Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sources used in Iranian presidential election, 2013

I would like to ask a question about reliability of the sources used in the opinion polls section of the article on Iranian elections. The sources are all in Persian so I present them for non-Persian speakers.

• This source is Rasanehiran.com and the opinion polls cited here is conducted by IRIB, State TV -which is not independent. About section of the website is empty.
• [1] cites a polls conducted by Tebyan.net. Tebyan is one of the website of the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization which is officially under the control of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
• ie92.ir an unknown website. Here the website claims that it supports "the interests of the Islamic Republic".
• this one: Nothing about the website. Who is behind this website?
• iranelect.ir is not an official website and again nothing in the about section. Online survey.
• Tebyan see above.
• a forum.
• alef.ir is the website of Ahmad Tavakoli, a deputy of the Parliament. The polls here is conducted by "a reliable organisation" as is presented in the news article. The name of this organisation is not mentioned.
• Fars News Agency is another source.

No editorial oversight has been presented in the "about" section of these websites. Noted that all of these polls were conducted online and their methods is unknown.

Here is the disputed section:

Poll source	Date updated	Ghalibaf	Jalili	Rezaei	Rouhani	Velayati	Aref	Haddad-Adel	Gharazi	Others	Undecided
Rasanehiran	11 May 2013	21%	10%	9%	7%	7%	5%	2%	1%	37%	1%
Akharinnews	12 May 2013	39.54%	7.21%	–	1.75%	24.74%	2.75%	7.68%	17.39%	–
Alborznews	13 May 2013	15.08%	1.00%	5.07%	0.05%	8.07%	1.03%	7.06%	18.06%	17.08%	9.03%
ie92	14 May 2013	18%	7%	12%	8%	7%	1%	1%	4%	40%	2%
Arnanews	15 May 2013	8.8%	9.3%	3.9%	0.2%	3.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.3%	70.5%	3.1%
Iranelect	15–16 May 2013	47%	21%	14%	10%	–	–	7%	–	–
Kashanjc	16 May 2013	43.25%	1.25%	5.81%	1.97%	24.04%	2.21%	6.46%	4.17%	9.43%	–
ie92	17 May 2013	16%	7%	11%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	44%	2%
Iranamerica	18 May 2013	33.33%	11.11%	22.22%	11.11%	–	–	–	11.11%	–
ie92	19 May 2013	15%	7%	10%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	47%	1%
AleF	20 May 2013	19.8%	11.6%	4.6%	12.5%	13.2%	12.5	4.7%	1%	19.1%	1%
Farsnews	21 May 2013	20.1%	13.5%	10.9%	6.6%	7.4%	3.3%	3.1%	0.2%	31.9%	3%
ie92	22 May 2013	31%	17%	22%	13%	12%	1%	1%	0.1%	–	4%
Fararu	23 May 2013	18.84%	9.56%	7.49%	24.36%	3.86%	30.96%	0.93%	4.01%	–	–
Ghatreh	23 May 2013	17.57%	16.83%	6.38%	17.32%	6.9%	30.87%	1.16%	2.92%	–	–
Seratnews	23 May 2013	22.96%	40.47%	4.84%	10.14%	6.93%	9.97%	0.84%	3.84%	–	–
Ofoghnews	23 May 2013	20.00%	19.00%	6.00%	20.00%	8.00%	23.00%	0.1 %	4.00%	–	–

thinkprogress.org as a generally accepted WP:RS

This is a question on rather thinkprogress.org should generally be accepted as a WP:RS. It has won several awards and has a credentialed staff. See their about page. Casprings (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine why they should be any more than we shouldn't accept NewsMax or WorldNetDaily. They're too partisan to be of value, and have a history of inaccurate reporting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What is there history of "inaccurate reporting". Do you have a link? Mother Jones is generally considered at WP:RS and has a clear view point. One can have a view point and still be accurate.Casprings (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Mother Jones is a great example of a partisan source with something to offer. With ThinkProgress, plenty of blogs go into detail in debunking ThinkProgress's blog posts, such as this and this, which would not be good enough to use in an article, but provide ample demonstration of TP's inability to discern facts. We should be using them sparingly, and only for claims about themselves or their positions when necessary. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the path to judging this be by independent judgements? For example, NewsTrust gives Thinkprogress a rating of 3.4 out of 5. It gives foxnews a rating of 2.6 out of 5.0. I am not saying this is the end all, be all, but there have to be organizations out there that at least try to judge sites for fairness and accuracy. The posts you put up, I think that the claims of non accuracy could be attacked. Figure out some organization that is neutral and finding their judgements would be a good path. Casprings (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm not sure what NewsTrust is or why we should buy their claims (especially if they're putting a mainstream, credible source below a highly partisan blog with a history of errors), but I don't see the history of accuracy I think is necessary. Is there a specific reference it's trying to cite? Do we have a better, neutral source to use instead? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Would have to explore to find something. I do find a lot of columns saying they are accurate or not accurate. However, I can say the same about Huffington Post or Fox News. I think of some note is that they have won awards from what I would consider neutral sources. For example, Official Honoree in the 2009 and 2012 Webby. Another example is that it won an award from The Sidney Hillman Foundation. Awards from neutral sources should also play into this.Casprings (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What raised the question of ThinkProgress, then? Why is this here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I edit american politics articles alot and the issue often comes up. I saw it again. I decided it would be nice just to have a general consensus one way or the other.Casprings (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You and I both. I've done my best to try and remove blatantly partisan sources wherever possible, my personal suggestion would be to avoid it unless there's no other option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

<- No comment on whether the blog qualifies as an RS and under what circumstances, but either way, consensus will need to deal with the reality that they appear to be used quite extensively[2], including for BLPs such as Doug Lamborn, where they are cited as source for a quote by a living person. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This might be a better link, although anything nearing 400 is nearly 400 too many. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The original question as posed was: "This is a question on rather thinkprogress.org should generally be accepted as a WP:RS."

The site appears to be reliably published. It has an editorial staff and a history of fact checking. As for the bias of the source and whether that effects reliability for our standards:

Biased or opinionated sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

--Amadscientist (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they have a reputation of fact checking, for the record. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to convince editors of such. It is not necessary for you to believe it, but if you stall consensus over it, be prepared to demonstrate it or it will simply be overlooked. We all have our opinions Thargor, how much weight that is given in a discussion is only based on the strength of the argument. Not believing is not a strong argument.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I should mention tabloid journalism. Generally speaking when a source is considered "tabloid journalism" it fails criteria for use as a source for facts. If one believes that a reference is such a source, that would require a demonstration as well and be discussed by editors to decide if use of the source is not appropriate as "tabloid journalism".--Amadscientist (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I'm just curious as to where this supposed reputation for fact-checking comes from. And, for that matter, what it's being used for that raised the question. I suspect we can find a better source for whatever it is ThinkProgress is claiming. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If I may, you should first consider: What specific citation in support of what specific edit? Thinkprogress? The website has a stated general bias. Some people on there do good work, some of what's on the site not so much. It, like, depends.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Context does matter with any cite. That said, coming to a general consensus is a starting point.Casprings (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• One point I didn't place in the OP, but I should have. Should thinkprogress be considered, a WP:NEWSBLOG?
• First off- no such thing as "generally accepted" RS, especially for news reports, each fact must be NPOV and non-partisan and that is why the above statement that Fox is a "mainstream and credible" source is laughable, no there not and anything on their networks which is partisan or editorializing has always found itself here and we have always said Fox news in those instances is not reliable, in general I would say we've declared Fox news non-RS more often than we've found it RS. The standard is if it is true, then in that instance of that fact which is true that particular RS is reliable. If an RS were to say Kazakhstan is in South America I don't care if that RS has been right 99.9999% of the time, it isn't reliable and we don't use it.Camelbinky (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, news organizations are generally accepted to be WP:RS. Per WP:NEWSORG,""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). " As far as Foxnews, there was actually a discussion on it at WP:RSN. That can be found here.Casprings (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Don't see why not, within reason. We use Fox News as an RS, after all. They employ credentialed professionals and some of their coverage is first rate stuff, especially Climate Progress, which is edited by a doctorate from MIT. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Reliable source Challenging their status because they are "progressive" is disingenuous. Many reputable news sources have an editorial position. The New York Times and The Guardian are liberal, The Times and The Telegraph are conservative. Reliability relates to whether the facts presented in news stories are accurate, which in this case they are. TFD (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Where is this evidence of reliability? I do want to know where that's coming from. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Various awards from neutral organizations, a credentialed staff, and a rating from a neutral organization is the current evidence. There is some. Rather it is enough, I don't know.Casprings (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what makes NewsTrust neutral. Their funding comes significantly from ideologically-left organizations. A credentialed staff and awards doesn't tell us much either, neither of those things are especially difficult to obtain. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There are claims the NYT is liberal. I would consider it rather neutral, as far as their news pages. Their OP pages do tend to slant liberal.Casprings (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

NewsTrust says it is reliable. NewsTrust partners include the include the Huffington Post, PBS, PolitiFact and the Washington Post. (Note: whether or not the NYT is liberal depends on how one uses the term. They are certainly more liberal than the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, which are also rs.) TFD (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is NewsTrust considered a worthwhile arbiter? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

One reason is perhaps because they are partners of sources we generally consider reliable, such as PBS and the Washington Post.Casprings (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you verify that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Here. And alot of other partners as well. Casprings (talk)

• The problem with Think Progress and similar sources is that their choice of reporting is strongly tainted by a bias. If you read only Think Progress or NewsMax you will get a slanted presentation of the issues because they highlight only stories that support their particular point of view while ignoring or discrediting those that go against it. But from what I have seen of Think Progress, the articles do appear to check their facts and I don't see any reason to prohibit its use as a source. We just have to make sure we use Think Progress to cite verifiable information and not "The Truth". ThemFromSpace 20:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is think Progress newsmax? To me, it looks to have a higher reputation for accuracy. Casprings (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe either of them have any actual reputation for accuracy. It's why I'm questioning where this reputation comes from and why people believe it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC ThinkProgress

