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

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

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

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

Prior RSNB discussions

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

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

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

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

And [[1]] and [[2]]. But this is (I think) a better venue as this is about RS policy and what constitutes an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it should be used with attribution.

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

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

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

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

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

Dictionary definitions

Dictionary.com[4] A theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot: One popular conspiracy theory accuses environmentalists of sabotage in last year's mine collapse. A belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group: A number of conspiracy theories have already emerged, purporting to explain last week's disappearance of a commercial flight over international waters. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public: Merriam Webster:[5] A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators The Free Dictionary:[6] A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act. The belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied Collins Dictionary:[7] A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely. Lexico (Oxford):[8] A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event. Your Dictionary:[9] Any theory that purports to explain something by ascribing it to collusion among powerful conspirators: a usually dismissive term implying that the theory is far-fetched, paranoid, etc. (Definition is from Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition) Wiktionary:[10] A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. [1960s] (Dismissive, derogatory) Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish. Usage notes: The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form. ...but of course we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so please see: Britannica: [11] Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy... The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories is typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources. Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR):[12] A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.

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

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

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

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

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

It is not peer reviewed according to the Wikipedia article on Quackwatch. From the article (emphasis added): "input from advisors and help from volunteers, ... Many more have since volunteered, but advisor names are no longer listed. ... He said a peer review process would improve the site's legitimacy." -- Timeshifter (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposed move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved from BLPN

There has been a discussion about Quackwatch being used on articles for living people. [13]. User Bilby says Quackwatch should not be used on articles of living people because it is a self-published source [14], and has removed Quackwatch as a source from some articles.

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

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

I'm ok if consensus has changed, but Quackwatch is listed on WP:RSP as "Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert". Barrett does have an advisory committee, but according to Barrett that committee numbers "1000's", so I assume that they don't have direct editoral control. It is fully owned by Steven Barrett, although about 11 years ago it was managed through a non-profit he set up. Barrett says that some (most?) articles are reviewed to check scientific claims, but not all articles are reviewed [15], and that news articles are not usually reviewed prior to publication. I checked the list of recent articles, and all are authored by Stephen Barrett. As far as I can tell, Barrett publishes it himself, writes the articles, and uses his community of advisors to check scientific claims, but ultimatly is the author and the one in editorial control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We did have a series of RFCs about a year ago on this, with apparant consensus being that we don't want to make an exception to BLP for fringe topics [16]. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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

So that question now turns to whether Quackwatch is an SPS, and while it seems to meet that, the fact that 1) it has a volunteer network of experts in the field to review quasiscience/medicine claims with the site owner then writing that information up, 2) does appear to have some type of process that while I would not call "editorial", is there to make sure that their volunteers are not slandering BLPs per [17], and 3) has often been cited in mainstream sources as a reasonably expert source, means to me that it should not immediately be taken as a BLPSPS, but I would strongly recommend not have it as the only source pointing out a BLP of quackery, because of the fact that most of the volunteer experts are anonymous at QW. I would find it hard that in relation to a BLP, QW would be the only such site. --Masem (t) 14:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here the link from above to the RFC: [18]. The issue seems to be that a WP:SPS is not appropriate on a WP:BLP regardless of whether it is otherwise a WP:RS, with no consensus for an exception for WP:FRINGE topics. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, Quackwatch is not a reliable source for BLPs (and probably most everything else) per WP:BLPSPS. It is self-published and it appears to lack independent editorial control. WP:USEBYOTHERS is weak. It is cited by publishers like the New York Post, AlterNet, the Daily Beast, Fox News, and Time. Although less of a concern, there is no evidence that the editorial process is independent of the commercial interest of the site (referral income from medically related products/services). On background, the owner of Quackwatch is a Psychiatrist who has not practiced medicine for 26 years.[19] Even if this blog were not self published, the principle that, if something is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it will have reported by other reliable sources, applies.- MrX 🖋 11:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Are your articles peer-reviewed?"

"It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail. Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts. News articles are not usually reviewed prior to posting. However, the review process does not stop when an article is published. Complaints or suggestions from readers may trigger additional review that results in modification of the original version."[20]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary to date

The questions discussed above can be summarised as:

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

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

Other known relevant facts: This has been under discussion for this specific article for many years. Gary Null sued WMF a decade ago to have QuackWatch removed as a source, the case was dismissed ([21]).This predates Jimbo's well-documented statement that our policies on this are "exactly correct" (WP:LUNATIC). Null has also issued legal threats in recent months against wikipedia editors (including me) in substantially similar form to his case against WMF in 2009, leading to the banning of Nealgreenfield, identified on-wiki as his legal representative, and likely sock Fela Watusi. One lead promoter of his agenda is Rome Viharo, self-identified on Wikipedia as Tumbleman. The Null article has seen other SPA / IP attempts at whitewashing over the years but the current press for change seems to be part of a new and concerted campaign by Null. Зенитная Самоходная Установка was attracted to this dispute by commentary from Gary Null. Concern has been expressed to some of us via email that Зенитная Самоходная Установка is a Tumbleman sock, this is not factored in, and we operate on the assumption of good faith at this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workshop on Quackwatch RfC

Superseded by § Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC.

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

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

Here is one way the RfC could be structured:

RfC format suggestion by Newslinger

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

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

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

Would this work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Straw polls for Quackwatch RfC

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

Bias/partisanship

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

Survey (Bias/partisanship)

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

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

• No. Accusations like "Quackwatch is biased" and of course the classic "Wikipedia is Biased" are what motivated my to create the essay at WP:GOODBIAS. Wikipedia really is biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls in a fundamental way. We say that, when it comes to cleaning laundry, laundry detergent works and laundry balls don't. Unlike some of the other areas covered in my essay, the makers of laundry balls have yet to send an army of shills to Wikipedia to protest about our anti-laundry-ball bias, and we haven't been sued over our coverage of the topic, but it would not surprise me if they did. As far as I can tell, Quackwatch has not covered laundry balls (The Straight Dope has[22]), but if they ever do I am confidant that they will share our anti-laundry-ball bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. As long as the go-to is the ArbCom decision, which should not be used at all per the scope of ArbCom. My bringing it up at RSP was because of this scope. Misuse of the decision has caused ongoing problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, this is getting a bit out in the weeds. Reliability is not a measure of bias, nor visa versa. It just so happens that many of the sources we've outright depreciated also happen to be hyper-partisan. That may be because these sources have consciously sacrificed factual accuracy in service to political objectives (no way Orwell hadn't read his Machiavelli after all), or (my personal opinion) it may be that people who are hyper-partisan tend to be hyper-partisan because they're not very good critical thinkers to begin with. But it is perfectly acceptable for two reasonable people to look at the same sets of facts and draw different conclusions; that's in the neighborhood of bias. It is not acceptable for one of them to fudge the facts to support the opinion they've already made their mind up about. That's reliability. Besides that, things like pseudo-science and conspiracies are not a partisan issue. There are as many essential-oil-touting, crystal-wearing, big-pharma-fearing, new-age hippies on the left, as there are bigfoot-hunting, deep-state-fearing, race-obsessed country bumpkins on the right. Gullible ignorant people come in all shapes and sizes.
  I couldn't care less about ArbCom's opinion on the matter. The pontifications of ArbCom are wholly irrelevant to the editorial decision making process, whether they think so or not. GMG^talk 18:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Background for the ArbCom.... As the subject/victim of that ArbCom case, I know a bit about its background and why comments about "content" made their way into the wording, even though that should not have happened. One of the Arbitrators is a supporter of certain forms of quackery, and therefore skeptical of QW. He should have recused himself, but he didn't. On the contrary! Based only on his own quack-friendly biases and the accusations of pushers of quackery, and before any evidence was presented, he wrote up the list of "findings", some of which were BS, but they remained unchanged. He basically set me up right from the start. Fortunately other editors mounted a very strong defense. Those BS "findings" are the ones which have caused problems for QW. As a defrocked lawyer, that Arbitrator should have known better. "Findings" are written after looking at the evidence, not just the accusations by pushers of quackery. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• No QuackWatch represents a scientific / evidence based perspective. It is not biased but often analysis sources that are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - I'm of the mind that it would, of course, depend on whether or not the article in QW is cited to verifiable scientific fact, or it is the opinion of a single medical expert or a prevailing medical opinion in a peer reviewed Journal, etc. ArbCom's remedy states: ...that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation. Further, in that same case, ArbCom (7-0) stated with reference to BullRangifer's use that He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits." per the amendment here. Would a decision in an RfC change that Arb remedy, or would it require a case at ARCA? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Bias/partisanship)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guy Macon, Bilby's view is probably coloured by his long-term work ensuring that articles on antivaxers and other charlatans are as fair to them as humanly possible. In that context, excluding QW from biographies would be a boon. It's a valid mission. I personally think he goes too far, but that's one of those things on which reasonable people can differ. Guy (help!) 12:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Self-published status of authors

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

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

Feel free to add other options to the list above.

Survey (Self-published status of authors)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2 If for no other reason than to ensure every option gets a hearing. I do not know enough about QW to make a clear judgement on whether it is generally (other then specifically in relation to Barrett) an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. People aren't going to just say yes or no - if they want to qualify their statement, they will when they make it. - Bilby (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 - There is no valid reason to pay any attention to articles from other sources that he re-publishes. Just use the other sources (if they are reliable). - MrX 🖋 11:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Any original reporting at QW should be reviewed for SPS-ness. For any reprinting of published material on QW, then we go to the original source and judge that (Peer-reviewed paper? Great! Medium.com post? Nope!). --Masem (t) 14:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. RfCs allow for open-ended responses, and closers are expected to examine any exceptions or qualifications mentioned in the comments. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 - for the reasons I stated in the first section of the survey with reference to the ArbCom remedy, Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation. It depends on what was published in QW and whether or not it was a medical opinion or a peer-reviewed article, etc. MEDRS should apply here, should it not? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Self-published status of authors)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IANAL, but as I understand it, in British law repeating a libel can be as bad as originating one (hence, not too long ago, the famous Lord McAlpine case.[23]). Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

General reliability

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

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

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

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

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Quackwatch?

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

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

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Quackwatch?

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

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

Feel free to add other options to the list above.

Survey (General reliability)

• Option A: It is generally reliable for alternative medicine and quackery. As a mainstream health and medical source, it has been recognized for its value in these subject areas by numerous RS and agencies for many years. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It is the duty of editors to accept the decision of RS. They should not allow personal editorial opinions to trump what RS say. That's a violation of NPOV. Mainstream RS consider it a valuable RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• *Option D per Masem. General reliability is not the issue here. Only use of Barrett's articles for BLP persons, not their claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A or Option C. If we are going to be reductive, and determine reliability sans context, we should be properly so. No great preference as to the open question in A or the closed question in C. If a closed question, the third option ("generally unreliable"), while unlikely to receive great support, should be offered explicitly. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A or Option D I think this has been decided, it is generally reliable. But consensus can change.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• A. We just need to ask if it is reliable or not - if people want to choose one of the suboptions they can just do so in their comment. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A - The question should be open ended in order to get the best input.- MrX 🖋 11:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option D - The issue does not seem to be related to whether or not QW is sufficiently an expert reliable source for quackery absent any BLP issues. It is specifically whether QW is an SPS, and to that end, how BLPSPS overrides RS to allow/disallow its use in BLP and BLP-related articles. --Masem (t) 14:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A. The Science-Based Medicine RfC asked this question, and it turned out quite well. Quackwatch is held to the same standards as any other source: if other sources can be evaluated on their degrees of adherence to the reliable sources guideline, so can Quackwatch. Otherwise, we'll just end up having this RfC at a later time since there appears to be disagreement here. — Newslinger talk 20:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option C - IF my interpretation is correct in that (a), (b) & (c) are a combined consideration when making the choice to cite an article published in QW. In other words, case by case basis with an approach to QW similar to the approaches we would use in similar articles that require strict adherence to WP:MEDRS. And also if such an RfC can override an ArbCom remedy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (General reliability)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC

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

Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only if you believe that using Wikipedia as a platform to debunk pseudomedicine is more important that our BLP policy. Also, I've never understood why it's necessary to WP:LABEL things quackery, when we could simply say that they're not supported by scientific evidence. In fact, WP:BLPSTYLE seem quite clear on that point. - MrX 🖋 17:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

A lot of these same arguments were rehearsed about Michael Greger's claims about diet (though the source in that case was Science-Based Medicine, not QW). This led to an RfC.[24]. Quackwatch is currently used in several biographies. From a quick search: Robert O. Young, Joseph Mercola and Eric R. Braverman - I haven't explored the wider sourcing for these people. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of self-published sources

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

Blogs

Web forums

Wikis

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

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

Business, charitable, and personal websites

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

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

Also says this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Quackwatch

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

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

Survey (Quackwatch)

• No. See "Quackwatch is now an international network of people who are concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct."[25] QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, at least mostly, because the people who write most of the content are the same ones deciding to post that content on the website. It's important for editors to remember that "self-published" is not a term of abuse. It only means that the author and the publisher are the same person or organization. The same is true for, e.g., www.apple.com, www.coca-cola.com, and most other websites (with the significant exception of typical media outlets). So as a purely factual matter, if Stephen Barrett writes an article, and Stephen Barrett decides to post that article on Stephen Barrett's website, then that's self-published. It doesn't matter if Quackwatch is "now an international network", because the same definition applies: If "an international network" writes an article, and "an international network" decides to publish it, then it's self-published. However, articles by occasional contributors and people otherwise uninvolved in the organization are probably not self-published (because the occasional contributor writes it, but Stephen Barrett or that underspecified "international network" publishes it).
  There's always a tendency in these discussions to try to dodge the plain facts because it's inconvenient when we recognize that a source we like is somehow a WP:NOTGOODSOURCE – it's primary, or it's self-published, or it's not independent, or whatever. But I think the solution in that case isn't to pretend that this isn't (mostly) a self-published source. I think the solution is to invoke IAR or to adjust the policies and guidelines to accept these good sources even thought they don't happen to fall into the right abstract categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Quackwatch is now (and has been for the last 11 years) written, edited and published by Steven Barret on a website which he fully owns and controls. He does seek advice on some articles before he publishes them, (he notes that he sends some articles to advisers he selects if he is not confident with the material, and that he doesn't seek advice on news articles), and this helps speak to reliablity, but if an author ultimately controls all aspects of the publication process then they are self publishing. There are a small minority of articles on Quackwatch which were not originally published elsewhere but which are solely by authors other than Barrett - these should be considered on a case-by-case basis. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of editors have mentioned Quackwatch Inc. Quackwatch Inc was disolved by Barrett in 2008. Since then it has been solely owned and operated by Barrett. [26] - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Just as a note about reliability vs publication status. The argumnent turns up that Quackwatch is reliable and therefore not an SPS - either due to Barrett's expertise or to do with the anonymous expert review that it is claimed some articles undergo. That it is reliable is a fair enough claim. But just as non-self published sources can be unreliable, (the Daily Mail springs to mind), it is possible that self-published sources may be reliable, and we acknowledge in RSP that self published sources by an expert may well be reliable in their area of expertise. Nevertheless, whether or not something is reliable does not change how it was published or who was ultimately responsible for decisions at each stage of that publication. Even if Quackwatch is reliable, it is still also self-published, and it is the publication status which is in contention. - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Yes As in my comments above [27] and per Slim Virgin. Add: if there is something really worth using as a source in QuackWatch it could possibly be found in another more reliable format. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, but among such sites it's reasonably reliable and has a good reputation. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, see LA Times (though that describes it as the skeptical blog Quackwatch), PSmag, CNN, The Atlantic (also describes it as a blog), New York Times, etc. The fact that many of these describe it as a blog IMHO makes it too dicey to use it directly for claims about a WP:BLP, but I do feel it's definitely a good source (with an in-line citation) for statements about treatments, theories, etc. Also, since I suspect this may come up, I don't feel that "this theory is wrong" or "this treatment is harmful" (on an article about the theory or treatment) is a WP:BLP-sensitive statement, even if the theory is unambiguously associated with one person - down that route lies madness, because it would rapidly extend BLP to cover nearly everything. --Aquillion (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, that The Atlantic inaccurately describes it as a blog, and that LA Times inaccurately describes QW as a blog (they accurately describe SBS as a blog) is problematic....for The Atlantic and LA Times. That means that they are not RS when it comes to describing QW. That is very careless writing. At least they use QW favorably.

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

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

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

Bilby, yes, Barrett is just like the Editor-in-Chief of the Los Angeles Times in many ways. An editorial in the Times is also an SPS, and the Editor-in-Chief makes editorial decisions about the other content that is published, often involving consultation with specialists.

That's exactly what happens at QW, except that Barrett is a renowned and highly respected subject expert whose articles are usually well-referenced and not just his opinion. He uses his scientific background. He also consults with other subject experts, and you and I know just as little about that process as we do with the Editor-in-Chief of the LA Times. (Well, that's not totally true with QW. We know more about that process because Barrett posts a list of experts he consults.)

We don't have to know the exact nature of that process, because we trust that people in the Editor-in-Chief position are a notch above other writers. We recognize that they have more credibility, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten into their positions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he hasn't posted that list of experts since 2006. The advisers are anonymous now. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Already answered in a separate section below. The experts are still there, just not posted. There is no justification for dissing and disrespecting a notable subject expert. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "dissing" anyone - just posting a small correction to your statement "Well, that's not totally true with QW. We know more about that process because Barrett posts a list of experts he consults". - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby , I just noticed this. No, we DO know more about QW than we do the LA Times. We do not know what experts are used by the Times. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

According to QuackWatch, they do not post a list of who their experts are, because "the task of keeping a directory up to date became far more trouble than it was worth". [28] - Bilby (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• No except those articles written by Barrett not proofread or overseen by Quackwatch’s Scientific and Technical Advisors. Quackwatch has made an effort to let the public know that its articles were overseen by 152 advisors in 2009, and more than 1,000 over time.[29] I accept these statements in good faith. Also Quackwatch should not be called “partisan” because according to definition it is not “strongly supporting a person, principle, or political party, often without considering or judging the matter very carefully”.[30] By comparison or contrast articles by the Southern Poverty Law Center are not called “partisan” at WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Alternatively Quackwatch may be biased against quackery, but that's not a bias, just a normal, neutral and mainstream sensible position. CatCafe (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

QW is NOT "a blog because it allows comments." It's not a blog, and the only comments are those sent to Barrett, just like what happens on other websites and magazines. There isn't even a Letters to the Editor feature at QW. (Just to be sure, I just searched the site and didn't find any. It has a good search function.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"Letters to the editor" are at [31]. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess you could call them that. Big deal. Is there something wrong with that? That is no different than all other RS, and we would never use them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a clarification. - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• • QW isn't comparable to SBM. While I dislike the sarcastic tone of both, SBM has the oversight of multiple qualified editors in the fields of medicine and science which makes it a reliable source per our guides, and which at the least makes SBM a good source for relevant opinions. (As well, it might be worth repeating.) Sources are only reliable for the content they source but not for anything and everyhting. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, similarly to what Littleolive oil and Aquillion wrote, I think it's a good source that may be useable for scientific statements on a case-by-case basis (particularly when lacking opposing views sources in fringe topics), but not for biographies, as it is a self-published source. But even for scientific statements, either QuackWatch provides a good bibliography that we can directly use, or it's not and then it's only QuackWatch's opinion and not facts and then it's arguable whether QW should be used at all. The fact that there may be multiple authors does not change the fact that there is no systematic reviewing process, this essentially remains a blog. Essentially, I think we should treat it as any other self-published source, we should make no exception solely because we appreciate the source, as I think it's a dangerous path as I wrote in WP:NOBIAS. --Signimu (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No QuackWatch is peer reviewed and is published by Quackwatch, Inc. It is not like a self published blog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is (mostly) written, owned and published by one person (thus fits OUR definition of SPS), Expertise and accuracy are (as stated in policy) irrelevant for determining this. Now there may be evidence of peer review, but there are some statements that its owner publishes anything he likes the look of without peer review (thus may fail the SPS statement about knowing the publisher), thus I am not sure it is possible to say which have been peer reviewed or which are by his mates and have just been published as is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No because QuackWatch is peer reviewed --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - The answer to this question is a judgement call because of the loosey-goosey definition of "self published source" in WP:SPS. Quackwatch has characteristics of "claim to be an expert", "newsletters",[32], a "personal blog", a "group blog", a "content farms", and "internet forum postings"[33]. The website includes articles written by the owner of the website, as well as articles curated from various sources like forum posts,[34] conference papers,[35] other self published sources, and journals. The website owner has a medical degree and practiced psychiatry more than two decades ago, but it's not clear what qualifies him to declare a wide variety of subjects "quackery". I'm not aware that he has specialized training in the field of identifying and debunking quackery, although it's clear he is singularly devoted to that cause. The website has no editorial staff or independent editorial process that I can discern, and the idea that the website is peer reviewed appears to be an attempt to lend it legitimacy by co-opting jargon from conventional science publishers. - MrX 🖋 13:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, yes. One way or the other, it seems to be Barrett's website, to the extent that anyone else has input on the content it is at the discretion of Barrett, and Barrett it the final authority on all editorial decisions. Saying "lots of anonymous experts look at this stuff sometimes" sounds nice, but from what I can tell, it is still Barrett who decides what topics need outside input, Barrett who chooses these experts, and Barrett who decides whether or not to incorporate their recommendations. None of these accouterments make it not-Barrett's-website. GMG^talk 15:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Everything I can see here fits the definition of SPS almost to a tee. Almost everything is written or dictated by the owner of the site with no oversight. It is basically a blog from what I can tell. Also I see no signs of actual peer review so that is not an argument. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is (mostly) written and reviewed by Barrett, and published at a site owned by the author. Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, there's an editorial board/peer review going on and it's an authoritative source on quackery of all sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's an editorial board (if there is, please post a source). I've never seen any mention of a board on the site. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per CatCafe and Doc James. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: Lack of evidence that would otherwise suggest independent or outside review, by peers or others of any sort. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• No as many others have explained, it is peer reviewed. It’s not an SPS and is widely seen as a useful and authoritative source on the subject of quackery. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• This has been brought up by multiple people, but what I haven't seen is what that peer review process actually is. Are the recommendations of the reviewers binding, or are they merely suggestions for Barrett to take or leave as they see fit? If it is the former, then the peer review argument might hold weight. If it is the former, then it looks like peer review in name only. GMG^talk 16:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per arguments of Bilby and SlimVirgin. It's fundamentally a website owned and operated by Stephen Barrett with only the thinnest veneer of editorial oversight by volunteers. The fact that it cites scientific papers, is generally reliable, and is extremely popular with some editors doesn't change the fundamental position. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes it is a self-published site. It may have some noted experts, but it lacks the proper editors/peer review facets we would expect for an RS (particularly one in the medical area like MEDRS). --Masem (t) 15:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, very obviously No. I randomly picked twenty links on the site. 13 of them were written by Barrett, 7 were by other people. Those 7 are very, very obviously not self-published, because - I feel silly having to write this - the author and the publisher are different people. I have no idea how anybody can even consider describing them as self-published. Therefore, calling the whole of Quackwatch self-published would be obviously wrong. Many other No voters have already pointed out that there are such non-Barrett articles, but I cannot see any response from Yes voters. Is this a case of WP:IDHT, or did I miss something? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I was curious about this too, and checked the first 100 articles on the site. Of those, the majority were by Barrett, and the majority of those written by other people were reprints from elsewhere. It ended up being that less than 10% were both written solely by someone other than Barrett and were not simply a republication. Of the articles published and listed as recent, which covers the last three years, all were written by Barrett except for four published elsewhere and hosted on the site. - Bilby (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

So, you think that the 10% non-Barrett articles are also self-published because... it is only 10%? What flimsy excuse for a reason is that?

Others have already suggested the "only the Barrett articles are self-published" solution. What is wrong with that? I repeat: Why should we call articles "self-published" when they are obviously not self-published? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What I originally said - and still stand by - is given that the bulk of the articles are self published or reprints, we regard Quackwatch as self published, and take other articles on a case-by-case basis. - Bilby (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

When you say "other articles", what do you mean?

Are you saying that you call Barrett's articles on Quackwatch "Quackwatch", and you call non-Barrett articles on Quackwatch "other articles"?

If yes, then a) that is an extremely weird way of talking, and b) you are agreeing with the "only the Barrett articles are self-published" solution, which is different from "the whole of Quackwatch is self-published", and you should have answered my question "What is wrong with that?" with something like "Nothing, that is what I want too".

If no, I have no idea what you could mean. Maybe "other articles" is the non-Quackwatch part of the internet? Why is it so difficult for you to clearly say what you want to say? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm ok with your view. It's simply that I looked into this as well, and for me when under 10% of the articles were not by Barrett and not published everywhere, I was happy to regard Quackwatch as an SPS - except in regard to the few exceptions. But I'm ok if you want to argue that it is not an SPS because some article are by other authors, and only those by Barrett are self published. Personally, I'm only inclined to treat articles by Barrett on QW as self published anyway, so from my end I'm good with either way of labelling things if that is where consensus ends up. - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, the catch here is that you are referring to the fact that you "checked the first 100 articles on the site. Of those, the majority were by Barrett..." No one is denying that Barrett writes a lot of the content there, but your investigation is a very limited. The index page is indeed nearly all Barrett articles, but QW is a database with many other sources, and you and I really don't have any exact statistics, so we can't make any judgment based on what's on the front page.

The other articles, documents, legal reports, historical documents, entire books, court judgments, etc., most of which were originally published elsewhere, are usually housed at QW because they can no longer be found elsewhere. That's the whole idea. QW specializes in information which is hard to find elsewhere. It's right there in the site description. When I cite such a source found at QW, I format my citation just as if it was still found on the original source, but use the QW url. Very simple solution.

General comment: Attempts to dis QW would cut off our use of these sources, and that would be a great loss. Some editors here have obviously not read our Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett articles and have not performed due diligence. I suggest they do so before they continue digging a grave for QW in their eagerness to bury it. They should also stick to the limited scope of this RfC. Bilby, IIRC, you have been pretty good at that, and I thank you for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I access the other articles that are not linked to on the front page of his site? - Bilby (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I have usually found them because they were cited by outside sources, were linked to by Barrett in his own articles (QW uses internal "wikilinks" extensively, and by using the site's own search engine. I know of no "index" for all the content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I guess what you are referring to then are attachments to the articles he publishes, such as primary sources he used, but not necessarily original content. - Bilby (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's often the case. His articles usually cite his sources. Some are totally external, others are third party RS housed at QW, and others are links to internal articles related to the topic, where more info and sources can be found. That's been my experience. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, a self-published site is one where you can wake up at three in the morning and, sitting in bed in your pyjamas, tap out an article and press "publish", without having to check first with a professional staff of fact-checkers, copy editors, a managing editor, an editor-in-chief, the company lawyers, or a publisher. We don't allow that kind of source in BLPs, for obvious reasons, with no exceptions. That part of the policy (WP:BLPSPS) is strongly supported. Quackwatch is the very essence of what's meant by a self-published site, where one person—its owner and the person who has written almost all of it—has complete control over what appears there. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you even talking to me when your contribution completely ignores what I said? Please read WP:IDHT.

So, now I have seen "responses" by Yes voters, but both of them are crap. One sidesteps the question, and one ignores it.

