Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

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

Detail

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

A project-level RfC is required for the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinions

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The number of RFCs

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?

Is The Green Papers [1] a generally reliable source for election-related information? - MrX 🖋 20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Current usage: [2]
• Previous discussion: [3]
• Related discussion: Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Poll: Should The Green Papers estimates for pledged delegates be used in place of those from major sources like the New York Times?

---

• Should not be used in preference to established RS like the New York Times and other newspapers which cover this topic in sufficient detail. buidhe 21:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The days and weeks after a primary/caucus is over, there can still be updates to votes totals and delegates from official sources until the final results are certified. The Green Papers always keeps up with these updates, while other reliable sources like the New York Times, USA Today, and CNN often do not. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but...: The site provides high quality information, but it's essentially a self-published website by two politics geeks, with no editorial oversight (nor any web designer to speak of). It can be used, but if The Green Papers say one thing and mainstream media outlets say another, report what the mainstream outlets say, even if you believe the Green Papers are "more accurate". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. per above. --Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Based on a read of their 2020 Iowa results article, the source is reliable (display official election result data imported both from the primary official result website in each state and from the New York Times) and it is also of a unique high quality (as it transparently outline how national pledged delegates have been calculated while explaining the underlying math, so that the reader himself can check and verify that the calculated results indeed are correct).
  • When used along with a primary official result website source (i.e the IDP website), then The Green Papers source add quality to wikipedia. Newspaper sources and even the offical website result websites, tend to skip publication of the calculations behind the allocation of national pledged delegates, and instead just jump on to display only the final results.
  • Another quality of The Green Papers source is that it continue to track subsequent developments for the calculated final result of allocated won "national pledged delegates", both when "certified final results" are published by the official result website roughly one month after the election, and in those cases where the initial won "national pledged delegates" subseqently transfers to other candidates (i.e. check how the source was used to keep track of the final results in this 2008 Iowa Democratic cacucuses wikipedia article, where it should be noted that most newspapers at the time in comparison failed to update their several month old result articles to keep track of the subsequent developments happening months later for the Iowa national pledged delegates). Danish Expert (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and no. Yes in that its data is probably accurate; no in that it doesn't really qualify as RS in the usual Wikipedia sense, though IAR may apply. I largely agree with what Buidhe and MaxBrowne2 said above. This site reminds me of Kworb for music data. feminist (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - It is a self published website with unknown editorial oversight. It may be usable in some contexts, but when major news organizations routinely report election results, there is no real value in citing a self published source. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - I agree with feminist that the data might be accurate, but it is a self published Blog so its reliability is questionable. I don't think it should be used as a main reliable reference, maybe a secondary in some cases. ContentEditman (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• No SPS blog by people who do not seem to be recognised experts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - Self-published blog. They probably get it right most of the time but I see no reason to rely on them when there are ample better sources (official reports, AP, NYTimes) to cite. Neutrality^talk 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• No I notice a disclaimer on the Nevada Democrats caucus page: "These pages contain a combination of official, unofficial, and estimated data. The information posted here is subject to change."[4] If something is an estimate, that must be mentioned in the text. But there is no reason in reporting their estimates since they have no claim to expertise. However, journalists are supposed to have the expertise to weigh sources, so we can use their info if it is reported in news articles. TFD (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• No Where more reliable sources agree with their data, use the more reliable sources. Where more reliable sources disagree with it, then we can't trust this one. There's no good reason to use it. --Jayron32 15:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I suspect that all those who replied "No" from 23-26 February most likely lack some experience on what this source is really about and how Wikipedia article's previously chose to use it (as a supplementing secondary source along with the primary source being the "official election result webpage") for most US presidential elections (including primaries and caucuses) over the past 20 years.
    The Green Papers is not a traditional source, but more of a factual election result database, which collected and documented all official election results (with its primary data-input being identical to the imported results from the primary official website result webpages, and adding several important additional calculation details - plus some sourced comments on all potential subsequent changes to the count of pledged national convention delegates happening after the election date itself) for all Democratic/Republican presidential races from 2000-2020 in their database. It can simply not just be replaced by any other reliable source.
    Besides of being the most complete and accurate historic database for final results (i.e the created wikipedia article about the source features this line: "During the 2016 presidential election, many journalists started paying attention to the site's delegate counts, and Quoctrung Bui of the New York Times noted that the site "...does something very few media organizations are willing to do: accurately and independently tabulate delegates in real time."), it also like CNN+AP trade in the business of calculating a projected preliminary count of won pledged national convention delegates based on the ongoing preliminary partial count before 100% of the voting places reported their result (hence they also added their "data disclaimer" on the top of the page, warning readers that their page features preliminary data subject to change). Whether or not these preliminary calculated data for pledged national convention delegates (based on partial less than 100% counted results) should be added to Wikipedia articles by AP/CNN/TGP or none of them at all, is a second very seperate ongoing debate, where my own position is, that infoboxes should completely refrain from displaying these calculated preliminary data figures delivered by any source, meaning that we should instead just opt to display a "TBD" - at least until 100% of the vote has been counted.
    Contrary to AP/CNN, the The Green Papers however nevertheless is the only source that transparently display how this calculation of pledged national convention delegates is performed (first based on preliminary unofficial results and later based on final official certified results being imported by the source-linked primary official result webpage), and The Green Papers is the only available source that provides a full explanation of how this calculation math is working, and moreover it has a historic track record of doing these calculations both faster and more accurate compared to AP/CNN. We have no source to replace it, because as you can see this alternative AP source do not deliver the same amount of data details compared to The Green Papers. Finally, it is similar to all alternative newspaper sources being updated very frequently several times per day, so it never features outdated data. Danish Expert (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• Where the source collates information from electoral officials, we can follow Say where you read it. For example in a 1948 congressional race in Idaho, we could cite that electoral board and mention in the footnote that we got the info from The Green Papers. But there is no reason to report their calculated results if they have been ignored by mainstream sources. Bear in mind too that we are not preventing readers from going to The Green Paper if they wish to do so. It is not the role of Wikipedia to incorporate everything available on other sites on the internet. TFD (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• You accidently missed the point of my stated comment above. MrX started this "reliable source RFC" because he want to use AP/CNN instead of TGP as a reliable source for the preliminary calculated number of "pledged national convention delegates" election results. My position is, that neither AP/CNN/TGP should be used as sources for a display of this preliminary data (based on less than 100% of the votes being counted), as per WP:NOTNEWS. However, there is absolutely no reason to change how Wikipedia has previously used TGP as a reliable supplementing secondary database source for US election articles in the past 20 years, as it provides this important valuable additional info not reported by ordinary newspaper sources:
  1. Number of pledged national convention delegates based on the election result itself (while providing all verifiable math and explanation for this calculation, which competing sources tend to skip).
  2. Subsequent changes to the number of allocated pledged national convention delegates due to events from candidates pulling out of the race - or subsequent changes due to subsequent election system developments at the state's district convention or state convention.
  3. Display exactly how many pledged delegates each candidate won within respectively each of the 6 election races that form part of a states overall election event (i.e. congressional district 1+2+3+4 delegates, plus the PLEO delegates per statewide total and at-large delegates per statewide total).
  4. Finally TGP also keep track on how each states unpledged delegates finally vote on the floor of the Democratic Partys' National Convention.

All of the above 4 additional data points are not provided by alternative newspaper sources. Once certified results are published by the primary official election source (which TGP link to), they then finally also remove their data disclaimer about "preliminary data subject to change" (i.e. see the 2016 Iowa election result article). This is why Wikipedia shall continue to use TGP as a supplementing data source (along with a primary official election webpage source), without enforcing any changes to how Wikipedia previously up until today has opted to use this TGP source. Danish Expert (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There are reasons. We are an encyclopedia whose credibility is based on adherence to referencing to sources with reputations for fact checking, editorial oversight, and making corrections when necessary. Your argument is based largely on the mechanics of the information that TGP publishes and your own assessment of its value and quality. We should not use questionable sources simply because they publish information that reliable sources don't. We have always done it that way is a poor argument for elevating this source. I would be careful about making declarations like "Wikipedia shall continue to use TGP as a supplementing data source" that may run contrary to consensus. - MrX 🖋 13:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

We are however experience editors who (generality) understand policy, an SPS is an SPS accuracy is irrelevant. If this was produced by A recognised (BY other RS) it might be usable, no evidence has been produced it is. can tell you (exactly) what the weather is like outside my house, that does not make me an RS on it (no matter how accurate I am).Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrX, would you mind adding an {{rfc}} tag to this discussion to make this a formal request for comment, or removing "RfC:" from the section heading? — Newslinger talk 12:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait, I see that Legobot removed the {{rfc}} tag in Special:Diff/940712018 after this RfC was prematurely archived. I restored the tag. — Newslinger talk 13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have caught that. - MrX 🖋 13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist

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

Background

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

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

103 domains operated by 76 generally reliable sources

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

The above excludes:

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

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

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

Survey (CAPTCHA whitelist)

• Support as proposer. The CAPTCHA whitelist improves accessibility for new and anonymous editors. The listed sources have already been vetted through this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support to improve accessibility and remove unnecessary red tape, these captcha processes are particularly difficult for visually impaired people, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support to improve the user experience and therefore editor retention. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but what's stopping users from editing WP:RSP to bypass this restriction? feminist (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • OK I see that this proposal doesn't actually add RSP links to the CAPTCHA whitelist in real time, but rather involves manually adding the links to the whitelist. Support. feminist (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - and I will consider to add this capability to User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-whitelist-Handler (well, I will likely copy-and-paste it to a next handler) to make it easier to handle these requests. IMHO, they should just be added with a rather low bar - as long as they are properly logged and tracked it should not impose many problems. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (CAPTCHA whitelist)