This is a question on rather thinkprogress.org should generally be accepted as a WP:RS.Should thinkprogress be considered, a reliable WP:NEWSBLOG? It has won several awards and has a credentialed staff. See their about page. NewsTrust gives Thinkprogress a rating of 3.4 out of 5. Casprings (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Only for claims attributed specifically to it, and sparingly at that. Treat it like any other highly partisan, somewhat suspect source like NewsMax or WorldNetDaily. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Thargor Orlando. Fundamentally, we're talking about a partisan website. Like any partisan website, it should be used sparingly and cautiously, if at all. Our default approach should be to look for better, less partisan sources wherever possible. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed with MastCell and Thargor Orlando. Arkon (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• The comparison to NewsMax and WND is prima facie absurd. The only thing they have in common is that they are internet sites dealing with US politics from a particular orientation. We don't treat print and television media with political orientations this way, since Fox News is widely accepted as a reliable source, so we shouldn't treat a website this way. TP often produces quality work, it is staffed with professionals with solid traditional credentials who have gone on to work at many other media outlets which are unquestionably accepted as reliable sources. TP should be considered usable under the right circumstances, and certainly there's no reason that subsets of TP can't be accepted in all cases, such as Climate Progress, headed by an MIT doctorate and has little to do with the daily slugfest of partisan politics. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, ThinkProgress is more sober and less ridiculous than WorldNetDaily and NewsMax, which are apparently written with tinfoil hat firmly in place. That's a matter of degree, and it's why ThinkProgress may be useful sparingly whereas the other two should be avoided in all but the most extraordinary circumstances. But the fact remains that all three fall under the general category of "partisan websites", and any time we think about citing a partisan website, we should stop and look for better sources instead. If we can't find any, and if a subject is covered only by partisan websites, then we need to think seriously about whether it belongs in a Wikipedia article. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Bais, in of itself, is not a reason for a source to not be considered WP:RS. Per WP:RS:

Biased or opinionated sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

I would think there needs to be a better argument than simply bias.Casprings (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The best argument is that they cannot be trusted to give an objective, factual account of what they report on. It's an issue of bias to a point, but the biases are so significant as to cloud what they do. Compare it to, say, Mother Jones or National Review, which are partisan/ideological publications that do not let their ideologies get in the way of presenting information in a factual way. ThinkProgress, truly, is no better than Alternet or NewsMax. In no way have they shown a fidelity to the truth, in no way have they shown themselves to be worthwhile sources for use in an online encyclopedia except in rare, specific circumstances. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"In no way have they shown a fidelity to the truth". No way at all? Not even a little? That's an incredibly broad statement, got anything to back it up? Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I second that. You do have to back up such claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And yet I've asked numerous times for examples of their reliability and keep getting tossed to NewsTrust. That's strange. But to answer the question, I provided a few examples of their factual inaccuracy above, but they've also been caught making misstatements about groups like the NRA and Americans for Tax Reform, and multiple groups have noted their claims about Limbaugh advertising during the Flake situation. They're not a news organization, they're an ideological opinion provider. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is up to you to demonstrate that they are not reliable. As yet you have shown nothing to contradict that they are a news blog. Personal opinion aside, find us a reliable source that mentions that Thinkprogress has an issue with facts and then we can talk further. Until then you are just cherry picking.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it up to the person who wants to include information to show how they're reliable? I've shown two instances of debunking here, and I can present links for other entries that dispute ThinkProgress if need be. They wouldn't be appropriate for articles, but they would be appropriate for showing ThinkProgress's lack of trust. I also, again, do not understand under what circumstances we'd actually need them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

An example or two hardly supports a broad statement like "In no way have they shown a fidelity to the truth". Similar examples can be found for any source widely considered an RS, certainly dozens or perhaps hundreds can be found for Fox News alone. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So you want to include them: where's the record for accuracy? Where's the proof they're what you claim they are? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Tou made a specific claim in this section that multiple parties have asked you to substantiate. Will you do so or will you instead retract your claim? Gamaliel (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've linked a few above, and can offer more if necessary. If you want to include the information, you are responsible for explaining why they're reliable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you, a few examples hardly substantiates such a broad assertion. All parties in this discussion are responsible for backing up their claims, you have no exemption to this. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. If you have evidence of TP's reliability, this is the time to present it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence has been presented elsewhere on this page, as you know. Now is the time for you to substantiate or retract your claim. We're going in circles because you made an incredibly broad assertion that you refuse to back up. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No evidence has been supported outside of a crowdsourced news aggregator and handwaving about their staff. No evidence is forthcoming, unlike the evidence I've presented thus far, so it tells me that TP probably isn't reliable until I see evidence otherwise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

When will you present evidence backing up your assertions? You have yet to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I would point out that NewsTrust rates them than foxnews. They are an organization with many partners we would consider WP:RS.

I don't see how them asserting they're partners constitutes them actually having partnerships. Or, for that matter, how "partner" as they define it would work the same way the rest of us would. An example: the Huffington Post "partnership" consists of 12 posts tagged "NewsTrust" from over 2 years ago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am not prepared to make a special case out of thinkprogress as no demonstration has been made that they lack anything that puts them into a special category. It is a newsblog in the exact same vein as Huffington Post and as yet I see no evidence that they deserve to be placed outside our definition of a reliable source. I do not believe it has been shown by any editor that this site is more or less partisan than any other site or that our policies and guidelines should be ignored here to improve the project.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with MastCell. It can be used for uncontroversial statements of fact, but in general I think we should prefer news sources with a more broad focus. I would say the same thing about several other bloggy news outlets on both the left and the right. If we can find a source that says the same thing and appears in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc, we might as well use that. a13ean (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with Mastcell who states: " Like any partisan website, it should be used sparingly and cautiously, if at all. Our default approach should be to look for better, less partisan sources wherever possible." No. Our default should be to stay within our guidelines until they are changed. To me this is like saying we have determined that we cannot trust them. Yet we have not stated why. The same thing was attempted with Huffington Post and while it is a matter of consensus it keeps coming back to this noticeboard as a point of contention. No, I am sorry, but I see nothing within guidelines and policy from Mastcell's argument to see it as a legitimate "default".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of basic common sense, when trying to write a serious encyclopedia article, to use partisan websites sparingly as sources and to prefer reputable non-partisan sources wherever possible. Good editors recognize that. It's a best practice; if our policies don't reflect it, they should. I'm not saying that we "can't trust" ThinkProgress—I'm saying that a neutral, reputable news outlet is a better sourcing fit for us than a partisan website in virtually all cases. MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify. It isn't that I don't necessarily agree with the overall sentiment, just that it is not our current default process. I do agree with the spirit of our policy in that, even a partisan source is not unreliable merely because it is partisan.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't to compare WP:RS. It is a question over rather a source is WP:RS. It is a different question rather a sources is WP:RS, over which source one should use in a certain article. Huffington Post is a WP:RS, but Washington Post might be a better source to use.Casprings (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. You see you are still making assumptions. The issue with using a partisan source is whether the source has content worth using for the referenced content. If the Huffington Post article was aggregated from another source (many times they are) then they are not even really the source. But if Huffington Post was used as an original story, written by a journalist not giving opinion, and the source is giving the take of one side that is not given in another source (for example lets use your suggestion of the Washington Post), how is the Washington Post necessarily a better choice? It really is a matter of that local consensus to determine what is the best choice in that situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• They're an advocacy group, not a news organization, right? They should be used with extreme caution, especially since virtually all of their blog posts concern living people. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • They are a news group with an editorial policy, just like Fox News, the New York Times and many other reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What is it that makes them a "news group" as opposed to an advocacy group, specifically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• News aggregator. Treat as news aggregator. Not automatically reliable or unreliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• After reading this discussion I think that there's no reason that TP shouldn't be considered a reliable source. Yes, they have an editorial viewpoint. Perhaps they could even be considered a "biased source." So what? Lots of news organizations have a viewpoint and could be considered biased. We use Fox News a lot for all sorts of things. And part of Wikipedia is about documenting controversies and I can't see any reason why it's not appropriate to use well-sourced blogs that have well-qualified staff to illustrate progressive viewpoints in political articles where that's necessary and if appropriately referenced. Finally, Mr Orlando has pointed to a couple of famous mistakes that TP has made, but really, if the standard is "perfect news source that's never made mistakes" we wouldn't have any reliable sources at all. AgnosticAphid talk 17:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable. The site meets the basic criteria for a reliable source in that it clearly has editorial oversight, a line of accountability and a reputation for accuracy (which does not need to be unblemished). That's all there is to the question, really. It is a source with an ideological slant, which does mean, as noted by others above, that common sense and caution should be applied. It shouldn't be heavily relied on in a single article and, where is it cited for opinion, the attribution should be clear. But those are considerations to make case by case. Formerip (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Non-RS blog at least for our purposes, even though I am a great fan of that site. Fortunately, they tend to provide their sources for the items most important to mention here so one just has to backtrack a bit further in the search for obvious RS sources for the same material. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable source: Good editorial oversight, a well-qualified and credentialled staff, and a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Meets all of our requirements. Whether the source has an editorial bias means nothing as long as their journalism isn't compromised, and the OP has consistently failed to produce any credible evidence that this is the case. As long as the individual sources are used with good editorial judgement on our part, I see no policy -based reason to claim that the source is universally unreliable. Comparisons to OneNewsNow and blogs are unjustified and misleading to the point of being dishonest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable source, rises above NEWSBLOG, should be used with caution and attribution if the content is opinion rather than fact. The editorial backing of Think Progress is more reliable than a general news blog. Klaus Dodds, professor of geopolitics at Royal Holloway, University of London, writes in his Oxford-published Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction that Think Progress and Daily Kos are useful and trustworthy websites for monitoring both mainstream media and right-wing blogs.[3]
• Generally not reliable. I see no reputation for fact-checking. Their bias extends to not checking data which might lead to facts contrary to their ideology. And, contrary to a statement made above, evidence for reliability is' needed for inclusion. We cannot include Joe's newsblog as a reliable source without evidence. The opinions presented are notable, but only as opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Citable only for opinions cited and attributed as opinion It is not a generally reliable source for claims of fact, and it is moderately apparent that it has a specific point of view on many topics, suggesting that its views may be a teensy bit unbalanced on specific topics. If a source makes unbalanced claims and posits opinions based on such unbalanced claims, it no longer meets Wikipedia's requirement that "facts" be subject to "fact-checking." Collect (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Look, this is really easy. First Collect, I am sorry, but no. There is absolutely no way a source can be determined as non reliable just because of any individual mistakes made or Fox news would burn through the screen when you attempt to use it. No, it has to do with the individual story being used. IF it is an opinion Blog than you are correct about attribution, however even Huffington Post has original news stories that are not opinion. The important thing is to know what is an opinion piece and what is a news story. As long as the news story is not just aggregated from another site it can be used to cite facts. The one thing I have not seen one editor mention yet is our policy on quoting from partisan publication. Quotes from such are to be viewed as suspicious as they may be quoted incorrectly or out of context. That is in regards to all partisan sources regardless of politics, religion or any such source that clearly has a partisan view.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • • Wonderful = you rebut something I did not say! Sorry -- but I find it hard to respond to a post which mischaracterizes my position do thoroughly. Where something is basically an opinion than it must be so ascribed as an opinion. In a case where a source uses "selective facts" (note: "fact-checking" is not a lie-meter, but also a measure of how facts are presented in a source - if facts are presented in a misleading manner to any extent, they become an expression of opinion. Which is how WaPo assigns Pinocchios not on literal "fact" but on whether the fact is misrepresented. Note the famed "Pravda" car race headline "Russian car came in second, American car next to last" which was a "fact" but where the presentation of the "fact" rendered it an opinion as far as most people would be concerned.) Collect (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC) (before anyone complains about that example - it is a famed "anecdote" cited as such and is not claimed to come from a "reliable source" <g> Collect (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Reliable source. Per WP:NEWSORG. Otherwise, all partisan sources would have to be reviewed as potentially non-reliable. WP, as noted above, makes clear that: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." But ultimately, each reader will decide what is reliable. Editors do a disservice by attempting to self-impose their own partisanship upon what readers read - and/or how much reliability to confer on what they read. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:B4AF:4E3E:A87A:B57E (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not Reliable Source They don't hold themselves out as a newsorg, they are proud of their role as an advocacy org. They are almost exclusively staffed by (well-qualified) opposition researchers, campaign staff, community organizers, and policy staffers. This makes for engaging and intellectually interesting writing but is hardly the stuff of responsible journalism. They are reliable for their own opinions. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Response. Either you misread WP:NEWSORG, or you intentionally misinterpreted it, or you don't understand it, or you just haven't read it. Because if you had, you would know that it states that news organizations: "often contain both factual content and opinion content." And they are still reliable sources. TP uses video, direct quotes, cites empirical studies, gives its sources, does original interviews and employs professional journalists who contribute to several other reputable news organizations. Sure sounds just like a news organization. Frankly, that's far better that much out there that tries to pass for "responsible journalism." Or even journalism. Also if you had read WP policy under "Biased or opinionated sources", you would also know that: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." So your "non-reliable" conclusion has no basis in actual WP policy. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:A855:82AC:20B1:BF6 (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable except for opinions I just went there and noticed an article entitled "GDP Report: Sequestration Continues To Drag On Economic Growth"[4]. However, if you click through to the actual report[5], it does not mention sequestration. It appears that TP is conflating the opinion of some people that sequestration is hurting GDP with the factual information in the report. An RS is supposed to separate news from opinion. I could find no attempt by TP to do that.William Jockusch (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not RS too partisan Chris Troutman (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable source, citable only for opinions cited and attributed as opinion. Way too partisan. GregJackP Boomer! 13:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Citable for opinion. According to WP:RS, bias is a non-issue. As far as citing them for facts, I'm neutral. I haven't seen any arguments that sway me one way or the other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Reliable Yes, ThinkProgress may be "partisan", but so are most other news sources, if not all of them. For example, I would consider Fox News and MSNBC to be the same and I think TP is slightly higher than those, just for the fact that it rarely puts out blatantly false articles (Fox News seems to be doing that more often now). For what we consider to be reliable, TP has. Qualified staff and an editorial review board. Silverseren^C 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

