making the same claims? Springee (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your ignorance is not a measure of a source. But this discussion is about Reason. Did they run a Holocaust denial issue? Yes, they did. Is this a reason to not regard Reason as a reliable source? I'd say it is - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ignorance is preferable to making claims that you know to be false. You clearly read the February 1976 issue (you quoted from it) and thus have seen the table of contents. It was not a "Holocaust denial issue" and you know it. It was a Revisionism issue, and the revisionism referred to was the position taken by William Appleman Williams and other left-wing critics of the Cold War. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

My claims are about the actual content - as I quoted, showing that my description is accurate - and not about their claims about themselves - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's the Feb 1976 "Special Revisionism Issue" of Reason. p. 39. North: "Probably the most far-out materials on World War II revisionism have been the seemingly scholarly studies of the supposed execution of 6 million Jews by Hitler. The anonymous author of The Myth of the Six Million [...] has presented a solid case against the Establishment’s favorite horror story - the supposed moral justification for our entry into the War." January 1976 on reason.com, p.6. James J. Martin: "The German concentration camps weren't health centers, but they appear to have been far smaller and much less lethal than the Russian ones." Unless you're going to try to claim that's a fake too - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't said anything is fake so please don't setup strawmen. I have said that you are making extraordinary claims about the entire body of work of magazine that has been in publication for many decades based on the claims of a single source of unknown reliability. The fact that this source starts with the Koch brothers boogie man is not a good sign. Springee (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on pando.com: PandoDaily.

Reason itself covered their own February 1976 "Revisionism issue" back in 2014.[29] You can read that entire issue here:[30].

The 2014 Reason article is a bit of a long read, so I will give a few quotes from it -- but if anyone is serious about studying this accusation they should read the entire thing and at least skim the 1976 issue for context.

• "Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing. Another of that issue's contributors, Gary North, would later be excoriated in this 1998 Reason article for arguing in favor of violent theocracy and the stoning of gays and others."
• "The "revisionism" under discussion in the 1976 special issue refers to the movement that was popular especially among left-wing critics of the Cold War such as University of Wisconsin's William Appleman Williams." (We have an article on him: William Appleman Williams.)
• "Much of the material from the issue doesn't hold up, which is hardly surprising for a magazine issue published almost 40 years ago. Even as the various writers warn explicitly against uncritically accepting revisionist accounts out of inborn contrarianism, there is a generally adolescent glee in being iconoclastic that I find both uninteresting and unconvincing. However, to characterize the issue as a "holocaust denial 'special issue,'" as Ames does, is an example of how quickly he can lose his always-already weak grasp on reality."
• "Reason's Editor in Chief Matt Welch noted that Ames is "the anti-libertarian conspiracy theorist with a history of generating apology notes and speedy take-downs among those journalistic outlets still reckless enough to publish him."

Analyzing what they wrote 44 years ago is interesting, but does not change the fact that as as the year 2020 Reason Magazine and the associated website reason.com are politically biased but generally reliable for news and facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• • Just to comment on the Pando aspect: CRJ seems to quote them (and Reason as well), so I'm going to say that Pando's a recognized voice, but when you look at the specific facets of Pando's claims towards Reason, it is as Guy says, something from 40 years ago, and only seems to be propagated by one writer at Pando. Looking at Pando's "process" it basically is a minimally reviewed blog, maybe one step away from a SPS, so basically the whole aspect boils down to "he said, she said" and one we'd not consider without other sources that have also evaluated it. As such, what one writer Pando has said about what some people involved with Reason had opined 40 years ago doesn't affect the use of Reason today for facts with a recognized bias. --Masem (t) 22:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I was sitting here thinking "now where did I hear about pando.com before?" then it hit me. They are the ones behind the conspiracy theory that the Tor (anonymity network) -- The one both I and Edward Snowden use -- is some sort of government conspiracy. See [31], [32], and [33].

• Generally reliable per Guy Macon. One terrible article that was published 44 years ago and has since been disavowed isn't very convinced argument against reliability. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• General unreliable - There are not strictly a WP:NEWSORG, but even if they were, "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.". The purpose of their foundation is to promote libertarian ideas[34], which is obvious from their content[35][36] and some of their donors like Charles Koch Institute[37]. Their claim that their publications are editorial independent from their foundations seems dubious. They share similar audiences with Nation Review, Washington Examiner, The Federalist, Daily Caller, adn Daily Wire, all of which we tend to steer away from for references.[38] There may be case where their opinion content is usable with attribution, but it's hard to imagine scenarios where something noteworthy would be sourced in Reason Magazine or website, but not in a far more credible publication. As far as I can tell, they are infrequently cited by other reliable sources, which suggest low WP:USEBYOTHERS. - MrX 🖋 15:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • it's hard to imagine scenarios where something noteworthy would be sourced in Reason Magazine or website, but not in a far more credible publication. As far as I can tell, they are infrequently cited by other reliable sources, which suggest low WP:USEBYOTHERS. yep, this is key. Anything good is not original, anything original is not good - they're not a newspaper, at all. And nobody else treats them as one - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

They are not a newspaper, but reliable sources aren't limited to newspapers. and conversely, many newspapers are not reliable, so that bit of "argument" is a total non sequitur. They are a magazine, with both print and on-line versions, and your assertion that "Anything good is not original, anything original is not good" are just that, your assertions. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree that Reason is a magazine, not a newspaper or other outlet that is primarily a source of news.

As for how often it is cited on Wikipedia or by other reliable sources, it is roughly consistent with other generally reliable magazines with a similar circulation:

• Reason (magazine): 50,000
• The New Republic: 50,000
• Variety (magazine): 54,000
• Wired UK: 58,000

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• • it's hard to imagine scenarios where something noteworthy would be sourced in Reason Magazine or website, but not in a far more credible publication. As a practical example, the only non-trivial secondary coverage I've seen for Kimball Atwood's role on a naturopathy licensure commission (described in Kimball Atwood#Opposition to naturopathy licensure in Massachusetts) is this 2003 Reason article. Does this indicate that his presence on the commission was not noteworthy? Cheers, gnu57 22:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A major column in Reason is the Volokh Conspiracy, written by legal expert Eugene Volokh and a few others covering constitutional law. Other sources may have their own legal experts by Volokh's interpretation and analysis of cases is of high regards. --Masem (t) 22:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable absent any reason to think otherwise. I don't like a lot of what they write, but they probably don't like a lot of what The Guardian writes. Guy (help!) 20:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. They do correct themselves when they make a mistake, [39] which is a primary criterion for reliability. Per Reason (magazine), they have won several awards, which suggests they have a good reputation. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable based on the evidence given above, and actually demonstrated to be one of the most reliable, given that its perspective comes from outside the major ideological divide (and beholden to neither). A reputation for getting facts right early and often, being a news source other media takes lead from in some cases, as well as a robust history of self-correction. Opinions can be attributed to their authors, which are often well-regarded for their commentary. I'm actually surprised that there would be any thought that they are unreliable, given how prevalent its already used on Wikipedia. - Netoholic @ 16:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable but rather opinionated. While I disagree with them about a number of things, I feel they provide an important point of view, and their reporting comes off to me as well done, investigating facts and looking at both sides of an issue. Samboy (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Except that they don't do original reporting. buidhe 18:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Except when they do, as shown above, repeatedly.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Use with caution and may require attribution They are outside of the green box and considered very partisan by the Ad Fontes media bias chart. —PaleoNeonate – 21:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Jewish Virtual Library

Is Jewish Virtual Library[40] a generally reliable source, across all the areas it covers? It is currently used on 985 pages throughout Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The summary at WP:RSPS states that "The Jewish Virtual Library is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and has no warnings about it being run by the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, a lobby group run by a former AIPAC media editor. It is also misrepresentative of the discussions in the WP:RSN archive and at Talk:Jewish Virtual Library, which point out both the propaganda-connections and that many of its articles were sourced originally from Wikipedia.

The entry at WP:RSPS has the "Stale discussions" label, as there has not been a discussion about this topic for a number of years. It was added here, four months ago, without discussion. I have deleted the entry for now subject to this discussion.[41] Pinging @Guarapiranga and ToThAc: who added the entry, for their comments.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Wikiproject notifications: [42],[43],[44],[45] on 16 April. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussions regarding the reliability of JVL at Talk:Jewish Virtual Library feature 2 IP editors with a grand total of 6 edits between them [46], and one pronouncement from a now-blocked sock-puppet[47]. Beyond that, there is a section debating reliability with a 3:3 split. I don't see anything resembling a consensus that it is not a reliable source. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor is the opposite true. There is no overall consensus. And there is consensus that for articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is not reliable. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

So you assert, but have yet to demonstrate such a consensus exists. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The source's organizational affiliations aside, I remember having some concerns about its accuracy when working on articles related to Jewish history a while back due to contradictions between it and more academic sources. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact examples, and I wasn't able to find them in a five minute search of likely parts of my editing history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I was able to find this evaluation of the source in Religious Studies Review written in 2006: Second, the Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org), managed by the American–IsraeliCooperative Enterprise, has an excellent range of articles andsources on Jewish history, Israel, Zionism, the Holocaust, Jewish religion, and a number of other topics. As its sponsor’s nameimplies, the Jewish Virtual Library represents a Zionist viewpoint.However, the vast majority of its secondary sources are reliableand written from a scholarly standpoint. The Jewish VirtualLibrary offers one of the best single sites on the Internet forJewish historical and cultural information. That's older than I'd like for evaluating an online source, but I think that based on this praise I would say generally reliable for Jewish history outside Israel/Palestine, evaluate case-by-case and use with attribution for claims related to Israel/Palestine while still maintaining our preference for secondary sources over tertiary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The "Myths and Facts" section of the Jewish Virtual Library is a list of strawmen and "rebuttals", entirely one-sided in a highly complex and disputed topic area. It reads like a set of AIPAC talking points. Most of the answers link to sections of Mitchell Bard's version of the book "Myths and Facts" (Bard heads the organization which runs the JVL). That book was reviewed in 2002 by Donald Neff as follows:[48]

The Arab-Israeli conflict is littered with propaganda masquerading as information. Both sides are active in this black art, where distorting the facts to one side’s favor is considered success. In general, Israel and its supporters have been more adept in this poisonous pursuit, mainly because of their wide media access in the United States. The latest edition of Myths and Facts, however, is not one of the better efforts by the pro-Israel side, mainly because it is less adroit than usual at twisting the facts to the benefit of Israel... The original Myths and Facts was published as a byproduct of the Near East Report, a pro-Israel newsletter begun in the 1950s by Si Kenen, a tireless propagandist for Israel. Out of Kenen’s propaganda work grew the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), today the most powerful Israeli lobby... The current version of Myths and Facts is curiously without specific mention of its debt to AIPAC, although it acknowledges the pioneering role of the Near East Report. This is hardly encouraging since the latter is a reliable source of myths but hardly of facts. Author Mitchell G. Bard is a former editor of the Near East Report and a coauthor of the 1992 edition of Myths and Facts... Bard is now executive director of yet another pro-Israel group, the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), founded in 1993. Among its seven board members are Bard, Arthur Bard, and Eli E. Hertz. Hertz left the Israel Defense Forces as a captain after seven years and moved to New York to found a technology company. He is listed as sponsor of the latest Myths and Facts and chairman of the board of AICE.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And Donald Neff was a writer for Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, described as "the guidebook to the Arabist lobby in the United States," that "specializes in defaming Israel". We could do this all day. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable they cite Wikipedia and iMDB as sources [49][50][51] and may copy directly from Wikipedia. That said I don't think that pro-Israel slant is a good reason to disqualify a source, accuracy is. buidhe 23:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, changing my assessment. If they're citing us then we can't use them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. If citing Wikipedia was a basis for disqualifying sources, we'd have to eliminate every major newspaper as a reliable source

• The Guardian [52]
• The New York Times [53]
• The Washington Post [54]
• ...you get the idea. This argument is not convincing.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, there's a difference between a one-line claim that says "According to Wikipedia" and listing a source as a reference for a broader article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No, there really isn't, especially when the articles that User:Buidhe pulled up list additional sources, alongside Wikipedia. I hope I don;t need to show you that aside from those sentences that are explicitly described as "according to Wikipedia..." newspapers routinely rely on Wikipedia articles, often copying entire sentences word for word, without attribution. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: This article cites Wikipedia as its only source and is a word for word copy of an old revision of the wikipedia page: [55]. buidhe 00:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And as such, that article is not a reliable source, just like you could say the items attributed to Wikipedia by the New York Times or Washington Post can't be used in articles. But you can't blanket-disqualify the entire project as non-reliable on the basis of that article, or others like it. At most, you could say that articles that list Wikipedia among their sources are not reliable .JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable: I've used the Jewish Virtual Library in the past for sources for topics unrelated (or not directly related) to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it just seems that it isn't a good source. It is not completely accurate and mostly cites other sources that can or should be accessed by Wikipedians who follow Wikipedia's policies. I stopped using it when I realized it cites Wikipedia sometimes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. The only occasion where I'd consider citing this source is when there is an article written by a named author who is an acknowledged expert. Even then I'd be super-careful since JVL is perfectly willing to alter the text. Once there was a discussion about using an article in JVL cited to Encyclopedia Judaica (a reliable source), but some of it I knew to be nonsense. So I consulted the original EJ article and found that JVL had silently inserted some rubbish sentences of their own into EJ's verbatim text. Regarding Myths and Facts, which is part of JVL, a review of an early edition in an academic journal (Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 16, No 3, p165) includes the lovely sentence "The reason this book is undocumented is because one cannot document lies." It is nearly always possible to consult the sources JVL cites directly, so we don't need the unreliable filtering. In the case that triggered this discussion, JVL provided 19th-century demographic figures but when I looked at the source I found that the information came from the Israeli government Press Office and the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. Zero^talk 01:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable given the above comments. And of course if we can't find another source, then WP:UNDUE comes into play. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable for IP area One has to wonder about "pre-state Israel (1517-1948)" which takes it a step further than mere bias, parroting propaganda. Imagine if WP everywhere changed Israel to "post-Palestine".Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable If they use us verbatim for even one article that means (to my mind) they are not an RS, as how does that demonstrate a reputation for fact checking? There are better sources they use, so lets use those.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The last RSN discussion I can remember concluded that, as JVL articles were of variable quality, some unsigned, some written by reputable authors, whether to cite them or not should be decided on a case-by-case basis. That seemed sensible. Contrary to the entry on RSPS, the JVL has no obvious process, such as peer review, for fact-checking. My guess is that there's not much evidence for objectively measuring its reputation for accuracy. The decision to remove the RSPS entry looks reasonable to me. Do we actually need a new RSN discussion on the JVL?     ←   ZScarpia   11:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the JVL articles cited by four Wikipedia articles from among the first returned search results, they all have similar problems: no author is given; the contents don't cite sources; better sources for those articles should have been available. The Wikipedia articles were: Nazi human experimenting (which cites the JVL Nazi Medical Experiments: Freezing Experiments article [also the Documents regarding Nazi medical experiments article, which may be regarded as a collection of copies of primary sources]); Jesus (which cites the JVL Jesus article); Timeline of the Holocause (which cites the JVL Wilhelm Marr and History and overview of Aushwitz-Birkenau articles, among many others); Sweden (which cites the JVL Raoul Wallenberg article).     ←   ZScarpia   17:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• This does look problematic, per the information above. We should move it to a no-consensus statement ASAP, I think, and perhaps review it more thoroughly. Guy (help!) 11:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not Reliable I don't (and won't) edit in the IP area since it is all just politics. I wouldn't (and have not) use JVL in my Jewish history area editing. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Contextual reliability The New York Times used the site in a 2019 discussion on settlements in the West Bank and to source biographical details based on an interview with the site for a 2016 obituary. These are some of the most sensitive areas discussed here (bios and IP), so WP:USEBYOTHERS seems to imply at least some use based on authorship and article quality. Similarly, CNN used JVL to source biographical statements about Israeli officials in a 2002 article, Slate recommends this page as a good source of information on postwar interstate agreements, and Reuters cites it in a 2008 article on a Jewish ambassador to Bahrain. The source seems to be used infrequently, but widely. I agree that lots of its pages are terrible, of course, but it seems like a blanket statement is a step too far based upon its support in other contexts. Jlevi (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. How is WP:USEBYOTHERS measured? I could bring multiple equivalent references from reputable news agencies linking to Breitbart, Daily Mail, and even Wikipedia itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Use by other reliable sources is one factor that is considered when evaluating a source's reliability. This factor carries more weight for less popular sources (e.g. a non-notable publication with a small editorial team), and less weight for major publications (whose articles receive comment from reliable sources due to the publication's popularity). The context of the use is also important: coverage of the publication's content (e.g. this article on InfoWars's media bias chart) does not count as WP:UBO. I consider WP:UBO a minor factor compared to what reliable sources say about the publication's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. However, for smaller or less controversial publications with little to no direct coverage in reliable sources, WP:UBO may be the only data points available, and that would be sufficient to justify the publication's use on Wikipedia. Self-published sources and user-generated content (including Wikipedia) are unacceptable in most cases regardless of WP:UBO.

Looking at the provided links, "A Look at the West Bank Area Netanyahu Vowed to Annex" is a weak case of WP:UBO, since the article frames the statment as something the JVL said: "The Jewish Virtual Library, a website run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, said that...". "Doris Roberts, Mother on ‘Everybody Loves Raymond,’ Dies at 90" does not count as WP:UBO, since the article treats the JVL as a primary source: "She made this plain in a Jewish Virtual Library interview". But, "Sources: Sharon taps new defense minister" and "Bahrain picks Jew as U.S. envoy, local media critical" do count, because they use "according to the Jewish Virtual Library"; "according to [publication]" is the one of the best indicators of WP:UBO if used as an attribution of a straightforward assertion, and not in a context that portrays the publication negatively. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

In the current language of the RfC, I agree that this source is Not reliable in general. I add these uses above in large part because I have not seen this point included yet, and it seems worthwhile to consider. Jlevi (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. JVL is a propaganda tool with a clear agenda to falsify history and reality. It was created by the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise: [56]. JVL has several maps showing the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as being "Israel", see pages 65, 74 and 77:[57] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• One man band: despite our puff-piece articles on the Jewish Virtual Library and the grandly named "American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise", both of which are replete with WP:ABOUTSELF references, I have found no detailed information on this organization from third party sources. So I looked up the AICE tax filings (here for 2018 and 2017). In 2018 they had revenues of $196 thousand dollars (p.1), of which $164 thousand went straight to pay Mitchell Bard (p7) and $23 thousand went to "occupancy" (p.10, which presumably is for the usage of his home-office). The Vice President/Secretary is Mitchell Bard's son, Arthur (last page). The 2017 report also includes a section explaining the Jewish Virtual Library, which states: "THE JVL ALSO INCORPORATES OUR PUBLICATION, MYTHS AND FACTS: A GUIDE TO THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT, AN ESSENTIAL RESOURCE FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THE DISPUTE, KNOWN AS THE PRO-ISRAEL ACTIVIST'S "BIBLE". THE JVL ALSO INCLUDES MATERIAL FROM OUR STOPBDS.COM SITE THAT PROVIDES VITAL INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND, RESPOND AND COMBAT THE CAMPAIGN TO BOYCOTT AND DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A bit of a digression, but looking at WP's article on the JVL, there's a fairly horrible bit of original research in the Reception section, where it's claimed that the JVL is "regularly cited" by various sources. To try to justify the claim, it links to webpages in some of the listed sources. The one for the BBC appears to be from a member of the BBC Club in the Compton Road Library section of that part of the website. The information taken from the JVL is in a 'Facts' sidebox above which is a warning that, "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites." It then goes on to make the same kind of claim for its being "listed as reference" by a number of universities. The "reference" listed by Purdue University is an inclusion of a virtual tour of Prague in an Internet Resources section.