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

• @Beetstra: If there should be a low bar for the whitelist, we could also add domains of sites classified as "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" to the list. Should I create a separate proposal in this RfC for the "no consensus..." domains? — Newslinger talk 13:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Newslinger: that list is endless, especially when knowing that we have likely never discussed 99% of the reliable sources (we discuss for being perceived not reliable, not the other way around). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sources listed as reliable on WP:VGRS and WP:A/S should be added as well. I'm currently compiling a list of potential additions on User:Feminist/CAPTCHA exemptions. Feel free to use it and work on it as you wish. feminist (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)

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

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

Survey (IFCN)

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pratik Sinha Twitter @free_thinker

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

Mar 24, 2020

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes. IFCN is an authority widely used and cited by other reliable sources. Reuters, CJR and others cover it as a positive contribution to factual reporting. It's not for us to second-guess those sources, especially when the motivation is that we like a source it says is unreliable. Guy (help!) 08:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes as it is considered reliable by sources such as Reuters, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes they appear to have a good reputation for reliability and fairness. I view their broad base of donor support as a positive. Glendoremus (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, good reputation for reliability and fairness, strong WP:USEBYOTHERS. Neutrality^talk 19:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes agree with what Newslinger said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The fact that the IFCN has given a positive assessment of a factchecker is evidence they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That does not mean that it is conclusive evidence, but that without evidence to the contrary we would accept their findings. I don't think it matters who funds the project. We should look at the reputation of the sponsor, which is a journalism school. TFD (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - I'd venture to say far more reliable than several of the fact checking sources we're using now, particularly those fact-checking sources founded by individuals whose backgrounds didn't provide one any comfort in knowing who was checking the facts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Newslinger, and the lack of credibility in the arguments against. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes they are reliable, IFCN is one of the best in the business. If they don’t meet the bar for WP:RS I don’t think anyone in the space does (which would be a problem for us). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes clearly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. Yes, but with concerns. I've been skeptical (cough) about Poynter/IFCN for a while, and previously had some discussion in context of another "fact check" (blog) site.[5] In my view, Poynter/IFCN is another "news" publisher, similar to many others. While they may be "non-profit," they still have to cover their expenses, and that creates obligations, and lack of independence, just like with other publishers. For context, I feel Wikipedia's blacklist approach should abandoned in favor of a more metric-based approach, used article by article. Unfortunately, objectively rating each individual article proposed as a source takes more effort. So, Poynter is a publisher, and IFCN is their "fact check" arm, to take advantage of a current trend, but it doesn't make everything they publish, or every rating by IFCN, a "gold standard." Some other comments:

• Reuters is a "signatory." [6] Thus Reuters citing IFCN is not independent, but more like conflict of interest. They have mutual interest in endorsing each other.

• Snopes withdrew from both Facebook and Poynter/IFCN. According to Poynter/IFCN, this was due to "bandwidth" and using "a manual system." According to snopes, it was due to the compensation being inadequate.[7][8] Poynter/IFCN published an article on Snopes.[9] The point is Poynter/IFCN is not a disinterested party.

• Poynter/IFCN published an article about DARPA disinformation efforts, and questioned their ability to use software for more automated fact-check type efforts.[10] Could it be Poynter is concerned about competition with their business?

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

• Poynter re-publishes PolitiFact publications. It's with attribution, but it demonstrates lack of independence in operation.[11]
• -- Yae4 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm changing my "vote" to Yes, with concerns, because in balance they seem about as "good" as other "reliable" publishers, and better in some ways. It is predictable, however, when IFCN is on the RSPS list, they will become the default primary arbiter. It's also concerning there were zero "Not Compliant" issues in Opindia's archived review, but somehow they were "rejected" in the end, for being partisan. Everyone is partisan... I think they lack independence too much, and they have been misleading or contradictory, despite their transparency efforts. For example, in one place they say, "The IFCN does not publish fact checks and is therefore not eligible to be a signatory of its own code of principles..."[12] However, in another place they acknowlege, "Poynter also houses the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact, which is the largest political fact-checking news organization in the United States."[13] So, one side of the house does not fact check, but the other side does, and they don't hesitate to review and endorse their own fact check arm. The technology issue was raised to point out they (1) are comfortable with criticising DARPA, a potential creator of a competing technology for IFCN business, while they are criticized by Snopes for relying on manual methods (poor technology); (2) By being one of the million who use typical website monitizing methods, they are one of the million who are motivated to "drive" eyeballs to their site(s), rather than being unique and completely preventing those conflicts of interest. So, a site's CMS technology isn't the only indicator, but it is an indicator, and "advert infested" (which is implemented with site CMS technology) has been used as a criticism. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (IFCN)

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

  Yes, see the following:

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

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

WikiLeaks cable

Is it just me, or is {{WikiLeaks cable}} a prime example of making it easier for people to do something they should not be doing? It seems to me that linking to the leaked US cables on Wikileaks is a bad idea on several levels, and providing a template so this continues to work as WikiLeaks male changes also looks ill-advised. I would have thought that, per Wikipedia policy, if we're discussing any event in the leaked cables we should be doing so via reliable independent secondary sources, not directly from WikiLeaks, because the secondary source may be expected to have authenticated or contextualised the content, where WikiLeaks does not. Guy (help!) 07:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with it. Wikileaks has a robust process for authenticating documents prior to publication. As far as I know no one has ever claimed any of the documents it has published was fake. It is therefore a reliable source for original documents. I would regard Wikileaks as close to a primary source for documents which means that generally we would prefer to use analysis of the documents from another source. However, there will be occasions when we want to link to the primary document and this template is useful for that. Burrobert (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiLeaks has on numerous occasions leaked documents that are incomplete and thus lack context. Further, WikiLeaks intentionally misrepresents the documents that they are leaking, providing completely false explanations of what a particular document is saying. Thankfully, reliable sources have started to treat WikiLeaks more carefully than they did in the past due to this history of intentional deception, which is perhaps why fringey Wikipedia editors now increasingly seek to insert primary source WikiLeaks content into Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And, just as relevant, the material that ends up with Wikileaks is itself selective. It's an axe-grinder's dream. Guy (help!) 20:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is used for, but if its BLP's that would be an issue, as would the use of illegally acquired material.

As to rumours of faking stuff [[14]], its just has not got that much coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents. It is clear why this claim may suit some people or organisations. I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. There are two parts of the linked article that mention fake documents on Wikileaks. The first mention relates to "speculation" but no fake document was identified in the article.

When the site's first leak, a secret Islamic order allegedly written by Sheikh Hassan Aweys, one of the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, went live in December 2006, there was speculation that it was fake; Wikileaks' credibility was questioned in the press.

The second mention relates to an anonymous informer who again does not identify a specific fake document.

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility".

The article does describe the efforts that Wikileaks makes to ensure the authenticity of documents it publishes.

Burrobert (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, with fewer than 1500 edits, an average of one every other day since you registered, I don't think you have sufficient experience to comment meaningfully. Guy (help!) 20:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of edits, what you're calling experience, doesn't automatically equate to judgement, which is what counts. But, then, I've only made an average of 1.8 edits a day over my own Wikipedia career, so what do I know?     ←   ZScarpia   12:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A WikiLeaks cable is not a RS and shouldn't be used as a source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if it is verifiably from Wikileaks and has been through the rigors of substantiating originality as with all the other leaked material they've published. Wikileaks material is as useful as were the memos in the Steele Dossier which few editors objected to including in our articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, what "rigors"? See above. There are none. And no, the meos in Steele are different, the primary sources there were assessed by the former head of MI6's Russia desk. Material published by WikiLeaks has been assessed by no verified subject matter expert. Guy (help!) 13:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, this article may help shed some light. Wikileaks provides analysis as do news sources (like the NYTimes) that engage in investigative reporting and publish leaked info by anonymous sources. Wikileaks about page, dated 03-Nov-2015, lists their awards/recognition & partners (at that time), the latter proving most interesting. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No, they do not provide expert analysis. They are a primary publisher of stolen information, and as such, we should never base any content solely on a document on WL. That should not be controversial. Guy (help!) 23:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

• Where {{WikiLeaks cable}} is used as a primary source, it should be removed (especially in WP:BLPs): only secondary-sourced material about the cable leaks should be included in articles other than about the leaks themselves. This reflects concerns about use of primary sources, illegally obtained sources, selective leaking, axe-grinding etc.
• In articles on the content of the cables, e.g. Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak) it should be used only as a supporting source, no section should be drawn entirely from {{WikiLeaks cable}}. This is to ensure that we have reliable independent sources to provide context and establish significance for any leaked content that we cover, and ensure that individual editors do not cherry-pick the source to support a personal view.
• Ideally the "contents of..." articles should probably be moved to WikiSource, as we already have articles on the impact of the leaks.