On the NewsTrust ranking

In doing some research on the organization to repair our article on NewsTrust, I found this, which states that "A national version of the site has been running about two years, featuring content from national publications such as The Washington Post, Wired, The Independent and the Atlantic. At the bottom of each posting is a rating, on a scale from 0-5, of the article’s quality as determined by site curators as well as visitors." Thus, these rankings we're using on reliability are at least partially, if not mostly, crowdsourced and probably should not be held as a point for or against any specific source. It was also formed in part by MoveOn.org, which at least puts into question the group's ideological independence even before we begin examining the donors. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a link to the sites methodology. It uses questions and surveys. It seems to attempt to be neutral, at least.Casprings (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to be neutral, maybe, but the rankings are entirely crowdsourced, which means that it tells us all of nothing regarding any organization's actual accuracy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of the above? I really don't get it. How is this relevant to the discussion. What am I missing?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you may be missing the introduction of the RFC by Casprings. He references Newstrust there. Arkon (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, got it, but...in my defense this RFC was created in an odd manner and was originally placed over the original question to this Noticeboard and I am really beginning to lose track on what is being discussed at this point. But, with that said, exactly how does that rating effect how we look at the source. please be specific to policy and guidelines as that is the real strength to this argument...if there is one.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The claim is made that ThinkProgress is accurate because NewsTrust gives it a reliability rating higher than Fox News. NewsTrust is merely an aggregator that has crowdsourced ranking, which means that it's not a very good source for whether something is accurate or not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I did reference it, but it is only one data point. Casprings (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that may mean something to some, but I don't see how that relates to how we see this source. Ratings from outside agencies seems to only be relevant to them. How is it relevant to our guidelines on seeing Thinkprogress as reliable as a newsblog?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It goes to the fact that they are accurate. That, along with outside awards and staff with credentials was used as evidence they are WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am actually on the side of inclusion of the site as a news blog but a rating system doesn't seem to mean much in this argument. I would be more interested in other reliable sources discussing the credibility of the source. If you want to demonstrate that a source is a "tabloid journalism" source...a rating wont show that. If you want to counter that a source is not a tabloid journalism source, a rating would not do that. We need an actual discussion at length in other sources for verification and a true idea of the source as reliable. Without that we defer to the source as meeting our standards.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You might be right. I just thought it might be relevant. If not, so be it. We should explore evidence one way or the other.Casprings (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Casprings, what is it that makes them accurate? Where's the evidence? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess what is the evidence that makes them not accurate? They have a staff made of a professional journalist or other professionals. For example:

Bryce Covert is the Economic Policy Editor for ThinkProgress. She was previously editor of the Roosevelt Institute’s Next New Deal blog and a senior communications officer. She is also a contributor for The Nation and was previously a contributor for ForbesWoman. Her writing has appeared on The New York Times, The New York Daily News, The Nation, The Atlantic, The American Prospect, and others. She is also a board member of WAM!NYC, the New York Chapter of Women, Action & the Media.

They have a staff of what I would consider reasonably credentialed. They have also won awards from what I would consider neutral third parties. This rating may not mean anything to people, but I don't see the evidence where they are not a WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, what is it about credentialing alone that makes them reliable? What is it about the awards they've won that makes them reliable? If we're going off WP:RS, and we're willing to consider them a news organziation (which I don't see much evidence of either), they would still fall under the point made there: "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. 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." Everything they "report" is editorial with news information inside of it, which tells me they fall into the latter, but even if it were the former, that puts them at "less reliable." We call it a blog in our article about them, and they're an arm of the Center for American Progress rather than a news organization. They want to be considered a news organization, but news organizations don't seem to be buying it. The non-web-based award they won is The Hillman Prize, which is designed specifically for organizations that "pursue social justice and public policy for the common good," a basically ideologically left wing point, which lessens the impact of that award. I'm looking for evidence that I'm wrong here, but the weight of the evidence is really suggesting that TP is a very poor quality source for an online encyclopedia, never mind anything else. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The politico article doesn't say they don't buy it. Most of the article is a discussion on the robust nature of their news outlet. They do however, question their connection to liberal groups and their tax status. Do they report from a liberal perspective? Sure. However, where is the evidence, from a WP:RS, they they have a problem with accurate reporting of facts?Casprings (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Politico says that they've had to defend their "journalistic independence and integrity" because of some of the stories they choose to take up. That's a huge hit. As for the evidence that they have a problem, we have three listed in the article for ThinkProgress and two more linked above, with plenty more available. I'll repeat myself again, however: the burden of proof is on those who want to include the information. No one is presenting any sort of real argument or evidence in favor of treating TP as a reliable source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You have presented partisan blogs that question how one story was reported. I can do the same for Foxnews, Huffington Post, and multiple WP:RS. That isn't terrible good evidence to me. As far as them, defending "journalistic independence and integrity", that also happens all the time. It happened with the NY Times, when they reported information leaked to them by the Bush administration during the run up to the Iraq war. The real question is, does their connection to a liberal think tank and their donor organizations tax status, preclude them from being a WP:RS?

That's not the argument. The New Republic is funded by someone extremely liberal. Reason is an arm of the Reason Foundation. The funding isn't what makes them unreliable, it's the fact that they do not have a history of accurate reporting. No one is able to show that they have a history of accurate reporting. Those who want to include the information are not showing why it's verifiable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you establish that The New Republic and Reason have "a history of accurate reporting"? What criteria do we use to establish this? Above, you cherry pick a few examples of alleged TP mistakes and claim that adds up to evidence against them. I could do the very same for Fox News. Do you think Fox News is not an RS? Why or why not? Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fox News is reliable as it is considered, unequivocally by its peers, to be a mainstream, reliable broadcaster for news. Any question of that was put to rest when the White House attempted to freeze them out a few years ago and the rest of the media pool stood up for them. Can we establish that about Reason and The New Republic? I believe we can, yes, we have decades, if not generations, of respect and reporting from them that ThinkProgress doesn't have, in part because of TP's relative age, and in part because TP is not a news organization, but is rather an ideological news commentary blog. The New Republic, in particular, has had issues with being faked out by stories in the past with Glass and Beauchamp, and is still considered high quality by both sides of the ideological divide. TP can't say that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea that Fox News is widely considered reliable is laughable. Granted, TP doesn't have a long-standing reputation because of its youth, but your assertions about how well regarded it is by its peers is incorrect. We've noted repeatedly that many TP staffers have moved on to many different news outlets of varying ideological orientations that are indisputably considered reliable sources. If TP's reputation amongst its peers were as you claim, then those staffers wouldn't be getting those jobs with TP on their resume. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what "getting hired somewhere else later" has to do with TP's esteem as a news reporter, which is what we're talking about. I'm sure they have many columnists and bloggers who go onto good things. Heck, The Economist hired Megan McArdle solely based on her Jane Galt blog, and that wouldn't mean we can suddenly use her old blog as a reliable source simply because The Economist hired her back whenever. That's not how it works. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It has everything to do with exactly what you specified: its reputation amongst its peers. If what you claim is true, this hiring simply wouldn't be happening. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're really comparing the White House news pool with whether or not someone gets hired from TP? Come on. That's not a serious argument. That someone takes a job at a commentary site does not make them ineligible to get a real journalism job later, just like running a personal blog doesn't disqualify you from working at a magazine. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up TP's alleged reputation amongst its peers as a criteria. Now you're dismissing your own criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing that being hired by another organization confers reliability onto the previous organization. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Climate Progress