You people use the word "most", as in "most articles are written by Barrett", but your conclusion "it is self-published" only follows if you replace the "most" by "all". Why is that? Did the definition of "most" change when I was not looking? Is there an obscure Wikipedia rule that says those two words are the same? I very much sympathize with Alice at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, if you create a website and sometimes you invite your neighbour to make a contribution, that doesn't mean it's no longer your own, self-published site. The point would remain that you own the site and that you alone decide what appears there. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, the same applies to any newspaper where the Editor-in-Chief writes editorials and also has others write articles. Only the articles by that Editor-in-Chief are considered self-published. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, that's not how newspapers work. Even small newspapers have many eyes on every piece, including by the editor-in-chief, and editorial board meetings to decide what to publish and how to cover things. Newspapers are not self-published sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works says "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." I will stop talking to you now because of your WP:IDHT condition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I've been in 2 minds on this since I first saw it at BLPN. It seems clear that QuackWatch probably has better processes in place for trying to avoid the problems of having just some random person (be it a subject matter expect) publish something without check by some other party. And especially, that they have better processes in place for managing complaints after the fact than many SPS. Heck in some ways their use of a subject matter expert may often produce better results when it comes to the science than some of the crap that nominally reliable sources with clear editorial processes publish. Still, I've seen nothing that is sufficient to ensure it isn't still a self-published source. And I say this even for articles written by others published exclusively on QuackWatch. So yes for BLP purposes they should all be treated as SPS. While I understand the concerns over preventing us challenging some of the stuff proponents if questionable practices say and do, we have to accept that sometimes this is how things have to be. We should equally demand quality sources before allowing any claims from such proponents to be presented, including in articles on them. Also, this may not effect articles on practices provided we aren't using QuackWatch to support claims about specific people. For example, if we have an article on Licking cats, it may be fine to say "The scientific consensus is that there is no medical benefit arising from licking cats. There is also a risk of infection by toxoplasmosis and other diseases, especially those transmitted via the fecal–oral route. Many cats don't like it anyway." sourced to QuackWatch. However we shouldn't say "Nil Einne is a proponent of the practice" if the only source of that is QuackWatch. For an article on Nil Einne, we may not be able to mention the criticism of the practice if there is really no other source, but I suspect in most cases there will also be no merit to mention the practice at all because it's simply not covered in good sources. (If it is covered, it's likely there will be some mention that the practice is controversial so we can mention that, maybe without needing to elabourate.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, not by any meaningful test. Multiple authors and at least informal review. Guy (help!) 12:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, not by any reasonable standard. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• No — not by any standard definition. There have been plenty of RfCs on whether we ought use Quackwatch, and they all end up showing the same thing — QW is a reliable and quality source. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but don't you think that it's possible for some self-published sources to be a reliable and quality source? The WP:SPS policy seems to indicate that this is possible, when the source is written and published by a recognized subject-matter expert (which IMO Barrett is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Mu – depends on what page on the QuackWatch website you're talking about. Some pages are self published, other pages are not self published. – Levivich 23:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  ​Could you please be more specific? Among editors who believe Quackwatch is partially self-published, there is disagreement over which of Quackwatch's pages are self-published. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  ​ Yes – I can be more specific. Per WP:USESPS, the question is whether the publisher and the author are the same. QW publishes a mixture of self-published [36] [37] and non-self-published [38] [39] [40] content. So when answering "Is QW an SPS?", a categorical "yes" and a categorical "no" are both wrong. The only right answer is, "it depends on the work". A separate issue is that "self-published" is being used at times in this discussion as a proxy for "reliable", and those two aren't the same thing. An SPS can still be reliable. – Levivich 03:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  PS: the way I read it, the word "source" in "self-published source" refers to a work, and not a publisher. Same with a "reliable source"–that's a specific work, not a publisher. For this reason, questions like, "is this source self-published" or "is this source reliable" cannot be asked or answered about a publisher, but only about a specific work. – Levivich 03:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification, Levivich! As a note, the primary objective of this RfC is to determine how WP:BLPSPS should be applied to Quackwatch, if at all. — Newslinger talk 03:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I think it is. And this is an example of where self published != bad. However it does mean that we shouldn't be relying on it for sole-sourcing in BLP articles. If a neutral article about a quack depends on Quackwatch to be possible, we just shouldn't be covering them. Not everything needs to be on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes with a qualification, for reasons stated above. I believe Quackwatch to be the professional medical opinion, but opinion nonetheless, of Dr Barrett, who is also the founder and most prolific writer. Maybe some distinction could be made between the articles of Barrett's and those of his contributors, but in my estimation, Barrett seems to be the sole gateway for content and thus have to say it seems the content of this site is solely dependent upon Dr Barrett's personal opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 07:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per Bilby and with strict adherence to WP:USESPS, WP:V and WP:NOR; adding that it's best to also better to cite at least 1 or 2 RS that corroborate what they've published. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• No Quackwatch has been used on many BLP articles for well over a decade. It is the most reliable source on the internet dealing with quackery written by professional experts, not just one person. This is not a website written in someone's bedroom. For example Jack Raso, M.S., R.D., [41] and [42] has published reliable articles on the website as have many other specialists. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes-Clearly self-published. If there was any doubt, multiple reliable sources refer to it as a blog.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Rusf10, even RS can get it wrong. There is nothing bloglike about QW. Nothing at all. Very few RS make that mistake. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• No does not match SPS I re-read SPS and all these comments and I am now questioning how relevant SPS is now as compared to when it was written in about 2007. I think the definition of WP:SPS is outdated. We have this policy, "self published sources", but the criteria for being a "self-published source" is unrelated to "self-publishing". The criteria are more about the availability of publisher information. Yes, I agree, one person is publishing Quackwatch, and this person is not subject to external or institutional editorial control, and is only presenting themselves as an expert of their field. However, the intent of WP:SPS was never to dismiss self-published sources exactly, but rather to communicate that 12+ years ago there was no such thing as a reputable source which could publish in a one-person media channel. Times have changed and self-publishing has a different meaning and context now. Lots of experts acting alone can have their own websites now, when this used to be much more unusual. In the opposite case, books which are not self published are much less trustworthy, because publishing costs for books have dropped so much. For example, one person could publish a book, and it could get sold to a reputable publisher, but since the publishing industry is wrecked as compared to 15 years ago, a book from a reputable publisher nowadays is more likely to be of the low quality of a self-published website of 12 years ago. The guideline about SPS in Wikipedia is not about a publication method, but about whether a source has markers of reliability, such as an identified author, known positions, discoverable bias, etc. Quackwatch is an old website and we have all this information about it. It is consistent for what it is and it publishes mainstream opinions for a demographic, and the author of that website is an author in conventional book publishing as well. I would like to rename WP:SPS to get away from evaluations of publishing method, and instead to distinguish the original intent of that policy. The original intent was to dismiss publications which appeared without context, and to emphasize publications where we have a large body of information about the source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Seems to be clearly a self-published source for articles written by the same person who has ownership and editorial control. The fact that nobody other than an article author reviews and could reject or question facts in an article means that we should not be treating this source the same as other sources in certain circumstances. "Self-published" is a factual question and not about whether the source is "reliable". Also, concerns with Wikipedia policies about how to use self-published sources seem largely irrelevant here, and should be addressed on the talk pages of those relevant policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per WhatamIdoing, Bilby, and SlimVirgin. Surveying their new articles page, pretty much everything that's not a reposted PDF scan was written by Barrett. Significant parts of the site FAQ is written in the first person singular. Donations go directly to Barrett [43], and they report that their non-profit organization has been dissolved for a decade. The content creator and publisher are the same, so it seems like a WP:SPS to me. That said Barrett may meet the criteria of being an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications," which would permit its limited use in non-BLP situations. However, I have no opinion on whether Barrett is actually an "established expert" or not, since I haven't looked into it. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, as explained by SlimVirgin. I find it telling that the "How to Become a Quackwatch Advisor" page, mostly written from a plural "we" and "us" perspective, contains the text "send me an e-mail", emphasis mine. Even the website's attempts to make a professional impression fail to make it look like anything else than a self-published blog. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  ~ ToBeFree, it has nothing in common with a blog. (People are very careless with that word, including that the use of many blogs is far from what it used to be, so we do accept those by subject experts, businesses, and politicians. It is the diary type blog and readers' comments which we deprecate.)

  Barrett's articles published on his own QW website are of course SPS, but not other content or articles by others that are part of that huge database. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. "an international network of people who are concerned about" some topic or other could mean just about anything. Insofar as Barrett is considered a subject-matter expert (I have no idea if he is), then his writing could be WP:DUE for opinions attributed directly to him. Otherwise the site has all the hallmarks of a group blog. Claiming it isn't because it doesn't use "blog software" and so forth is equivocating with the meaning of "blog". A blog can be anything from someone's Tumblr account to a professional WP:NEWSBLOG. Quackwatch is a self-published website according to its own mission statement, which describes the site and others as "Dr. Barrett's ... sites". The contact address is listed as Barrett's own; there's no masthead or any other sign of editorial oversight and/or independent fact-checking that I can see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sangdeboeuf, in spite of repeated explanations that QW is not a blog and has none of the features characteristic of blogs, you repeat that accusation above. What are you really trying to say? Are you saying that anyone can post there, or are you saying something else? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  I realy don't think hammering at the same points over and over is helping the discussion. I've indicated what I think of the merits of said "explanations" already. Whether "anyone can post" does not determine whether something is a blog or not. What I'm "trying to say" is exactly what I did say; QW is quite evidently a self-published website and therefore should not be considered generally reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sangdeboeuf, thanks for the clarification. Just as long as you don't use the term blog to describe QW we're on more solid ground. Using it as a slur just muddies the water for a website which myriad RS consider a very valuable source, and as the website of a renowned subject it is indeed considered a generally RS, but that is not the subject under discussion.

  This RfC is about the use of a SPS in a BLP, which is not allowed. That would not apply to QW as a website, but only to articles written by Barrett and self-published at QW, not to articles written by others and published there, just as we do with any newspaper or magazine. Only the articles by the Editor-in-Chief and employees can be considered self-published.

  It also would only apply to using such articles by Barrett about the person, not their false claims. I'll address the MEDRS issue below.

  I suggest that you read the Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett articles before you participate in an RfC of this nature, as failures to understand them has consequences here. Perform due diligence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  I suggest you refrain from casting WP: ASPERSIONS on your fellow editors. I have read both articles, which overall seem bloated with WP:PROMOTIONAL content that makes me question the site even more. For articles written by others on the site to be usable, Barrett would need to be considered a reputable publisher first. That's highly debatable from what I can see. The comparison to the editor-in-chief of a newspaper or magazine is apt, since QW seems to have no such professional structure in place. This idea that an SPS isn't an SPS when the site's owner lets his buddies post there is frankly ridiculous. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'd also second Masem's point about WP:MEDRS, which seems to be a large topic area for the site; we should avoid citing it for any biomedical information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sangdeboeuf, we do not use QW for such medical content, but for content related to false and misleading claims which are often of a medical nature. The two subjects may seem identical, but they are not. They just happen to overlap. In the process of dealing with such content, history shows that editors are perfectly capable of figuring out when to use which policy so as not to violate MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely yes looks most definitely like a self-published source. No published editorial team, no indication of paid editors, and its contributors, regardless of whatever qualifications and credentials they may hold, are still contributors that either self-invite themselves to join or are invited by the site's owners. If Quackwatch is not a self-published source, applying the same methodology, we'd have to include ICANNWatch and Wikipediocracy as not self-published sources. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per CatCafe, JzG, and BullRangifer. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. I'll stay away from the "per" trope except to say the Blue Rasberry and JzG summarize a lot of my views I don't need to pad the RfC further with. Others above had already established there is editorial oversight where most articles are reviewed by another expert, and editorial oversight is the bar for this discussion. That act of professionalism crosses the bar differentiating from being a simple blog post and at least makes it so this RfC cannot be closed as a blanket yes. Given this particular source's reputation for fact checking as an expert source, etc., it doesn't match with WP:SPS as Blue Rasberry discusses. On the SPS continuum between a random blog and the highest quality newspaper, Quackwatch may not be as clear cut in terms of its editorial process compared to that high-quality newspaper example, but not occupying the highest end of the spectrum doesn't put it in the bottom of the barrel of the other side of the spectrum either. A lot of comments above seem to be making that mistake (especially comparing it to something like Wikipediocracy), and BullRangifer addresses a lot of those problems coming up in this disccusion that need to weighed in assessing consensus per WP:NOTVOTE.

There's also WP:LETTER issues in play where the spirit of avoiding SPS is based on avoiding sources anyone can easily create without any barrier (i.e., bottom of the SPS spectrum again). That includes things like the traditional sense of a blog where someone can just sign up on wordpress or whatever the flavor of the week is nowadays, uploading a self-published book pdf to a host, etc. When someone creates a media organization with oversight and a reputation for fact checking, that at least in the spirit of the policy, moves it away from being an SPS. It's not the random yayhoo SPS is meant to target. That doesn't mean such content shouldn't be without attribution, which I think the consensus historically has been that it's perfectly fine to use Quackwatch with attribution in cases where WP:PARITY applies, so we'd be running into other WP:PAG issues trying to exclude the use of the source here. WP:FRINGEBLP is clear we also need to weigh other issues besides whether a source is self-published or not, so whether use or not of Quackwatch significantly affects things like WP:DUE, WP:PROFRINGE, or WP:BLPBALANCE needs to be done on a case-by-case at the relevant BLP, not at an overarching RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, even if I play devil's advocate and say this definitely is an SPS, that doesn't functionally change anything. SPS policy is very clear on what spurred this RfC (my bolding): Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. There's plenty of guidance scattered around on what a third-party source is. Quackwatch already is supposed to get attribution anyways, so current useage already wouldn't conflict with BLP policy even if it was classified as SPS. If someone was trying to entirely exclude Quackwatch based on that part of BLP-related policy, that would be misuse of the policy. You just couldn't use it as a third-party entirely disinterested source is all, hence the attribution when using it instead as a non-third-party. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, per JzG and BullRangifer. I don't feel I can add anything more than that, other than to wonder at some of the "Yes" voters ruleslawyering to get the results they want. --Calton | Talk 14:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Calton: Do you really wonder though? PackMecEng (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is a self-published website. The fact that it involves various people does not change that. Many of its articles may be written by experts and therefore usable in non-BLP contexts, but it will never be acceptable in the BLP context. It will be necessary to look for peer-reviewed journal articles, published books and other reliable sources when dealing with BLPs. Neljack (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - It's a self-published website. As noted above, that makes it ineligible for use in BLPs but it's still useful in other contexts under a different justification. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - and I see that Nil Einne has already elaborated the distinction that I was going to make, so I won't belabor the point by repeating it. shoy (reactions) 16:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per Nil Einne and Neljack. It might be a useful way to find statements attributable to individual subject matter experts, but it is still functionally self-published. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It's absolutely self published with no independant peer review. It's a blog. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  Morgan Leigh, QW is a website, not a medical journal, so the desire for it to be "peer reviewed" has always been a red herring. We don't demand than of any other website. It isn't used as a MEDRS source. You call it a "blog". On what basis do you do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Others have already answered this point. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Morgan Leigh, ah, our tame acupuncturist, here to tell us not to rely on a site that criticises acupuncture. Who predicted that? Guy (help!) 12:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  JzG Please refrain from spreading disinformation, again, in an attempt to discredit people who don't agree with you. I am not now, nor have I ever been, an accupuncturist. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Quackwatch is self-described as a "network of people", but exactly who these people are is unclear. Quackwatch is "Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D." I see no indication of a Board of Directors or an editorial board. I've never been comfortable with the idea of citing a source named "Quackwatch" to essentially declare that a living person is a "quack". – wbm1058 (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  wbm1058, I hope your realize that that is a straw man. We don't use QW in that manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, I suppose opinions can vary regarding "straw". I don't follow alternative medicine articles very closely, but one topic I'm somewhat familiar with is the Burzynski Clinic. I see that "quack" appears a dozen times in that article, including a link to a Quackwatch piece in the "Further reading" section, and a citation to the Quackometer blog. The Stanislaw Burzynski biography was merged to the article about his clinic, which I suppose is a way of mitigating potential BLP issues. wbm1058 (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the prompt reply. Yes, I see that the word "quack" appears several times in the article because many sources use that word. It's a real word with a real meaning.

  BTW, calling someone a quack is not libelous in the USA. Multiple court cases have established that. It's protected free speech.

  Quackwatch is not used as a source in the article, only as a "Further reading", a speech by Saul Green.

  If QW is ever misused, then we should deal with it just the way we do with any other RS that's misused. Often changing the article's wording so it harmonizes with the source does the job. If the source has got it wrong, then we might consider removing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, mostly. As the site lacks a proper editorial process, content that appears on Quackwatch authored by Barrett is self-published. It should not, therefore, be used as a source for biographical information on people covered by WP:BLP unless our policy changes. Caution should be used in separating opinion from fact when citing Barrett's writing, but the site is useful and sufficiently careful in its treatment of data to be considered as a source for content that does not raise BLP issues. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes it's a self-published source of high quality by a credible expert. It is used by others and can be used by us too with certain limitations. Self-published sources aren't necessarily bad. Haukur (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• No, I think it is closer to online newspaper or to a sufficiently reliable database online. This is not just a blog. In spirit of WP:RS, everything depends on the reputation for fact checking, etc. This particular place has a rather high reputation, simply based on the publications in other, more reliable sources about it. This is reflected in our page Quackwatch. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: The question is if they are a SPS not if they are a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• The publications on the site are written by different people of various expertise. The self-publishing assume that anyone can publish whatever he or she wanted. This is clearly not the case here, and there is a generally good reputation of this site acting as internet media. Hence I belive this is more like an online newspaper where something published by Barrett would qualify as an "editorial material", and something published by others would qualify as a "publication". My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• WP:USESPS is fairly clear on what a SPS is. Are the publisher and content creator the same person? If so then it is a SPS. Which is the case for almost all the articles on that website. That does not mean they cannot be used in certain places as a subject matter expert though. A good reputation is also only part of what makes a RS, but also does not disqualify them as a SPS. PackMecEng (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Are the publisher and content creator the same person?". No, at least with regard to all articles published by other people (there are many of them). A director/owner of a small media frequently can work as a presenter (for example, Natalya Sindeyeva at "TV Rain). That does not make everything on the channel self-published. In addition, per Wikipedia:USESPS, the question is: "Who is the author or creator of the work?". If this is a collective work by several people, as frequently happens, then it is arguably not self-publishing. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• SPS applies only to Barrett's own articles, but not to articles written by others. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes as explained by SlimVirgin and Nil Einne, clearly a self-published source in context of BLP policy, although it may be very well be usable in other situations.--Staberinde (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. QW content by Barrett is clearly written and published by the same person; definitionally a SPS - there is not evidence of serious editorial oversight. Of course, this does not mean that it is not usable; WP:SPS defines a special case of (reliable) sources: SPS written by established experts, and allows their use. Conversely, any reliability conferred on expert SPS cannot remove their self-published nature; "it's reliable" is not an argument that it is not a SPS. QW content other than by Barrett is more problematic - again there is not evidence of serious editorial oversight of this content - and, therefore, we must either conclude that it is not reliably published or that it is also essentially "self-published" (by the authors of that content). I believe we should choose the more inclusive of these options, and allow non-Barrett QW content by established experts to be used as expert SPS. Finally, content published elsewhere and republished on QW should reference the original publication - Ryk72 ^talk 01:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per SlimVirgin and Bilby. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• It Depends Yes as to articles written by Steven Barrett because he is also the publisher, and No to the others by other authors because they are ipso-facto not self-published. Sourcing documents that QW has republished to the RS where they first appeared shoud be preferred where practicable. I say this having no doubt that QW is reliable, and SPS can be and usually are reliable when written by experts. Some concerns have been raised that we should create a particularized exemption for QW from BLPSPS, but I consider those to be out of scope, or rather this RFC is not correctly formed for that purpose, and a seperate RFC would be needed. Another concern is that without QW Wikiepida will be left with insufficient resources to provide accurate information about quacks. I think this is unlikely because if QW is the only RS that takes a critical view of someone chances are that person shouldn't have an article anyway. Additionally, if this is just a matter of applying a WP:LABEL like quack we shouldn't generally do that from just one source anyway, and if the subject advocates for Crystal healing, we can just link to it in the article and let our readers figure out for themselves the subject is a quack. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Quackwatch)

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

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

• @Doc James: Quackwatch Inc. was disolved 11 years ago, in 2008. - Bilby (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• According to Quackwatch the site is peer-reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Some times "It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail.". The problem is we do not know how often, or which are.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That is misleading to take the content out of context. Also see "Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts."[44] QuackGuru (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • And most is not all, so (again) we do not know which or how many. So any article (even if it is only about the science) may not have undergone any peer review process.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
        • That is another misleading statement. Most articles related to the scientific basis are reviewed by at least one expert, while others are reviewed by more than one expert. QuackGuru (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Which part is misleading? "some does not mean all"? or "we do not know which or how,many"? Ohh and it does not say "while others are reviewed by more than one expert." it says "Some are reviewed by many experts", that may well include all of those listed under "at least one relevant expert".Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
            • "And most is not all" is your personal opinion. Quackwatch did not say there are articles related to the scientific basis that are not reviewed. They explained most are reviewed by at least one expert and there are other articles that are reviewed by many experts. Everything else is speculation. QuackGuru (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
              • And if they had meant all they would have said all. "Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts." does not say all are peer reviewed. Also does it differentiate between news and "science articles"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
                • QuackGuru also left out the next sentence where Barrett states "News articles are not usually reviewed prior to posting". [45] However, having some articles checked before you publish them doesn't change who the publisher is - the author and publisher are still the same person, so it is still being selfpublished, even if Barrett seeks advice on some articles. - Bilby (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a question for you. All across the USA there are small-town newspapers where one person owns the paper, writes the copy, does the editing, and makes every decision, all without any sort of editorial board or peer review. Stories in such small-town newspapers are the backbone of many of our BLP articles -- they are often the only source of information about a notable individual from before they became famous. Theoretically, If I were to post an RfC asking whether all such newspapers are self published sources and thus not allowed to be used in BLPs, would you !vote yes? If not, please explain your reasoning. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

My answer would be the same as for the daily Myth below, two wrongs do not make a right. Yes if a newspaper is owned edited and (largely) written by one man its an SPS, that is what policy says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I would give a more nuanced answer: It depends. For a statement such as “Joe attended Smalltown High School and graduated with honors in 1975”, the local paper is not a self published source. But for a statement like “Even in his student days, Joe was a quack” then yes, the paper is self published. The difference is that on the second sentence, the editor/reporter is inserting his personal opinion into his reporting. He is self publishing his opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I would give the same nuanced answer if I could, and I would apply the same nuance to Quackwatch if I could. Alas, WP:BLPSPS makes no allowances for such nuances, neither does this RfC, and neither would my imaginary RfC asking the same question about small town newspapers. Either they are self-published, in which case they are self-published for both claims about Joe, or they are not self-published, in which case they are not self-published for either claim about Joe.

So what is the answer to this dilemna? The answer is to determine that neither the small town newspapers nor quackwatch are self-published, and instead make the decision on reliability. For a statement such as "Joe attended Smalltown High School and graduated with honors in 1975", the local paper is a reliable and non-self-published source. For a statement like "Even in his student days, Joe was a quack" the local paper is a nonreliable but still non-self-published source.

The publisher/writer/editor of The Smalltown News is considered a subject-matter-expert on the subject of who attended Smalltown High School in 1975 and whether they graduated. The publisher/writer/editor of The Smalltown News is not a subject-matter-expert and thus not reliable on the subject of who is and who is not a Quack.

By abandoning the SPS classification, which allows for no nuance, and instead embracing the "reliable for this but unreliable for that" classification, which is already baked into our policy on identifying reliable sources, we allow the highly desirable nuance you describe. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Its called consistency, either these are SPS or wp:sps needs to be revamped.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What we have is WP:SPS (per WP:V), WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB (per WP:BLP) and all are policy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And dictionaries, because WP:SPS doesn't define what the term "self-published" means, so the normal English meaning is the place to start. A typical dictionary definition says (or said, the last time I looked, which was probably five to ten years ago) that self-publishing is when the author publishes his/her own work, except for traditional publishing houses. In other words, typical newspapers are automatically exempted from self-published status, no matter how few people are involved. (I don't think that single-human newspapers are that common, though. They do exist – The Mulberry Advance, if it still exists, was a one-man labor of love for a long time – but having a couple of people involved seems to be more typical, and with newspapers being sold to larger companies, sometimes the same few people all work on multiple, theoretically separate newspapers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I keep seeing the argument brought up that the site is peer reviewed. That appears to be mostly false. What review that does happen is not specified and at the discretion of the site owner. No reviews are named nor their qualifications. Basically there is no discernible review. Simple as that. PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is a reminder. Scientific related articles appear to be mostly peer-reviewed. See "Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert."[46] The site is expert peer-reviewed. Wow! QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Most is not all, that is an important distinction. Can you say which articles are and which are not? If not then my point stands. Also who are they and what are their qualifications? No one knows there either. PackMecEng (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • PackMecEng, your questions are answered below in a new section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Great! A 13 to 16 year old list of people he might of worked with on certain unspecified articles at his discretion. That might answer part but not the trust of the question in general. The other thing to note is what is the question here? It is if Quackwatch is a SPS. According to WP:USESPS it comes down to if the publisher and writer are the same person it is a SPS. Pretty much regardless of anything else. Which is the case here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
          • We agree that only Barrett's articles are SPS. QW is not an SPS. Otherwise, your dissing of a recognized expert is really out of line. Why the disrespect? That's uncalled for. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Hopefully we also agree that the "articles" that are not written by Barrett may or may not have appeared in a reliable source, and if they did, we should cite the reliable source, not Barrett's web site. It's an easy solution that allows us to continue following our policies.- MrX 🖋 16:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
              • MrX, yes, we agree. Barrett does republish, with permission, articles that may currently appear, or no longer appear, on other sources. If they still exist on those original sources, we can cite those sources, rather than QW.

  One of the goals of QW is to publish information that is hard to find or no longer exists on other sources, so many times we will treat QW as a secondary/tertiary source and use QW for that content. This may be quality articles by other subject experts, scientific research formerly found on the websites of recognized medical journals, court filings, government documents, and historical records and books. I used to use the website a lot and never got close to plumbing the depths of that database. It's huge.

  When I find an article from another RS or subject expert that used to appear elsewhere, but now is only published at QW, I form my citation as if it was from the original source, with the URL to QW being the only difference. I have done this several times. Sorry for the delay in replying. Too many things on my plate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I reject the implication that there is a straightforward demarcation to be had regarding publication provenance and source quality. Quackwatch is an excellent source for sussing out (pseudo-)medical practices and practitioners who are otherwise left unidentified by the credulous. That's how it should be used. If people are afraid of defamation, they should demonstrate errors that Quackwatch has published. I've yet to find anything that was erroneous. Sometimes their choice in rhetoric is combative, but that is an issue of tone and not of reliability. jps (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As I touched upon earlier, WP:BLPSPS makes no allowances for such nuances as "no straightforward demarcation to be had". BLPSPS is binary; either a source always is or always is not. The answer is to determine that Quackwatch (like my small town newspaper example above) is not self-published, and instead make the decision on reliability. Quackwatch is reliable for some claims, and unreliable for others, just like any other generally reliable source. By abandoning the SPS classification, which allows for no nuance, and instead embracing the "reliable for this but unreliable for that" classification, we acknowledge the fact that there really is no straightforward demarcation to be had regarding source quality, which is a concept that already baked into our sourcing policy; see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is bad policy that was unduly influenced by partisans here at Wikipedia who are part of the WP:CRYBLP faction famously angry about global warming denialists being so labeled by scientists. It erroneously engages in an arbitrary sorting of sources that does not reflect the actual reliability of the sources and instead just looks at accidents of publication. This has led to nonsense stick-in-the-muddism by rule sticklers. To give a hypothetical example of how ridiculous this policy is: Let's say the Surgeon General of the United States says on WP:TWITTER, "John Doe is wrong to promote cigarette smoking as a cure for cancer." As I read BLPSPS, this would not be allowed to be in John Doe's biography. That's a bad policy. jps (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And this is not the right venue for that discussion, if policy is bad we change it, we do not ignore it (which has been what I have been saying since this started).Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I categorically reject the idiocy of saying we can't discuss the shittiness of the BLP policy here as it directly conflicts with WP:RS. WP:IAR is a fucking pillar of the project. So go complain elsewhere. jps (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware policy cannot be changed on this type of notice board, sure we can slag it off as much as we like. But we cannot change it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, there's no such rule. It'd be unusual, and in practice it'd probably fail if you didn't leave at least a little {{please see}} on the talk pages of any policies or guidelines that the proposal could affect, but there is no required location for such discussions. You can have those discussions on any discussion page, so long as you make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity to discover that the discussion is happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The situation is complex, hence why it is good to determine first if QW is an SPS or not. At which point, then the question of whether BLPSPS is hampering its use, should it be determined as an SPS, can be asked. I should note that outside that BLPs, being an SPS does not otherwise change what I read it is otherwise being a reliable source on quackery, simply that how it gets used at BLPSPS needs to be asked as a wholly new question. --Masem (t) 16:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That is (distractions aside) exactly what this is about, its use for comments about living people, not comments about science, or theories or claims, just people.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if QW is determined NOT to be an SPS that goes away. If it is determined to be an SPS, we need to figure out the line, as BLPSPS right now reads that NO SPS may be used, even if it is for discussing someone's presented theory, and not the person themselves. --Masem (t) 16:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And my point is being slavishly devoted to WP:BLPSPS as a "non-negotiable" aspect of policy is what has got us into the mess of people removing extremely reliable information from biographies sourced to QW. How QW is published is categorically irrelevant to whether the material is reliable or not, but the raison d'etre of the BLPSPS policy is that SPS sources are never reliable for BLPs. I have been arguing that this is wrong for a decade now and I'm not going to back down just because people think there is some kind of stare decisis. If a statement published in QW is reliably made, it should be allowed to be used in Wikipedia whether it is a BLP or a road article or a snippet on the Main Page. jps (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't change a policy by ignoring it, categorically rejecting it, or creating a guideline that contradicts it. If your view is that BLPSPS should be changed, you or anyone else can readily propose such at WT:BLP. I don't understand why nobody has done that. - MrX 🖋 17:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted this whole thing started at a post at BLP/N about QW and BLPs. I think since (after it being moved to here, RS/N) that several fair questions on BLPSPS have been raised, even separate from this QW one and speaking to broader terms, have been raised, but it doesn't make sense to muddy this ongoing RFC with a fresh one at BLP that overlaps significantly. --Masem (t) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:Masem followed it back further finding this latest Quackwatch dispute originated at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard on 30 October. Discussion still there. Whatever happens I hope Quackwatch is clarified so there's less confusion in future. CatCafe (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Part of the frustration is that this didn't start with removing content based on Quackwatch, but simply replacing Quackwatch references with ones that weren't self published. I don't see this as starting from slavishly following BLP, but slavishly trying to protect a prefered source even when it wasn't needed. That said, the issue of reliablity includes what checks exist in a process - if something is self published, it might potentially be correct, and it might generally be reliable, but without the checks of a separate publisher and writer it is more likely that libel will sneak in compared to a source which does have those checks. - Bilby (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

without the checks of a separate publisher and writer it is more likely that libel will sneak in compared to a source which does have those checks. this statement is so wrong as to be risable. I guess I should just say, or, how the hell did you decide this was the case? jps (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll just quote SarahSV, who put it better than me above: "a self-published site is one where you can wake up at three in the morning and, sitting in bed in your pyjamas, tap out an article and press "publish", without having to check first with a professional staff of fact-checkers, copy editors, a managing editor, an editor-in-chief, the company lawyers, or a publisher". - Bilby (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This rationale ignominiously suffers from the fallacy of composition. Reliability is not something you can determine on the basis of publisher=author. jps (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure there is WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS, and WP:USESPS. They all talk about how it can be a problem of reliability if publisher=author. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't really deal with my point, but thanks for playing. jps (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want us to stop ignoring policy, you're going to have to change fundamental policy at this website, darling. jps (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Or... you could just follow established policy and use proper venues to changes things you have an issue with? Crazy right? PackMecEng (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Dunno. WP:IAR looks pretty dang established and proper to me. jps (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Certainly is, but if that is the only thing you have going for you and all these people are saying you are wrong so it is not a IAR situation. It is a ILIKEIT situation, which yeah not supported by policy. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Lol. I have other things going for me, thanks. jps (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Question: Given that this seems likely to end in no-consensus, where exactly does no-consensus leave us in this position? GMG^talk 15:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a non-non-consensus close here: it is either one way or the other. If the closers can't determine consensus from this, then the only thing that we can go on it how it has been seen in practice in the past which is the point of the discussions on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 44, which at that point, would likely have put QW as an SPS (the whole issue about changing BLPSPS to allow QW). --Masem (t) 16:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

We are not a democracy, it is arguments based upon policy that count, not votes. If policy is wrong that is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, policy can't possibly exhaustively tell us which sources are SPS and which are not. In that respect, it does become somewhat more like a vote in making these subjective assessments, at least so long as the arguments made on both sides reasonably adhere to common sense. GMG^talk 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is pretty clear an unequivocal as to how we identify SPS

Who is the author or creator of the work?

