Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RfC: 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)? Relisted by ToThAc (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC), originally raised by 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)

• Definitely not reliable for political topics. No opinion about non-political topics. Anything that is based in mainland China should have the same reliability as the Chinese Government for political topics, which is zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, the Sixth Tone should be used with caution to cite in political topics, especially Chinese political topics. But I don't think we should fully reject its report in political topics. Mariogoods (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Additional consideration Can be used to discuss Chinese society and culture but it needs to be carefully reviewed, attributed, and idealy would only be used to flesh out things described by reliable sources and not for things uncovered by reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. They're actually a really good source, particularly about cultural/social issues (am familiar with some of their journalists). The only reason they'd be deserving of any scrutiny at all is because they're largely based in mainland China. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2020 (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 according to StopFake. 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)

@ZiaLater: Here is a small analysis by France 24 about the collaboration of the White Helmets with al-Qaeda: [1]. In addition to that, there are dozens of photos of White Helmets members carrying assault rifles. The White Helmets only operate together with Al-Qaeda, and every time Al-Qaeda had to flee an area because of defeat, the White Helmets fled together with them. Xenagoras (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: The allegations you make and try to validate with the France 24 source are described as either "false" or "unproven" in the analysis.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ZiaLater, the France 24 analysis proves my allegations.

White Helmets celebrated the taking of Idlib alongside armed groups. White Helmets helped jihadist groups carry out executions. Three seconds after a public execution in Deera, at least three White Helmets rush towards the body of the victim and carry it away on a stretcher. The crowd around them seems to be celebrating the event. White Helmets were able to carry out rescue missions in ISIS-controlled zones in 2015. White Helmets group admitted in 2017 that it had "assisted members of organisations like the Al Nusra Front and ISIS." Raed Al Saleh, the head of the White Helmets, [said] in 2014 that they mostly carried out their work in "zones that have been liberated or those under the control of ISIS" and in 2017 he added that the only true ‘no-go zone’ in Syria for volunteers are the areas controlled by the [Assad] government. [2]

A document with an Al Nusra logo states, "Charter from armed groups in Aleppo. The groups commit themselves to protect members of the [White Helmets]." Abdullah al-Muhaysini, an Islamic cleric close to Al Nusra said, "Regarding those in the [White Helmets], I don’t call them members of the [White Helmets], I call them the Mujahideen (Islamic fighters) of the [White Helmets]. They are mujahideen – may God accept [their Jihad and our jihad] – I don’t make a distinction between them and the men who are in the trenches and behind the barricades. They’re no different." The White Helmets mutilated the corpses of Assad regime soldiers. Ammar al Selmo, the former head of the Aleppo branch of the White Helmets, now in charge of the Al Bab branch, posed with a sniper rifle next to eight other men, some of whom are also heavily armed. A video shows a man wearing the White Helmets uniform and holding an assault rifle. Another video shows people who are supposed to be members of the White Helmets making V-signs from the back of a pick-up which is full of the corpses of presumed Syrian army soldiers. A White Helmet in his uniform facing the camera says in Arabic, "We collect the bodies of the Shabiha [pro-Assad militia] and throw them in the rubbish." [3]

Xenagoras (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2020 (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 4 or 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 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)

@MikkelJSmith2:, please read the "About" page [4] of The Grayzone for information on their editors, journalists and contributors. They have 2 editors plus 2 reporters plus several dozens of contributors. The Grayzone has published a correction on one of their stories so far, it can be read on the bottom of this article. The 4 editors/reporters all have a distinguished career of very good investigative journalism, including winning awards. Xenagoras (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2020 (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. LittleChongsto (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. It is a self-published site. Most of its contributors are also regulars with Russian state media (e.g. Anya Pamparil is an RT America presenter) and its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media. An informed glance at any of its articles shows several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking. It is a partisan site which might be usable for the opinions of its contributors if they are noteworthy but not as a source of news or information. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. I found this article by Daily Beast (In Nicaragua, Torture Is Used to Feed ‘Fake News’) and I think it shows that the accuracy of Grayzone is worrisome. The article explains how The Grayzone Project published an article by "Charles Redvers", who, according to the article, lied about his background and identity. Redvers wrote about a video where 20-year-old Nicaraguan student Dania Valeska, after Sandinista militants besieged a church in Managua where she and two hundred other students sought refuge, was forced to recant, after being arreste, beaten and threatened to be killed. Redvers claimed that Valeska was "later shown to be play-acting", referring to the livestream she published during the attack, where gunshots could be heard and apologized to her mother, thinking she would die. Daily Beast quotes the United Nations as a rebuttal:

The United Nations human rights office disagrees. In an August 29 report, it noted that the threat to life was very real. “The church was subject to shootings by police and pro-Government armed elements for several hours, which led to the killing of two individuals and injured at least 16,” part of a crackdown the office said violated “international human rights law.” (The Nicaraguan government expelled the U.N.’s human rights team following the report’s publication.)

It is worth mentioning that Zero Hedge, which has been found to be unrealible for Wikipedia "due to its propagation of conspiracy theories" and because "it is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated.", often quotes The Grayzone Project: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. In another instance, Grayzone even claimed that Democratic Socialists of America received financement by the United States State Department.[11]

As it has been pointed out, Grayzone is highly opinionated and a self-published site too. Its main contributor, Max Blumenthal, even responded once to an Al Jazeera report mocking victims of the Syrian Civil War. More information regarding Blumenthal's criticism here. Answering to other editors saying that other outlets are "Western state-mouthpieces" or have a "pro-imperialist bias" as a justification, two wrongs don't make a right. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Now that you mentioned Zero Hedge, Alexa Internet has some interesting metrics as well. The Audience Overlap shows that Grayzone readers often frequent Telesur (see WP:RSP) and the recently created Orinoco Tribune, which uses Telesur, Grayzone and Venezuelanalysis (see WP:RSP) as its primary sources. Looking at Grayzone's old domain name, "grayzoneproject.com", Alexa Internet shows that 47.1% of traffic sources came from Venezuelanalysis, 45.3% from Consortium News and 20.8% from MintPress News (see WP:RSP).----ZiaLater (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Edit: Apologies, this is a traffic source comparison and not where Grayzone received their traffic.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, you can see from the MintPress website that Blumenthal is listed under "Frequent Contributors" and the GrayZone Project is listed under "News Partners".----ZiaLater (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4: Option 3: As the user who posted this RfC, I have patiently observed what multiple users have shared. Grayzone is a partner of MintPress News, with MintPress News itself being deprecated. Alexa Internet also shows an overlap with Telesur (also deprecated) and Venezuelanalysis (which was nearly deprecated, but ultimately found unreliable). Multiple users here have also said Grayzone is "less reliable than Alternet", that there are "several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking", that "the accuracy of Grayzone is worrisome" and that we should "never use such a site for speaking in Wikipedia's voice". The allegations shared about Grayzone disseminating information about a possibly coerced and tortured protester in Nicaragua is also unsettling.

Responses arguing for the support of Grayzone did not argue in support of their reliability. One argued that Grayzone is "a perspective that is not always available from other sources", using a multipolar argument unrelated to reliability (different perspective ≠ reliable) that the Southern Poverty Law Center has already covered. Another user argued "Western state-mouthpieces like the NYT are considered reliable ... 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". This user makes an irrelevant conclusion, using established reliable sources as a red herring to target when we are instead trying to determine if Grayzone itself is reliable.

After summarizing what everyone has shared so far, one can see that Grayzone should be deprecated.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Option 3 should be the best for Grayzone as editors have concerns about the reliability, though its usage is limited. Using this option is less prohibitive on the source and should help with any concerns with WP:ABOUTSELF.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

ZiaLater per your analysis and the comments that came after I think I'll have to change my vote to Option 3 it satisfies the concern that I had for WP:ABOUTSELF. I'll have to strikethrough my previous vote and write a new one though - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: judging by "audience overlap" - judging news site X by what other news sites Y or Z their viewers also viewed is an irrelevant conclusion, using other sources as a red herring to target when we are instead trying to determine if Grayzone itself is reliable. Xenagoras (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per ZiaLater's and Jamez42's excellent analyses. There is no reason to ever cite this on an encyclopedia; this is a self-published blog by a fringe-y figure. To the extent one wants to cite facts, there's no indication that the blog has any indication of consistent fact-checking, use by others, or any of the other requirements we require. To the extent one wants to cite opinions, a citation to the website would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Neutrality^talk 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4, pretty well summed up by User:Jayron32 ("gussied-up personal blog for Max Blumenthal and his cadre of close friends), Guy ("less reliable than Alternet, which is itself unusable"), User:Bobfrombrockley ("its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media"), User:Neutrality ("self-published blog by a fringe-y figure"), and analysis by ZiaLater and User:Jamez42. This "cadre of close friends" do seem to re-publish each other's agenda, and no indication of more reliable authors at GrayZone have been given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Inherits Alternet's general-unreliableness, and what use by others exists is not great - mostly it focuses on Max Blumenthal's arrest, which implies that the site itself has little independent reputation outside of being, essentially, his blog. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 While there are some concerns with this source, there are some contributors who are respected university researchers. I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Which contributor is a respected (or even unrespected) university researcher? I couldn’t find any. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

George Galloway is notable (as former UK MP, not as a researcher) and was interviewed on Brexit in a Grayzone video four days after you asked.^[12] Check out their channel, it's not only Max Blumenthal. –84.46.53.250 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

While Galloway is "notable," I don't think he falls into the category of "respected university researcher." Per his wiki page, he's worked for Press TV and RT, both both considered generally unreliable and frequently described as disinformation outlets that uncritically report conspiracy theories. He's more of a controversial political figure. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's someone from academia: Jeb Sprague. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Even though the term "researcher" was used above, for this sort of thing I would really want a professor instead of an RA. Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 Should not typically be used because it primarily publishes investigative journalism (i.e., primary research) and opinion. Can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or when they publish investigations whose notability is established by being taken up by other sources, e.g., Blumenthal's story about burning aid in Venezuela. Not frequently used, no need for deprecation. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Cmonghost: You do make a good point that it is not widely used on Wikipedia. Maybe we should go the way of Venezuelanalysis in order to be less prohibitive, though editors agree that there may be some inaccuracies here. Deprecation could also cause issues with WP:ABOUTSELF, so I am thinking about moving towards Option 3.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 Here[13] Grayzone says that reports on Chinese organ harvesting "rely without acknowledgement on front groups connected to the far-right Falun Gong cult . . ." Funny, Wikipedia's article Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China sources include NYT, WaPo, CNN, the Economist, and so on. I will note that this is considerably worse than anything seen at certain sources that have been deprecated. However, as a general matter, I don't like deprecating sources, so option 3. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The news source links China Tribunal to ETAC as per its website (the Guardian reports the same thing [14]), ETAC to Epoch Times, then Epoch Times to Falun Gong as per NBC [15] and the New Yorker [16]. The only part of the story that is original to the Grey Zone is taking people from the ETAC website and comparing them to those on the website of the Epoch Times, something which anyone can do with similar results (especially given the Grayzone has linked the relevant parts). The story's only claim that organ transplants were not happening was a link to a Washington Post article to that extent [17] and two words in an embedded tweet. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Jamez42 and ZiaLater. It's basically a blog written by a politically-fringy figure that's closely associated with other deprecated news sites. I think deprecation is the best option to prevent it from being used to spread unreliable information. Any reliable facts it contains likely can be supported with more reliable sources that should be preferred anyway. WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources already provides an exception for a deprecated source to be used in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per Slatersteven, LittleChongsto, Cmonghost, Jayron32. The editor Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist, writer, author, and documentary maker, who has written for numerous publications, including The New York Times, Nation, Guardian, etc. (see his Wiki page). Reviews of his books have critical acclaim in many notable publications, but you wouldn't know it from reading the bulk of his Wikipage, because instead of an accurate summary of the reviews, those reviews have been cherry-picked for the juiciest quotes that are most likely to raise eyebrows and quotes from his harshest critics who call him an antisemite because he doesn't tow the line of being pro-Israel, and in Western politics it is criminal to criticize Israel. He probably agrees with the U.N. that Israel should be charged with war crimes. Let's see what Time of Israel--a publication I often see used as WP:RS--has to say about the U.N.'s decision to proceed with war crimes:

"Foreign Ministry vows Jerusalem ‘will not cooperate with this mockery,’ says ‘moral majority’ of states did not vote in favor of measure".

So if Blumenthal agrees with the U.N., apparently he is an immoral Self-hating Jew.

Some of the things Blumenthal writes about are shocking precisely because they are true, and the mainstream media will not share it. Like the fact that Maduro's troops did not burn the U.S. "aid" that was supposed to pass through the U.S. economic blockade, which is what nearly all the U.S. media said and never retracted. But Blumenthal showed footage that in fact the "peaceful" pro-Guaido activists were throwing Molotov cocktails that probably set the trucks on fire. Although the U.S. media got it wrong, they are not the "fake news" in this case, it's entities like TeleSUR that got it right that are liars and conspiracy theorists.

And indeed, many of the things Blumenthal says do challenge the corporate media's portrayal of events--which is why his award winning work is taken so seriously. He does not tow the line of the establishment, especially by not being a Zionist. Instead, he is labelled an "anti-semite" Jew by Zionists like Alan Dershowitz, Rabbi Marvin Hier, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.[18]. When a writer brushes up against the establishment by exposing certain things they are not supposed to, the "emperor's lapdog"--the establishment corporate media--is not going to like the experience. (Noam Chomsky) Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told:

"If these institutions [media] condemn us, that's pretty good reason to think we are doing the right thing."

-Chomsky

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone. — Newslinger talk 10:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

+1, I fondly recall waiting for 30 days after the last comment before having fun with NAC on c:+m:. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 2 -- I don't think I've ever cited Grayzone, but as the perspective is an outlier, I would attribute. (I assume someone has mentioned their "just let him talk" interview with Maduro.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 per the above analyses. On the founder (Blumenthal), it should be noted that the sources they cite are only a selection and multiple others haven’t been mentioned (e.g. see Max Blumenthal#Syria). Additionally, many of the arguments being used to support 1 or 2 for this source are fallacious, some on more than one level. For instance, the case described above as an irrelevant conclusion is also a tu quoque fallacy (which unfortunately is depressingly common in this context), and includes at least a couple of others as well. Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to a couple of the comments below: even if they sometimes publish reliable information, we as editors can't actually identify it as such until it's been confirmed by more reliable sources. Otherwise, it will be mixed in with unreliable information, and we don't have any way to tell them apart. In fact, for the Venezuela example, the original article also said the trucks were part of "the [US] coup against Venezuela", uses scare quotes (twice) for the term "humanitarian aid", and strongly suggests that the purpose of sending the aid involved "generating waves of destabilizing violence" - and all that is from just the first two paragraphs. Also, "scooping" or otherwise being first to publish something is not very relevant to a NOTNEWS encyclopedia; if the information is true, then it will be confirmed by more reliable sources in short order. Probably within days or even hours, especially since the implication is that there was another source being scooped, meaning that they were about to publish it themselves. Sunrise (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 In additional all the above, Blumenthal has fabricated sources in the past and then claimed that the academic in question was intimidated into lying by a writer from The Atlantic [19]. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Saying that the Grayzone is not an RS because it has been quoted by non-RSes seems something of a problematic argument - non-RSes quote from RSes all the time, twitter accounts quote from BBC reports for example. The argument that the Grayzone should be deprecated because of its audience seems similarly dubious.

Grayzone is also a long way from one member of the general public's blog. Its masthead includes Max Blumenthal who has written for The New York Times RSP, The Nation RSP, Al Jazeera English RSP, and The Daily BeastRSP, winning various awards; Ben Norton who has written for The Intercept RSP including a piece alongside Glenn Greenwald (yep, the same one person who published the Snowden revelations); Aaron Maté who writes for The Nation RSP and is a regular contributor to The Hill RSP; and Anya Parampil. It also hosts pieces from guest contributors. The style of their content strikes me as about as far away from a blog as it could possibly get but that's in the eye of the beholder.

The Grayzone also covers stories like the Burning Aid one [20] which are later picked up by major newspapers [21].