Just like it's silly to label all things on the internet the same just because they are websites, it would be silly to label all parts of Think Progress the same. Whatever the result of the above discussion, I don't see a reason why we can't carve out a consensus for using Climate Progress as an RS. It has a different editorial and writing staff from Think Progress. It is headed by Dr. Joseph J. Romm, an MIT doctorate and former Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, an indisputable expert with an excellent reputation. Romm's WP article documents his extensive credentials and the wide amount of praise that Climate Progress has received, including from Time and the New York Times. Even if you think that TP is somehow the equivalent of Newsmax, you can't make that same absurd claim for Climate Progress. Gamaliel (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the front page of Climate Progress, I fail to see how this is any different than any of TP's other coverage. Joe Romm has a PhD, sure (so does Jerome Corsi, and we know how useful he is) but he's just a blogger and a think tank employee. I don't see why we should make an exception within an unreliable source simply because some people like the guy. Les Kinsolving has decades of reporting experience, but we shouldn't be using his WorldNet Daily pieces for anything. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that there is no evidence you would accept. Leading media outlets have called CP "indispensable" and called it one of the best blogs of the year. This is hardly "We like Joe." Gamaliel (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear there's been any actual evidence provided. The "indispensible" quote comes from opinion columnist Tom Friedman, who is not a reporter nor a media outlet. Among other "best blogs of the year in 2010" included a blog called "Shit My Kids Ruined" and "The Daily Kitten." Notable and noteworthy? Sure. Evidence of reliability for an encyclopedia? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Use some common sense. Clearly, they are using different criteria for news blogs than for kitten pictures. Gamaliel (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Common sense tells me that the "best blogs of 2010" were not based on the type of criteria we need to judge this blog's reliability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Common sense tells me there is no evidence you will ever find acceptable. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your dismissal in the face of a lack of an argument or evidence is noted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Even more evidence: The Columbia Journalism Review, the leading journal in the field, has Climate Progress on its list of recommended resources for journalists. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For those who check the link, it's on the second page. Alongside it is Watts_Up_With_That, a climate skepticism blog that rejects the scientific consensus on global warming/climate change. Take that as you may. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I read CP daily; it's still a blog. Can one make a good argument for its acceptability here? Sure you can....but we don't really need it because Joe and team nearly always cite their source material. So just use that instead. By so doing, we sidestep an endless quagmire debating why one climate blog is RS and another (you may guess as to which I have in mind) is not. By staying out of such mud, there is more time and energy for digesting all the great RSs CP brings to our attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and the same thing should be done with ThinkProgress. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a CP post today suggests I may want to reconsider my former opinion. It seems ClimateProgress will soon be doing their own investigative reporting, which could generate original source material, as opposed to just reporting their take on other RSs. If and when that happens, we may have grounds to revisit the new investigative reporting program on its own merits, once we know more about what they are (i.e., after they release such original investigative reporting material and someone here wants to cite it). News at 11. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Think Progress's Staff

One thing that is getting lost in this debate is that Think Progress has a robust staff. From Political

The group, executives told POLITICO, now has 30 writers and researchers at ThinkProgress, its blog, which is being redesigned and relaunched in the coming weeks. The editorial staff, similar in size or larger than that of many political websites, marks the latest phase in the deliberate, decade-long construction of a liberal infrastructure for reporting, research, and hammering home a message that the right is scrambling to match.

The point being, they have a highly credentialed and professional state. Their about page is littered with what I would call professionals, in at least some respect. For example,Alyssa Rosenberg:

ALYSSA ROSENBERG is the Features Editor for ThinkProgress.org. She is a columnist for the XX Factor at Slate, and a correspondent for TheAtlantic.com Alyssa grew up in Massachusetts and holds a B.A. in humanities from Yale University. Before joining ThinkProgress, she was editor of Washingtonian.com and a staff correspondent at Government Executive. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, The New Republic, Esquire.com, The Daily, The American Prospect, and National Journal.

Are the facts given by Mrs. Rosenberg and other members at Thinkprogress, not to be seen as a WP:RS source? If I took it from the Atlantic or The New Republic, it certainly would be. To me, that is strong evidence for its WP:RS. It hires quality reporters and analysis. Casprings (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily "hires quality reporters" as well. We would not and should not use their reporting in article in an encyclopedia. As for Rosenberg, looking at her page, it doesn't appear she does much in the way of reporting, instead offering editorial advocacy and cultural musings using editorial rather than professional language ("decades too late for middle-aged white dudes," for example). It would be one thing if she was reporting the news. She's not, nor is anyone else at TP. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you show a number of members of WorldNetDaily that have had careers at WP:RS, also?Casprings (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Their editor in chief, Joseph Farah, another editor, David Kupelian, their lead reporter, Les Kinsolving, and so on. The issue is the publication, not necessarily those who write for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Casprings, read the article, WorldNetDaily - they have backgrounds in mainstream media, which is why they are able to write reasonably well and turn out a publication. Thargor Orlando, your argument here and elsewhere is WorldNetDaily is partisan, it is not rs, therefore partisn sites are not rs. But partisanship has nothing to do with reliability. There are sources that say ThinkProgress is reliable and sources that say WND is a conspiracy website. TFD (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, should have phrased my question differently. Can you show where WorldNet, isn't simply a dead end. In other words, people with careers in WP:RS, might go there. However, I have never seen them leave and go to another WP:RS. Maybe I am wrong.Casprings (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't, but I don't know all that much about former reporters there, either. I fail to see that relevance, in any regard: hiring practices aren't what makes a source reliable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It shows some amount of respectability among their peers. In other words, if a Journalist and provide article to both The atlantic and Think Progress, and the job at Think Progress has no negative consequences on their career, that would show that among journalist, it is respected. If a Journalist goes to WMD, and can only work for similar sites, that would indicate that WMD is not as respected among journalist. That is evidence of WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, working for a partisan commentary site does not disqualify someone from being hired elsewhere later, nor does WND perhaps having better staff retention mean that they are less qualified. Besides, I'm saying that neither organization is reliable in this instance, so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not my argument at all. My argument is not that "partisan = not reliable," because I'm arguing quite firmly in favor of other partisan sources. The argument is ThinkProgress is not reliable because it is not a news source, it is a commentary blog with a shady history of factual commentary that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Our own article highlights examples, I have above, and no one up to this point has offered a cognizant argument in favor of its use. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You have to prove that, we don't have to disprove it. Also, please be more careful with your opinion of this site. It is not appropriate to make allegations of wrong doing you have yet to demonstrate. You wish the community to decide against it's own standards. The issue is whether or not Thinkprogress is a news blog. It is. Should a better source be found, maybe, maybe not. You cannot force editors to replace one RS with another you prefer just because you don't feel the source qualifies. You have discussed a great deal, but as yet I see nothing to determine that Thinkprogess should be handled any differently than any other news blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A long-standing precept here is that the burden of proof is on those who want to include information. I have shown, as does our own article on ThinkProgress, that they have consistent reliabilities issues. I have yet to see much of any compelling evidence being presented that they are, in fact, trustworthy and reliable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I thought perhaps that was your point. You are incorrect and misunderstand "Burden of evidence". The burden of evidence is satisfied with the use of a reliable source. This is not a burden issue. This issue revolves around the opinion of an editor as to what constitutes a "a reputation for fact checking". Having a few issues here and there does not disqualify a source as having a reputation for fact checking. We still see CBS News as having such a reputation for fact checking and I am sure there are editors that feel that a certain situation there a few years ago would spoil such a reputation. Unfortunately we are speaking in terms of Wikipedia standards not just the opinions of critics.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence of consistent reliability issues. I have seen two blog post from conservative blogs. That is hardly evidence that it is not a WP:RS, anymore than it would be for the NY Times. Perhaps the lack of the ability to produce such evidence, is also evidence that it is WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm looking for evidence of this reliability in the face of a significant amount of evidence of its reporting errors. No one is presenting that, and it doesn't seem to matter to a lot of editors. This is a problem for our sourcing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If a "significant amount" of evidence is there, please present it. This discussion would be a lot shorter. I think this still falls down to one simple question. Do direct ties to a liberal think tank disqualify think progress as a WP:RS?Casprings (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, examples include, but aren't limited to, what I presented above and what's in our own article. Their links to a liberal think tank are not the central issue, but their reliability is, so tell me what the number of problems they've encountered is the threshold to "proving" that they're not reliable and I'll list 'em all in one place for you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

More than this.Casprings (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fox News is unequivocally reliable. It's not a good comparison. Do you have a number in mind, or is it just "we say it's reliable, so shush and accept it?" Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats why it is a good start. Might as well find more articles than a WP:RS. We could start with one from a WP:RS that shows a systematic problem with accuracy.Casprings (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with the ones in our article on them? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, being criticized by Gerald Steinberg/NGO Monitor doesn't indicate that a source is unreliable. If anything, it counts in a source's favor. So, I would leave that one out. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"They lie, but I don't like the person saying it so I'll discount it anyway." Really? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Pardon ? I don't recognize that quote or understand how it was generated. Fabricating statements based on assumptions about the minds of others on a reliability noticeboard probably won't help. And remember WP:TALKNO, "Be precise in quoting others". You appear to be suggesting that I make decisions about content and sources based what I like and what I don't like. No, apart from being a dumb way of making decisions favored by the very many unethical and dishonest POV pushers who exploit and disrupt Wikipedia with their nonsense, that method has no basis in policy, so it's worthless. Are you seriously suggesting that NGO Monitor's evaluations, or criticisms can be used as a metric for reliability of sources in Wikipedia ? There is no point using an unreliable source to assess the reliability of a source. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're not doing that, I don't understand your criticism of NGO Monitor as someone who might know whether or not the things ThinkProgress would say might be true, especially since the reference is more because Steinberg would be considered an expert in his field for such criticism. Besides that, expressing the opinion that ThinkProgress is anti-Israel ignores the facts that ThinkProgress got wrong, like their claims about the Chamber of Commerce. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, you presented an article in PowerLine that criticizes the opinions expressed in "The Koch Brothers Exposed", which was published in ThinkProgress.[6] However it does not challenge the facts, merely their interpretation. We accept that reliable sources may express opinions, but that is separate from whether their facts are accurate, which is what rs is all about. The Koch brothers and the Tea Party movement are controversial and the fact that a writer criticized them does not put him outside the mainstream. TFD (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the link, it very clearly points out a number of factual inaccuracies. I have been asking you for days now for evidence of TP's reliability and accuracy, do you have anything yet? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't actually have to prove it, as they do have editorial over site and you have not demonstrated in any way that they do not.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We've long established that editorial control is not the be-all end-all. WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, those are two excellent examples of sources with editorial control that we don't use/frown upon using, and rightfully so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A third party source has been presented to you. And no your source does not point out factual errors. It says for example that the ThinkProgess article was wrong to say it was hypocritical of the Koch brothers to accept government subsidies. That is a difference of opinion. Also you are confusing falsely arguing that because some partisan sources are unreliable, this source is therefore unreliable. Do you understand the difference between facts and opinions? TFD (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Which third party source are you referring to? The CJR link that also gave thumbs-up to a climate-denying self-published blog that doesn't meet our standards, or the crowdsourced NewsTrust? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between fact and opinion. What is needed is proof of a systematic pattern of distorting the facts. This is is not about WorldNetDaily or NewsMax. This is about Thinkprogress. Casprings (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No, but it provides a similar comparison, much like you would compare Fox to MSNBC and CNN. We have proof of the pattern of the distortion of facts. We do not have evidence of their reliability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You're overreaching. I don't think you're getting much traction in your attempts to paint ThinkProgress as deceptive. Their facts are usually legit, but their choice of stories and their take on those stories is inevitably guided by ideology. I don't think they pretend otherwise. As such, we should be very careful in using this site, and use it with in-text attribution when we do use it. I think there's been a consensus along those lines. What actual ongoing content issue are we debating here? MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting much traction because, apparently, evidence to support their inclusion is not necessary. I'm frankly surprised as to how that's gone about, but I should know better than to be shocked by the double standard of left wing sources here. The question, at the start, appeared to be a more general question, and it would be nice to nip this one in the bud and begin the process of improving our referencing, but... Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your dichotomy of "left" and "right" wing sources is misleading. WND is extreme right, and AFAIK no one suggests using extreme left sources. TFD (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