Who is the publisher of the work?

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

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

So it is pretty clear what policy says.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well yes, I don't really need policy to tell me that much. That doesn't really change people above arguing that it's not SPS because some proportion of the content is written by someone else, or because those that are SPS are "peer reviewed" by...someone...who has...some authority? GMG^talk 22:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

True, but many of the arguments are based upon the expertise or factual accuracy of the cite. Also only some of the content (as the site itself says) undergoes review by "experts", and the site does not identify which article have been so reviewed. A pucker non SPS sends all articles for reviews, not just those on the subjects the editor/owner does not understand in detail. In essence Barrett decides which articles to send for peer review (as was said above he can if he wishes just publish, and there is nothing stopping him).Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It is disrespectful to see above in the 9.9.1 Survey section, where editors are allowed to add comments, without actually voting, after other people's votes thinking they have the right to correct or challenge them. This is like me going to vote at a Federal election then a guy comes up to my booth to see what boxes I ticked, then tells the room and mocks me for my choice. That would be unlawful. It's chaos in 9.9.1 especially seeing there's a 9.9.2 Comments section for comments. CatCafe (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

We do not use "voting" in consensus discussions. One or more uninvolved admins will review the input above and decide which side has made the most compelling argument within policies and guidelines. This does allow editors to comment on other editors' input in this manner. --Masem (t) 04:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree. There is a survey section for individual's Yes, No or Mu response to surveys. There's a comments section for the opportunity to comment. There is separate sections for this, otherwise it is chaos in my opinion. And the term "vote" or "!vote" was used dozens of times in the discussion prior to the "survey" being posted. CatCafe (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment came across as disrespectful, CatCafe. Replies are allowed in survey sections of partitioned RfCs, although extended discussions can always be moved to the discussion section by any editor if needed. On the English Wikipedia, the only election that resembles a federal election is the annual Arbitration Committee Elections. For all other centralized discussions, the use of the word vote is generally discouraged in favor of other terms to reflect the ideas described in WP:NOTVOTE. Not all editors use the term !vote every single time, but !vote is usually what is implied when we refer to "voting". — Newslinger talk 04:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, your comment was pretty innocuous compared to the lengthy corrective debates I see after other peoples 'survey responses'. I can only see one reason why a 'comments' section was created, and that's for those other lengthy discussions such as I see in 9.9.1. It's wierd to read about people taking a 'vote' or '!vote', then when they do, I am corrected for assuming the survey akin to a vote. Lingo-twisting - not for me. CatCafe (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 raised a good point about how self-published doesn't necessarily mean "bad". I would extend that point to general reliability as well: generally unreliable sources (and some deprecated sources) aren't necessarily "bad" sources; they just don't meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards in the majority of cases. For example, I personally find YouTube (RSP entry) to be a good source of useful tutorial videos, even though many of them are self-published and shouldn't be cited in articles. When we conflate aspects of a source with "goodness" or "badness", we obscure our goal of determining the source's appropriate use cases on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 19:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, I think you are on to something when you talk about “appropriateness”. This is not the same as “reliability”. A reliable source can be inappropriate, and (on rare occasions) an unreliable source can be appropriate. And “Appropriateness” has another factor: content. As we craft article, we need to ask whether some bit of content is appropriate or not ... and the answer CAN be “no” even if that content can be supported by a reliable source. Is it ever appropriate to call someone a “quack”? That is debatable. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, fortunately this isn't a problem because Barrett doesn't usually use that language (in spite of the name of the QW website), and we don't use QW to label people as quacks. Even if we did, it is not libel, just an imprecise slur that lacks practical value here. We don't need to worry about this, as any such addition would promptly be removed.

Barrett does use the word in a historical sense, but I don't recall him using it about living people who practice quackery. This article is really good: Quackery: How Should It Be Defined? The word "quack" is used only once (to define it), but "quackery" many times. It's a real word. He is usually much more specific in his terminology, as explained in that article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Checking some of the references under Quackwatch#Influence, the recommendations by RSes and other organizations seem to be in a very generalized way, naming QW as one of several "resources" for information. In evaluating WP:USEBYOTHERS, I believe we want sources using QW for specific subject matter that's relevant to the topic area being written about here, per WP:RSCONTEXT. If anyone could post examples of such use by published RSes, that could be helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, unfortunately, some of those types of sources/references are being removed from the article, and that's unfortunate. It not only removes evidence of notability, but of just what you're asking for. That content was added to meet those concerns and to stop the attacks and AfDs. QW has many enemies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, those types of references are not being removed. - Bilby (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what the situation of the Wiki article has to do with anything. Putting it mildly, users have been encouraged to check the article for evidence of the site's quality. So that's what I did. It's really on those claiming that the site is held in esteem by RSes to show evidence for it in this discussion. So where's the evidence? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, those RS are used in the Quackwatch article. Perform due diligence. Our duty is to adopt the judgment of RS about QW. If we come to a conclusion here that is counter to what RS say, then we are imposing our own OR beliefs on an article, and that violates many of our policies, most notably NPOV. Only dubious sources seriously criticize it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't just dubious sources - there is criticism from good quality sources as well. It may still be predominately viewed positively, but there is also valid criticism of the site. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, I understand what you're saying, but they are more a POV type of criticism vs truly serious criticism of QW's factuality and accuracy. It supports mainstream science and gets no serious criticisms from mainstream science. By contrast, it is criticized by fringe people and sources, and I suspect that some of the criticisms found in RS may be from that type of person. Some of them are medical professionals who haven't lost their licenses....yet.

They can't make serious criticisms, so they make picky BS objections about style and tone. The objection to lack of "peer review" is such a criticism, and it's an utter red herring objection because websites are never peer-reviewed. It's an idiotic expectation, and yet, QW has more double-checking and input from other professionals than most websites, and it should be praised for that, not criticized for lack of "peer review".

Such objections should be ignored as they are unrealistic. Criticizing a man for not using Tampax is a criticism we would ignore. That's what we're dealing with.

People who disagree with Barrett and mainstream science will criticize QW, and therefore their views and criticisms, even when found in RS, should get little weight, IOW maybe not be mentioned in the QW article, but might be on-topic for specific articles on the topics. For example, believers in acupuncture work in hospitals and write library reviews of QW. They won't like what QW states about the lacking evidence base for acupuncture. Barrett criticizes them for making dubious claims that are not backed by good research, and he's right. We'd have to examine such things on a case-by-case basis. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No, there is genuine and valid criticism in peer reviewed journals such as The Lancet. It is a mistake to think that only positive quality reviews exist, and that the only negative reviews are from dubious sources. - Bilby (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have read the Okasha review and can understand some of her complaints, but it's her personal opinion based on a very superficial understanding of QW. She even makes false statements like this one: "However, on Quackwatch, all ‘alternative’ therapies are considered as one. More established treatments, such as acupuncture and dietary intervention, are dismissed with the more dubious ones." No, they are not "treated as one" (Barrett provides categories and definitions here[47][48]), and only disproven and dubious dietary interventions are dismissed. Otherwise, as a recognized expert in the dietary area, Barrett clearly supports proper nutrition and diet in the treatment of disease, including cancer. Her review is overly simplistic, but that's her right.

She also makes a statement, which could be taken from QW as Barrett's motto, and tries to use it against him: "In the era of evidence-based medicine, it seems reasonable to require the same evidence from all new therapies, whether standard or ‘alternative’. Well-designed, carefully conducted clinical trials are needed to establish safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness."

She also complains about the "one-sided" failure to present the views of proponents of the criticized "therapies". Well, Barrett explains why he doesn't engage in false balance coverage here.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about what we consider "serious". It's like watching the impeachment proceedings, where one side deals with serious crimes and evidence, while the opposition complains about procedural matters because they cannot defend the crimes. She's complaining about procedural and style issues. That's her right.

I think we're pretty much finished here. BTW, I am not advocating we delete the reference to her review. Her criticism is one of those hard-to-find examples of the exception that proves the rule that mainstream medicine and science treat QW and Barrett very well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you have been refusing to acknowledge that vaid criticism exists. It isn't just Okasha - there is other criticism in quality, peer reviewed journals, but I'll take it as a step forward that you are accepting that such critcism is out there, even if you don't accept it. At least we don't need to keep saying that all mainstream commentators agree with Barrett, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, that's just not true. I have always recognized that criticisms in RS existed. (You may have found some I didn't have access to.) It's been a number of years since I did much editing at that article, but I used to do it a lot, and I remember using days just scouring the internet for criticisms. There were very few in RS (99.9% were in unreliable sources), and some were so unserious or obviously partisan that it would have violated our due weight and fringe WP:ADVOCACY policies to include them. The ones we have included were likely found by me. I may not agree with them, but I included them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You wrote above "Only dubious sources seriously criticize it". This was incorrect. If you included them, you also knew that they existed. I don't want to push this, but the problem I'm hitting with Quackwatch is this presentation that all reliable sources love it, and only those they criticise disagree with what they are doing. It is nothing like that clear cut. That said, it is pretty much irrelevant to whether or not it is an SPS, so I guess this will be a concern when we hit the next stage. - Bilby (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

So bring that, instead of bad examples - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

They're in the article. They weren't hard to find. - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for closers

Because this RfC has policy implications, I posted a request on AN/RFC for an uninvolved admin, and preferably more than one, to close it (permalink). As Newslinger suggested, a panel of uninvolved admins would be ideal. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone volunteering for this? I may, if people don't consider this as involvement and if we can wait until Friday/Saturday. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Scientific and legal advisors

Let's get this right. There is a large group of experts. The lists were posted up until March 2006:

• Scientific and Technical Advisory Board (152 members, updated 3/28/03)
• Legal Advisory Board (28 members, updated 3/31/06)
• How to Become a Quackwatch Advisor

"When the number was small, we listed them online, but as it grew, the task of keeping a directory up to date became far more trouble than it was worth."

• What is Quackwatch?

"Quackwatch is an international network of people who are concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. From 1970 through 2007, it operated as a nonprofit corporation headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The corporation was dissolved in 2008, but the informal network will continue as usual."

• Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch. He is a competitive swimmer and medal winner.

BullRangifer (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be me, but we only have "help prepare articles", I am not sure if that counts as Peer review or not. In fact I see no mention of peer review in their list of activities, which takes us back to which articles are peer reviewed, how can we tell? The site explicitly says that "news" articles are never peer reviewed, it does not say what they are or identifies them as far as I can tell. Thus any given article maybe a "news" article. In fact I find this evasiveness from the site rather concerning, it is almost as if it is being written to with our RS polices (and wikilawyering) in mind.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to expect us to trust that these unnamed advisors exist, let alone that they are qualified to debunk medical claims. Transparency is important. - MrX 🖋 13:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not reasonable It seems to work given the recognition Quackwatch has received. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Our duty is to accept the judgment of RS, and they all consider QW to be a quality and reliable source of information for the subject matter it deals with.

The only question we should be dealing with is this new complaint that we shouldn't be using it for people in BLPs. This has never been an issue in previous RfCs, but we do need to settle this specific issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

One gets a clear impression from many of the comments here that editors are not performing due diligence. They haven't even read the Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett articles. Until they do, they shouldn't comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that "peer review" is a straw man issue. Websites are never peer-reviewed, and that one reviewer complained that it wasn't peer-reviewed got people expecting something they should not expect. We don't expect this from other websites. QW is not pretending to be a scientific journal, where peer-review is expected. We shouldn't even be discussing this as if it were a "lack". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the claim that it is peer reviewed is being used as the basis of saying that it isn't self published. - Bilby (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is neither here nor there. A source can be SPS and peer-reviewed, and it can be peer-reviewed and not an SPS.

This is all we need to know: Does Barrett own QW and is Editor-in-Chief? Yes. Ergo, the articles he writes and publishes there are therefore SPS. It's that simple. This does not apply to articles written by others. Now we just need to tweak the policy to make it clear that this applies to the BLP person, not their false claims. The two things can be written about separately and sourced separately. Barrett's articles can still be used for the claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That was my understanding. But it is not the understanding shared by everyone !voting. - Bilby (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that unfortunate situation should be fixed. The delimitations of the scope of this RfC must be reinforced clearly. It should be explained that misunderstandings lead to ineligible !votes which will not be counted. That is standard procedure in RfCs. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If Barrett authored QW are considered reliable due to Barrett meeting the clause at WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications., not due to meeting the general requirements at WP:RS & WP:SOURCE then the question of the non-Barrett authored articles is within the scope of this RfC. Are they not reliable because of a lack of effective editorial control? Are they reliable SPS; the authors themselves experts? Or is there sufficient evidence of Barrett exercising editorial control to make them ordinarily reliable? - Ryk72 ^talk 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the remit of this RfC is strictly about the intersection of SPS and BLP, which would only apply to Barrett's articles at QW, not other authors or Barrett's articles published elsewhere.

For uses other than the BLP person, such as misleading claims, Barrett is considered a "self-published expert source" for health fraud, quackery, consumer protection, nutrition, dietary, and public health subjects. ("In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University.")

QW has always been determined (by RfCs) a generally RS for the appropriate topics, just as we do with other RS. Barrett exercises editorial control over all the content published at QW, so it's good, but just like all other RS, there is no such thing as a blanket "yes". We use QW and other RS on a case by case basis, and we attribute when necessary. Barrett has functioned as an editor in many capacities outside of QW for many years, including books, magazines, and publishing houses. He is generally recognized as the world's top expert on these subjects and his work has garnered many awards and other recognitions.

Another area of expertise is swimming. He is still a competitive swimmer and instructor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Barrett's writings could be considered a reliable source for swimming content too? Also "it should be explained that misunderstandings lead to ineligible !votes which will not be counted" -> nice attempt at trying to discount all views contrary to yours, way to go to reach a consensus. Signimu (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Signimu, swimming? LOL! No, I don't think he writes about that, and I suspect there are much better sources for that topic, but I just threw that out to let others know he's still, at his advanced age, quite active in other areas than quack busting.

"..views contrary to" mine? Please AGF and look at the context in which I wrote that. This RfC is about the use of (1) SPS in BLPs, not about the (2) reliability of QW in general. If !voters don't understand that this RfC is only about the first, they may be !voting about the second, when it is ONLY the first that is relevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Ah sorry, I didn't understand in the context of the same sentence reply, but with your previous comment it makes sense. I agree several editors are arguing about whether QW is a reliable source or not, which is not the purpose of this RfC (and was clarified several times just above in previous discussions...). Signimu (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer has stated on his talk page that he has worked as the Assistant Listmaster for Quackwatch's Healthfraud Discussion list. There is also a 2007 ArbCom case on Quackwatch to which BullRangifer (formerly known as Fyslee) was a part of. Yet despite this apparent WP:COI, BullRangifer has made dozens of comments in this thread and voted in the RfC. --Pudeo (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Pudeo, you really need to get up to date. You're using old information which I address in a thread on my talk page: I have to ask. (I haven't had anything to do with that Kentucky discussion group for the last 12 years, and never had anything to do with the QW website. I have never met or spoken to Barrett.) Please read that thread, and then ask me on my talk page, not here, if you have any proven concerns. Until then, your ignorance is not my bliss.

  One of the ArbCom decisions was a caution (I guess they felt they had to write something, since I was found to have done nothing wrong.) which I follow in every detail, and it doesn't forbid editing or discussing: "3.1) Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits."

  If you find that my editing or comments are problematic, then don't make vague COI accusations without being very specific. Otherwise, you're just casting aspersions. Talking about that ArbCom experience is painful because I discovered that normal evidentiary rules do not apply, libelous statements are allowed without any attempt to stop them, and BLP does NOT apply to editors, only to all other living human beings. That experience nearly cost me my life. It was that bad. So if you ever have any concerns, approach me on my talk page or by email. I'll appreciate that approach. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Lets concentrate on the arguments, not the people who made them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Because Quackwatch is so reliable – it's never seriously challenged on science – and because of its critically important role in reporting on topics no other academic will touch, my opinion is that QW is a special case and should be treated as an exception to SPSBLP until the latter might be rewritten to allow it. Otherwise Wikipedia is put in the position of insufficient resources to tell the reader about what is considered pseudoscience. All of the quacks will get a pass if we deprecate QW, and we will all be partly responsible for dumbing down the world. If you want to dumb down the world, deprecate QW. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that pseudoscientific claims are being covered by reliable sources but criticism of that pseudoscience is only covered in Quackwatch. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You would be surprised, then, if you looked. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Media Matters for America

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

From what I can see, the current reliability status of Media Matters for America is generally reaffirmed. The "reliable" and "uncertain" arguments were fairly even, but a lot of the arguments in general default to "uncertain", especially considering that the firm has made occasional mistakes every now and then. ToThAc (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Media Matters for America is a well-known partisan non-profit organization, linked and directly connected with multiple David Brock- and John Podesta-controlled political action committees (PACs). So, on the same basis that we do not consider Republican or Democratic PACs to be notionally reliable sources, I'm going to propose, again, that Media Matters' status as a reliable source to be changed to redlisted or blacklisted (whichever is preferred). --Doug Mehus T·C 00:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable source, and throw out this RFC as a waste of time that didn't do the research - people who don't like them keep objecting to them on political grounds, but their content and processes are solid. Have you reviewed the previous discussions of them? You should definitely, in fairness, be linking said discussions, and putting the question in a form that shows awareness of them - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  David Gerard, HA! People that like them haven't read Sharyl Attkisson's The Smear and Stonewalled. Media Matters, despite the name, is not some media watchdog like ProPublica (see RfC above) or the Pew Research Centre, which are both very reliable sources. They are an ultra-partisan group that engages in opposition research, astroturf, and partisan activities. Doug Mehus T·C 00:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dmehus, Attkisson has a less than perfect reputation when it comes to the whole business of knowing truth from bullshit. Guy (help!) 00:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Respectfully disagree here, and you and I agree a lot. Doug Mehus T·C 00:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Doug Mehus, Guy is being very diplomatic and understated. Attkisson is in the same class as Limbaugh/Hannity/Carlson/Solomon, IOW SHE totally unreliable, but Media Matters is reliable. They are indeed partisan and biased, but they are factual, and therefore we can use them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, I would not put her in the same class as Limbaugh/Hannity/Solomon. I wouldn't even put Carlson in the same class as that trio. Doug Mehus T·C 02:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, more Carlson than Limbaugh. She wants to be seen as fact-based, whereas Rush doesn't give a shit. Guy (help!) 10:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sharyl Attkisson's media bias chart (shown in the "Rating news outlets’ ideology" section of this PolitiFact fact check) rates the Associated Press (RSP entry) and Reuters (RSP entry) as left-wing sources. That's not a very credible starting point. — Newslinger talk 09:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Newslinger, it's... novel. The Adfontes Media Bias Chart conflicts with a significant proportion of her "subjective" ratings. And they publish a methodology. Guy (help!) 10:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• The current assessment of the source at WP:RSP seems fairly on-point. It is a partisan advocacy group that should be used with all the caveats we normally apply to partisan advocacy groups. Attribute their opinion, and determine WP:DUEWEIGHT based predominately on whether independent sources themselves use them as a source for the information cited. GMG^talk 00:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, The problem is, many editors don't distinguish between green- and yellow-flagged sources. I would argue that we should not rely solely on Media Matters for America for facts. It should be backed up in or by a green-flagged source. Thus, since many editors do not distinguish as you, David, and I do, I'm just asking that they be recategorized. Doug Mehus T·C 00:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, See the discussion I am currently having whereby a sentence in that article relies solely on Media Matters in estimating the number of advertisers the show apparently lost. We should be independently verifying this with primary sources or with another green-flagged source.Doug Mehus T·C 00:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If people ignore the instructions given, and use the list primarily as a summary judgement of black, green, yellow, and red sources, rather than a collection of subjective community assessment discussions, then the problem is not with the list, the problem is with how it is being used. We do not adjust our methodology to the lowest common denominator of users who wish to use it wrongly. The purpose of RSP is to make it easier to think about the use of sources on Wikipedia, not to remove thought from the evaluation process.

Many partisan sources are nominally reliable, but are mostly useless for determining DUEWEIGHT (which is an entirely separate issue from reliability, and not the primary purpose of RSP). If I run an advocacy group for animal abuse, then my incentive is to publicize information that supports my advocacy for animals, and ignore neutral or disconfirming information. My incentives do not align with those of more non-partisan groups, like Gallup or the Census Bureau, who would conduct research and publish the results, without the prior calculation of whether it serves some larger political purpose. GMG^talk 22:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. They are indeed partisan and biased, but they are factual, and therefore we can use them. When in doubt, attribute the source. Use them for facts, and attribute their opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, For clarity, this could include, but would not be limited to, noting their partisan affiliation either in-text or in a footnote, refactoring overly brief statements that are otherwise misleading, and the like. Doug Mehus T·C 02:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Additional considerations apply. Media Matters for America (RSP entry) is an advocacy group. The organization's exclusive focus on "conservative misinformation" puts it in partisan territory, and its statements should be attributed in-text. My main concern with MMfA's website is that it doesn't clearly label its opinion reporting. Currently, the top article on its home page, "By its own precedent, Fox should ban Joe diGenova", is opinionated but presents no indication that it is an opinion piece. That's expected for an advocacy organization, but uncommon for generally reliable news sources. MMfA is commonly compared to Media Research Center (RSP entry), as seen in a 2010 RfC. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Newslinger, Well said. I'd also add that Media Matters' name is intended to confuse the public into thinking it's some independent, neutral media watchdog like the Pew Research Centre, which is wholly and unquestionably reliable. Doug Mehus T·C 14:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Context dependent. I'd file it under: fine with WP:ATT, evaluate individually before using for statements of fact in wiki-voice. Guy (help!) 10:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Yes, I agree with that (see above); however, the problem is, like most of the public, many wiki editors on here do not have the same level of media literacy as you, I, and the participants in this discussion. That is, they rely wholly on an explicit list of reliable sources without regard to the colour shading (yellow versus green). Thus, I'm thinking, what would the harm be in redlisting or blacklisting this source a la Breitbart, InfoWars, et al.? Doug Mehus T·C 14:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are redlisted for publishing outright lies or distortions, not just because of their political bias. If we banned sources for having a strong political bias that they've worked to conceal, we would 100% have to ban eg. Fox News as well, since it has a comparable well-documented history of working in a systematic manner to advance a right-wing point of view; it was unambiguously founded for that purpose and continues to have daily memos to that effect distributed from above. But WP:RS is primarily about reliability, not bias - that is to say, the key question is whether a source, by and large, can be trusted for statements of fact, not whether it has a strong perspective or even whether it engages in advocacy. You haven't presented any evidence that MMFA is untrustworthy - a source can have an overwhelming partisan top-down mission statement, and still be reliable as long as there's no indication that that has led to them publishing distortions, untruths, or other things that would make them unreliable. EDIT: Also, you should perhaps read WP:BLUDGEON; replying to almost every post in an RFC is generally considered inappropriate. RFCs are for gathering outside opinion, not a place to argue with everyone you disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Dmehus, the fact that it is not as unreliable as either of them and its opinions are non-insane and widely quoted by third party sources. Guy (help!) 13:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Additional considerations apply I would not use labels from them without attribution or in the lead, e.g., "Example Person is a radical extremist public intellectual." I would also avoid using them as the sole source for the prevalence or fringe-ness of a particular point of view. Cheers, gnu57 14:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  As an example of how they can be dodgy in reporting points of view, compare their coverage of responses by Catholic groups to a proposed compromise during the 2012 HHS mandate controversy[49] with that of the New York Times[50]. MM entirely neglects to mention that the USCCB had taken a less-than-favourable view of the compromise; selectively quotes positive elements of the Catholic Charities USA statement[51] without including the portion "CCUSA is not prepared to endorse the accommodation"; and frames statements from the political pressure groups Catholics United and Faith in Public Life as coming from "Catholic hospitals, colleges, and charities". Cheers, gnu57 23:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, though you'd usually use inline attribution and WP:DUE is obviously a separate consideration that has to be made on a case-by-case basis. They obviously fall under WP:BIASED, but they're a reasonably high-quality source as biased sources go. For WP:USEBYOTHERS, see Fast Company, Vox, Slate, Mic, Columbia Journalism Review, Haaretz, and in-depth coverage from Rolling Stone. Some of these sources describe them as a "liberal watchdog group", but all of them nonetheless treat MMFA's statistics and reporting as reliable or relevant; that's the definition of a usable WP:BIASED source. --Aquillion (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per BullRangifer. I've seen no evidence that their reporting is inaccurate, or that their opinion[s] isn't based on fact. François Robere (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Media Matters articles should generally be considered opinion pices. To illustrate, here are some headlines on their site as of right now: "Right-wing media’s ugly and desperate smear against Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman"[52] "The New York Times is already botching impeachment. Just look at The Daily."[53] "Right-wing 'intellectuals' defend Trump: He is too inept to be impeached"[54] The words "desperate" and "botching" and the scare quotes around "intellectuals" are all statements of opinion. Yet there is nothing denoting the articles as opinion pieces. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Regard as WP:BIASED RS, use with caution — due to political connections and mentions of left-leaning generally, plus explicit advocacy on their site. Though that’s saying facts presented are generally solid, the bias is by strongly left choices of stories and by having facts omitted. Not readily finding editorial control so not transparent, and am seeing complaints of lack of retractions where false story is quietly erased or altered without apology or admission of error. (And complaints that they highlight retractions from right, but not retractions on left.) So facts here seem citeable, but word choice and analysis are suspect and used only if other sources indicate WEIGHT and then use with attribution. They are after all a 501 progressive group dedicated to ‘correcting’ the conservative side. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute all statements As GreenMeansGo and Newslinger said above, this is an advocacy organization. Its opinions may be included when they are relevant, but they should always be attributed as opinions of the organization. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Reliable. Why is this RfC even here? Gerntrash (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable The factual accuracy of their reporting has not been called into question, they may focus their reporting on certain areas, but so does nearly every source. --Jayron32 17:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Usable but too partisan to use without attribution (i.e. at least yellow if not red). I agree with GreenMeansGo and Genericusername57 and JzG (Guy), word-for-word, all of whom were more concise than I would've mustered. :-) I also agree that trying to black-list them is itself extremist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, True...I can live with them being "reliable," potentially, but I think we should require that a second source provides independent confirmation of their statements for controversial and political topics—that is, not just GQ or The New Yorker trumpeting some blog post or press release Media Matters for America (which is more or less what their "stories" are) has put out. Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Failing that, if by "attribution," this includes setting off Media Matters for America in a neutral appositive that says something like, "According to Media Matters for America, a left of centre pressure group, Foo's television program lost N number of advertisers [...]," then I'd have no problem with that. Attribution is good, but their relationship is crucial and should be included in said attribution. Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Generally agreed with both of those points, other than whether to describe the attributed party in situ is a contextual decision and not a requirement (and can even introduce PoV problems and a necessity for new sources to confirm the description, if it's done clumsily). Generally a link to Media Matters for America, which describes the organization's stance-taking and PAC connections, with sources, is likely to be sufficient. We have to be careful of the WP:NOR principle of not "steering" the reader's impressions. Probably the best way to use MMfA as a source is in a comparative block of "responses" – according to left-leaning organizations like MMfA ..., and according to right-leaning ones like Cato Institute ....  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, True, but even though the Cato Institute has a an economic conservative ideology, I trust them a lot more than a PAC-linked pressure group/advocacy organization known for its so-called "black ops"-style dark influence tactics (sort of like how I'd trust Brookings Institute despite its more liberal ideology). Your description is probably better at adhering to WP:NOR. A good comparable to MMfA would be the Center for American Progress, another left-leaning advocacy group with strong partisan ties, and its Think Progress blog. Doug Mehus T·C 23:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Attribute all statements. Certainly not reliable enough to use wikipedia's voice but also not unreliable enough to blacklist. As long as its properly attributed I see no issues. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reasonably reliable, but should be taken on a case-by-case basis basically as Guy, et al. said above. They do a lot of good work, but there are definitely some claims that should be attributed, and some claims could use comparison with other sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for factual statements. Attribution should depend on context. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Generally reliable for factual statements, attribution may be necessary on a case-by-case basis. Presumably less reliable with respect to individuals directly affiliated with it, as is the case with most sources. The premise of this RfC is flawed; it isn't partisanship that makes a source unreliable; it's whether a source has a track record of false statements. Partisan sources often have such a track record, but equally often, do not. Our judgement needs to be based on the track record, not the affiliation. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply since it is an advocacy group that besides opposition research is also paid to influence political narratives one way. While they, as far as I'm aware, have a good track record with facts, it also matters what facts they leave out (as Genericusername57 put a good case example). It is reliable for their opinions, but if an article was based mostly on MMfA's reporting, it would almost certainly be skewed or inaccurate. Thus, additional considerations apply. --Pudeo (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply per Newslinger and Pudeo.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

sciencedirect.com ... interscience.wiley.com ... informaworld.com

It is proposed the following URLs, with this format, be entirely expunged from Wikipedia:

• http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/ .... Special:Search (492)
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL ..... Special:Search (1,176)
• http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ ..... Special:Search (1,002)

They are already dead, and (will) have archive URLs added, or marked with a {{dead link}} if no archive available. This proposal is to delete the URL and the archive URLs - full removal of URLs but keep the citation with no URL or archive URL. The proposal is by User:Nemo_bis [55] - I am the bot operator who would do the deed but have no opinion either way. Nemo can give more details why the URL and archive URL should be deleted. Nemo if I am presenting this proposal incorrectly please add any corrections. Note there are cites in CS1|2 template, bare-link cites, and square-link cites. -- GreenC 14:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It's correct, but I'll add that I proposed to start with templated links. Bare references would come last.