While I will maintain that these are serious journalist using sources like video footage to shine a light of international affairs from an angle not normally seen you can argue against its use in Wikipedia. Just please for the love of logic do so for what they are and what they publish not because a blog quotes them from time to time and their audience might also read unreliable sources. El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• 1) Writing op-eds for reliable sources doesn't imbue journalistic reliability on a writer. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 because the two editors Norton and Blumenthal plus the two reporters Mate and Parampil plus several contributors have distinguished careers in investigative journalism and some of them won journalism awards for their work. The Grayzone conducts reporting on location in foreign countries and also publishes corrections like here. The Grayzone is independent from political or financial outside influence. Its independence allows it to get unique journalistic access to places and people, enabling it to have scoops. It is a valuable addition to the journalistic spectrum. Xenagoras (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, or Option 3 at absolute best. Fringy as hell. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Regarding the burning aid in Venezuela, the Grayzone has been credited by Glenn Greenwald with scooping the New York Times:

  While the NYT’s article and video are perfectly good and necessary journalism, the credit they are implicitly claiming for themselves for exposing this lie is totally undeserved. That’s because independent journalists – the kind who question rather than mindlessly repeat government claims and are therefore mocked and marginalized and kept off mainstream television – used exactly this same evidence on the day of the incident to debunk the lies being told by Rubio, Pompeo, Bolton and CNN. On February 24, the day the lie spread, Max Blumenthal wrote from Venezuela, on the independent reporting Grayzone site, that “the claim was absurd on its face,” ...He compiled substantial evidence strongly suggesting that the trucks were set ablaze by anti-Maduro protesters, including Bloomberg video showing them using Molotov cocktails, to express serious doubts about the mainstream narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Greenwald is not crediting Blumenthal for giving the NYT the scoop, he is saying that Blumenthal was one of the first to share that information about the burning aid trucks, not the NYT. This does not deal with the overall reliability and WP:Fringe issues. There are better sources to use, especially with the major controversy and contention surrounding the burning of aid trucks, the NYT is more reliable than Grayzone in this case.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: (reasoning to follow)     ←   ZScarpia   17:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2: I generally trust people who've been vetted by The New York Times and the LA Times, both of which Max Blumenthal has written for. But since The Grey Zone is a startup organization without much of a track record (except for Blumenthal's), I wouldn't trust it as much as I do with NYT or LAT, hence I'm vacillating between 1 and 2. -Zanhe (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Vetted by The New York Times? They describe Blumenthal as "a senior writer for Alternet and author" in their most recent description. Reminder: Grayzone originated on Alternet, with Alternet being recognized as being generally unreliable (Option 3) per WP:RSP. Could you provide any sources of the vetting you are talking about?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 as the GrayZone is more like Breitbart, with sensational scoops of questionable accuracy rather than actual news. There have been quite a few advocacy of fringe theories on the site and there is no need to use it on Wikipedia. It's not a news website, but a personal blog and their claimed "journalism" has been criticised by many on the left as propaganda, inaccurate, conspiracy theories and fake news.

1. On Gutter Journalism and Purported “Anti-Imperialism”, Gilbert Achcar in New Politics (magazine) ...One example of pro-Putin, pro-Assad “left-wing” propaganda combined with gutter journalism is...Another example is Grayzone, a website founded by a particularly versatile character named Max Blumenthal. These websites have in common the habit of demonizing all left-wing critics of Putin and the likes of Assad by describing them as “agents of imperialism” or some equivalent. The main “target market” assigned to them is naturally the left-wing readership. This implies that they must strive not only to convince their readers of the virtues of Moscow and its clients by a resort to fake “left-wing” and “anti-imperialist” arguments, but also and most importantly to discredit their left-wing critics. In doing so, they resort to the oldest trick of the slandering profession: outright lies.
2. Are purveyors of fake news endangering the lives of real journalists? In Pulse Media, written by Mathew Foresta Blumenthal and Rubinstein’s outrageous conduct cannot be written off as mere conspiracy mongering or trolling. A retraction is not enough. Dangerous lies and fake news cannot be allowed to run amok.
3. Stand from the Left: No to Chinese Authoritarianism, No to "Yellow Peril" by Promise Li on DSA website These problematic views are fueled by a disinformation campaign from right-wing outlets, like the Grayzone, that pose as being ‘anti-imperialist,’ with whole mass-led movements reduced to the positions of their cherrypicked individuals and organizations– thus smearing millions of protestors, from Hong Kong to Xinjiang, as U.S.-backed fascists and imperialists.
4. Against the GrayZone Slanders by Dan La Botz in New Politics (magazine) The GrayZone attack is based on a conspiracy theory, the notion that the omniscient and omnipotent State Department and other U.S. government agencies finance and control the most important organizations and institutions on the American left with the goal of furthering regime change in other countries.
5. Junket journalism in the shadow of genocide by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad in Aljazeera Opinion ...the emergence of a new form of junket journalism that serves as a global laundering service for blood-splattered autocrats. In recent months, several of the same figures have turned up in capitals from Caracas to Managua whitewashing mass repression; they have dismissed Uighur concentration camps in Xinjiang, slandered protesters in Hong Kong; and they all somehow find Vladimir Putin unimpeachable.

Given the multiple criticisms regarding accuracy, I believe this is not a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. It's model is akin to Breitbart which engages in sensational "scoops" and is more of an advocacy outlet with the intention to provoke.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 or at best 3 per DreamLinker and ZiaLater. Any story that's broken by Grayzone would need to be independently checked for it to be usable. Any story not broken by Grayzone should be cited to the original source. Fringy nature of the website means that opinions are unlikely to be due weight. buidhe 16:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. This is not a ban, as discussed at WP:DEPRECATE, but based on the extensive analysis summarized above this is not a source that should be used in nearly any context. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Somewhere between Option 1 and Option 2. Grayzone journalists have had respectable careers elsewhere before joining this news platform, and they're one of the fewer number of outfits still trying to do investigative work. Furthermore, the notion that a news outlet should be banned or disregarded because it isn't sufficiently anti-Russian or anti-Putin, is dystopian and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's project as an international encyclopedia. Since the Grayzone sometimes has a strident editorial line, there are cases where it should be used with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: no one is proposing deprecating this source because of its point of view. Its reliability is under discussion. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 Agree with DreamLinker's analysis. It seems a lot like a propaganda outlet, and I see very little evidence of real editorial oversight or fact checking, compounded by the fact that Max Blumenthal is the founder, editor in chief, and author of about 20% of their articles. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible advocacy?

Just wanted to leave a notice about the possiblility that advocacy has been occurring regarding Blumenthal on Wikipedia. Here is a tweet by Blumenthal calling attention to his Wikipedia article stating it has been smeared by a user. Blumenthal states, "Jimmy Wales has legitimized this character and powerful admins back him as well", concluding that "Wikipedia is a bulletin board for pro-war elite interests". I opened a peer review to help address any concerns that Blumenthal might have and to broaden the number of users invovled in the article. Any other recommendations to abide by WP:BLP are greatly appreciated.

Twitter user Riothero, who is recognized as Tellectualin (formerly Riothero) on Wikipedia, replied to Blumenthal's tweet:

"I tell you, ZiaLater (the Wikipedia editor lower on the list) is also a huge douchebag. These people have time on their hands, and will wait everyone out until their edits stick!"

I take pride in my impartiality when it comes to my edits, so personal attacks like this hurt. I have never and never will be involved with special interests on Wikipedia. If I do have to name an interest regarding the project, it is the interest of maintaining reliable sources and information on the project. This interest is the entire reason this RfC was created in the first place! Encounters with Grayzone began to increase and so a question was brought here in order to get help from other users.

So, thank you to everyone who has helped with determining the reliability of Grayzone and thank you for staying away from personal attacks, focusing on the task at hand instead of each other.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the "possible advocacy" you mention for Blumenthal or against him? Have you read the policy sections WP:Respect privacy and WP:outing? ("The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment".) Regarding edits on Blumenthal's page, I can't see that any of the current content was provided by Tellectualin. The leading editor is on 37.3% and you are second with 7.5%. Are there specific edits you are concerned about? Burrobert (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: This vague notification is becuase there is a potential for advocacy both for and against Blumenthal. This is why I created an impartial peer review to observe recent edits and to improve the article's quality. As for privacy and outing, I am well informed about these policies and I have fully complied with them.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?

Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?

- MrX 🖋 16:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

For background, see the discussion above: #Endless problems on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

---

• Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has it listed as a general reliable source. Not sure why subject matters after fact checking has been verified and accepted by a project.--WillC 17:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Sources can have different levels of reliability in different subject areas. See WP:RSCONTEXT for more details. The scope of WP:A/S is musical topics, not general political topics. — Newslinger talk 17:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  RSCONTENT says they may, it doesn't say they are defacto unreliable for that context.--WillC 17:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  It's not de facto reliable for politics, either. This RfC will determine what the consensus is. — Newslinger talk 17:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  That I won't argue, but its use is to cover the publication of articles and the negativity of these articles. Not for an actual factual statement regarding politics. Since we are discussing context, the manner in which it is being used is relevant.--WillC 18:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• No - Their political coverage is superficial, and very high on opinion and low on fact. They routinely quote mine other sources, add a bit of snarky commentary, and call it journalism.[22][23] Most of their politics content is written by Shane Ryan, who seems to be a Bernie Sanders devotee and critic of mainstream media.[24][25][26][27][28]. Paste's coverage of politics is on par with The Root, (defunct)Splinter News, and Salon (the later of which Shane Ryan previously wrote for)[29]. - MrX 🖋 17:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • None of that disqualifies Ryan or the source per WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSORG.--WillC 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe it does, and I've listed several examples to indicate why it should not be used as a source for politics content.- MrX 🖋
      • Well this is where you are going to need to list that. Because Ryan being a fan of any politician doesn't make the source less reliable nor does being involved in opinion content. If that was the case, there would be no reliable sources.--WillC 04:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No, and people saying it is are being silly. It's a specialist source, and that speciality isn't politics. Advocates trying to rules-lawyer RS guidance to push it through have fundamentally misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, per the comment of MrX. I did not find discussion on Splinter or Root, but there was some on Salon, with no consensus achieved, and a recommendation for adding attributions to its statements. If their politics content is written by the same person/people, then they should have the same treatment. Biased sources should not summarily be prohibited – not least because following such a guideline to a T would ban even so-called RS in politics such as CNN, (MS)NBC and ABC, given that they are for-profit entities with billion-dollar-scale political interests. Permit the political coverage of Paste Magazine, but attribute it as progressive or leftist in citations if such is the general sentiment of editors. As such, the discussion on this should probably not center around bias, but whether it can be trusted to be factual – and the fact that they have been deemed RS in other topics tells me they shouldn't be assumed without evidence to be untruthful. Selvydra (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• No. It should not be used for factual statements. There's nothing to indicate it has a reputation for fact-checking and reputable reporting in politics. It may be used for attributed statements if they meet WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. It's already reliable for other articles on Wikipedia, thus I don't think it would publish falsehoods in other topics. It would be idiotic for their reputation for them to do that -- especially for a source that's been cited by WaPo, NYT and other RS. When looking at their politics page, I've seen similar analyses in different sources. Just with a quick look this article [30] has subject matter that's been featured in many news articles by RS in the past few weeks. Another example would be this [31], I've read similar pieces/arguments in the Hill. So, I don't think that we should paint the source with a big brush due to bias -- even if the tone of some articles is snarky at times (which I don't particularly like). And as for bias, we've had sources with bias used on the site. So, in the case of bias, Paste should probably be attributed. So, in other words, the same conclusion that was given for Salon. I think that would be fair for consistency too. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: Obviously I find it reliable. Apart from Albums finding it reliable, which means that project has established credibility through factual accuracy, I'd like to point out a couple of things about the site. Particularly that CNN featured it during headlines and as per policy "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them" which displays the viewpoint by CNN regarding Paste as a credible organization to lend time. Chicago Tribune has cited it and even listed it among the best magazines. The book American Directory of Writer's Guidelines has a section regarding the Paste editing behavior, including editorial content, fact-checking, and reliability. Paste was named "Magazine of the Year" by the PLUG Independent Music Awards in 2006, 2007 and 2008. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, Paste was nominated for a National Magazine Award in the category of General Excellence. Though they are minor awards, the organization is notable enough for an article. Washington Post, New York Post, and The Guardian have all covered Paste. To "reflect established views of sources" seems to be that Paste has a good reputation among sources or at least a reputable magazine. In fact, Guardian has employed Hari Ziyad for content and he has worked for Paste as well. Shane Ryan also writes for Paste and is the subject of the citation at stake. He is a New York Times bestselling author and written for ESPN The Magazine and Golf Digest in addition to Paste. These are just a little bit of the information I found through a simple google search. As for context regarding source, it appears Paste is moving beyond just music and film now as it has an official section for politics. Which means determining if it is fitting for this material. The policy says it may not be reliable but not that is automatically. I suggest the above material makes it reliable as is for all topics due to established factual accuracy as a generally reliable source in addition to other sources recognizing it and its editors as having credibility and reliability to do material of their own. Like before, the goal for RS is to reflect the views of the source. I feel the views regarding Paste and its editors is positive.--WillC 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Wrestlinglover, you forgot to link to the Albums page. Here's the link : Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes as per the coverage of it in other reliable sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, reasonable politics-related WP:USEBYOTHERS across the political spectrum in eg. Vanity Fair, Vox, Vox again, New York Times, Fox News, The Colorado Independent, Snopes, The New Yorker, The Guardian. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• I checked five of those sources: four (N Yorker, Guardian, Vox x2) do not cite Paste magazine for factual statements, but for explicitly partisan punditry (in the same way that those sources might cite op-eds from the Daily Wire and Breitbart as a reflection of where conservatives stand on a topic). One (NYT) cited Paste for its reporting, but that was for its arts coverage.[32] Here are the ways in which the four sources cite Paste: "the Chapo Trap House hosts have been lauded by Paste magazine as the “vulgar, brilliant demigods of the new progressive left”"[33], "Paste magazine labelled “Chapo Trap House” the “vulgar, brilliant demigods of the new progressive left.”"[34], " “This is classic Booker — stand out front on feel-good social issues, regardless of his past positions, and align with big money everywhere else,” wrote Walter Bragman at Paste Magazine."[35] and ""The Democratic establishment doesn’t want a Democrat as president – it specifically wants Hillary Clinton as president," writes Brogan Morris in Paste Magazine."[36] This is not a RS outside of its arts coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  When looking at the sources posted by Aquillion, three of them that you didn't mention cite Paste for its political coverage : [37], [38] and [39]. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• This source quotes a statement made by a politician to Paste (which RS also do with non-RS).[40] The Snopes piece does not cite Paste for factual information, it cites Paste because a person that they were fact-checking pointed them to a Paste article and they cite the website as part of a genesis of an unfounded conspiracy theory (just like they would with non-RS).[41] The Fox News is by the hack Brian Flood in Fox News's "entertainment" section which is solely devoted to misleading smears about other nets outlets. So, in short, the only RS that has cited Paste for its politics reporting is a piece by Fox News (an outlet that I've for years argued is not a RS, it's also an outlet that would not hesitate citing all kinds of non-RS from our RS perennial list) attacking CNN.[42] And the piece is petty as hell. CNN failed to mention that university students in the DC area who attended a Democratic primary townhall had also interned with liberal political groups? What is this: "Abena McAllister, who was described by Blitzer as “active in Maryland Democrat Party,” was listed by CNN’s chyron as a “mother of two.” However, she is apparently the chair of the Charles County Democratic Central Committee." It's exemplary of the kind of petty BS that Paste is used for on the Media bias against Bernie Sanders page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  I skimmed the 2nd one so I missed that, sorry. As for the first of those, I will have to disagree that still seems fine to me. As for the third one, Fox News' website is RS, so I don't see why Paste wouldn't be used, but this does re-affirm my belief -- which I mentioned above -- that Paste should be attributed though due to its bias (just like Salon). MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• " partisan punditry" = "partisan expert analysis". The point of RS is to establish to reputation of a source against secondary sources. Established sources crediting Paste in any way that is positive suggests they have a positive reputation regarding Paste which establishes credibility and reliability.--WillC 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• RS frequently cite the likes of the Daily Stormer, Breitbart News, Daily Wire, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars. Simply being cited is not what WP:USEBYOTHERS is about. It's about being cited for statements of fact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• It clearly states the goal: "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." The problem with that argument is that the secondary sources list them with a negative reputation. These list Paste with a positive reputation. That is what makes one credible and the other just a child screaming into a bag.--WillC 05:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• None of the sources, with the exception of one NYT piece on Paste's arts coverage and a Fox News piece, cite Paste in a positive way. I don't understand your need to not budge an inch on anything. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have to when you don't read. Literally Vanity Fair, Vox, Vox again, New York Times, Fox News, The Colorado Independent, Snopes, The New Yorker, and The Guardian all referenced Paste in positive light, either using it as a factual source or as a source for opinions. None treated Paste as a bad source or pushed negativity towards it when referenced.--WillC 17:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• If that's your standard for positive light, then the Daily Stormer, Breitbart News, Daily Wire, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars have also been cited in a positive way in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Have they? And sources?--WillC 21:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Per this standard, here are some "positive" USEBYOTHERS for Breitbart:[43][44][45][46]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• No Couldn't find a corrections page on their site. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Adoring nanny, why would that disqualify their reliability? Genuinely curious, since some sources only correct below the article and they're reliable (i.e. they don't have a corrections page). MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Do they do that? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I was just asking you a question regarding that point. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• No Paste Magazine is only an RS for music, not for politics. Others have correctly noted that their news coverage consists of a small handful of opinionated writers. For an outside opinion, I see that MediaBiasFactCheck also notes they are left-biased: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/paste-magazine/ --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A bias doesn't negate reliability per WP:BIASED--WillC 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing way too much conflation of bias and opinionatedness with unreliability. One does not automatically beget the other. If it did, CNN, MSNBC and Fox wouldn't be RS either (AT&T, Comcast and Fox Corp. have tremendous political interests – the difference is they purport themselves to be unbiased, while most leftist sites do not claim such). Selvydra (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Which is really upsetting because it is an attempt to discredit in such an invalid way while remaining ignorant to arguments against such position. It is a very disingenuous position that is brought on by an editors own inherent bias. All media sources have a bias. To claim bias that does not impact its factual capabilities as reason to deny reliability of a source, would basically level all of Wikipedia's ability to source statements. Even scholarly sources maintain biases simply by covering specific subjects.--WillC 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      • You two are right that the outlet could still be given a “reliable but biased” rating; the issue is that it also has no reputation for reliability in politics coverage, as numerous others have noted.MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