Does that seem reasonable? Guy (help!) 08:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

No. We can use primary sources with caution but it is discouraged...Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. This noticeboard is not the place to rewrite our PAGs. My concern is that it will open a can of worms regarding the use of primary sources in existing BLPs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding link to ALA showing their Wikileaks' rating. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, that looks like a bunch of motivated reasoning to me. We have solid evidence that WikiLeaks publishes indiscriminately, is vulnerable to the agenda of the leaker, has been hoaxed, and may publish material that endangers lives. Just because we may link to these stolen documents doesn't mean we should. And looking at your input on this page, it's hard to see this as anything other than personal. Guy (help!) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, perhaps you didn't realize that you separated my back-to-back comments when you replied so I moved it back. Your accusation that my reasoning looks "motivated" and that you view my input on this page as personal is unfounded. Why would you would make such an accusation, or is it an aspersion? I provided a RS that supports my position. Following are a few RS that published highlights of the cables: BBC, Reuters, NYTimes, and NPR which refers to them as an "online whistleblower". What RS support your input? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, and here's the point: where those third-party sources discussed the stolen cables, then so can we. But where they diodn't, we shouldn't either. If the BBC, for example, discusses a specific document, thent hey will have checked it, they provided context, and established the significance of the content. Including them without a secondary source is analogous to mining PACER and writing about court cases that have not been reported in the press. Why has the press not reported it? Is publishing this data a violation of BLP in osme case? We can't know because we have no secondary sources to guide us. We're allowed to use primary sources buyt we're not allowed to use only primary sources. That's WP:OR. And those are the uses we should be removing. Guy (help!) 13:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A strong No. Use of Wikileaks documents as sources should continue to be governed on a case-by-case basis according to Wikipedia rules. Contrary to what is written above, quoting documents to show what they actually say, rather than what 'reliable' sources may claim they say, is a legitimate use.     ←   ZScarpia   12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, see WP:UNDUE. Content sourced directly and solely from WL also places Wikipedia edotrs in the position of being arbiters of fact. We are not allowed to do that. Guy (help!) 12:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I'm ok with whatever consensus determines; however, I disagree with you in that editors are put in the position of being arbiters of fact. I see little to no difference between what Wikileaks publishes vs the unverifiable leaks from anonymous sources published by the NYTimes or worse, the false information published by other believed-to-be RS as reported by the NYTimes here. Also see the MIT review about Wikileaks (WP is mentioned). As other editors have said above, we should handle Wikileaks on a case by case basis. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua News Agency

If Xinhua News Agency [15] is an state-run news agency, is a reliable source. By the following reports of this article, 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

With attribution maybe, what is their reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SwissArmyGuy: Context matters. What is the exact usage you are referring to? In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Government sources and state-run news agencies from a few countries are so far the most reliable sources for some claims, such as confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Use with attribution. China has extremely low press freedom (ranked #177 out of 180 countries on the Press Freedom Index in 2019), which is an unavoidable issue that is brought up in discussions on any Chinese news source. However, Xinhua News Agency is the largest news agency in China (and in the world), and anything it publishes is certain to be representative of what the Chinese government intends to communicate. (Contrast this to the Global Times (RSP entry), which publishes incendiary opinion pieces that do not necessarily represent the Chinese government's position.)

  For the coronavirus pandemic, statistics from the Chinese government are certainly due in the relevant articles, and Xinhua is probably one of the best available sources for this information. In-text attribution is necessary, because it's unclear how accurate the statistics are (see reporting from Financial Times (RSP entry), Fortune, CNN (RSP entry), CNBC, and PBS NewsHour for details). — Newslinger talk 22:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger: Note that this is not a Xinhua-specific issue. Xinhua figures for China come from the same source as Reuters': the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. So this attribution issue is independent from the usage of Xinhua as a source. On the other hand, Xinhua is publishing quick reports for many underreported countries (e.g. in Africa) that, as far as I can tell, are as reliable as any other, since they are just informing about figures from the corresponding authorities (example). --MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. I agree with you here, since health figures in underreported countries have very little to do with Chinese politics or affairs. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute if used at all, Xinhua does not have a reputation for fact checking or editorial independence and they are headquartered in a country with one of the least free press ecosystems on earth (not to mention a part of a government which has an overwhelming and current record of spreading disinformation through official channels). The use of Xinhua should be avoided entirely in articles that are controversial or political, whether COVID-19 related articles are controversial or political I will leave up to others to decide. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerns over scope of RS/N

It is my understanding that the scope of this noticeboard is as stated in the banner above: Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context. IN CONTEXT being the descriptor. It appears that quite a few of the most recent discussions are not about context at all; rather, some are about sources that have published opinions which tips the scale as far as "fact"-checking and what WP:SOURCE dictates as being an independent RS. That is why context is important when determining whether a source is suitable for inclusion. I'm of the mind that choosing sources that publish opinions we may not agree with and asking for input in general rather than in context if the source should be deprecated is not the best way to handle WP's use of sources. By doing so, are we not being noncompliant with (1) the scope of this noticeboard, (2) NPOV, (3) WP:RS or WP:SOURCE, and probably more that I haven't factored in? I can certainly understand and appreciate why Project Med created MEDRS, and I applaud their efforts, but when the sourcing issue involves opinions, such as the case with politics, or threatens to eliminate all but the popular scientific POV while eliminating the not so popular scientific view, are we not opening the door to POV creep in defiance of what science actually supports; that being the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment? By eliminating context are we not opening the door to the potential of censorsing all substantial views? Again, it goes back to CONTEXT and facts vs opinion. It could be a source that published well-sourced information that was cited to a source that not all editors are able to access. Use it, cite it and if another editor has access to the better source, then cite it instead. To do otherwise may prove detrimental to the project, and that is my major concern. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Got, say, three clear examples? - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, David - I think you can begin with any question above that asks if [XXX] is a reliable source. Such a question begs generalization of an entire source (and opens the door to POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise) rather than affording editors an opportunity to reach a consensus by discussing the inclusion of specific material published by that source and its suitability of the material per context, which is the scope of this noticeboard. I'm of the mind that discussions here that involve the deprecation of and/or dismissal of sources as unreliable or questionable (other than the most blatantly obvious junk sources, of course, rather than sources that are debatable) should involve community-wide discussion at venues like the VP that has a much wider reach. Examples off the top of my head begin with some of the questions asked here regarding the reliability of an entire source. There are also some sources on the perennial list that are rated generally unreliable (partly because they are state-owned), yet Al Jazeera is not among them despite being owned by Qatar. Fox News is rated generally reliable but it states: Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion. See also: Fox News (talk shows). How is that a NPOV? We see nothing like that for MSNBC or CNN, the latter of which clearly demonstrates a biased opinion. It is difficult to leave POV at login when we have such a list guiding editors. Does the perennial list by its sheer existence tend to circumvent WP:RS, WP:V and NPOV? I am concerned that it may which is not a good thing for the reasons I mentioned above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree in context is a bit vague, what context? Usage, policy?Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the following will clarify context: (see WP:RSCONTEXT)

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand the context. There have been a number of recent RfCs that are focused not on, "is this source reliable for this claim" but instead, "should this source be deprecated". Here is an example [[16]]. I have no idea if "Grayzone" should or shouldn't be a RS but the RfC is an example of what I think Atsme is talking about. My feeling is we should be less reliant on general RfCs and spend more time looking at specific examples. Springee (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's inconvenient and troublesome when trying to delete thousands of URLs to think about context. -- GreenC 14:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also context must include the context of the reliability of the source in general "st Ralph the liar" cannot be a source for anything, even his own opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Many sources are found to be unreliable generally, but reliable for some things ie. contextually reliable. -- GreenC 14:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We should not be going back in time to delete thousands of urls, particularly if it's being done without consideration for context per WP:V which is one of our core content policies. For the easy to recognize, undisputed junk/spam sources, a BOT with the right instructions could perform the task of removing the url and adding as necessary (based on certain criteria). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, yes we should, if the thousands of urls are the result of people not thinking about reliability. Wikipedia has evolved from the barn-raising phase when we were trying to build as much content as possible as quickly as possible, to a global resource and one of the most visited and trusted sites on the internet. We have, rightly, become firmer about the sources we use, not because we have changed our policy, but because we now recognise that we need to be more consistent in meeting our own standards.

The media landscape has also moved on. Over the last five years there has been a sea change in the way the conservative media works, which has not affected left-partisan or mainstream media. This is a pressing problem for Wikipedia: some editors think that the right wing media bubble has parity with the mainstream, but mainstream is the opposite of fringe, not of conservative.

To address the question of verifiability, my (long) experience has been that if you tag a citation as self-published, dubious or whatever, it pretty much never gets fixed. A statement drawn from a questionable source will stand indefinitely. If, however, you remove the source and replace it with {{cn}}, it often will get fixed. There are Wikignomes who specialise in sourcing or removing unsourced statements. It's one of the few instances where an unsourced statement, identified as such, is actually better for the encyclopaedia than a sourced statement. Especially in a world of fake news and disinformation where state sponsored propaganda can appear like legitimate news sources, as has been seen with Russian websites masquerading as Ukrainian news sources.