ThinkProgress, Media Matters, and Truthout are used and defended regularly here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This whole long thread just underlines why we don't like to give blanket yes or no on sources. MastCell has summed up the consensus of this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we do not normally do blanket decisions like this without context to discuss, and this case shows why. No discussion can be closed if both sides can talk in the hypothetical. Please bring context to this noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the consensus of the board is problematic here, as it invariably allows terrible sources in. We should be able to say "no" to sources like these. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The main reason people come here trying to get blanket decisions, which is the problem here, is the main reason anyway presents a case with only part of the information. Please read the instructions at the top of this forum and do not abuse it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason mainstream journalist sources are considered reliable is that they have a professional code that they try (however imperfectly) to follow. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics sets the foundation for journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, balance, and thoroughness. As stated in SPJ’c ethics code:

• Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should: Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.

In this discussion we are turning journalism on its head. The reason journalism is considered reliable is because they attempt to eschew advocacy. This organization (TP) is an open advocacy organization upon which we are trying to bestow the characteristics of a journalism organization, even though as an explicit advocacy org they don't even pretend to try meet the basic professional and ethical standards of journalists. It's not a fault, its their job to be interesting and convincing, not to be fair, objective, or accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So is Democracy Now! not journalism? Is that not a WP:RS?Casprings (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DN! is primarily an opinion source, and is reliable for its opinions properly cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? Amy Goodman has won award after award for her reporting.Casprings (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As in the "Izzy Award" and "Right Livelihood Award"? Each appears to be far less about "journalism" than about political stances. And neither was for "reporting" as far as I can tell, but far more for her tenacious focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. violations of the Geneva conventions, racial justice issues such as the still-displaced poor of New Orleans, and political repression overseas. Sorry -- it fails the laugh test. Collect (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DemocracyNow self identifies as an independent journalism organization, it does not put itself forward as an advocacy group. It has an opinion and has analysis which they publicly try to seperate from their reporting. That is the difference, some would say they are too far into advocacy. Publicly they consider themselves journalists. ThinkProgress are campaigners. There is a difference. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is going in circles because it is based on wrong assumptions. For example the following is not a correct description of the consensus understanding on WP: "The reason journalism is considered reliable is because they attempt to eschew advocacy." If this were our base principle we would be in circular arguments forever. The practical consensus is that we take a skeptical approach to the idea that there is any source which is truly neutral, and we separate discussion of neutrality and reliability. And then, please note, to make this work we then say that discussion about reliability is context sensitive. Blanket rulings are only for exceptional cases, and certainly not for journalistic styles of sources (which tend to have wide variations in their reliability for different contexts). If this discussion does not start to respect that approach it risks being hatted I think? Please see the guidelines at the top of this forum page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

“what matters for notability is simply whether the references are substantial, in reliably sources, and independent of the subject”

Hi, someone at the reference desk requested a translation of the French Wikipedia article on French painter Michel Bertrand. [7] I would like to make sure that such a translation would survive – I don’t want to go to all the trouble if someone is just going to delete it. The two issues raised by commenters were notability (I will ask that at the other notice board) and reliability – which is why I’m here. I confess I didn’t really understand the issue posted (‘’“what matters for notability is simply whether the references are substantial, in reliably sources, and independent of the subject”’’). Can you help me understand if these sources are reliable? Thanks. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

1. [8] and [9] – listings on the website of Centre Georges Pompidou, a major library and modern art museum. (ie showing that this artist’s work is exhibited in the Musée National d'Art Moderne.)

2. [10] – brochure for an art festival in 2008 that mentions this artist was exhibiting.

3. [11] – google books result; catalogue for a collection in the Musée d'art moderne Saint-Etienne (mentioned in the en wikipedia Saint-Étienne article) that apparently includes at least one mention of this artist’s name )(I can’t access the book).

None of those sources prove notability. You would need to find an article about him in a book on art history or newspaper - and not just an obituary. I notice the French article is an orphan, Bertrand is not mentioned in other articles, which is a sign of lack of notability.

Also, since the French Wikipedia article is unsourced, it would be unwise to translate it. It is much easier to write an article based on reliable sources than to find sources for an existing article.

TFD (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can see no reason to question the reliability of any of those sources, though (2.) does little more than confirm his existence. In my opinion, the Centre Pompidou is a clincher for notability too. Just in case you don't see it, the snippet of text I get in (3.) is "… Claude Viallat. Elle ne le connaissait pas, mais elle connaissait, parce que son mari pratiquait ce sport, un escrimeur peintre, professeur à l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts de Perpignan, Michel Bertrand". If your man is a fencer who taught at Perpignan, I'd say you are home and dry. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And I fully agree with TFD that it is much easier to write from scratch from the sources you have than it is to find sources for poorly referenced material translated from another wiki. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree on that too.

The catalogue of an art collection, like the catalogue of a library, doesn't in itself prove that all the authors/artists listed are notable ... but, yes, reference 3 as quoted by Justlettersandnumbers probably pushes him across the finishing line :) Andrew Dalby 09:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all, very helpful. BTW, he is a sculptor/painter, not a fencer as far as I know, but he did teach at l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Perpignan. And the French wikipedia article does mention he had two write-ups in a newspaper called L'Independant. However, since they were in 1976 and 1988, I doubt I'd find them online. Certainly the Perpignan paper of that name doesn't appear to have online archives. Is it going to be a problem just to translate the assertion that they exist? 184.147.137.9 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion, for what it is worth, is to make a stub with the bare facts you can glean from the references you can actually see. Other relevant documents, such as the Indépendant articles or the article in Occitan listed on the Pompidou page (which might perhaps be hard to find, though I haven't tried), can be added as Further reading. In my view, that shows both that they are there (which helps with notability), and that you haven't read them. Anything that's on fr.wp that is unreferenced should not be translated - wikipedia can't be a reference for itself - so it is really easier to work from scratch, using the French article just for hints on what you are looking for. Two well-referenced sentences are much preferable to a long but unsourced page. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks all. Turning into more work than a simple translation! Appreciate your advice. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Common Sense Media

I have seen editors removing reviews by Common Sense Media from articles. They said that the website is unreliable just because it publishes media reviews for parents. I don't see how that makes any sense. The website is not controversial and is known for their reviews, as the article shows. They even review R rated films that are not for kids and those reviews are not bias. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there an example? I can't even see a reason why CSM would be used to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For film reviews in articles when there isn't many others. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What about examples? SL93 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Though you not seeing any reason why it would be used is not relevant to being reliable for film reviews. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I notice in our article on CSM we say

"According to Common Sense Media’s website, the organization has content distribution contracts with Road Runner, TiVo, Yahoo!, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DIRECTV, NBC Universal, Netflix, Best Buy, Google, AOL/Huffington Post, Fandango, Trend Micro, Verizon Foundation, Nickelodeon, Bing, Cox Communications, Kaleidescape, AT&T, and NCM.[7] The organization’s current rating system differs from the system used by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Entertainment Software Rating Board.[10] It has received positive support from parents, and it has received support from President Barack Obama, who stated that its rating system favored "sanity, not censorship."[8][9]"

Presuming our article is correct I guess this makes this organization's opinions notable at least. It would still be good to see real examples of citations being deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Maximillion Cooper

Advice, please! Can either of the following be considered reliable sources for details of the private life of Maximillion Cooper:

• "Check out Video of the Ultimate Car Couple: Eve and Maximillion at Gumball 3000". Complex. 31 May 2011. Retrieved 2011-07-15.
• "Daily Mail". Daily Mail. 7 May 2010. Retrieved 2011-07-15.

I know what I think, but would value the opinion of others. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Er ... which details? That he's married to one woman but dating another? If it were just those two sources I'd say no, but there are others, including direct interviews with the lady in question, that in sum breach the "just gossip" line. Essence[12] BET [13][14]. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

History of Assam, E.A Gait 1906

Is History of Assam by E.A Gait, published in 1906 can be considered as reliable source, when newer books challenges its content. I also like to point towards earlier recommendation here and response it got. Thanks भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What article(s) would this be used and how (what content)? Ravensfire (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is Kamapitha. It will be used to show all the different definitions in different sources. Like Kamapitha#Different_boundaries (the first row entry). "History of Assam" is a standard text, and the relevant portions are here: [15]. Chaipau (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his view shows subjects area, part of West Bengal state while others show it as part of Assam state, i.e real odd one, making subject equally confusing for editors as well readers. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the other definitions agree with each other, either. A map shows this, in the talk page: Talk:Kamapitha#Summary_of_boundaries. Chaipau (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Modern scholars identifies the subject's boundary in current Western Assam and Central Assam, in Assam state, while old work by Gait marks it as North Bengal, in West Bengal state, which is makes dispute resolution process impossible. I like to request here, that said book should marked as unreliable to avoid future conflicts, as subject of this old book is researched thorougly in modern times. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Modern does not necessarily translate to critical and more accurate. R M Nath's work, first published in 1948, was mostly a product of his fertile imagination (Basham (1951) Review of "The Background of Assamese Culture"), which Goswami (1998) has, unfortunately, accepted uncritically. Note that Basham writes: "It in no way supersedes the works of Sir Edward Gait and K L Baruah, but succeeds in giving the Indian reader an imaginative rather than a scientifically accurate picture of Assam's history". Chaipau (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to come across a source authored by a member of the British Raj administration that would be appropriate to use on Wikipedia. Those connected with the dreaded H. H. Risley, as Gait was, are particularly suspect. I've no reason to believe that they were any better at defining areas than they were at counting and classifying people. It is not uncommon to find them using inconsistent spellings etc and confusing one place with another, in particular because few of them had any knowledge of the local languages. Is it really encyclopaedic to use Gait in any circumstances? - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Gait has been extensively quoted by others. Dineshchandra Sircar, in "Comprehensive History of Assam" Vol I cites Gait when he defines Kamapitha. He gives three definitions, of which two are from Gait. Sircar says, "There are some conflicting accounts of the theoretical divisions of Assam" and that "These theoretical divisions are not known from the early epigraphic records and may have been fabricated in the late medieval period." (p68). We are using Gait the same way Sircar is doing, reporting on what different sources say the boundaries are. If Sircar can cite Gait, Wikipedia should cite Gait too. Chaipau (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Was Prince George known as "Prince George" before he became known as "Prince George"?