        The thing though is that as I mentioned above it was cited for its political coverage by Fox News (the reliable Fox News stuff not the Hannitys and whatnot) and another source MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  MaximumIdeas, we don't use mediabias/fact check, it's considered unreliable. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • MikkelJSmith, I’ve seen it cited in these discussions before. I know it’s not the end-all-be-all, but it seems to be an important voice and they have a staff of researchers looking into the outlets. Was there a formal decision I missed here that their ratings should not be mentioned at all? If so, please let me know. MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

    MaximumIdeas, I used to cite it too, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it's unreliable MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

    • Thank you. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No Doesn’t appear to have any credibility in the field of politics, especially in regards to factual reporting or journalism. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No Not it's area of expertise. And of course it's possible to be reliable for one thing but not another. I might count as an "expert" in my professional field (where I have educational credentials and experience) but am no more than an uninformed layperson in plenty of others. Publications are the same way. Current American politics is not exactly a niche field lacking in sources; no need to stretch to include these out-of-scope resources. If anything, we should be significantly more restrictive on which sources we use in this area, as it is one where disinformation is rampant and reliable sources are plentiful.Just a Rube (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – Paste is a generally reliable source. If they drift too far outside their area of expertise, attribution is enough of a caveat to fix that. Of course, other sources focused on politics should have precedence. However, there is no need to consider Paste anything other than a reliable source. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – Paste is a generally reliable source for politics. Attribution will suffice where opinion is involved. Burrobert (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes (with attribution)- seems to be reliable, although it clearly has some bias. It also won an award from the Chicago Tribune and had a weekly segment on CNN (The self-proclaimed "Most Trusted Name in News"). Question for @MrX:- If I start a discussion on Salon will you support deprecation since you believe Paste is on par with Salon? Here is an article from Politico discussing how Salon has really gone downhill in recent years [47]. Just curious to know where you stand since I may start an RFC at some point.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No, and I'm not supporting deprecation of Paste either. - MrX 🖋 21:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The New Republic

Which option best describes The New Republic?

• 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! --Jamez42 (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2: I am not seeing why this is unreliable, what am I missing?Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Before we proceed - What is the reason for this RFC? - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Furthermore - speedy close as malformed RFC, started with no context for question - someone please? - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree we need to stop these RfC's that are eliminating all WP:RS that is critical of U.S. regime change efforts in Venezuela. The same group of editors who dominate the Venezuela pages (e.g. [48]) have been eliminating these sources one-by-one with their !iVotes and often citing a connection to or supportive views of Maduro, e.g. Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR),TeleSUR, Venezuelanalysis, Grayzone, HispanTV. I have good reason to believe this editor wants the New Republic eliminated to make it easier to delete material that is unfavorable to Juan Guaido who he supported in this this edit war here. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Tornheim, please have a close look at WP:EDITCOUNTITIS (an argument based on that is unlikely to be sound). I know you read the discussions of how my editcount is inflated by the way I edit, the amount of cleanup I do, and the amount of intra-article copying and moving of text I was the one to do, after discussion. I certainly know you know that I no longer participate in those articles (precisely because of false examples of editors succumbing to EDITCOUNTITIS to attempt to discredit my editing, when I was the one doing all of the cleanup and consolidating between articles). I do follow RSN, and I will continue to participate here when I see marginal and state-sponsored sources being used inappropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The list includes:

Centre for Economic and Policy Research CEPR - RfC still running

Telesur deprecated in 2019

Grayzone - RfC still running

MintPress News deprecated in 2019

Venezuelanalysis deprecated in 2019

Burrobert (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a tired and dumb argument about rfc's here. What is the point of this noticeboard if not to discuss reliable sources? If a source is debated then a discussion and survey is great, and if the result is a firm consensus that should set a precedent with that source lest something changes ie: new owners, new editorial staff etc. We save a lot of time/repetitive debates/edit wars etc by having a list of reliable sources. The debates been had, move on. I personally think these endless and inevitably frivolous oppositions to rfc's are disruptive. Bacondrum (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum, the primary point of this noticeboard is to discuss reliable sources in the WP:RSCONTEXT of a particular statement in a particular article. This is different from having general discussions about whether a publication should be near-banned from use in any article for any statement. We occasionally need those general discussions, but we don't need them nearly as often as they're happening, and we don't want them when people might reasonably suspect that the goal is to ban the source generally without having to confess that you're trying to get it removed from a single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Options 1 or 2. It should be attributed for controversial claims or for things that other RS have not covered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Close as malformed RfC. The original poster has offered no evidence one way or the other. This constant series of RfCs trying to anoint or condemn sources without context needs to stop. The long term effect is for those with one POV to vote sources with opposing POVs "off the island". This is a bad practice and does not help make better articles. Springee (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• In this case, UNDUE. As with all matters of RS, one size does not fit all, and reliability of a source depends on the text being sourced. In this case, the author is Mark Weisbrot, a chavismo cheerleader, who has not evidenced fact checking or journalistic principles wrt Venezuela, and has been shown to be factually wrong multiple times. I can't fit that into the "Options" formulation above, but Mark Weisbrot is highly biased on Venezuela, and inserting opinions from him is UNDUE. I suggest those who want to insert anything said by Weisbrot should try to find similar at NYT, WaPO, or any of the other left-leaning mainstream media. I have not formed an opinion on The New Republic in general, but if it is like other sources that feature(d) Weisbrot's work (e.g.; The Huffington Post), we can look at how we rate their reliability, and the reliability of their contributors. We perhaps have the same situation here-- a source that demonstrates little journalistic concern about contributor opinion it publishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Option 2, based on information below from User:Alcibiades979 and User:MaximumIdeas, as well as the examples of fringe reporting from User:Aquillion, then we would place New Republic similarly to how we place National Review. Separately the Weisbrot-authored opinion would be UNDUE and Option 3 according the scheme above. So, that yields Option 2 or 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we please discus the source, and not each other?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please provide an example of what text is being proposed based on this source and at what article? In general, looking at the Weisbrot-authored article, an examination of all of the preposterous positions and demonstrably false claims (compared to more reliable sources) that it advances would be too lengthy to be of use here. What are the specifics so that DUE WEIGHT can be evaluated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a significant number of us have been fearing this sort of source-silencing for a long time. I certainly was worried, with Wikipedia being as omnipresent as a source of information, that there were nowhere near enough protections in place to keep it from being used by schemers and agendists for profit and power. Now we see a part of it happening here.

No. The New Republic is a good source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian I'm just pinging you to remind you to vote for which option you think is best. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Option 1. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 The New Republic had a tumultuous time in the 2010s, but most of the coverage that I can find of it criticizes the publication's business and marketing decisions, not so much their actual journalistic quality [49] [50]. They've had managerial troubles, and our article for them documents a number of controversies involving individual writers and editors, but as of this year CJR is still treating them like a leading American news publication, even if they're not what they were in the 20th century. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that very few media outlets have survived the fake news bombardment unscathed (which is an utter shame). Yes, the NR has had its share of controversies, but here's the thing: they always end up being on the right side of a news story, and they have survived crises that would have detonated other news agencies. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that this is less due to fake news and more due to the general influence of the internet on news media. TNRs trajectory over the past decade has mirrored Newsweek to an extent, with the caveat that TNR appears to have reversed some of their more disastrous decisions made 2014–2016 and now have new editorial leadership which seems to be less interested in picking up the clickbait market, whereas Newsweek took the full plunge._signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Contributor opinion (eg Weisbrot) is still distinguished from the source in which it is published (eg Huffington Post as a different example). To evaluate the contributor in this case, versus The New Republic in general, we still need to know what the proposed text is. In general, Weisbrot's writing often has demonstrable factual errors, but as a chavismo cheerleader, he is a good source on what Maduro/Chavez believe/state/think/do. Specifics, please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 A lot of New Republic pieces read like opinion pieces. For example, as of right now on their home page, we have "A Unified Theory of the Trumps' Creepy Aesthetic"[51] which talks about Trump's "smirking melon-ball head", "impossibly accursed foods", and an aesthetic that is "always so shitty". I also couldn't find a corrections page on their site but did notice that they said corrections could be submitted as letters to the editor, which seems a little weird, but does also show some interest in correcting errors. So I can't exactly say that they are unreliable, but I can't really say they are reliable, either. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @David Gerard:@Springee: I'm a little confused regarding the malformation of the RfC, since from what I gather RfCs have to be started in a neutral manner, without including own's positions.

As it was suggested before, the source was recently added to the United States involvement in regime change article, although I deeply regret that David Tornheim used their comment to attack and accuse me and other editors about unrelated topics. Browsing through the noticeboard's archives, it seems that the outlet's reliability has not been discussed in the past, so I want to know the community's position. Media Bias/Fact Check rates New Republic as having a left bias based on story selection and editorial positions that frequently favor the left. and high factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record., which is why I think attribution is needed and Option 2 best describes the outlet, but I've seen we don't depend on Media Bias/Fact Check to determine source reliability, another reason why I thought the RfC was the best option.

If needed, I can solve this issue, reopen the request for comment or close it, depending on the best option. Once again, many thanks in advance. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, MediaBiasCheck is considered unreliable on wikipedia. See [52] - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Not an attack. Everything I stated here is completely verifiable and has been observed by other editors in this RfC and elsewhere about the needless elimination of sources with these unnecessary WP:RfC's. These sources cover things outside the scope of the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis.

If you truly believe that what I stated above has no legitimacy, maybe it is best we take it to WP:AN/I. Would that be better venue for you? I am happy to open up a section there about my concerns. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, take it to ANI or user talk pages, we do not discuss users here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@MikkelJSmith2: I know, which is why I said that we don't depend on Media Bias/Fact Check to determine source reliability and a reason of why I started the RfC. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, oh sorry, I misread your paragraph. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2 No worries, thanks for your input :) --Jamez42 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Options 1 or 2. Pretty much agree with the arguments above. I would also like to add that interestingly this chart [53] puts it in the same ballpark as the Daily Beast, The Intercept, Mother Jones, the Nation and Vanity Fair. I'm not treating it as gospel, but based on other information I know about the source, that seems correct. So, reliable but biased would be the assessment here I think. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. The New Republic says in its own about section that "For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas." So they have a self-described left-agenda. Furthermore, they have no editorial policies separating their news from this editorial agenda. Given this, while it can be an RS for opinion or investigative reporting, it should be used with extreme caution when it comes to political reporting. Separately, am curious to hear from @David Gerard:@Springee: where in the guidelines it says that a description is necessary for an RFC. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable. Opinions should be attributed of course. Burrobert (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 3. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's purely opinion, no? I started reading through some articles and at first was put off by the fact that opinion wasn't labeled as such, until I did some research on the paper and found that it's purely opinion. This is even stated in its |about page: "We don’t lament intractable problems; our journalism debates complex issues, and takes a stance. Our biggest stories are commitments for change." So in this light it should be treated like any other op-ed source. It most definitely has a point of view, its writings use persuasive rhetoric to argue for that point of view. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: per Burrobert "Generally reliable. Opinions should be attributed of course.", per Slatersteven,Snooganssnoogans, Rosguill, and Jack Sebastian.

Still as I noted above--and others have concurred--I find serious problems with having these RfC's, when a standard post following the rules of WP:RS/N is all we needed in this case. I suggest we have a wider discussion about these RfC's and create limits on when they are launched and insist on a clear justification for them.

Perhaps, simply requiring in advance that editors show clear and convincing evidence that an RfC is needed, and requiring them to first make a request to hold the RfC here at WP:RfC--one that gains approval before it is permitted to be launched. These RfC's--especially when few non-involved editors show up (not the case here)--can have huge negative impacts on sourced material from the past and into the future. It can also create a strong POV problem if sources with a particular bias (all sources, including NYT, CNN, etc. have systemic bias) are eliminated by editors who do not like that bias. We cannot follow our key guideline of WP:NPOV if we continue to eliminate or deprecate publications that include opinions by experts, simply because the opinions have a particular bias that the editors who show up to the RfC do not happen to like, whether that bias is left, right, pro- or anti-nationalism, etc.

Also, these "fact-checking" sites have strong biases, and these are often used to "discredit" a publication in these RfC's, sometimes because of a single incident [to be exanded] I think these fact-checking sites may be even less reliable than the publications they are assessing. A single claim in one of these sites should not be the basis for deprecating a source. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David Tornheim. I haven't see anything to make me think this isn't a generally reliable source but that doesn't mean we should treat every article as automatically reliable etc. My primary concern is there are too many of these RfCs recently and it seems their objective is to either anoint as "good" or "bad" a particular source. David's concern about systematic bias if too many sources are voted off the island or enshrined is also a concern. When someone comes here with an open ended question about a source I think the question that should be asked is, why are you asking? What have previous RSN discussions said? Can you provide an example of how this source is going to be used in an article? I don't recall ever working with/around the editor who opened this RfC nor do I recall dealing with The Nation as a source often enough to have an opinion on it (I had to look it up to see if it was left or right leaning!). Regardless, we simply need fewer of these blanket RfCs. It seems like far to many have come out since the Daily Mail was deprecated. Perhaps this noticeboard should have a rule stating that RS discussions must include context examples (what article is going to be used where) or have examples of previous RSN discussions before we can have a RfC to assign a stamp of good/bad on any general source. Perhaps we should spend a bit more time discussing if individual articles are making sound claims vs just assuming because it comes from "RS" it must be good. Either way, as it stands I'm opposed to RfCs such as this one. Springee (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2. They're a complex case because their ownership and direction have shifted over time. On the whole they are generally reliable; they are often WP:BIASED, but the direction of that bias has swung back and forth over time, as our article on them discusses, so knowing the era a particular piece was written in and who wrote it is important if you need to determine if and how it's biased on the particular subject at hand. They have also occasionally published WP:FRINGE positions, especially Charles Murray's views on race science. That was a bit of an outlier and on the whole they are probably reliable due to their established reputation and relatively few scandals that directly impugn their journalistic accuracy, but it's important to pay attention to who wrote a particular piece there and to use in-line citations when necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 leaning left or right is beyond irrelevant. Have they published falsehoods? Nope. Have they got good editorial standards? Yes. This is a high quality left leaning source (everyone has a slant, whether they accept it or not). Bacondrum (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 either the website does not clearly label opinion content or it's all opinion, so it should be attributed in articles. buidhe 03:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 2: I do have to agree with concerns of a potential blur between fact and opinion, though it does have some editorial standards. Definitely should be a source that is attributed.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. I've seen no report of specific factual errors in comments above. Everyone looks at a set of (who, what, when, where) facts and makes their own (why) interpretations. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1; as others have said, I haven't seen any suggestion they make factual errors (except, presumably, with the low frequency that even the "best" sources occasionally make errors). If, as some have said above, reports from certain eras are biased in one way or another or need attribution, that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (or brought up again here if and when there is an actual problem). -sche (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, but only because I don't accept option 1 in relation to any regularly updated source The only sources we can confirm as "generally reliable" are "closed" ones like books that have been published in a finished state. I also despise the fact that many Wikipedia editors (most recently, in my recollection, here) would like to use popular news media (and "scholarly" sources in unrelated fields) as "generally reliable" sources even in cases in cases where they are definitely wrong. Lacking further information, options 3 and 4 in this case appear to be something only someone with a political axe to grind would buy in to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close as malformed RfC. Like Springee said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – I have seen no evidence to detract from the fact that this publication is generally reliable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close as inappropriate, given that it's used in about 150 articles, and there's been no effort to see whether any of those uses (much less most of them) have any problems at all. I also don't see any effort by the editor who started this to look at the (dozens of) previous discussions in the RSN archives, which in my brief spot check generally said that it's as reliable as anyone would expect, given that it's an opinion-oriented magazine rather than a pure-dry-facts magazine. To give one example, User:FOARP described The New Republic as "highly reliable" in December 2018, in the context of explaining the difference between any individual article being perfect, vs the magazine overall being reliable (because they once published, and later retracted, content by Stephen Glass). And if you want a truly circular example, User:Bloodofox cited The New Republic for facts about Epoch Times, in the October 2019 discussion that resulted in deprecating that source. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close - This is precisely the kind of contextless WP:FORUM-style discussion about whether the source is “bad” that we should be avoiding here. Read the notes at the top with of the page about what this page is for. FOARP (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Metalheadzone

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Metalheadzone?