Returning to the main point, there are probably many articles in the JVL whose contents are not touched by the controversies of the the IP conflict. For those that are, there is an underlying problem of how to edit neutrally in Wikipedia when much of the source material is politicised, sectarian and affected by denialism, falsification, omission, misrepresentation and distortion. The problem then is that you're dealing with different narratives of which the JVL is transmitting one.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would be hesitant to delist something that is being used in a content dispute in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area and note that delisting it would add more bias to articles in that area. I would also ask people to note that many people here have no problems with using Applied_Research_Institute–Jerusalem in the same IP area. People are also conflating subjects in the general Jewish area and in the IP area. I think a distinction can be made. We should not remove this resource from the encyclopedia merely because people don't like it in one area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have an image in my head of this one guy behind AICE/JVL sitting at his home-office in his pajamas occasionally updating an entry or writing a new one. It seems to, in practice, be a glorified blog. Sure he occasionally gets credible writers to write attributed articles, but even then who fact-checks them? This guy is an expert in public relations advocacy and nothing else. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Self published in addition to there being no fact-checking process (since it is a one-man website), it turns out that JVL is also an WP:RS/SPS. The book that is incorporated into the JVL, "Myths and Facts", is published by CreateSpace. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is clearly false. - [58] JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also found that impressive at first. But the "Board of Directors" are paid zero (per the tax return) so likely don't do much (that may be ok for a real charity, but given the amount Bard is paying himself it seems unlikely they would do meaningful work pro bono), the "Advisory Board" are wealthy people who donated, and the "Honorary Committee" look like a list of political types that Bard knew from his time at AIPAC. In summary it is clear that none of these people do any work, there is no office or similar – i.e. as mentioned above this is just a glorified blog. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear at all, and non-paid work is the norm for the boards of small non-profit organizations. Do you similarly think that ARIJ, for example, is a "one person" shop, given the list of people they have on their staff, here: [59] ? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Onceinawhile, I see that you've converted this discussion into a request for comment. RfCs are more restrictive than ordinary discussions on how the initial comment should be worded. Could you please add a signed "neutral and brief" statement immediately below the {{rfc}} template to meet WP:RFCBRIEF? — Newslinger talk 12:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger I have done so. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thank you. — Newslinger talk 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I oppose this people when commented didn't now this an RFC.If someone want to start an RFC it should start a new discussion Shrike (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shrike, I don't think this is an issue since an RfC extends the discussion to a minimum of 30 days, and neutrally publicizes it through the feedback request service. In the past, discussions on this noticeboard have been upgraded to RfCs once they turned out to be more controversial than initially expected, to attract participation from a wider section of the community. If there is consensus here to downgrade the RfC back to an ordinary discussion, it can be done. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Sir Joseph.The JVL is valuable source but like any source that may have some slant should be used with care..No one yet proved any proof of unreliablity. And the fact it used by multiple scholarly papers as source [60] and this our sign of reliability as per WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable in large parts, though some things it can be used as a convenience link for when they have copies of hard to find documents. But things like Myths and Facts is straight up propaganda and the articles that cite and or duplicate Wikipedia show the generally low quality of much of the material on the website. nableezy - 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable - Per nableezy's rationale. NickCT (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The Indian Express

Given that references to The Indian Express are used in a lot of India-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Reliable, but may require further investigation
• Option 3: Unreliable for certain topics (such as those which may be considered controversial)
• Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 5: Publishes incorrect or fake information and should be deprecated.

Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey (The Indian Express)

• Option 1 More discussion needed/unclear. I am not sure one regional government decrying a source is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Seems that it is only one regional government not being happy about bad publicity, not enough to say this is unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1— Brihaspati (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - A solid, centrist newspaper that runs excellent op-eds by prominent specialists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. To affect our assessment of its reliability, evidence of factual inaccuracies would have to come from independent commentators. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 depending upon particular article, topic area, and the claim being source. I list option 2, not because I am off-hand aware of IE intentionally spreading "fake news", but because even the best Indian newspapers need to be read critically due to their (understandably) greater reliance on unnamed sources; not always clear separation of reported facts and analysis; and, fluffy coverage in the non-hard news sections like entertainment, lifestyle etc (eg, articles such as [61], [62] etc). Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Even though that report[63] still appears fishy to me, I am willing to ignore it on the basis of the fact that it has been quoted in other mainstream media([64],[65]). The Indian Express often gets quoted ([66],[67],[68]) in mainstream international media; therefore, it may be considered to have a "reputation for reliability" that characterizes a reliable source. Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fowler knows what he's talking about. Still, it's a fallible WP:NEWSORG and editors should use common sense before assuming that it's right. buidhe 00:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 It remains one of the independent, reliable publications in India and qualifies as a WP:NEWSORG. Governments accusing media organisations of being "fake news" doesn't make them so especially in India. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 they definitely meet the WP:RS threshold for WP:V,and also WP:NEWSORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 the question of reliability depends not only on the source, but on the context. Even questionable sources may be reliable for statements about the source itself. Conversely, even a top quality newspaper is not a reliable source for a biomedical claim. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (The Indian Express)

I would want to see more than an accusation by a government, such as a NGO. But this is enough to say we should attribute anything they say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vaibhavafro, if you would like to make this discussion a formal request for comment, could you please use a "neutral and brief" statement as explained in WP:RFCBRIEF, and then apply the {{rfc}} tag with at least one RfC category? Wikipedia:Requests for comment has a full description of the process. — Newslinger talk 09:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger for the reminder. I am pasting the non-neutral statement here: The Indian Express has been recently accused([69],[70]) of spreading fake-news([71]) by the Gujarat government, I think it would be appropriate to invite comments on its reliability.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And thank you for reformatting the RfC, Vaibhavafro. I've added the standard survey/discussion sections. Slatersteven, I placed your comment in the discussion section since it didn't specify an option, but feel free to move it to the survey section if it belongs there instead. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 12:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure The claim here is that a newspaper journalist interviewed a representative of a hospital. The hospital representative claimed to have 1) orders from the central government 2) and on those orders provided separate treatment wards for patients based on religion. There is some heavy social conflict here. I recommend no particular action right now but it is fine to record this case, and see if in the future there are more similar instances. We would not typically make a judgement based on one case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Indian Express is one of the (better) mainstream newspapers in India and as such Option 1 or 2 would apply. However, I don't think we even need an RFC yet especially just based on these tweets. A governmental denial does not fake news make. The IE article quoted the hospital's medical superintendent and an (unnamed) patient for its claim, and then solicited and quoted statements from the states's Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, and city Collector who all "denied knowledge" of the segregation. The state's health department later issues a "reports are totally baseless" statement (which is provably incorrect, since the superintendent's statement, at a minimum, provide a basis for the reporting), and we start an RFC questioning the publication's credibility? Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Even though Indian governments aren’t quite press-friendly (press freedom in India is quite low), they don’t usually react to criticism by singling out certain media reports. The claim published by Indian Express has the potential to communally charge the atmosphere in Ahmedabad and has also received coverage in international media([72]). If there was nothing wrong with that claim, I don’t think that the government would have reacted so pointedly. Also note that The Indian Express’s estranged sibling The New Indian Express has already been caught spreading fake news[73]. In view of this, I thought a RfC would be necessary.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 13:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure this is true [[74]], [[75]], [[76]], its rather more than "quite press-friendly". They may not ALWAYS respond to criticism, its clear they are not beyond stifling the news media if it is critical. Thus any claim by any Indian government body must be taken with a bucket full of salt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. I can't speak to the details of the one report mentioned by the nominator, but The Indian Express is a generally reliable Indian newspaper. It belongs, in my view, with The Hindu, which is the best, the Statesman and the Kolkata Telegraph, to the top four Indian newspapers.) It might not be always reliable for the minor reports but its major reports, its independence, are impeccable, of a piece with the world's best. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Indian Express is one of the prominent newspapers in India. I don’t think government denial makes newspaper unreliable. Government has its own claim while reporter did their own duty. These things are not repeating after every interval.— Brihaspati (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

We do not need "votes" in both sections.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Are there previous discussions at WP:RSN about this? What is the WP:CONTEXT of this particular dispute? Are we willing to assess the reliability of this source as a whole based on a single story? --MarioGom (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: The Indian Express was accused of spreading fake-news by a regional government of India. So I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss its reliability (even though most editors already consider it quite reliable). That's the context, nothing much. Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 20:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That dreaded Daily Mail

Is using this Daily Mail article as a source for a quote acceptable? I used this on an article I created, Anthony Joshua vs. Éric Molina. The author of the Daily Mail article, Eddie Hearn (it states above the article "by Eddie Hearn for the Daily Mail"), is Anthony Joshua's promoter/matchmaker. The quote used is Hearn revealing his shortlist of potential opponents for Joshua's 10 December 2016 bout. It's not a random journalist's opinion or a second hand quote, it's the man himself stating who he has in mind for the bout. The 'Background' section in boxing event articles details potential opponents, the decision making process and negotiations leading up to the event itself.

I know the Daily Mail is deemed "generally unreliable", and since finding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I've always checked and based which sources I use off this list. But does the above usage come under the "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." aspect? – ².O.^Boxing 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing, no, because the DM has been known to make up quotes from sources. buidhe 14:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe I understand that, but the article isn't an interview/piece written by a journalist. There are no quotes in the article. There are no possible sources to be misquoted (or fabricated). It's Eddie Hearn himself (the person I was quoting) writing for the Daily Mail, revealing his own decision making process in his own words. He can't exactly misquote (or fabricate) his own words. Or are the Daily Mail known for lying about the authors of the articles they publish? If this isn't a prime example of, "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion.", then would somebody mind explaining what is? – ².O.^Boxing 14:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't know if Hearn actually wrote the article or if it appears as written. And if no reliable sources have found the comments important enough to mention, they lack weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the other things we have caught TDM doing (completely fabricating a story -- including direct quotes -- that never happened, plagiarizing a story from another source, adding a few false details to make it better click-bait, and publishing it under the name of a DM writer who may not exist), we have no particular reason to believe that someone else didn't completely make up the entire thing and say Eddie Hearn wrote it, and we have no reason to believe that if he did write it that they didn't edit it to make it better clickbait. Yes, the DM really is that unreliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing, I advise you to completely stop reading The Daily Mail. Not because Wikipedia forbids reading it -- we don't -- but because your life will be better without it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Have we had a case where an article with the byline of non-staffer be proven out to be changed significantly from what that person actually wrote? I know we have cases of a person quoted by the DM to have had their statement significantly altered (not just taken out of context) as a reason to not trust even a quoted statement in the DM, but here, we're talking the text attributed directly to the byline author. There may be, I may have missed it, and this is justified, but I want to make sure we're clear on that. (That said, with what's already in the article on WP here, I don't think we'd be losing anything if this DM article can't be included). --Masem (t) 17:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

One we have determined that they are willing to fabricate stories for events that never happened and interviews that never happened, we don't need to demonstrate that they are willing to fabricate an article with the byline of a non-staffer. The burden of proof is on whoever claims that they somehow know that The Daily Mail does not lie in a particular situation or under certain conditions. --The Real Donald Trump --(talk) 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC)

(BTW, The "byline" and posting date you just read was a lie. That was me.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If this is the case, then what is the actual point of, "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." It appears that, in the absence of somebody making a public statement declaring they wrote an article that has been published exactly how they wrote it (how often does that happen, if ever?), then it cannot be applied in any instance.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand. – ².O.^Boxing 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is the corresponding policy here. For example, a person's description of their own life or opinions can be used in their own biography (subject to restrictions), even if it is published in an unreliable source, as long as we are reasonably certain that they are the author. Uncontroversial self-descriptions are unlikely to pass the due weight test in articles other than the biography of the author. — Newslinger talk 22:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Emphasis on "as long as we are reasonably certain that they are the author". In the case of The Daily Mail, we are never reasonably certain that they are the author. They have stolen copyrighted works and published them under the name of an author who didn't write them far too many times. Some say "but they wouldn't dare doing that to [famous person]]." Yes. They would dare. Some say "well if the person is a paid DM author the words must be his" Pay a person enough and he will allow you to publish whatever you want under his name.

In the case of The Daily Mail, WP:ABOUTSELF means that we can use it for a source about The Daily Mail. Now that we know that they routinely publish things that were not written by the author they credit we cannot apply ABOUTSELF to the author. Similarly, now that we know that they routinely publish direct quotes that are fabricated, we cannot treat them the way we treat direct quotes in pretty much any other source. It really is that bad. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• In this case, the work in question is a PRIMARY source for Hearn’s opinion. There are limited situations in which it is appropriate to cite primary sources. Add to that the fact that the DM is a less than reliable publisher, and we should probably not include it. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe it is a primary source for Hearn’s opinion. And maybe not. It is possible that the words did not come from Hearn. I have yet to see a shed of evidence supporting the oft-repeated assertion that "we know The Daily Mail regularly lies about A and B but surely they can't be lying about C and D". Even when they get sued, they make more money out of the story than they lose in the lawsuit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I originally removed the quote and cite, and Squared.Circle.Boxing asked if it might be a suitable case for permissible SPS. I doubted it personally, but said to bring it here, 'cos it's a fair question. I think it's not an unreasonable question, though I'm inclined to say not to put it in - I'm not convinced such quotes add enough to add the DM; it strikes me as more just adding a bit of colour and past WP:CRYSTAL than something that would be actually important for the article. (I can see plausibility for the argument it might be a useful addition.) I do wonder, though, if Hearn said this somewhere else we could use - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think that the usage in this case was acceptable in that we don't seem to have any experience where a piece claimed to be by an outside author who is a real and relatively well-known figure was fabricated. In other words, the "about self exception" Squared Circle was referring to does apply. That said, the quote adds nothing useful to the article and is more like tabloid fodder than encyclopedic content. It is also an example of recentism bias in that Hearn's quote will have extremely doubtful relevance in a year, much less ten. The article loses nothing by its removal. This is normal collaborative editing to improve an article and shouldn't be weighed down by DM sourcing issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree that the comments I quoted weren't essential and the article loses nothing from having it removed. I just figured it was a somewhat useful addition into the insight of the opponent picking process. I wasn't necessarily opposed to the removal, just wondered if the self exception aspect applied. After doing more searching for the quote I can only find this instance where it's been used, so it appears the initial shortlist Hearn mentioned didn't receive much attention. No worries. Thanks for the patience and the helpful comments, much appreciated folks. – ².O.^Boxing 19:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

":Re: "The usage in this case was acceptable in that we don't seem to have any experience where a piece claimed to be by an outside author who is a real and relatively well-known figure was fabricated", on what basis are you making that decision? They have been shown to fabricate entire interviews by real and relatively well-known figures. They have been shown to lie about who wrote a story. If I look out my front door and see that it is pouring rain, do I say "better check out the back door"? You don't have to catch a serial liar lying in every conceivable situation. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that known liars are truth-tellers in situations where we haven't caught them lying yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point, it does not matter whether our assessment of the Daily Mail is correct, the result of the RfC was that it should not be used as a source. It's in the same league as an anonymous website. TFD (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Except... in cases like this, Hearn is the source, and the DM is more the PUBLISHER. I don’t think the RFC considered situations like this. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Extremely Weak OK This is not a publication from Joseph Goebbels. Yes they have a dicey track record but the idea that they would fabricate an article and or falsely put someone's name on it who is not the author is risible. No paper would do that because it would be instantly denounced and the paper would lose whatever credibility it had left, as well as face potentially devastating legal repercussions. Some of the comments above seem to be divorced from the plane of reality that most people inhabit. All of which said, the DM is a terrible paper and I really would look for almost anything else in preference for sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• OK per ABOUTSELF. As above, the idea he didn't write it is risible. --GRuban (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Official meeting videos posted to YouTube

Hello, so me and other editors have been unsuccessful in deciding whether or not using a youtube video as a source for "car assignment changes" is a good source. I don't believe it is since we generally do not use youtube as sources, here is the link; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3AOsVFVOoo. This video somewhat references that the "r32 class subway car will be fully replaced by the R179's car class", however this is a Metro North & LIRR committee meeting (both companies have no involvement in this car class change), not a MTA NYC Subway meeting, which is why I think that the source is not good enough to use. Please advise. FlushingLocal (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

> Wait, that is what you're confused about? I'm sure that the right source was used, and even if it was not I'm sure the CPOC meeting or the NYCT meeting from January has that noted somewhere. Mtattrain (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

> Checked again, these are for all meetings. Scroll to time 8:01:40 when Andrew Albert asks about trains being replaced. Mtattrain (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

>@Mtattrain: Oh, but you see my point right? The meeting is full of errors. Normally when they have a meeting it should just say "MTA Board Meeting" like in this video, but this one doesn't, that's one of the reasons why I don't consider it reliable. FlushingLocal (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

> It's a minor technical goof, and it's still from the MTA, so I think it's still reliable. I don't think the fact that they mislabeled a meeting should super degrade its reliabiliy, but I defer to admins. Mtattrain (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So there's recently been a conflict at R179 (New York City Subway car) over the reliance on this video as a reference for which older model railcars are intended to be replaced by the R179s. The video is the recording of the January 2020 board meeting of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which oversees the subway. There is some conflict as to whether that constitutes a reliable source for the statement is supports in the article, and whether it being hosted on the MTA's official YouTube channel has any impact on its reliability and suitability as a source. Feedback is welcome. oknazevad (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'd generally consider this source reliable (same for the thread above), considering this is the MTA's verified account. However, I would not consider the individual members' statements reliable by themselves, because they have historically made errors while speaking. I would suggest a print document or visual confirmation, if that is possible. epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

> I do too for MTA-based YouTube videos but I'm assuming I have no power to make that a policy. Mtattrain (talk)

> This was exactly the reason why I didnt want to use it as a reliable source, since the individual board members have made errors before in the past. I'm also confused as to why the video says it's a LIRR & Metro North meeting when it's a meeting for all the agencies. FlushingLocal (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

> It reads "MTA Board - 01/21/2020 Live Webcast" for me, which means everything probably. Mtattrain (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

> I was referring to the title cards in the video. FlushingLocal (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In addressing the issue of someone misspeaking, which can indeed be an issue at times, is that the statement that the R32s are to be retired by the R179s was based on a direct question, so statement strikes me as having particular weight. It wasn't just a passing mention, but a specific clarification, so the intent seems clearer to me. oknazevad (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me if I seem impatient I just have no clue how this works, are we suppose to mention a mod or do we just wait until they respond? FlushingLocal (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

> Kinda curious when an answer will be provided lol. Mtattrain (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. It is a video from the official account of the MTA, and thus should be viewed as a government document. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• The problem with this source is not about reliability, it’s about the fact that this is a primary source. —JBL (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

World Health Organization

The World Health Organization has been operating as a propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak. 2.3 million people are sick, 160 thousand people are dead, and millions have lost their jobs, because the World Health Organization misled the world on behalf of China.

The WHO isn't on the list of reliable sources. As a scientific/health organization, this lack of statement implies that they are trustworthy by default.

I would like to request an explicit stance on the reliability of the World Health Organization. Amaroq64 (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Is there some sort of point to this, other than a backdoor attempt to slag the WHO? --Calton | Talk 03:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would assume they are asking about the general reliability of them as a source. PackMecEng (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• So, then, you're saying it's a backdoor attempt to slag the WHO. Because this is a board for asking about how and where sources are actually used. --Calton | Talk 08:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Weird, that is not what I said nor what any reasonable person would think I said but sure. Whatever. PackMecEng (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Its RS, it is after all operated by experts.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a far more reliable source than almost any politician. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:GLOBAL, we should look at the international consensus, which is that the WHO is a reliable and vitally important organization. Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm of the Trump Administration, which has attacked and de-funded the WHO. Trump's action against the WHO has been condemned by virtually everyone internationally. NightHeron (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that WHO is an unreliable source.Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit of it: [77]. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Since this is not a formal request for comment, I have removed "Request for Comment on the" from the section heading to prevent possible confusion. Please see WP:RFC for instructions on filing a request for comment. — Newslinger talk 12:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"quite a bit" usually means more than 1 tweet, and this tweet even said "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities", WHO attributed it, just as we do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This thread should be closed it is an obvious political troll. - GreenC 15:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The WHO would fall under "respected authorities which are presumed reliable unless specifically shown otherwise." In the case of the coronavirus, the state of knowledge is changing so rapidly that the "unless specifically shown otherwise" clause is going to come into play a lot, with early reports being overtaken by later, better information. It's certainly reasonable to report criticism and notable outright errors, but a blanket dismissal of the WHO as a source is an overreaction, at least from what we know now. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree the WHO misinformed the world regarding China's outbreak. It seems Director-General Tedros Adhanom advocated the Chinese position, promulgated its misinformation, and has been acting like a sycophant. But this doesn't seem to be the norm for the WHO as an organization, and hopefully it is a one-off. I don't think we need to discount the WHO as a reliable source because of this one instance (which went on for 1 or 2 months).

I think the Director-General should ultimately have to resign because he has shown himself to be unreliable.. Let's see if the disinformation campaign continues before entirely discounting the WHO. In any case, I don't think we can make a reasonable determination until we get past this first phase of the pandemic. Also, there are many other health related issues that will still be there after this passes. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is WHO has to accept what a nation tells it (which is why they attribute it), If they are lied to they have no way of knowing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case- they uncritically report what they are told - why would they be considered reliable ? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all UN agencies rely on data supplied by national governments, without independently evaluating their accuracy. That applies to stats concerning literacy, gender equity, labor, etc. The WHO is not unusual in this respect. NightHeron (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

True, but it is also manned (and indeed run) by qualified experts who can (and do) issue communiques which have at least (as far as they can be) been vetted by experts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The question is valid. We base reliability on having a REPUTATION for fact checking and accuracy, and there is no doubt that the WHO’s reputation has taken a hit recently.