Incidentally, you'll note that I proposed a more robust process for deprecating and blacklisting widely used sources. That would seem to me to be a good first step in alleviating any concerns over weaknesses in the review of deprecations / "generally unreliable" classifications. Guy (help!) 10:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, with all due respect, I disagree, particularly your opinion that "there has been a sea change in the way the conservative media works, which has not affected left-partisan or mainstream media." It has been demonstrated time and again that the transition from print to internet, increased competition, and clickbait has effected all media. For you to single out right/conservative media is very disconcerting. I am also concerned over your denigration of FoxNews despite clear consensus here, as well as voicing your generalized criticisms of conservatives and the Republican party. Responsible editors, particularly administrators who are supposed to be above the fray, are obligated to leave their biases at login. With regards to your repeated references to the Griffin BLP - an incident that took place 5 years ago and one that you misconstrued and are repeatedly misrepresenting - keep in mind that this noticeboard is for discussing the use of RS, and should not be used to harass or hound editors with whom you have an opposing view. Your constant dredging-up of the past to discredit me and diminish my input is unconscionable, particularly for an administrator. Let's not forget that you were warned over your behavior at the Griffin article, and argued until the acting admin removed the warning from the DS log - we call that professional courtesy in the media industry. You were clearly not happy with the consensus that favored my position, so please stop spreading misinformation in your attempts to discredit me in an effort to gain traction for your proposal. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No, he's right and I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. More broadly, old nonsense from bad sources is nonsense from bad sources, and lots of it is a cleanup task, not a reason to claim it has tenure. The cleanup task is quite doable too, I got WP:THESUN from 8000+ uses to 5 in a few months of chewing away at it, and WP:DAILYMAIL is now below 20,000 from about 26,000 - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know there is a policy that says that poorly or unsourced content can be removed, there is no policy that says we must include information. We are not requited to have everything here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

David, which part of my comment do you consider incorrect? In my initial statement above, I agree with you in part which is why I said "...the easy to recognize, undisputed junk/spam sources, a BOT with the right instructions could perform the task of removing the url and adding as necessary (based on certain criteria)." Please consider the following: the sources that have recently been depracated or are being considered for it, and the sources being considered questionable or poor may have been part of a discussion at RSN or an RfC in the past and were approved by consensus for inclusion of a particular statement (in context). We cannot simply ignore that history and start wiping out sources. See DGG's statement below wherein he stated, No source is entirely reliable, almost no source is totally unreliable. The best news sources, such as the NYTimes, have on occasion carried invented stories; the worst, like the Daily Mail, have on occasion carried genuine news that they were the first to report. The scientific journals of the highest prestige, such as Nature, have sometimes carried nonsense, such as the discovery of Polywater, or Duesberg's denial of HIV. I'm of the mind that wiping out sources after the paradigm shift (analog to digital, & from print to internet), or when/if there has been a change of ownership or management may turn out to be a huge mistake. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme you're welcome to disagree, but that view comes directly from published sources, e.g. Network Propaganda by Yochai Benkler. It's also visible over time in analyses of media bias such as this - note how the conservative media all cluster together with a substantial gap between them and mainstream sources that is simply not present in the left-leaning media. So, yes, you're free to disagree, but my reading of the literature says that makes you wrong. Guy (help!) 14:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy - but we have had this discussion before and I have cited several, not just one, highly reputable academic sources as well as interviews with highly reputable journalists/news anchors that dispute your position, including "The War on the Press: A Conversation with Marvin Kalb and Ted Koppel", and this CJR report about media bias. There are many more, such as Cornell Library which cautions about adfontesmedia by stating they are ...a useful adjunct to your own research and evaluation of the news sources that you rely on provided that you evaluate these rating systems with the same care that you use to evaluate the news sources directly. And Gallop, and on and on. Many highly reputable sources TNT your theory about right and left leaning sources, bias and clickbait. Surely you're not putting all your eggs in the "Network Propaganda" basket. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. The relevance of the Ad Fontes chart is simply that it provides a clear visual picture that illlustrates Benkler's findings. There are many within the Benkler book as well. The thesis is not that right-wing media have become more biased, inherently, but that previously mainstream conservative sources have changed the feedback mechanism from fact-checking to ideology-checking. You can see this in the increasing discoinnect between Shep Smith and the bulk of Fox reporting, leading up to his departure from the station.

The CJR report you cite says Academics are making advances in large-scale content analysis, with new machine-driven techniques and more sophisticated yardsticks with which to measure content. Such approaches can reveal much about news outlets’ choices of stories, sources, and language. - that is exactly what Benkler's analysis is. He and his co-authors used sophisticated network analysis techniques to analyse cross-sharing between media, and found that over a short period of time the conservative bubble effectively isolated itself from the mainstream and its "fact-checking dynamic".

It's very clear that over a relatively short period, conservative media has turned almost entirely inward, forming a positive feedback loop that amplifies tropes regardless of factual accuracy, and this contrasts with a fact-checking dynamic that dominates in the mainstream. Left-leaning sources care about what the mainstream media says about a story, so tend not to publish egregious bollocks, whereas the conservative media bubble does not care at all: when mainstream sources disagree with a conservative narrative they merely dismiss it as "lamestream media" "fake news" and carry on. And yes, that has changed over time, quite profoundly.

And this is consistent with a lot of other research. Example: Reinforcing Spirals: The Mutual Influence of Media Selectivity and Media Effects and Their Impact on Individual Behavior and Social Identity describes the effect of closed media bubbles, and numerous subsequent studies have verified Pew's 2014 finding that liberals consume a broader range of sources than do conservatives. Conservatives cluster around Fox News, they distrust mainstream media, and they reward (with likes and shares, that drive advertising revenue) ideologically consonant information rather than factually accurate informaitont hat contradicts a conservative narrative. Liberals do, however, selectively avoid conservative media. So you now have two disconnected media ecosystems, with different systems of incentives (because only one contains the mainstream). Guy (help!) 14:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If editors followed policy correctly, the majority of discussions would be unnecessary. Editors should always seek to use the best sources available and only provide information that meets weight. A lot of discussions are about using obscure sources for information that does not appear anywhere else. It's only topics that have received very little coverage in mainstream sources where one would expect that obscure sources would come up for discussion. These would be articles about local history, minor political figures, minor novelists and musicians, etc. TFD (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Lots of sources are so unreliable, they are unusable in any context except for WP:ABOUTSELF. It's okay to establish that here. We don't need to discuss every single use individually of, say, Breitbart. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, questions about due weight should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard since they fall under the corresponding policy. However, due weight does partially depend on the reliability of the publication. If an opinion from an insignificant individual or organization is either self-published or published in a questionable source, that opinion is undue. If the individual/organization is significant (in the context of the article), or if the opinion is published in a reliable source, there is a possibility that the opinion is due. Reliability plays a bigger role in determining whether a factual claim belongs in an article. — Newslinger talk 20:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, yes. This is where we establish whether a source is reliable for statements of fact, NPOVN is where we discuss whether a source that is not reliable for statements of fact, is, nonetheless, appropriate for citation in a specific article. That seems pretty clear to me, and is not a particularly difficult distinction to draw IMO. Guy (help!) 10:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In July, for using a review mentioning an art gallery by Theodore Dalrymple i.e. an opinion article, Newslinger didn't say "questions about due weight should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard", Newslinger said here on WP:RSN that it was among items that "should be removed because they constitute WP:UNDUE" so an RfC on WP:RSN "addresses" the use. Subsequently David Gerard removed, with a confusing edit summary, the review was in Taki's Magazine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Since Taki's Magazine (RSP entry) is considered a questionable source, Theodore Dalrymple's opinion piece in Taki's Magazine holds a similar amount of weight as a post on Dalrymple's personal blog (i.e. minimal weight). The opinion piece does not qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, as The New Art Gallery Walsall is a third party. If Taki's Magazine were not determined to be questionable, then Dalrymple's opinion piece would have been eligible for inclusion, and the best venue for a discussion of the piece's due weight would have been the neutral point of view noticeboard. But the result of the 2019 RfC is clear, and this discussion is moot. — Newslinger talk 22:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mainer News

I am interested in using this article for User:Jlevi/Tom_Kawcyznski, but I want to check for reliability first. I am specifically interested in adding details about Kawcyznski's prehistory, such as his (brief) runs for Congress, his time in the Free State Project, and possibly details on his wife.

This source seems valuable because most other sources only cover Kawcyznski's life since moving to Maine, whereas this article starts much earlier. However, its bombastic style and the fact that I don't see many citations (for the source on Wikipedia or in the article itself) makes me interested in checking it before adding it to a BLP.

Here are some arguments in favor of the source:

1. A related article from the same publisher and author was cited by The Daily Beast for their own article on Tom_Kawcyznski, so this author and publisher have been used by larger sources.

2. The about page for the publisher indicates that their is a stable editing staff, a set of writers, and physical publishing for the paper in Maine.