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

Supplemental information about the website: Publishes news about Rock and Metal bands both modern and old. Does have a page dedicated to user submitted news but the form seems to be down so unsure if there is user generated 'news' being submitted and published, or if any is, if it's being verified in any way. EliotWL (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any indica of reliability there. It appears to be essentially a blog. Guy (help!) 01:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly unreliable - we’ve already had a discussion and come to a consensus on the music WikiProjects. It’s listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC] as a result of it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Their https://metalheadzone.com/about-us/ does not provide any indication of editorial oversight or policy. They do list at least two contributing staff, but no credentials are provided for them. I suspect that factual reporting could be considered reliable, while reviews may contain personal opinion rather than anything else. However, since it's on NOTRSMUSIC, I would stay away from its use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Even a “2” is pretty generous. As I mentioned in the WikiProject discussion, the head person who writes a vast majority of the articles has a disclaimer at the bottom articles that essentially states that he doesn’t have a great grasp on the English language. Which explains the extremely misleading or poorly worded headlines they frequently pump out. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why are we jumping straight to RfCs? - Ryk72 ^talk 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If you look above There are two metal zines that no one has discussed, and have subsequently been archived. Perhaps EliotWL saw that and decided to have some actual input. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Not reliable. Appears to be used in only 11 places.[54] On review of the site, I concur with JzG, above, I don't see any indica of reliability there. It appears to be essentially a blog. and Richard3120 here, It's literally a group of Turkish guys reposting anything they can find online related to rock and metal on their website. It seems to be 90% tabloid/Buzzfeed-style "shock! horror! nightmare!" exaggerated headlines that preface mundane anecdotes. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Most of these articles have BLP considerations and this style of tabloid gossip can't be recommended. Dartslilly (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: Does not seem to have much editorial oversight and because of some of the BLP concerns mentioned. Would be better to use the sources they link to, for instance with this article that would possibly raise a lot of BLP issues.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PureMédias

Since this is a source that's never been discussed before, I'd like some opinions on PureMédias:

• 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. ToThAc (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What's the usage that brings this question up? (Without that, this probably isn't worth doing an RFC on.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose RfC on Principle Is this being used much? Have people raised a concern about its use? If no then why bring this up. Do we even have enough information to reach a conclusion one way or the other? My feeling is if a source hasn't been used much or discussed much by others then we have little on which to judge. It could be a relatively young source that will gain a strong, good or strong , bad reputation over time. However, if we have a RfC now, it might result in a thumbs down which would then keep the source out of Wikipedia even as it's real world use improves. Sorry, if we have little information on the source then we should look at specific examples of use rather than make a general proclamation. Springee (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard and Springee: Sorry, I must have forgotten to show you this source's usage. Here you go: ozap.com  . It appears to be used primarily for sources relating to French television, politics, and musical numbers. ToThAc (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but what provokes you to bring up the question? What's the editorial dispute concerning the source? - David Gerard (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Thing is, at first glance, it appears to be some sort of online database of people, somewhat like IMDb. ToThAc (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks more Hollywood Reporter than IMDb. Maybe ask editors on fr: instead and bring that discussion here. SilverbackNet ^talk 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What Springee and SilverbackNet said. Looks like any other pop culture news site to me. feminist (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: What's on Weibo

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

---

Here is the link: https://www.whatsonweibo.com I believed that it meets the realiable source standards for Chinese social media-related issues. The website mainly focus on Chinese social media especially Sina Weibo. Also, could the source use in Chinese BLP articles?

• 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 Mariogoods (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a site independent of Weibo[55] but mostly regurgitates content from other news sources, and sometimes appends the Chinese netizen reactions on Weibo. Editor in chief Manya Koetse is a master's degree "sinologist".--Kiyoweap (talk)

• Option 2: If WoW identifies its mainstream news sources, you should cite those instead (but if WoW gives an English translation of a Chinese news feed, appending it will be useful)

For Chinese wedding door games (or other nonsensitive culture topics), citing the Wow original article is OK.

For Xinjiang re-education camps, I am not sure the Weibo netizen reaction is very meaningfully addition to the article.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)--(edited, amplified) Kiyoweap (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 – It looks like it has a fully professional editorial board, and their About page lists a litany of sources, including several generally reliable ones, citing or linking the site's coverage of Chinese social media. I would cautiously call it generally reliable for coverage of Chinese social media and pop culture trends, but would avoid using them for more serious news. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 – a cursory glance at the editorial team and the articles do not show any indications of blatant fake news or extreme sensationalism. The source's focus on entertainment and local issues rather than national politics means caution should be applied when using it to decide due weight. It is unknown where the website is based, but if it is based in China, it would likely be subject to censorship relating to political issues. Jancarcu (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jancarcu: Possibly not based on China, since the website reported censorship of 64. Mariogoods (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per above. Also to answer your second question that would mean generally not suitible for BLP pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC: KenRockwell.com

Is KenRockwell.com a reliable source for statements about photographic equipment? Qono (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Used as a source in many articles on photography equipment, KenRockwell.com is self-published and has no editorial oversight. As far as I can tell, the author has not written any books on photographic equipment. As quoted in the previous listing, the text that used to be on the about page is telling:

Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No mater how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day.

Here is a link to a previous posting on this source, though no discussion was generated.

I want to discuss the source broadly, but here is a representative example:

• Source: [56]
• Article: Nikon F-mount
• Content: "E Lenses with manual aperture control like PC-E lenses allow manual diaphragm operation on all cameras, with possible unreliable metering on DSLRs without E-type support."

Thanks! Qono (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Qono, not a reliable source. Should be treated as a blog. Why the RfC is needed here? DBigXrayᗙ 03:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, thanks for your response. I am unclear if RfC's are meant for disputes only. I've started a conversation on the RfC talk page and would welcome your input there. Qono (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Question Do we have evidence of other reliable photography sources citing KenRockwell's blog? This might be sufficient to establish Rockwell as a subject mater expert. From there you may be able to argue this is an expert opinion that can be used with attribution. I think Rockwell's site is a good resource and one I've consulted when buying a camera. However, it's clearly a personal blog per Wikipedia's standards thus the only way for it to be considered usable, other than for ABOUTSELF, is to establish some level of expertise acknowledged by other sources. Springee (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  The eligibility requirement is a little bit different than that. According to WP:SPS, Rockwell's "work in the relevant field" must have "previously been published by reliable, independent publications" for him to be considered a subject-matter expert. — Newslinger talk 20:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds like the sort of thing we would normally apply to topic that is largely supported by academic texts. If Rockwell were interviewed or otherwise acknowledged by a respected photography magazine would that count here? This is a RS area I've been somewhat interested in for a while. For a while I've been considering doing some work on articles related to the sort of formula race cars that are typical of SCCA events. That is a topic with little academic sourcing. Trying to get facts/figures/opinions from experts is harder because they generally don't publish. I'm not sure if David Bruns has ever published anything on race car design but his Swift DB-1 was a car that changed Formula Ford across the world. A lot of the interesting design ideas associated with that car, things that made it successful, are voiced by people who's resumes make them clear experts in the field but not published on the subject. In this case I would not WP:IAR but rather bend them if reliable sources say Rockwell is an expert in the field. Springee (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?

Hi, recently an editor tried to use Arab News in Yemen Civil war article. The Arab News is not an independent outlet, the Saudi regime control all the media in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of speech there. Should be considered unreliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Past Discussions
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews

• Reliable, use caution Arab News is reliable source per WP:NEWSORG (even SharʿabSalam▼ himself said it was reliable source back then). However, that does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. If it's difficult to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Arab News stated that ..." Ckfasdf (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ckfasdf, Arabnews operates from Saudi Barbaria. There is no freedom of the press in Saudi Barbaria, they have killed a journalist using a saw. How in God's name are we going to consider these sources reliable?.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, see also motivated reasoning. There's no evidence presented here that Arab News is printing falsehoods, though they may well be highly selective in what facts they do print. Guy (help!) 10:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree about SharabSalam's statement about Saudi Arabia murdering the journalist because the suspects who murdered that journalist are arrested by Saudi police. Just look at the BBC News article. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I dont think Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi is related to decide whether Arab News is reliable source or not (they still have coverage on this topics, although they dont put news that link the event to saudi royal familiy). Well, it's pretty much what is Guy (help!) said. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• May be reliable for uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for the topic in qestion. Saudi Arabia is a party to the conflict and one can´t label any of their media as independent, because freedom of press is severely restricted (an euphemism) in Saudi Arabia. What will be next? Al-Ba'ath as a source for the Syrian Civil War? Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with Pavlor - somewhat reliable - I don't believe they are reliable on Saudi involved political issues, particularly including the named topic. While there may be a dearth of non-biased sources, this isn't a case of a source being just one notch above. They aren't tabloid-y, I don't think their level of bias is problematic for sports coverage etc, or even much of their world coverage Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Lacking information on when and in what context the source was cited, I don't feel comfortable saying that it wouldn't be appropriate even with inline attribution to a source whose publisher has close ties to the Saudi regime. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it may be this (and related) edit [57] (arms supply by North Korea). Pavlor (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, in that case I would say no attribution necessary, but maybe use a better source. SharabSalam reverted content attributed to multiple sources, including The Huffington Post. Whether using the HP source for the claim that NK is a "party" to the war is appropriate is an entirely separate issue from the general reliability of Arab News. Here are two non-Saudi sources that also talk about a UN report on NK selling weapons to the Houthis. Moreover, the cartoon above and the lack of context provided by the OP makes it look like this is just being used as a forum to attack Saudi Arabia and Arab News in particular -- I am not saying I disagree with that sentiment (heck, I'm not even saying that the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post got the relevant facts right in this case), but RSN definitely is not the forum for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue on that edit was fixed on later revision (such as cite generally-known RS which are CNN and Reuters, and removal claim NK as "party" to the war). But, it seems OP openly claim that sources from Saudi Arabia are inherently unreliable due to "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech." Ckfasdf (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In case of this civil war, Saudi sources (or even Saudi-owned like Arab news) aren´t really independent, so their reliability is indeed dubious. These may be perfectly reliable for many uses here on Wikipedia (eg. camel racing), but certainly not for regional conflicts (except probably as a source for statements by Saudi government). There are many much better reliable sources covering this region, I recommend using these instead. Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't disagree. I think it depends on context, though; in this case the problem with adding North Korea as a "party" to the conflict had nothing to do with the independence of the source, as even Arab News didn't directly verify that content, and most of the rest could be easily verified with better sources, so the relative citability of AN was not really relevant. And of course, for 99% of our articles that might theoretically cite AN for uncontroversial content, the lack of media independence in "Saudi Barbaria" doesn't actually affect their reliability for such content, as the Saudi government is not directly involved in 99% of our articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean ... maybe we need to be careful when citing them on issues where the Saudi government is known to be involved and/or doing some shady shit; but their lack of independence on certain topics doesn't make them "inherently unreliable" (if there is such a thing) on all topics, and even on topics where they are probably not reliable, they can still be cited with inline attribution under certain circumstances.

If the only purpose of this thread is to attack "Saudi Barbaria", with no serious questions regarding sourcing in a particular instance, can it just be closed?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The proof of reliable source is that you can find same content on multiple sources. Based on discussion above, I believe everyone is agree that Arab News IS reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. However, due to high possibility of biased information on controversial topics (such as Yemen civil war), it should be avoided to use on those topics per WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. If no further comment from OP, yea... agree to close this Rfc. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Depends: Per Pavlor, Saudi Arabia is a participant to this conflict. Using information from their media depicting the Saudi government POV is fine if attributed. For any controversial topics, this media may not be reliable.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment No source is reliable for everything. The best approach is to use the best sources, per Good research, which would not be Arab news. Generally it should be used if at all in information about topics that receive little or no coverage in major news media. For example if an article is about a new restaurant in a suburb of Riyadh or some minor prince's falcons, then it might be the source to use. TFD (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Washington Examiner on John McAfee

• John McAfee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think I'm on solid ground here in rejecting the Washington Examiner as the sole source for this section in the article on McAfee:

On January 29, 2020, McAfee filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission designating his intent to run for US president on the Libertarian Party (United States) ticket. McAfee’s presidential run is complicated as he says he is hiding from U.S. federal authorities for allegedly committing "criminal acts against the U.S. government" with cryptocurrencies.

References

This is a WP:BLP after all. Guy (help!) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Try here and here for a few non-shitty sources on the issue. There's probably more. --Jayron32 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  This is his official campaign website. Much of that would probably qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. --Jayron32 18:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  McAfee makes his living these days from self-aggrandising nonsense, often getting it run in low-quality publications - so be very careful with the self-sourcing on this article, it needs to work to tight sourcing of a solid RS per noted incident - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is self-promotional nonsense that McAfee got into the Washington Examiner, to help him with marketing cryptocurrency altcoins (a trade he's bragged about) - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• This can be safely included with Jayron32's sources. We probably should append something like "McAfee has stated that his run was mostly intended for promoting his ideas, particularly on cryptocurrency and taxation." feminist (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

South China Morning Post reliability

Again, should we check for reliability for the South China Morning Post?

Here are these sources below from these articles:

• https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3025670/hong-kong-leader-carrie-lam-set-withdraw-extradition-bill
• https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3050681/coronavirus-hong-kong-confirms-three-news-cases

Links to these articles that connected to SCMP:

• 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill
• 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

--Ni3Xposite (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know why SCMP is not RS. My rules of thumbs for reliable source is if you can find that content on multiple sources then it is RS. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that is a good rule, even Alex Jones says things that are sometimes true, that does not mean he should be an RS. But I would need to see why the South China Morning Post should not be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have always viewed SCMP as RS. Perhaps the OP could be more forthcoming as to their precise concerns? --Pete (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Same. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Like any organization that ultimately has to answer to the Chinese Government, the SCMP should not be treated as RS for anything related to politics. Wikipedia's article South China Morning Post has ample examples supporting this general rule in the case of the SCMP. But as a general matter, this should not even need to be proved case-by-case. The fact that they are ultimately under the power of the Chinese Government is enough.

All of the above said, I would accept anything published prior to the 1997 British handover as reliable. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

SCMP has been bought by Alibaba Group from China, where press freedom is lacking. It has a long history as a newspaper but the recent editions/editorials may not necessarily be free of government bias. In case of contentious content about Hong Kong, it is recommended to also use alternative sources like HKFP.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we can treat the South China Morning Post as reliable. Burrobert (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Independent Australia

Independent Australia is a left-wing political comment blog masquerading as a news outlet. Their stories are unbalanced, poorly sourced, and their best work is that lifted from other publications. They seem to exist solely to draw eyeballs to their advertising and to cater for a certain political consumer of the conspiracy-theorist bent. I have rarely found a reference to Independent Australia to be of any value, and its regular appearance as a source to support - or attack - some living politician is a constant irritant. On the rare occasions that they come up with something useful, it is always something we can find in an accepted reliable source.