That said, I don’t think this decline in reputation has reached the level where we can deem it “generally unreliable“. If there is a question about a SPECIFIC statement by the WHO, or a specific report, we can always hedge by including in-text attribution, and phrasing the material as an opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that much of the criticism of its "fact checking" is in fact coming from a very small number of (and politically motivated) critics. I am not sure its reputation has taken a huge hit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Meh... Reputation is often inspired by politics - people tend to Disparage sources that disagree with their preconceived views, and Applaud those that agree with those views. It is the “confirmation bubble” effect. Our job as editors is to pop our own “confirmation bubbles” and examine all of the views.

Regardless of whether it is politically motivated (or even justified)... I have seen LOTS criticism of the WHO in recent weeks. And that criticism is not just coming from a few cranks. Entire governmental agencies and mainstream media (in numerous countries) are criticizing how they have handled the COVID 19 crisis. The WHOs reputation HAS declined. The question is whether its reputation has declined ENOUGH for us to call it “unreliable“. I don’t think it has. I think we would agree on that. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above, but I think that in the specific topic area of COVID-19, its reputation has declined enough to warrant it unreliable. In that area it has acted as little more than a channel for other state-run outlets, which would not be considered reliable. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly reliable. The international consensus is that the WHO is reliable. You might also think that the U.N. is not reliable because Saudi Arabia said so.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• [78] This is CNN in February already raising issues over WHO and China, so it's not just this past week. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• [79] and here is the PM of Japan saying the WHO needs reform, so it's not just one source that says WHO has issues, nor is it just a tweet as someone up above said. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Obviously a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a conduit for Trump's incitement. The claim that WHO misled the world by a tweet on Jan 14 that only stated what was known at that point is insulting to health professionals worldwide. The tweet only says that human to human transmission hadn't been proved yet, not that it wouldn't happen. Everyone, including the American experts, knew that human to human transmission was very likely as soon as it was identified as a coronavirus similar to SARS. It always takes a while before something like that is proved by evidence, in this case about two weeks, and there is no evidence WHO suppressed the information when it became aware of such proof. The idea that CDC relies on tweets is a joke anyway. China's information release is another matter. Zero^talk 04:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable The WHO collates information provided by member nations, including China and the United States, and also publishes information on health. As an agency of the UN, they do not audit member provided information. But when they report figures they cite their sources. Like any other source, it depends on what it is supposed to support. TFD (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliability depends on context. WHO generally had a good reputation. However, in some cases it is highly reliant on reporting by national authorities. In COVID-19 reports from January-February 2020, WHO relied on Chinese authorities and data. If I recall correctly, they also said so explicitly at the time. In situations where WHO acts as a conduit for national health organizations (possibly collating several), the quality of the data is more dependent on the relevant national authorities than WHO itself.--Eostrix (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable WHO certainly reports reliably and are experts. Reliable does not mean there is absolute truth -- as with all reliable reports on novel matters, the reported data maybe incomplete, poor or wrong, or analysed differently later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable medically. Tedros' response to issues outside that scope are a very different story, such as his accusation of racism against Taiwan a few weeks back. The WHO does fairly fine in terms of being transparent with the statistics it provides, though reform is probably needed after how it dealt with preventative measures. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• While reliable, the figures announced by WHO are no better than the state sources. State sources can have a lot of problems but WHO will report them anyway.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. WHO assessments are based on reports of available evidence compiled by experts. I would favor including additional WP:MEDRS when relevant. The Lancet is a great source for that purpose. Note that the original report here opens with The World Health Organization has been operating as a propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, which is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. It can also be considered WP:FRINGE as it is a common place on conspiracy theory websites. From the three cited sources to back that claim, none of it appropriately support the statement and The Atlantic, which is the only non-WP:RSOPINION, clearly attributes the view to US Republican Senator Martha McSally. --MarioGom (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  By the way, sources claiming that WHO is a propaganda arm of China often omit that experts from the United States are part of the organization, including the Joint Mission in Wuhan. MarioGom (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly a reliable source per User:Zero0000. The opening claim that "The World Health Organization has been operating as a propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak" is absurd. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Mx. Granger, it's not terribly absurd considering they won't mention the name Taiwan and when asked how Taiwan is doing, will respond that China is doing well with Coronavirus response. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan has a special classification and sometimes an alternate designation (e.g. Chinese Taipei) in many international organizations and information sources. You might think that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's not anything special about the WHO. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph: Just to expand a bit on Mx. Granger's comment: the World Health Organization lack of explicit listing of Taiwan as a sovereign state is not WHO's call. It is because Taiwan is not a member state of the United Nations. --MarioGom (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom, I understand, but when a spokesperson during an interview was asked about Taiwan, they responded about China. I'm not talking about lack of a listing. This is WHO leaving out Taiwan during a pandemic, etc. It's clear that they tiptoe around China. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Do they not list them or list them as part of china? as its not the same thing. WHO are trying to tread a tight rope between two nations who refuse to acknowledge each other, and expect others to do the same. This does not mean that what they say is incorrect, just not correct according to some nationalists in one nation or another.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that. They won't deal with Taiwan. When there was a meeting last month China raised a stink when the world allowed Taiwan to listen in via videoconference. And again, the point is that they were asked specifically about Covid-19 in Taiwan and they responded about China (first hanging up on the interviewer). Here is a NYTimes piece on the issue. [80] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As your source says it does deal with Taiwan, it just cannot admit it as a member because membership is granted by member states (of whom China is one). Both China and Taiwan are the issue here, WHO is forced to pick which nation to have as a member, that does not mean Taiwan cannot share data with them (or that that data is not included its WHO Chinese figures, after all Taiwan counts all of China as its territory, so all we are dealing with is the choice of name). That does not mean they are unreliable (WHO that is).Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

So China has a veto on who gets in? If they make decisions based on politics, then they are unreliable. Simple example: as a result of counting Taiwan as part of the PRC, they made an unreliable travel recommendation the people avoid travel to Taiwan even though the situation there did not warrant such a restriction. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That is membership, not medical information (and if that were the case every new paper in the world would not be an RS).Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Issuing travel warnings based on pandemic status is not "medical information"? That's an interesting perspective. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Not issuing them might be an issue, no issuing them unfairly is not. Ironically one of the Taiwanese arguments is that they issued travel bans to and from China early, thus preventing the spread. In fact it could be pointed out that by advising against travel to Taiwan (De facto) they helped to prevent infections by stopping none Chinese who might be infected from travelling there. So no it was not bad advice.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is flat out historical revisionism, being performed less than 3 month after the event! The WHO did not issue any travel restrictions "early" , and that is certainly not an argument made by Taiwan. As late as Jan 30, the WHO was still not advising any air travel restriction ([81]) . When they finally got around to it, they issued bad advice - lumping together a country with one the world's best responses to the pandemic with one that had one of the worst outbreaks. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Err I said Taiwan did, not WHO. I said that once who had suggested a travel to and from China it may have helped Taiwan. And one of the reasons Taiwan had a good response was a travel ban.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You are making my point: Taiwan issued a travel ban which was a good response, but that was THE OPPOSITE of what the WHO was recommending at the time. If countries were relying on the WHO in late January for informed medical advice as it relates to travel, they would have had poor response and faster spread- the WHO was simply unreliable in the advice it issued. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, if you think I have made your point that WHO is not an RS for medical advice relating to corona Virus I think we can close this. Personally it does not convince me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• meh. WHO should be responsible to coordonate the efforts for Covid-19. They do a miserable job at that. Go on their site today and try to tell me, what is the probable IFR ? rate of growth ? Who is vulnerable ? How many people is and have been infected ? Just one good back of the envelop approximation ? If you are lucky, you may find an outdated information left there since February. They do not lack of recommendation and misinformation, but when you search information, it's a black hole. They do horribly bad. They are not the peons of China by Hanlon's razor. I will definitively think twice when reading a source from WHO in the future. I had this opinion months before trump said anything about it, but I feel him, having to take life and death decisions with no information from WHO. Iluvalar (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No one really knows, there are differing models. But here is some useful info [[82]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

WHO should coordinate? WHO is not some super Public Health Authority. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Public Health Authorities, none of which are WHO. And it is guaranteed that none of the Pubic Health Authorities want WHO to contradict them (for one thing such contradiction can be dangerous.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The probable IFR is 0.37 per cent to 2.9 per cent per WHO.[83] But basically it is not clearly known. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)~

An estimate from Feb 4. Self proclamed as "preliminary"[84]. If that's the best you get, you kinda prove my point. Doc James. Iluvalar (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly reliable when it comes to medicine. That was easy. Reliable like the CDC, NIH, Health Canada, European CDC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Well they sure screwed up pretty good saying that preliminary investigation by the Chinese authorities had found no clear evidence of person-to-person transmission of the novel Coronavirus. [85] That's the key question about the virus, and their info was badly misleading at best. And sources are noticing The Atlantic WaPo. A genuine WP:RS would, at a very minimum, say "we screwed up bigtime". But not the WHO.[86]. So I would not rely on them for anything related to Covid-19 or China. On other issues, yes, with caution. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

So you think they should have used their crystal ball and announced something that wasn't proven at the time. Zero^talk 08:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for crystal ball to figure out that when you have ~150 new cases a day, total infections in the thousands (officially) and cases appearing in far away provinces, they can't all be the result of people eating infected bats in a Wuhan wet market. That's also not the only bit of mishandling - there's the refusal to call it pandemic long after it met the criteria, the call on countries NOT to close borders etc.. - all action that stem from self-admitted political motivations that run contrary to commonly accepted health best practices. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

As accurate as ever. WHO's tweet was dated Jan 13, 6 days after the virus had been identified as a corona virus and 2 days after China had reported the first death. When they reported a second death on Jan 17, they claimed a total of 50 cases. You should cut your losses (but I know you won't). Zero^talk 15:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you think people won't notice the slight of hand you're engaging in here, switching from talking about cases (which is what I wrote) to talking about deaths? Form our own artice :2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#History "During the early stages of the outbreak, the number of cases doubled approximately every seven and a half days.[512] In early and mid-January 2020, the virus spread to other Chinese provinces, helped by the Chinese New Year migration and Wuhan being a transport hub and major rail interchange.[398] On 20 January, China reported nearly 140 new cases in one day, including two people in Beijing and one in Shenzhen.[513] Later official data shows 6,174 people had already developed symptoms by 20 January 2020.[514] ". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thought you would keep at it. I added some bold to my words to help you read better. It is what information WHO had at the time, not what was revealed by later analysis. That crystal ball again. And I did notice you gave information for Jan 20 to support a false claim about Jan 13. Incidentally despite all the bullshit about that tweet on Jan 13, WHO did warn of the likelihood of h-to-h transmission even earlier. However, they still haven't told everyone that a disinfectant injection is all they need, so it's fair to blame them for that. Zero^talk 17:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

So, according to the Guardian , the WHO warned some world leaders on Jan 10 and 11 that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission, but in their public tweet they said the opposite , and you think this makes the WHO look better? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and with such grave impact in actual world health . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No. On the same day as the tweet which does not say what you claim, the WHO briefed international reporters telling them not to be surprised that there would be human-to-human transmission, whether medically or intergovernmental confirmed yet or not. And their consistent advice since earlier to health professionals and others was to treat it as human-to-human. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Take the time to actually read the material presented. The Guardian article linked to by Zero and referenced by me says "The World Health Organization warned the US and other countries about the risk of human-to-human transmission of Covid-19 as early as 10 January", and on the public tweet on the 14th they said "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". The 14th is 4 days later than the 10th, and the tweet did not include any advice to treat it as human-to-human. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I read it, much better than you. It's as I said, they clearly told everyone to assume it's human-to-human before, the day of, and after the tweet. No sane or responsible person is going to expect all information in a tweet. And no sane or responsible person is going to take what is provisional preliminary from someone else as the final word on anything. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

On the 14th , the WHO tweeted this "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China". Anyone who reads that tweet and takes away from it that the WHO "clearly told everyone to assume it's human-to-human" does not have the required English competency to participate here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears you have disqualified yourself from participating here. Anyone who competently reads the Guardian article and what I wrote knows that the information the WHO was providing is not limited to one tweet, and no reasonable nor sane person would think that it is. As for the single tweet, it transparently and reliably relates the preliminary Chinese authorities, any competent person would know that it being preliminary Chinese authorities, it was far from definitive about anything. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

did that tweet clearly tell "everyone to assume it's human-to-human""? Yes or no? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. @JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: This is not the forum to argue political points like this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

OK simple question, when WHO said (on the 10th) in whose name did they say it?Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that we shouldn't have to carefully parse WHO's words to see if they are outright false or merely true-but-misleading-because-they-ignored-the-elephant. When an organization that deals with health is tweeting about life-and-death matters, it needs to do better than that. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to carefully parse WHO's output. We simply have to understand them without putting our political filters on. That's what Trump did. He didn't want shut the economy down so he ignored their clear advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What WHO advice are you referring to? Their advice to not curtail travel to and from China? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

At the time, was there reason do doubt it? Stop reading Trump's press releases. He's not a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer my question please- What WHO advice are you referring to? With regard to their recommendation NOT to curtail travel, more than a dozen countries with leaders not named Trump decided ignore that horrible advice before the US did. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

All WHO advice given was provided and based on existing evidence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not good enough for a preferenced position at WP:MEDRS. Government sources like the NIH, CDC, WHO, USPSTF have never risen to the level of reliability of peer-reviewed journals, and yet they have been given a preferenced position in many of our medical articles. I have for years pointed out NIH and USPSTF errors, and now we have a clear example of how the same problems exist with the WHO. We would not accept this from non-medical content, and we certainly should not for medical content. In many cases, better sources are available, and we should stop preferencing these (often-biased) governmental sources. WHO is often reliable for certain statements, but should not be preferenced to the extent it has been, and should be used with caution. This has always been true; now the emperor's clothes are off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• What is the question? Are we talking about changing the text of WP:MEDRS#Medical and scientific organizations? If so, I don't see any need to change it, as the current language seems to cover most of the concerns stated in this lil' ol' friendly discussion. Here's most of it (with a couple of sentences; the wikilinks; and the groovy graph omitted):

  Guidelines and position statements provided by major medical and scientific organizations are important on Wikipedia because they present recommendations and opinions that many caregivers rely upon (or may even be legally obliged to follow). ¶ Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. ... ¶ Guidelines are important on Wikipedia because they present recommended practices and positions of major authorities. ¶ Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.

    - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 08:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Since this is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I suggest we either discuss changing the text of WP:MEDRS#Medical and scientific organizations or close this discussion (or move the discussion over to the WP:MEDRS talk page - whichever is the proper protocol). If folks want to discuss how to objectively describe the WHO's missteps vis-à-vis China, move on over to World Health Organization's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and have at it.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 08:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Sounds bout right to me. "Reform" is pretty much an annual agenda item for WHO.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The WHO is reliable for matters related to global health. Nobody is suggesting that we use the WHO as a source for Taiwan's relationship to China or other governments. -Darouet (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Kind of? It appears they take information from member countries and just uncritically repeat it. If that is the case why not use the original source? Also as pointed out about they appear to have issues with Taiwan and China, so it might be best to avoid them for information there as well. Also it sounds like they are not up to the challenge of meeting MEDRS standards either.PackMecEng (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are not familiar with all the things WHO does to improve public health around the world, I encourage you to read/scan the pages under the About Us tab or on the About page, such as: Our values, Who we are, and What we do.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

None of that really has anything to do with the reliability of the source or the issues I mentioned. I understand why they are the way they are, but again that is different than how reliable they are in context of Wikipedia. Personally I have no issue with them, they do good work. Just not the most reliable source in certain situations. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I got a little carried away with my defense of WHO.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable per all of the previous statements of fact above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable as per discussion above. Samboy (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment May I suggest that we do not list this to WP:RSP? We usually use in-text attribution for the WHO, which is usually relevant to articles. Also, the opening thread here is essentially a WP:FRINGE accusation, and we may be overreacting to it by listing it at WP:RSP. --MarioGom (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment As it has not been answered (and is germane to the issue) a question. The offending tweet is attributed to China, WHO do not say it is their view. When they issue advice or warnings to they take ownership of it or attribute it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the "offending tweet" you reference?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This one [[[87]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Logically, the claim that the WHO should be declared an unreliable source makes no sense. Even supposing that they did mishandle the early stage of the pandemic - and the argument for this is weak - would we declare the US's CDC to be an unreliable source because their policies, statements, and actions about testing for coronavirus were disastrous? NightHeron (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• As reliable as national public health agencies, such as the US CDC. The WHO issues summaries of various international health issues (see here, for example), which I would expect to be very reliable. The WHO also runs a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed journal, Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Much of the questioning of the WHO's reliability comes across as politically motivated (Example: Nobody is seriously proposing using the WHO as a source on the sovereignty of Taiwan, so why is that even being discussed here? Another example: What does the question of whether or not travel bans are effective have to do with whether or not the WHO is a reliable source for facts? That's a recommendation about measures that countries should take, and is quite separate from the WHO's factual statements about what is scientifically known). -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It might be best if those of us who have responded shut up and allow others to express an opinion now. We are just arguing the same points over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Burden of proof for disputed

Where a source has been appropriately tagged in good faith as disputed, e.g. using {{sps}}, {{dubious}}, {{better}}, on whom does the onus fall? Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

1. On those seeking to include the source, to show that it is reliable as used, per WP:ONUS;
2. On those seeking to remove the source, to show it is unreliable, per WP:PRESERVE.

Opinions (burden of proof)

• 1, because anything else is a POV-pusher's charter. Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1, since WP:PRESERVE depends on WP:ONUS. WP:PRESERVE states that:

Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

The words "would belong" link to WP:ONUS, and WP:ONUS is part of the verifiability policy. WP:ONUS takes precedence over WP:PRESERVE regardless of cleanup tags, so the cleanup tags aren't really relevant here. — Newslinger talk 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• 3. Neither, because this is a false dilemma that attempts to misrepresent/strawman the actual issue, as several editors have raised in the discussion section. No one is arguing with JzG about the purported subject of this RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• It depends, as we have had cases of editors in the past that have mass-tagged with these types of labels which have been shown where the tagging is wrong. Where there is consensus that the tag applies, then the onus does fall on those that which to retain the source and/or information to ultimately deal with it, though the process of how that happens depends on numerous factors. So it's not a simply-answered question here. --Masem (t) 13:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1 - this is a rather straightforward application of existing policy, as Newslinger points out. A converse rule also faces the problem of proving a negative. Neutrality^talk 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1 - WP:BURDEN is policy, the countervailing claims aren't. This is straightforward application of fundamental Wikipedia editing policy. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to do the reading - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1: I just took the time to carefully read all of the linked policy/guideline pages (always a good thing to do when one is already pretty sure what they say) and choice 1 is indeed a a rather straightforward application of existing policy. Plus, the person posting it is named "Guy" which I am sure everyone will agree^{[Citation Needed]} is always a big plus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1 per Newslinger and others, and per WP:BURDEN and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Also, it's better for Wikipedia to not say a thing than to say a false thing, which is why we insist on reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (burden of proof)

This is one of two interlinked issues above - they need to be picked apart. This is my attempt to distil the central point The Drover's Wife is making, which seems to me to be a valid question. Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not, in any way, the point I was making. You've got a bad habit of deliberately misrepresenting the explicit points your critics make so you can shoot down your own straw-Wikipedian. As I said below: this is a false dilemma, because sources being tagged as self-published does not mean they're being tagged as "disputed", they're being tagged as self-published, and we have specific guidance as to what to do in those situations in WP:SPS. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding self-published sources, you need to propose an RfC to change those - not to engage in this bizarre attempt at wordplay circumvention where you claim all self-published sources are "disputed", therefore allowing you to ignore existing guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma? If the problem is serious enough, the whole text being referenced should be removed, not just the source. --MarioGom (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a false dilemma for a different reason - the addition of a tag to an article does not necessarily imply a substantive dispute about the article's content. Quite a bit of tag-bombing is gratuitous IMO and represents one editor's ideosyncratic opinion rather than an actual dispute. So I would say that content isn't "disputed" unless there is a Talk page discussion underway, in which case BRD, BLPDELETERESTORE and ONUS would be among the competing principles at play. Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma, as for the others. A source being tagged as self-published means that it has been tagged as self-published, not that it has been tagged as "disputed" or "unreliable", and so Wikipedia has always provided the guidance in WP:SPS as to what to do in those situations. JzG evidently disagrees with WP:SPS, so he's been trying to turn this into a burden of proof issue to allow him to sidestep that guidance. He doesn't have to show that it's unreliable, he just has to follow Wikipedia's existing guidelines regarding what self-published sources are appropriate and when even if he doesn't want to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not rehash this again in a new thread?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with closing this WP:POINT nonsense and sparing the rehash, yes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point you are involved, and that we not be appropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I said I was good with closing it, not that I would do it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know the context this arose from (update: what I get for looking at most recent first -- reading through the other discussion now; in any case, it doesn't affect what I write here), but my thoughts are similar to Newimpartial's here. It's unclear what the implications of this RfC would be. Is a tag considered valid by default? Is the burden on the tagger to present an argument first? Is this about tagging, removal of tags, removal of sources, removal of sourced content, etc.? Why is this based on tagging at all? What difference does that make to a challenged source? Ultimately, WP:PRESERVE is a good idea to keep in mind, but doesn't trump WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN when material/sources are challenged, but I don't think there's any neat way to frame that in an RfC given the amount of gray area there is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this might be better if rather than this we had a discussion (maybe at village pump) about having a clearer definition of when to use SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am OK with that as well. But there are different kinds of SPS. Blogs, vanity presses and predatory journals are all kinds of SPS. Guy (help!) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

True, but the issue is not "is it an SPS" but "can we uses this SPS". So either the tag "SPS" must mean its a dodgy SPS or it just means its an SPS. What we need is clarity on what the tag is for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF between them cover just about any situation in which I'd think it logical to use an SPS, and both of them are plenty specific - I'm not convinced that we'd be even having this discussion if JzG (and anyone else in that boat) just read the damn policies and acknowledged that they understand that they exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

just read the damn policies Your assertion that he literally hasn't is frankly bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, well, to be fair, they do get edited over time, and not always by people looking to retrospectively make their edits compliant. Guy (help!) 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole crux of this dispute (at least the portion of it that I'm involved in) involves JzG removing self-published sources that are compliant with WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. It is impossible to resolve it if neither if you will acknowledge that they exist and engage in any way with why you are not following them. There would be no point having this noticeboard at all if everyone responded in every case "I refuse to engage with the existing written consensus guidance on this source or group of source, I argue that it's unreliable anyway and demand that you prove me wrong", which is what the various responses amount to an attempt to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is saying SPS can never, ever be used. Just that those who want to use it have the burden of demonstrating why it can be and getting consensus for it. Concerns over tag bombing seem irrelevant because the tag is really a side issue - SPS are SPS regardless of tagging. Just because one can tag an SPS instead of removing them does not imply that SPS should be left in place - material can be tagged as unsourced or OR as well, but the same material can also be removed per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. Tag vs. removal is optional based on whether you think the content may be reliably sourceable/due and that someone else may find a source. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have in/out policies in this area: WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, both of which are long-accepted. Refusing to acknowledge that those policies exist and claiming that there's a "burden" of convincing a random editor that they should have to follow said policy is a stance that, if adopted more broadly, would make this entire noticeboard essentially moot: why bother establishing clear guidelines on the usage of sources if they can be ignored on a whim when someone disagrees with them? The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If a self-published source can be shown to be written by a subject-matter expert, or if the use of the self-published source can be shown to qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, then WP:BURDEN is satisfied. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is African Independent a reliable source?