Meanwhile I'm using WP:UCB to perform some cleanup on redundant URLs, but that's much slower. I could speed it up, if people are happier that way, but I'm quite confident it's more effective if run after the broken URLs are removed. Nemo 08:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm now doing an even broader cleanup to try and catch those dead URLs and others, while trying not to step on the toes of others (recently edited articles etc.), but it's getting harder with just WP:UCB (fewer and fewer broken URLs actually get removed). Comments appreciated on the effect. I still think a targeted regex replacement would have the least side effects but I can continue this way if it remains the preferred method. Nemo 10:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

I know this has come up before, but from what I can tell, it appears that the Southern Poverty Law Center is okay as a reliable source in some situations. However, it is also well known that the SPLC has been criticized for labeling certain groups as hate groups that they appear to dislike, with some alleging that the labels are politically of economically motivated. However, I just wanted to make sure if it is okay to use two sources that appear (at least to me) to be legitimate instead of smears likely to be questioned. I used both of these sources at Rick Tyler (white supremacist) which is about a person who claims to not be a racist, but pretty much everyone else agrees that he is.

• [56] - used to cite the American Freedom Party as "advocating for white nationalism."

• [57] - used to cite the fact that he was noticed by the SPLC and is a believer in Christian Identity.

Sorry if this discussion inconveniences anyone. I just wanted to make sure if it is okay to use these sources and whether or not I should try to find a better source in substitute of the SPLC. Consensus seems to also show that we should not label every group that is classified as a hate group by the SPLC in the lead, if I am not mistaken. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

SPLC is widely respected as researchers and authorities on hate groups and their activities. I think any group labeled by them as a hate group *should* include that information in the lead as one of the significant defining aspects of their activities. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No non-MOS-prescribed content (e.g., identifying the subject of the article) automatically warrants inclusion in the lead. The lead follows the body, and what is contained in the lead is an editorial decision that has to be made on a case-by-case basis based on the content of the body as decided through the normal editorial process. GMG^talk 03:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

And more often than not, a group being a hate group *is* the most defining notable aspect about them. It motivates their activities and purpose. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• As has been discussed in the past, the SPLC is generally reliable but should be attributed. SPLC has been wrong before, and if those objecting can produce mainstream reliable sources directly addressing the SPLC as missing the mark in this particular instance, then they have a leg to stand on. If they can't then they don't. GMG^talk 03:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• The following opinion appears to go against consensus, and I strongly believe in following consensus even when I personally think it is wrong, but in my opinion the SPLC used to be generally reliable.

Sources:

• Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals? --The New York Times
• Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way? --Politico
• How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'? --The Atlantic
• The Unlabelling of an 'Anti-Muslim Extremist' --The Atlantic
• The sad hysteria of the Southern Poverty Law Center --The Week
• The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam --John Stossel
• Poynter Institute's Retracted List of Fake News Sites Was Written by SPLC Podcast Producer: Media watchdogs should not outsource their fact-checking to the Southern Poverty Law Center. --Reason magazine

I do not want to start Yet Another Huge Discussion about things like retracting when you are shown to be wrong vs. retracting only after you lose a lawsuit, so please leave this as me expressing my opinion while acknowledging that the consensus is against me. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

And we should acknowledge that of these sources—at least some of which are obviously opinion pieces—and others touching on the same case, simply attempt to chip away at SPLC’s reputation which remains remarkably intact with the biggest accusation that they are a liberal agenda pusher. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I once gave a book by Ali to my mother as a gift. (It didn't go over well.) In both these cases we had mainstream reliable sources pushing back against the SPLC in that instance in particular. I don't believe that this gives ammunition for discrediting the SPLC on the count of every run-of-the-mill neo-fascist, unless we have specific reliable sources pushing back against them. GMG^talk 05:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Those pieces - mostly opinion pieces - get trotted out every time the SPLC comes up (notably, it's always the same ones, focusing on the same thing, showing those criticisms weren't sustained.) But even if we take them all at face value, they all also take the perspective of "the SPLC is widely respected, and here's why this tiny sliver of people think it shouldn't be." That supports the idea that they enjoy the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires, even if eg. Reason magazine would rather they didn't. At best, given that those pieces all seem to come from or cover one particular relatively-narrow political movement objecting to the SPLC, they might support the idea that it is WP:BIASED (something I think we all acknowledge anyway) and that people with opposing biases criticize it. But that isn't sufficient to call a source's WP:RS status into question. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

My opinion : if the SPLC is simply talking broadly about a topic related to racism but is not reaching out to call any specific existing group/person as a hate group or their other cateogorization, it is a reasonable source. I remember there was an article they did within the last year or so about the various Confederate monuments to categorize why they exist, etc, if they serve a hate-group purpose, and so on. That's fine. When SPLC is specifically writing to classify a group or person as a hate group or other categorization, that is not allowed to be used unless this is a facet noted by other RSes (which does frequently happen). We're talking in the framework of BLPSPS to a degree: we should not allow self-published material that does not necessarily have editorial standards to be used as a talking point by itself. And when it can be used, it must be used with in-text attribution. I would expect the same for any "think tank" group that is focused on a specific topic area and structured similarly to SPLC. --Masem (t) 04:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur. When I see the SPLC talking about broad trends and entire movement, in my experience they are still really really good. When I see them labeling a group or an individual as a hate group, sometimes they are obviously right and other sources (and not just sources parroting the SPLC) also call the organization a hate group. But when I see them labeling groups as hate groups simply because they nonviolently express unpopular political opinions for religious reasons, and when I see them just flat out refusing to provide a shred of evidence when challenged on dubious claims, I have to conclude that they are not a reliable source on whether an individual or an organization is a hate group or even on whether it even exists at all.

As one example, please see this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:[58]

Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the Daily Stormer website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as the home of the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group.

Later, facing a storm of criticism, the SPLC changed the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub’s designation to "statewide."

One small problem: The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed. And the SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year[59], ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly posting a "correction" that still insists that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level, and only posting the "correction" after there was a huge public backlash. Needless to say, there is zero evidence for the "statewide" claim either.

David Rettig, executive director of the Amana Colonies and Visitors Bureau, says that he attempted to reach out to the SPLC as soon as he learned about the map, but nobody from the civil rights organization would return his message. "It was a shock to us when we found out," he said. "We’ve checked around with the sheriff (Rob Rotter) and he indicated to me there is absolutely no hate group operating in the Amana Colonies, and he checked with his superiors in Des Moines and there are no reports … we’ve seen nothing of this, visitors or residents." Rotter backed up Rettig’s remarks" "There is no such neo-Nazi group in Iowa County." and that the SPLC was "irresponsible at best. I would hope that the SPLC is a more responsible organization than this example of their professionalism exhibits." The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong. Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, they changed the claim that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And yet the SPLC still to this day refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll".

When you make a claim without a shred of evidence[60] other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required to be considered a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of wit. GMG^talk 06:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A fancy way to say tl;dr — well, I did read. But it was for naught, I already heard about that Iowa Stormer Bookclub thing on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. Oh well! El_C 06:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Alas, brevity when discussing the SPLC is a surefire way of being accused of making everything up. Because the SPLC has so many devoted fans you need to provide not just sources but direct quotes from those sources. To do otherwise is to create an even longer thread, as every claim is challenged and has to be answered with a direct quote from a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

They are at it again. Southern Poverty Law Center Identifies Hate Group Activity in Santa Monica The evidence?

"We listed The Daily Stormer and its affiliated 'Book Clubs,' or local meet ups, as hate group chapters in 2016 based on their own accounts of meetings that took place across the country," a spokesperson for the Southern Poverty Law Center said in an email.

Seriously? They just took the neo-nazi's word for it? Is there any possibility -- and chance at all -- that maybe random neo-nazis posting on the Daily tSormer discussion group might -- oh I don't know -- tell a fib or two about how widespread the movement is and how many local groups they have? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries there, Breitbart has you covered. They seem to be one of the few covering the case. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the positions presented by Masem and Guy Macon. The Encyclopedia Britannica, a tertiary and highly respected source, published the following information: SPLC’s activities have long generated both widespread acclaim and ongoing political controversy. The organization has been accused of financial mismanagement, misleading fund-raising methods, and institutionalized racism. In addition it has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising, of wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations, and of promoting a left-wing “politically correct” agenda under the guise of civil rights. While the latter should not be cause to dismiss SPLC as a RS, it is a substantial enough reason for us to exercise due caution when citing SPLC, and certainly justifies using in-text attribution, especially in cases where there is doubt over material that may be challenged. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• SPLC seems to have a reputation for fact checking, in fact a very high reputation. I think (because it is an advocacy group) it needs attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. The SPLC has a reputation for not fact checking, not publishing corrections, and not revealing what they are using for evidence. They did have a good reputation in the past, but those days are gone. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree SPLC findings are noteworthy but should be attributed when they appear in WP article text. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• WP:GREL with attribution, per GMG and Slatersteven. François Robere (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable, and widely treated as such by sources we habitually trust, but labels should be attributed. Guy (help!) 12:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify here: SPLC is treated as an authority by a large number of sources we habitually trust. Atsme notes that there are accusations against them, but fails to point out that some of these accusations are merely smears. Others were sufficiently valid that SPLC sacked Dees earlier this year. We normally consider a history of corrections or disciplinary action where errors and misconduct occur as a marker of reliability. SPLC is an activist organisation, any opinions must be attributed, but google "described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group" and you'll see that a lot of trustworthy sources and the Daily Telegraph habitually do exactly this.

  At the same time it's worth remembering that a recent RICO suit brought by white nationalists was tossed in September (it's never RICO, © @Popehat). You can find any amount of opinion hating on SPLC, but very little analytical journalism joining in. I stand by the view I've expressed elsewhere before now that SPLC is widely recognised as an authority on hate groups and bigots, so can be treated as such, but we should always attribute. Guy (help!) 11:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is an extremely high-profile, widely-respected source within its field (perhaps the most respected available), and is clearly treated as authoritative by many high-quality reliable sources. It is therefore appropriate as the go-to source for particular controversial opinions, and is almost always WP:DUE, often for the lead (though this varies on a case-by-case basis; finding secondary sources reporting on the SPLC's positions is rarely hard and should generally be done when possible. When deciding whether to put it in the lead, we should also consider the secondary coverage the SPLC's position received relative to how high-profile the article's subject.) Such opinions, however, should always have an in-text attribution. Note that in-text attribution may not be necessary when reliable secondary sources treat the SPLC's position as fact (since then we can cite those secondary sources instead), but this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on the level and tone of coverage, the strength and wording of the secondary sourcing, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • An issue is the DUE part, going back to my above statement related to BLPSPS. The SPLC may be right most of the time, but there are noted cases where their classification of a person or group has been criticized by third-parties, because the SPLC does take a rather biased view on what hatred and racism is. When there is widespread agreement that the SPLC's assessment is right, you'll see that assessment come up in multiple third-party RSes, and thus when we have a situation like that, that makes it DUE to include, but still requires in-text attribution (nearly RSes that I see quote the SPLC's classification of a group also retain the attribution and do not call it "fact"). It is the case where only a couple sources or none mention the SLPC classification of a group, and in such a case, we should not be using a group with a specific known bias, with a position not directly supported by any other RS, to be used as the solitary source to be describing a person or group as racist, hatred, etc. (We have to be aware that editors on WP tend to love to focus on the negative a person/group that is on a different side of the public opinion, and we must be careful not to include those negatives if that's not a common feature of the RSes, we should not be calling that out from only one or two.). --Masem (t) 19:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    • From what I can tell, there appears to be a loose consensus that the SPLC is reliable in some situations, and one should be careful when citing it. I find Guy Macon and Masem's points far more convincing; they have provided evidence that the SPLC has in some situations gotten information wrong. The argument that the SPLC is "highly respected" is ad hominem; respect or acclaim says absolutely nothing about credibility. I also do think that we should be careful in labeling organizations "hate groups" just because the SPLC labels them. I don't think anyone disputes that the Ku Klux Klan or Neo Nazis are hate groups; it's just that they seem to have questionably labeled totally different groups as hate groups that they obviously disagree with and likely have a financial incentive to do so, and in these situations, if there is a reliable source(s) to suggest that these groups shouldn't be labeled as hate groups (such as the links above), then it seems that this should be noted. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
      • They are the experts in this field. In a handful of cases they have been shown to be mistaken but those are by far the exception. In the vast majority of those disputing they are hate groups have been shown they are exactly what SPLC has said. This makes sense as hate groups are themselves profiting in various ways, like faux Christian groups trying to shill product and get donations/pledges, so hate group designation puts a damper on their income. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Masem and Guy Macon. SPLC is a notable opinion but in cases where they are talking about a specific article subject we should make sure a reliable 3rd party source established WEIGHT to include the SPLC opinion. Springee (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• The opinion of the SPLC is certainly noteworthy, but... they have made enough flawed calls in recent years that what they say must be explicitly attributed as being the SPLC’s opinion, and not phrased in Wikipedia’s voice as fact. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Just of note, I just noticed that one of the SPLC articles I linked above (that I used as a citation in the article) gets a minor fact wrong. It incorrectly states that the subject ran for a seat in the US House of Representatives in 2014, when in reality, he ran for US senate that year ([61]). Bneu2013 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• When to use the SPLC as a source with a citation: General statements about hate groups, trends, and events. Claims that a hate group exists where the SPLC publishes actual evidence that it exists.
• When to use the SPLC as a source with a citation and an "according to the SPLC" attribution: Claims that a particular group is a hate group or an individual is part of a hate groups based upon them having unpopular religious beliefs (not allowing women into the priesthood, opposing gay marriage, opposing marriage with unbelievers, that sort of thing.)
• When to not the SPLC as a source: When they say that a hate groups exists or that a specific individual is a member of a hate group and they either refuse to reveal any evidence or they state that their evidence consists of self-published posts by anonymous individuals on hate group websites who have every reason to exaggerate how many hate groups there are and what members they have. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Your third bullet point can be best summed up as "Use original research and my personal bugbears to override Reliable Substitute guidelines". --Calton | Talk 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • If you think that Wikipedia has a rule saying that we should accept the obvious lie that the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists just because the SPLC took the word of an an anonymous poster going be the name "Concerned Troll" posting on the Daily Stormer website, then either you are mistaken about Wikipedia's rules or we should ignore the rules per WP:IAR. We do not accept random neo-nazi posts on neo-nazi discussion boards as "evidence" no matter who repeats the claim. Please try to use some common sense when your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules leads you to ridiculous conclusions. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
      • So, yes, you want Wikipedia to substitute your judgment for that of a Reliable Source, based on your personal analysis. Got it. --Calton | Talk 09:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
        • No, that's not what he said. He said something that sounds a lot more like "Reliable sources, per WP:RS, engage in fact-checking, and any source that accepts a single anonymous post on a disreputable internet discussion board as their sole evidence for anything is obviously not engaging in fact-checking". Please don't tell people that they're violating policy by noticing that a source doesn't necessarily meet every single criteria on our actual definition of reliability. You can't actually violate NOR in discussions. That's right there in the very first words of that policy: "Wikipedia articles must not..." Our discussions are permitted to use a much broader range of sources and contents, and even our own analysis and discussions of our own values. (Also, this long discussion reads like incitement to urban-legend creation. There could be dozens of posts about "new" book clubs tomorrow.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

          You know, I'm going to go with the evidence of my own eyes instead of your rationalization. Is that okay with you? --Calton | Talk 01:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If The evidence of your own eyes tells you that an anonymous poster going be the name "Concerned Troll" posting on the Daily Stormer website is an acceptable source, then I suggest that you get your eyes examined. BTW, The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. The SPLC still says that it does, but they are lying. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• SPLC seems to have a reputation for fact checking, in fact a very high reputation.- Slatersteven. Of course, I fully agree. But, their work is under such a scrutiny since 9-11, wars in the Middle East, and the rise of Islamophobia, Alt-Right, and so on, that a number of cases where they have been shown to be mistaken is still minuscule, and really negligible - and, this is exactly what escapes Guy Macon in his own disagreement with this statement and personal assessment that "the SPLC has a reputation for not fact checking, not publishing corrections, and not revealing what they are using for evidence. They did have a good reputation in the past, but those days are gone."
  

Somehow I doubt that we could find one organization to be infallible in that field of work they are in. They are the experts and probably most prominent name in the field. Someone cited Encyclopaedia Britannica as "highly respectable" - EB have publish more nonsense along the years that if one is to publish just that in one edition it would make volume(s) of unforgettable comedic literature.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't just me that says ""the SPLC has a reputation for not fact checking, not publishing corrections, and not revealing what they are using for evidence. They did have a good reputation in the past, but those days are gone." Multiple sources have said it or something close to it.[62][63][64][65][66][67] --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Avoid - as an advocacy group they are implicitly WP:BIASED with only fair research quality and editorial norms, that should have both attribution and a source independently making conclusions in many cases. I think for the Tyler article there are far better sourcing and wide support available in USAToday, Washington Post, The Independent, Fox News, The Hill, Boston Globe, WTVC, etcetera. BESTSOURCES should be used. I frankly think world notice mention is fine and should be expanded, but this separate remark about SPLC also is not significant, it just looks like a coat hook. The AFP sidenote I think could just be cut... the cited item does not well support, and it’s a sidebar. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Avoid always SPLC started out using "hate group" as a limited moniker to label groups that participate in violence directed against people based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc., or groups that clearly encourage violence. However for the last decade or more it has been labeling groups that do not in any way, shape means or form encourage or promote violence as hate groups. It has labeled groups that have as their main strategy bringing law suits as hate groups. One of these "hate group" law firms has won multiple law suits before the supreme court. On the other hand some have questioned the SPLCs labeling of hate groups on other grounds. Some individuals have been labeled hate groups. Other "groups" they label on real evidence seem to be no more than a mailing list. The SPLC is by some descriptions a high pressure money raising endevor, not an advocacy group. It is in the interest of their fundraising operation to claim as many hate groups as possible. So they are also very suspect if we are trying to determine is an organization is notable enough to have an article. The SPLC creating an entry on an organization is not a sign of significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Misses the point. The SPLC is a strictly reliable source for it's own statements, per WP:ABOUTSELF. We trust that if we say "The SPLC has labeled XXXX a hate group" or something similar, that the actual statement where the SPLC does so is perfectly reliable, because you know, they actually do. Is someone claiming that when the SPLC labels someone as a hate group, that we can't trust they actually did label them as a hate group? --Jayron32 13:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The above "misses the point" comment misses the point. On November 7, 2018 Donald Trump said the following to CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta: "When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you are the enemy of the people," Trump said, pointing at Acosta. This was widely reported, but we still do not have any claim that Trump said that Acosta is an enemy of the people in Acosta's BLP. Now imagine if the only source for Trump making that claim was something Trump himself published -- a tweet, say -- and no other source covered that one particular tweet. You could then make the (absolutely accurate) claim that Donald Trump is a strictly reliable source for his own statements. You could then make the (absolutely accurate) claim that we trust that if we say "Donald trump labeled Jim Acosta an enemy of the people", that the actual statement where the Donald Trump says so is perfectly reliable, because you know, he actually did. But would that mean that we would be allowed to insert "Donald trump labeled Jim Acosta an enemy of the people" in Jim Acosta's BLP? No. The relevant policy on that is WP:UNDUE. We would not allow it, because -- though 100% accurate and from a source that is reliable about his own statements -- Donald Trump is clearly not a reliable source for any claim that Jim Acosta an enemy of the people and because nobody else has ever said that about Jim Acosta. (If instead of Trump making it up he got the claim from some random Neo-Nazi named "Concerned Troll" posting on a discussion board we would still wouldn't use it.) Likewise, The SPLC is clearly not a reliable source for whether any person or organization is or is part of a hate group, and the SPLC is clearly not a reliable source for any claim that a particular hate group does or does not exist. They have gotten it wrong too often, they have fought against issuing retractions until someone wins a court case against them too often, and they have replaced proven-false claims with similar unproven claims rather than retracting the false claim too often. If some other source calls them a hate group, use that other source. If only the SPLC calls them a hate group, don't make the claim at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Avoid always the SPLC is no longer reliable as the arbiter of what is and isn't a hate group and therefore we shouldn't treat their word as law. Lepricavark (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• I also agree with the positions presented by Masem and Guy Macon. Cheers!--ColumbiaXY (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

On a wholly separate matter from SPLC

Uh I just noticed the article mentioned from above is at Rick Tyler (white supremacist) which is waaaay out of line for a BLP disambiguation. No matter how well that is sourced, anything that falls within WP:LABEL should never be used as a disambiguation term. The disambiguation isn't even necessary, as there is only one other topic that shares the name, that being Hourman (Rick Tyler), a comics character and speaking a specific iteration. If we needed disambiguation, then "(politician)" (even though he holds no office yet) would be better and within BLP/NPOV. I have boldly gone ahead to sort this out, moving the BLP to Rick Tyler and using a hat note to link to the comic character. --Masem (t) 01:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The reason I used the disambiguator is because there is political analyst on MSNBC by the name of Rick Tyler who may be notable, and just in case someone were to create this article. But that is probably better now. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if we get to that point, I think you'd want to use "politician" for this Tyler, and then "journalist" or "reporter" for the other one. --Masem (t) 01:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: CNSNews.com

See https://www.cnsnews.com  ; and for earlier discussion see: What about "Cybercast News Service" (CNSnews)? and CNSnews.com aka cybercast.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of CNSNews.com?

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

-TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at today’s content, I don’t see anything that would make me question it... I was very pleased to see that opinion and blog pieces are CLEARLY marked as such, to differentiate them from news reporting. That said, my opinion is based on just one examination, and I do not know what its reputation is historically. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Generally unreliable, it's an arm of the Media Research Center, an explicitly-right-wing partisan organization; the site's managing editor declared that a children's book about a black, gay Santa Claus is pro-homosexual and Just in time to further sexualize (and homosexualize) children and that Apparently, depicting two "married" male Santas who presumably anally sodomize each other as pretend-love -- and deliver gifts to children! -- is in no way an attack on Christmas. A site whose managing editor holds such extremist positions cannot be trusted to provide meaningful news coverage. This is neatly demonstrated by a purported "news" article published earlier this year which purportedly contrasts so-called gay marriage with real marriage between a man and a woman. An American "news" site which contends that heterosexual marriage is the only "real" marriage is not factually depicting the world as it is in the year of our Lord two thousand and nineteen, but rather presenting a right-wing fantasy safe space in which Obergefell v. Hodges did not happen. At best, the site might be useful for personal opinions of right-wing commentators. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  That very article mentions Obergefell v. Hodges and consists mostly of quotes from Gallup. The article uses distasteful language to describe gay marriage but that doesn't make it inaccurate or a "fantasy". It accurately describes a present-day America in which gay marriage is legal and enjoys wide support while also making it clear that Mr. Chapman thinks this is icky and wrong. I'd be more comfortable with excluding news sources based on demonstrably sloppy fact-checking rather than on the editors holding particular views – in this case views which are probably still shared by a majority of the world's population. Haukur (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  The article is openly homophobic. Should we accept a source that is openly anti-Semitic? A source that refers to the "so-called Holocaust"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 - I admit freely that most of my browsing of the site comes from NorthBySouthBaranof's links that he provides in his comments, but after reading through that content, I don't see how this can be considered a reliable neutral source, as least, when it comes to factual reporting. I agree with his points that he already made above. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sigh... so, once again, people are mixing the opinion side of journalism and the actual news coverage side. Look at the source again. Yes, there is some very biased material there, BUT... All the biased and opinionated material is clearly marked as “Blog” or “opinion”. I would agree that THAT kind material is not reliable (except as a primary source for the authors opinion)... However... the site’s actual news reporting seems to be fairly free of bias and opinion. Refreshingly so. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. I just literally linked a claimed "News" article that is outright homophobic and leads readers to the conclusion that two men can't have a "real" marriage. It's no more linked to reality than an article which denies the Holocaust. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not an accurate representation of that article. It says, correctly, that gay marriage is legal in the US and enjoys broad support in polls. But it also makes clear that the author is among the minority which opposes this. The language used to express this is distasteful and does not speak well for the source. But the position itself isn't some bizarre fringe view - it was the majority view in the US just a few years ago and is probably still the majority view in the world as a whole. Haukur (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to your use of The Daily Stormer on the grounds that describing Jews as "money-grubbing parasites" is not a bizarre fringe view and indeed was the majority view in Germany in 1939. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please be nice. Haukur (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

His comparison was completely valid and there wasn't anything "not nice" about it. JimKaatFan (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be better to discuss this sort of thing without jumping straight to the most imflammatory examples every time. But if you absolutely insist on discussing Nazis then let's discuss Nazis. No, I'm of course not suggesting we cite the Daily Stormer. But the most relevant question for evaluating sources is not what the political views of the authors and editors are but whether the source operates according to journalistic and/or scholarly standards. If that checks out then a source can be reliable, even if written by, yes, Nazis. In my field, I do often have to cite literal card-carrying Nazis like this guy or this guy who both did a lot of useful scholarly work. They get cited on Wikipedia too and I think that's, in most cases, okay. In some cases, of course, their work is obsolete but the fields they worked in move too slowly for this to be true in every case. To get closer to our original example, if revealing someone as an opponent of gay marriage were enough to disqualify everything they write as a source then, well, that would rule out quite a lot. More generally speaking, it would be much too narrow a restriction to only cite enlightened 21st century Western liberal sources. Haukur (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The way you wrote your last sentence, it sounds like you think everything that's not written by a neo-Nazi is a "liberal source." I'm sure that's not what you meant, though. And I'm sure your use of the word "enlightened" wasn't sarcastic. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Unreliable. It's a right-wing pro-Trump mouthpiece. Neither fair nor balanced at all. Gerntrash (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Came across this website recently. It is blatantly biased and not reliable.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Abysmal site. If there's anything actually useful there, we should be evaluating and citing whatever source they're repackaging it from. When a non-news organisation skins part of their site with "news" in the name, that is not magic pixie dust actually making it an actual newspaper with reporters and factchecking. One of the biggest red flags is when a site explicitly identifies themselves as anti-RS. NPOV means RS mainstream views and RS significant minority views, not RS and anti-RS. Sources that are explicitly anti-RS are generally either unreliable and/or fringe (raising weight issues). This organisation explicitly identifies as "expose and neutralize" "the national news media". The particular flavor of their anti-RS agenda is irrelevant. Alsee (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3, the quality of their reporting is not high enough to bother dealing with the NPOV and bias issues. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

belgian-wings.be as reliable source

Can belgian-wings.be can be considered as reliable source for belgian-related aviation to be used in article of Belgian Air Component, or just a self-published website? Ckfasdf (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

At the first glance, belgian-wings.be falls into self-published website, as it was pretty much managed only by Daniel Brackx. However, as he is a belgian-journalist on aviation topics and author of several books related to belgian aviation which also have been used as reference by other author. And refer to statement on WP:SPS that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

belgian-wings.be provide detailed information on belgian-related aviation (including details on aircraft inventory) that other website site such as flightglobal.com and mil.be didn't provide. The information on belgian-wings.be is also correct depend to its date of update and can be verified by looking up the news.