Is this source a reliable source for the claim that Prince George of Cambridge was known as "Prince George" before his name was announced? George was born on 22 July but his name was only announced on 24 July. Needless to say, no reliable source referred to him as "Prince George" prior to 24 July. Note that the source was published on 24 July and says what the baby "will be known as", but is used to justify the claim that George has been known as "Prince George" since 22 July. This must be the easiest question ever asked at this noticeboard, but I'm asking anyway, since I'm being vilified for trying to point out the absurdity of the situation. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The source appears reliable for basic facts about the family and about technical matters such as correct forms of address, on which it may be assumed that expert advice is available and is taken. There is nothing in the source to indicate the name of the baby before it was announced; the birth announcement from the same source says that he is styled as "His Royal Highness Prince [name] of Cambridge". However, in my opinion it is normal practice in many societies (oh, and please don't ask me for a reliable source on this!) to retro-actively attribute a name given after the birth of a child to that child both before the name was given and indeed before the birth. Thus "when I was pregnant with George" is not regarded as anachronistic even if George was not so named until many months later. It would be most unusual to hear someone say "I had [name] on 19 November, and decided a week later to call him George". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is not incorrect or anachronistic to refer to him as George when discussing things that happened before his name was announced. It is not, however, correct to claim that he was referred to as George before the name was announced. That is the issue here. 22 July is not listed there as his birthday. It is listed as the date he became known as "Prince George", which is not what the source says and obviously not true. Surtsicna (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Huffington Post

The article has claims on the new president elect of Iran's PhD degree. I am wondering if it is considered reliable for WP:BLP purposes. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Technically no, because the source cited in the Huffington Post is our own Wikipedia article Hassan Rouhani and a very poor copy of the relevant 1980 newspaper for which the HP acknowledges "Wikimedia". Wikipedia is, as we know, not a reliable source. It's nice that the Huffington Post is citing us, but we can't close the circle by citing it. [For anyone curious about this, the statement at issue is not that Hassan Rouhani has a doctorate -- he certainly has -- but that he already claimed to have a doctorate in 1980.] Andrew Dalby 13:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is rs. The article is not sourced to Wikipedia, but shows a 1980 newspaper clipping reproduced on Wikimedia.[16] I think too that it is beyond the scope of rs to review articles and determine whether the author followed good journalistic standards, just whether the publication is rs. TFD (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is exactly within the scope of WP:RS, because reliability is only judged relative to a specific claim. If the claim were only sourced to a wikipedia article it would be clearly and unequivocably unreliable. But it is not, it is sourced to the news clipping and wikimedia is only cited as the depository of the clipping - so therefore it is RS for the claim, just as the clipping is an RS for the claim here on wikipedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The clipping is not, as things stand, an RS for the claim on Wikipedia. It isn't currently cited at Hassan Rouhani -- see the discussion at Talk:Hassan Rouhani. We cite convenience copies if we are sure they are genuine, not doctored, and not a breach of copyright. This is a clipping uploaded to Commons from a blog. It is apparently PD, and may come from a 1980 newspaper, but I don't see any clear indication that it does.

So, if we can't cite our clipping, we can cite the Huffington Post which cites our clipping? I don't think so. Andrew Dalby 13:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "no clear indication"? What kind of evidence do you suspect to be presented for a clipping from a 30 year old Iranian newspaper being genuine? If the Huffington post believes the clipping to be genuine, then why shouldn't we. I don't know why the editors have decided not to cite it, but given that old news papers can be cited without providing actual scans of the clipping or any online presence I see no good reason not to accept it as RS.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We were asked whether the HP article is RS.

The only sources for the HP article are our Wikipedia article plus this clipping on Commons which we ourselves have not yet decided to cite. Our standard view is that Wikipedia is not reliable. Additionally we do not cite external sources whose source is Wikipedia, because that's circular.

So, no, the HP article is not RS. There's no good reason to change our usual practice here. Citing the HP article without making all this clear could deceive our readers into thinking there is external support for what is at present a round-game.

If you think the clipping is RS, Maunus, I'd suggest the place we should talk about it further is at Talk:Hassan Rouhani where they have indeed been discussing whether to use it :) It would be good to have a translation -- to know, for example, what is the Persian word used for "doctor", what the word implied in 1980, and whether the subject used that word about himself. I find the script on that low-res image impossible to read. Andrew Dalby 15:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, Maunus and others, I have to correct myself: perhaps I was distracted by surprise that HP was quoting Wikipedia! In fact the HP article cites another document as well, which is said to be published by the Iranian Parliament. On what it draws from that document, we surely could cite it. Andrew Dalby 15:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The main question you ask when looking at Huffington Post articles is whether the authors are reliable. A random blogger would not count as a reliable source. But the author here is an academic and president of the American Council on the Middle East, so he seems reliable enough. If possible, I would attribute the information directly to him, however, as that's usually good policy. Silverseren^C 06:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable publisher, COI author

An article in a peer-reviewed academic journal Computer Music Journal has a study comparing the performance of various optical music recognition software products. Other reviews in Maximum PC, PC World and Music Educators Journal all say the software has a terrible user interface, but it basically works and is the best option available. This article says differently that other products perform better.

The author of the journal article is from the University of Florence, which develops a competing product, 03MR, which is one of the products it says performs better. The author therefor has a substantial conflict of interest.

I am hesitant to use a source authored by a competing "vendor", which unsurprisingly says that their software outperformed competitors, something other sources don't seem to agree with. However it is published by a very reputable source and User: Justlettersandnumbers brings up a good point that presumably the journal has taken the conflict of interest of the author into consideration and found the information still to be worthwhile. Thoughts on how and if we should use this source? CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Journals determine whether there are any COIs which may affect the accuracy of articles and they would be reviewed by independent experts before publication. If an article is inaccurate then it will attract academic attention that could damage reputations. So the authorship is immaterial. However, opinions expressed are a different matter, which must be assessed according to neutrality. TFD (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend using the review along the others, and specifying the author's affiliation, so the reader can decide what weight to give the possible conflict. --GRuban (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Ok, for now I put it back in with a really heavy attribution regarding who the author is and the fact that they produce a competing product. If anyone has other opinions, please feel free to edit/discuss, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Le Donne; Reza Aslan, Zealot

Source: Le Donne, Anthony. "A Usually Happy Fellow Reviews Aslan's Zealot". The Jesus Blog. Retrieved August 1, 2013.
Article: Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
Content: [17] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there are three ways a source can be established as reliable: by the qualities of the author, by the qualities of the editorial practice under which is was published, and the qualities of the reviews by established experts.

I don't claim the source is reliable because of such reviews or such editorship. Indeed, it is a self-published source. Rather, I think the source is reliable in the first way. The author, Anthony Le Donne, is well-enough established in the field of early Christian history in general and the historical Jesus in particular such that his self-published claims may be taken as a reliable source in this case, because this case is on the topic of the historical Jesus. The following together establishes as much:

• Le Donne has a PhD from the Department of Theology and Religion at Durham University, having been advised by James Dunn and John M.G. Barclay. Both the university and his advisors are very respectable.
• Le Donne was or is visiting lecturer at the University of the Pacific (United States), a respectable institution of higher learning.
• Le Donne has authored a book on the topic of the historical Jesus, Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (Eerdmans, 2011). The book has multiple positive reviews by established experts (e.g., James Dunn, Dale Allison) and others in academic journals (e.g., Yencinch).
• Le Donne authored another book on the topic of the historical Jesus, The Wife of Jesus (Oneworld Publications, 2013) (forthcoming).
• Le Donne edited and contributed to a volume on the topic of the historical Jesus, along with co-editor Chris Keith, Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (T&T Clark, 2012). This volume also has multiple positive reviews by established experts (e.g., Amy-Jill Levine).
• Le Donne edited and contributed to another volume on the topic of the historical Jesus, along with co-editors Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, Soundings in the Religion of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2012).
• Le Donne has multiple publications in the field of early Christian history in academic journals and other edited collections. For example, “The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Revisionist History through the Lens of Jewish-Christian Relations.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 10.1 (2012): 63-86; “Jesus and Jewish Leadership.” In Jesus among Friends and Enemies. Edited by Larry W. Hurtado and Chris Keith. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011; and “Theological Memory Distortion in the Jesus Tradition: A Study in Social Memory Theory”. Pages 163-77 in Memory and Remembrance in the Bible and Antiquity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 212; Edited by L. T. Stuckenbruck, S. C. Barton, B. G. Wold. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

I think that is enough to establish Le Donne's self-published claims as reliable for this case, but more evidence can be presented if this is not adequate. (I might not be around in the near future, though I should be back by 7 August.) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

From that, he seems to be an "established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", so the criticism should be usable. However I'd recommend selecting more specific criticism than "depressing" - what depressed him about it? From my brief skim, Le Donne seems to be mainly critical of Alan's oversimplification of "Jesus as a failed military revolutionary", right? How about writing that, then?--GRuban (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of mainstream reviews available. There is no need to cite a weblog. — goethean 01:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Press coverage of the Armenian genocide

There is currently a dispute at Template:Did you know nominations/Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide as to whether or not the article in question meets NPOV. At present, the debate is focussed on whether the article's sources are reliable. In particular, this link from a newslist called groong has been questioned. I would appreciate some input here from uninvolved parties as to whether this website and this link in particular can be considered reliable per the usual policies. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

http://newsfrombangladesh.net used in Indians in Bangladesh

1. Source: News from Bangladesh
2. Article: Indians in Bangladesh
3. Content:
   1. Statement 1 - "The migrant community has often been a source of contention between the two countries; according to available reports, the lakhs of Indians illegally staying in the country hailed from the Indian states of West Bengal, Meghalaya, Assam, Tripura and Mizoram and were spread across numerous urban and rural areas."
   2. Statement 2 - "One of the reasons contended for their migration is that these states are relatively poor and the Indians tend to come to larger centres in neighbouring Bangladesh in search of jobs and better living."