Can we use https://www.africanindy.com/ as a reliable source? Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

According to their about us page, they are also publish as a paper magazine sold in airports and major hotels in a number of African countries. They also have contact information, so I think they should be OK. But they have only been used as reference on four pages, so I would like to know if they can be used as source or not. I'm thinking to use https://www.africanindy.com/culture/taher-jaoui-delves-into-africas-artistic-diaspora-26134293 on the page [[88]]
I'm doing that page as paid editing Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey (African Independent)

• Huh. Specifics please? Articles, content? Any input from the relevant Wikiprojects? Guy (help!) 22:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (African Independent)

• Here's an article from the well established Cape Times on the publication's launch as a magazine in 2018: [89] (both are presently owned by the same media company). Since African topics aren't very well covered here and the publication is so young, it makes sense that there have been so few uses of it so far.-Indy beetle (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

NYT Tara Reade coverage

Related discussion

The New York Times has admitted to removing facts editing their article about alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the request of his campaign.*, * Are there any limitations on how this piece can be used in his BLP? For instance, would the edited passage be allowed?

Before: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.*

After: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.*

Thank you, petrarchan47คุก 03:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I'm largely ignorant of the topic as a whole. I'll just note that the removal of the sentence itself is now the subject of wide coverage: The New York Times (RSP entry), Fox News (RSP entry), Vanity Fair (RSP entry), The Hill (RSP entry). MarioGom (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom Thank you.

• No one is arguing that the paragraph in question was in fact not a product of independent journalism, and all sources agree it was edited on behalf of the Biden campaign, per Dean Baquet. At the Joe Biden page, we are mirroring the edited version without alerting the readers to the conflict of interest behind it. Today's version of the page has: The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." (links to NYT) petrarchan47คุก 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Given the admission from the NYT that they were influenced to “correct” their text by the Biden campaign, I would say that we should NOT use this particular NYT article as a source in WP (except possibly as a primary source in our New York Times article itself). The admission indicates that they were not independent on this subject. Note: This does not mean we need to deprecate the NYT as a whole... just that we should not use this specific piece. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar The piece is being used in the Lede at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, it turns out. (Actually, I've just skimmed the entire article and it's mainly a summary of the NYT piece.) I think it's worth mentioning with regard to depreciation of the NYT, there is troubling precedent. The Times included an outright lie that both smeared Epstein's most prominent accuser, and cleared Bill Clinton. They said that in court documents, the accuser admits to lying about seeing Clinton on Epstein's island. Newslinger informed the Times of the need for a correction, and they never responded nor made any change to the piece. petrarchan47คุก 05:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Have you read the entire Times article? The words that were removed are not relevant to the vastly larger scope and content of the article. Moreover, since the "other" women described feeling uncomfortable about non-sexual touching, it's hard to see why the removal of those words -- juxtaposed in a way that makes it sound like that other touching constituted "sexual" misconduct -- is problematic. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There are other sources that can be used... no need to use one that has been tainted. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That is circular. We are discussing whether it's been tainted. Please re-read the entire Times article and consider my comment and reply if you believe that I'm mistaken in saying that the minimal factual correction does not disqualify what's by far the most extensive and deep reporting on the allegation. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree.  First we should decide which widely covered information we want to include, and if there is any disagreement over the NYTimes we can use another source.  No need to evaluate whether the NYTs has been tainted, at least for this piece of information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs)

That is not how we work. First we evaluate the sources then we derive information and article content. We do not decide on "information" we like and then find whatever source might onfirm it. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what "widely covered information" means. When RS widely cover information, that is when we decide if that information is appropriate to include. But your response ignores the point of my comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYT article is perfectly fine as a source. They clarified that the "hugs, kisses and touching" are not sexual misconduct. The previous wording was bad, so they fixed it. That's exactly what one would expect from a high-quality source. - MrX 🖋 20:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

MrX hugs, kisses, and touching, that multiple women said made them uncomfortable, typically are considered sexual misconduct. In any case, the NYT saying that they did not find a pattern of misconduct (after they redefine misconduct) has no relevance on how we should address Reade's accusation. As per the Slate article. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Considered by whom? The women who were touched? Biden? I think it's casting a broad net to describe these incidents as "sexual misconduct", and apparently the New York Times agrees. Slate may disagree, but that doesn't make Slate right and the New York Times wrong. Show me an objective definition of "sexual misconduct" that is widely accepted, and then we can discuss the possibility of the New York Times "removing facts". - MrX 🖋 21:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Did any of the women describe their discomfort as "sexual misconduct"? I have seen some say it was not sexual misconduct, but I am not familiar with all the sources on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The latter. It's a succinct explanation of why the incident was not covered earlier. There's another piece in the NYT (an interview with the editor linked above) that debunks the right-wing talking point that minor rephrasing means that the Biden campaign somehow controls the content (they noted that the wording was awkward and thus gave rise to ambiguity, which the Times acknowledged). When a RS corrects an article, we reflect the corrected content, not the original. Guy (help!) 22:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's not clear whether this is a right wing narrative. There are also other groups with a dedicated opposition to Biden and dedicated promotion of this incident for other reasons. I would say WP:FRINGE is the better category, but that will become clearer with time. The editing around this reminds me of the Murder of Seth Rich article in its early days, where there were coatrack anti-Hillary theories, including offers of a "reward" and insinuations by Julian Assange. That article is in good shape now, but it was not in good shape during the 2016 campaign. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• OVerall this is why when allegations of things like sexual misconduct which there's only "he said she said"-type evidence to go after, RECENTISM and NOT#NEWS very much applies and we should only be including after the dust of the initial allegations have settled. Ask if the allegations have affected the career path of the person at the center in any way, or in the case of Biden here, as they are coming up in the midst of the campaign, affected the campaign. If they haven't, and those investigating the allegations find no evidence to support, then we should only cover the minimally if at all. The rush to include them with instant sources that can change down the road (including the NYTimes) is not healthy for WP and leads to problems like this. --Masem (t) 22:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• With reference to NYTimes being reliable in the context of Biden's sexual-assault allegation and Reade, no it is not. Their credibility has been waning for some time now...CJR nails some of the reasons why. Press Think pressed hard on the Time's disconnect. Cornell hit straight on about opinion and news bias. Of late, some of our high profile WP articles are very close to being mirrors of the NYTimes, WaPo and like-minded sources that are consistently chosen by like-minded editors. I'll quote an interesting statement I read in a Bloomberg article: ”The encyclopedia’s reliance on outside sources, primarily newspapers, means it will be only as diverse as the rest of the media—which is to say, not very.” Not very is right - especially if we become overly reliant on and less cautious about the biased opinions published in today's clickbait media. As Dylan wrote..."The Times, They Are-a Changin". ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, yep, it's funny how certain guys here bend over backwards to justify the bias here, yet are the first to try to throw out reputable sources that just may have a rightwing bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• The initial NYT reporting on the Tara Reade allegation should not be used on Wikipedia, at least without the caveat that notes that their coverage was altered to please the Biden campaign. When I tried to add this context to the lead paragraphs, I was overruled by an administrator who defended the NYT coverage with the incorrect reasoning that the removal was a "Standard journalistic correction," rather than because "the [Biden] campaign thought the phrasing was awkward".[90] I want to also say that victims don't have to use the phrase "sexual misconduct" in order for sexual misconduct to be considered sexual misconduct. The "hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable” line that the NYT deleted (again, at the request of the Biden campaign) is cut-and-dry. Those are sexual misconduct allegations. Non-consensual kissing and hair-sniffing is sexual in nature. — Sockpuppet comment of a community banned user
• One should try to avoid this source, but I wouldn't suggest an outright ban. As a general matter, one should always prefer sources that are independent of the subject. The NYT's statement that it changed the article at the behest of the campaign tends to call their independence into question, but one imagines significant independence still exists. Hence my opinion above. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• There are are two stories here... first there is the story of Biden’s alleged sexual misconduct. Both sides of that story have been covered by other outlets, and so there is no NEED to use the NYT piece. Then there is the story of how the NYT changed the language of an article at the behest of the Biden campaign. For this, we can use the NYT piece (in both iterations) as a PRIMARY source for the language, but we should mostly use independent sourcing for fact. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• The New York Times "did not remove "facts" from the article. This information, "Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable." is still noted in the article.  What they did was correct a somewhat ambiguous statement that could be interpreted to mean that there are other cases of misconduct,  which was not what their reporting found. There has been some justifiable criticism of the Times for not including an edit notice with the correction. According to Times executive editor Dean Baquet “We didn’t think it was a factual mistake. I thought it was an awkward phrasing issue that could be read different ways and that it wasn’t something factual we were correcting,” Baquet said. It is not unusual for a subject of an article, or anyone else for that matter, to request a clarification. We expect reliable sources to correct statements which could easily be misinterpreted. Making a correction does not invalidate a source. The corrected statement reflects a summary of their reporting and could be included although whether it should be is a different issue.  CBS527^Talk 05:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Blueboar. Also, the NYTs did not merely clarify awkward phrasing. If they were to merely clarify without removing meaning, they could have said: "No other allegation about sexual assault or sexual misconduct surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of physical boundary violations by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." By removing the text about inappropriate touching, the NYTs is further separating those behaviors from sexual misconduct. But regardless, the statement as a whole is problematic because it inaccurately states that staff could not corroborate details, when in the same article they write than two interns remember Reade abruptly stopped supervising them in April 1993. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Of course they changed the meaning. The meaning was ambiguous, possibly misleading for some readers, and inconsistent with their reporting. This happens all the time in reliable journalistic reporting. It really is irrelevant what you would have written if you worked at the NY Times. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• You're misinterpreting what I'm saying about the change in meaning, and not commenting on the intention of my example. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Avoid using this source per the OP.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• At Joe Biden sexual assault allegation this NYT quotation is featured in the Lede The New York Times reported about the allegation some weeks after several other publications; it stated that "[n]o other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden". How should this be handled? Should it stand as is, without a note that the phrasing includes some editing advice from the subject of the "investigation"? petrarchan47คุก 05:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to avoid using this source. It's not like Joe Biden is an obscure individual. Surely, there must be other sources, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the scandal article... the controversy about the Times changing its language at the behest of the Biden campaign is discussed in a subsequent section on media coverage. I don’t think it belongs in the lead, so I have edited the article accordingly. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar I was shocked and remain concerned about the amount of space the NYT article is given at the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page. I am leaning towards siding with those who say the piece should not be used at all. I wanted to ask those with more experience whether such a determination requires a formal RfC, or if this thread is sufficient. petrarchan47คุก 19:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Best to use a formal RFC, in order to ensure a neutral presentation of the question at issue, since this RFC-like RSN Noticeboard thread did not present the question properly. The way the question was proposed at the very start of this thread was "The New York Times has admitted to removing facts from their article about alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the request of his campaign." The fact at issue therein is the text "beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." which was removed from the paragraph that begins with "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting..." after the article was first published.

However, two paragraphs up, the Times article included those facts in the paragraph that reads "Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable." This means that despite the Times decision to modify the later paragraph over the stated concerns about what it was implying with the term "sexual misconduct," the fact that Biden had been accused of kissing, hugging or touching other women in ways that made them feel uncomfortable was never removed and has remained in the published rticle at all times. As a result, this RFC-like thread subtly began with a falsehood when it claimed that the Times had admitted to "removing facts". A more neutrally worded RFC (with input from editors on both sides as to how to properly frame the RFC question) would fix this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar (Sorry for the double ping) Your fix was undone. petrarchan47คุก 19:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Avoid using this source -- any time an outlet admits that a campaign changed its coverage, that coverage should be treated with skepticism. If it needs to be cited, the controversy sparked (covered by RS's) must also be cited. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is standard practice in respectable news reporting. After the article was published, Biden's staff complained about the wording and the New York Times editors agreed and made changes. The original wording could be read as implying that Biden's unwanted touching was sexual misconduct, which is a matter of dispute. TFD (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• The New York Times did reliable reporting here I read the original version of the article, and I have read the revised version. They both said essentially the same thing, and the correction merely fixed some awkward wording. Just because something is a viral meme among a small, loud-mouth minority does not make it something which should change Wikipedia’s long standing consensus that the New York Times is one of the world’s most reliable sources. Samboy (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This really isn't a question of how editors feel about the revised version or the justification given for it, but rather if an article that includes substantive editing from one of the two subjects of an "investigation" can be used in the encyclopedia, and if so, whether readers should be informed of the controversy behind the edited section. Right now we are using the Biden version in the Joe Biden article without any note. The NYT went to great lengths to explain that the reason their reporting took 19 days to produce is that they worked very diligently on it. Therefore it is only right to assume their original statement went through intense scrutiny by journalists and editors before publication and was not lighthearted nor a mistake. So while the NYT reporting may be reliable, we cannot assume the same for the Biden campaign and their opinion. This is no less than the removal of a disclaimer about a pattern of sexual misconduct on behalf of the accused. If it said "essentially the same thing", there would have been no reason for the edit at all. In fact, it was a major change considering context (an endeavor that is sadly undervalued at WP). petrarchan47คุก 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Since we’re at RSN here, an editor’s subjective impressions about a source and why they feel the source is reliable is very much a welcome discussion. The question being asked here is “Is The New York Times reliable even though they changed that one sentence in that one article?”, and my answer is an unqualified yes, based on my reading of the article both before and after it was changed. Reliable sources respond and sometimes revise their articles based on feedback, especially when the feedback brings up WP:BLP issues.  Samboy (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The question being asked here is: "Are there any limitations on how this piece can be used in his BLP?". as Petrarchan said, the NYTs made a correction (which removes context) in response to representatives of the accused party and without noting the correction. That should create some limitations. For some more subjective perspectives on the Times and others sources, listen to the journalists who first reported the story after Grim.[91] NYTs is discussed at 45:20.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut The next step is to hold a straw poll about having an RfC to formalize a decision from the community regarding how this NYT piece can be used. I see the Biden-edited version is quoted at Biden's BLP as we speak. This cannot stand in an encyclopedia. The story surrounding the change, and coverage of the controversy, would be encyclopedic, but how it's being used presently violates our core principles. Please consider taking the reigns on this, RL is preventing me from helping. petrarchan47คุก 04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYTs text should be removed from Biden's bio before any RfC as there is no consensus to include it. The heading for the section should also be changed back to the last consensus version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• As per Specifico, MrX, TFD, CBS527 and Samboy, I believe the NYT correction shows why it is a reliable source and should be used. They clarified their reporting to make it more robust. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Blueboar above, "The admission indicates that they were not independent on this subject." The 'correction' was based on the opinion of the accused. Yes, it's robust all right. But this is not the DNC's blog. petrarchan47คุก 21:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Any suggestion that the NYT is not a reliable source is basically trolling. The fringe (from the far-right AND the far-left these days) talking point of "the Biden campaign dictated content removal" has been thoroughly debunked. Zaathras (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Straw poll: New York Times/ Biden campaign statement

Should the following text be used in any Wikipedia article:

• ("No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting,) (a) nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. (b) The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."*

The sentence was changed from The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable. This change was made, per the NYT, after the Biden campaign complained that the "phrasing was awkward".*, * The edited statement is currently live on the Joe Biden BLP without noting the campaign's involvement. petrarchan47คุก 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: Zaathras, SPECIFICO, MarioGom, Blueboar, Kolya Butternut, MrX, ResultingConstant, JzG, Masem, Atsme, Sir Joseph, Adoring nanny, Cbs527, SharabSalam, A Quest For Knowledge, AzureCitizen, MaximumIdeas, The Four Deuces, Samboy, Bobfrombrockley, Zaathras

Discussion.

This is a poll on whether to have an official poll on a settled matter? ANS: no. I don't see any significant argument here to deprecate the NY Times. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I sought advice from Newslinger here, and this was the course of action s/he advised. This is a question about a specific sentence, not about depreciating the NYT as whole. petrarchan47คุก 15:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Rather than a poll on whether to have an RfC, maybe we should have a straw poll on whether to include the text, and that poll will inform whether we need an RfC. I am opposed to the last 2/3 of that text because it is disputed by other sources. The sentence: "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting" is not problematic, but is perhaps undue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, you may want to ping editors who had only disscussed this at Talk:Joe Biden. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the straw poll question per your words above. petrarchan47คุก 15:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• A few points:

• As far as I see, the way the change is described accounts for the "hugs, kisses..." being removed, but we're not citing it for that.
• The hugs, kisses, etc. are already in our article.
• Wouldn't it be great if every source we considered reliable were transparent enough to draw attention to when a change was made after consulting with a campaign? That seems like a feature here. This isn't a "gotcha"; it's the Times publishing about its own editorial process.
• So yes, reliable. As for how it's presented in the article, that's for the article talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No

• (a) This text should not be used without context. The fact that Biden's campaign is behind the removal of a crucial caveat originally printed by the NYT should be included if the final sentence is mentioned.
• (b) The NYT's claim that they found no evidence to support any part of Reade's claim is false, and should not be included unless accompanied by a rebuttal. "Two interns the Times interviewed corroborated Reade’s allegation that she was removed of her duties supervising them"*. petrarchan47คุก 16:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, this text should not be used because the Times changed it due to the Biden campaign complaining that wording was "awkward". While NY Times is RS, certain reports of theirs may not be RS if the outlet admits to working with a political campaign on the phrasing. If this source must be used, the context behind the wording change must be stated (which can be sourced to many RS's that reported on this.) --MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, at this point (this point being, we are only still dealing with accusations, and there is no hard action yet taken against Biden). Assuming that nothing else changes about this situation, that the accusations only remain accusations that never are proven out and have no additional bearing on Biden in the future, then there's no point in making a big deal about the Times' correction. Should the situation change: that the accusations are found to have validity, or something more severe, such that the Times changing their story is part of the larger story, then the issue the change can be added. But right now, adding anything about the correction is currently unnecessary since we currently are treating Biden innocent of any of the actions he was accused of doing at the current state per BLP. --Masem (t) 16:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• No, nothing will be gained from holding a formal RFC. The discussions here are enough to determine consensus. That said, I still maintain that highlighting the NYT report (by quoting it) is WP:UNDUE. There are lots of reliable sources that cover the allegations, and Biden’s response. We can (and should) use these other sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

NPR

Very surprised to see NPR listed as "No consensus" on WP:RSP. On discussions on this noticeboard it seems fairly unanimously accepted as a reliable source ([92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102] etc); this is the closest I can find to a centralised discussion. Of the two listed in the perennial sources summary, neither seems to discuss the points mentioned (for example, that it is "generally considered a partisan source for the purposes of American politics") or give any evaluation of the organisation's accuracy as a whole (the first not at all, the second discusses a possible mistake in what is supposedly an NPR report).