For example on this page, belgian-wings.be provide information regarding belgian B-Hunter UAV. That page inform us that initially belgian air component received 13 UAVs which correct refer to other sources such as here and here. Then it says one unit crashed during test phase which also align with other source here. 1 unit was crashed and another 1 was downed in Congo also can be found on other source here and here. 2 unit was crashed on elsenborn base in 2006,2007 and 2010 (news here for 2006 and 2007 and for 2010). Hence total active aircraft is 13 unit, which is also the same as information on Belgian MoD.

I can put other examples on belgian-wings.be , which can be verified. Therefore, I believe that belgian-wings.be can accepted as reliable source. Regards. (Ckfasdf (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC))

• Not reliable The site states "a website that everyone can build together. It's easy!" which has contributors with unknown knowledge levels on the subject. Further if we need to have the reader verify the source by "by looking up the news", then we should by pass the site and go straight to the source. - FOX 52 (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable (reason: WP:UGC/WP:SPS type of source). The detail that is not found elsewhere (in a reliable source) can not be used in Wikipedia (while simply: too much detail – Wikipedia is supposed to give a summary of reliable sources, not dish out details that can only be found in questionable sources); what can be found in multiple other reliable sources, can also be referenced to these multiple other reliable sources. Wikipedia does not need this source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for reasons similar to foregoing. One might quote material in suitable contexts, but not as reliably sourced. JonRichfield (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable - pretty much per the above - the fact that we can verify some of the information on the site with other sources doesn't make it generally reliable. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable To be clear some SPS can be reliable especially when published by experts, so whether this is an SPS and whether it's reliable are two separate questions. In any case the website accepts user-generated content, and it's unclear what if any fact-checking process is being used to vet this information as none are listed or what qualifies the author for particular expertise in this area. Could be a useful starting point for research though. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine's book When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans

There was an interesting discussion here.
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Van_Antwerp_Fine_Jr.
The book is hevilly critisised in Croatian historiography, it's according to Budak and Vdović;

Fineova knjiga ne može ni na koji način zaslužiti pozitivnu ocjenu. Fine's book cannot in any way merit a positive review. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75847

Bilo bi hvalevrijedno kada bi autor, upozoren na sve ove nedostatke, a pogotovo na stav prema Hrvatima i svoju neprikladnu metodologiju, našao snage javno se ograditi od ove knjige. It would be commendable if the author, alert to all these shortcomings, and especially to his attitude towards the Croats and his inappropriate methodology, found strength to publicly distance himself from this book. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75847

Vođen svojom nacionalističkom predrasudom, Fine je odlučio iskritizirati nekoliko hrvatskih historičarki i historičara, kao netko tko je „nepristran“, međutim, on to nije Driven by his nationalist prejudice, Fine decided to criticize several Croatian historians and historians as someone who is 'impartial', however, he is not. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957

Zato i jest neobično što Fine olako donosi zaključke koji su gotovo nedokazivi, ali i sasvim nelogični. That's why it unusual that Fine easily reaches conclusions that are almost undetectable, but also completely illogical. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957

Očigledno je negiranje hrvatskog imena kao nečega što je konstruirao nacionalizam. It is obvious denial of the Croatian name as something constructed by nationalism. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957

Should it be granted label as unreliable source? I think it should. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are also chapter summaries: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/7069 --Čeha (razgovor) 01:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor Ceha explained everything and put links as proof. I expect more editors to get involved in the discussion. I will give a critique from my point of view, that is with concrete data. Claim from the book "Such people, connected only by living in or serving the same country, may be Croats in geographical or political terms, but not in ethnic terms." We have Turkish documents and sources that mentione Croats primarily census of Bosnian army(1526) where for good part of Bosnian army is said that they are Croats i.e. behind their Muslim names are term "Croat"(same exist and in Southern Serbia, Podrinje( border between Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro), Central Montenegro) Does this mean that there was some geographical and political Croatia or maybe there live ethnic Croats? When a Byzantine source calls the ruler of Duklja(Montenegro) Mihailo Vojislavljević (fl. 1050–d. 1081) the ruler of those who call themselves Croats, does that mean that Duklja(at that time) is geographically and politically Croatia or maybe there live ethnic Croats? If we have Croatian ethnonyms throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina(eastern herzegovina) and Montenegro(14th and 15th century) Does that mean that these ethnonyms are there because of political and geographical Croatia or maybe there live ethnic Croats?. We have a journey of Evliya Çelebi through Montenegro and in central Montenegro (Niksic area) finds villages in which Croats live. Does that mean that these Croats are there because of political and geographical Croatia or maybe there live ethnic Croats? It is also interesting that census of the Bosnian army(1526) i.e. Turkish administration also record some Croats in Niksić.Mikola22 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, John A. Fine is a well-regarded author about medieval Balkans and one of the most quoted author, if not the most quoted, about the medieval history of Bosnia. Mhare (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Even a good author can write a bad book. Read the critics, what have he done. As for quotes, if he represents nationalistic views, can you gues which nation like's him? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, I am not sure you understand the concept of what is an unreliable source. His literature is peer-reviewed and accepted by mainstream historians worldwide. If you can't wrap your head around it, I am so sorry. Mhare (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

His sources might be, but his conclusions are not. If you read the critisism... than you'll find that he doesn't recognise tradicional historiography. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There are more examples(Croats in wider area) but I won't list them now. The point is that John_Van_Antwerp_Fine_Jr. does not use all historical and others informations which exists (about Croats) in this area, and if he used that informations he would certainly not make such conclusions and wrote such book which is actually worthless. Croats in Croatia are probably "Croats" since the first censuses, but even then it is not excluded that they declared themselves as "Croats" because they live in Croatia. A really bad book, there were all kinds of books but I haven't read one like this before.Mikola22 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Review of Adrian Mandzy(part) in which he says I quote: "Does the author deny Croatians a national and historic identity. Yes and No." Therefore if all the records that mentione Croats and Croatia, all ethnonyms and toponyms were included in his book then the picture would be much different. And if various historians who commented that book were aware of this historical data and criticism would be more negative than it is now.Mikola22 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

What a blatant fraud! What is really said in this review of Mandzy? "The work is exhaustive and well researched." "Of special note is the attention Fine pays to the historiography of the Balkans and Croatian identity." "Fine's work is a solid body of research that provides a plethora of information. Like the author's previous works on the region, this work is destined to come a much cited and recognized authoritative tome in American Balkan research."--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes "The work is exhaustive and well researched.". for that reason you find information that I provided about Croats (that area). There should be no problem because book deals with Croats and that informations are certainly in the book.Mikola22 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Quote of Josip Vdović: "On trail of his definition of ethnicity, Fine argued that ethnic sentiment was tied to national borders. At the time of the emergence and existence of the Croatian state, during the period from the 7th to the 12th centuries, there were no ethnic Croats but only political Croats. These would be people who lived in the area of Croatian states and who were subject to the rule of the Croatian king. They called themselves Croats as long as they lived in the borders of the Croatian state, that is, until 1102. When the Hungarian ruler conquered Croatia, the same Croats became Hugarians, because then they became subjects of the Hungarian king and inhabitants of the Hungarian state.(page 62)" Now I will show how it really was in example of Dubrovnik. Arab geographer, cartographer and travel writer Muhammad Al-Idrisi (1099-1164) mentions Dubrovnik as the last city in Croatia. Participants in Parliament in the Swiss city of Basel 1433 mentione Dubrovnik which is city in Croatia. 1486-1487 - German nobleman and pilgrim from Constance (region of Bavaria) Conrad von Grünenberg: "Ragusa hobstat in kunglich Croatie" or "Dubrovnik is the capital of the Croatian Kingdom". 1506 - English travel writer and pilgrim Richard Guylford writes describing Dubrovnik (in Old English): "the moste stronge and myghty Towne [...] in the Coutre of Slauanye or Dalmacie and in the Prouynce of the Royalme of Croacie"). Sokollu Mehmed Pasha 1566 issued an order in which he says that roman friars of Buda, Timișoara and Dubrovnik and of all Croatian nation do not ask for charity if these people(Croats)belongs to the Greek Patriarch(orthodox Croats) Here is an example of transformation of Croats and Croatia into Hungarians. And this is without Croatian ethnonyms in outback of Dubrovnik. Thanks for applause. Mikola22 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed by, Emily Greble Balić Fine is aware that his argument will provoke controversy in the western Balkans, but he is content to let his documents speak for themselves. In an almost encyclopedic style, he systematically reviews sources region by region and century by centuryWe see how much of my previous historical information he included in his encyclopedian book. I don't know if today hundred thousands of peoples with surname Horvat (Croat) have been included in this encyclopedian book(who now living in Hungary, Austria, Slovenia) it is very likely that they are Hungarians escaping from Croatia and Bosnia from Turks. Ethnonym Horvat(Croat) occurs in Zagreb just in Turkish times and indicate peoples from old Croatia i.e. Dalmatia. Some of the settlers (ordinary peasants) in the vicinity of Bihać(Bosnian Krajina) in Turkish times, were recorded in books as Croats i.e. that they come from Croats(Dalmatia). When Evliya Çelebi goes through "Turkish" Dalmatia he mainly sees Croats some Uskoks and Montenegrins and that's it but where are Hungarians?Mikola22 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, you will do this with any source that might come that does not correspond with your POV. This is why you started this, and along with Ceha, and ended up in couple of noticeboards in the span of a few days. Putting Chronicle of the priest of Duklja above RS which is Fine was uncalled for, to say the least. Colleagues below have made a good point, and you just continue with quotations and your analysis of Primary sources. Disappointing, to say the least. Mhare (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This is wikipedia and if exist possibility that someone help why not use it in good faith. I do not comment you or anyone else, Otherwise I do not know why there is so much need to comment me or someone else. I guess you came here to comment book and not me.Mikola22 (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, try to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Best regards. Mhare (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mikola22: I am not quite sure what your point is. Actually, I am not quite sure I understand what you write. But if your point is to "prove" that Fine is unreliable with your analysis of primary sources as "proof", then forget it, and please read and try to understand WP:RSPRIMARY. --T*U (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor:These are some data that exist and if it said that Croats are becoming someone else when political power is changes why not use as evidence and this historical information that exists in various books, scientific papers, archives, toponymys, ethnonymys, Croatian emigrants etc. Therefore if I know this information and there is more of them (how many historical data I haven't seen yet: court archive, history of Croatian names and surnames, church archive, travel writers, Turkish sources etc). Therefore if someone writing a book about Croatia which is supposedly similar to "encyclopedia" then you go to Croatia and research that data or online but you have to take all historical information if you have such big claims and theses. If anything it would be at least decent behavior to do so. Problem is that people from outside do not know Croatian history as a whole and then comes books like this which is RS on wikipedia.Mikola22 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mikola22: (For your information, your ping did not work. The ping template only works when it is saved in the same edit as your signature. If you want to add a ping afterwards, you need to re-sign your entry.)
I just repeat: WP:RSPRIMARY, not to mention WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Example - Fine: "Thus, the Slavs living in and around Dubrovnik had acquired no special name to define themselves. Moreover, the town’s hinterland was generally referred to as “Sclavonia." page 96. I have previously provided information for Dubrovnik that mentions Croatia and Croatian peoples. Here are and concrete data (ethnonyms). Personal name Hrvatin (since 1301), Hrvajin (since 1475), Hrvo (since 1475), Hrvoje (since 1475) and Hrvat (Croat) (since 1475) in the Middle Ages we find all over eastern Herzegovina(Dubrovnik hinterland): from Bisće near Mostar, through Zažablje, Popovo, Vrhi and Trebinje to Biograd near Nevesinje, Stolac and Plane near Bileća. In Dubrovnik personal name Hrvatin has been mentioned since at least 1281, and later on Peljesac (1301) and Konavle (1397). Romani people from Dubrovnik hinterland: Croutatin (Hrvatin) Dimitrouich, 1423. god, otac(father) Dmithar, Radossauus Cheruatinouich (Hrvatinović), 1458. god, otac(father) Croutatin. In the archives of the Republic of Dubrovnik from the 15th century, the Romani people mostly are listed as Zingano, Zingani, Zinganus, Cingalus, Cinganus and several exceptions that list them as Jeđupe. Obviously Croatian name and surname are taken somewhere in the hinterland of Dubrovnik where they lived with Croats. Peter Tolstoy(1697-1698) Russian travel writer: "Around this monastery live Ragusans(residents of Dubrovnik) - naval captains, sailors and astronomers (...) all speak Slavic languages, and Italian know, all are called Hervati(Croats), they are Catholics". The Senate of the Republic of Dubrovnik(1745) looking for soldiers: "Let us know also whether we can get the barbarbants and in what number, but that they are Croats with our language and Catholics (Crouati de nostra lingua e cattolici)". Roger Joseph Boscovich from Dubrovnik: "In a letter to his brother from 1757, he describes this encounter and remarks at the end of the letter: "Eviva Haddick e i nostri Croati!", meaning "Long life to Haddick and to our Croats!", While living in Paris and attending to a military parade where he saw a Croatian unit from Ragusa(Dubrovnik), his words were: "there are my brave Croats". In these sources Slavs are not mentioned in the area of Dubrovnik. When ethnonym and other data is not used then we have a book like this or RS.Mikola22 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is exactly the author from outside of the ethno-nationalistic Balkan bubble we are looking for. His credentials look solid, so there is no reason to exclude his POV. Is there any damning review in a well regarded mainstream journal (preferably published outside of the Balkans) to push his POV in the fringe territory? Pavlor (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

How? The guy is accused of heavy nationalism Driven by his nationalist prejudice, Fine decided to criticize several Croatian historians and historians as someone who is 'impartial', however, he is not. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957 --Čeha (razgovor) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comments - (without going into questionable motives of this RSN) this is nothing that we haven't seen before, it's a same diatribe that we have witnessed from Serbian critics and few outside defenders of Serbian myths and perspectives surrounding Malcolm's works on Bosnia and Kosovo - only this time on the part of Croatian discourse, on another western scholar, and this time with far lesser intensity. Even Neven Budaks review is mixed, not entirely negative, while this other person is unknown Croatian undergraduate(?) who wrote one text published in "Magazine of the undergraduates of histories - Rostra", in Zadar, Croatia. Just like in case of Malcolm, where not all Serbian reviewers gave negative critique, in this case too, other Croatian reviewers were far more favorable regarding this particular book, like Emily Balić for instance: "(o)ne of the book's great strengths is Fine's analysis of premodern "ethnic" identity". Editor who finds one, in the words of previous commenter, damning review in mainstream international publication, because I can't offer him/her million bucks, they will get my full and unconditional support on this.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

How is Josip Vdović https://ffzg.academia.edu/JosipVdovi%C4%87/CurriculumVitae undergraduate student? https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957 ?

As for the Budak, how can this: It would be commendable if the author, alert to all these shortcomings, and especially to his attitude towards the Croats and his inappropriate methodology, found strength to publicly distance himself from this book. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75847 be mixed? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha: According to his own description at Academia.edu, Vdović took his Master degree in 2018, so Yes, he will have been an undergraduate when he wrote his piece in the Zadar student magazine Rostra in 2016. --T*U (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Fine is a respected scholar, a deep connoisseur of Balkan history. For example, Paul Stephenson, Professor of History [68], rated him higher than Barford, P. M.: "For historical introductions to the Southern and Eastern Slavs, I would continue to recommend Fine's Early Medieval Balkans and Franklin's and Shepard's Emergence of Rus, neither of which is superseded for classroom use by this book."[69]. The rude attacks on him by some Croatian historians should make these historians themselves doubtful.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the Fine's book? His book is going against mainstream historiography of that area.

He even suggested to rename mediaval Croatian state to Velebita, because not everbody in it were Croats. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"Third party RS" is explained here → WP:PUBLISHED--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Fine is ... completely fine. He is a highly respected scholar, writing in his field of expertise, and published by a renowned University publishing press. Most reviews have praised the work, often profusely. Some reviews have had a few critical remarks, which is as it should be. No doubt Fine's book can be used as a central source in the relevant articles. Whether or not critical comments will be relevant to mention, will depend on the context and will, of course, have to be evaluated separately according to WP:RS. --T*U (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Expect his books goes against tradicional historiography, and is critisied as It is obvious denial of the Croatian name as something constructed by nationalism. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957 ?

@Ceha: As I just said, critical comments have to be evaluated separately according to WP:RS. The student magazine your quote comes from is hardly a RS. --T*U (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Which student magazine? Hrčak is not a student magazine. Vdović article contains analyses Fine, by providing statments from Džino, Budan, Ančić which are contrary Fine. Budak writes his own critique. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha: I am talking about this student magazine, where Vdović's article was published. This may actually also say something about the reliablilty of Hrcak sources. --T*U (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hrčak isn't a magazine, nor journal, it's a platform which publishes all kind of stuff, and where you can fine papers that were never peer-reviewed - it's not RS on its own merit, only if paper is obviously written by well-known and credible scholar that it's acceptable when published by Hrčak.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And Budak and mentioned historians are no ones? Right. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am both baffled and amused by the suggestion that it is wrong to go against traditional historiography. Huh. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You missed the point. Just because something is new, doesn't meet it's valid or should be accepted. To make situation more clearer change the word traditional to mainstream. Fine isn't mainstrem. And the critisism explains that. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid that the assertion that John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. is not a mainstream historian points to the futility of further discussion of the matter. Surtsicna (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is not about users, it is about the book. Can people please stop making personal comments about users?Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Fine is indeed fine. I would much rather trust a Harvard University graduate employed by one of the leading research universities in the US than virtually any historian from post-Yugoslav countries, thank you very much. As for the book itself, here is a review from an MIT Press-published journal. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

But his approach is refreshingly new.

His blatant hostility toward Croat nationalists seriously detracts from the book's laudable empirical contribution.

And that should be a positive review? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. A refreshingly new approach is obviously appreciated in academia, including the reviewer (cue the word "refreshingly"). That is how academic disciplines move forward, so that we do not forever regurgitate 19th-century historians. The need to explain this is, frankly, stupefying. And yes, the sentence you quoted is part of a positive review. Even though it is essentially adverse criticism, it still points to "the book's laudable empirical contribution". Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Than it's not a positive, than a mixed review. Would you recommened the book that has laudable empirical contribution, except in some areas, where it seriously detracts from it?

Would you warn people about those areas, or would you just tell them that the book is fine?--Čeha (razgovor) 12:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not mixed. It's an overtly positive review. Critics criticize. It is not normal in the Western world for a peer review to contain only praise no matter how good the work is. I would recommend this book in articles that deal with medieval and early modern history of the Republic of Croatia. That is what the book is about, and that is where the author's expertise lies. I would not necessarily recommend it in an article about Franjo Tuđman. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting. I would not recommend to no one the book which states that medieval England should be renamed Pennyland (by the Pennines mountains) just because all of the people were not English at the medieval times. Fine critics are not just sideways, he is biased.

He has listed a good number of sorces in his book, but because of his POV, his conslusions are...

Have you read the critics? How bad can a book be if a prominent historian who is famous for his untinationalistic stances asks Fine to publicly distance himself from this book? --Čeha (razgovor) 15:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine is fine (more or less).This is Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Čeha: @Sadko: This is why I like having Wikipedia articles about books themselves written, based on the book reviews. Various published books have at least two independent secondary source book reviews, and those can tell the readers about the book's reputation. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Anadolu Agency

Which of the following options describes Anadolu Agency the best as a reference?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated --Jamez42 (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Anadolu Agency)

• Option 2 or 3 – It's been Turkish state-run media since its inception, but since the AKP's consolidation of power in the 21st century editorial control to make the agency follow government political lines has been even stricter. May be usable for non-controversial news stories and for the official views of the Turkish government, but not reliable for anything else of a political nature. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 Should not be cited without direct attribution, especially on issues related to Turkish politics. Editorial control by the government is extensive, which brings into question its reliability. --Jayron32 13:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3: Similar to Telesur, PressTV and Sputnik (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), Anadolu is a state-run agency with a clear motive. At the very least, attribution must be used for inclusion in the project.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per above. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3, the quality of their reporting has declined significantly over the last three years. Hopefully one day it will be reliable against today it is not. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 This source is mostly unreliable and should only be used when better reliable sources are not available. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 - State-run outlets are almost always biased when it comes to foreign policy and politically sensitive matters, (remember how the US Gov was adamant that Saddam had nuclear weapons?) but are usually fine (and often indispensable) for routine facts concerning the country (such as government appointments, economic statistics, census results, etc). -Zanhe (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Anadolu Agency)

• I'm curious if anyone has information on if or how Anadolu Agency differs from TRT World (RSP entry), another state-run Turkish media outlet with an international focus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: The difference I see is that Anadolu Agency (AA) is disseminated more than TRT, I have encountered Anadolu more often while seeking sources. While reading through AA, there were many similarities between it and other state-run agencies we have determined are not reliable. Similar to Telesur, AA uses distorted facts, with Bellingcat stating "AA as a whole can only be considered as blatant and deliberate twisting and distorting of the facts".----ZiaLater (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  ZiaLater, I guess it's also possible that the two agencies have become more redundant since the imposition of tighter editorial control––there may not necessarily be a difference between them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  @ZiaLater and Rosguill: if TRT has an international focus, perhaps this is in part why. TRT World doesn't seem to have the sort of prominence that sources like Al Jazeera or the BBC have. Even VOA arguably has more prominence. Also this is the English wikipedia, and I don't know what TRT World's English coverage. So it's probably going to be rare someone bothers to use TRT World, in discussing for example, the relationship between Trump and the EU, or the 1MDB scandal in Malaysia. Even something which involves Turkey, like for example the recent NATO summit and the various disputes between various leaders I guess it's going to come up less. Except in cases specifically relating to Turkey. And in those cases I would imagine AA may cover that as well. For Turkish internal stuff, we're often going to be looking at Turkish sources so AA may come up as one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)

Given the recent relevance, which of the following options describes Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) the best as a source?

Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive, though editors acknowledged a partisan stance.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated----ZiaLater (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Center for Economic and Policy Research)

• Generally reliable but opinionated - I would say that CEPR as a policy shop is like Cato, Hoover, et al. - their opinion conclusions are generally structurally sound but should be taken in context of their ideological underpinnings and should be in-text attributed. Neither Cato nor CEPR are likely to publish something outright false or fabricated, but neither should their conclusions be treated as gospel truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable - I normally would have said Option 2, "Unclear or additional considerations apply", but I still have serious doubts about CEPR.

I have cited before their report attributing 40,000 deaths in Venezuela to international sanctions, "which was refuted because of inaccuracies, methodological errors and bias." Namely:

Economist Ricardo Hausmann and research fellow Frank Muci published a rebuttal to the report in Americas Quarterly, noting that to make their point, Weisbrot and Sachs take Colombia as a counterfactual for Venezuela, and arguing that Colombia is not a good counterfactual. In their rebuttal, they explain that the oil production trends between both countries were very different in the decade before sanctions and that two countries are also radically different in other dimensions. The rebuttal also states that just a month after the financial sanctions in late 2017, Nicolás Maduro fired both the relatively technocratic PDVSA president and oil minister and replaced them with a single military general with no experience in oil, who in turn fired and imprisoned over 60 senior managers of the oil company, including its previous president, on corruption charges, while nothing remotely similar happened in Colombia, thus confounding the effects of the sanctions with those of the firing.

The report also admits that the counterfactual data was unknown.

On the case of the last report on Bolivia, regardless of the findings, I'm worried that the organization mixes analytical content from political one. Specifically, in their press release , the CEPR directly accuses the Organization of American States of enabling the crisis and the coup in Bolivia, various organs of the OAS have played an enormous role in driving the crisis that led to Morales’s ouster, only using their position and the publication of the report as proof, and citing other alleged examples of actions "against the Left", namely in Haiti, Venezuela and Honduras. These appear to be closer to ad hominem arguments, rather than more analytical ones.

CEPR has been cited by Telesur and Venezuelanalysis, both sources that have been found to be unreliable and that should be deprecated. I don't want to engage in ad hominem arguments myself, but it should also be noted that the CEPR's founders and members have been related and have openly shown their support for the pink tide in Latin America.

Citing other discussions, Example text, and the CEPR "will often choose professionals to sign large open letters that support their motives."

• Economists Call on Media to Report "Overwhelming Evidence" Regarding Venezuelan Election Results - CEPR-led group responding to the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election
• Economists Call on Congress to Mitigate Fallout from Ruling on Argentine Debt - CEPR-led group calling for debt-relief for the Cristina Fernández de Kirchner administration

References

I want to clarify that with this I don't mean that the CEPR publishes mistaken or wrong information, meaning that it should not be included as it is the case if it was deprecated. On the contrary, their claims usually seem to be substantiated with research and analysis, but there seems to be a consensus on that it is a partisan organization, and at times the wrong conclusions might be reached because of this, meaning that not only said conclusions should be treated carefully, but also attributed. My fear remains that the CEPR is given the same weight as, for example, the Organization of American States. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. As with similar agencies, its findings should be attributed. Burrobert (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Mostly unreliable/opinionated/additional considerations per Jamez42. Their publications are partisan and published on a trendy basis. As a political thinkthank it should either be avoided or be represented minimally in political crisis issues. In the case of Venezuela, there have been also additional counter reports. I am not saying that we should adhere to one institute or another, but we should not base whole sections on which center says what and their successive responses, as done in International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis##Analyses_and_reports (see also what this kind of report lead to Talk:International_sanctions_during_the_Venezuelan_crisis/Archive_1#Critics_of_sanctions ). --MaoGo (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  I would also like to bring here that the CEPR Wikipedia article has some history of alleged WP:MEATpuppetry (see Talk:Center for Economic and Policy Research.--MaoGo (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• Generally reliable Called by bot. It is treated as generally reliable by news outlets, and so should be treated as generally reliable by Wikipedia. It's got Novel Prize winners on its advisory board. Not many think tanks can claim that. Darx9url (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable as per NorthBySouthBaranof. Bacondrum (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Additional considerations - I feel this is a split discussion. Looking into it, CEPR seems to be mostly reliable, if partisan, on many things. It does engage in some political activities that are quite commonplace in the US (e.g. lobbying) which are not seen as good practice in other countries, but it is US-based. However, coming from the minor discussion in regards their reliability on Latin American issues, this is where it gets more complex and where I'd say it becomes more often than not unreliable. Perhaps this discussion could be split that way. See Jamez's analysis above for a large chunk of detail, and in the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page history for details of a CEPR report that gives very different statistics on the political outlook to most good reliable and local sources. Kingsif (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable (randomly invited by bot) They are generally cited in the media as a reliable source. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable for factual reporting. As with all sources, the reliability depends on the text being cited. In general, for the US topics they specialize in, they may be regarded as a partisan source whose opinions can be used if they meet WEIGHT and are attributed. But on Latin American topics, more caution is in order, and they are not a reliable source (except in cases such as representing the Chavismo point of view, see South of the Border (2009 film)). Factual errors in analysis have been frequently pointed out: see Mark_Weisbrot#Venezuela. It would be (legally) risky to label extensive factual errors intentional, so let the reader decide. The 2019 report in particular was extremely misleading according to sources. I would also note that many of the "media mentions" alleged above may be related to the fact that "talking heads" on television shows willing to represent the Chavismo point of view are few in far between. See also the Mark_Weisbrot#Reception section of that article for charges that Venezuelan economics were slanted by the author.