Thoughts? Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Newsblog from real paper, if small; real journalist, discussing his work (the sort of things newsblogs publish). Should be fine with attribution - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Use with attribution, overall it looks pretty good. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

God's Not Dead

Editor JzG says it is appropriate to cite the student newspaper Iowa State Daily as a reliable source for content about the film God's Not Dead. The citation is here. I am challenging the reliability of this source to use. In the context of critiquing this film, is this source really appropriate? It strikes me as essentially quoting a college kid's thought on the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• God's Not Dead (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iowa State Daily

It is asserted that a review in Iowa State Daily is unreliable in God's Not Dead because "you cannot cite a college kid to make an overall claim about a film. The content in question is:

though, as Michael Heckle of Iowa State Daily noted, "the movie provides no actual intelligent debate, instead opting to use common stereotypes of atheist and straw man arguments".(ref)

It seems to me that this is a curious view: not only is the statement WP:ATT, rather than a general statement of fact, but college students are both the subject and the target audience for the film. The statement is neutral in tone, not hyperbolic, and backed by other analyses of the film and its sequels: the consensus of independent reviewers is that the characterisation in the film is woeful. This argument would appear to preclude, on the same basis, Harvard Crimson and other student newspapers. Obviously some are unreliable (Liberty University's student newspaper is controlled by Falwell) but I don't see this as an unreliable source for this content? Guy (help!) 17:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally no comparable rejection was registered for the inclusion of an entire paragraph on the reaction of the creationist fringe group Answers in Genesis sourced from two links on their own website, or (and entirely reasonably in this case) to the Catholic News Service's review: "There might be the kernel of an intriguing documentary buried within director Harold Cronk's stacked-deck drama, given the extent of real-life academic hostility toward religion. But even faith-filled moviegoers will sense the claustrophobia of the echo chamber within which this largely unrealistic picture unfolds.". In other words, even if you subscribe to the Christian persecution complex fallacy, this film is still bad. I think Heckle's comment is actually much more rational, in that it points to a specific issue with the way David A. R. White habitually portrays atheist characters in his films, a matter of both mockery and frustration among the atheist community. Guy (help!) 17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case, I think we can live without it. A college newspaper can be a reliable source, but it is generally considered to be second best compared to more seasoned sources. If there were a shortage of secular reviews of the film, we should put it in, just to balance out the multiple religious reviews. (There are a large number of religious reviews listed; even including half that don't like the film!) But we already have reviews from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The A.V. Club, and The Washington Post, which are far more reliable, and are saying basically the same thing, so we don't need a student paper. --GRuban (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, Normally I would agree, but this seems to be a source uniquely well qualified to comment, as the film is both about and for college students, and the commenter is writing with apparent knowledge of the specific class of subject that is being falsely portrayed in the movie - college age atheists. WaPo and the others do not go into the specifics of this caricature presentation. That seems to me to be a pretty solid reason for including this specific voice, but with caution and attribution, as I did. I can find a bazillion atheist blklogs that make this point, and a couple of hillarious episodes of God Awful Movies, but this is pretty much the most cogent and least hysterical presentation of the matter I've come across so far. Have you seen better? Guy (help!) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

But the quote it was being used for, above, doesn't mention anything about college students specifically. It just says strawman and stereotypes. Basically that can be found in the other 4 bigger name reviews: HR: "the film is clearly designed as propaganda"; "Radisson is a pretty one-dimensional tyrant"; "plot gimmick is pretty tacky. It cheapens the issues"; AV: "designed ... to reinforce the stereotypes its chosen audience already holds"; "preaches to the choir"; "any legitimate critiques of Christianity are ignored in favor of suggesting that all atheists are just haters"; "The movie’s deck-stacking arguments could be refuted in a matter of seconds by a pro-atheist subreddit"; "reduces all of its characters to props in an object lesson"; Variety: "The Almighty deserves better advocacy than he gets in this typically ham-fisted Christian campus melodrama"; "about as subtle as a stack of Bibles falling on your head"; "just might be the Almighty’s worst advocate since William Jennings Bryan.The movie’s risibly myopic worldview...". Honestly, if you really want to use almost those same words, you could write "the movie was criticized for using straw man arguments and common stereotypes of atheists instead of any actual debate", and cite these 3 reviews to back that, I would support you. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, OK, I am happy with that. Guy (help!) 10:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The issue is more one of WP:DUE vs UNDUE weight than one of Reliability. Any paper is a reliable PRIMARY source for stating the opinion of that paper’s movie critic. The question is how much weight we should give that critic’s opinion. Given that this is a student paper, I would say: very little. So... omit it. Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• This seems similar (in the mirror sense) to what I saw over at Unplanned, an anti-abortion propaganda movie which mainstream critics panned but critics at papers published by anti-abortion organizations liked. Somehow they are all placed side-by-side as though they're equivalent sources for film criticism. I don't think this is just a due/undue issue (although it certainly is in part). There's the reliability of the critic and the publication to consider. On this board we ask is [author] writing about [subject] in [publication] a reliable source for [use] in [article]. I don't think it's a good idea to lump film critics in with any other opinion. Some are better to include than others based on who they are, where they're writing, the kind of film they're writing about, etc. A student just isn't as good of a source for film criticism as professional critic, and criticism in a paper published by a church about a film relevant to the church's ideology just isn't as good of a source as a mainstream publication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

infotextmanuscripts.org

• infotextmanuscripts.org  

The home page says "I have published on the Holocaust and Holocaust Revisionism - what is known pejoratively and inaccurately as Holocaust Denial", and further down "We have scored two victories, in particular an out-of-court settlement from the Metropolitan Police after a raid at the behest of Imperial Zion in 1993". I'm prepared to go out on a limb and say this site isn't reliable for anything in any article under any circumstances? FDW777 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Depends for what exactly. Many sources seem to be things like [17], which have no relationship whatsoever to the holocaust/conspiracy theories in general. But for anything from this Alexander Baron, or anything Jewish/Nazi related, in general, it's a complete wackadoodle source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It does host various primary sources through the 'David Webb Virtual Archive' which might be permissible under WP:ABOUTSELF though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this not (in effect) an SPS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Hustle

I found this website that has a nicely written article on something I'm planning to write about called The Hustle. It's articles are written in an informal writing style and it caters to millenials, sort of like Vice. Is it a reliable source? Kalimi (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kalimi! Per their about page, I'm sceptical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is another article about them in DigiDay. Kalimi (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's strange that The Hustle (thehustle.co) lists its investors, but not its editorial staff. The site appears to be a tertiary source, since most of its articles are summaries of news pieces from secondary sources, which are linked in the articles. After a spot check, I don't think The Hustle does any original research or reporting of its own. I would prefer to use the secondary sources linked in The Hustle instead of The Hustle itself. Which specific article are you planning to cite? — Newslinger talk 08:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This article. Kalimi (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. "The man who won the lottery 14 times" is a two-part long-form article unlike most of the content in The Hustle. This article is definitely a secondary source. While I am still disappointed in the publication's lack of transparency in its operations, I am impressed that the article included a properly labeled error correction after they were contacted by Stefan Mandel's attorney. I would consider this particular article usable for uncontroversial facts, but contentious claims about living persons (including Mandel) should also be supported by other reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Aight, thank you very much. Kalimi (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I am less sure, this "Stories and insights you wont find elsewhere" is either a lie (thus they may be unreliable, they tell lies) or is true, which mean they must right their own stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Stefan Mandel story has been covered in many other publications and it is likely that The Hustle based its story on them. So it's better to use the other publications. Also, the claim in the article that the odds can be beaten goes against received understanding, hence WP:REDFLAG applies. TFD (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Tatler

Tatler hasn't appeared on this noticeboard before as far as I can tell. I am interested in what other contributors think of this source, especially for BLP information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, as far as I can tell they comply with https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/ and have an editorial complaints policy https://www.condenast.co.uk/complaints/policy/. Did you have anything particular in mind? Vexations (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Conde Nast gives them points - CN is reasonably good at fact-checking. Is Tatler a dubious example of a CN mag? - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable print magazine with full staff, long history (1901), no evidence of unreliability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Probably reliable for fashion and high society which they cover.--Eostrix (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Carnot-Cournot Netwerk

There is some discussion of the recently-created Mototaka Nakamura article. A source came up published at the Carnot-Cournot Netwerk, which is a German... something. Maybe a group blog? I don't speak German, so it is rather hard to evaluate this source. The source is significant for being the only (possible) reliable source to mention the book.

Anyway, the specific article here appears to be a summary of a book that Nakamura wrote.

The blog seems to have some editorial oversight (what is does, practically, is unclear). How do folks usually evaluate non-English sources? Perhaps a German-speaker could weigh in? Thanks!

Jlevi (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Jlevi, The Carnot-Cournot-Netzwerk für Politikberatung in Technik und Wirtschaft is a nuclear energy lobby group organized as a Swiss association. Vexations (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! If you know or can find out, is there any evidence for reliability or importance for that group? Jlevi (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI, (copying from previous talk and expanding) In this case, the author, Ferruccio Ferroni, is an "Energy Consultant" with at least 3 technical publications [18] and two technical patents.[19][20] Some people (in blogs) disagree with Ferroni's EROI paper, but disagreement happens. To me Ferroni's summary looks in line with the 2 or 3 other summaries I've seen, and CC Network helpfully makes the book available for convenient download too. People (co-founders?) associated with the Network include professor emeritus Silvio Borner, and successful consulting company owner Markus Haring or Haering[21] (if I understand correctly). They have a operating board[22] overseeing operations. They also operate a book publishing operation.[23] PS. Shouldn't other interested editors be notified of noticeboard discussions on Talk pages? -- Yae4 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail and RSOPINION

As most know, David Gerald (talk · contribs) has been working steadily to remove Daily Mail refs per the result of WP:DAILYMAIL in that it fails RS for fact checking. No issue at all with that (though I believe there's better ways of handling "deprecation" than rushing removal unless it is dealing directly with BLP issues.)