NPR has clear and extremely detailed guidelines on ethics including accuracy, impartiality, transparency and so on, one of the highest trust-to-distrust ratios among major media outlets, beaten only by the Economist and the BBC, and its listeners have been found on more than one occasion to be the most informed and least likely to believe misinformation.

(Also, since I'm here, PBS used to be listed on WP:RSP and I'm unsure how to find out where/why it's gone?)

Thanks. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Both NPR and PBS have a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy.--Eostrix (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• As it says its just because it is an old discussion, yes NPR seems to be at least a gold plated standard.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I say we should turn the NPR entry green. Are there any legitimate cautions we should put in the text? I don't see anything in NPR controversies that needs to be highlighted. For example, the first "controversy" says "An outside expert was appointed to perform quarterly self-reviews of its Israel-Palestine coverage from 2003 to 2013, finding "lack of completeness but strong factual accuracy and no systematic bias" --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Guy Macon, I agree. They have a very solid reputation. Not error free (who is?) but with a decent commitment to factual accuracy. Guy (help!) 14:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Both are generally reliable (assuming you mean their news programs) with reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Just All Things Considered and Morning Edition, the news produced by NPR right? The 'no consensus' bit in RSP seems to cover all NPR programming. fiveby(zero) 14:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm presuming we mean factual content, yeah. e.g., how opinion columns in NYT are noteworthy (they're NYT!) but attributed - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, these should both be green-rated. They're not perfect, but neither is the NYT. They're quite normally reliable journalistic sources for factual content - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• NPR includes Morning Edition but also e.g. Ask Me Another (which is great, but not something I'd expect to see as a source). As such we should have a green entry for "NPR news programs" or the like. I don't know why we'd be including very brief discussions about a source in RSP, like the two that are there currently, just for the sake of having an entry. It's misleading. And, revisiting something I've brought up before, it's hard to consider two brief threads "perennial". Some sources don't come up here because nobody wastes time challenging them. So yes, the entirety of the current entry should be removed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a reasonable action too, of course - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Removal is fine with me. I have some free time. Does anyone think it would be worthwhile to go though the perennial source list and start a discussion here about any others that have no had a lot of discussions about them? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I meant that the entirety of the current entry should be removed [and, if anything, be replaced with a "generally reliable" for the news programs] (i.e. I'm not opposed to that). But yeah, I think something should only be included on that list if there's either an RfC or at least two substantial discussions (which is subjective, so maybe we say "with at least 4 participants or a very clear consensus" or something like that). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
        • I would think a catchall statement for RS/P about reliability of networks as a whole, and the distinction between news, opinion, and entertainment "shows" to a network otherwise considered RS, might be helpful. We don't need to spell out every show (this become an endless tail to chase) but enough advise that talk page discussions on individual articles should be reasonable. We'd only need to highlight individual shows when the network itself is not normally reliable (read: The Daily Show relative to Comedy Central). --Masem (t) 16:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all news content. Additional considerations apply for opinion and commentary. buidhe 18:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I would absolutely boost NPR's status to green, generally reliable for news content. Book and film reviews, opinion and commentary pieces, interviews, etc. would of course all be subject to the separate policies and guidelines governing the use/citation of those types of content. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I noticed the same thing the other day and was thinking about making this nom before I realized you already had. Yes, absolutely, turn it green. I disagree with the current text that calls it a partisan source — it's not much different than the NYT or WaPo in terms of bias. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Many years ago I was working late on an engineering project and one of my coworkers said "hey, the election results should be in. Let's turn on NPR and see what they have to say." We did and heard:

• Hourly news reports about Reagan winning with multiple "man on the street" interviews about how disappointed people were. A common refrain (in the news section of the broadcast) was that Reagan planned on defunding public TV and public radio, with the implied assumption that this was the most important issue of the election.
• The commentators wailing and gnashing their teeth as they lamented the end of western civilization.

On the other hand, they are far less obvious about it now, and I have found NPR's science reporting to be consistently good. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I did production for PBS affiliates (long since retired) so can I provide input or does that make me subject to COI despite retirement? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hi Atsme, feel free to comment here. Since you've disclosed the (former) conflict of interest, others will see your comments in the correct context. — Newslinger talk 09:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• The reliability of any source depends on context. When a network (or channel) is involved, be it radio or television, it depends on the program so we cannot/should not attempt to generalize or pigeonhole an entire network, and the same applies to printed & online publications. With print, sensational covers/front pages sell magazines/papers, whereas online, it's all about clickbait. There is no doubt that sensational headlines attract readers and shock value keeps them coming back. The first thing editors should do is determine if the author/program host is credible/reliable and if they are providing opinion or reporting verifiable facts. Example (respectively): Trump performed his typical rant at the 2020 National Prayer Breakfast vs Trump spoke at the 2020 National Prayer Breakfast. A quick way to determine the bias of a particular author/host is to gage it by your own bias, and if you agree with what's said, look closer to determine why...and then write for the opposition by reading other sources that don't necessarily agree with you - better yet, you can't go wrong by choosing sources that publish all substantial views pragmatically. In summary, NPR is a generally reliable source for reporting verifiable facts, and when it's opinion reporting, we should strictly adhere to RECENTISM, NEWSORG, REDFLAG, and BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for news content per User:Neutrality. starship.paint (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for wording

There appear to be a broad consensus to turn the NPR entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources green. I would like to discuss the wording, Here is my first shot:

There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPRs's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution. Some editors believe that NPR is a partisan source concerning US politics.

Feel free to suggest other wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Re:"Some editors believe..." – I guess it doesn't matter that much but so far I actually haven't quite found enough people on this noticeboard to necessarily make that wording necessary: There's Hobit who says NPR is perhaps the closest to the leftward spin, but one gets the sense they try to not be biased. and XavierItzm who says because we westerners are marinated in the echo chamber of... BBC, ARD, NPR, etc., we no longer notice its bias!. All sources have some kind of editorial perspective (NPR less than most) and even though every source will have people who consider it biased, I guess I'm just wondering if we're eventually going to end up sticking this on every entry. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with ReconditeRodent. Some editors believe the NYT is a partisan source concerning U.S. politics, but we don't include that in its listing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ReconditeRodent as well for the same reason. Neutrality^talk 15:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Approve the proposed wording with a slight modification to the last sentence which could be joined with the preceding sentence as follows: NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution as opinions may reflect a partisan bias concerning US politics. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As I am not sure we need anything about political bias.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Concur with ^Atsme's view. Additionally, it should be noted that NPR is funded by the U.S. government. While American editors may take that for granted, it should be stated. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Funded in part indirectly through competitive grants, but it wouldn't hurt to state that they have received small competitive grants from government agencies. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. How about something like this: "There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. As is the case for all media outlets, NPR opinion pieces should be used only with attribution." (Note the slight copy edit - the adverb "only" should be placed as close as possible to the word or phrase it modifies, which in this case is "with attribution".)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• First two sentences fine, no need for final sentence on being "partisan". I like Mark Wothern's cleaner alternative immediately above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• I understand GM included that last sentence. NPR does lean left and the commentary shows are clearly left. Still, NPR is generally good. If I could think of something between GM's suggestion and Mark's suggestion I would be happier. I guess I would be OK with either suggestion. Springee (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

How'd we get here?

I just looked at the Wikipedia entry for NPR at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources -- assuming the chart's description is based on those two short discussions, the current wording of the Wikipedia chart entry is a complete misrepresentation of those two discussions. How does that happen? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It was initially added as "generally reliable" in Special:Diff/938336958, but then immediately adjusted to "no consensus..." in Special:Diff/938337050. ToThAc, would you like to comment here? — Newslinger talk 09:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, Really? Apart form the misrepresentation, are you saying it was just added to the chart in 2020, based on those two short very old discussions? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

​Yes, it was added in January of this year based on these two discussions. The entry appeared as Special:Permalink/938336958#PBS, with the "Stale discussions" hourglass in the "Last" column. While most controversial entries are noticed and disputed immediately, this one slipped through the cracks. I intend to publish a changelog of the list in the future, maintained by bot, but it will take some time to implement this. If you would like to dispute any other entries on the list, please raise the issue at WT:RSP or here. — Newslinger talk 11:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like someone now changed the description from what it was when I commented earlier about the misleading nature, which is ok, but I think I would have just taken out the listing entirely. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews AKA Pink News

PinkNews was last discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Pink News. It came to my attention recently when it was used as a source for claims that Anne Frank was bisexual.

URL: [ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/ ].

It is currently linked to (including talk pages) 2143 times.[103]

It is cited 714 times.[104] Many of the pages cited are BLPs and in many cases PinkNews is used to support a claim that someone is gay or homophobic.

Does everyone still agree with the conclusion of the previous RSNB discussion?

Under what circumstances should statements cited only to PinkNews be removed? BLPs only? All articles?

Under what circumstances should citations to PinkNews be replaced with Citation Needed but the claim retained? BLPs only? All articles?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Additional considerations apply I wouldn't use it on a BLP except for reporting direct quotes from a notable person. For instance it's reliable for quotes from Ian McKellen here, but not reliable for its own statements on a living person. It's also useful for some aspects of LGBT history that might otherwise be difficult to cover without OR, for instance quoting older newspapers. I wouldn't remove it wholesale without evidence that it gets stuff wrong. Homophobia is a label without any accepted definition, and being called that by PinkNews probably lacks due weight, but can't be factually incorrect by definition. There are a lot better sources on Anne Frank specifically. buidhe 18:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Not generally reliable per gnu57's comment below. Anything that hasn't been reported by other outlets is likely WP:UNDUE. buidhe 21:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, though I'd use attribution since it's specialist press - but it's a good paper that is generally careful to get things right and not wrong, especially as it's working in a socially charged area - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Huh. I have no specific reason to distrust it, but the sudden recent determination by a WP:SPA to label Anne Frank as bisexual seems to me to be highly questionable. I would not accept Pink News as a source for someone being gay unless it's in their own words. A notable person gives them an interview describing coming out? Sure. Someone quote-mines the sources and decides to claim a historical figure? Not so much. Guy (help!) 18:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

*Generally reliable. Has editorial oversight and is an important source for LGBT news. It should not be used for Frank's sexuality, as this is a topic that has significant academic writing.--Eostrix (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Struck in light of the evidence below, which shows some pushing of boundaries. I am unconvinced on Anne Frank (as this is covered in the scholarship well before Pink News), but other items give me pause. I do think Pink News has some higher quality items, but I am uncertain how to separate the wheat from the chaff, this varies by section on their website.--Eostrix (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Take consideration I wouldn't use it as the sole source for something, especially when it is, by its nature, leaning towards one viewpoint. I think if they assert someone as being homosexual, I'd look for sources elsewhere to see if it is reliable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  What they appear to specialize in is having an army of readers who comb through primary sources, look for any evidence supporting the person being LGBT, and having PinkNews publish it, at which point the army or readers add the allegation that X is LGBT along with a link to the primary source to multiple discussion groups and social networking pages -- and sometimes to Wikipedia. In many cases PinkNews is the only secondary source that commented on the persons sexuality or on the particular bit of primary material. Example from Anne Frank[105] and Jacqueline van Maarsen.[106] Sometimes the primary source is a direct quote from someone who is self-identifying, but sometimes PinkNews appears to be outing people who have not openly declared their sexual preferences based on obscure primary material. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • To be honest if its citing Wikipedia, then surely that would automatically make it an unreliable source under WP:WINRS? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

    Hardly the only source examining Anne Frank's sexuality in light of the passages suppressed in the original version. For instance: this JTA piece touches on it, and page 156 of this book discusses "oscillating love objects" between homoerotic and heterosexual.--Eostrix (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• In this particular WP:CONTEXT: use in-text attribution and do not put it into the lead. For the topic of Anne Frank there are high quality biographies, peer-reviewed papers in history journals, etc. If these sources do not include the claim about bisexuality, then per WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, the stated view should be represented in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. And if the view is represented only in a PinkNews article and not in the numerous biographies and peer-reviewed papers, then it is a view of extremely low prominence. --MarioGom (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

For other cases: I don't think this would be usable for a WP:BLP. For other cases, I think my comment above applies: consider its weight and use in-text attribution. Note there is a trend of claiming that historical figures or fictional characters are, actually, LGBT. All relevant policies and guidelines should be applied on a case-by-case basis (WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY; WP:FRINGE too in a few of them, not all). --MarioGom (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable I'm aware of two recent fake news articles they ran: one claiming that Joanna Cherry was being investigated for homophobia (retracted following legal intervention[107][108]), the other claiming that the Israeli health minister had called the coronavirus "divine punishment for homosexuality" (apparently cribbed from a Pakistani news site; retracted following complaints by Israeli media watchdog groups[109]). See also Ad Fontes Media's criticism of their clickbait article "Bill O'Reilly caught in $32 million Fox News gay adult films scandal" [110], and Seventeen's coverage of their photoshopped and clickbait social media promotions.[111][112]. On the other hand, I am not aware of their having outed living people/falsely claimed that living people are LGBT; but they do tend to speculate about celebrity dating rumours and about the sexuality of historical figures. Cheers, gnu57 17:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. I was undecided about this, but I just followed the links that gnu57 posted above, and then I spent over an hour doing my own research. (The claim about the Israeli health minister was widely cut and pasted on various social media sites. Just google the phrase "speaking about the origins of COVID-19, the health minister said" to find multiple copies the original claim.) I would like to ask David Gerard, and Eostrix to re-examine their conclusions based on this new evidence.

Here is what I concluded from my own research:

• If someone like the the Israeli health minister is already known to be anti-LGBT, PinkNews will gladly publish additional "evidence" from dodgy sources such as [ nayadaur.tv ], which published things like "15-Year-Old Christian Transgender Raped To Death In Faisalabad" sourced to a facebook post by an activist.
• Another example of a dodgy source is at is [113]. where the claim "Queer-coding has affected many fictional villains. These evil characters are generally either shown as flamboyant and overly dramatic, like Disney characters Scar and Hades, or written as having a deep fixation on the main character, like Jafar, Kim Possible villain Shego and Catra from She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. In the past few decades, Disney fans have seen Governor Ratcliffe and Professor Ratigan—as well as Scar, Jafar and Hades—being portrayed as queer characters." The source for this claim? A Twitter tweet by "Jay, a self-described 'transmasc enby' who uses they/he pronouns".
• If there is evidence from primary sources like the Dairy of Anne Frank that could conceivably be used as evidence that they are LGBT, PinkNews will report it even if no other source does. This is a WP:WEIGHT problem.
• Or consider this article,[114] with the breathless headline "Star Trek: Picard season finale sees iconic character finally come out as queer, inspiring a million new fan fictions. The Star Trek: Picard season finale has confirmed a same-sex romance for iconic character Seven of Nine, and fans are thrilled." The evidence? Two characters holding hands. In a series that already had more than one openly gay couple and thus no real reason to be ambiguous.

So my conclusion is:

Generally unreliable except when quoting living people who have self-identified their sexual preferences. If PinkNews gives a source for a claim, use that source. If PinkNews makes a claim that is in another source, use that other source. If the other source does not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, remove the claim. If the claim is found only in PinkNews remove the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

After reading through this, I think that's a good conclusion. I generally thought of it as HuffPo level RS, but the evidence shown by gnu above makes me reconsider. I'd also say PinkNews could likely be used as a general source for lgbtq terminology and neologisms. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Like any other advocacy organisation PinkNews regularly weaponises language to further its own goals. This isnt in itself a criticism, its standard practice for many organisations. But you wouldnt use PinkNews as a RS for anything involving 'TERF' for example. It also has a long and squalid history of publishing rubbish because it follows their line. The only thing it is reliable for is its own opinion, or where it directly interviews someone, what they say. They have not yet graduated to the Daily Mail level of manufacturing interviews afaik. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Publications by Robert B. Spencer

Jihad Watch

Is Jihad Watch, a blog by Robert B. Spencer, a reliable source for any topic? Should Jihad Watch be blacklisted to match The Daily Stormer, which was blacklisted in March 2019 (and discussed again afterward)? Jihad Watch is currently being cited in 42 articles  . — Newslinger talk 13:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source, at all. We have a good compilation of reliable sources at Jihad Watch supporting the characterization as "anti-Muslim conspiracy blog". Just some, easily accessible and mostly from WP:RSP-listed sources:

• The New York Times (RSP entry): xenophobic and conspiratorial sites, such as JihadWatch.org [115]
• BuzzFeed News (RSP entry): Jihad Watch, a website that frequently posts anti-Islam disinformation, spread across social media [116]
• The Guardian (RSP entry) by Brian Whitaker: the notoriously Islamophobic website, Jihadwatch [117]
• Snopes (RSP entry): fact-checked a hoax originating from the anti-Muslim blog JihadWatch.org [118]
• Foreign Policy: Jihad Watch, one of the main hubs of American Islamophobia [119]

Plus references to a few books by reputable publishers and papers on peer-reviewed journals. Deprecation is the bare minimum here, leaning towards blacklisting. --MarioGom (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's not The Daily Stormer, but not reliable either. Deprecate because of problems with accuracy. buidhe 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Definite blacklist candidate. I'm surprised it isn't already. Zero^talk 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Blacklist, should never be used in Wikipedia as it is anti-Muslim and regularly publishes conspiracy theories.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Caution, (or whatever we use) - I don't think deprecate or blacklist is the best option. Spencer is a NYTimes best selling author and while we may not agree with his beliefs/opinions, WP is a book of knowledge, not an advocacy that blacklists opinions or authors we don't like or whose views oppose our own as if we're on a mission to RGW. We need to look at sources pragmatically, and analyze what purpose they serve in providing knowledge to our readers - and it all depends on what article we're working on. I don't want to keep repeating our PAGs, but it appears some editors are not quite catching on to context, and that each case and potential use is different. My opinion may not be the most popular, but it aligns with our PAGs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Caution. Not very reliable, but is reliable for own views and in lieu of better sources. Has clear opposition against the religion of Islam, but it is wholly inaccurate to put it in same league as neo-Nazi Daily Stormer. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Except[et it has a reputation for lying [[120]], [121]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This links don't much seem to discuss lying, but rather Spencer's well-known opposition to the religion of Islam. There's a big difference between that and racism (as in the Daily Stormer.) --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

" By painting Rauf as an extremist who was striving to build a “victory mosque” to celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center, the two leaders of SIOA sought to block the project while portraying all Muslims as radical – an assertion simply not supported by facts." Making claims not supported by the facts, lies.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per MarioGom, not reliable except as primary source, but doesn't seem like blacklist material either. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate or possibly blacklist per MarioGom. The above Snopes and Buzzfeed links alone include examples of disinformation, and I would be genuinely shocked if those are the only cases. If anything that Spencer has written is useful as a citation, another source will have covered it and we should use them instead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate, Never RS - unless it's about Spencer, JW itself, or an interview with someone talking about themselves, this blog should not be used. I'd say it's similar, if not more quacky than, Quillette. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Caution per Atsme and MaximumIdeas. Deprecating and blacklisting are powerful tools that should be seldom if ever used. Loksmythe (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source for anything (other than Spencer's views). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source for anything but Spencer's (or published authors) views, or presenting such conspiracy laden views in an appropriate article with context. Definitely should not be used as factual or given any due weight when it comes to Islamic history, the Islamic Religion or Muslims. Koncorde (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable, agree with Koncorde above. Possible to use for viewpoint of authors, but probably not worthwhile in most cases to do so.--Eostrix (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate. Completely unacceptable. Conspiracy theories, falsehoods, bigotry. Peer-reviewed publications, such as Christopher Bail's "Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream" (Princeton University Press, 2014, p. 84)[122] explicitly refers to the website as "anti-Muslim". Other academic publications such as Rohlinger's "New Media and Society" (NYU Press, p. 101) does so, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance for Supremacism

Is The Myth of Islamic Tolerance by Robert B. Spencer a reliable source for the Supremacism article? 58.182.176.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is using this book (albeit cited to different sources) for the following text, added in Special:Diff/952378144:

In The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, 63 essays edited by Robert Spencer and written by several notable authors on history of non-Muslim populations during and after the conquest of their lands by Muslims, was reviewed by The Middle East Journal and First Things as a book that "might be described as an extended bill of indictment against Islam and a debunking of the still commonly heard claim that Islam has been and is tolerant of minorities" goes on to "expose an unsettling fact: that Islam's famed tolerance of non-Muslims has over the centuries fallen well short of an embrace".