  Additionally, as mentioned above, the closer of this section should note that MEATPuppetry has long existed in this suite of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - mildly progressive and left-leaning, with area of expertise in domestic economics and international (Latin and South American) affairs. Domestic topic publications are reliable, providing good factual information and clear sourcing. South American topic pieces and sections of op-ed pieces and blogs are not reliable. No obvious editorial oversight or appearance of retraction-handling was seen. Generally respected in the press. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply. I don't see compelling evidence of the Center for Economic and Policy Research being significantly more reliable than other previously discussed think tanks and advocacy groups, including the Cato Institute (RSP entry) and Media Matters for America (RSP entry) – both of which are usable with attribution but treated with caution. The Cato Institute features Nobel laureates, just like CEPR. — Newslinger talk 07:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable There are no serious problems cited above, no factual errors cited, just poorly grounded claims of their factual errors. Baker and Weisbrot have an excellent reputation. A large part of their work is finding glaring errors of fact and logic in other sources; deeming them unreliable is absurd.John Z (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

CIA factbook

Hi, is the CIA factbook a state-owned source? can we use it in the United States article when there are independent sources that disputes the CIA factbook figures? For example in here the CIA factbook says that the U.S is slightly bigger than China making the U.S the third largest country. According to Britannica "China is surpassed in area by only Russia and Canada" and also Britannica says that "The United States is the fourth largest country in the world in area". In Wikipedia's United States article it says the United States is the third or fourth largest country by area and there is a note there that says that the "The figure for the United States is less than in the CIA World Factbook because it excludes coastal and territorial waters" this is not actually supported by the source and it is unclear for me why the CIA factbook figure is greater than in the Encyclopædia Britannica. So I think the CIA factbook should be dismissed if there are independent reliable sources that disputes the CIA factbook figures. Because it has a conflict of interest and it is written by a state-owned agency that works for the U.S. government.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi SharabSalam, and thanks for posting this question.

Measuring the size of a country depends upon some details, and when two countries are similar in size, different methods will produce different results. This does not mean that either of the answers are wrong! It just means that there are different results. To give another example of this, parents want to know how big their babies are, but babies can't stand up to have their height measured like an adult. So with a little baby, you put the baby on a table and measure how long the baby is. With a three year old, you ask the child to stand up, and measure their height like an adult. And at 12 or 18 months, you could do both on the same morning, and you will get different answers. Neither answer is wrong! It's just a different measurement system.

Some of these country-size measurements include the land area plus the nearby ocean (which the country is expected to control, e.g., to provide air-sea rescue services to sailors in that area). Some measurements include only the land area. These different systems will produce different results for countries that have coastlines. This is the difference in this case. If you look at the detailed statistical breakdown on the US and China, China has a slightly larger land area, and the US has a significantly larger water area, so the "total" makes the US larger – if you happen to be someone who likes to measure everything, but not if you happen to be someone who only cares about the land area. Neither answer is wrong.

You will also see differences in size based upon disputed territorial claims. A reliable source might decide that Kashmir is part of India, and thus get one size. A different reliable source might decide that Kashmir is not part of India, and thus get another size. This does not seem to be a particularly important factor in this particular situation, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Without getting into the details on this one source, I do need to point out (as I have done a few times above in different discussions) on the difference between a state-owned source and a state-run source. The BBC is a state-owned source, and yet we hold their work to be scrupulously reliable because the BBC is under no editorial control of the British state. This is quite different from something like Russia Today and Telesur which are organizations where the state has considerable editorial control over the work. However, even with those considerations, it isn't as though even state-run media is necessarily suspect; one would need to consider factors such as the source's purpose and the source's reputation for fact checking. It should be noted that The World Factbook is, as it's primary purpose, a reference work intended for internal use within the U.S. government, and as such, generally does a decent job of trying to be correct. The US has little interest in being deliberately incorrect in the data it uses for itself. It isn't a propaganda work in the sense that it isn't primarily intended for another audience to push any kind of agenda. While it may differ in certain definitions, those differences are almost always part-and-parcel with genuine disputes, and as with any source, it may "cast its lot" with one side or another in any particular dispute; but then again, when we are dealing with disputes, we shouldn't rely solely on any one source anyways. It seems, from my research, that (like any source) they have some reported inaccuracies which exist as good-faith mistakes; the publishers do correct mistakes and genuinely wish to "get it right", and while they differ on disputed matters, so does everyone else, because that's what a dispute is: a lack of clear agreement on a topic. --Jayron32 20:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I would generally agree that The World Factbook is a usable and reliable source. There are facts upon which reliable sources can disagree without inhibiting their reliability. BD2412 T 04:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I've always considered it reliable for uncontroversial facts like population and area. Guy (help!) 15:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is definitely usable for uncontroversial facts, which is usually the only thing anyone would want to cite it for anyway. However, I would sometimes qualify it as a WP:PRIMARY source, or at least something close to one. The contradiction here is unusual because I don't think this is particularly a controversy, just the sources using different measures. While Britannica is also a generally-usable source, I feel that neither are fully-ideal; in a situation like this where there's a contradiction, what you want to do is find secondary / tertiary sources that provide more in-depth details and analysis than you get from a dry encyclopedia summary or the CIA world factbook. So in this particular case I'd avoid relying on either of them, because if they're contradicting and it's not clear why, that reads like neither of them going into enough depth on the definitions they're using. --Aquillion (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the problem with using tertiary sources. They don't provide sources and so we cannot compare the information they provide. Good secondary sources would explain their methodology in determining relative size and then we could determine which one was more acceptable. TFD (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

TFD, I agree that a detailed secondary source has some advantages, but... you said that tertiary sources don't provide sources, except that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and it names its sources. Also, the CIA's World Factbook does explain its methodology: "This entry includes three subfields. Total area is the sum of all land and water areas delimited by international boundaries and/or coastlines. Land area is the aggregate of all surfaces delimited by international boundaries and/or coastlines, excluding inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, rivers). Water area is the sum of the surfaces of all inland water bodies, such as lakes, reservoirs, or rivers, as delimited by international boundaries and/or coastlines." And we shouldn't be determining which method is more "acceptable"; all the standard measurements are acceptable. We should be focused on accurately reporting the meaning of the numbers we give – in the instant dispute, to clearly say that the US is the fourth largest in land area, or the third largest in total area, and not just "third biggest" or "fourth biggest". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are defined as "publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources....Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources." These typically do not have provide sources. It's irrelevant that the policy says Wikipedia is a tertiary source since in cannot be used in Wikipedia articles escept as a primary source. The CIA Factbook does not say where it gets its raw data, so it cannot be compared with other sources. TFD (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• The fact-book is generally reliable (and as a bonus, is public domain), but cannot be presumed to be entirely immune from government influence (in the worst case) or the pitfalls of being written from a decidedly US-centric perspective (in the best case). It should generally be attributed and especially when dealing with information directly related to the United States or its foreign relations. GMG^talk 13:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Sixth Tone

I recently found the Sixth Tone, which is owned by a mainland Chinese media company. Although Chinese media is sources which should be with catious when it comes to political issues in China, should we include the Sixth Tone as a realiable source to discuss Chinese society and culture (especially when there is no other source to fully describe a non-controversial Chinese events such as introducing a Internet personality and Chinese government-accused controversy on Chinese Internet service, since state-run media and popular western media)? Mariogoods (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Additional considerations: Foreign Policy described Sixth Tone as an "excellent site" and they seem to be concerned with how fake news is spread. The site does seem to need more notablility, though, so I would most likely find a different source first. But as you say, there are not many other sources like this. I am on the fence.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I agree with your opinion. It is hard to find sources which represent Chinese view while not engaging much in propaganda. And while we have The Paper, Sixth Tone uses English language. (I needed more Wikipedians to comment this)Mariogoods (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Everything I've read (includiog articles I used as sources to write the Wikipedia article Sixth Tone as well as the Foreign Policy article) seems to support that Sixth Tone itself is accurate for non-controversial cultural matters. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Fringe books used as sources for fringe theory article?

Should Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship use sources promoting the theory itself as its primary references? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tom Reedy: what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Does that work? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Further explanation reposted from original statement. I don't know whether to post this here or on the fringe theories noticeboard. The Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship is a sublisting of the Shakespeare authorship question, which is categorized as a fringe theory. WP:Fringe states that "for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." In general, Wikipedia allows discussion of fringe theories in articles about those theories as long as reliable sources discuss those theories, and the article is sourced to those reliable sources.

In contrast, the primary sources for this article are the very works that propose the theory. Other sources are used in the article, but in a manner that appears to be WP:OR, and the only source that appears to be a WP:RS for the topic is Matt Kubus' "The Unusual Suspects" in Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013), Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells, eds.

These are the questioned sources:

• Brenda James and William Rubinstein, The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare (2005)
• John Casson and William Rubinstein, Sir Henry Neville was Shakespeare: The Evidence (2016)
• John Casson and Mark Bradbeer, Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays] (2015)
• James Leyland and James Goding, Who Will Believe my Verse? The Code in Shakespeare's Sonnets (2018)

On the article's talk page, three reliable sources are listed that were used to establish the notability of the article for an AFD in 2016, but only one is in fact used as a source. As far as I've been able to learn, the theory hasn't received very much significant coverage (as opposed to mere passing mentions) in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject in academic publications and web sites, nor really all that much in popular publications. If my interpretation of the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability is correct, this article should not use these sources to discuss the topic any further than has been treated in reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Leyland teaches cyber-media in Ballarat, Goding is emeritus professor of experimental pathology at Monash University, Mark Bradbeer is a registered nurse. John Casson was a psychotherapist. Anything from those sources is clearly unusable. One might just argue that Rubenstein and James’s book could be borderline and usable. William Rubenstein was out of his field, as a specialist in modern history. But technically he does know the rules of evidence even though they are not much in evidence in the book he co-authored with Brenda James. Understandably so because at least for the 2005 book, - which originally appeared under the imprint of Regan Books, a celebrity specialist book producer that was closed down soon after, though then was reprinted by Pearson Educational somehow - she wrote it and it was such a cipher-mongering mess he seems to have stepped it to make it less weird. She was a sometime lecturer in English at Portsmouth University, but now, apparently an independent researcher. David Kathman’s review, one of several, shows the hackwork flourished in that work. Both were utterly out of their depth with their ‘pseudo-scholarly inanities’. This theory so far has had a 14 year old life, and there is scant resonance in the serious, secondly literature literature on Shakespeare and his age.

The silliness there is one that permeates all these fringe books: a heuristic method that combines crankily austere scepticism for the written records establishing Shakespeare’s authorship with a parallel facile gullibility for any inference one might make from hints on the margins of the documentary record that a noble must have written the works. Anal Pyrrhonism for the factual record, hallucinating credulity for imagined possible hidden clues in the records which never mention alternative candidates – for no record exists directly or indirectly linking any Elizabethan other than WS to the plays and poems. I.e. silence whispers the truth that the ample noise of contemporary voices fears to state. None of those books are RS: reviews of them by competent scholars are.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Any book is a reliable source for the existence of its own content, insofar as it is evidence that the content exists in that book. It is not necessarily a reliable source for the validity of the content. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What I'm trying to determine is whether they conform to Wikipedia policy as reliable sources for this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Fuck no. I mean, seriously. That's like basing an article on phrenology on the writing of phrenologists. I suppose if the books are shown to be notable crackpottery we can discuss them as exemplars, but the article itself should be written from and based on mainstream scholarship. Guy (help!) 17:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Generally, no, other than for WP:ABOUTSELF material (e.g., there's no better source for what exactly Casson said than Casson's own publications). When it comes to analysis of this hypothesis, and how much weight to give it, rely entirely on WP:INDY WP:RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:ABOUTSELF may take you quite a way in this fringe of the fringe topic. It isn't clear that it has yet received a full detailed refutation from an orthodox scholar (or even say a Baconian). If it has then obviously that should be used. The lead makes it clear that this theory has gained next to no traction, but that para entirely lacks references. This is when we miss the late User:Paul Barlow! Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod I would think that the first exception would rule out their use: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." This topic would certainly qualify as an exceptional claim. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The topic has (rightly I think) been found notable & carries a clear (if unreferenced) health warning in the short lead. If no one can produce a proper RS discussing the detail, we only seem to have the choice of saying there is a theory, but hardly setting out what it is, or using these sources. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's notable enough to have a WP page, but there are sufficient reliable sources to source the article without using the fringe works themselves. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

While what someone writes may be acceptable as a source for their opinions on articles about them, they are never acceptable in articles about other topics. So while writings by Brenda James and William Rubinstein may be reliable sources for their articles, they are not reliable sources for an article about the Nevillean theory. The article should be based on reliable secondary sources that analyze the theory and explains the degree of its acceptance. Sometimes quotes from the authors may help readers but they should only be included if they have been repeated in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, close, but not quite exact. Sources by Person A may and should be used for the opinion of person A about subject B, assuming subject B is notable, or a relevant part of a notable article. Whether this theory is notable enough for a separate article is in my opinion doubtful until there are more sources about this theory, but it is certainly relevant as a part of an article, and the sources can therefore be used, making the authorship clear. (The use should also make the publisher clear, so reader can jdge the likelihood of it being mainstream). So far from being a supplement, the explanation of the person's theory should be the main point of the article or section, and it should be based in large part on what the person says--taking account when necessary of other people's views that they may not be expressing it intelligibly or honestly. That's what we're writing about, his theory, not the public reaction to his theory. It is not nPOV to organize the discussion of something along the words of its opponents. We include the opponents, and may even give them greater weight than the supporter(s). but we first need to know what the supporters think, before the opposition can make sense. The opposition makes sense only if it's clear what is being opposed. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

for example.

The Truth will out is published by Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group in 2017--that gives it an altogether higher weight than if self published, since Routledge is an academic publisher, tho not one of the most important ones. Routledge tends to look for out of the way topics, and that has to be kept in mind, but the fact that they published it at all makes me willing to look at the theory. Otherwise, to be frank, I wouldn't even bother.

Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays was published by Sir henry neville was McFarland, a publisher of considerably lower reputation, but still respectable. .

"Sir henry neville was shakespeare." seems to be an popular version of that published by an unimportant publisher

"Who Will Believe My Verse?" is also by an unimportant publisher

But none of these is self published. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Rubinstein's work was sheer pathetic. John Casson was a psychotherapist while Bradbeer was a nurse and that says volumes about their expertise. The rest are published by fringe presses. Obviously, they are not reliable even for documenting the fringe theory in itself. The first one passes that bar (though CRC has published dubious stuff in past) but then the issue arises in abiding by WP:WEIGHT. So, no reason to use it, either. ∯WBG^converse 07:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a recent book, Stuart Kells Shakespeare's Library: Unlocking the Greatest Mystery in Literature. The author is not a proponent of the Neville theory but goes into quite a bit of depth on it. So that is a new source that can be used. Kfein (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is another article in a peer-reviewed journal. It is co-authored by John Casson, but I think should be acceptable as an RS on the subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244018823465Kfein (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This RfC is not about those sources. But just en passant, the first is reliable according to WP criteria, the second is non-peer reviewed nonsense. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Is the Connecticut Department of Insurance a primary or secondary source on the finances of the Knights of Columbus?

There seems to be some disagrement over whether this is a WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source on the Knights of Colombus' finances. Prior discussion here, in the broader context of trying to clean up that article to rely less on primary sources. My assertion is that it's essentially an official record and therefore a primary source in this context. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

CT DoI Examination Reports are undoubtedly primary documents but this source may well serve instead, depending on what the report was used to cite. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would say that the report is a primary source... however, it is also (in the right context) a VERY reliable source. Use... but use with caution. Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• According to the description laid out in WP:Secondary, it would be a secondary source in that it "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources .... [that] rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Reading the document, it outlines the scope and process of examining and evaluating materials submitted by the order on page 1, those materials being the primary sources evaluated by the commission. It describes and reproduces the relevant information synthesized from those documents, and then goes further on page 14 to state its conclusions and recommendations. I can understand why this could be construed as a primary source, since it's issued by a governmental agency in the course of its duties, but by the definition given in WP:Primary it's a secondary source. In the same way that WP can use census data compiled and analyzed by the Census Bureau but we cannot use the raw census information by itself, I think this could certainly be used as a WP:RS. Even were it a primary source, it could be used for certain information according to WP policy and guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Obviously primary. Also, in context, it is used to support numbers that serve to promote the subject. If nobody other than the reporting agency has mentioned these numbers, they fail WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why it is obvious? Because reading WP:Primary I don't see how it fits the bill. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to chime in here since I already commented on the article talk page, but if JzG is going to comment here then I will as well. I believe it to be secondary per Tom Reedy. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Connecticut comment. I live in the Constitution State, and I have worked with public policy makers here. The Connecticut Department of Insurance is a regulatory agency. I have no clue what claim their report is being used to support, but whatever it is Wikipedia editors should absolutely be made aware that this is an administrative determination and should be be treated no differently that a court document (thus a primary source). Anyone who has read up to page 5 would understand this because the report is just a administrative review of the KoC's finances based off their internal records (including independent audits). I hope that helps, Aquillion! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"the report is just a administrative review of the KoC's finances based off their internal records (including independent audits)". The way I read WP:Primary and WP:Secondary, the internal records and independent audits would be the primary sources from which the agency made its analysis, evaluation, and interpretation. Tom Reedy (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Primary It's similar to an audit opinion where an investigator examines records, interviews witnesses and seeks third party confirmation of published accounts then determines the degree of their accuracy. It could also be compared to a scientist conducting experiments and reporting on the results. A secondary source would be a news article reporting the findings. I think in terms of using the report, it is similar to court and legal records. Unless they are reported elsewhere, they lack weight. TFD (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Primary A secondary source would provide context and significance and interpretation of this. As a report of a government agency, this is a primary source that needs secondary sources to provide that context. Scrupulously reliable, but would need secondary source support to provide context and significance. --Jayron32 14:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Primary. It's an "official record", which is listed as an example of a primary source in WP:NOR#cite_note-7. Documents aren't necessarily secondary sources just because they examine other primary sources. For example, we wouldn't consider a court decision a secondary source, even if other documents were examined during the trial. — Newslinger talk 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, with these examples I can finally understand why this can be construed as a primary source, and I will change my opinion. Apparently, like the definition of fringe, Wikipedia has its own definition of a word that differs from its ordinary, prosaic use in the RW. However, if we accept all of those as examples of primary sources, Wikipedia is rife with the use of them in almost every article, and the policy needs ot be reevaluated. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a primary source in a Wikipedia article, excepting that 1) such sources are usually not useful for establishing notability, 2) such sources should not be used to verify content they don't directly contain and 3) such sources often cannot establish their own significance to the narrative of the article. Which is to say simply that primary sources can be used to establish things like what and where and when and who, but not how and why. The problem with primary sources is that people often want to use them to draw conclusions for things they don't support. For example, lets say someone wanted to cite a court document that said that John Doe was found at fault in causing a car accident. That source could NOT be used for any of the following purposes 1) Establishing that John Doe should have an article at Wikipedia 2) Establishing that John Doe is a habitually bad driver 3) That the accident itself is a significant enough event to include in a Wikipedia article about John Doe. For any of those three things, you would need some other source to make that clear. --Jayron32 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

pornhub.com/insights

Pornhub is on the global blacklist. That includes their pornhub.com/insights/2018-year-in-review (example). As primary sources these insights aren't very good, but if I want to discuss a fun fact about Sasha Grey as their #1 in three countries and #5 in Italy as of 2018 nine years after she left the adult business on the talk page the global block is silly.

The rules for a MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist suggestion want a WP:EL/N or WP:RS/N wikilink, and WP:EL/N insists on WP:RS/N for issues related to a planned use as reference. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I would say that a "fact" that can be sourced only from Pornhub is not essential to or even desirable in any Wikipedia article. If you cannot find a reliable source that supports that "fact", let it go. - Donald Albury 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That might be so, mostly I need a wikilink to this section when it's archived for the white list request. The sometimes interesting and/or funny insights shouldn't be blocked ELs on talk pages. We do have Alexa and YouTube stats in infoboxes, the insights are not worse, and maybe better than IMDb and discogs (as known RS/P red flags, no issues as ELs or on talk pages). TL;DR: no WP:UGC. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Why on earth would we want that here? It's bad enough having IMDB and $RANDOMDB linked everywhere. Guy (help!) 17:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  OT for the PH issue, I also dislike most spammy EL collections styled as "ID" on WikiData,and enshrined into EL templates by determined spammers on enwiki. OTOH if IMDb has a trailer for movie x with title x, then I will update working title y with a reference for y to x without a reference, because IMDb got it right, and I didn't. –84.46.52.229 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Unnecessary trivia that not worth including either in the articles nor on Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• I would consider Pornhub Insights a reliable primary source, but you'll need to justify that the content you want to include constitutes due weight, and much of the content on the blog is unlikely to do so. Pornhub Insights receives wide use by other reliable sources, including New York (RSP entry), GQ India, CNET (RSP entry), Fox News (RSP entry), and BBC (RSP entry). Since most potentially useful articles from the blog are typically republished in reliable secondary sources, you could simply cite the secondary source instead of the blacklisted Pornhub Insights article. — Newslinger talk 05:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to agree with User:Newslinger's comment above regarding using reliable secondary sources rather than the original.   // Timothy::talk 01:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"Ukraine bursts into top 20 viewers of Pornhub in 2018" from Kyiv Post contains some of the information on Sasha Grey from Pornhub Insights' "2018 Year in Review". — Newslinger talk 05:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

that solves my problem in this case, and an interface editor considering PH/insights for white listing has something to read. The global PH spam block is not yet listed (as black) in WP:RS/P, for PH/insights a no consensus caveat (yellow) might do (?) –84.46.52.229 (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Blacklisted sources always have a gray background in the perennial sources list, regardless of how reliable they are determined to be. Pornhub Insights doesn't meet the inclusion criteria at the moment, so there won't be an entry for now. The list mostly covers general-interest sources, and niche sources are better handled by WikiProjects. You might want to consider adding Pornhub Insights to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography § Sources after discussing it with the project. — Newslinger talk 02:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. –84.46.52.214 (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

BMW G80 M3

There has been a heated discussion going on at at the talk page of BMW M3 about a future model of the M3 which is not scheduled for introduction until the next year. A group of editors think that just because the CEO of BMW M division confirmed the rumours being spread around in the automotive press, the model is officially introduced. There have been multiple examples being presented. A common example is the Tesla Roadster (2020). Comparing the two cases, Tesla themselves have introduced the roadster in concept form, have taken pre-orders and have announced the specifications of the vehicle via an official channel. Contrary to that, none of that had happened with the new BMW M3 model. The CEO seemingly confirmed what the media was saying and that was it. Then there is Apple electric car project, an article based on pure speculation with the subject matter not being in physical existence being cited. A consensus was reached over the matter but that page continues to exist and continues to be used as a precedent in support of adding data about a vehicle before its official introduction. Much of time and energy is already being wasted over this new M3. It's time for a clear decision about the addition of information about a vehicle on Wikipedia which has not yet been introduced. It is also time for a decision about the reliability of mere statements of confirmation to the automotive press about a vehicle being in development.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is what WP:CRYSTAL is for. Things that don't exist yet should generally only be covered at length if there's significant coverage already. (We ran into this on Libra (cryptocurrency) - how to write about something that didn't exist, and may never exist, but that was clearly of great interest, in a reality-based manner.) So in this case maybe the fact is worth noting somewhere - but it's definitely in the future, not the present - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is also being disputed at the said talkpage discussion. Most agree that it is vague in explaining in what exact content should and shouldn't be added. The fact being future is my point. A fact of the future must not be added in the present.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Good news: WP:CRYSTAL is slightly less confusing now; my RfC to delete the contradictory language was accepted. The policy is unchanged, but the part at the top that says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of..." is no longer contradicted by a sentence saying the opposite, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content".

Nobody is proposing covering this "at length". It's about objecting to a mere 65 words to the bottom of an article, making no mention of unverified performance speculation like 500+ horsepwer[70], only a basic outline of a product in the final stages of production.

The question here is, "What is an official announcement?" We have multiple reliable sources saying that the CEO has stood in public and spoken words out of his mouth saying "we are going to ship this car in 2020 or 2021".[71][72][73]. Saying "seemingly confirmed" isn't accurate. U1Quattro's main objection is that there's nothing about the 2020/21 M3 on BMW's website. Therefore it's not "official". I don't believe "official" is a meaningful term. Wikipedia cares about verifiability (not officiality, whatever that is), and is this expert source, the CEO of BMW M division, an authority on BMW M division? We know that officers of public companies can't simply shoot their mouths off in public as if nothing they say mattered[74]. This is not Kremlinology bu BMW geeks sifting for clues in the dumpster behind BMW's offices. We're not talking about casual tweets or jokes; these are public events with CEO Markus Flasch standing at a podium in front of a room full of reporters, or sitting down and speaking on the record with a reporter. To me, saying that's "not official" is merely an example of FUTON bias.

So if we can verify a CEO said it, and repeated it, and the company issued no denials after it was widely reported, is that "official" enough? At least for a short paragraph at the bottom of an existing article? I still think each and every article about future Tesla vaporware cars should be merged, but you can't win them all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Tesla's vaporware cars have been officially unveiled atleast. They exist in physical form. This on the other hand does not. 500+ horsepower is speculation. Since it can be more, it can be less. We don't know the exact figure since the CEO is being tight lipped about it. CEOs confirm and deny a lot of things about vehicles. Does this mean that every rumour spread by the automotive press confirmed by a CEO of an automobile company should be included in articles? I don't think so. This kind of inclusion has not happened before in existing articles and it should not happen this time.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you’re debating things that I’ve agreed with you about. Why does website = official? What does official mean? Does it mean BMW can never go back on what is on their website? You’re saying if Tesla promises something on their website, then that’s definitely going to happen? Because that’s not what history shows is. Explain what official is. Why are only websites official? Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It's because the car is available to pre-order and the official specs are listed. Automotive press picks their info from the official website and press releases when a car is introduced.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And yet the cold gas thrusters are mentioned despite being based on a Elon tweet, this is because that tweet was extensively covered by reliable sources. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

They should be removed then because Elon's tweets are never an official thing. He recently had to pay compensation regarding his pedo tweet.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What does "official" mean? A CEO's public statements can certainly be included in a article, as long as it's worded as "Elon said X" not "X will happen". Also he actually won that lawsuit, not that it matters. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That pedo tweet defamation suit wasn't really relevant; it was the tweets about a buyout deal that are relevant to what constitutes "official" company announcements. The SEC won a settlement for reforms and penalties, including Musk resigning as CEO, $40 million in penalties, and extensive oversight of future tweets. It puts all corporate officers on notice that loose talk, even on Twitter, can't be excused as "not official". Zero sources have even hinted that M division CEO Markus Flasch was lying, joking, speculating anyway, so the only skepticism is original research by Wikipedia editors, not a real controversy, and we have all the more reason to expect that Flasch wouldn't be saying any of this in bad faith, any more than we expect the announcement of the 2020 Olympics to be some kind of scam. We need to stop obsessing over the nebulous concept of "official" and ignore whether something is in the future or past, and look at what matters: verifiability and POV, specifically WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:INTEXT, WP:YESPOV. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

So when Musk isn't the CEO, why does his statements on twitter matter anyway? Both of these cases have their differences. I just pointed them out. Comparing BMWs CEO to guy who puts out nonsense on twitter as a joke (same thing about the "pedo guy" tweet which Musk admitted was a mere insurance not to be taken seriously) makes this comparison utterly useless.U¹ _quattro TALK 07:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Musk isn't the CEO? U1Quattro, did you read it? Why isn't he CEO any more? He was forced to resign as CEO because his tweets claiming a buyout was a done deal did matter a great deal. To the tune of $40 million in fines. He tried to say, Oh my tweets aren't *official* and the SEC said: resign, and pay millions in fines, and don't tweet anything about your companies until your lawyers look it over first. That's how we know that this "not official" excuse is no excuse at all. Oh, it's just twitter is no excuse. Oh, it's just something I said casually, no excuse. Company officer speaking in public, it counts.

I really wish you'd admit that you have zero evidence for your imaginary idea that website = official. You made that up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't made that up. Majority of the vehicles present in Wiki are present on the company website. You're trying to turn the main focus away by comparing it to Tesla which is an entirely unrelated BS. I wish you'd admit that.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I just told you -- again -- why things like tweets and comments by company officers are taken seriously. Musk is a perfect example: he was forced to step down and had to personally pay a $20 million fine, and Tesla had to pay $20 million more, for the mistake of thinking off-the-cuff comments (tweets in this case) don't count. They do. It's extremely relevant because it contradicts everything you've been saying about Markus Flash's public statements.