I'd like them added to the list of perennial sources. --Pete (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Strongly support deprecation. I broadly agree with them politically, but the reliability and quality of their content is abysmal. They've long been something people have quietly removed as a crap source, after an incident this week where they were caught distributing objectively fake news (that a Senator with a deciding vote had committed to voting in support of a highly controversial bill when she had done no such thing, sparking widespread social media panic) I think it's time we pull the plug and ban them entirely. There's absolutely no occasion when they're a useful source that can be trusted with any certainty. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not their political slant I have a problem with so much as their lack of standards. There is certainly a place for investigative journalism regardless of political leaning, and IA explores areas out of the mainstream. It's just that we can always find a more reliable source for anything that is true and noteworthy. There are enough eyes on these guys that if they do come up with something that checks out, a RS will have a look at it. I'm far more likely to regard The Guardian with approval, and they walk down the same political path, perhaps not so much in the muddy fringes, but in that same direction. --Pete (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"They seem to exist solely to draw eyeballs to their advertising and to cater for a certain political consumer..." That's obviously true of many journals, but I agree that the quality and lack of truthfulness in this journal is unacceptable. How far are you willing to take this type of concern Pete? HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is specifically as to the reliability of this one source and hopefully having it deprecated. Given that you agree as to that issue, it'd be helpful if you'd take any broader discussion about sources/argument with Pete/whatever somewhere other than here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

HiLo, you left out my point about conspiracy theorists. IA - like many other outlets - wants to gain readership, but they make up for their lack of mainstream credibility by promoting entertaining and irresponsible stories. As we see with many fringey political sites on both sides of politics. It is a money-making enterprise aimed at an audience that is not as concerned with facts and objectivity as we who are compiling an encyclopaedia might wish. Alex Jones does the same sort of thing, aiming at an audience with a different political flavour, but just as credulous. The issue here is reliability as a source. --Pete (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with IA from their posts on Twitter. They just aren't reliable, despite apparently having Canberra press gallery membership... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have posted on the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season due to content that has been removed and re-added to the article. Bidgee (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not familiar with IA so had a look at its website. The ads are unobtrusive and it has a large editorial presence. Does anyone have any links to problematic stories? What about the episode involving the Senator and the deciding vote? Burrobert (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The "John Wren" identity on IA was actually banned from Twitter for spreading fake news. The latest story spreading it seems to have been redacted after the amount of flak they copped, but it's generally indicative of their attitude towards reliability and accuracy that an identity banned from Twitter for spreading fake news (and notorious even on their own side of politics for it) now has a regular column there. This is another current article spreading far-fetched conspiracy theories that make jumps way beyond any even vaguely reliable source. They seem to have some more normal people involved with them (Alison Broinowski has an opinion piece on the front page), but the small number of people who might plausibly get published in a more reliable source sometimes aren't saying anything we couldn't more reliably source elsewhere, and even if they were we couldn't trust it due to their nonexistent (or lax if we're being very charitable) factchecking standards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked at "John Wren" who explains on his profile why he uses the name of a "Melbourne Businessman and Labor Party Power-Broker who died in 1953". The only reference to his twitter suspension that I could find was a mention that he was suspended for "impersonation" in March 2019 [58]. I couldn't find anything related to the episode involving the Senator and the deciding vote. Do you have any links for those? Burrobert (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"JohnWren1950" tweeted images of letters, supposedly from PM&C. The actual PM&C twitter account responded, saying they were faked, and shortly thereafter the account was banned. There's some discussion here. Following the various accounts raised by the same person, it seems that Twitter serially suspends them, much like Wikipedia does to socks of banned users.[59] The "John Wren" persona itself has a fake genesis.[60]

So why the hell should Wikipedia respect a source that fakes news stories? --Pete (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The twitter suspension message gives the reason as “impersonation”, presumably because the name on the account was that of a well known identity who died in 1953. The person who claims the suspension was for posting fake documents says he is guessing about the reason based on the sequence of events. Someone else points out that “John wren” asked the twitterverse whether the documents were real when he posted them and didn’t claim they were real. The twitter account was apparently run by a number of people. “John Wren” explains that he started a second twitter account to avoid the block but twitter discovered it and the second account was blocked as well. Anyway, I can’t see that this episode says anything about the reliability of articles written by “John Wren” or anyone else at IA. Is there anything else? Burrobert (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There is conspiracy theory stuff like this (on the front page right now), which takes a couple of actual facts and sprawls into making highly defamatory and absolutely unsubstantiated claims about prominent people. The fake news story claiming that Jacqui Lambie had committed to supporting the cashless welfare card, while they've subsequently redacted the article itself after the backlash, still has the original headline posted on their Twitter. This is just the stuff they have come out with this week. There's no basis to suggest that they're a reliable source, and nothing to suggest that they add anything useful we couldn't have gotten elsewhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete - "So why the hell should Wikipedia respect a source that fakes news stories?" Are you serious? The Murdoch media does this quite frequently. So, no doubt, do other major outlets. Sadly, lying has become the norm in much of the media today. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you any input on this specific RfC, HiLo? --Pete (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• False claim made by IA - pointed out in a comment with reference to source - comment deleted and commenter vilified.[61]
• IA reports rumours as fact. Just because one later turned out to be correct doesn't make them reliable. "The blogs are filled with unsubstantiated allegations, rumours and innuendo."[62][63]
• IA lifts material from other sources. [64]
• IA publishes faked documents. "Last week, Twitter permanently suspended this account for impersonation, after John Wren posted a fake memo purportedly from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, using its letterhead."[65]

Hardly an exhaustive search. Bottom line, IA is a political opinion blog with a history of deception. --Pete (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on Murdoch recently publishing Andrew Bolt's lies about what a Yolngu elder "said" about Bruce Pascoe? Your complaint here seems more about the politics of a source you don't like than truth. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You said above "I agree that the quality and lack of truthfulness in this journal is unacceptable". These responses have nothing to do with this subject and are about the reliability of other publications, which should be the basis for having discussions about those other publications. Andrew Bolt's blogs are already not a WP:RS about anything other than what Andrew Bolt said on Wikipedia and used with caution at the best of times. I've had plenty of conflict with Skyring over sources before, but we can mutually agree that this source is an absolute dud that should be banned. "I think the Murdoch media posts fake news too" is not an argument for just throwing out all attempts to purge really unreliable sources, and Wikipedia does purge mainstream media that persistently put out bullshit too (the Daily Mail being the most famous example, but not the only one). The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

At no point have I disagreed with declaring IA an unacceptable source. I just find some of the arguments here less than convincing, and clearly politically motivated. If IA is bad for ALL the reasons Pete/Skyring claims, then so are the Herald Sun, The Australian and Sky News. And they are often annoyingly hidden behind frustrating paywalls. Perhaps if he hadn't used "left-wing" as the first part of his criticism of the journal here, his efforts may have seemed more objective. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

They're a left-wing bad source in much the same ways as many similar right-wing outfits that've been similarly banned as sources. I could've posted the same thing even though I'm politically opposite to Skyring. I just really don't think it's helpful to try to make this an argument about Murdoch - they're not bad in the same ways (although they're obviously bad), and it's that's a much bigger conversation for another day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I shall await that proposal with pleasure, and wait with fascination to see Pete/Skyring's arguments on that topic. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read anything in The Australian, Herald-Sun, or watched Sky News. Years. Apart from the Oz, when I paid some close attention to the sudoku puzzle on a recent Qantas flight. Nor do I read or watch Andrew Bolt. Again, years. I have a WaPo subscription, I'm more likely to read the Guardian online than any other paper, and I'm pretty much welded to the ABC. I'm sorry your prejudices don't match up to the reality, HiLo, but in the meantime, do you have anything to say about this RfC? My position is that biased opinion blogs are unreliable sources regardless of which side of politics they favour. For the simple reason that they are full of misrepresentation, rumours, and sensational tripe. We can do better. --Pete (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As I have said before about your pseudo-unbiased comments, I'm not biting. I have made my thoughts on this topic 100% clear. I have also, as I do quite often whenever I see it, pointed out some poor argument. We must be fully objective on matters like this. Sloppy argument never helps. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing three solid editors for adding IA to the list of perennial unreliables, one lukewarm, and one who wants to talk about other stuff. No voices in support.

Do we need a !vote? --Pete (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete, you've been here a long time. You know we don't vote here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support deprecation. Any publication that would allow that "connect the smear" conspiracy mongering rubbish pointed out by Drovers Wife ( this) under their masthead cannot be described as a reliable source. Imagine someone putting stuff like this into a BLP! Curdle (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, on the face of it, but much of the claims above of "fake news" or whatever seems to be hyperbole: while not RS level, it's hardly outrageous to suggest that, for example, George Pell might be of interest to police investigating a murder where the prime suspect is his former colleague (albeit that, unlike Pell, he does not appear to have been convicted of child abuse). Bongiorno was reportedly (from apparently credible sources) abusing the victim's daughter, and a quick Google suggests the Melbourne diocese has now admitted to covering up his abuse, and he would have come under Pell's supervision as Bishop of Melbourne at the time of his being charged and investigated. It's not "connect the smears", Pell is a convicted child abuser, Bongiorno was credibly identified as a paedophile and very possibly a murderer. And they cite a source supporting at least a valid question. Guy (help!) 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a very...charitable reading of that article. There are credible reports connecting Bongiorno as a possible suspect in the murder. All the extrapolation from that involving Pell and Kennett is, as Curdle put it, "connect the smear". And the only reason that we know that the Bongiorno stuff is not exactly the same is because they linked a reliable source - further showing that they're completely unreliable as a source for us to actually cite. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

    The Drover's Wife, that might be true if it weren't for the fact that pell is himself a convicted child abuser and complicit (as are most senior Catholic clergy) in the coverup of rape by other priests. Guy (help!) 19:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

    • I loathe Pell as much as the next person, but it's still a pretty considerable leap from there to murder without any evidence whatsoever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Psychology Today

Is this Psychology Today article reliable as a source on the Internalized sexism article? My view is that it is reliable in this context, as a piece written by a subject-matter expert, thus comparable in reliability to The Conversation (RSP entry). The piece was written by a retired professor of psychology at Cornell, who has written multiple books on the subject of sexuality. The source was removed in Special:Diff/940950768 by Sangdeboeuf, who stated that "Psychology Today blogs are WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources – not generally reliable for factual claims". A previous RSN discussion received varying responses, with some stating that it can be used for facts, and some saying that it should be avoided for scientific claims. The article involved is more of a sociological subject than scientific, and the claim I inserted into the article is unlikely to be controversial, as it merely documents usage of a term. feminist (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't an "article", but a blog posting. I'm not sure about Ritch Savin-Williams's subject-matter expertise here; sexuality and sexual identity are not the same as sexism and gender roles. And sociology is a scientific discipline, separate from psychology. Anyway, there are better sources in the article for the use of the term in question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If the Psychology Today source is to be re-added to the article, it will be in addition to the current sources, and I don't see how additional coverage would hurt. feminist (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As I stated, I question the reliability of the source. "Additional coverage" still has to meet the usual standards for RSes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

About the Author sections in non-fiction books published by reputable academic publishers

Hello, my question is specifically regarding books published by reputable academic publishers of non-fiction works, such as Harvard University Press, University of Texas Press, Cambridge University Press, etc.

It is specifically about facts about an author such as their life circumstances and academic background. (such as where they were born and lived, where they went to school, where/what they have taught, grants and awards received, etc. I'm not talking about opinions regarding reputation or quality of work.)

1. Would the information in the "About the Author" section of a book generally be considered a reliable source for facts about the author of the book?
2. Would the information about authors of different chapters contained in a book that is edited by another person(s) generally be considered a reliable source about an individual author?
3. When another person writes the Forward or Preface section of a book, would information contained in that section generally be considered a reliable source for information about the main author.

I am also assuming all mentioned would be considered reliable sources within the field they are writing about.

I understand every instance is different but was hoping for a "generally" answer. Sorry if this question as been asked and answered before.   // Timothy :: talk  01:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, good question. I would think #1 is analogous to a self-published source, and okay for basic biographic facts about themselves, but I would want an independent source for awards and such. I'm curious to hear what others' opinions on it are. Schazjmd (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Also if it helps, examples of the authors I am thinking about are historians (mostly alive), such as Robert C. Tucker, Joshua Rubenstein, Jonathan D. Smele, Christopher Read, Lars T. Lih, Vladimir N. Brovkin, Adeeb Khalid.  // Timothy :: talk  01:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• If it's from a respected publisher it's reliable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, it's usually reliable but not independent. Any exceptional or promotional claim needs another source. Guy (help!) 00:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, biographies of academics often draw on their own claims (see WP:NPROF: "non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details"). This would actually be better than using their university website in my opinion. Indeed non-independent sources present much less of a problem for academics as lying has consequences in terms of academic integrity that don't exist in other fields. buidhe 03:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking the time to answer. This was helpful.
Hope all is well with you.   // Timothy :: talk  00:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Rocket Robin Soccer in Toronto rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com

• rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com  

I have seen rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com used to source articles on association football (soccer) in Canada, primarily in the Toronto area. Some articles, such as Toronto Croatia and Serbian White Eagles FC, rely heavily on this site and would like to know whether it can be used as a RS as there is no oversight, editorial policy, or anything one would expect from a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's definitely not a reliable source in any sense whatsoever. It's one man's personal website compiling primary source soccer schedules, not a media outlet — we should probably (a) blacklist it, and (b) get it removed from any articles that are using it — but the latter would be a big job, because there seem to be a few hundred of them and even the one article I did start to try to strip it from myself, Canadian Soccer League, seems to cite it around 50 separate times. And when I tried to tag that article for {{Unreliable sources}}, further, the guy who's been adding that source started revert-warring me over it on the grounds that "Rocket Robin" has been "recognized by the league for his contributions and works" — but that's not the definition of a reliable source either. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be blacklisted. That way 1) if an article with the ref is modified, the references would have to be removed and before it could be saved, and 2) anyone wanting to edit war to restore it would be unable to. After a few months in this state, we could then remove the remainder of the entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Film review on maketheswitch.com.au

• https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-australian-dream-the-conversation-australia-needs-to-have  

I tried using this film review at (host name) /article/review-the-australian-dream-the-conversation-australia-needs-to-have as a source for the relevant film, but I got the blacklist message. I looked on the local and global pages and searched for "switch" but found nothing. Can someone please advise why this site is blacklisted, and/or whether I can use this film review as a source? (All film reviews, after all, are just someone's opinion!) I'm editing The Australian Dream (2019 film), and was trying to save this text: "with the latter, like several other reviewers, considering its place next to The Final Quarter, another documentary on the same topic."Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

maketheswitch.com.au was blacklisted in January 2019 after being added as spam links to mulitple article leads [66]. You would need to request the link to be whitelisted at [MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]. - Bilby (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, is there really no other source for this link? Guy (help!) 09:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilby and Guy. Actually, it's nothing that the article cannot do without – I just wondered why it would have been blacklisted, and why I couldn't find it on what I thought was a list of blacklisted sites, but perhaps I was in the wrong place. Thanks for the update - fair enough to block them if it was them spamming articles before. It's a shame to lose a whole site of film reviews, but c'est la vie. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

lostarmour.info

• lostarmour.info  

I don't read Russian so can't absolutely confirm it but this looks like basically a blog or forum. The About page is not helpful. Guy (help!) 12:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

May be this will help: "Relying upon volunteers and crowdsourced comments, Lostarmour meticulously records the specific military equipment units and weapons that have been destroyed or captured from both the Ukrainian and separatist sides. The team that works on the photo and video database currently includes 10 people, and a few dozen other volunteers contribute edits in the comments under relevant sections. Every single entry is backed up with photos or videos, but there are no Russian flags to be found in the lists, though there are plenty from the DNR and LNR." an so on: [67]. I would say they are pro-Russians, but they have some reputation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, that sounds very much like a non-RS to me. And the use of DNR and LNR rather underscores it. Guy (help!) 18:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is just a quote from the Global Voices site. It is sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, as I see.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Books from Cambridge University Press

There is a disagreement at talk:Race and intelligence about whether the following two books satisfy the requirements of WP:RS:

• Hunt, Earl. Human Intelligence Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• Rindermann, Heiner. Cognitive Capitalism: Human Capital and the Wellbeing of Nations Cambridge University Press, 2018.

The argument being made (for example here and here) is that all publications by Earl B. Hunt and Heiner Rindermann are inherently unreliable, and that the reputation of the publisher - Cambridge University Press in this case - is unimportant.