References

The edit summary 58.182.176.169 used in Special:Diff/952378144 was "→‎Islamic: 1. Pro Islamic POV bias removed by keep the phrasing consistent e.g. weasel words used to behave like Islamis apologist while unsourced claims added to dilute evils done under Islamis. 2 In previous edit "unsourced" claims "islam was more tolerant than christianity" etc. 3. Added The Myth of Islamic Tolerance". — Newslinger talk 13:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I would blacklist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, since there are some questions below, are you referring to Jihad Watch or the book? — Newslinger talk 10:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the link I found were about him, he is not an RS. So both, simply put what he says cannot be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely not a reliable source. Always use with in-text attribution if due, and it would need a separate reliable source to prove it is due. --MarioGom (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• None of the authors seem to have particularly good credentials as scholars of Islam, so I do not think it could be used for any controversial statements. Possible to be used for attributed opinion of notable contributors. buidhe 20:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• The quotation alleged to be from "The Middle East Journal and First Things" only appears in First Things. MEJ (a highly respected journal) only has a brief mention without judging it. Spencer's association with the hate site Jihad Watch is good enough reason to stay away from this book. Zero^talk 04:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, this book should not be "blacklisted". In general, Wikipedians should not be judging/censoring books that I suspect we haven't even read. Whether the First Things quote is "due" on the page in question is the real question, and should be discussed on that talk page. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Caution - not blacklisted - again, WP is the sum of all knowledge - we don't destroy/blacklist books because we don't agree with the author or book's contents. Draconian conquerors of territory destroyed books in an effort to erase history and all knowledge of opposing views. We don't have to agree with the contents of the book or the author - we have PAGs that apply when material cited to such a book is challenged - context matters. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• This book is by a self-described Islamophobe. No one's suggesting it be "destroyed", but it certainly should not be cited on Wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of historic reference, it would help immensely if you would include a link (or 2 or 3) to sources that say he is a "self-described Islamophobe". Thx in advance. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Here: "In my forthcoming book Confessions of an Islamophobe (coming November 28 from Bombardier Books), after rejecting the label for years (indeed, ever since it was invented as a tool to stymie resistance to jihad terror), I take it on. If it’s “Islamophobic” to note that the texts and teachings of Islam contain numerous exhortations to warfare against unbelievers, and that those exhortations are codified in Islamic law, then call it what you will" (Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch). Jlevi (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

His definition of Islamophobe is not how the term is used ubiquitously - he was obviously being facetious - so we should not take it out of context because doing so discredits WP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with MarioGom. Not reliable except for views of the author, whose due weight needs to be established in most contexts. I don't think the book should be blacklisted, however. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with MarioGom, Eperoton: not reliable for anything other than its own opinions, and not due without an RS specifically drawing attention to it. That having been said, blacklisting a book is silly, and I'm not sure how feasible it would even be to implement such a blacklisting, as to my knowledge the filter relies on url matching. Blacklisting should be reserved for cases where spamming is an ongoing or otherwise highly likely problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• The book seems to collect analyses of a significant and academically-defensible strand of thought on the subject of relations between Islam and others. We don't have to agree with any of it to regard it as useful for that purpose. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source for anything but Spencer's (or published authors) views, or presenting such conspiracy laden views in an appropriate article with context. Definitely should not be used as factual or given any due weight when it comes to Islamic history, the Islamic Religion or Muslims. Does not require deprecating, it should be excluded by most editors as fundamentally lacking in evidence, or being undue in the same way any other given book of fringe theories and pet project essays.

If they do represent a significant weight, then there should likely be better sources, or should be used only with in line attribution. Koncorde (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

FrontPage Magazine

Are FrontPage Magazine and other David Horowitz Freedom Center sources reliable for BLP articles? This article extensively uses them as a source for seriously contested material (Please see here). Pahlevun (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Front Page Magazine is definitely not a reliable source, a quick look at its website will tell you why. It should probably be listed at RSP. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Biased source? I don't agree with the latest trend of denigrating every source that is considered "right-wing" or "conservative" for no other reason than editors not agreeing with or abhorring a particular ideology, which appears to justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's the kind of behavior we'd expect from SPLC, but they're an advocacy, not an encyclopedia. Our job is to provide knowledge, not stoke fires or RGW. We don't have to agree with a particular ideology, and in the US, we are free to be critical of things we don't approve. We are supposed to choose our sources from a NPOV, not pick sources that reflect our views, and when we're discussing radical ideologies/beliefs/opinions, we must keep in mind that we are still dealing with opinions....and it doesn't matter whether we agree with them or not. We simply apply WEIGHT and context when determining if the material published in that particular source should be included, and if challenged, we discuss it on the article TP. At least that is how I've always understood our purpose and PAGs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• No. Biased sources tend to report most news even if they tend to report it with a spin towards their preferred demographic. Sources that are purely biased don't only post stuff which panders to a far-right demographic, and they also tend not to have hysterical quotes from their founders plastered across every single page. Meanwhile, let's have a look at today's offerings; "A new book unveils the racist war against white people -- and what can be done to combat it." Or how about "Kommunist Klux Klan" for a headline? One of its columnists is Katie Hopkins (in other words, complete made-up nonsense). Any fact that it doesn't like is labelled "fake news". Social distancing? Nope, it's "Socialist distancing" I think you'll find. This is not a reliable source and should be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

An informative article in The Atlantic that addresses your comment. Both sides are guilty of sensational headlines, clickbait tactics, propaganda and whatever else drives traffic to their site. As editors, we need to distance ourselves from the fray and steer clear of favoring any political side - we leave our biases at login. We are not here to RGW and we certainly should not accept opinions as fact, regardless of origin. Editors should be looking at published information from a pragmatic POV, not an emotional one. A medical student who wanted to be a surgeon would not get very far if the sight of blood made them nauseous. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say exactly the same of a left-wing equivalent, if such a thing exists. The point is that I cannot think of any circumstances where the only source for something would be FPM. If it hadn't been covered elsewhere, you have to think "why would that be"? Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

One of the articles on the front page today is "Democrats’ Fascism Shines Through: Totalitarians expect their commands to be obeyed instantly - and without question." Inside the article, it says "In the case of Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, the totalitarian is not only out but goose-stepping toward the New Reich. Instead of “Sieg Heil,” it’s “Obey or Else.”" I think this sums up why this can't be used for BLP articles and actually should be deprecated. buidhe 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's definitely biased; this doesn't mean it should deprecated. Better approach is "USE WITH CAUTION", as we do with Daily Beast and other left-biased and not-super-reliable sites. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Some sites marked green on WP:RSP and some articles from their front page:
  • The Daily Beast: Trump’s Bleach Bullshit Starts Viral Disinfo Campaign in Africa
  • The Intercept: Quack-in-Chief Donald Trump Asks If Bleach Injections or Tanning Could Cure Covid-19
  • Slate (magazine): This Is Still Happening: Stephen Miller ... the racist troll who designs Donald Trump’s violent and (often) unlawful immigration policies

Anyone who wants to compare Fascist, Totalitarian, Bullshit, Quack-in-Chief, and Racist Troll for sources for BLP articles, feel free. It's almost as if websites think stirring up "their side" gets them clicks. Surprise! --GRuban (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable While arguments could be made that the Democrats or Republicans are fascist, it is not an accepted fact in political science and any source that says without qualification that they are is not reliable. TFD (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Should be deprecated like Jihad Watch. Conspiracy theories, falsehoods, bigotry. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail (on Sunday) by proxy.

On the Coronavirus misinformation page these two sources are being used. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/inside-the-the-viral-spread-of-a-coronavirus-origin-theory https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25214/20200406/uk-fears-coronavirus-actually-leaked-china-lab.htm to source this sentence, under a heading of british government misinformation:

"The member of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's emergency committee of senior officials, Cobra, stated that "There is a credible alternative view [to the zoonotic theory] based on the nature of the virus. Perhaps it is no coincidence that there is that laboratory in Wuhan. It is not discounted.""

I think that this is just a roundabout way of sourcing the (ludicrously unreliable) Mail on Sunday article. One merely quoting the Mail, the other holding it up as a spreader of shite. The Mail is proscribed on wikipedia, and even if it wasn't I'd argue that particular article would be an 'extraordinary' claim requiring incredible RS, and even if it wasn't I can't agree that the quote of the quote of the quote of what was mentioned in a classified meeting can be used to accuse Boris Johnson of spreading misinformation about corona. 81.140.215.189 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear if their source is the Daily Mail or if they had access to the original source. In any case, the quote says that the theory is not discounted which is very different from what other sources said, which twisted the declarations to claim that there was evidence backing that claim. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It's fine for reliable sources to get their information from unreliable sources, because we expect journalists to be able to assess their weight. So for example a biographer may get information from the subject, their friends and colleagues, none of whom would count as rs for Wikipedia. But they have the judgment to determine what is reasonable. Were it otherwise, we could not have articles about Socrates or Caesar or Jesus since none of the primary sources are reliable. TFD (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the relevant section of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#British I've edited to show the quote is via the Mail on Sunday (as it is clear from the reporting that they sourced it from there and not via the original source), although Science Times inaccurately attributes it to the Daily Mail. The Mail on Sunday is technically a different paper from the Daily Mail, although it is published online on the same website, and this RSN has never fully been clear if proscriptions against the DM count against the MoS too (in my view they definitely should). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Canary

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274 § Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites - The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 245 § Is the Canary a reliable source?

Some other passing mentions as well. As far as I can tell The Canary (website) is often but not universally regarded as unreliable. It's being used on Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), twice, both for opinion not fact, pretty much in its area of maximum bias. I'm hardly a renowned right-winger but there's no way I would ever use this site as a source. Their "mission" is "A free and fair society where we nurture people and planet." Nothing to do with accurate reporting. Guy (help!) 23:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No consensus/Generally unreliable per prior discussion. May be useful for the positions of left wing politicians and groups on certain issues, but not generally reliable. buidhe 07:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Generally reliable: attribute opinion. "I'm hardly a renowned left-winger" but I use The Canary frequently. I have never had a problem with it. Its "About" page describes the efforts it makes to ensure its reports are rigorous: "Each article goes through a rigorous editorial process in which it is checked and amended by at least two editors (a section editor and a copy editor). Complex investigations are edited by at least three, including an investigations editor". It has received a favourable report from NewsGuard. Media Bias/Fact Check said: "Overall, we rate The Canary Left biased based on story selection that typically favours the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record".[123] It is regulated by IMPRESS which is "fully compliant with the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry". It also has its own Code of Practice, which lays out the standards and ethical principles that guide its writers and editors. Editor Jontel wrote in a recent discussion: "On NewsGuard standards, they rate The Canary 8/9, Evolve 8/9 and Skwawkbox 9/9. On Impress complaints unheld in whole or in part over three years, The Canary has two, Evolve one and Skawkbox five. A 2019 survey by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that The Canary was trusted by its readers more than publications such as Buzzfeed News, the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, HuffPost, The Independent, Sun and regional press, and almost equal to the Daily Telegraph". In previous discussions there has been a lot of opinion but a seeming lack of examples of the unreliability of The Canary. Burrobert (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Per Newslinger and WP:MBFC, MBFC is an unreliable source and should not be used to justify arguments like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked the Reuters study and found that the above is not very accurate. Here is a better summary: A 2018 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism described The Canary as "a left-wing partisan site" and an example of "alternative and partisan brands" (along with Breitbart and Infowars) which have "a political or ideological agenda and their user base tends to passionately share these views". The Institute's survey found The Canary to be used by 2% of the UK news audience, its readers to be among the furthest to the left on the political spectrum, and the publication to be more trusted than the Daily Mail, Buzzfeed News and The Sun, but one of less trusted news sites in the UK, with a trust rating of 4.69 where 10 is fully trusted.[124] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment From the same study, it is as trusted by its readers as the mainstream media is by its readers and it has huge usership considering its tiny resources and relative youth. Jontel (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is some more information from various reports put out by the Reuters Institute in 2018 and 2019. Firstly, the reports aren’t especially relevant to the question we are discussing as they do not examine "reliability". A lot of the discussion here so far has been able the partisanship of The Canary. The unanimous opinion seems to be that The Canary has a left wing slant. Excellent, let’s now discuss reliability. Anyway, some editors may still find this information useful.

• Reuters define alternative or partisan sites as those which have “a political or ideological agenda and their user base tends to passionately share these views".
• The list of alternative partisan UK sites which it has studied is: The Canary, Breitbart, Sputnik, Westmonster, Skwawkbox, Novara Media, Evolve Politics.
• The list of alternative partisan US sites which it has studied is: Breitbart, Daily Caller, The Blaze, Occupy Democrats, Infowars, Being Liberal, Talking Points Memo, The Intercept, Addicting Info.
• It says “The Canary publishes political news and ‘campaigning journalism’ from a broadly left-wing perspective.
• It says "the ambitions of the digital-born media highlighted here do not end with building sustainable online news businesses. A strong sense of mission has been prevalent from the start". In the case of The Canary this includes influencing the public conversation and "the creation of an investigative journalism fund".
• Reuters does provide some data on readership. Its 2019 survey showed that 14% of participants had head of The Canary and 2% had used the site in the last week.
• Regarding "trust", Reuters’ 2018 report provided two "trust" numbers, one that comes from survey participants who had heard of the site (but who may not have actually used it) and one that comes from users of the site. The number 4.69 is the one from people who had heard of the site. It is the 12th highest rating out of the 15 sites surveyed. Actual uses of the site gave The Canary a trust rating of 6.65 which is the 8th highest rating out of 15 sites. What does this mean for reliability?
• I haven’t been able to find any reference to the statement that “its readers [are] among the furthest to the left on the political spectrum”. A 2018 report states “In the UK, the Another Angry Voice blog and the Canary website are placed further to the left of the map, because a high proportion of their users self-identify on the left”. This seems to suggest that The Canary has a lot of left wing readers, not that their views are further to the left.

Burrobert (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, you know that Fox News is highly trusted by its audience, right? As were Pravda and the Volkischer Beobachter? Forty billion flies can't be wrong... Guy (help!) 22:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the place to compare the BBC and Channel 4 to those sources. What is the relevance to The Canary? Burrobert (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Not reliable Like Guy put it They have a clear agenda and even someone want to quote for opinion its clearly WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Attribute If you don't like left wing stuff, you won't like Canary (or Evolve or Skwawk), these sites are useful on occasion but use with caution.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not reliable As almost all the contributors to the last discussion here, this website is not at all reliable, regardless of what it might itself say. It is highly partisan, publishes information out of context in a very skewed way and has been shown regularly to publish inaccurate stories. Please see the talk page of Iain McNicol‎, where The Canary is being used as the source for a very sensitive BLP issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The final point is not the case. The article makes clear that McNicol was being named in a legal suit because he was Gen. Sec. of the LP; it was not about him personally. Jontel (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Highly partisan blog or website. OK for attributed opinion only.--Hippeus (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Canary is not a blog. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable As per Burrobert favourable reports from NewsGuard, Media Bias/Fact Check and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism regarding its Reliability. We all know that the 'news' media is impartial. 99% of all news media outlets are definitely skewed by a partisan political outlook, 90% of the time that skew is to the centre right or further to the Right, the Canary is one of the very few sources that has a left centre viewpoint. Its a very small counter weight against the overwhelming majority of the more right wing media. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We are going completely off subject, this board is not about political positions of news outlets, its about Reliability. We should not mistake having a different political viewpoint for whether a source's factual reliability is good or bad (that is irrelevant). The Canary does not hide their left of centre bias but it has a clean factual record and they always source their information to credible media outlets such as Forbes, BBC, The Guardian and Huffington Post etc. Perhaps opposing editors could present concrete evidence of unreliability rather than say its unreliable just because of its political viewpoint. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable:attribute opinion It certainly has a political viewpoint, selects stories to suit its agenda and can seek to be sensational. The same can be said for most or all of the mainstream British press. However, there are very few examples of it being inaccurate. Its readers trust it about as much as readers of other publications trust those. Again, many of the mainstream publications have had to withdraw or amend articles for inaccuracy from time to time. There is a left wing viewpoint: Labour gets around one third of the vote and Labour's 600,000 members elected Corbyn twice. This viewpoint is rarely reflected fully in the mainstream media: banning use of the Canary will prevent a full expression of the range of significant views. Finally, significant progressive stories may only be covered in The Canary in detail, so this information will be inaccessible to editors if its use is banned. Jontel (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, indeed. I rate The Canary as unreliable because it lists its mission in terms of ideology not fact, and because its writing reflects that. It was the most complained about IMPRESS regulated journal of 2017/18 [125], it has published false claims about Laura Kuenssberg, and blames Teh Jews for its problems [126].

Seriously, it's crap. Guy (help!) 17:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, the Canary published an incorrect headline about Kuenssberg. The story was correct and the headline was quickly corrected. And yes, Rachel Riley and others, who have chosen to remain anonymous, are trying to shut down the Canary by claiming it is antisemitic and pushing advertisers to boycott the site. Jontel (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• You are confusingly mixing your reply with personal opinion. Regarding Laura Kuenssberg, one accusation ...Ian Middleton in The Huffington Post wrote the accusations of abuse "may have been part of an orchestrated campaign on behalf of those looking to discredit the petition itself". The Canary published a headline that "(Kuenssberg's) listed as a speaker at the Tory Party conference". She had indeed been invited to speak at a fringe event, but this was cancelled and Impress faulted the Canary for not correcting the information with due prominence. Another... check her own page Laura Kuenssberg#Bias allegations "In January 2017 the BBC Trust ruled that a report in November 2015 by Kuenssberg broke the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines" ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that IMPRESS though independent, is not the main press regulator in the UK, that honour goes to the self regulator IPSO, where most of the other press are regulated and where you will find lots more similar complaints against various mainstream media. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

Claiming that The Canary blames “Teh Jews for its problems” is to accuse it of anti-semitism. You seem to making this serious accusation on the basis of no evidence. The only mention of Jewry in the article is in the quote from The Canary: "Despite clearly being against the actions of the state, not against Jewish people as an ethnic group, we’ve been smeared with accusations of anti-Semitism by those who’ve weaponised the term for political ends". Burrobert (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Those of us with some real-world experience recognize the term "political Zionists" applied to non-Israelis for what it is - a convenient euphemism for 'Jews'. It is the equivalent of the infamous Soviet Rootless cosmopolitan JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Those of us with some real-world experience" - WP:Puffery. The attempt to conflate criticism of the state of Israel and anti-Zionism with anti-semitism has a long history. It serves the interests of the Israeli state by silencing criticism of Israel’s actions and policies but there is no reason why the rest of us need to accept what has been called "an intellectually and morally disreputable position". Abba Eban, the Foreign Minister of Israel, wrote in 1973: "One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all". Political Zionism is a real thing not connected to anti-semitism. Burrobert (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There was no criticism of the State in the piece published by the Canary, just a reference to some anonymous "Political Zionists" who are trying to harm them. As I wrote , people with real world experience know what this is a reference to [127]. And I suspect that when similar dog whistles are used by Trump vs. Muslims or Hispanics , or racists vs blacks etc.. - you recognize them too. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"People with real world experience know what this is a reference to" - more WP: Puffery. The intended meaning of "political Zionist" and who it refers to seems clear enough from the article. "Despite clearly being against the actions of the state, not against Jewish people as an ethnic group, we’ve been smeared with accusations of anti-Semitism by those who’ve weaponised the term for political ends ". "And people who don’t like our politics have encouraged our advertisers to blacklist us". This type of attack has been described as "part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the holy state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick". The allegations aimed at Jeremy Corbyn over the period of his leadership is a good example of this technique. A recently leaked Labour Party report shows how antisemitism was used by officials of the party to undermine Corbyn’s leadership. The Canary itself published the article Allegations of antisemitism are being used as a 'tool to stifle debate on Palestine', says Israeli historian [128] in 2019, which included the following:

Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé has pushed-backed against what he characterises as the 'weaponisation' of antisemitism allegations. … [T]he historian, known for his work on Zionism and the destruction of Palestine, says this is being done in order to suppress debate and discussion on Palestine. ... Pappé says antisemitism allegations are "a tool to stifle the debate on Palestine, but it also, it kind of weaponises the allegation of antisemitism against the promotion to positions of power of people that Israel and it’s supporters do not want to be in those positions".