I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong if you would please explain what makes the website "official". Saying "vehicles present in Wiki" being common on websites doesn't address that question at all. I don't even know what "vehicles present in Wiki" means. Notable? Deserving weight? verifiable? Because none of those guidelines mention the website as a criterion. If it's such a certain fact that officiality is determined by websites, then why are you the only one saying it? Why can't you cite anything in WP:RS or WP:V or anywhere that says "must appear on website or it doesn't count"? The only policy that mentions the topic at all is WP:SOURCEACCESS, and it tells us not to favor online sources over other media.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Dennis makes some good points above (including the suggestion to merge the Tesla articles into a "Tesla vapourware" article!). The key question here is whether the quote is considered a reliable source. I believe it passes the threshold. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this RS/N thread is going to get a clear answer; it's too full of tangents and bickering. We probably need to re-submit using the standard template and asking a one sentence question:

Question: All else being equal, is a verbal statement by a CEO mere speculation and not official, while the same statement on the company's website is official and therefore a reliable source?
1. Source. [75][76][77][78][79][80]
2. Article. BMW M3
3. Content. BMW have announced that an M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to begin production in late 2020, powered by the BMW S58 turbocharged straight-six engine that debuted in the F97 X3 M. All-wheel drive (xDrive) has been announced as being optional on the G80 M3, which would represent the first time that an M3 has used a drivetrain layout other than rear-wheel drive. [81] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Is The Daily Beast a reliable source

Is The Daily Beast a reliable source? The perennial sources table states there has not been much discussion about the source. In fact, there has only been a discussion here [82] and here [83] by a total of seven editors. The color in the table implies that it is a poor source.

After reviewing the information and reliable sources available, my conclusion about The Daily Beast is that it is a good reliable source because:

• On the website, mediafactcheck.com, one of the reliable sources that is used by this board to determine the factual accuracy of a news website, The Daily Beast is rated for factual reporting as high.[84] This is the same rating that other good news sources such as The New York Times have received.[85]

• Other editors agree that The Daily Beast is a good source. A search of Wikipedia indicates that The Daily Beast is cited 6,009 times. Each of those citations is a vote by an editor that The Daily Beast is a good source. In each of those citations, an editor read the article and weighed the facts and concluded that, yes, The Daily Beast knows what it is saying and is not making up facts. For each of those citations, an editor has stated that The Daily Beast passes muster for verifying the content they added to Wikipedia.

• The Daily Beast is used in a wide range of articles and has received the seal of approval by a wide range of editors. On the first page of a search of Wikipedia articles using The Daily Beast, it shows that the publication is used in articles such as Steve Jobs, Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Taylor Swift, Star Wars, Youtube, Facebook, etc. Each one of those citations is a vote for inclusion by an editor forThe Daily Beast in a Wikipedia article.

• The Daily Beast (cited 6,009 times) is of equal or higher factual caliber as any new media website such as: Buzzfeed News (Used on Wikipedia: 3,365 times), CNET (7,804 times), The Intercept (796 times), Mother Jones (2,280 times), Politico (7,022 times), The Register (3,863 times), Rolling Stone (28,917 times), Salon (7,423 times), Slate (8,887 times), The Verge (5,310 times), or Wired (12,673 times). These publications, along with The Daily Beast, are all good reliable sources.

• The Daily Beast has won a number of press awards in recent years. It was nominated for 16 LA Press Club awards in 2016[86] and 12 LA Press Club awards in 2017.[87] The Daily Beast won: 5 LA Press Club awards in 2019,[88], 5 LA Press Club awards in 2018,[89] 4 LA Press Club awards in 2017,[90] 2 New York Press Club awards in 2018,[91] and 3 New York Press Club awards in 2017.[92]

• The Daily Beast on its front page has a clear link to its Code of Ethics and Standards. The code of ethics without hesitation states that its goal is to seek the truth. As quoted from the code of ethics page:

"The Daily Beast is dedicated to independent journalism, pursued without fear or favor. We value an inclusive culture, committed to the public good. A core part of our mission is to confront bullies, bigots and hypocrites. We believe that skepticism is a virtue and cynicism is a vice. Above all, our goal is to tell the truth. To that end, journalists must strive to hold themselves to high ethical standards: aiming for honesty, fairness and accuracy while avoiding conflicts of interest."

This question arose because an editor on an article blanket removed[93] all content and sourcing to The Daily Beast and a little unexplained extra. They took the position that The Daily Beast was a poor source and should not be used for sourcing anything in the article. I look forward to hearing other editors' opinions on the reliability of The Daily Beast. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - not perfect, but a normal news source, editorial processes, etc - no reason not to use it as a source - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• I just wanted to say that MediaBiasFactCheck is not a reliable source, and is not authoritative when it comes to judging other sources. It started as Some Random Guy's blog and is now Some Random Guy's LLC. It is owned and operated by a single person with no qualifications whatsoever, and apparently some volunteers (see here [94]). He uses some kind of numerical scoring system he made up, but if you look at his methodology, the whole thing is based entirely on his own subjective judgments. No opinion on The Daily Beast. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable I would only avoid DB if it is the only source reporting a highly controversial claim about a BLP (but that's the case in general for most sources IMO). --Masem (t) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Meh... Not Unreliable ... but In almost every case, there will be BETTER, far MORE reliable sources available. Use those instead. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable - as much as any mainstream outlet could be.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable with strong bias: I would be careful about putting to much weight into the things that TDB says due to their very strong and clear bias. That bias is based on facts but then put through their strong perspective on events. So it's not out of the blue OpEd but also not just the facts with no spin. The articles I've read of theirs tend to present one side without considering if the other side (typically the GOP/right/conservative/etc side) has merit to their views. Media Bias Fact Check, [[95]] and Allsides [[96]] but them firmly in the left camp. Allsides noted a considerable increase in partisanship in 2016. Their Media Bias Chart position isn't bad overall. However when you look at the rated articles it's clear that if politics are part of the picture they quickly shift down and to the left (more bias, less facts, more commentary) [[97]]. Thus I wouldn't treat them as universally reliable. I would happily cite them for something about the college cheating scandal or the relative performance of the Democrats in the primaries. I think we should be cautious when using them regarding topics that have strong left-right splits. Springee (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per extremely strong WP:USEBYOTHERS; the Daily Beast is generally treated as a reliable source by most other reliable sources out there covering similar news / politics topics. Nobody has shown any indication that there are any serious problems with it to offset this reputation. My impression when people object to it is that it usually goes something like... a quick search to anything important said by the Daily Beast finds two or three obviously-reliable sources covering it directly citing the Daily Beast. We could just use those secondary sources, but the fact that those sources are so willing to rely on the Daily Beast without qualification implies that it, itself, is reliable in its own right. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Persistently reliable I've read their stories frequently and have cited them at time here on Wikipedia. I have yet to see them make any sort of error, and I send a lot of corrections (which are generally welcomed) to reporters on dozens of publications. I'm frankly amazed at quality, depth and accuracy of the reporting they do, given that the competition is vastly better funded. I can't imagine that they would have published the sort of blatantly obvious nonsense that was produced by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon at the NYT in the runup to the Iraq invasion by the U.S.-led coalition, for instance. (If Bill Keller had been reading Der Spiegel, Le Monde, the Observer, etc., or even Knight-Ridder, the war may never have happened). Activist (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Handle with care. It's usually reliable for news but has a lot of comment and that is heavily skewed left. Per [98] it is both more biased and less accurate than Buzzfeed. Guy (help!) 23:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: presumably you intended to compare to BuzzFeed News not BuzzFeed, as very different. X1\ (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Guy (help!) 10:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable: It is often seen as reliable and used by other trusted sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable but I would usually tend to use information from more neutrally presented sources. I find their bias to be a bit off-putting at times; while I scrupulously trust their factual reporting I also find that it is rarely necessary to use them as an exclusive purveyor of information since I can often find less divisive sources for the same information. --Jayron32 14:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, but in attempting to catch the reader's eye is loud. X1\ (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• No opinion on the main question, but I'd like to make a few points:
  • The Daily Beast (RSP entry) is currently classified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" on the perennial sources list. That doesn't mean it's a "poor source"; it means that editors consider The Daily Beast a situational source that can be used in some cases with caution and attention to context.
  • Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is considered generally unreliable because it's self-published by a non-expert. Arguments based on MBFC ratings usually don't get taken seriously here.
  • How often a source is used on Wikipedia is not a great indicator of its reliability. Consider the Daily Mail (RSP entry), which is still being used in over 23,000 articles   despite having been deprecated in two highly-attended RfCs.
  • Awards from the Los Angeles Press Club don't appear to carry much weight. For 2019, their Southern California Journalism Awards recipient list features quite a few unremarkable articles, including this Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday article.

    — Newslinger talk 09:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Good point regarding Media Bias/Fact Check. It is not the best source. It does not provide a transparent method. Another editor above provided a better source for evaluating the reliability of different news sources (i.e. Ad Fontes Media). The white paper on the methodology used to evaluate news sources indicates that Ad Font Media is systematic and transparent in their method. The perennial sources list has the column called "Uses", which should be used to evaluate the source's use in Wikipedia in a systematic fashion. If a source is used 6,000 times and each editor uses it 50 times, that's 120 editors who have evaluated the source. Or, if a source is used multiple times in different high-quality feature articles, this should say something about the quality of the source. In this specific case, the source is a much much smaller publication than the Daily Mail and has far less content (for instance it has no sports section). The Daily Mail has a monthly online viewership of 326 million, while the source being evaluated has only a monthly online viewership of 39 million. --Guest2625 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Britannica.com

Can I use it - specifically this - when writing about the history of Nepali literature? Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 14:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It's Britannica. Why couldn't you use it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, I have no idea. Are traditional encyclopedias renowned for their accuracy? Do they employ subject specific experts? How has the system changed or not, when transferring to online media? It gets a couple of things slightly inaccurate in topics I'm familiar with, but nothing egregious, just run-of-the-mill first-world people writing/summarising/generalising about third world stuff kinda things. So, I am curious whether or not this is an acceptable source. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: It's a tertiary source, like Wikipedia, so secondary sources are preferred; see WP:PST. However, that's not say it's unreliable, merely that, where it is based on secondary sources, those are preferred. ——SN54129 15:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, yeah, ok, that helps! I wanted to use it to as a source while I go looking for a way to access books that don't seem to have google previews, or their alternatives. Seems to fit the bill. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable, but it's a tertiary source as Serial Number 54129 mentioned, and secondary sources are preferred. Keep in mind that Encyclopædia Britannica Online now accepts changes from the general public, although Britannica says that "no revision to content can go online without careful review by Britannica's editors". You can review the article history by clicking on the "Info" button at the top-right of each article page or the "See Article History" link under the article title; diffs are provided for changes to the article body, just like in Wikipedia. For the Nepali literature article, no edits were made by non-staff contributors. I spot-checked a dozen or so articles, and found that non-staff contributions are relatively rare. An example is in the article for Germany, which contained an edit jointly authored by a staff editor named Michael Ray and an "other contributor" named Joshua Tatro; I assume that Tatro submitted the edit, which was then reviewed by Ray. — Newslinger talk 15:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  Doug Weller's example below is concerning, and I would be cautious of any content submitted by non-staff contributors; without adequate editorial oversight, these submissions would be user-generated content. Fortunately, the article history allows anyone to determine the provenance of every word in every Encyclopædia Britannica Online article. Non-staff contributions are only in a small proportion of EB Online's articles, and even in those articles, you can look in the page history to find a version that is solely written by staff editors. — Newslinger talk 10:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Consider a specialist source: I have personally encountered various errors in print editions of Encyclopedia Brittanica over the years, and I therefore recommend proceeding with caution. Not only is it a tertiary source, but it is a non-specialist tertiary source. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree! I haven't vetted recent editions, but I have spotted occassional howlers in the 1911 edition. But then, I see occassional howlers in articles in respected newspapers. If you can only find support for a fact in a single source, proceed with caution. - Donald Albury 18:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• While technically reliable, you should use secondary sources, not tertiary ones. If EB and another source differ, then there is no way of determining which is correct. But if you use peer-reviewed sources, then you can trace claims to footnotes. TFD (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Nitpicking about the difference between secondary and tertiary sources is moot. When writing an article, they are both perfectly usable and almost always interchangeable so long as there is no reason to question their reliability. GMG^talk 18:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable tertiary sources are acceptable as per WP:PSTS which does not rule out tertiary sources as implied above, and Brittanica has a very good reputation despite the odd mistake which happens in all publications, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Brittanica, especially the 1911, was very erratic indeed in covering Asiatic topics. At that time in England, very few people were studying Nepali literature at all, so I would not trust their level of peer review. And for anything involving Asia, including historical and well as current topics, I would always watch out for their bias, which is sometimes really blatant. As for the later editions, I think superficial may be more appropriate than biased , as they progressively dumbed down the content until it eventually became no better that WP. I'd be on the watch not for plain errors of fact, but the omission of qualifiers and anything they consider minor--their express goal was to create a synthesis. The usual way of proceeding in creating a synthesis anywhere is to omit anything that doesn't fit. re is no way to creaet a synthesis and have it truly NPOV, even for experts. The best that can be done is one particular expert's POV. Truly reliable summaries give the limitations of the analysis and the range of error; academic works are usually very exact in the statement of what they do and do not take into account, and list the authors they do not agree with. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it goes fairly well without saying that any 108 year-old source should need to be treated with all the considerations of a 108 year-old source. GMG^talk 14:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

For that matter, I would not take at face value any publisher's statement that "no revision to content can go online without careful review by [their] editors" -- . It's like saying for a patrolled topic in WP, it's reliable because an experienced editor reviewed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

@DGG: I can give you an example where a globally blocked sockpuppet here managed to get his fringe views into Britannica. The sockmaster Relpmek Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Relpmek/Archive has repeatedly tried to get his fringe views into Wikipedia.[99], discussion of his fringe material is here. He persuaded the Britannica to add it to their article on Mona Lisa. See the article [phttps://www.britannica.com/topic/Mona-Lisa-painting here] and click on its history, which says :Revised to say that the memory of Leonardo's mother, Caterina, may have been the source for the woman in the Mona Lisa.Naomi BlumbergRoni Kempler] I tried to contact her and failed, maybe I should try and contact someone else. We still ocassionaly get editors/socks trying to insert it. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This make me doubly unsure, the fact that a banned user (here) added it or the fact that we refused to allow an theory apparently held by Freud.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note the existing RSP entry for Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online), linking to many previous discussions. I think the current summary there captures it quite well: "a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but with additional considerations in case of user-submitted content.

Also see WP:EBE for awareness (although such a list could be compiled for basically every RS).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable unless contradicted by a better source If there is something in there that appears to be contradicted by a more in-depth secondary source, I would say use the latter and ignore Britannica. This is better than including content from both and letting our article apparently contradict itself, or engaging in OR by explicitly contrasting the two sources in the article space. That being said, in this particular case the article is incredibly short (only nine sentences on "Nepali", as opposed to Nepalese, literature), so if there is any trouble finding superior secondary sources (in, say, a university library or journal database) that explicitly agree with the Britannica article (and so could be used instead of or in conjunction with the Britannica article) I would say there's no need to include the content anywhere on Wikipedia. It's essentially just a list of five authors, rough dates of their productive periods, their genres, and their themes, so unless the plan is to throw out our current Nepali literature article and use the content of Britannica as a jumping off point for a new article, I don't see much their worth taking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Grayzone

Was recently questioned about the reliability of Grayzone. Grayzone began as the Grayzone Project of Alternet (see WP:RSP).

Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Thanks again.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey: Grayzone

• Option 2, that about tells me nothing about editorial policy or who writes for it. But looking at a sample of stories it all seems to be the same people some of whom appear to be editors of Greyzone. I think this is an example of some of it is SPS and some of it may not be, thus should be used with care.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: @Slatersteven: You are asking for more information? I believe you told me not to present a case during a previous RfC. I have done my research on Grayzone in the past and have my own opinion. If you wish to discuss this, would it be possible to do so on your talk page? Whatever is more appropriate, just trying to be as transparent as possible.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Any conversation about this matter should be kept in one place. If you wish to address my doubts please do so here so others can see.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What doubts to you have? Just want to reply in a proper manner.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"But looking at a sample of stories it all seems to be the same people some of whom appear to be editors of Greyzone. I think this is an example of some of it is SPS and some of it may not be, thus should be used with care." how much clearer could I have been?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The main issue that Grayzone has with its editorial policy is its political ties. Russia often utilizes Grayzone editors and its founder Max Blumenthal to disseminate Russian propaganda. The founder, Blumenthal, has been a frequent supporter and contributor of RT and Sputnik. Janine di Giovanni has said that "Blumenthal’s views completely flipped" after meeting with RT and that Blumenthal "has attacked not only the White Helmets but also Bana al-Abed, a nine-year-old girl who lived in rebel-held Aleppo and ran a Twitter account with her mother. ... The man ... now accuses anti-Assad Syrians of belonging to al-Qaeda and has claimed that the White Helmets were affiliated with the Islamist group". Hopefully this explains some of their editorial view.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

In addtion: The Southern Poverty Law Center has written "Blumenthal was not as clear of a spokesperson for Kremlin geopolitics before he appeared at the same RT gala as disgraced former National Security advisor Michael Flynn and the Green Party’s Jill Stein in December 2015. During that occasion, he joined a panel called “Infowar: Will there be a winner” alongside Alt Right anti-Semite Charles Bausman of Russia Insider. A month later, Blumenthal’s pro-Kremlin position crystalized with the founding of the Grayzone Project. ... With other Grayzone contributors, Norton has been criticized for downplaying war crimes and helping publicize false theories about rebels contaminating Damascus’s water supply".----ZiaLater (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 Near as my research turns up, this is basically a gussied-up personal blog for Max Blumenthal and his cadre of close friends; anything which I would trust from this source I would first crosscheck against more reliable sources; and at that point I would just use the better source. I would use attributed quotes per WP:ABOUTSELF but otherwise I would never use such a site for speaking in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 14:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is a useful source of information and has a coverage and perspective that is not always available from other sources. I would attribute anything I used from the site. Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  What makes that perspective trustworthy? How can we know that the site's factual reporting is reliable? --Jayron32 19:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: They are possibly trying to make the "multipolar argument"? If someone today was told that smoking is unhealthy but then saw a 100-year-old smoker who attributes smoking to their longer than average lifespan, who would you trust? Having a perspective different from someone else does not make them reliable.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. While Max Blumenthal has done some great journalistic work in the past, he's done some dubious work more recently too. We know nothing about Grayzone's editorial standards and it reads like a blog.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3. Looks to be less reliable than Alternet, which is itself unusable. Guy (help!) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. One could use this to attribute stuff to someone with WP:ABOUTSELF I think. I can't seem to find anything on fact-checking and would need more information on standards, the people behind it and whatnot. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. Max Blumenthal is not the only journalist associated with this publication. Western state-mouthpieces like the NYT are considered reliable despite their obvious pro-imperialist bias, so why depreciate sources that dispute that narrative? Maybe Grayzone is pushing an agenda sometimes, but so are the western sources that are held up as infallible.

Is sportinfo.co.ng a reliable source?

Is sportinfo.co.ng a reliable source? e.g. this topical obituary? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it, but there are better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary, as there's plenty of good obituaries in scrupulously reliable sources. What piece of information are you using from that source which you cannot find elsewhere? --Jayron32 14:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not using it. It's been slapped onto the top of the article, ostensibly to support his dates, with the edit summary "(This explains more about the death of David Bellamy, Also shows lots of notable tributes)". Seems a little self-promotional. But I've see quite a lot of this website used for recent deaths lately. So I thought I would ask here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If you really need a statement on it, no, it's a WordPress blog that seems to be run by one person. It doesn't even show up on rating sites that normally look at news sources. But I don't know why you need me to explain that to you, you've been around here long enough to recognize that. Just remove it and replace it with something actually useful. You don't need permission to do that. --Jayron32 15:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't asking permission, I was asking for some opinions. It's sometimes better to gain a clear consensus. Very sorry to have wasted your time. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize, and you wasted no one's time at all. You wanted to know if the source is reliable, and I told you why I didn't think it was. I'm not sure what you would like from me additionally, at this point, but I'd be glad to help out further if you can clarify. --Jayron32 15:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't want anything from you additionally. Many thanks for your advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we discuss the matter in hand, it isn't an RS. I have said no, Jay has said no. It would be nice to have a couple more opinions, but at this time it is an emphatic no.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't get many news sources originating from Nigeria do we. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

True, but this does not appear to be anything more then a blog (which also confused the hell out of me as I wondered why a sports blog had an obit for a naturalist until I realized it was an Obit blog, whose title in no way bears any relation to what it is about). Not a news organ.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I will remove it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've informed that editor, who has since continued adding the site to source deaths. This also seems related to a recent site blacklisted for spam, schooltips.com.ng (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#schooltips.com.ng).—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Twitter posts and John Nicolson

• John Nicolson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current version of the article has an Unsuccessful candidacies section (permalink) added in this edit. The section includes four points like this:

• Linlithgow and East Falkirk

Is that Twitter post a reliable source for the conclusion that John Nicolson was an unsuccessful candidate for a particular contest? Is it reasonable for the article to use these Twitter posts to conclude the subject "unsuccessfully took part in four SNP candidate selection contests"? See talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• Unreliable. The specific tweet you linked above does not qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF, because it was authored by someone other than John Nicholson. The same applies to the three other tweets. — Newslinger talk 09:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newslinger: How does this mesh with the WP:CONSENSUS on the article (see the history) about the repeated removal of such content for reasons like "As you know, there is concerted effort to edit the John Nicolson page in a way that is politically biased an untruthful. I have been trying to protect political neutrality by deleting these"?

I did mention on the article talk page the content is about the subject's internal party election - it was a party election to determine their candidates for the general election of that year. As an internal matter it would stand to reason the proceedings would gain less media attention; even the party themselves doesn't keep historical information on their website, but such proceedings are still encyclopedic to document the subject's political activities. But simply reliable sources are unavailable on them. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

​According to WP:CONLEVEL, policies and guidelines take precedence over local consensus on the article and its talk page. In this situation, the use of self-published Twitter (RSP entry) posts to describe a third-party living person violates WP:BLPSPS (one of Wikipedia's most strictly worded policies). We can't use the tweets here, and you'll need to find a reliable source to support the claims if you want to include them. Note that neutrality on Wikipedia considers only "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"; we're not allowed to add improperly sourced content to address perceived neutrality issues. Without reliable sources, deleting this content is the right thing to do (even though the editor who posted on your talk page wanted the content deleted for the wrong reasons). — Newslinger talk 12:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Two of the tweets are by the offical SNP branches that conducted their respectively sourced hustings. Can they really not pass RS? I can't imagine a more authoritative source. Surely the SNP is an acceptable source for such straightforward statements of electoral fact? 86.173.65.225 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You could make the argument that @SNPBonnyLoan and @ValeofLevenSNP are the official accounts of the SNP branches, although you'd need to confirm the legitimacy of the accounts in some way, because they aren't Twitter-verified. Links to the accounts from the official websites of the SNP or the branches would probably work. If you can show that these Twitter accounts are the official accounts, that would make their tweets usable, but you'll still need to ensure that the content you want to include in the article is verifiable, and not original research.

The tweet "Second up at the Loanhead Midlothian #GE15 @theSNP hustings is @MrJohnNicolson" is not sufficient to show that Nicolson had an unsuccessful candidacy in the Midlothian constituency, because that's not what the tweet says. Likewise, we can't use "West Dunbartonshire hustings chaired by @IRobertsonSNP. @MartinJDocherty @MrJohnNicolson @SuzeMcLaughlin @mhairi1921" to claim that Nicolson had an unsuccessful candidacy in West Dunbartonshire. Perhaps there are some other tweets that could explicitly verify these candidacies. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. This is the sorta thing we'd just use IAR to pass 10-15 years ago. I'd argue that the midlothian tweet certainly shows he was a candidate, and there are shedloads of sources for the winner being someone else, and that both accounts can be sourced to the SNP as an offline source if nothing else (I'm sure there's something online somewhere...certainly at least on facebook...but then how do we know the facebook accounts aren't fake too?)...but I'mma leave it here 'cos it isn't important and I don't care enough. 86.173.65.225 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The four tweets are the source for the article content: "unsuccessfully took part in four SNP candidate selection contests". Such tweets are totally unsatisfactory because they do not directly verify each claimed incident (the reader has to examine what is said, assume it is valid, then reach a conclusion), and because the article content is a conclusion reached by an editor (WP:SYNTH). Further, the information is WP:UNDUE if the only sources are four tweets. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Interviews & opinion pieces (The Daily Caller)

Should an exception be added for verified interviews and opinion pieces by notable individuals for The Daily Caller depending on the cirucmstances?

Examples:

• The following text was removed from Thaddeus McCotter 2012 presidential campaign because the interview was with The Daily Caller

"McCotter continued his efforts to be included in the debates in September. In an interview with The Daily Caller he said the other candidates "don't understand what's wrong with the economy, let alone how to fix it",<ref name="bolton">{{cite news|url=http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/09/gop-presidential-candidate-thaddeus-mccotter-on-why-he-should-be-allowed-to-debate/|title=GOP presidential candidate Thaddeus McCotter on why he should be allowed to debate|last=Pappas|first=Alex|date=September 9, 2011|work=The Daily Caller|accessdate=March 13, 2012}}{{deprecated inline|certain=yes}}</ref> and that foreign policy was not being discussed enough. He observed that since former United Nations ambassador John R. Bolton announced he would not run for president, foreign policy discussion had ceased. McCotter hoped the next president would select Bolton as Secretary of State.<ref name="bolton"/>"

However, the official Twitter for McCotter @ThadMcCotter recognized @McCotter2012hq as the official Twitter for the 2012 campaign, which retweeted the interview, verifying the interview was a factual representation of the campaign's stances.

• The following text was removed from the same article because it references an opinion piece from The Daily Caller:

"According to Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller, McCotter was "The Red Eye candidate", who represented a subculture of "creative think[ing]" libertarian-leaning Republicans, who enjoy rock music.<ref name="re">{{cite web|url=http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/24/the-red-eye-candidate/|title=The Red Eye candidate?|last=Lewis|first=Matt|authorlink=Matt Lewis (journalist)|date=May 24, 2011|work=[[The Daily Caller]]|accessdate=August 3, 2013}}{{deprecated inline|certain=yes}}</ref>"

However, it is merely for stating the opinion of the notable journalist Matt K. Lewis, who is now the senior columnist for the The Daily Beast. Lewis's verified twitter account linked to the article, confirming he did in fact write it.

Thanks.William S. Saturn (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Going with "no" here. This is WP:UNDUE unless discussed elsewhere, in which case we cite that not the Daily Caller. Guy (help!) 00:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• No - Not unless the coverage was actually noteworthy. At best it's a SPS for that person. And "person with article writes blog post" generally isn't noteworthy unless it has a visible effect that we can see and thus attribute to sources that haven't been deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• No. WP:RSOPINION says that a prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. (emphasis mine.) That's the kind of thing it's for - sections of otherwise-reliable publications that are dedicated to opinion and which therefore can't be cited for fact. It's not a blank check for anything to be included from any source as long as we provide in-line attribution to frame it as an opinion; and, more generally, WP:RSOPINION should be read as a restriction on already-reliable sources (ie. "this subset of otherwise-WP:RS must be qualified as opinion"), not an additional category of possible reliable sources (ie. for something to fall under WP:RSOPINION, it has to pass WP:RS in every respect except that it's labeled as an opinion, which adds additional restrictions to its use here.) Even when citing opinions, a source must still provide basic fact-checking for the opinion's premises, and is putting its institutional reputation on the line if the opinion makes factually inaccurate statements that the source itself does not correct - the "has X stopped beating their wife" opinion-piece, say, is something a high-quality reliable source would refuse to print unless the implied premise passed fact-checking. This means that an entire publication is not citable for facts, it is generally not citable for opinions, either. Opinions published in a source like that gain no reliability from that publication and are therefore no different than a WP:SPS - they can be published only under the very narrow restrictions that would let us cite something that the author published on eg. their own blog, because in practice being published in eg. The Daily Caller offers no more reliability than being self-published that way. --Aquillion (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• No per Guy JzG - If it meets WP:DUE then we should cite the reliable sources in which it has been published. Not everything said by a notable person is noteworthy. –dlthewave ☎ 22:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

wwlifetimeachievement.com

1. https://wwlifetimeachievement.com/author/worldwidesiteadmin/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brenda_Bettinson
3. "She completed the requirements by the Ministry of Education for the “Intermediate Examination in Arts and Crafts” (1948) and “Examination in Illustration” (1950) and the “National Diploma In Design” (1950)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantHyssop (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable. The about page of "Who's Who Lifetime Achievement" provides no information on the site's ownership or staff. All pages are anonymously authored. There is no indication that the site is related to any other Who's Who publication. Therefore, we treat this site as a self-published source, which should never be used for content on living people (unless they wrote it themselves, with restrictions). — Newslinger talk 09:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable per Newslinger, provenance of the site is unclear. --Jayron32 13:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • • There is more information here which shows an experienced staff, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

      "Who's Who Lifetime Achievement" is a WordPress blog with one author, named "Who's Who Site Administrator". The page you linked shows all of the blog posts published by "Who's Who Site Administrator", which makes it a listing of all of the posts on the site. (Note the "Older posts" button at the bottom-left.) It's not a staff list, as far as I can see. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

      • Thanks for clearing that up, in that case it is unreliable as a blog without any evidence to make an exception from the usual deprecation of blog sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable. No evidence it's associate with the possibly-maybe-perhaps notable Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. Guy (help!) 23:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

news-front.info

• news-front.info  

Hello, is news-front.info a reliable source? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Unlikely. On the front page right now is the stock picture of refugees fraudulently used by Farage in the Brexit referendum, illustrating a story about how Netherlands "has sheltered criminals: murderers and thieves receive free housing". This looks like a Russian fake news farm. That's supported by its claim to be the "latest world news from the DPR / LPR", i.e. the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, two Russian-occupied Ukrainian oblasts. Guy (help!) 17:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Propose removal

The above site appears to be Russian-sponsored propaganda, per the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-48356351, referencing the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force https://euvsdisinfo.eu/no-news-on-the-news-front/). We have over 500 references to it, mainly in timelines of the Donbass occupation, precisely the area where it is least likely to be reliable. That seems to me like a pressing problem. I suggest immediate removal of redundant references to this site, and either removing content sourced solely to this or removal of the cite and tagging {{cn}}. Check this article for example. Guy (help!) 17:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Concur - zapped a few, the "Timeline" articles are a bear though - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Other Russian fake news / disinformation sites

• topwar.ru  
• dan-news.info  
• lenta.ru  
• 112.ua   / 112.international  
• rusdialog.ru  
• ukraina.ru  

Looking for others. Guy (help!) 17:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What consensus do we need, and where, to drop these in the spam filter? - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard, normally we have an RfC here. Guy (help!) 20:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If you think you can frame one convincingly, please do! - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A strange choice, in my opinion. And why there are no Prigozhin's dumps, clones of RIA FAN? Lenta.ru - quite mainstream media by Russian standards. topwar.ru is a site for various militarists, a special case.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG: A few more Russian fake news/disinformation/propaganda sites (here and here):

• Veteranstoday.com  
• Veteransnewsnow.com  
• Southfront.org  

--Neutrality^talk 22:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Questionable

• mediarnbo.org   - WordPress site, no evidence of reliability, some history of possibly recycling fake news.
• unian.net  /unian.info  /unian.ua   - Ukrainian Independent Information Agency, probably needs a Russian speaker to verify the site is OK. Looks fair but oligarch-owned and may be biased.