This question was previously discussed at RSN in December, and I think the consensus in that earlier discussion was that if a book is published by Cambridge University Press, then it satisfies WP:RS regardless of who the author is. However, relatively few people participated in the earlier discussion, so I'm hoping that in this discussion a clearer consensus can be reached. If possible, I'd like this noticeboard to also address the broader question of whether sources from mainstream academic publishers, such as books from Cambridge University Press or papers in journals published by the American Psychological Association, are sometimes unreliable sources depending on who the authors are. 2600:1004:B124:4D7F:DDD8:5D1F:92A8:84DF (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I broadly agree that books published by peer reviewed academic publishing houses are generally RS. I also agree that that seemed to be the majority opinion in the previous discussion, with the important caveat pointed out by Aquillion that just because something is peer reviewed and RS does not mean it represents broader scientific or academic consensus. If the views do not represent scientific or academic consensus, and other RS support that, than policy would be to present it that way per WP:FRINGELEVEL: "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources". As per the specific argument made in one of the diffs you posted ("It is not the publisher in this case that is unreliable, it is the authors themselves. Wikipedia policy excludes using unreliable authors as sources for content.") I don't think that is a valid argument for excluding attributed views published in RS, as FRINGELEVEL also states "However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong". AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Can anyone else confirm that these sources are not unreliable? I'd like the consensus in this discussion to be as clear as possible. 2600:1004:B147:29D4:9D2C:FC45:E2EF:38E9 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As I am not familiar with the previous discussions, were any RS presented that explicitly cast doubts on either source's validity? Or was the only argument a vague "these authors are not reliable no matter where they are published"? I also see no previous RSN discussions regarding either author, so I'm not sure where the idea that these authors have been deemed by the community (either the Wikipedia community or the scientific community) to be unreliable has arisen, especially so intrinsically unreliable as to exclude their works no matter where they are published. A quick glance at the referenced talk page only shows an editor insisting that they are unreliable and discredited without reference to actual RS stating thus. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No, nobody has presented sources that describe either of the books are unreliable. However, the argument that these sources fail WP:RS has been made repeatedly over the past two months, so it's important for the question of whether or not that's the case to receive a clear answer here. 2600:1004:B142:FEDF:8416:31AA:B04D:FB55 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• This comes down to two examples of User:Onetwothreeip's OR & WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Being RS doesn't mean being right, but Wikipedia is not censored. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think this is more a question of due weight than reliability. If the authors' views are a minority in the field than they shouldn't be given undue prominence. One thing to look at would be reviews: if there are multiple reviews which complain about the accuracy of the book, it should not be used regardless of publisher. Reviews would also give an idea how accepted the ideas are. buidhe 02:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: As far as I'm aware, there aren't any negative reviews of either book. Rindermann's book was positively reviewed in this paper, and Hunt's book is described by this paper as the best book about human intelligence to be published in the past several years. 2600:1004:B142:FEDF:8416:31AA:B04D:FB55 (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I see very few academic reviews of these specific books positive or negative, but I do see Earl Hunt in particular to be widely cited in various publications dealing with human intelligence. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Heiner Rindermann writes for the notorious Mankind Quarterly and Earl Hunt was from the International Society for Intelligence Research, also a fringe source. Reviews from others who are sympathetic to their fringe views on race and intelligence should not determine their weight or reliability. We should instead be considering the totality of reliable sources which have assessed these subjects, which come to the conclusion that these views and their proponents are fringe in whichever field of study they purport to engage in. It is true that they commissioned Cambridge University Press to publish some of their works, but this does not imply that the scientific community of any description supports their views. They are inherently fringe, and should generally only be used as reliable to the extent that they describe their own views, not as a reliable source of scientific fact. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, User:AmbivalentUnequivocality asked above if you had presented any reliable sources explicitly saying these books are unreliable. As far as I'm aware, you haven't. Can you provide any sources saying that? 2600:1004:B11D:2D9A:9D05:6E72:1E1E:B283 (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Onetwothreeip While that may be true, no one is trying to cite anything published by Mankind Quarterly so that isn't really germane to this issue. The Daily Mail is a terrible, unreliable source, but just because someone once wrote for the Daily Mail would not mean that an article they later published in the New York Times would then be considered inherently unreliable, because the NYT has their own editorial oversight and fact checking. Similarly the editorial and peer review standards are different for Mankind Quarterly and Cambridge University Press, so publishing in the former does not make their publications in the latter inherently fringe or unreliable. You actually need RS that say they are fringe or unreliable. As I asked before, do you have any RS that directly back up your assertions? Policy requires that "Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing", and to do that we need actual reliable sources that criticize them and label them as fringe. If they are as widely reviled by the scientific community as you say, that should be easy to produce. But the number of citations to Hunt that I have seen in mainstream sources would indicate to me that he is, perhaps, not as fringe as you have presented him. I am open to the possibility that you are correct, but I need to see reliable sources that back up your assertions, just repeatedly saying something does not make it true. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• These books are RS for what those two gentlemen think, but are WP:PROFRINGE and thus almost certainly undue in any article as sources (though they may be suitable subjects for discussion based on sources that analyse them). Guy (help!) 21:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:JzG I believe you are probably correct (at least regarding Rindermann) but can you point me to some RS that say this? Because Hunt seems to be widely cited in mainstream publications, and rather well respected, and I can't find any academic/scientific reviews or publications that are negative about his work. Rindermann has more problematic associations, and Rationalwiki has a real axe to grind with him, but again I don't see a much in the way of actual academics saying his work is bunk. It would be nice to see some actual RS saying this than just editors' assertions that they are fringe. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that several people are applying a different standard from what's normally applied to sources. Your analogy of someone who has written articles for both the Daily Mail and the New York Times is a good one. Is it consistent with RS policy to say that because someone has written articles for an unreliable publication (Mankind Quarterly), that disqualifies all of their writings published by mainstream publishers (such as Cambridge University Press), especially in the absence of any reliable sources making that argument? 2600:1004:B149:2438:DCE4:5C33:179D:492F (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Determining the reliability of a source is not as simple as, It's published by the Cambridge University Press, therefore it is a reliable source. The quality of the publisher is only one part of the puzzle. Context and weight, among others, must also be considered: "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."

Take, for example, the two links provided above in support of the reliability of the sources is question,

• A book review by Russell T.Warne published in the journal Intelligence.
• Five sentences in a thirty-three page paper by Ian J. Deary published in the Annual Review of Psychology.

The following points are germane to any discussion of reliability in the context of the Race and Intelligence topic space,

1. Rindermann, Deary, Warne, and Hunt are psychologists. I.e., Genetics, the existence/non-existence of biological "races" among humans, aerospace engineering, etc., are outside their area of expertise.
2. Rindermann, Deary, and Warne are currently, and formally, if memory serves, the late Dr. Hunt, all sit on the editorial board of Intelligence, the "official" journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR).
3. Rindermann, Deary, Warne, and Hunt (along with likes of Rushton and Jensen) are members of a small group of "intelligence researchers" associated with the ISIR, Mankind Quarterly, and/or the Pioneer Fund.
4. Members of said group are often the reviewers of submitted papers, and tend cite each others work in a circular fashion.
5. Hunt was arguably one of the more mainstream members of this group, and, as such, his works are typically used as cover for the many fringe authors cited in the topic area (e.g., Rindermann, Rushton, Jensen, etc.).

These items raise questions concerning our guidelines on the reliability of journals and scholarship: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."

Regardless of any purported consensus, the claim that "...if a book is published by Cambridge University Press, then it satisfies WP:RS regardless of who the author is. is manifestly false. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The two "reviews" that the IP editor uses to support the reliability of Heiner Rindermann and Earl Hunt are clearly part of the same collection of people from ISIR and Pioneer Fund. We plainly do not have an example of someone who used to write for an unreliable source such as Mankind Quarterly but now writes for a reliable source like Cambridge University Press. The latter is not involved in researching and writing the content of what they publish like The New York Times does, they largely take what these authors write and then publish and distribute them, with minimal editorial oversight if any.

Since it can be hard to follow this sphere of views on race and intelligence, I will summarise as best I can the main threads.

• Pioneer Fund, founded in 1937 to fund research supporting theories of racial superiority. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn were major figures in the organisation. Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck received significant grants from the organisation.

• Mankind Quarterly is the most known journal to be sustained by Pioneer Fund, in particular by Lynn and the Ulster Institute of Social Research which has also published work by Tatu Vanhanen and Heiner Rindermann. Gerhard Meisenberg was until recently the editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly and was published extensively there.
• IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Lynn and Vanhanen, and The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Gap Still Remains (better known as Rushton and Jensen 2006), are most often used as sources by proponents of scientific racialism to support various claims.

• International Society for Intelligence Research, founded in 2000, purports to be a more mainstream source, but contains significant overlap with Pioneer Fund individuals, such as Gottfredson. Earl Hunt was perhaps the most known of this group, making similar claims and positively reviewed by the same collection of individuals. ISIR has been criticised in its own right for the London Conference on Intelligence, a series of conferences attended by numerous proponents of eugenics and the same racial theories.

• Intelligence (journal), is a journal published by ISIR and reviewed largely by the same group of individuals, with Richard Haier as its editor-in-chief. It has published work by Rindermann, Meisenberg and Lynn, who have also been on its editorial board.

• Mainstream Science on Intelligence was an article published in 1994 purporting to comprise mainstream research on intelligence, but in reality was created by Gottfredson and signed mostly by Pioneer Fund-aligned researchers and sympathisers, individuals who would become associated with ISIR and its journal, and others without any significant relation to relevant fields of research. This was published as a defence of The Bell Curve, a controversial book which gained widespread media attention, which was in turn using arguments from Pioneer Fund publication sources.

There are several other significant sources of these views which continue to overlap, but these are the main threads that collectively aim to support the theories of inherent racial superiority through an academic lens. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

All I see is a wall of text that appears to be entirely original research, and still no RS backing it up. I'm not arguing against you, I have no dog in this fight, but I find it odd that you will not, or cannot, provide even a single reliable source to back up your assertions. It's pretty simple, if the scientific community is unanimous in rejecting their ideas, sources that back that up should be incredibly easy to find. But so far the only sources you have presented are yourselves. Your original research is not enough. If there are no reliable sources backing up what you say, your arguments hold very little weight and are not a valid reason to exclude sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What you are likely seeing is my summary of the scientific racialist universe, to provide context to discussion participants. I thought it was necessary to provide an overview. Which assertion of mine would you like me to provide a source for? There are certainly mainstream criticisms for the more prolific scientific racialist claims, but most researchers simply don't give much attention to this area. If it is simply that certain researchers are fringe, this is especially because they are not taken seriously by the scientific community, so the burden to prove they are reliable sources falls on those who are claiming that. So far the only appraisals that have been provided for these figures have been from others that belong to the same organisations. Likewise, can you provide sources to support your assertions that Earl Hunt was "well respected"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I would consider being awarded the Association for Psychological Science’s James McKean Cattell award for lifetime contributions to scientific psychology to be sufficient evidence that he is well respected. The APS page about him says "As Hunt’s papers and books have had a significant impact on the academic study of individual differences in cognitive functioning, so too has his work had significant impact in applied areas: specifically, education and issues related to economics, i.e., the American workforce as well as workforces across nations. An example of the former is the application of his research to students’ learning in high school physics; an example of the latter is his book Will We Be Smart Enough? A Cognitive Analysis of the Coming Workforce." APS Cattell Award profile on hunt AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

To answer your other question, User:Onetwothreeip, I would like to see the sources for the statement "We should instead be considering the totality of reliable sources which have assessed these subjects, which come to the conclusion that these views and their proponents are fringe in whichever field of study they purport to engage in." What specific sources have assessed Hunt and Rindermann and determined that they are "fringe in whichever field of study they purport to engage in"? Because so far I have seen you present zero sources for us to consider. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would you consider that award to be sufficient evidence? The Association for Psychological Science, founded in 1988, should not be confused with the American Psychological Association which it split from.

I clearly said in that sentence that the views and their proponents are fringe. There are many sources which support this. Hunt and Rindermann were/are effectively small individual parts of these organisations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No confusion here, the APS and the APA are different organizations. But the APS is still widely respected, I haven't seen anything that says that the APS is in any way bad or fringe. Do you have any sources that say this? Why would you consider a prestigious award by a respected organization with over 33,000 members NOT sufficient evidence that someone is respected in their field? Secondly none of the three sources you posted even mention Hunt, and only one of them mentions Rindermann, and it is a passing reference. Also, one of those sources (Nature) is a book review, one (Vox) is an opinion piece, and the other (New Statesman) which also may be an opinion piece (they do not seem to label which of their articles is opinion and which are not, but the first person writing style indicates that it probably is, and I don't see any firm agreement on whether or not the New Statesman is even RS, it is certainly biased enough to require attribution regardless) only mentions Rindermann in passing, and, while making a similar argument to yours that participating in ISIR could taint someone's reputation, they do not state that doing so disqualifies anyone's research elsewhere: "Stephen Pinker, the world-renowned cognitive psychologist, spoke at last year’s ISIR conference." and "Publishing well-researched papers that happen to be written by eugenicists is one thing...", so guilt by association is not enough to justify exclusion of articles published elsewhere in more respectable publications. You are going to need sources that actually mention Hunt if you want to exclude his work (and better sources than opinion pieces, stuff written by actual scientists that can represent mainstream academia). Otherwise all we have is your original research. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would you consider that award to be prestigious? The Association for Psychological Science has several awards which are individually awarded to multiple individuals, and there are few awardees that would be considered prestigious in their own right. Using this particular award would not be enough to suggest that anybody was particularly respected, let alone someone with such links to ISIR.

The piece in Vox is written by mainstream academics, not that it is necessary for sources to be directly written by academics in order to assess mainstream opinion. If individuals like Earl Hunt or Heiner Rindermann created work outside of the ISIR or Pioneer Fund sphere, that would be another matter. Their publications regarding race and intelligence are very much within those spheres. I'm not sure why you're acting like it's Earl Hunt in particular that I want to exclude, it's more that there is no reason to include work by him. His work on race and intelligence was only regarded highly by those who are also in the sphere of Pioneer Fund and ISIR. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Earl Hunt isn't mentioned in any of those sources. One of the three sources (The New Statesman article) mentions Rindermann in two sentences, but only to say that he's a member of ISIR and writes for these various publications; it makes no comment either way about his reliability. Is that the best support you're able to provide for your argument that all publications by these authors are unreliable? 2600:1004:B114:DD4F:60F6:1BC1:82F5:E551 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I was asked to provide sources on this: We should instead be considering the totality of reliable sources which have assessed these subjects, which come to the conclusion that these views and their proponents are fringe in whichever field of study they purport to engage in. which does not mention either Earl Hunt or Heiner Rindermann. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

When I asked for that I was under the impression that "these subjects" referred to Hunt and Rindermann. I was not asking for a rebuttal of the concepts you believe they are espousing, as that would involve your original research about what that is. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"These subjects" referred to the race and intelligence controversy broadly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There are reliable sources for some parts of it. It isn't difficult to find sources that criticize the Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer Fund has helped to fund some respectable scientific research, such as Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.'s study of identical twins reared apart, but it also has funded some very unsavory political causes, such as racial segregation back when that was a socially acceptable thing to advocate. (This paper gives a good overview of these two sides of the Pioneer Fund.)

The argument being made here is basically that several academics whose research the Pioneer Fund helped to pay for are members of the International Society for Intelligence Research, and Hunt and Rindermann are also members of the International Society for Intelligence Research, although Hunt and Rindermann have no direct relation to the Pioneer Fund. And therefore, the argument goes, any publications by Hunt or Rindermann are unreliable regardless of who the publisher is. This argument about Hunt and Rindermann is not supported by any reliable source as far as I know. It seems to have originated at RationalWiki, and more recently it has become popular among some members of Wikipedia. 2600:1004:B114:DD4F:60F6:1BC1:82F5:E551 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The research by Bouchard was not particularly significant and should not be confused with the broader Minnesota Twin Family Study. Bouchard was also a signatory to the so-called Mainstream Science on Intelligence, which as I have explained above was another Pioneer Fund-aligned publication. The infamy of Pioneer Fund is obviously much greater and more recent than supporting racial segregation. Its primary role in recent times has been to financially support theories of white supremacy, and its connections to fringe politics.

Heiner Rindermann has not only been a member of ISIR and on the editorial board of its journal, but also a recurring contributor of Pioneer Fund's journal Mankind Quarterly. I have already outlined briefly the connections between Pioneer Fund/Mankind Quarterly and ISIR/Intelligence, of which Hunt was integral to the latter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

So is your position, without any sources to support it, that anyone who was ever in any way linked to any of these various publications is simply to have all subsequent publications and work be considered verboten ad infinitum? Because that doesn't sound like a valid, policy based argument to me. I have now presented you with exactly what you asked for, support via actual sources for the statement I made, and you still have not provided me with any answers or sources, but just restated your original points again. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is not as if they used to write for Bad Publication, but now write for Good Publication. I have provided three reliable sources, and I will be more than happy to provide more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You were asked to provide sources for your claims concerning two works by Rindermann and Hunt. Instead you link an article by a student journalist, a review of a book by Angela Saini, and the Sam Harris vs. Ezra Klein proxy fight. None of these support your specific or general argument. Saini would make a good reference for the pitifully small and buried Ethics section of your article, possibly turning some of what is OR above into article text. Why not work on that?—eric 03:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"The Vlach law and its comparison to the privileges of Hungarian brigands"

The author of the article "The Vlach law and its comparison to the privileges of Hungarian brigands" [68] (in Croatian) is hr:Ladislav Heka. He is not a historian (he is a lawyer), but, instead, he "is an active member of the Croatian community". User Mikola22 widely uses this article to prove, for example, that "In the 15th century after the fall of the Bulgarian Empire under the Sultan's rule a large part of the Vlachs from that area arrived to area between Drava and Sava (Slavonia of that time)." I believe that this article can only be used to clarify the legal details, and not for links to the history of the region.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Cherry-picking in the Balkan history area is not surprising... However, you should provide higher quality source disputing such claim, only then limited use of the above source may be warranted (in theory, such serious errors may render the entire source/author unreliable). Pavlor (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