It is uncontroversial that The Canary has been critical of Israel’s policies and actions including its influence on British politics through the pro-Israel lobby group Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) and its representative . Here is a list of articles published by The Canary about Israel this year:

• Keir Starmer received £50,000 donation from pro-Israel lobbyist in leadership bid [129] (17/4/20)
• A new Israeli atrocity in Gaza was carried out with the help of a multinational corporation [130] (26/2/20)
• Israeli anarchist released despite refusing to ‘play by the rules of a system that is rigged against justice’ [131] (20/2/20)
• Professor says ‘popular organizing’ is key to opposing the ‘entrenchment of apartheid’ in Israel [132] (17/2/20)
• Trump’s ‘peace plan’ gives the go-ahead to Israel’s biggest land grab in decades [133] (31/1/20)
• Charges dropped against activists who occupied Israeli arms factory for two days [134] (23/1/20)

Burrobert (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"The intended meaning of "political Zionist" and who it refers to seems clear enough from the article. " - Indeed. It mean Jews, just like Rootless cosmopolitans. Unless you think the Canary was trying to blame Theodor Hertzl or Max Nordau for their financial troubles. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we close and put an end to what may well turn into antisemtism and gets users banned?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. As with all such hyper-partisan media (regardless of political leaning), if the story is significant enough that Wikipedia will be interested, there's invariably going to be a non-contentious publication covering the same story, which will always be preferable as a source. The sole exception is the case of a handful of ultra-left figures, who may use the site to make media announcements in which case it's acceptable as a primary source for their comments. These instances should be few and far between, as such people are almost certainly going to choose sympathetic media with a broader circulation (such as The Guardian) for such statements; policitians are generally interested in spreading their message to a wider audience, not in preaching to the converted. ‑ Iridescent 12:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment We are going completely off subject, this board is not about political positions of news outlets, its about Reliability. All the News media sources are partisan, the question is the Canary a Reliable Source. Can someone who thinks it is not PLEASE provide actual evidence that shows that the Canary is unreliable. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Off-topic thread

OT; Can someone please explain me why User:JzG sometime tag as Guy (as here) and sometimes as JzG (as on Julian Assange)? this is not fine.. i think is wrong; JzG, please stay always on your tag JzG "User:JzG" without change on Guy "User:JzG|Guy" when you want! --5.171.8.64 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC) That's a bit rich coming from someone editing from an IP GirthSummit (blether) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Instead your answer is totally useless, and (al)so a little hostile; writing from IP is correct (and IPs can do right things too!), and also ask registered users not to use tag-alias-mutants. One registred user, one only tag; otherwise it can edit as IP! ;-) Anyway, i'm still waiting for reply. Thanks. --5.171.8.64 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC) The answer is pretty simple. My real-world name is Guy, and my original username was Just zis Guy, you know?, a reference to the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy and also my Usenet handle for a long time. I shortened it to reduce the byte-count in my sig and to make it easier for people to type, and to remove the "?", whihc of course is rendered as %3F in URIs. It's been that way for a looooong time. I can't remember when I adopted the current signature, but I don't think I have ever signed simply as "JzG". Guy (help!) 22:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Thank you for reply. In really i was not interested for the reason of your choice to change to Guy, but for why is possible to have a tag signature different from username. This made confusion; it seems that is in the history page - any - that you appear (always) as JzG, instead than "Guy". I think is better if none publish a tag different from the real username. P.s. I know the Douglas Adams books, but in this time i can't remember the quote you like; too much years from when i've read the books... and as my name is not Guy, and i've not read the book on english language.. it's very hard for me to remember this thing. So long, and thanks for.. --5.171.8.64 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Gag Halfrunt, Zaphod's personal braincare specialist, is ordering Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz to destroy the Heart Of Gold, with Zaphod on board, in order to kill Arthur Dent. When Jeltz queries him about killing his most profitable patient, Halfrunt replies "Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?" Guy (help!) 23:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC) To add to the reply. He is definitely not a sock puppet, his signature is Guy ([user:JzG|Guy]) but times when folks reply to him they write @user:JzG' and the edit history of an article always will drops the nickname Guy, so it looks like a different tag. My own tag is ~ BOD ~ but my username is Bodney, similarly in the history of an article it drops my nickname BOD and gives my full name Bodney. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the reply; yes, I had noticed that the dual user name problem arose from the history pages. Like I said, I think it would be better if there were no such differences. --5.171.8.64 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nolo.com

I think this might be a good time to ask again why we have blacklisted n o l o . c o m.

Take an article like this: https ://www.n o l o.com/legal-encyclopedia/emergency-bans-on-evictions-and-other-tenant-protections-related-to-coronavirus.html

It is filled with useful information that can be quite useful for people who can't pay rent. Is there any other source with comparable information? Is there anything unreliable about this article that warrants its being blacklisted?

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The log entry refers to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2017 § Immigration law refspam round 3. Pinging JzG for comment. By the way, you can use the nowiki tag to disable blacklisted links, and disabled links are not affected by the blacklist. The domain name by itself (nolo.com) is also not affected by the blacklist when used in a discussion, unless it is linked. — Newslinger talk 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

David Tornheim, it was extensively spammed by a paid SEO operator and surrogates e.g. Riceissa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). But thanks for reminding me because I see Vipul is still active and now spamming different sites. The issue with a lot of the sites he spammed is that while they may contain some useful information (albeit often with no author attribution to verify credentials), most (including apparently nolo) are mainly there to sell. Guy (help!) 12:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger:@JzG:Thanks for the responses. I think it is fine to stop the spammers, and I appreciate your efforts to remove WP:PROMO on Wikipedia. But I don't understand why established editors with legal credentials (I have B.A. paralegal) are prohibited from using it, when it is often the most readable and accessible source for laypeople. It is often concise and on point. Although I am not an attorney, I have taken multiple legal research courses. In those legal issues where I compared what I found in properly researched legal issues with Nolo, I was almost always impressed with Nolo's concise and accurate summary of the key legal issues in a way that non-legal professions can read and digest. I have never seen a case where the information in Nolo was clearly wrong.

The only "problem" with Nolo, if it is a problem, is that it is written for lay people and lacks the complexity, completeness and thorough documentation of every legal citation, every substantial variation, every relevant jurisdiction and primary & secondary authorities that you might find in a law review article, legal brief, legal memo, etc. For what it strives to do--helping laypeople with the key ideas of the law in the area--I think it is completely successful, not too short, not too long.

No. I would probably never use it in a legal brief, court filing, law review article, or anything written that is intended for attorneys to be briefed on the current state of the law. Just as I would never dream of citing a Wikipedia article for a similar purpose. These sources are for the public, not for attorneys and other legal professionals.

The other reason I would like to be able to use Nolo is because doing proper legal research requires either going to a law library or using LexisNexis, WestLaw or a similar very expensive online service. IMHO, few editors on wikipedia have that kind of access. Most legal articles on Wikipedia are badly referenced in my opinion because of that and/or the bad reference is likely lack of familiarity on how to perform and cite legal research. If our legal articles were properly referenced to the level expected of a legal brief or law review article, many of the references would be unavailable to be viewed by the public anyway, for the reason I mentioned. Nolo doesn't have that problem. Hence, when I want my lay friends to get a sense of the law on certain subjects, I often send them to the Nolo article rather than the law library, or ask them to read the appropriate statutes or controlling case(s) for their jurisdiction.

In this particular example, I would like to be able to use the Nolo article, since I am not aware of any other source with so much *current* information about renters rights regarding the COVID pandemic. It is certainly better than newspaper articles which I see being used as sources.

Is there a way that editors like myself can use Nolo without violating the blacklist? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WT:WHITELIST? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, yes, we could consider a whitelist for /legal-encyclopedia if there's consensus it's actually reliable. There's precedent for that.

I'd like to see some evaluation of the reliability and authority. Maybe David Tornheim can dig up a page that describes the editorial process for that section? Guy (help!) 10:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Authors: https://www.nolo.com/about/law-authors

Editorial Staff: https://www.nolo.com/law-authors/nolo.html

Wikipedia article: Nolo (publisher)

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The archive bot swept away the discussion on Nolo.com before I finished my fabulous contribution. (But I still like you Ms. Archive Bot.) Here's my two cents on Nolo.com, which doesn't seem to belong on the blacklist based on my experience. ¶ I am most familiar with Nolo's articles on Service-Connected Disability Compensation for Veterans (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-get-veterans-disability-compensation) (that web page has a list of most articles on the topic. All the articles I've seen are written by an attorney, Margaret Wadsworth, who is a VA-accredited attorney and is admitted to the bar at the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The only fault I find with Ms. Wadsworth's articles on Nolo—and I do not consider this a major flaw—is that some of the information is dated, e.g., referring to DSM-IV when VA started using DSM-5 for psychological disability claims in 2014 (DSM-5 was published in 2013). I have read most of the veterans service-connected disability articles on Nolo over the years, and I have not come across any gross errors; biased, slanted, or unbalanced presentations; or misleading information. For example, in Ms. Wadsworth's article titled, "Hiring a VA-Certified Veterans Disability Lawyer", she could have pushed Nolo's attorney directory only, but she doesn't. In fact she lists a number of law school clinics and organizations that provide pro bono legal services for veterans. In summary, the articles are factual; succinct; well-written; and they offer sound advice for veterans, e.g., "How to Answer Questions at the Exam: Don’t exaggerate your symptoms, but don’t diminish them either. When the doctor asks you questions, be truthful. Explain to the doctor exactly how your symptoms impact your life. This can be uncomfortable, since this will be your first visit with the doctor, but it is important to your claim that you be as open and honest as possible." ¶ If there are a slew of articles on Nolo that merit blacklisting, I would be interested in seeing a list, as I have not encountered any. (I have also read articles in other topic areas, including a few because I wanted to learn more about an area of the law, and I found them helpful.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

​I've restored the discussion and added your comment to the end, since you only missed the archive bot by 22 minutes. — Newslinger talk 10:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Thanks for the comment on your experiences that reflect my own. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per above, I would say that this is reliable source for general principles of law, but less reliable than law review articles and other, more authoritative published sources. It certainly shouldn't be blacklisted if there is a less invasive method of stopping the abuse (i.e. blocking the perpetrators). buidhe 21:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Right on, Buidhe. I assign substantial probative weight to your testimony. <|;^)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Buidhe as per what I have said previously in this discussion. Well put. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Markworthen, thank you. This makes a very good case for whitelisting /legal-encyclopedia (which would allow exactly that content). Guy (help!) 17:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Live Science and Phys.org

Live Science and Phys.org frequently appear in science-related searches. Are these sites considered reliable sources? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

​To attract more responses, I've moved this discussion from WT:RSP to the noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 11:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Depends for what. They're pop sci journalisms sites. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

While I would agree with Headbomb's the assessment regarding Live Science, the one involving Phys.org is clearly wrong. All Phys.org does is aggregate press releases on new papers published by various sources, it therefore has no inherent reliability/unreliability as it is simply a content aggregator, and the reliability should be considered based on the source of the press release. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Phys.org also has their own content, even if it mostly aggregates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case think it's worth asking whether Medical Xpress and Tech Xplore have separate reliability to Phys.org's original content, I would say no, as they are run by the same people. I'd have to imagine that most of the content that is cited in articles to Phys.org is aggregated, rather than their original writing. It's always very clear what content is by Phys.org and what isn't from the article byline, a list of their original content is at https://phys.org/editorials/ for future reference. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have only ever seen phys.org articles cited as reprints. The source is occasionally useful when the original content is hard to access, though it should certainly be evaluated on the basis of the original publisher, and articles should preferably be linked to the original source when possible. Jlevi (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Ideally, we should look for articles that reference these sites and replace the citations with the original source when possible. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ideally press releases shouldn't be cited at all, and it is the articles that the press releases are about that we should be citing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah! You make me realize one key detail: if I recall correctly, phys.org doesn't always make it clear whether they're reprinting a press release or an article. However, that just means that evaluating the original publisher is all the more important. In addition, is there a general recommendation/policy not to cite press releases? It seems that they'd at some times be useful for fleshing out details that connect to briefer comments from reliable sources. Jlevi (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

For press releases about scientific publications, generally I find that there is no information that isn't contained in the article, though original news stories about the scientific paper covered by the press release often contain additional detail and comments from other experts Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cyntoia Brown

Hello. There is some disagreement about the Cyntoia Brown article.

People removed the references to court documents that I added. They are claiming that the article should not use primary sources, such as court documents because they could be misinterpreted or taken out of context. I disagree and would like for the Cyntioa Brown article to cite court documents, along with secondary sources.

Below is a list of quotes from the Brown article. For each quote, I copied and pasted the exact expert in the court document that it references. All of the article text that cites court documents is completely supported by those court documents. On top of that, I referenced specific page numbers so that Wikipedia readers who click on the documents know exactly where to look. There is absolutely no way these documents could be misinterpreted or taken out of context. 

I will also point out that court documents are far more reliable than opinion pieces and news articles. A judge writing an opinion is much less likely to make a mistake than a journalist. Additionally, many other articles about crimes and people convicted of crimes (including cases for more controversial than the Brown one) cite court documents. I believe that primary sources should be allowed in the Brown article.

ARREST AND TRIAL SECTION
    
    Example 1. 
    
    Article text
    
     "Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot. Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying ... and his  fingers interlocked." 
              
      Document text 
      
      "Based upon the nature of the victim’s wound and the lividity of his body, the medical examiner concluded that, when the petitioner fired the gun, the victim was lying in his bed in the same manner as he was later found, on his right side and stomach and with his fingers partially interlocked."
      
        The court doc does not say he was asleep. But several other secondary soruces cited do. 
      
      Example 2.
      
      Article text
      
      "A forensic pathologist testified at trial that, due to the nature of Allen's injury, he would not have been able to make any voluntary movements after being shot. Thus, in her opinion, Allen's hands were clasped at the time of his death."
         
       Document text
         
         "She (Dr. McMaster, the forensic pathologist) added, 'Because of the nature of the wound, I would not expect [the victim] to have any type of voluntary movement or to be able to move his extremities or his body in any way' after being shot. Thus, Dr. McMaster said that in her professional opinion, the victim's hands were clasped at the time of his death, as they were in the crime scene photographs taken by police after the incident."
        
        Example 3.
   
        Article text
   
   "Allen's gunshot wound had characteristics of those fired at close range. Additionally, gunshot residue from Allen's pillowcase showed that the gun was three to six inches away when fired."
            
         Document text
            
            "Although the medical examiner classified this as an indeterminate range wound, the stellate lacerations around the entrance wound are “typically” seen with “close range fire,” within “a couple inches or less, a few inches.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1973; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14- 15, PageID# 1993, 2005-2007.) Gunshot residue from one of the victim’s pillowcases indicated that the gun was three to six inches from the pillowcase when the gun discharged. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1550-1552, 1563-1564.)" 
           
         Example 4.
           
         Article text 
          
           "On August 14, Brown was taken to the Western Mental Health Institute for an evaluation. According to court documents, Brown attacked and threatened a nurse at the Mental Health Institute after the nurse did not allow her to call her adoptive mother. Brown jumped over the nurse's desk, grabbed her hair and face, and hit her, giving her several bruises and abrasions. During the attack, Brown allegedly told the nurse 'I shot that man in the back of the head one time, bitch, I’m gonna shoot you in the back of the head three times. I’d love to hear your blood splatter on the wall.' The nurse, along with another Western Mental Health Institute employee who witnessed the incident testified at trial." 
                   
            
          Document text
                 
                 Source 4. Sixth Circuit. "On August 14, 2004, while a patient at Western Mental Health Institute in Bolivar, the petitioner demanded to make a phone call to her mother, but the nurse, Kathy Franz, told her that she could not use the phone. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1479-1480, 1483, 1527-1528, 1530.) The petitioner “got angry” and attacked Ms. Franz. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1528.) She jumped over the nurses’ desk, grabbed Ms. Franz by the hair and face, and hit her. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1480, 1485, 1528.) They both struggled onto the floor, and Ms. Franz received abrasions and bruises from the attack. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1485, 1528.) The petitioner threatened Ms. Franz’s life, saying: I’m going to do you like I did him, but I’m not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I’m going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1481, 1528-1529.)" 
                 
                Source 2. Court of Criminal Appeals. "Kathy Franz testified that on August 14, 2004, she worked as a nurse at a facility[4] at which she encountered the defendant. Franz said that one day, the defendant asked her to use the telephone. Franz told the defendant that she could not use the telephone, at which point the defendant grabbed her by the hair and by the face; after that, the two women struggled and "both wound up [on] the floor." According to Franz, the defendant told her, "I'm going to do you like I did him, but I'm not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I'm going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall." Eventually, four or five of the facility's staff physically restrained the defendant. Another of the facility's employees, Sheila Campbell, witnessed this episode and testified about it at trial. The substance of Campbell's testimony largely mirrored that of Franz's, although Campbell added that the defendant asked permission to phone her mother before the incident and that the incident left Franz with bruises and abrasions."        
   
          Example 5
                 
          Article text
                 
                 "A recording of a phone call Brown made to her adoptive mother while in jail was presented as further evidence against her, as in the conversation she said, referring to Johnny Allen, 'I executed him.'"
                               
          Document text
                 
                 "During a recorded telephone conversation on October 29, 2005, between the petitioner and her adoptive mother, Ellenette Washington, the petitioner stated to Ms. Washington, “I killed somebody. . . . I executed him.” (Telephone Recording, R.E. 14-6, PageID# 715; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1915; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-15, PageID# 2041-2044.)" 

          Example 6
                   
          Article text
                   
                   "Brown also spoke to several jail cellmates about the crime, and confessed to killing Allen "just to see how it felt to kill somebody.""
                   
          Document text
                    
                    Source 6. Sixth Circuit. "In November 2004, while confined in Davidson County, the petitioner discussed the murder with three other detainees, including Shayla Bryant, who heard the petitioner give the following explanation for her criminal charges: She basically . . . said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1655-1656.) Ms. Bryant did not believe the petitioner because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) Ms. Bryant told the petitioner that she was lying, at which point the petitioner started laughing. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) The petitioner then confided that she shot the victim 'just to see how it fe[lt] to kill somebody.'” 
                 
                    
                   Source 2. Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death. The defendant told Bryant about the charges she was facing, and Bryant overheard a conversation between the defendant and Williamson in which the defendant 'basically said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him.' Bryant told the defendant that she did not believe the defendant's account because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' Bryant testified that the defendant then 'started laughing.' Through notes, the defendant 'basically said she shot the man just to see how it feel[s] to kill somebody.' Bryant said that the defendant appeared 'as jolly as she wanted to be' while discussing the victim's death. Bryant added, 'it didn't look like she had any remorse. She didn't cry. . . . She was just there.'"
                    
           Example 7
                   
           Article text
                    
                    "The cellmate later gave police a note Brown had given her which said 'everything is the truth, I swear it on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feeling of nervousness.' At trial, a forensic document examiner testified that the note was written by Brown. The cellmate whom Brown had given the note to and spoken with also testified at trial."
                                      
           Document text
                    
                    Source 2. 2008 Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death...Bryant said that she and the defendant passed notes to each other through a hole in the wall between their cells. On cross-examination, she said that she flushed most of the defendant's notes down the toilet but that she kept one of the notes, which she eventually gave to police. The note read: 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life, except for `I thought he was getting a gun' and the feelings of nervousness.'"
                    
                   Source 6.  Sixth Circuit."Like other detainees, Ms. Bryant and the petitioner routinely passed notes, and Ms. Brown retained and disclosed one note in which the petitioner wrote, 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feelings of nervousness.” (Handwritten Note, R.E. 14-5, PageID# 600; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656-1658, 1683-1684, 1788-1789, 1797-1798; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1868-1869, 1894-1896.) 
           
          MURDER OF ALLEN SECTION
            
          Example 8
            
          Article text
            
            On August 7, Brown had a neighbor drive her to the Walmart where she had left Allen's truck. She asked the neighbor to drive her back to Allen's house so that she could steal more items but he refused. Brown told him that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns.” 
                
           Document text
                                      
              "Later that day, around 5:00 p.m., the petitioner knocked on the door at the InTown Suites of roommates Richard Reed and Samuel Humphrey. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331.) Mr. Reed answered the door, and the petitioner asked him to drive her to Wal-Mart, which he agreed to do. (Trial Testimony R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331-1334.)."
                 En route back to the hotel, the petitioner asked Mr. Reed for a ride to a nearby house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1337.) She explained that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns,” and she wanted Mr. Reed “to go over there and help her clean it out.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1337.) Mr. Reed did not believe her, and he refused to drive her to the house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1339.)
                 Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Well here is one problem, you link to a number of documents one of which says "which led the police to conclude that the victim was asleep when he was shot. "Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven You said one of the documents says he was asleep when shot. Did you mean none of the documents say he was asleep when shot? The court docs don't directly say he was asleep when shot but many secondary sources we cited do. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

The you need to make it clear which sources you want to use, as the quote is from "STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CYNTOIA DENISE BROWN No. M2007-00427-CCA-R3-CD." Which I thought was the second source you wished to use. I also suggest you read wp:or, no matter how many sources do not say it the sea is wet.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I have collapsed the references from this section, they were appearing in other sections. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I refereed to STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CYNTOIA DENISE BROWN as the Court of Criminal Appeals doc because it is an opinion from Tennessee's Court of Criminal Appeals. That doc talks about the forensic pathologist saying Allen's hands were clasped when he died. That's what the text says. Other secondary sources back up the claim that investigators believe he was asleep.