The Donbas timeline articles are all problematic I think. Guy (help!) 18:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The timeline articles themselves are basically coatracks of unencyclopaedic information taken from unreliable and fake sites...their existence in and of itself should be questioned. Unian is not a Russian website, it's a Ukrainian news agency. As to whether it is reliable or not, I certainly place it in the 'questionable' box. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Still looking into this.

Radio Free Europe

I assume we reject this for the same reason we reject Pravda? Guy (help!) 21:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's done a bit better for reality basis than, say, RT. Though I'd say RFC first. It's not in the same class as the actually-fake-news sites - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016) - there are 48 "timeline" articles compiled from day-by-day news coverage, primarily in fake news and disinformation sites as noted above. Needless to say the primary contributors want to keep them, and some people assert that "AfD is not cleanup", though the rationale explicitly states that cleanup cannot be achieved when 550 of 650 unique sources are propaganda and the rest are as yet unverified. Guy (help!) 20:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Getty Images

If Getty Images is a stock photo website [100] could be a reliable source? For example, some links had to be posted here: [101][102] But still you will request for comment later on. --119.94.168.236 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Captions for images sold by Getty Images are very short, and don't contain much detail at all. Are there no alternative sources for the information you want to cite? — Newslinger talk 02:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• NO. It appears to me that the way you are using it is WP:OR. In any case, Getty Images is an image vendor, not a news source, so accroding to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the answer would be no. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• 119.94.168.236, what do your two links to Getty have to do with Wikipedia? Keep in mind that Getty's images are copyrighted and must not be used here. They are extremely litigious and they hound private persons for years if they have used an image, even for non-commercial purposes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Doctorate thesis

Is it ok to use this Doctorate thesis to verify "In Iran, women's pursuit of equal rights to men date back to the 19th and early 20th centuries. Women's movements in Iran can be divided into eight periods" in Women's rights in Iran?--Saff V. (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please, could you provide direct page you want to cite? This thesis has 150+ pages and I was not able to find the above mentioned information. Pavlor (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I'm afraid almost certainly not. Although not conclusive, a ctrl+f search of the document shows hardly any of the statement's keywords are used. "Nineteenth century", "eight periods", "eight", and even "pursuit" are either not used at all out used in completely different contexts. Mind you, with the possible exception of the eight periods assertion, it doesn't sound such a wild statement as to not be found in a secondary source somewhere? ——SN54129 08:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: update. Although the pdf linked to in the reference is that doctoral thesis, see the ref itself is to a completely different piece (an article in the Journal on Human Rights). So no wonder it's completely different. The actual article is open access at [103], and IIRC the pages you want for that claim are 17 and 81.

I guess all the other refs will have to be changed too. It would also be interesting to discover who falsified the citation originally. ——SN54129 09:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: why did you remove my answers?! Saff V. (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Any way How strange! Thanks for effort!And this is reliable. Am I right?Saff V. (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.:, I really do apologise for removing your edits! I honestly don't know what happened—I'm on the mobile, and I got an edit conflict with you when I tried to post, so I left the edit window. But it saved the post anyway even though there was an edit conflict?! I'm very sorry about that!

Anyway, yes the SUR journal is an excellent source, peer reviewed academic journal with an international editorial board. Best of luck! ——SN54129 10:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The second sentence, regarding the "eight periods", is an original concept introduced in the source, and should be attributed to the author, Nayereh Tohidi. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of The Sun in Team Trees article

This is what I would consider a very trivial entry. Recently I had an edit reverted about the Sun being used as a source.[104]. The Sun article that was removed.[105] The Wikipedia article it was removed from: Team Trees. Link to previous discussion of the source on this board.[106]

My reference to The Sun was under the Responses subheading, which is used to show the response to the fundraiser from different media groups. The statement that the source supports is

[The Sun] released [a] positive article about the tree-planting campaign and it's subsequent environmental impact

Although The Sun is a deprecated source it has a unique position to prove that it, a tabloid newspaper, responded positively to the fundraiser, which would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. The Sun article is not used to unduly increase notability, it is not used to verify any new or exceptional claims. The article makes no claims that are disputed by any other references on the page.

As a new editor, the inclusion of this source is not very important to me (and there may be reasons to not include the information for other reasons), however I am interested on a principle basis as to whether there is a reliability issue with including the article. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It maybe an RS for the fact it said this, but there are also other considerations such as wp:undue, which may be one reason it was removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Fundamentally - The Sun is a deprecated source, you need a pretty strong justification to reference it at all. "It's in our press clippings collection" really isn't one, I'd think. There is literally no reason to list The Sun here, except in an attempt at promotional editing for the article subject. This is in the context of a list of "media mentions", i.e. the puffery you see in every promotional article to try to show the subject is noteworthy - it's literally not being used as any sort of source, and the actual RSes in that list should be used as references if they're references - show, don't tell. I urge editors to have a look at the article Team Trees - other promotional editing includes a whole section showing fundraising progress, 100% sourced to the organisation's own site. The bizarre thing is that the article has all this spammy promotional content, but it seems to be genuinely quite notable, and would be fine without it. Yes, I hit the talk page about this and suggested they make the article read a bit less like a marketing brochure - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that The Sun reference should have been removed, just too little to justify the addition of a deprecated source :). Thank you. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of caravanmagazine in Asaram article

1. Source: This unreliable reference is used and this is a link to a magazine which has paid subscription so when I opened this link I could not read full content as I don't have subscription. Also this doesn't seem to be a reliable source of information to me especially when it is there on WP:BLP article.: [107]

2. Article: Asaram

3. Content: Lot of controversial info is written based on this single reference which can not be verified by other references. Following are the 9 controversial sentences for which this unreliable reference is the only source and it seems almost entire article is biased due to it:

1. in the Bania caste

2. Sources mention him to have been involved in a variety of professions ranging from selling liquors

3. Asaram gained widespread popularity, practicing a simplified tantric version of Hinduism and attracting the unprivileged sections of the society, en masse

   ------ This is definitely wrong as proved by govt. court and CID

4. It was also instilled among the devotees, to be blindly obedient to Asaram (and his son) and not to question them about anything, whatsoever

5. Asaram had a modus operandi of occupying vacant plots of land, occupying it and unleashing a throng of devotees, when resisted by the state machinery.

6. Another witness Rakesh Patel, a former devotee and Asaram's videographer was fired at by vehicle born assailants in March 2014. Less than a week later, another witness Dinesh Bhagchandani, was subject to an acid-attack but he managed to overpower one of his attackers; subsequent grilling revealed that the group were instructed by a devout follower of Asaram to assassinate witnesses in the case.

7. Narendra Yadav, a vernacular journalist who profiled multiple stories on Asaram's exploits was hacked on September 2014; he survived.

8. Rahul Sachan, another of Asaram's ex-personal-assistants, who turned witness in the Jodhpur as well as Surat case, was subject to a stabbing by one of Asaram's follower after a court-session in February 2015; Sachan alleged the act to have been gestured by Asaram, himself.

9. Months later, Sachan went missing and police have failed to find any trace, till date; he had filed a plea at the Supreme Court for police protection, after being subject to a bevy of death threats by Asaram's followers, having mentioned about bringing more victims to the limelight

Please check the reliability of this source especially when we talk in terms of biography of living person. And if found unsuitable then please remove this unreliable reference and the 9 sentences which were written based on it. La vérité gagne (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Being behind a paywall is not a reason to find this not an RS. Any more then me not owning a book would be. I need to see some evidacne its actually not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

We can't rely on the content shared by a magazine which has controversies associated with it. It seems more of promoting the magazine content to me. As many sentences are simply taken from a link which cannot be read by people who don't do paid subscription. Do you think such a thing is suitable for article covered by WP:BLP? La vérité gagne (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes we can, and often do. Yes it is perfectly acceptable (as I said the same applies to not owning a book) to use sources that have been subject to controversy. Hell even biased sources are acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

La vérité gagne, which part of WP:PAYWALL, a policy are you unable to comprehend? ∯WBG^converse 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• The Caravan is one of the most premier magazines in India, specializing in long-form journalism.
  A recent piece by Dexter Filkins, a Pulitzer awardee over the famed New Yorker notes The Caravan to be a leading Indian news magazine, that was one of the two outlets in India, to offer aggressive coverage of Indian scapes, at a time when mainstream media were increasingly compelled to stifle all dissent and toe a pro-government line.
  A host of their reporters have won two of the most coveted journalism awards within India.
  It's textbook reliable. ∯WBG^converse 16:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

In 2011, the magazine was the subject of a Rs 50 crore defamation suit by the Indian Institute of Planning and Management after it featured a profile of its head, Arindam Chaudhuri. In 2015, The Caravan was served a legal notice by the Essar Group. Essar later filed a ₹250 crore civil defamation suit against the magazine.. Some other complaints: For hurting religious sentiments: And many more.. I don't think it's a reliable magazine. It's more like promoting this magazine since a lot of content on Asaram article is only based on it and if some reader wants to verify it, they will have to purchase subscription and article is not visible fully. La vérité gagne (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

References

You have listed a large number of complaints against Caravan. It appears however that none of the sources you cite actually state that such complaints were upheld. And without seeing evidence of upheld complaints, their mere existence indicates nothing much beyond the fact that some people don't like what they say. Much the same can be said about some very trustworthy sources. And I suggest you drop the paywall argument - you have already been told what Wikipedia policy is in this regard. 86.143.231.214 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you really this stupid or are you paid by Asaram and Co.? ∯WBG^converse 07:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Also even if they were upheld I even top line sources sometimes make mistakes and are sued.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Mail Today (India)

• mailtoday.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • Aditya
  • C. K. Lal
  • Exercise Franchise For Good Governance
  • Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati
  • Indian black money
  • Indian Space Research Organisation
  • List of Indian satellites
  • Maharashtra Navnirman Sena
  • Mallika Chabba
  • Tarlochan Singh

Mail Today is an Indian tabloid and a joint venture of UK's Daily Mail. Does it fall under the Daily Mail "ban"? Ten citations are shown by the link summary tool. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Evidence of it being unreliable is needed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Omigosh, are Cheatsheet.com and WeGotThisCovered.com reliable?

I am wondering whether these two sites are reliable enough for use in our media articles. Both appear to have editorial oversight, are not user-generated (though they apparently hire freelancers to supplement their own staff), are not sponsored content, are not self-published. They are not, however listed in WP:FILM/R. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. — Newslinger talk 11:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Neither site appears to be a great source:
  • Showbiz Cheat Sheet (cheatsheet.com) has a sizable staff, but its coverage leans toward rumors and speculation. Editors should be cautious, since WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP tell us to avoid gossip. Many of the articles are summaries of other sources with additional commentary; for these types of articles, it would be better to cite the original sources if they are reliable. If the referenced sources are unreliable, such as CelebrityNetWorth (RSP entry) in "What is DaBaby's Net Worth and How Did the Rapper Become Famous?", don't use them.
  • We Got This Covered doesn't publish a list of staff members. It accepts contributions from non-staff contributors, noting that "editorial approval may or may not be necessary". Although this site focuses more on news reporting than gossip, its editorial standards are lacking and I would consider this site generally unreliable.

    — Newslinger talk 11:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Both look poor: churnalism and gossip. Note that cheatsheet.com uses a lot of freelancers, and lists some as part of their "team" along with three freelance coordinators. --Ronz (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Masters theses as reliable source for notability purposes

I'm engaged in an AfD right now and the opponent rebutted that the subject organization was in a thesis "MSc thesis which mentions ___ 44 times." In writing theses, students work with different organizations and companies closely so it doesn't surprise me that an organization that a student have worked with was 44 times in the entire thesis. I believe theses are reliable for verifiability purposes, but I'm pondering whether an organization being approached by a student for a thesis and talked about in the thesis do anything for establishing notability.

WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Masters_Theses I have also looked at this. Graywalls (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: I found out the exact source. http://www.scriptiesonline.uba.uva.nl/document/214401 Hacking the field An ethnographic and historical study of the Dutch hacker field Sociology Master’s Thesis Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2011 by Elgin Blankwater. I think it's interesting and I have used reports like this for contents within an article. I think the author's research can be a reasonably reliable source, but likely of no significant to establishing the notability of RevSpace. Any input on the way I am interpreting the source reliability? Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Graywalls: Without looking at the example in question, I'd say it depends on whether the information was gained solely through student-company interaction or also through research independent of the company. If all the information obtained was done so through a contact(s) at the company, then this should be consdered a type of interview, where WP:IV (an essay, rather than a policy) becomes relevant. I think that such thesis should be considered, in general, as reliable sources, given the caveat of whether intimacy with the subject might suggest a conflict of interest or not. Hope this is helpful, and not just confounding. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ceyockey:, I don't have a whole lot of details. This is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RevSpace . An opponent referenced to an existence of a thesis that mentions the article organization "44 times". I haven't been in a discussion where a thesis was tried as evidence of notability which is why I am asking about it here. Graywalls (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

From WP:RS:"Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". So unless the thesis has been cited elsewhere multiple times by experts in the field it isn't WP:RS. And since (unlike a PhD thesis) such documents aren't normally formally published they do nothing to establish notability. 86.143.231.214 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Master thesis is only rarely useable as a reliable source and confers next to no notability to the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Commment - I think that masters theses are only considered notable (or "important" to use the in-house term) if they are published ans widely used other works. I suspect that the concerns being raised by Graywalls is an accurate description of matters. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Masters dissertations and theses vary widely quality depending upon the institution and whether they are just part of the assessment for the degree or basically the whole assessed part. The WP:RS quote above is clearly relevant here. They should be used only if they meet that guideline and even if this did I don't see it as establishing notability. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• If the institution is legitimate - in a U.S. context I'd lean heavily on whether it's accredited - and everything else is okay (university processes were followed, thesis committee or readers were qualified, etc.) then a Master's thesis is certainly a reliable source. But Master's theses and even doctoral dissertations are typically viewed as weak documents when considering due weight; as Jack Sebastian alludes to above, these sources are typically viewed as being much stronger if they're independently published e.g., as one or more journal articles, as a book. If the only or most prominent source for some information is a Master's thesis, that's probably a good sign that the information shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online

Interesting article about independent-looking-but-actually-not news sources. And paid editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'll make a deal with the WSJ. If they want me to cite their journalism on one of the most popular web sites in the world, then they need to have some function where I can verify my SUL and read their dang articles. GMG^talk 18:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  For whatever reason, I could read it this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  ​The Bypass Paywalls browser extension is working well for me. It supports Firefox and Chrome. Alternatively, you can look up the URL of the article in a search engine, and then click through to the WSJ to bypass the paywall. (This works because most search engines penalize sites for cloaking.) — Newslinger talk 18:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• See also WP:COIN § "How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online" from The Wall Street Journal for a list of users and articles that were implicated by the report. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• We have likely instances of this on this page, but those who can afford these kinds of fees to scrub their online image may also hire a lawyer to sue anyone who questions their Wikipedia article. In that case, Wikipedia is forced to turn over identifying info (like IP), and you the editor end up in court. So the scrubbed versions persist, and frank discussion here at RSN is impeded. And, catchy headline, but I doubt this is restricted to the 1%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Is there legal precedent for this? I found Theodore Katsanevas § Papandreou heritage, but the Wikimedia Foundation provided legal support to the Wikipedia user who was sued for defamation and the result backfired on the plaintiff. — Newslinger talk 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Reminds me of Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station#Controversy_over_Wikipedia_article. We have Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation but it may not be comprehensive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Newslinger, I am not going to answer that question, but am glad you asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:COIN is on the case, and is going through the articles - I expect more help would be most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What is an "official" statement by a company?

Question: All else being equal, is a verbal statement by a CEO mere speculation but not official, while the same statement on the company's website is official and therefore a reliable source?
1. Source. [108][109][110][111][112][113]
2. Article. BMW M3
3. Content. BMW have announced that an M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to begin production in late 2020, powered by the BMW S58 turbocharged straight-six engine that debuted in the F97 X3 M. All-wheel drive (xDrive) has been announced as being optional on the G80 M3, which would represent the first time that an M3 has used a drivetrain layout other than rear-wheel drive.}} [114].

• This instance is about a future product, but the question could apply equally to any fact about a company or organization, past or present activity, or future plans. Questions about the crystal ball policy have been discussed elsewhere. This reliable sources question is, is it "unofficial" when the CEO or other authority says it, and "official" when it's on the company website? We never got a clear answer on the BMW M3 thread below because a lot of side issues came into play. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Something seems wrong when we are considering making whatever the webmaster decides to put on the website more "official" than the CEO. I think this is best decided by the nature of the statement. Elon Musk standing in front of a shareholder's meeting and announcing a new flamethrower is a bit different from Elon Musk saying the same thing on the Howard Stern show. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• When in doubt, attribute. Say exactly who said it, and when they said it, in the text. Saying "CEO John Doe, speaking at Event XXXX, stated on Septembruary 32, that yada yada yada" in the text itself removes any problems. Again, when there is something where we question the reliability of the content of something someone said, but it is still considered notable that they said it, directly attribute and avoid speaking in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 16:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

So are you saying that if a CEO says it in a public speech, and multiple reliable sources report they said it, that is more questionable than if it appeared on the company website? Or should either be attributed the same regardless of which medium the information came to us? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that when there are people questioning whether or not a person's statements are reliable, change the Wikipedia article to say that the person said the statement. If you do that, there are no issues with reliability. I have no particular opinion over this specific statement and whether or not it is true or not. I am only giving advice on how to make fix such situations so as to remove questions of reliability. --Jayron32 17:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I would not assume that a statement on a corporate website is necessarily an authoritative statement from the company. While this may be true, it is also possible that the website statement was prepared at a low level by someone who is not fully aware of corporate policy, or that the statement is old and was never properly updated. SEC filings and corporate press releases generally are authoritative corporate statements. A CEO statement intended for public consumption ordinarily would also be considered authoritative, more so than a website statement, but not necessarily to the same degree as an SEC filing or a corporate press release. John M Baker (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Uncontroversial sources everyone can pretty much agree on

Following up with this discussion and others, what are the community's thoughts on working up something for sources that pretty much everyone agrees are uncontroversially reliable? Part of a problem with the way that RSP is set up, is that if a source is really stellar, like say Nature (journal), then it's so uncontroversial that it never gets discussed at all, and so we never have any information about it at RSP. So wondering if anyone thinks it would be worthwhile to have a discussion about the best sources, for the benefit of unfamiliar users who are looking for information at RSP, and confuse absence from the list with uncertainty regarding a source's reliability. GMG^talk 17:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent idea. I would suggest that a relatively small amount of dissent should be enough to keep a source off the list, since the idea is to list uncontroversial reliable sources. John M Baker (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd urge caution on this. Per WP:RS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content". Even the best sources get things wrong sometimes, and while Nature should be an impeccable source for science topics, it might be less so for topics beyond its scope. A list of 'uncontroversially reliable' sources could end up being misused as a justification for stifling any discussion as to whether a particular citation is appropriate. At minimum, any such list should start with a header explaining that presence on the list is a guide to the sources' general reliability on their specialist field, and not an assertion that anything they say about anything is Wikipedia-reliable. 86.143.231.214 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the idea is that it would be like WP:RS/P in that it only gives a general "temperature" of the community's reaction to a source; people can still argue sources on a case-by-case basis, but entries like that give people some sense of where the discussion is likely to start. (I do agree that "definitely reliable" is trickier than depreciation - there are some sources that are realistically not usable outside of the sort of exemptions in WP:SPS; but there is no source that is universally reliable for absolutely everything in all contexts. Still, I doubt anyone would interpret the list that way.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg News / Decision not to investigate Michael Bloomberg

Should a note be added about RS regarding Bloomberg News and the 2020 US election in light of the outlet announcing a policy of not investigating Michael Bloomberg or any democratic candidates, due to its ties to candidate Michael Bloomberg? See: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/24/bloomberg-news-will-not-investigate-mike-bloomberg-or-his-democratic-rivals-during-primary.html

Former Bloomberg bureau chief has criticized that decision, saying it bars "talented reporters and editors from covering massive, crucial aspects of one of the defining elections of our time" and calling the decision "not journalism": https://twitter.com/meganmurp/status/1198665230273974272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fbloomberg-news-not-investigating-bloomberg-democrats

As a result, the Houston Chronicle has dropped Bloomberg as a source for its campaign coverage: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/474333-houston-chronicle-stops-using-bloomberg-news-wire-stories-for-campaign

Candidate Michael Bloomberg has responded to criticism, saying employees at his organization "just have to learn to live with some things": https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/06/media/michael-bloomberg-reporters-investigate-democrats/index.html

Perhaps a note could be added here along the lines of "Because of the outlet's ties to Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, the outlet has recused itself from investigative coverage of the Democratic field in the 2020 election. Source should be used with caution regarding Michael Bloomberg and the Democratic primaries."

Or something along those lines? Just getting the conversation started. MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you looking to put a line into the article on Bloomburg News? That conversation doesn't have to involve this board; there are lots of reliable sources covering the issue, and if it relates directly to writing something in the article, it should be discussed on the article talk page. --Jayron32 20:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Indian fake media outlets

Just read this on the BBC [115]. It's about a report from the EU disinfo labs looking into fake media outlets, this time of Indian origin [116] [117] (28MB PDF). They've given the sites names like Plymouth Tribune and Times of Portugal to try and fool people. They've also given themselves names of defunct publications like Toronto Telegram and Fox Footy Channel and Brighton Herald. There is a list on Google Drive that leads to Google Maps, [118]. I haven't worked out how to retrieve a table or otherwise get a simple list of sites. I did check a bunch of our articles and so far they don't seem to have either managed or attempted to make it seems like the publications never died. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I should also say that other than the weird example of the Fox Footy Channel, and I'm not sure if that was ever their domain name and in any case, the only articles where it should be used aren't likely to be of concern, most of the outlets seem to be long before the web era. So if their websites are used, they're very likely dodgy. Of course I only looked at like 10-20. Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The headline fake media outlet eptoday.com seems to be used in 2 articles, as is newdelhitimes.com. We have an article New Delhi Times (newspaper), I wonder if we should. I forgot to mention that one good piece of news is I don't think we're really the the target of this, at least not directly. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.

Some state-sponsored fake news / disinformation sites have been identified at WP:RSN. Examples:

• news-front.info   (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-48356351, referencing the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force https://euvsdisinfo.eu/no-news-on-the-news-front/)
• Veteranstoday.com  , Veteransnewsnow.com  , Southfront.org   (here and here)

I propose the following:

• Sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation should be:

1. Presumptively deprecated and listed at an addendum or sister-page of WP:RSP as such (with evidence).
2. Added to an edit filter with "Prevent the user from performing the action in question" and a suitably stated warning.
3. Removed expeditiously along with any text that might be challenged (or, if text is left, {{cn}} added); the use of semi-automated tools is appropriate for this.

• If in doubt, consensus should be sought here prior to addition.

I'm not opposed to a wider RfC but that would be hard to frame and manage and by restricting this to state-sponsored disinformation I think we reduce this to the point where I hope it would hould have broad support. A new InfoWars would still need a separate RfC per current practice because we have no evidence that it's state-sponsored, so this is purely for the really obvious ones. Guy (help!) 00:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Opinions

• Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 00:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support unless outright blacklisting is preferred. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support with some caveats. For this sort of sweeping action (an edit filter against an entire broad category of sources), it needs to be completely, unambiguously clear that they are a state-sponsored disinformation outlets, with no serious dispute in any mainstream source and no evidence that they have any serious reputation anywhere at all. More hazy or contested cases still need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis; plenty of state-owned media is still reliable, even when people accuse it of being propaganda (after all, the BBC was cited as evidence here!) But I do agree that as these sites get rolled out faster and in larger numbers, this sort of action is probably necessary and seems relatively safe as long as it's done judiciously. --Aquillion (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support and spamblock - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

In related news, Headbomb now has WP:EFM rights and the list of deprecated sources in the MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-predatory invoked by Special:AbuseFilter/891 is transcluded from {{Predatory open access source list}} - any veteran source handlers here who do not have admin rights, can pursue the same path and we could probably do the same for Special:AbuseFilter/869 as well. There are sound technical reasons to restrict edit filter access and interface page access, but this seems to be a solid way of helping a highly respected non-admin to engage in clueful management of source filters. I think that helping to get all this in place is my favourite thing I did on Wikipedia this year. Guy (help!) 00:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure what my getting of EFM rights has to do with Russian propaganda news here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there some reason to restrict this to state sponsored sites? I posted above about Indian origin disinformation sites/fake media outlets, but the group which identified them, I think the same as some of those mentions above, says they don't have any indication they are state sponsored so I guess won't be covered by this proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I missed the comment above about infowars etc. IMO we could phrase this in a way to cover sites like the Russian ones or Indian ones, while not getting into disputes over the more classic ones like infowars or the plenty of other sites of a similar ilk, by focusing on whether they're part of a concerted campaign, whoever the owners, and mislead about who is behind them. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Not sure I follow what exactly we're proposing to blanket-deprecate here. Let's take the following: RT, CGTN, PressTV, Granma, China Daily, Global Times, Sixth Tone. Would these fall within the definition given here? They are clearly state propaganda outlets. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - It may be worth distinguishing between sources which are open about their status (like RT and the like) with those which which actively seek to deceive the reader (like the Indian farms under deceptive names).Nigel Ish (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedias of James B. Minahan

Minahan's encyclopedias are commonly used on Wikipedia (easily accessed on Google Books, one being [119]), but there has been a lot of debate on talk-pages over the years on whether the information found in his works are reliable. Firstly, a lot of information is factually wrong and contradicts information found elsewhere. Some of the discussions on Wikipedia can be found here: [120] [121] [122][123][124].

One of his claims that - for me - deems him unreliable is his claim of the Zazas having an ethnic flag (which one editor is keen on adding the article with Minahan as the reference[125]). Minahan writes: "Flag: the Zaza national flag is red field bearing a traditional Zaza design resembling a large white Z centered. The flag of the Dersim Movement is pale green field bearing a red diamond centered charged with a sun rising behind mountains"[126]. If this was true, it would only take 5 second on Google Search to verify this. There is nothing on this, except this which does not seem reliable either and even uses the word Alleged flag of 'Zazaistan'.

I can't honestly think of an example where these encyclopedias can be used. If information can be found elsewhere, those references should be used - and if not - editors should stay away from that information. So my question is, can Minahan's encyclopedias be assumed as RS? --Semsurî (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat a question asked in one of the threads you posted above: what are his credentials? Publisher looks fine, but that alone is not sufficient to resolve usability of that book. Pavlor (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)