About this source we already discussed and there was no complaints or claims that it is not RS. Heka writes scientific work from the Hungarian point of view because he cites a lot of Hungarian authors, which is logical because he lives in Hungary. Regarding this quote "In the 15th century after the fall of the Bulgarian Empire under the Sultan's rule a large part of the Vlachs from that area arrived to area between Drava and Sava (Slavonia of that time)" I don't know what should be problem here? PhD Ladislav Heka, "Croatian-Hungarian settlement in the light of historical figures" book from 2019. This is his work to year 2010. since then 10 years have passed, so data about his work in 2020 would probably be much longer. Otherwise he is specializes in the history of Bunjevci (Croats) and he wrote a book about them "on the history of Szeged and Subotica Dalmatians-Bunjevci" Review of this book: PhD Robert Skenderovic from the Croatian Institute of History: ""In the introductory chapter, the author explains the appearance of Dalmatians in the Danube region and refers to their importance for the histories of the cities of Szeged and Subotica, which he elaborates on later in the main chapters.., The author also seeks to determine the directions and time of migration from Dalmatia. He pays special attention to the relations of Dalmatian and Bunjevci identity" Prof. Vrbosić assessed "that the latest book by Dr. Sc. Ladislava Heke represents a significant contribution to the study of the history of Croatian migration flows. Namely, before the Ottoman conquest of the Ottomans, the Croatian population settled in the territory of present-day Romania, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia and Italy, but Subotica and its surroundings (Backa) managed to preserve in their mosaic also their Croatian national identity". Final part of the book review and presentation "based on the above, it is clear that the publication of this work by Dr. Sc. Ladislave Heke reliably presents the comparative history of the local Croatian population in Szeged and Subotica"Mikola22 (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor Which Cherry-picking? Is there any Bulgaria in the Balkans? Whether and Albanians, Vlachs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Greeks etc also flee from the Turks or they not flee? Where they disappeared? Mikola22 (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote above, source you provided can be disputed only with the help of higher quality source. Until then, this information is reliably sourced. Pavlor (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pavlor: Not sure I can agree with you. Perhaps this opinion is so marginal that no one disputes it? On the other hand, if this source is reliable and the author is respected, then his opinion should be given, even if it contradicts another respected source. So my question is the same: is this article really a reliable source? So far it seems to me that it is written by an amateur Croatian activist.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There are several layers of reliability: 1) What is the journal in question (publisher, reviews?); 2) Is the work of this author accepted outside of the Croatia or considered fringe? (again reviews in mainstream scholarly journals would help) 3) What mainstream historians outside of Croatia think about the topic in question (again, if this POV is mainstream, or fringe). Renowned expert in historic law writing in local high quality history journal would be good enough for Wikipedia, no-name lawyer publishing in no-name "journal" of his friends certainly not. Pavlor (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

1. The journal is an open-access journal "Podravina". As I see, it has a SJR=0.112; it takes 126th place from 172 Croatian magazines [69]. Doesn't seem very authoritative.
2. As I see in Google Scholar, there is no much citation on his works: author:ladislav heka
3. That is the problem. This is the first time I hear that people from Bulgaria settled in large numbers in Slavonia. It is generally believed that after the devastation there were German colonists and "Serb migrants from the Military Border or the Ottoman lands." [70].--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• PODRAVINA in secondary journals1. SCOPUS, Bibliographic databases 2. ABSTRACTS JOURNAL, All-russian institute of scientific and tehnical information, Moscow 3. HISTORICAL ABSTRACTS AND AMERICA, History & Life, EBSCO, Santa Barbara, California, USA 4. THE HISTORY JOURNALES GUIDE, Deutschland 5. List of Scientific Journals of the Ministry of Science and Education, "Podravina" is classified with mark A-1.
• More important citation of his work in other books etc to the year 2010
• This is the first time I hear that people from Bulgaria settled in large numbers in Slavonia. In the 15th century after the fall of the Bulgarian Empire under the Sultan's rule a large part of the Vlachs from that area arrived to area between Drava and Sava (Slavonia of that time), Bulgarian Empire at that time has a wider meaning in area. "Serb migrants from the Military Border or the Ottoman lands." Croatian academician Mirko Marković, in a 600-page book about Slavonia "Eastern Slavonia, Vlach population(16th and 17th century) needs well distinguished from ethnic Serbs who come here in the late 17th and early 18th century as fugitives from southern Serbia(from the Turks) Serbian academician Sima Ćirković in the book "Serbs", " On the basis of documents from 13th to the 15th century it is evident that Vlachs (descendants of indigenous peoples) Serbs considered as "others" i.e. different from themselves".Mikola22 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, don´t post walls of references, three best citations suffice, nobody will check and verify 40+ sources (such posts are usually ignored). Pavlor (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pavlor: I wanted to make it easier for editor Nicoljaus because now he has a more options to find some irregularities in the citation of Heka works. It was in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• As I see it, Podravina looks like a regional journal focused on local topics. Although some articles/papers are published in other languages, most of this journal is in Croatian language (it is obvious it is mainly for Croatian readers). There is an editorial board with participation of foreign scholars. In my point of view, this journal looks like a reliable source. However, exceptional statements need exceptional sourcing and local journal is not such kind of source. Nicoljaus, could you please provide high quality source(s) showing mainsteam view on the topic in dispute? Pavlor (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Pavlor: could you please provide high quality source(s) showing mainsteam view on the topic in dispute? -- Well, for example: "Ottoman conquest of Serbia, completed in 1459, prompted great migra­tions, but the decisive Serbian migratory current to the north of the Danube came after the Habsburg reconquest of Hungary at the turn of the seventeenth century. Habsburg generals penetrated deep into the Ottoman Balkans, rous­ing the Christian subject peoples to uprising. But with the prospect of libera­tion deferred, the insurgents and their families drew back before Ottoman reprisals. Serbian homesteads in the Sandzak of Novi Pazar, Metohia, and Kosovo, which the subsequent generations of Serbs named Old Serbia, as well as in northern Macedonia and Serbia proper, were literally uprooted, as the Serbs (along with some Christian Macedonians and Albanians) rushed to Hungary, establishing their oases as far north as Szentendre, on the upstream side of the Danube from Buda. The greatest Serb concentrations were in southern Hungary, in the districts of Baranja, Васка, and the Banat of Temesvar, and in eastern Slavonia. Srijemski Karlovci in the Slavonian Military Frontier became the see of Serbian Orthodox metropolitans." The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics by Ivo Banac. But the assumption that it was not the Serbs who moved to Slavonia, but some “Vlachs” from Bulgaria I met for the first time. I looked now for the pair "Bulgaria-Slavonia" and did not find anything.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. I think there is general question of identification of Vlachs mentioned in primary sources (this topic seems to be nearly as popular as Fox news here on RSN...), which can´t be resolved by a mere local journal. So, better source needed for such a contentious claim about history of the Balkans. Pavlor (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thus, from the second half of the fifteenth century (i.e. upon the Ottoman conquest of the western Balkans) the Ottoman state treated the Vlachs in Serbia,Bosnia and Hercegovina and parts of northwestern Bulgaria as a special social group that performed specific military duties and enjoyed a number of fiscal privileges as compared to the regular agricultural subject population H. Gandev, who produced an influential study of the demographic situation of the Bulgarian people in the fifteenth century. Gandev estimates that 2608 Bulgarian villages disappeared in the course of the century. the Bulgarian rural population decreased by a total of 112,144 households (or approximately 560,000 people) as a result of the Ottoman conquest. An additional 24,000 urban households (or 120,000 people) are estimated by him as having been killed, enslaved, deported, forced to migrate or given no choice but to convert to Islam, so that the total population decline of the Bulgarian people in the fifteenth century amounts to the figure 680,000. Although the second Bulgarian Empire,like other medieval states, was not a nation-state, there are indications that some Bulgarian tsars led the Slavisation actions among the Vlachs on purpose. It seems that the Bulgarian state gave the Vlachs good conditions for the development not only within their traditional structures. Most likely the Wallachian Plain was also a part of Bulgaria for some period of time However, it is important to mention that military border created in the 15th–19th century by Hungarians, Habsburgs, Venetians and Turks contributed greatly to the strengthening of the Vlach-Slavic ethnic relations. “Vlachs” of military borderlands were of various ethnic backgrounds, many of them were one hundred percent Slavs, but on the other hand, Vlach highlanders were settled there next to the Serbian, Croatian and Bulgarian peasants. Slavisation of a considerable part of the Vlachs and their evolution towards Bulgarian, Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, Bosnian and Ruthenian nationality. Mikola22 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Ilona Czamańska is much better author for our purposes, but that is not topic of this thread (reliability of Ladislav Heka). It is clear this discussion has single outcome: ff there is a better source, use it instead of Ladislav Heka. Pavlor (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

First, we need to see high quality source(s) showing mainsteam view. It means concrete historians, books, years, and claims for the migration of someone to Slavonia during the 14th, 15th century. When the editor Nicoljaus collect all that informations and presents them here then we can go further into discussion. Otherwise the journal Podravina is A1 journal meaning it can be used by state institutions. Each article in journal Podravina must have at least two positive review. This means that paper of Heka has a minimum of two positive reviews. We are waiting for editor Nicoljaus.Mikola22 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, you will not get carte-blanche for use of low-profile regional journal in in an article concerning ethno-nationalistic minefield like the history of the Balkans. Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans, this applies to both of you (Mikola22 and Nicoljaus). Pavlor (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans As far as migration is concerned I don't know which sources are showing mainsteam view. As for Croatia area we have very little data about Vlach migration. There are various assumptions. As for Slavonia for now, there would be migration of Vlachs from Bosnia, later towards eastern Slavonia, Vojvodina etc (17-18th century) Rascians (Serbs) are coming(larger groups). This is one mainsteam view: "Orthodox Slavs and Vlachs fled from the Ottomans into Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, or farther northward across the Danube. They were strategically resettled in the area of the military frontier. Many people retreated to the mountains of Albania, Greece, and Montenegro, where, as migratory shepherds, they remained largely untouched by Ottoman rule. Greeks from the Peloponnese, Cyprus, and Crete moved to new homes in Venetian territory, southern Italy, central Europe, southern Russia, and Ukraine. Venice, Vienna, and Odessa became new hubs in the network of the Greek diaspora that spread across Europe in this era " For Slavonia and the 15th century I don't know much mainsteam views, I have to wait Nicoljaus to see what it's all about.Mikola22 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ilona Czamańska said: Starting from the 14th century the term “Vlach” began to lose its ethnical meaning in favour of a societal meaning in the areas of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In these areas the Vlachs were strongly mixed with the Slavic population and the name “Vlach” was frequently used interchangeably with the term “Slav” [...] Thus, Vlachs were integrated with Serbs very quickly, especially that the religious affiliation was the main identifier. The persons who belonged to the Serbian Orthodox Church were called by the name of Serbs, not only in the lands which were traditionally Serbian, also in Bosnia. - Here is what they explained to Mikola dozens of times, but he does not see this even in those sources that he himself cites.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

And all the sources cited say nothing about the relocation of the Bulgarian "Vlachs" to Slavonia. Usual pointless spam in order to mask the lack of arguments and make the discussion unreadable.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thus, Vlachs were integrated with Serbs very quickly, especially that the religious affiliation was the main identifier. The persons who belonged to the Serbian Orthodox Church were called by the name of Serbs, not only in the lands which were traditionally Serbian, also in Bosnia...The majority of Serbs from the Republika Srpska of modern Bosnia is of Vlach origin, as well as the majority of the population from Bosnia and Herzegovina in general. Yes, it is (Serbisation) but i dont know what it has to do with Vlachs and with a claim of Heka? We need information about migration of someone to Slavonia ie quality source(s) showing mainsteam view.Mikola22 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's not RS. He is neither a historian or respectable scholar on Vlach issues. A ton of alleged references (adding a lot of text as if it would improve the viewpoint) is bordering with spam. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• My opinion, after looking at this description is that this probablys meets the definition of a reliable source. However, while this is a scholarly publication, it is a local regional publication with a possible point of view. I don't think the question in this thread is so much reliability, but rather the amount of weight to assign to claims and intrepertations in this source which in my opinion would be low in relation to a publication in an international journal.--Eostrix (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Therefore we do not know Hungarian historiography and we do not have their books, historical sources and informations. This article is RS and there is nothing to talk about that. As for his claim, we must first see a concrete high quality source(s) showing mainsteam view for migration to Hungary and Slavonia in 14 and 15th century, from where and who's coming. This means concrete data from concrete reliable sources. When we have this in front of us then we can make a comparison and then we can draw a conclusion.Mikola22 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Inside the Criminal Mind References

Inside the Criminal Mind

The article basically contains 3 sentences and lists 3 sources all of which are TV Recap/Review sites. From the way the article is written it is hard to determine which site is the source for the info provided but I am mainly questioning whether these articles can be determined to be "reliable sources"

References listed:

"Stream It Or Skip It: 'Inside the Criminal Mind', Netflix's Docuseries About Dark Psychology". Decider. Retrieved August 1, 2019.
"'Inside the Criminal Mind' - Netflix Original Series Review". Ready Steady Cut. Retrieved August 1, 2019.
"'Inside the Criminal Mind'". Geeks. Retrieved August 1, 2019.

RfC: timeline of Tucker Carlson on white supremacy

Please participate in Talk:Tucker Carlson#RFC on MMfA white supremacy timeline where the reliability of a Media Matters for America primary source source list of 192 statements by Tucker Carlson since 2004, and a Salon interview with its author, along with the quality of the list itself, have been called into question with both sides strongly opposed, with accusations of a lack of good faith and misleading partisan bias. EllenCT (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing in Ukraine articles

As I have been cleaning up some blacklisted fake news / propaganda sites I have encountered repeated use of a number of sites whose reliability is unclear to me (mainly due to language). I think it might be helpful to set up a subset of RSP for Ukraine / Russia sources, as there are a lot that see to be specific to this subject area.

Examples:

• mediarnbo.org - superficially legit, but set up by the previous Ukrainian regime and not a government agency, so what's its actual reputation for fact-checking?
• rt.com - Russian state propaganda outlet, generally unreliable? generally reliable for news? What?
• sputnik is on RSP as generally unreliable
• ria.ru - RIA Novosti, identifies as part of RT
• A host of livejournal sites that might be qualified as reliable commentators if there's a culture of this, but there's no evidence of editorial review that I can find for any of them
• TASS and Pravda - apparently reliable for factual reporting, which is quite the reversal
• Interfax Ukraine - seems legit, but is it biased? I mean, everything in this area is biased, but is it biased to the point of suspicion?
• Interfax Russia - presumably the same as the above
• Unian.net/info/ua - seems legit?
• ukrinform.ru - looks like Russian propaganda but what do I know.
• rferl.org - Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a US propaganda station, do we trust it?
• liga.net - seems legit?
• eadaily.com - I am suspicious on the basis that any source based in Russia that describes itself as a source of "unbiased coverage of political and social developments on the Eurasian continent Подробнее: https://eadaily.com/en/information/about/" is likely to be the exact opposite.

Lesser-used:

• DonPress.com - used to source, e.g. "Legally, DDC is registered in Ukraine, Russia and has a continuous status of an accredited humanitarian mission at the Donetsk People's Republic since May 2016" - that is Russian propaganda, as Ukraine is not part of Russia and the DPR is a Russian puppet body, so nuking that one.

Am I wasting my time here? Should we maybe have specific sourcing guidelines for this area that prefer sources not aligned with one of the governments? Guy (help!) 11:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is an area where some really clear source clarification would be helpful given the large amount of disinformation flying about. I would be hesitant about completely deprecating use of some of the Russian sources given that a huge problem with Russian-backed separatist republics in the past is sourcing largely non-controversial information about what's going on in those places (e.g. changes of membership in government) since Western media doesn't necesarily care. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, that's a good point. It would be possible to craft a policy that these sources can only be included with explicit consensus, but in fact the easiest way to do that would be to blacklist them and require consensus to whitelist. Guy (help!) 20:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacklisting all of them would be going too far, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306, a filter would work. But first we need some kind of consensus guideline on sourcing. It should be uncontroversial on Wikipedia to say don't use RT, Sputnik and the like, but I've seen articles on places in Donbass that were clearly written by Russians. Guy (help!) 09:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

State sponsored media organizations exist in many countries: RFERL, PBS, NPR (USA), TASS, RT, Sputnik (Russia), Xinhua (China), BBC (UK), France 24 (France), DW (Germany), RAI (Italy) and so on. Because these organizations are financially dependent on the government of their country, they will regularly not contradict the foreign policy of their country's government. Wikipedia's default position should be to view them to be reliable but biased sources especially on foreign policy topics. Biased sources should be balanced with other sources giving alternative viewpoints to create a neutral point of view overall. Additionally to this default position, each source should be evaluated separately for their adherence to facts and error corrections. Xenagoras (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

lenta.ru

• lenta.ru  

Lenta is deprecated due to events around 2014. Is it considered reliable for stories published before then? Guy (help!) 17:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The RSP entry says that it was depreciated according to a discussion in 2019, but links to a discussion [71] that does not mention Lenta.ru, but instead talks about (and depreciates) Newsfront, Veteranstoday, Veteransnewsnow and Southfront. Has this source actually been depreciated? If so, at least we need to point to a proper RFC rather than one that doesn't discuss it before people start mass removing it - and the same for other Russian sources such as Sputnik or RT. If it hasn't, then we need a proper discussion to see what it can be used for (even if it is a mouthpiece for Putin, can we treat it as press releases from the Russian government for non-controversial events?).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not deprecated in that discussion, and only @David Gerard: and @JzG: discuss that long list with no consensus to deprecate or blacklist any of the entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Added to the depreciated list here on 5 January and to WP:RSP here on 4 January 2020 - both appear to link to the discussion that does not mention Lenta.ru. This needs to be sorted one way or the other - people shouldn't be claiming consensus for removals if no-one has actually sought consensus, never mind actually demonstrated consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.stopfake.org/ identifies it as fake / propaganda, The Grauniad has several articles discussing the 2014 Russian Government takeover e.g. [72]. The article at lenta.ru backs this up: post-2014, it appears to be a propaganda site (se RAND Corporation report, for example). Guy (help!) 23:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Rand report mentions Lenta.ru exactly once - talking about it running a false story, while there doesn't seem to be anything about Lenta.ru on the front page of stopfake.org - could you please point out actual references to Lenta.ru? (and is stopfake reliable here?. To make a judgement on how Lenta.ru can be used (if at all) needs better information on how bad it is, what the nature of any bias or false stories are is and how it compares to other Russian news organisations.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Middle School Moguls

There seems to be a bit of an issue on Middle School Moguls regarding if this is a reliable source or not. I've brought up WP:NOTRS and WP:SELFPUBLISH, but have most recently been told, "The account is verifiably hers, a co-creator talking about the future of the show falls within self-pub guidelines"

I'm really not quite sure I can agree with that statement that it is "verifiably" her official account. Often (such as in WP:SELFPUBLISH) it is said that unverified social media accounts are not a reliable source. There doesn't seem to be much here that verifies this is the co-creator's official account. The website linked doesn't even contain any links to this social media account whatsoever- which I'd think would be able to verify this. However, the contact page only lists an email and nothing else.