• The website and its contents do not come across as reliable to me and as such would like to know the community's view on the same. Btw, the About Us, Editorial Info and Contact Us pages turn up a "404 Error - Page not found". Shovon (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Editorial info page works for me[18] And they have full editorial control over the content they post according to it, I would say it meets RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. The links on the concerned page do not work, but from the home do work. The About Us page states, among other things, that "Most Articles are submitted by readers themselves as part of the interactive feature of NFB, where readers are able to actively voice their opinion and views without any form of Censorship. The idea is allow public opinion to be disseminated freely without institutional interference.", which only strengthens my doubt. Shovon (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The source may exercise editorial control; but if so, is unlikely to have a policy of impartiality. The article in question is headed "Reader's Opinion". It would perhaps be reliable for a statement beginning, say, "Some people in Bangladesh believe that ...", but no more. The second paragraph begins "According to the available reports, lakhs of Indians ...". If they can be found, those available reports should, with due caution, constitute the source for the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

State Press Releases, State Bar Associations RS for matters of law?

I am working on the article for Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, and in the timeline there, someone had referenced the governor's veto of a specific bill in the legislature. It made reference to a press release by the State in question, and I could not find another more clearly independent RS on GN that made reference to this particular veto (which it appears was overridden).

I did find a reference to this specific veto on the state bar association website.

My questions are as follows:

1. the State website is considered a primary source in this case, right?
2. is the listing (without substantial commentary on the individual bill) on the Bar Association website considered RS?
3. or is this just not considered notable for purposes of this article? (which may be different for an article on, say, the 2011 session of the NJ legislature) There is some other coverage of the event, but it is on blogs.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Exceptional Claims & Self Published Sources

I am seeking some clarification of these points:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience, or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves WP:RS

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves WP:V.

When a religious group makes supernatural claims for its leader, is it acceptable to use as a source websites they have published, as long as the appropriate WP voice is used (eg, not "He saw an angel" but "He claimed he saw an angel")? Rev107 (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It can be acceptable. The point is that we would in such a case be reporting what someone says, not saying it as if we believe it. So attribution should be used in such cases. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Attribution should be used, but be wary of Wikipedia:CLAIM. Wikipedia's voice should not be used to endorse his statements, but neither should wikipedia's voice be used to discredit his statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the Ripon Society a reliable, neutral source?

The Ripon Society maintains a website called the Ripon Advance, which issues posts and press releases. User:SandraJacoby15 has been inserting content from these releases into WP articles. Many sound promotional (e.g., [19], [20]); there also seem to be some copyright violations ([21], [22]). Can a "centrist Republican think tank" be considered a reliable, neutral source? 71.139.152.154 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with the most important issue first, the edits in question were clear copyright violations, and have been reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of some of that editor's copyright violations, but the question still stands: If the same material had been added in original wording, would the Ripon Society be a reliable, neutral source? 71.139.152.154 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral? No, clearly not. Reliable? For its own opinions, certainly. As to whether such opinions are noteworthy, I'd suggest that unless they had been commented on elsewhere, they probably aren't. If material is significant enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, it is likely to be commented on in the media, and partisan websites need not be cited as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral or objective to be reliable. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources However, per Andy, just because they are reliable (for at least their own opinions) doesn't mean they merit inclusion, if their statements are not discussed elsewhere. One possible exeption would be if they are a placeholder/representative for a notable viewpoint, even if they themselves are not notable. (In that case one should be able to point out others who also hold the same viewpoint as well) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of images as RS

Discussion (or the attempt at it) has been going on for some time now at Haredi Judaism. It relates to additions made by a novice editor User:Jonathan.bluestein. I wish to bring to attention at this point only one issue: That of using images as RS. Is there ever a circumstance when images can be used to cite text? If so, please can someone confirm when they can be used.

Please see Talk:Haredi Judaism#Using images as RS. I had removed the image of the swimming pool which was being used as a reference. It was re-addedby User:Jonathan.bluestein until he removed it himself: [23].

Now he insists on using another image as a source: [24]. I had removed it ([[25]) and he has just re-added it ([26]) after replying to my post at talk. Chesdovi (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My name's Jonathan Bluestein. I strongly suggest reading the Talk page on Haredi Judaism, to get a sense of what has been going on there as of late, and what Chesdovi has been up to. He has been making tremendous efforts to delete mass amounts of material off that article. As for his claims in this particular discussion:

First image - unlike what he wrote, it was not removed. The use of it as reference has been removed.

Second image - in my opinion, a valid source. Addresses the subject matter. Has copyrights. Was shot at a relevant location and at a relevant time to the subject being discussed. Speaks for itself as proof of a certain claim made in the article's text.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not delved into the whole history of the conflicts in this article; my gut reaction is that both sides need to back down a bit. Having looked at the picture of the police barrier, however, it's not a reliable source. I say this especially since I cannot read Hebrew, and therefore have to have the picture interpreted for me. That interpretation is the actual source, and from what I gather the interpreter is someone captioning the picture or otherwise giving personal testimony. Now, I wouldn't mind the picture itself, perhaps; but I have to think that there must be some published source, even in Hebrew, which talks about such roadblocks and connects them with Heredi influence. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting on this particular source, but I'd like to point out that your language skills are entirely irrelevant to whether a source is reliable. Zero^talk 00:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of any policy/guideline which states that sources should ideally be in English? The addition of numerous Hebrew sources is making it very difficult for me to verify his additions. This is English Wikipedia after all.... Chesdovi (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is WP:NONENG. But it won't help much. Zero^talk 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there are ample and I have used a couple to suggested a draft text at talk. [27]. Whether Mr Bluestien will be happy with it or not is another matter. Chesdovi (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Television documentary

A video of an investigative TV documentary posted at Hadrei Hadarim web portal has been linked as a reference to cite a certain fact. The relevant quote is mentioned in passing in the film by one of the journalists. 1) Is this video a copyright violation? 2) Can we use quotes in such films as RS? (The article in question does not make reference to this specific episode or news channel.) Chesdovi (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

ReasonTV

A user is repeatedly adding ReasonTV as a source for discussing the "scientific consensus" about GMOs in an article about the March Against Monsanto. A discussion on the talk page found no consensus for its reliability nor for adding it to the article, but the user will not recognize any consensus and continues to add the link to the article.[28] We already have a good secondary source from the Associated Press that covers the same material without the added opinion or baggage.[29] The ReasonTV source self-identifies as a "video editorial", commentary that exists solely to make fun of the protesters. But, the editor is not actually using the source in the article, the editor is citing the blurb about the source, which is somewhat disingenuous. Further, the site itself is funded by a "right-libertarian research organization that...produces papers and studies to support a particular set of values." Additionally, the source has monetary connections to the topic of the article (Monsanto) that is under criticism (see the linked discussion). To summarize, the editor who keeps adding this source isn't actually citing the video but a blurb about the video. And, we already have a reliable secondary source from the AP that adequately covers the scientific consensus. Since the editor will not follow the consensus on the talk page, I am looking for further opinions here. If you actually watch the video, you will discover that this is basically a joke and far from a quality source. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Walled garden" argument with regard to the Austrian School and the Mises Institute

At a number of biographies of economists and others, User:Stalwart111, User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap have been arguing against using books and articles that were written by people associated with the Mises Institute, a subgroup of members of the Austrian School of economics. User:Carolmooredc started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Essay WP:Walled Garden being used to challenge WP:RS policy about this issue, but I think the proper venue is right here.

So this is the crux of the matter: three editors have been saying that books, journal articles and papers written by anybody connected with the Mises Institute should not be counted as reliable sources because the writers are too closely related to each other. Carolmooredc and I have been arguing that the RS guideline says nothing about removing expert observers from the pool of reliable sources just because the observer was familiar with the subject. To me, it seems ridiculous on the face of it to exclude those sources with the most expertise, the most first-hand knowledge. As well, it is wrong to assume that scholars will misrepresent the subject.

It's like saying that no Republicans can be reliable for commenting about Richard Nixon, or that no Labour Party members could be reliable for commenting about Harold Wilson.

Here's a little history of the editors and the issue:

• Stalwart111 has been making the "walled garden" complaint about the Mises Institute since 20 April 2013, complete with a link to Wikipedia's WG essay.[30][31] The walled garden meme was continued by Stalwart111 at User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 4#Austrian/Mises walled garden/fringe social science (the thread started by Steeletrap) in July at the talk page of Gary North (economist). There's also Stalwart111 comments at User talk:Carolmooredc/Archive VIII#Re: Kitten ("a question of whether or not the sources are 'reliable sources' in the first place.")
• SPECIFICO picked up the walled garden refrain from Stalwart111 in April 2013.[32] There are also comments at Talk:Robert_P._Murphy#Murphy.27s_religious_beliefs, Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Meta-note, Talk:Gary North (economist)/Archive 1#Controversial views section, and User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 4#Austrian/Mises walled garden/fringe social science.
• Steeletrap gave voice to the walled garden complaint in April 2013 at User_talk:SPECIFICO/Archive_1#Mises_Institute and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Mises_Institute.2FAustrian_economists_walled_garden. There, Lawrencekhoo (LK) and The Four Deuces (TFD) agreed that the Mises Institute material was well organized and intrusive. Carolemooredc disagreed and brought up behavior against consensus. There are also Steeletrap comments at User_talk:SPECIFICO/Archive_1#Mises_Institute_Clean-Up, Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Meta-note, Talk:Jesús Huerta de Soto#Predictions, Talk:Gary North (economist)/Archive 1#Controversial views section, User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 4#Austrian/Mises walled garden/fringe social science, User_talk:Gamaliel#Walled_garden.2Ffringe_concerns_with_Mises_Institute_BLPs, and User talk:Stalwart111#Request for advice on Mises Scholar Ralph Raico.

Affected articles

A relatively large number of articles on Wikipedia are connected by close association with the Mises Institute.