This removal came up today [24] where the DM was being used strictly under an RSOPINION - it is a DM staff writing, providing their opinion of the episode. I have no idea how critical the opinion is, and whether it actually is needed is the topic of a separate discussion. The issue here is that outright removal of a DM reference being used as a RSOPINION appears to fail the reason to remove DM links from the previous RFC, as its not being used to support any thing factual, just opinion. --Masem (t) 02:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is a question of due weight. The Daily Mail is a tabloid with high circulation, but a questionable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, the reviewer (Jim Shelly) does not appear to be notable. I would exclude Shelly's review from the article as undue weight. — Newslinger talk 02:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

For me the Daily Mail is still a national newspaper, for its lack of basic fact checking and tabloidism they do still represent some element of political thought and general opinion. The "weight" in question for me is clear - as a national newspaper they clear possess it. It's basically irrelevant if the opinion of the person being published is of a given weight as their opinion is granted weight through being published (which is in and of itself an issue with the DM, but I digress).

Instead, for me, the issue is whether what is being said is actually significant enough for inclusion as an opinion in any case. Reading the content, the answer is 'no'. It's a throwaway line that barely says "X is is not Y but that's okay". There is no actual meaning to the discussion. Now if there was a discussion over the character / actor and several papers had made various comments then I could see some value in contrasting opinions but as a solo statement it is basically unwarranted without context about Jenna Coleman. Koncorde (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If the DM's opinion on a particular topic is notable, it will have been noted elsewhere, e.g. electoral endorsements, which RSes often compile. If its opinion hasn't been noted, it's prima facie not a notable opinion - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

For the purposes of my question, I'd set aside the issue of whether the WEIGHT of the opinion is needed or not, and assume that editors beleive it is appropriate to include. This still leaves the question of whether the DAILYMAIL RFC meant to exclude the use of an RSOPIONION in this manner. --Masem (t) 02:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The RFC appears to me to say generally prohibited, not "generally prohibited except for non-notable writers saying something in passing about Dr Who" - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Weight and reliability are related. WP:WEIGHT states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Because of this, questionable publications like the Daily Mail have low weights for their published opinions. Their opinions gain weight if they are mentioned in reliable sources; if this is the case, the original publication might be citable as a primary source (although this is subject to editorial discretion). Opinions published by notable people are more likely to meet the weight threshold, especially if the publication has high circulation. — Newslinger talk 03:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Then fundamentally RSOPINION shouldn't exist.

If this were, say, opinions about Donald Trump, there would be no end to reliable sources to pull opinion from, and it would be extremely unlikely we'd have to pull a DM opinion piece to suggest anything not covered in the major viewpoints. That makes sense to omit DM.

But we're talking a TV episode here. The number of sources that provide reviews on this episode are far far less, probably a few dozen (Rotten Tomatoes gives 20) At this point, DM can be considered a significant viewpoint among those, though again, whether it is or not is a separate question that should be beyond this scope. It may not be in this case, but outright removal just because we're saying DM broadly is an unreliable source doesn't seem appropriate without having a discussion regardly the weight of its opinion relative to others. Or otherwise the statement should be that DM should be not included even for RSOPINION (which is not something read into the closure of the RFC, but could be added per a consensus). --Masem (t) 03:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we're interpreting the first sentence of WP:RSOPINION ("Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.") in two different ways.

I've always interpreted WP:RSOPINION as a guideline that restricts the use of opinions in sources that are otherwise "recognized as reliable" for facts. Specifically, it requires in-text attribution for these opinions, which prevents these opinions from being "asserted as fact". Opinions from the Daily Mail are a different case, because they are published in a source that is otherwise considered questionable for facts. Under this interpretation, these opinions are not considered reliable, and they are generally excluded as undue weight. They can still be included if they are also mentioned in reliable sources.

The first sentence in WP:RSOPINION can also be interpreted to mean that sources which are considered questionable for facts can still be used for their opinions. I never used this interpretation, because it works against the due weight policy and allows unreliable sources to bypass the verifiability policy's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" requirement by labeling their assertions as opinions. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The second interpretation does not necessarily work against WEIGHT, as WEIGHT can only be assessed when there is a plethera of good RS sourcing to start with. Again, say we were talking Donald Trump and his handling of the COVID situation. Literally hundreds of opinion sources exists from our quality RSes that in generally all going to be around point "it was a poor response". I would not be able to evoke RSOPINION to say "well, I'm going to go include Breitbart's opinion source that says 'It was great!' and you can't stop me!" because WEIGHT overrides that for all purposes (eg that gets to FRINGE). That fully follows the line of logic you present.

But if we only have a handful of sources as the case of reviews of a TV episode where it is impossible to assess WEIGHT - not because we don't have RSes but because of simple statistical aspects. The fewer and fewer sources one has to evaluate WEIGHT, the less WEIGHT can really apply. If, hypothetically, only two opinion pieces existed for an episode, there's zero way we could judge WEIGHT or UNDUE at all. With 20-some sources we may be getting closer to a broad consensus on overall episode quality and what facets were strengths and weaknesses, but we're still major viewpoint deviations across the board that can't be judged by WEIGHT. Then and only then introducing the opinion piece an otherwise notable source (as the Daily Mail is for a UK TV show would qualify) to state their opinion can be an option open to editors that is in line with RSOPINION that is not violating WEIGHT. But editors are also not required to include it if they feel the point is unnecessary or effectively covered by others; if the DM's point is the same as, say, the Radio Times, then we'd encourage editors to just use the Radio Times. I'm all for discouraging editors from using DM for opinions but that should be a case-by-case evaluation and not forced in the same manner that we need to remove DM from anything BLP related. --Masem (t) 06:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your implication is that this was not removed as part of a case-by-case evaluation. This is not the case, and you'd need to actually show that each removal was not being thought about, when mine are. But you seem to be starting from the position that it might be a good source - hence your repeated defences of it over the past several months - rather than its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited.

If this example was really the best and most defensible use of the DM you could find, then it shows just how bad the other uses are - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would add that if editors tried to use RSOPINION to inject "factual" assertions as opinions (eg passing off fringe theories as such), that's absolutely a non-starter. I totally agree we cannot have this go there, and I think it's rather clear that there a clear line between using the opinion on a topic from a normally non-RS , and presenting the assertions as opinions from a non-RS, particularly when one considers the topic to be covered. EG: RSOPINION is fine in the area of contemporary entertainment like TV and movies but it better not be used in political circles. --Masem (t) 06:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Instead of creating a broad exception for opinion pieces in all questionable sources, I think the most straightforward option would be to hold a discussion/RfC on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews. If there is consensus that the Daily Mail can be used for these reviews, then we'll carve out an exception to the 2017 and 2019 Daily Mail RfCs for them. Exempting all opinions from the verifiability policy would distort articles on less popular topics that don't have enough opinions for due weight to be assessed, by allowing opinions from unreliable sources for those topics. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason for this - it would be adding a carve-out unnecessarily. There is literally no reason to print "critical" analysis of fictional subjects from a deprecated source - and especially for what is actually some un-notable person's opinion in a known bad source.

We have literally no reason to care what the Daily Mail says about something - unless its opinion is covered in an RS, and then we can use that - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a valid interpretation, and I would suggest that it is actually misleading to suggest that an unreliable opinion gains weight and therefore reliability just because it is mentioned in another supposed reliable source. The Daily Mail has a very real and valid opinion as a major British newspaper even if we do not trust it for non-attributed opinion because of historic (and current) basic issues with fact checking. Koncorde (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The verifiability policy establishes that "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" and that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." The neutral point of view policy states that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Just because an opinion is published on a high-traffic medium does not necessarily make it due in an article (especially if it is not mentioned by reliable sources). Using a previously mentioned example, Breitbart News (RSP entry) has an Alexa rank of 255 (which is comparable to the Daily Mail's Alexa rank of 263), yet we regularly exclude its views as undue weight because it is a questionable source. — Newslinger talk 03:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

But the Daily Mail was not deprecated for opinion - it says so under the deprecation entry - so if your interpretation is true we have just shadow-banned the DM while at the same time proclaiming that we have definitely not shadow-banned them, while again at the same time gesturing at ways that they could totally be in Wikipedia if they just got their words published in another reliable source. I cannot agree with that interpretation of the deprecation of the DM. Koncorde (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I would point out there is no blanket ban on the use of the Daily Myth. However there is also the fact that we use the person as much as the publisher to determine weight (assuming this is an RS and not wp:undue question). So both sides may in fact be right, but also wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This was a fundamentally WP:POINTy addition of a link to the DM. Remember that, per the RFC, its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. And Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. Masem's addition of the deprecated source - for nothing more substantial than a non-notable writer's passing opinion on Doctor Who - was not reasonably supportable by WP:RSOPINION.

When editors bring matters to RSN, we always ask for examples of the problem they're talking about. If this is the best example Masem has of a use case for the DM, then the DM fails hard. If this isn't the best example, then it was just tendentious editing - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

To correct an error, I did not add that DM link, It existed in the article since at least 2016. I objected to its first removal hence the reversion. I did not "add" it.

But as to the idea of the writer themselves being his to judge the use of a review is not a good metric, it is the work itself one should consuder. (The author would only be important if the work itself was non notable). DM is still a major publication in the UK that covers its entertainment options, and reviews UK programming regularly. It doesn't matter who they assign the weeks episode to review, just that they are a major publication people read.

Also, that critic is actually notable. --Masem (t) 11:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Two sources, both of which do not appear to be about him.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No, under WP:BURDEN - which is policy - re-adding requires justification just as adding does. They are the same thing.