There is no original research or interpretations of the documents. The article says what the docs (and other sources used) state. I truly do not see why this should not be allowed. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Ginegrbreadhouse97

If source A says the sea and blue and source B says the sea if blue that dos not mean source B is saying the sea is not wet.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I'm not following you. Can you explain what you mean? Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

We have sources (including the STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CYNTOIA DENISE BROWN No. M2007-00427-CCA-R3-CD which says " "which led the police to conclude that the victim was asleep when he was shot." that say investigators thought he was shot in his sleep. A source not saying that does not mean that source supports the conclusion he was not. A source has to say (in words) something. It is OR to draw a conclusion from what a source does not say. wp:v is clear a source must say it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The secondary sources do say he was asleep when shot in words. And the court docs talk about the position his body was found. If you want, I will use the court docs only after the text about how he was found. And I will only use the secondary sources for the claim that police believe he was asleep when shot. It will read like this

"Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot.Secondary sources Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying ... and his fingers interlocked. Primary sources" Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference

Again, I've collapsed that reference. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So that each claim has a specific source.

Can we use primary court documents or not?Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

No, not really, we are advised against using them.Slatersteven (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We are advised not to use them? But does that mean we are completely banned form using them? Or just that we should do so sparingly? I and other editors have used court documents in many crime articles and moderators never took them out. May I add some of the Brown court documents back?Slatersteven Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Trekmovie interviews

Can interviews from Trekmovie be cited in articles? They regularly publish exlusive interviews with members of Star Trek's cast and crew (i.e Kate Mulgrew, Armin Shimerman, Jonathan Frakes, Robert Sallin, Marc Scot Zicree) that could be quite useful in articles. I have no reason to doubt the interviews authenticity, but it's a fan blog. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have mentioned this discussion at WikiProject Star Trek TheAwesomeHwyh 21:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me that they draw on outside sources themselves, they comment on interviews and videos given on other sites, and then offer their opinion. Probably best to go directly to the source for this information, as the line between what was said and their opinion could become muddled. StarHOG (Talk) 15:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

​I'm pretty sure the interviews are all conducted by them, so there is no outside source. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This was the first article I clicked on, about Frakes talking about Discovery season three. The very first paragraph, "TrekMovie recently reported on Jonathan Frakes discussing how Burnham and the Discovery crew will be reunited in the third episode of season 3, which is one of three he directed. Speaking to ComicBook.com, Frakes offered more on where the new season is headed" and then gave the Frakes quote. So I think that is pretty apparent that they are getting their info from other sources. At least some of them, right? I mean, if you're looking for a source, and it says they interviewed someone, then use it. But if they say they pulled it from somewhere else, I would go to that someplace else first. Use your best judgement. You don't want your edit reverted down the line because of bad sourcing, that's all I'm saying. StarHOG (Talk) 13:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

​I think the Frakes one is an outlier; to be clear, you think it's fine to use if they really were the ones who interview them? TheAwesomeHwyh 15:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Any of them could be fine to use, remember, sometimes there is value in a 3rd party source giving an analysis of something. As editors, we can't analyze, that's Original Research, so sometimes you need this stuff. My only point is if you can go to the source, I would do it. StarHOG (Talk) 13:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

postcard.news and tfipost.com

Both sites have issues of their own - postcard has oftentimes posted fake news and at one point its founder was arrested for that ( https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/postcard-news-editor-mahesh-hegde-booked-for-spreading-fake-news-arrested-in-bengaluru-1201009-2018-03-30 ). On the other hand, tfipost seems to at least post true stuff, though it still cherrypicks news from what I understand. So, are both of these sources any good in reporting political news (which is about 90% of what they post)? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

HITC source for Darren Barnet

Is HITC news piece "Never Have I Ever: Who is Darren Barnet? Explore the age, Instagram and previous roles of Paxton actor" a reliable source for the Darren Barnet article? Specifically for his DOB. Other sources state his birthday is April 27 but not the year. An IP user keeps adding it back to the article. TJMSmith (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a reliable source "[135]" written by Metro, which can conclude has born circa 1991. You can change it back, because IP user 2600:1700:5040:3cf0:4195:535c:1a77:be2d keeps deleting it. It is clear Metro spoke to the actor. Factchecking139 (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Verywell

I would like to ask the community to review the ban on Verywell. Verywell is a family of four websites: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, and Verywell Family. They deliver short articles on very basic topics, written in simple, plain language. Generally, they don't offer much content that can't be found in better, more professional sources. However, outright banning the Verywell sites is excessive. They don't seem to be unreliable. They just offer high-school level content, written in simple language, aimed at a wide audience. As a tertiary source, it may be of use in certain situations. Recently, I tried to cite a Verywell Mind article at ICD-11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it turned out to be on the spam-blacklist. I bypassed this by using links from Google and archive.today, but instead of skirting the rules, I'd rather see the ban lifted.

Verywell is part of Dotdash, the successor of About.com, which closed down in 2017. Dotdash and its websites are currently listed at WP:RSPSOURCES with a mark. The entry claims that the Verywell sites are on there "[d]ue to persistent violations of WP:MEDRS". No source is given for this claim. The entry lists 16 threads. 15 of them discuss the now defunct About.com. Only one of them, from December 2018, is about Verywell, but it wasn't really a discussion. I found no actual debate on Verywell anywhere on Wikipedia, although I did find two LinkReports regarding verywell.com, a domain which now redirects to verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com (search).

Each Verywell site has a team of reviewers consisting of board-certified physicians and other professionals, who approve articles before they are posted (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family). Also, each Verywell site has a certificate from the Health On the Net Foundation, which should assure some degree of quality (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family).

Also listed in the Dotdash entry at WP:RSPSOURCES are: The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, and TripSavvy. I think each should have their own entry and explanation, similar to Investopedia, which is also owned by Dotdash, but has its own entry. Furthermore, I wonder if Dotdash itself should be on the WP:RSPSOURCES list, because the website dotdash.com is in itself not a source.

I suggest the Verywell websites be marked as , with an explanation that they are tertiary references, should be used with caution, and only as ancillary sources.

Thanks for reading, Manifestation (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Standards at WP:MEDRS are high for a reason, and not all content written by certified professions meets the reliability standard; see WP:MEDORG. Although you would use the source in a limited and responsible way, other users might not. buidhe 21:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I get that, but the Verywell websites have an editorial board of certified professionals. The sites are not unreliable, just simplified medical resources written for the average Joe or Jane. They should be used with caution, but I can't see why they were put on the banlist. They are not spam sites.
I should note that I have encountered two situations on Wikipedia in which I wanted to cite a Verywell page, but couldn't. The first was on the article Remission (medicine), in which I added a bit about NED (No Evidence of Disease), a term used in cancer treatment. There's an article at Verywell Health about NED, and it's the only web article I could find that specifically discusses it. Alas, I couldn't use it, so I cited other refs instead which discuss remission more broadly.
The second situation was on the article ICD-11, which I wrote from scratch. I've cited a Verywell Health article as an additional overview ref of the mental disorders chapter of the ICD-11. As I mentioned above, I bypassed the blacklist this time. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Verywell before today, but I just spent a bit of time perusing verywellhealth.com, primarily the material on vaccines, infectious diseases, etc. (which is more up my alley). It all looked fine. No one is suggesting that this is the highest quality source around, but I see no reason why it should be banned. Does anyone see examples of very poor material on the site (or recall why it was banned in the first place, I can't find an older discussion on the matter)? Ajpolino (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino, these sites were added to the spam blacklist by User:JzG after this request from Jytdog in November 2018.

Manifestation also had a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2020#Verywell (the spam blacklist's usual page for such requests) with User:Praxidicae about three weeks ago. I believe that User:Beetstra, User:Kuru, and User:GermanJoe are currently active on the spam blacklist and might be able to evaluate this situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

As clear from the blacklisting requests and the reports that COIBot saved, this was blacklisted because it was spammed, and rather clear COPYVIO violations. That some organisation is well respected, or that a site is regarded to be a reliable source does not exclude that said organisation is participating in aggressive SEO activities. It is unlikely to be unbanned until the spamming has stopped. Whitelisting is your way forward for the material you really need. Seen the multitude of IPs (there are IPs in a couple of ranges who have been adding this) and editors (there is a sockpuppetry case) this is better controlled through whitelisting (no, 1 year is generally not enough).

Note: do not evade the ban, you are violating policies. Get what you really need whitelisted. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Beetstra. I would love to see evidence of the Verywell sites being spammed. I looked at the sockpuppet investigation you referred to, which is the only piece of evidence cited in the previous thread on Verywell at Spam-blacklist. It is a very small case, consisting of 1 master, 2 socks, and 1 IP sock. What happened was:

• 19 November 2018: Mservi68 (talk · contribs) adds a few urls to Choking game;
• 30 November 2018: Dulanji Perera (talk · contribs) makes a few meaningless edits to Social anxiety disorder;
• 1 December 2018: 192.248.16.125 (talk), a shared L.E.A.R.N. IP, probably from a high school in Sri Lanka, makes two edits to Social anxiety disorder;
• 1 December 2018: sockpuppet Dulanji P (talk · contribs) is created, and makes one edit to Social anxiety disorder with the es: "added the citations";
• 1 December 2018: Jytdog reverts the edits as a copyright violation, see page history;
• 2 December 2018: Spam-blacklist thread created by Jytdog, who writes that the Verywell sites are "being added to pages by students and people new to editing about health. It would be better if people didn't use them... but that is not what this list is for".
• 2 December 2018: Dulanji Perera reappears, and seems to re-add the reverted content to Social anxiety disorder;
• 2 December 2018: SPI instigated, all accounts blocked;
• 2 December 2018: Three of the four Verywell sites are blacklisted.

Unfortunately, Sphilbrick felt they had to revdelete the edits, destroying the evidence (see log). What is obvious, however, is that this wasn't a big case. Certainly not enough to blacklist three sites over.

I've looked at LinkReports/verywell.com and checked all the listed IP edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (deleted), 7 (possibly spam), 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Only the 7th edit, from 58.120.109.240 (talk), appears to be spam. All of the other edits were likely done in good faith. Is there more evidence of spamming? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging JzG here, who originally added the sites to the banlist. JzG, I know this is 1.5 years ago, but do you remember anything of this? Thanks, Manifestation (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, spam blacklisting and reliability are different. If a site is reliable but spammed, then we can whitelist links where there is clear consensus on talk for their use. This was definitely spammed.

Also revdel does not "destroy" evidence. It's a necessary protection legally, and the edits are still visible to us admins. Guy (help!) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:
"This was definitely spammed."
Do you happen to remember where it was spammed? As in, on what article(s)? Maybe I can plow through the history and locate the edits and IPs as evidence.
"Also revdel does not "destroy" evidence. It's a necessary protection legally, and the edits are still visible to us admins."
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, various sockpuppets are identified above. Look at their contributions. Guy (help!) 13:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't a spammer. That was a student from Sri Lanka who copy-pasted text from Verywell into Social anxiety disorder. She created Dulanji Perera and Dulanji P. She may also have been Mservi68, but I'm not sure, because the IP address is shared among students, and Mservi68 did not edit Social anxiety disorder. It is possible she made the addition in good faith, clumsily creating two accounts while also editing while logged out. (I am assuming she's female, because Dulanji Perera is a feminine name.) - Manifestation (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, then I suggest you go to WT:SBL and ask for delisting. I do not remember anything of it.

Note though that sites like this are likely to be considered on a par with Livestrong, and removed as failing WP:MEDRS for most claims they are likely to be used to support. Guy (help!) 14:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, ‘destroying the evidence’? No, those are clear copyright violations which are hidden from public view for good reason. They are visible to admins.

This discussion has no place here. Even if you get the consensus that this is a reliable source, it is blacklisted based on the basis of copyright violations and spamming. The original request did only list a few accounts (though enough seen the copyvio), the reports show more, like 13 IPs in a short range which, seen their attempts, are very likely related to a couple of other IPs who tried to add the links Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:
"then I suggest you go to WT:SBL and ask for delisting".
I did, but Praxidicae cited WP:RSP, so I thought I had to go here.

@Beetstra:
"This discussion has no place here."
Yes it has, because Verywell is at WP:RSPSOURCES, which claims that it is on the banlist due to repeated violations of WP:MEDRS, while providing no evidence of this. I do not believe Verywell is unreliable.
"it is blacklisted based on the basis of copyright violations and spamming."
A copyright violation is not a reason to blacklist a site. Also, I have not found evidence of spamming yet. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I just discovered something that could be misunderstood as evidence. At LinkReports/verywellmind.com, if you search for "Video game addiction", you will see that several dynamic IPs *attempted 35 times* to add one particular Verywell Mind article to Video game addiction. Attempted, because the edits were kept being blocked. These attempts were made in January and February 2019, after Verywell was added to the blacklist. I believed for a minute that this was a not-so-smart bot. However, after checking the other edits made from these IPs, I now believe this was in fact someone from Ethiopia who repeatedly tried to insert the link, somehow incapable of accepting that it didn't work. Again, I still haven't seen evidence of spamming. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

University Press of Mississippi

Is the University Press of Mississippi considered generally reliable or should consideration be used before it is used in an article? TheAwesomeHwyh 19:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a reputable publisher, sponsored by a network of accredited universities in the state. I don't think the word "reliable" applies to a publisher, since even the most reputable publishers sometimes publish highly unreliable material (an example: Elsevier publishes extensively on homeopathy [136], and presumably none of it satisfies WP:MEDRS). So reliability should be judged separately for each source. NightHeron (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Most university press material is reliable, but it never hurts to check a few book reviews before using extensively. You can access most academic book reviews at Sci-Hub or (legally) WP:RX. buidhe 21:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journal R&I articles as WP:PRIMARY?

Dlthewave has removed passages from the race and intelligence article (9 February and 24 February) with the rationale that they are primary sources. Now he tagged another passage with the primary source inline template (27 April). Grayfell reverted my removal of the primary tag, so the interpretation clearly is controversial.

There were a few other sources that were claimed to be primary sources, but this one was in all three edits:

• Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R (2005). "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" (PDF). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 11 (2): 246–8. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.186.102. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-11-03. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Is this a WP:PRIMARY source?

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law is a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Psychological Association. A scientific review article released in such a journal, even if authored by controversial authors like Jensen and Rushton, isn't a primary source. The name of the article, Thirty Years of Research..., already reveals the nature of it. They are reviewing research on the topic and then offering their own conclusions, like a normal article in such a journal. Wikipedia then attributes their conclusion on the research and cites the article.

WP:PRIMARY only states that something like this is a primary source: a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. However, in the discussion on Dlthewave's talkpage, he cited WP:ALLPRIMARY which states that A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material). WP:ALLPRIMARY is titled "All sources are primary for something". Then what's the point of the primary source tagging if every source is a primary source in some way? Are you allowed to remove any peer-reviewed journal article on this basis?

With the recent race and intelligence RfC determining some race and intelligence authors as WP:FRINGE, like Jensen and Rushton, editors should be even more careful here. The policy has an extensive section on sourcing which is of use here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Sourcing. --Pudeo (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, in context – Even Rushton & Jensen's 2005 30-year review is a primary source for some content, although it is mostly secondary-source content. The point of primary source tagging if every source is a primary source is to tag article content that is sourced to a primary source, not to tag an entire source as "primary". Rarely are sources purely primary or purely secondary; almost all of them are a mix of both. In the current case, the content at issue is Jensen and Rushton argued that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as affirmative action or placing a premium on diversity. They also argued for the importance of teaching people not to overgeneralize or stereotype individuals based on average group differences, because of the significant overlap of people with varying intelligence between different races., which is cited to R&J 2005. This specific content is talking about Rushton and Jensen's views, and that's cited to Rushton and Jensen's paper expressing their views. R&J are primary sources for their own opinion. But, I think all that misses the point a bit. The problem is that the primary source doesn't establish neutrality – i.e., that inclusion of R&J's opinion is WP:DUE. If R&J's opinion were WP:DUE, we should be able to source it to someone else describing R&J's opinion (a secondary source). So I think an {{undue}} tag is better than a {{primary}} tag personally, but either way, I agree the content isn't properly sourced in accordance with WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. That does make sense, to a degree, although it is rare that journal articles treated this way. Usually WP:attribution is enough and then editors just cover views represented in reliable sources. If Wikipedia was to limit coverage only to sources that describe someone else's views (nearing the border between WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY), it would have a massive impact, especially in non-historical topics. In history, it's obviously more common to have sources that describe what some historical figure thought. But perhaps this is justified with the WP:FRINGE situation, and it boils down to editor judgment. --Pudeo (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich is correct. The source is primary for the authors' opinion, so the tag is not inappropriate. buidhe 09:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• The issue here is that these are essentially fringe views, and we should not include a fringe view based solely on an exposition of that fringe view - we should use secondary sources that analyse and describe the fringe view and its status and level of acceptance. Guy (help!) 11:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes To be clear, the passage in question is "Jensen and Rushton argued that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as affirmative action or placing a premium on diversity. They also argued for the importance of teaching people not to overgeneralize or stereotype individuals based on average group differences, because of the significant overlap of people with varying intelligence between different races." which is sourced to Rushton and Jensen (free access available here courtesy of Linda Gottfredson).

According to WP:ALLPRIMARY, "A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)." In this case, Rushton and Jensen's paper consists mainly of a secondary review of previous research, but it also includes their own views such as "Still other policy issues (e.g., affirmative action, the value of diversity) might merit reconsideration based on the degree to which heredity as opposed to culture turns out to be the causal agent" which is a primary source for the authors' views. As others have pointed out, the real concern here is that a primary-source opinion does not necessarily meet WP:DUE WEIGHT which is based on secondary coverage, so perhaps an "undue" tag would have been more appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 12:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• There's a current related discussion on similar issues, in the FA context, at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#What_constitutes_a_reliable_source? Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

booksfact.com

At Yuz Asaf I ran in to a cite from something called booksfact.com [137]. Opinions on the RS-ness of this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of a source claiming spurious wakeups can occur without ever having been signaled

It's sourced to a quote from a popular programming how-to but I question the authority. Requesting discussion at Talk:Spurious wakeup#Not just spurious, but random wakeups? Really? Msnicki (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Zirikli

Is al-Aʻlām by Khayr al-Din al-Zirikli reliable for the ethnicity of Al-Tahawi? I know that it's a tertiary source (a tarajim: biographies), but I don't know its reliability. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I recommend to use some newer work, if available. I would assume good faith (even though this author is described as a "Syrian nationalist"), so this source may be useable, but with a caution. It could be used for basic uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for possibly controversial informations (eg. ethnicity). Pavlor (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this one be added as RS?

I don't know how or when to add a source to the list, but as it was recently challenged by a new editor, would like it to be considered for inclusion so that it can be easily referenced. It is Creative Spirits, a resource for matters relating to Indigenous peoples in Australia. Although I was initially a bit cautious because it is a self-published source (created by Jens Korff), I always check sources, and have found his material to be pretty meticulously sourced. (This means that I have often also gone to the original source, if available.) I have also found him cited in other sources upon occasion. As he says on the page I've linked to "Some of my content, both articles and images, have also been published in other works around the world", including a Year 10 textbook. The National Library of Australia catalogue entry is here, and that also leads to their archiving of the website here. He is quoted on the Victorian education website here - History: Aboriginal Australia and on Austlit and there's an article on Artshub (paywall). It's cited in an article in Aboriginal History (journal) and others here, here, here, and others. Can someone please advise if/how this can be recorded as an RS, or does it need to be posted elsewhere for debate? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would be cautious about using about using this source: certainly not BLPs or anything controversial and most info can and should be sourced to better quality sources. As you can see by searching uses of the source many of its uses on Wikipedia do not follow this rule. buidhe 08:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Tough one, it seems to fit SPS but the Australia's web archive thought it “to be an important component of the national documentary heritage” (assuming of course this is not a lie). The best I can say is it might be, but there needs to be a bit more evidence he is an acknowledged expert than one Ozzie government database.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe and Slatersteven. I share your hesitation, and would not use it for anything controversial or BLP myself; hence wondering about adding it as "generally reliable", with added qualifiers. Pandora (the NLA archive) is overseen by librarians and (as a former one of those in a past life) I trust their judgement on the whole, and it does have specific criteria for inclusion. I usually check out Korff's sources and add them either instead or as well, but on the whole his info checks out, and I've rarely found anything that I couldn't dig up somewhere else. I just feel that it is better mentioned on this page than not at all, so that editors have something to refer to if they encounter it. It's pretty useful for having a lot of content in one place. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This is really too specialized and limited in the number of allowable uses to go on the RSP list, which is really for sources of wide usage. buidhe 11:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note... we don’t actually maintain a list of “generally reliable“ sources (here are too many for such a list to be feasible)... instead we maintain a much much shorter list of generally UNRELIABLE sources. To make THAT list, a source has to be pretty bad. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

AXS as a reputable music critic source

I am busy reviewing a song article for GA and came across an opinion from AXS which are a ticket merchant site that appears to have WP:USERG content where "contributors" write articles for their site. This rang several alarm bells for me, so I am asking for second opinions please?

• The article in question
• His bio says he's written for Medium, AXS, FanSided, Ranker, InfoWars, Bam Smack Pow, Guilty Eats - none of which are reputable music critic sources. In fact all of them are blogs or user contributed sites.

Is there any reliability in this source/site? CoolMarc 15:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say not, I suppose it depends on what for, but overall no not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)