• Robert P. Murphy
• Murray Rothbard
• Jesús Huerta de Soto
• Gary North (economist)
• Ralph Raico
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe
• Peter G. Klein
• Richard Ebeling
• Jeff Riggenbach
• Walter Block
• Henry Hazlitt
• Thomas DiLorenzo
• Thomas Woods
• Lew Rockwell
• Friedrich Hayek
• Joseph Salerno
• Lawrence Fertig
• David Gordon (philosopher)
• William L. Anderson
• Gene Callahan (economist)
• Roger Garrison
• Mark Thornton
• Bruce L. Benson
• Robert Ekelund
• Steve Hanke
• Randall G. Holcombe
• Jörg Guido Hülsmann
• Ernest C. Pasour
• Morgan Reynolds
• Pascal Salin
• Larry J. Sechrest
• Hans Sennholz
• Barry Smith (academic and ontologist)
• Richard Vedder
• Leland B. Yeager
• Yuri Maltsev
• Roderick Long
• Lawrence H. White
• Lawrence Reed
• Robert Higgs
• Israel Kirzner
• Stephan Kinsella
• Wendy McElroy
• Jeff Riggenbach
• Jeffrey Tucker
• William H. Peterson
• Bruce Ramsey
• Paul Cantor
• Percy L. Greaves, Jr.
• George H. Smith
• Joseph Sobran
• Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
• Clyde N. Wilson
• Tibor R. Machan
• Paul Gottfried
• Sudha Shenoy
• John Sophocleus

The Mises Institute has archived, published or republished works by the above-named people as well as by others such as Ron Paul, Nicolai J. Foss, Wilhelm Röpke, Carl Menger, Clifford F. Thies, Frédéric Bastiat, Antony Flew, H. C. Engelbrecht, Roberta Modugno, George Selgin, Albert Jay Nock, Morgan Reynolds, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, Frank Fetter, Edward Stringham, John T. Flynn, George Reisman, Leonard Read, John Wanamaker, Ernest Benn, Richard Cantillon, Frank Chodorov, Stephen Pearl Andrews and of course Ludwig von Mises.

This supposed "garden" has far too many members to be considered "walled" off from the world at large.

Mises Institute writings (many hosted at mises.org) are used as references to support facts at articles such as Herbert Hoover, the Great Depression, Hubert Humphrey, François Quesnay, Benjamin Anderson, Walter E. Williams, Richard Cobden, the Grameen Bank, William Graham Sumner, Carlo Lottieri, William Harold Hutt, Gustave de Molinari, Randy Barnett, Nikolai Bukharin, Francis Hutcheson (philosopher), Daniel Bernoulli, Herbert Spencer, John Bright, Peter Kropotkin, Lysander Spooner, Agostino Depretis, William H. Seward, Henry David Thoreau and many, many more.

If the writings of people associated with the Mises Institute are declared unreliable, a lot of Wikipedia articles will degrade or fall apart.

At User_talk:Gamaliel#Walled_garden.2Ffringe_concerns_with_Mises_Institute_BLPs, User:Gamaliel said the supposed walled garden of Mises material was probably "too prominent to qualify as WP:FRINGE", and yet it would be beneficial to introduce non-Mises sources into a few of the BLPs. I share this viewpoint: I think all the reliable sources that can be found should be used, holding to an inclusive standard rather than one which excludes Mises Institute publications. For instance, Peter Boettke is an Austrian School economist but not associated with the Mises Institute. Boettke writes objectively about the Mises Institute in his Handbook on Contemporary Austrian Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010, ISBN 9781849806473. Japanese economist Yuichi Shionoya (Emeritus Professor of Economics and former President of Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan) wrote objectively about Austrian School subjectivism (the Mises Institute viewpoint) in his chapter called "Austrian subjectivism and hermeneutical economics" in the book Subjectivism and Objectivism in the History of Economic Thought, Routledge, 2012, ISBN 9781136275173. Writings such as this can be added to the writings published by the Mises Institute. Binksternet (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - to be frank, your crux is patently false and, like Carolmooredc attempted to do at BLP/N, misrepresents my position with regard to these articles almost entirely. Like her, you've taken a tiny, tiny portion of the thousands of bytes of discussion and debate centred around particular articles and have effectively claimed that 2 + 2 = 16.7. Where these issues have been discussed with regard to perhaps 5-10 articles, you have extrapolated your interpretation of my commentary to dozens and dozens and untruthfully claimed I hold that position with regard to them all (I don't think I've read most of those, let alone edited them, so how you could possibly draw a conclusion about my attitude toward them is beyond me). My point was then, and remains now, that there are a group of Mises Institute fellows and associates whose articles (when I first came across them after a random AFD) used sources from the same small group over and over again (those 5-10 articles) - Rothbard on Hoppe, Hoppe on Kinsella, Kinsella on himself (and he wrote his own article, for the most part), Block on Hoppe and Hoppe on Block and so forth. Add to that, many of the sources were published on websites and blogs where the subjects often had direct or indirect editorial control. We know why it happened - the same person created a large number of the articles in a short space of time while working for the Institute (honestly and openly declaring as much then and now). But the same pattern in any other academic context (or any other context entirely for that matter) would certainly be considered a walled garden (the article, not the essay), if not a walled garden (the essay, not the article). The quote you attribute to me is completely out of context, to suggest the opposite of what I was actually suggesting (that the essay was actually irrelevant because the reliability of non-independent sources was the issue). I came to the whole Austrian/Mises topic completely at random and completely by accident and have (if you actually read the many, many talk page discussions in full) been a fairly neutral voice throughout most of this debate. All I've ever done is push for the addition of reliable, independent sources. I haven't advocated the removing of existing sources (though that may be the natural result of replacing them with better ones) nor have I advocated for the deletion of any Mises-related articles (actually, quite the opposite). I said today (quite bluntly) that Carol's tendentious, IDHT, POV-pushing and personal attacks had gotten to the point where I have no desire to have anything else to do with this subject area at all. I've never had a dog in this fight and have plenty of other things to do, so I have no problem walking away from it. I'd ask you to strike your thinly-veiled personal attacks with regard to me in particular (as Carol begrudgingly did) but I really couldn't care less. Stalwart111 10:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• To give you an idea...

- This is what the article Hans-Hermann Hoppe looked like as at 1 January 2013. Of the 20 sources provided, 15 are either self-published, published in Mises-related publications (LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, etc, though many of those are from Hoppe himself anyway) or are from Mises people like Block and Rothbard. The substantive commentary in the article comes from Block, Rothbard and Kinsella - all Mises colleagues

- And this is what the article Stephan Kinsella looked like at the same time - every single source is from Kinsella himself (most published by Mises) bar two - one from Rothbard, published by Mises, and another from Evers, published by Mises.

- This is Jesús Huerta de Soto looked like (edited only 25 times in 2012, mostly by bots) - 2 broken links for sources.

These are the high-quality BLPs that Carol and Co. have suggested people are "wrecking" with the addition of sources resulting from a "walled garden" argument. Stalwart111 10:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Misesians reject scientific method, acknowledge they're fringe

As OP alludes to, there is a "Walled garden" of sorts on the wiki entries of Misesian economists, meaning that the sources for the material written about the contributions and scholarly reputation of each of these economists are overwhelmingly drawn from fellow Misesians. Contrary to what OP said, my primary concern about this is rooted in my belief that Misesians are fringe sources. My basis for the belief that they're fringe is twofold. First, because they don't use the scientific method in their "economics". Second, because Misesians proudly and forthrightly identify themselves as outside of and not taken seriously by the mainstream. (much of the below is copy and pasted from what I said on Gamaliel's page.)

In regards to both of these points, please note again that Misesians openly and categorically reject the application of the scientific method to economics -- an application which characterizes all mainstream social science -- and instead apply preconceived generalizations to their analysis of the economy. Senior Mises Scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe has summarized this distinction between the methodology of the "Austrian economists" of the Mises Institute and that of mainstream economists in a clear and lucid manner,

"It is this assessment of economics as an a priori science, a science whose propositions can be given a rigorous logical justification, which distinguishes Austrians, or more precisely Misesians, from all other current economic schools. All the others conceive of economics as an empirical science, as a science like physics, which develops hypotheses that require continual empirical testing. And they all regard as dogmatic and unscientific Mises's view." (1), (emphases mine -- steele)

On the second point specifically, please consider the following from prominent Misesian/Austrian Walter Block (2):"Mainstreamers never (to my knowledge) make such overtures [i.e., seriously examine and engage Misesian theory -- steele] in their journals, and when Austrians offer to publish in neoclassical [mainstream -- steeletrape] journals, they are for the most part rebuffed." In the same piece, Block also notes that Gary Becker and James Buchanan, two of the most prominent economists in the world (Nobel Laureates) who like the Misesians are ideological libertarians, characterize the Misesian/Austrian approach to economics as a "cult."

Per the words of Professor Hoppe, the "Misesian" approach to economics represents a rejection of economics as an "empirical science", and per the remarks of both Hoppe and Block, Misesians are not taken seriously by mainstream scholars. This means the Mises view fall under the restrictions outlined on WP:Fringe, and thus per WP:NPOV, should not be accorded the same weight on matters related to economics as mainstream scholars/scholarship. Steeletrap (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Other comments

An essay (WP:Walled Garden) that only is about wikilinks should not be constantly used to undermine WP:RS policy, claiming it supports the ideologically biased WP:OR assertion that all WP:RS even loosely affiliated with one group should not be used as WP:RS in articles about other individuals loosely affiliated with the group, or even for just about anything else. Declaring alleged members of any group that may be a bit out of some alleged mainstream artistic/political/economic/social grouping as being so fringe it can't be used on Wikipedia is absurd. We'd have to remove 20% of the refs on Wikipedia. Each reference has to be judged by it's own merits, related to a specific use in an article.

Note that these editors do put references from members of this loosely affiliation group in each other's articles if the comments are largely critical, for example Walter Block, Anthony Gregory and Gene Callahan quotes/material in Hans-Hermann Hoppe; Hans-Hermann Hoppe in Murray Rothbard; and Gary North and Larry J. Seacrest in Jesus Huerta de Soto.

Also frustrating is that when one does put in a reference totally unrelated to this group of individuals it often is challenged on other questionable grounds (paraphrased, things like "these professors are nobodies", "John Stossel's just a tv host", "this professor's article was removed from Wikipedia so he's not reliable", "I don't think Rothbard's notable as an economist", so editor removes seven sources supporting that assertion, etc.) Allowing such a wholesale attack on sources would lead to removal of almost all refs for these BLPs and be an excuse to AfD articles. (Steeltrap has nominated 3 related articles in his four months of editing; all were kept.) User:Carolmooredc 11:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

External Links

Is it appropriate for a website that is self published by an individual to present his/her personal point of view to be included in the External Links section? Rev107 (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The key thing is to be satisfied that the website is indeed by the individual in question rather than someone else posting under their name - in other words, it needs to be an official website. It's reasonably common and acceptable to include such links on articles about individuals. However if you're thinking of adding a random individual's blog about a subject to an article on that subject, then please don't. For more information please take a look at WP:EXTLINK. WaggersTALK 09:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The sites to which I am referring are the self published personal websites of disaffected members of religious groups. Their purpose is to try to discredit the religious group or leader and claim to be reliable sources of research. Rev107 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Should maps trump other reliable sources for geographical articles?

There's currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Addition_to_WP:MODERNPLACENAME where an editor suggests that maps are inherently more reliable than other formats of information for geographical articles - in other words, maps should be consulted first and only if they are inconclusive should reliable sources in other formats be considered. Additional input into the discussion there would be welcome. WaggersTALK 09:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)