If this is the best example you have of a use case for the DM, then the DM fails hard. If this isn't the best example, then it was just tendentious editing. - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

So, having to spend time to figure out and at least remove (the rather POINTy) PROD with additional sourcing that gives more notability to Shelley, he is definitely not a nobody here. He may not an immediate household name like Roger Ebert, but he's name is mentioned several times alongside other modern UK television critics like Brooker and Lewis-Smith, and to simply call him a "non-notable" at this point would be completely BS. Just because he may be writing for the DM does not mean his opinion is disgardable. Shelley has bounced between many different papers in the UK, both legit and tabloid, but that's not changing how he writes or how his opinion weighs. --Masem (t) 14:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I subscribe to the idea that a view that's only been published by an unreliable source fails WP:WEIGHT, and if it has also been published in reliable sources then we should cite those sources instead. However, per Newslinger, we should hold a clarifying RfC if there's a strong feeling among editors that DM is reliable for entertainment reviews.

It would also be helpful to clarify what the heck WP:RSOPINION is trying to say as it's regularly used both for and against the use of opinions published in unreliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Blueboar (talk · contribs) added the base language of RSOPINION back in Nov 2008 [25], but as best I can tell not from any discussion at its talk page (archive that covers that period is Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 20, though I do point out later added the BLPSPS aspects due to an RSN discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_20#Incorporating_WP:BLP_into_WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion. As the lack of clear talk page discussion leave open debate to what the intent was, an RFC to get clarity on RSOPINION is fair enough. --Masem (t) 17:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• As best as I can remember, the intent was to say that sources such as OP-Ed columns can be seen as (primary) sources ... they reliably support an attributed statement as to the opinion of its writer, even if not reliable when used as a secondary source to support an unattributed statement of fact. (Ie: a statement noting that “Ima Blowhard wrote an Op-Ed saying Trump is a poopy head” can be supported by citing the Op-Ed where he said this... BUT the statement “Trump is a poopy head” may NOT be appropriately supported by that same Op-Ed). Note - this does NOT mean that we must include Ima Blowhard’s opinion (THAT depends on DUE weight)... merely that IF we include his opinion, the Op-Ed where that opinion was stated is a reliable primary source.Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Relating this to the current DM discussion, there are three issues to address: 1- Due Weight. should an article mention the opinion of someone writing for the DM in the first place? This really should be answered by examining the qualifications of the author more than the publication. 2- Phrasing. IF the answer to question one is yes, THEN we have phrase what we write as an opinion, and not state it as fact. 3- Sourcing. IF we phrase as opinion, THEN the Op-Ed reliably supports the statement. So... 1- first we need to ask if the Opinion of this specific TV critic is DUE? IF not then omit. If yes 2) then phrase as opinion (attribute) and 3) cite the opinion as primary source. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Kudos to Masem for bringing this up again. Closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that there was no intention to exclude opinions. See also the November 2019 thread Opinions in the Daily Mail and the February 2020 thread Daily Mail TV reviews. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the DM is not a reliable source, opinions expressed in it have no weight except when they are reported in reliable sources. So for example if the DM editorial page said that COVID-19 was a hoax and reliable news media reported they said that, then we could report what those rs said. But if it wasn't reported, then we could not add this information to articles. Bear in mind that there are many fringe sources that are reliable for what their publishers say, but no reason to add these opinions to articles about the topics they discuss. TFD (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Not quite... lets follow Godwin’s law and invoke Hitler. I think everyone here would agree that Mien Kamph is NOT a reliable source. However, there are (very limited) situations where noting what Hitler said in that book would help explain why history took the path that it did. We could quote it, or paraphrase it as part of that explanation. When doing so, the book itself is reliable (as a primary source) to support our quote or paraphrase. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Per BlueBoar above, that is gibberish at best and does not match the equivalent essay on the subject or the RFC closure comments or the intent of RSOpinion per BlueBoar above. To quote the Deprecation article:

"Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media.[2][3][4][5] In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately."

Now whether or not all sources being removed are being done so indiscriminately, is a separate issue, or whether as BlueBoar made clear in his summary the RSOpinion is worth having even if it is something we can use, is another question. Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

TFD's argument is not "gibberish" as you claim, as it is well-supported by the due weight policy. When no other reliable sources mention a review in the Daily Mail, the review does not have the necessary weight for inclusion because the Daily Mail – as a questionable source – does not provide "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If you think the Daily Mail should be considered reliable for entertainment reviews, then we can start a separate discussion/RfC to see if there is consensus to establish that. — Newslinger talk 03:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

To take the logic you present, particularly for a TV episode, no individual review rarely is of specific mention in any RS. So if you are asking editors to try to use which reviews that RSes point to determine WEIGHT, that does not exist in this area. You're actually suggesting a very different interpretation of WEIGHT which only works for topics maybe years out from the event of note, where academic secondary sources are reviewing the sources around the time of the event. When we are close to an event, we need to actually gather all the RS opinions ourselves and make that judgement on WEIGHT, we aren't likely going to find the sources that are going to make that call for us.

What we normally have to do for a TV episode (or other media like films and the like) is collect all the reviews that we know exist, picking the ones that from editors' past experience and common sense are the typical go-to for that media type and show with more weight given the strong RSes but not eliminating weak RSes off the bat. Going back and forth, figuring out what are common high and low points (acting? writing? etc?), and then writing some type of impartial summary, deciding which reviews make the best sense to include, and if there's any smart soundbites to also link in there. This is the WEIGHT exercise, but that because we're already starting with a limited number of sources, having to also look at the RSOPINION ones. In the latter case, we're always going to be including in-line attribution, obviously. We also make sure to avoid giving excessive weight to the opinions coming off the RSOPINION sources, and here the principles of UNDUE still apply: if 19 of 20 sources loved the acting but the DM hated it, we're not going to give the DM any serious (if any) weight here. But key is that the net effect is that we as editors are trying to summarize the critical consensus in a neutral fashion as there is no higher-level sources that gives us that analysis (with limited exceptions). And yes, how to do that has been debated on the various film, TV, etc projects multiple times. its a type of art, but one most experienced editors in that field know how to do.

So now, why explaining this is important is that in this exercise, we are still including the weaker RS or the RSes that would not meet RS for fact-checking but have generally notable media critics. This would include the Daily Mail for UK television (as well as the other "tabloids" like Mirror and Express because they do have notable critics). They help inform the broader direction (what the high and low points were) and may be useful for specific quotes, though we're not required to use those quotes nor even source them if we can pull from the better RS reviews. This is all justified under the implication of RSOPINION with the additional clarification that Blueboar has provided in this thread. As long as the material is inline-attributed and only used for those opinions, nothing is violations, not WEIGHT, not RSOPINION, not the DM deprecation. --Masem (t) 03:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Opinions published in reliable sources don't need to be mentioned in other reliable sources, since they already constitute the "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" that are required by the due weight policy. Any source can theoretically be used as a primary source regardless of its reliability if its claims are attributed in-text, and the due weight policy exists to ensure that opinions covered in reliable sources (including opinions originally published by reliable sources, and opinions originally published by questionable sources and then covered in reliable sources afterward) are represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The due weight policy does not make any space for opinions published in questionable sources that are not also mentioned in reliable sources. Otherwise, editors would be able to, for example, add opinions from InfoWars (RSP entry) on any topic solely on the grounds that Alex Jones is notable and that InfoWars has a large audience. The opinions of unreliable sources are not due even if they happen to align with the majority opinion in reliable sources, unless they are also covered by reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 04:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not what the DM's deprecation statement says. You are interpreting them to be an unreliable source for all subject matter. It is clear from the deprecation statement that was not the intent. It is clear from the essay on deprecation that it is not the intent. At no point was the intent to effectively ban opinion other than in the factual sense of misinformation / disinformation. Koncorde (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The closing statement in the 2017 RfC actually says that "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles". The statement also says that "if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead". For the purposes of the current discussion, I am only referring to non-"historical" uses of the Daily Mail, as this discussion started as a question about a 2015 Daily Mail article. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So then it is banned, right? Literally it states right there then that it cannot be used, ever. Which is strange, because you yourself have just given a "historic" wiggle room, and then that does not gel with the actual purpose or use of deprecation per the quote provided: "Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media.[2][3][4][5] In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." So which is it; is it banned, or is it situational? Are we using the RFC, or the Deprecation statement, or the description of Deprecation and its intent? Why does Breitbart have a different deprecation statement (among others) when it refers specifically to the Daily Mail? If originally it wasn't banned, but now it is banned, then we need to just remove the idea that this is an instance of deprecation at all and just flag the stuff as banned properly. Koncorde (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So then it is banned, right? Certainly not. I've reviewed more Wikipedia usages of the Daily Mail in the past six months than anyone, I'm pretty sure - about 8,000 so far, I think - and I have so far found at least ten or so that are arguably indispensable. But it's definitely the case that if you want to use the DM, you need an overwhelmingly convincing reason. It's not clear what your difficulty with understanding this is - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide an example where you think it can stay? Springee (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Paul Dacre is one it would obviously be difficult to completely remove from, for instance.