Seems to also be a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL with the, "We are doing everything we can to make more episodes happen!"- basically reads to me as a 'we're trying, but it may or may not happen'. Worth also pointing out some other examples of a similar situation:

1. Knight Squad - see discussion here

2. Henry Danger - Instagrams such as Mike Caron's and Chris Nowak's are not used

3. SpongeBob SquarePants/Kamp Koral - see discussion here

In discussion #3, it is stated that a secondary source should be used in conjunction to verify an unverified social media account- such as a news article using it. Doing a quick Google search, I can't even find a single article using the Twitter in question in the first place.

Any help/response is appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Magitroopa, why would we include speculation regardless of the source? WP:CRYSTAL. We're an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. Guy (help!) 20:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Russia stuff

• RussianPlanes.net  
• RussianShips.net  
• RussianTrains.info  
• RussianRockets.net  
• Wingeds.ru  

This group of sites are all run by the same folks, it seems. They are apparently user edited and there's no evidence of credentials or authority (e.g. "sufa125" is one of the editors). Googling the obvious real names finds references on sites like topwar.ru (blacklisted). It looks ot me as if this is not a RS. Guy (help!) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

bmpd.livejournal.com

• bmpd.livejournal.com  

This is a LiveJournal blog whihc I have been removing when I find it in articles related to Ukraine and Russia, through purging of 112.ua and other deprecated fake news / propaganda sources.

An editor has challenged this removal. I checked the blog's home page, which says, inter alia:

The posts posted on the bmpd blog represent only the point of view of the author of the material and may not coincide with the position of the management or employees of the AST Center.

The Profile page says:

The blog complements the AST Center's product line: Arms Export magazine ( http://www.cast.ru/journal ) and the Periscope daily press digest ( http://www.periscope2.ru ). It publishes the so-called unformatted messages, which are not suitable for one reason or another for publication in the first two editions.

So according to my reading this is a blog set up for "interesting" stuff that doesn't meet the standards required for publication on the (authoritative) parent body's site, and which represents personal views. They mention that they cast the net wide in attracting contributors, again, establishing that they don't appear to hold to the same standards of authority as the parent body.

But a user says it's "irreplaceable" in some military articles (where there is a strong desire to add intricate levels of detail that very often only comes only from sites rune by interested private individuals that are to me, as one such, alas often indistinguishable from fansites).

Reliable or not? Guy (help!) 21:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's just say this: when it comes to open-source military analysis, nothing is particularily "reliable" for obvious reasons. The main thing about "bmpd" is that it provides constant updates on the aquisition of military equipment in Russia and does it in a very structurized manner. A lot of the times you wouldn't find this information in the big media outlets like TASS or RIA, since they tend to focus on bigger things than, say, launch of some other ship of small to medium tonnage, which, from the standpoint of keeping the articles like Karakurt-class_corvette up to date is detremental. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable: Appears to fit WP:BLOGS. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It does, indeed, meet the criteria of a self-published blog, however, once again, a lot of the times you wouldn't find this information anywhere else, so I would argue it's worth an exception. Maybe a formal reason for leaving it in the articles could be the fact that it is published under aegis of Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies - it is stated on the first page of the blog. Their website: http://cast.ru/eng/ And I would also like to mention the politically neutral position of the author(s) of the blog, which is really not that common when it comes to sources on Russian weaponry and, in my opinion, makes it even more valuable, especially considering how many other sources widely used in these articles have been blacklisted recently. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Velasquez, WP:RS doesn't have an exception for "information you can't find anywhere else". Guy (help!) 09:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious that Wikipedia' guidelines do not support such an approach, however, I am not appealing to them - I just propose an informal solution based on everyone's agreement, if it can be reached. And the basis for this proposal is, as I stated previously, the need to source content with something. Otherwise, with time, lots of articles are going to get pruned beyond belief due to unresolved "citation needed" situations. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Velasquez, you're proposing ignoring policy in order to give a content result you like. That's above our pay grade. Guy (help!) 13:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Not really. I am just warning you about the risks of massive source blacklisting/pruning in niche topics and suggesting a slight adjustment of the policy towards military articles (or technical topics in general) in order to prevent the likely and, quite honestly, ugly outcome, which no one is going to benefit from, if current approach to pruning is to be continued. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Paleobiota of Burmese amber

An editor (Kevmin) keeps adding an OMICS Publishing Group journal at Paleobiota of Burmese amber. The message that predatory journals aren't acceptable as citations doesn't seem to sink in, so please advise here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The reference being used in this situation is to the type description for the genus and species. The article referenced meets ALL criteria for an ICBN accepted formal description of a taxon, and is what will always be used as the formal reference for that taxon. While Poinar may have made a poor choice of journal for the description, it is the one that is used by all taxonomists that reference the taxon, so any other reference to Spheciophila adercia such as here & here(note the listing as Legitimate) all default to the type description as accepted and formal. This was not noted by headbomb in this listing here for some reason.--Kevmin § 01:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If Mycobank/ICBN recognizes the classification, then Mycobank/ICBN should be cited, not the OMICS journal. The removal of the {{predatory}} tag is inappropriate, as is citing OMICS to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

They recognize it and cite Poinars article. It is defined taxonomic practice on en.wiki and in taxonomy in general to not obfuscate the source of a taxonomic name, thus Poinar and not secondary tertiary or quaternary sources. The tags are misleading in asserting there is a different source that is more acceptable for a taxonomic act other then the type description.--Kevmin § 01:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That does not alleviate the fact that OMICS is not a reliable WP:PRIMARY source, and we cannot cite them to establish anything. The tags are needed, and your edit warring to restore a below sub-par source is getting tiresome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Kevmin, they can do that because they have experts who can assess if the OMICS source is bollocks. We are not experts, so we have to cite reliable sources, and OMICS is not one. You can't trust it without SME review, and we're not allowed (by policy) to stand as SMEs. Guy (help!) 13:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, the issue is: (1) we don't want to cite the type description of the species because it was published in a predatory publisher's journal, but (2) there isn't any dispute that the article is the recognized type description for the species, and (3) it is the general practice in these lists to cite directly to the type description, so (4) failing to cite the type description would be inconsistent and unhelpful to users who are expecting to be able to use these lists to easily find the type description. If that's correct, could there be a positive-sum solution here? If the concern is that we would appear to be giving undue credence to the journal publisher by citing the type description as authority, would it be workable to have a ref (or note) that cites to an appropriate authority in the field such as Mycobank, and then separately provides a link out to the type description? That way it's clearer that we are providing the predatory-publisher link purely for user convenience, and are not relying on it for authority. -- Visviva (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, since WP:RS counsels us to treat predatory-journal publications as equivalent to self-published ones, I wonder if anyone can clarify why George Poinar Jr. wouldn't be considered an "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" per WP:SPS? -- Visviva (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a dispute that the find is legitimate. If some higher authority recognizes is, sure, but we don't take LOOK I DISCOVERED SOMETHING! at face value from WP:SPS, even expert ones.Poinar could have made mistakes, could have had nefarious motives, could have overlooked something, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies things somewhat. Assuming the dispute has been appropriately documented (I'm not seeing much here), why wouldn't we simply note it in the list item (and/or the not-yet-created article)? -- Visviva (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Another Russian military website

• russianships.info  

Per the about page, this appears to be a WP:FANSITE. Yes? Guy (help!) 00:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of this website, as well as the ones mentioned above (russianplanes, etc.) would be highly damaging. I am not even joking, if we are to remove all these links and continue purging, there would be nothing to source articles on Russian weaponry with (this is especially true for the articles on legacy systems). And they are certainly not in the fansite category - they are information aggregators, just like, for example, the widely used http://www.f-16.net/ and https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/index.htmt . It would be completely nuts to prohibit all these websites. Might as well just remove 30-40% of military articles on Wikipedia. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Velasquez, you say that, but if they don't meet our criteria for reliability then it's inclusion that's damaging. Guy (help!) 09:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid, it's not a matter of opinion. If all these websites are getting blacklisted, and the general approach to managing weaponry-related articles (not just the Russian ones) continues, there's going to be a severe depletion of content, and neither a reader, nor Wikipedia are going to benefit from it. If you're curious about it, check how many articles on Wikipedia use globalsecurity.org as a source (which is also unreliable if we're strictly following the Wikipedia guidelines) and try to imagine who and how is going to replace all the reference gaps in case it gets blacklisted. It's going to be a catastrophe. The same goes for the websites discussed here. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptoid are they self-published sources?

A few months ago there was a lot of conversations on Wikipedia about Quackwatch being a self-published source in regard to Barrett's articles at least. I didn't agree with that, but apparently there was a weak consensus and it was ruled as an SPS on living biographies. Interestingly, even after this was ruled users have no idea what is going on because there is talk that the source can still be used for claims but not about the person. Right?? Makes no sense! You can hardly separate the claim and claimant for many of these quacks... Not even going to get my head around that. But off-site the woo-meisters have declared this a great victory. I personally do not like the way any of this has been handled, but I will not go on about that! We can forget all that though and move on.

My question for this board is why Quackwatch was singled out but other skeptic sources remain that are similar in outlook. Quackwatch has been removed from living biographies but Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptoid have remained.

Bilby has started removing a few Skeptic's Dictionary links on articles I noticed, to be fair I did raise this first with this user. The Skeptic's Dictionary is a website based on the book and including other material from Robert Todd Carroll who died in 2016. The Skeptoid podcast is hosted by Brian Dunning, the website owner.

So are the Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptoid also SPS? Are they also going to be removed from living biographies? The whole situation is a mess. Nobody knows really what is going on. Let's discuss this and see what happens here. Let me know what you all think. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about this. You came to my talk page and wrote:

"What do you think about the Skeptic's Dictionary website that is used on living biographies? the website was maintained and owned by Robert Todd Carroll and the Skeptoid website is maintained by Brian Dunning. So by your logic shouldn't those sources be removed from many articles, because they are self-published as well?"

If you believed at the time that these are self-published sources, are you now saying that you believe that they are not?

As to Quackwatch being singled out - it wasn't, it was simply the one I was tackling at the time. Given that were suggested that Skeptic's Dictionary should also be removed, I started looking into it once I was finished with Quackwatch, per your suggestion. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe Quackwatch has been singled out, that is why I have mentioned these other websites. Quackwatch is more reliable than these other two websites because it has multiple academics and scientists writing for it, but they are all reliable in their content. These other two website are SPS, I think you know that. Look at the Skeptoid, Dunning hosts it, he writes for the website and he owns it. But just because a source is SPS does not mean it cannot be used, yes most of the time they shouldn't. "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions". These are clearly the exception because they are in accord with the scientific consensus and WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE. They are scientifically accurate sources. "It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

They are being replaced only where they violate WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". I have no particular concern in regards to their use elsewhere. Quackwatch was treated the same way - it was only replaced when it violated BLP, but otherwise is fine. - Bilby (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary started as a book that was written by Carroll, a college professor of philosophy and published by John Wiley & Sons, a very reputable house. The author later began a website of the same name where he expanded on the book by adding newly written material. In my view, the book is reliable and the website should also be considered reliable (for everything except BLP assertions) according to WP:SPS which says "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." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. When sourced to the book there is no problem. When sourced to the website, the only significant problem occurs when it is applied to a BLP. If viable and if it contains the same information, the website can be replaced with the book in BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, Are these removals from articles about quacks and antivaxers by any chance? Guy (help!) 09:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you would expect the "Skeptics Dictionary" to be used, but yes. This was at Psychologist Guy's suggestion that there was a problem with the sources. [73] - Bilby (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

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

Detail

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

A project-level RfC is required for the following:

• Any source that is proposed for deprecation (see also the list of deprecated sources);
• Any source that is widely used in articles (e.g. more than 100 articles in {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) that is proposed as generally unreliable (see also the list of perennial sources).

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

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

You must initiate a project-level RfC when requesting blacklisting of any entry that is widely used as a source in articles (e.g. more than 100 articles in {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with requesting blacklisting where there is ongoing abuse. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

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

A project-level RfC is required when blacklisting any entry that is widely used as a source in articles (e.g. more than 100 articles in {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse, with the expectation that it will be removed if the RfC decides against blacklisting. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

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

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

Opinions

1. Support 1, 2a, 3 (first preference); 1, 2b, 3 (second preference) as proposer. Discussions on source classification at WP:RSN typically have few participants, but may have substantial impact if problematic sources are widely used. This also applies to spammed sites that are targets for blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EarnTheNecklace.com

• uses

An entertainment news website. I've been slowly reviewing how EarnTheNecklace.com is being used, after running across it a while back. Given the amount of usage, I thought discussion is needed. Here's an example:

• Jony Ive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Net worth US$900 million (2019)

This article begins with a disclaimer: "*Disclaimer: The estimated net worth numbers are based on our research done on the Internet and are for entertainment purposes only. We do not guarantee the accuracy of these numbers."

References

Another example:

• Jared Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): In 2009, Harris met Allegra Riggio, a lighting designer and TV host 14 years his junior; at a comedy club where a mutual friend was performing.

References

While EarnTheNecklace does include these disclaimers for some articles, they also headline such articles when a person is in the news. While they do tend to indicate some references in their articles, they are often to sources that are considered unreliable on Wikipedia.

I don't see a problem deleting networth info attributed to EarnTheNecklace. I don't think it should be used for BLP information. I'm unsure about anything else, but am leaning toward this being generally unreliable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree striongly. This is not a source that we should be using in this way. Guy (help!) 19:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Pages

Hi everyone, do you know if this website qualifies as a reliable source? It seems to present out-of-this-world ideas, however it tells the reader they can choose to believe in them or not.

-Prana1111 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, that website is absolutely unreliable. Taking a "we report, you decide" approach to unreliable info doesn't make it suddenly reliable. Either they need to point out bullshit as such, or else truly take an academic stance of "look, this is just what this specific group of people in this specific time believed, based on this evidence." Instead, that site wants to tell us how "some scientists" (who they never link to or identify) have proven Greek mythology was right all along. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Vox article containing a factually wrong claim is used in an article

• https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-policies
• used / inserted in Tulsi Gabbard's BLP repeatedly [74] [75] [76] [77] and contains the claim,

• In 2002... she vowed to pass a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.

This claim is factually wrong. No other source corroborates this claim but many sources contradict it. What really happened is that Gabbard campaigned for that constitutional amendment in 1998, which got passed in a referendum in 1998: More than two out of three voters approved a constitutional amendment that gives lawmakers the power to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. [78] In 2002, Gabbard touted her previous campaigning for this amendment: "Working with my father ... to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, I learned that..." [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

How can we prevent this factually wrong claim from being repeatedly inserted into articles? AFAIK, blacklisting only works for entire media organizations, so how do we handle certain false claims? Xenagoras (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a question of reliable source. It should be settled on the talk page of the article in accordance with WP:DUE. buidhe 00:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, the talk page discussion failed because the editor repeatedly inserting this claim ignored my explanation.[85] Xenagoras (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This didn't need to come to this noticeboard. Just reword it.

Change

In her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2002, she vowed to "pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage."

to

In her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2002, Gabbard emphasized her roll in getting a constitution amendment passed that made same-sex marriage illegal in Hawaii. She vowed to "bring that attitude of public service to the legislature."

Problem solved. - MrX 🖋 00:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)