Your turn - you're strongly advocating the DM's hypothetical utility in this thread, what convincing concrete examples do you have to hand? - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

First, you haven't provided a specific example so we can't see why you think a citation should remain. The best I can guess is you are going for ABOUTSELF. I'm not advocating a near total ban in inclusion nor have I tried to scrub Wikipedia to remove DM citations. I guess you have me at a disadvantage as I haven't reviewed and removed thousands of examples from Wikipedia. Still, I would argue that the example that kicked this discussion off looks like a bad removal. Let's zoom out a bit. Per WP:IAR, how are we harming Wikipedia by keeping these citations and how are you improving Wikipedia by removing them? Springee (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So, you've got one example, excellent! So far it's not convincing people who didn't already agree with you. If you want to convince more people, I suggest convincing examples might help! Or maybe you don't have any.

BTW, this is the burden of proof. You want a change to the present rule, to let through stuff that isn't being let through now - so you have to make the case for it. I don't have to make your case for you, as you seem to be requesting - you have to make your own case yourself, if you're actually interested in convincing people who don't already agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You have zero examples. Since you say you don't always remove on site please offer examples where you think such a citation can stay and why. Not an article, actual examples of citations. Else, Koncorde is correct, it's a ban. Springee (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but you see it's not a ban if we can use it on the Daily Mail article itself and Paul Dacres article. Doesn't matter what it is, just so long as it's confined to a few page spaces where we can always point at it and say "see, told you it wasn't banned!". Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, this removal that I just noticed is 100% absolutely okay. It's not opinion, it's DM trying to report on the show, and it falls squarely in type of tabloid-ish coverage that contributed the DM deprecation. I have rarely seen any "fact" that the DM says in this aspect about Doctor Who that can't be sourced from elsewhere or that actually necessary to include.These removals on DW or other television articles aren't in question --Masem (t) 23:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree... not opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that removing this was a mistake; I can't see how that edit improves the project. While an unreliable source will often also be an undue one that is not always going to be the case. Can't see any reason why the DM's entertainment critics' opinions would be less notable than those of any other UK newspaper's entertainment critics. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• If the opinion is only published in the Dailymail then it's undue weight. If it's notable then there should have been secondary sources. I agree with the removal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  I would also note that Masem didn't notify David Gerard about this discussion. The above ping is to another editor called "David Gerald".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Permit for opinion The Daily Mail was ONLY proscribed on the basis of its factual reporting.The Daily Mail should be perfectly accept for a review or a columnist's opinion or an op-ed or for anything else that is consistent with WP:RSOPINION. If the opinion would be citeable for any other mainstream news outlet then it should be permissible to cite The Daily Mail in such a context too. I supported the ban (and still do) on the basis it was proposed. However, I resent the fact that this blanket ban is being extended beyond the purpose of what I supported. Extending the application of the ban beyond the scope of the original RFC is just straightforward censorship, pure and simple. Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Straw poll: Daily Mail

Should we hold a request for comment on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews? Also, should any other types of coverage in the Daily Mail (e.g. sports reporting) be specifically assessed for reliability? — Newslinger talk 04:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Straw poll: Daily Mail)

• No. An RfC might be okay if there was neutral wording about what needs settling but I fear the wording suggested by this straw poll wouldn't address that sufficiently. Should not be merely about "entertainment reviews" but all reviews editorials and opinion columnists and quotes of opinions attributed to employees of any Mail-related publication or site. Should not be mentioning "reliable" since that narrows the range of arguments. Should be mentioning where the RfC goes since there have been mentions of weight which is not a WP:RSN matter but a WP:NPOV matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• No I think it's addressing the wrong question. A first question would be to make sure the intent behind RSOPINION, which would not only cover Daily Mail but several other UK tabloids in the area of TV reviews, but also several other factors. Should an RSOPINION RFC end with "yes, we can draw opinions from sources not normally considered reliable", then maybe a specific question on whether an RFC for the Daily Mail specifically may be needed, though I think that answer should be obvious from the first. But it would be key to present the RSOPINION question without the loaded factor of the DM question. --Masem (t) 14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Certainly not -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. There is no reason to open a loophole to add Daily Mail opinion pieces. And if we were to do so, it would require another full RFC on the level of WP:DAILYMAIL and its 2019 ratification, at the very least - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes I've looked through the previous RfCs and while many if not all agree DM is problematic, there is considerable disagreement over total banishment. I don't think the previous RfC close went far enough in representing the opinions of many community members who saw some limited place for DM. Breaking it down by topic area and notify those editors with an interest or experience in those topic areas is a good idea. They will know how reliable or not DM is based on their experiences of dealing with it as a source. (n.b. If you have comments or questions please ping me in the Discussion section not immediately below my comment, thank you.) -- GreenC 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Straw poll: Daily Mail)

• The Daily Mail is a "Tomatometer-approved publication" that is counted in scores from Rotten Tomatoes (RSP entry), which is a favorable indicator of the Daily Mail's reliability for movie and TV reviews. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• There is no reason to take the Daily Mail's opinion seriously on anything. One example I removed was Jaci Stephen - look, a writer with an article of her own! - opining that if a soap opera character "started charging for sex – they'd never worry about money again. It would be a busman's holiday for them. They could even make it a family business – slappersRus.com". I submit that I'm hard pressed to think of any circumstance in which this is an addition to the sum of human knowledge. I'm really, really not going to spend time looking for some other commenter in an RS who I can cite calling fictional characters "slappersRus" to. Nor should anyone else be expected to.

We are then faced with our own WP:OR to decide which are acceptable pop culture opinion claims from the DM and which aren't. This has the same problem as using it for facts, in which some DM fans seem to want editors to do OR to support the use of their favourite deprecated source.

Fundamentally, the Daily Mail is a tabloid source so bad that we deprecated it. This entire discussion is an attempt to weasel a gratuitous exception to the deprecation, on a flimsy excuse. There's no reason for us to indulge it - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop being so dramatic. The DM is a trashbag liner and nobody is going to defend its use as a factual tome, but you are summarising the question being asked and the reason why in order to cast aspersions at other editors motives which will not be bore out by looking at their actual edit history. Koncorde (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

DM critics may also "try" to write factual stories for the DM as you are linking to in your example, and per the DM ban that would be and has been taken out, and that's not an issue. Its only when we're looking at the critic's opinion, not all of their work for the DM. --Masem (t) 14:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• We should not be removing DM references for things like movie reviews. The wide circulation of the DM, even if editors here say it isn't reliable, adds weight to the opinions. In cases where the material is being used per RSopinion this shouldn't be an issue. Springee (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Springee as above. I would also agree we should not be removing it from sports reporting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• What aspects of DM were shown to be unreliable. I'm under the impression that the issue is related to political related stories/people. Is that correct? Do we have any evidence their sports, TV reviews etc are unreliable? I also agree that the idea that we need others to note their opinion is problematic. When dealing with lower profile topics it isn't always practical to find a large number of sources. If the claims aren't controversial or if the opinions are widely noted (as is the case here) then we shouldn't remove based only on the deprecated status. Springee (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:DAILYMAIL, Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. This was the result of a broad RFC, that was ratified again in 2019. This is what we're talking about in this section - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I get that someone closed the discussion that way but is that really what the discussion supported? I personally think the remove on site mentality has gone too far and is a violation of the spirit of RS. [Note: I meant for this my comments starting with "What aspects of DM..." to be in the general discussion, not the straw poll. I'm leaving them here because David has replied here but I'm OK if an editor feels they should be moved] Springee (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that you know what it actually says, but you're hoping for a loophole. I think if you're trying that hard to find excuses to include the Daily Mail, you don't really get the idea of Wikipedia reliable sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm raising the question. Please don't accuse me of "hoping for a loophole." I'm not suggesting motives behind your actions, please return the favor. I think if you check I've never added the DM as a source. I do understand RS. Consider if Jeremy Clarkson or Stirling Moss did a car review for the DM. They are both notable opinions on cars (for different reasons). You are arguing that we couldn't include their opinions because by virtue of the fact that they were in the DM they are not reliable. If the exact same reviews were in Autoweek, a publication with far less circulation, would you oppose their inclusion? I think this is the very legitimate point Mansen is making. Springee (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not Autoweek's circulation versus the Daily Mail's. Autoweek do not have an extensively documented history of just making stuff up, and the Daily Mail does, which is why it was deprecated. If you think circulation is the problem, then you fail to understand the issue - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting DM would change what a reviewer wrote? In this case if Clarkson said the car was good the DM would change his statements? Is there any history of them doing such a thing, using their editorial chair to change what a reviewer said? Springee (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Echo the above entirely. The use of deprecation here is to completely ban the use of the Daily Mail for anything, even the opinions of notable critics. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There are known instances of the Daily Mail publishing fake quotes from sports and entertainment figures, so it isn't confined to unreliability on political issues. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep - and I keep finding that not even their sports coverage is so great actually, particularly anything involving a quote or opinion. They make stuff up. If there's some interesting or quirky fact that's only in the DM or Sun, it'll usually be exaggerated or made-up nonsense. Details that aren't in any other source - because they made them up. That's why it can't even be trusted for pop culture - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There are known instances of many newspapers publishing retractions. In most cases publishing such a retraction, or issuing an apology, is considered the right thing to do when it happens with more reputable sources (not that I am suggesting the DM would ever proactively own up, rather than just deleting said article off the internet wherever possible and salting the earth with a clone-a-like and a new headline). Koncorde (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• In the area of British television, DM reviews by DM staff writers should be considered for inclusion by editors. Whether they are included or not, that's up to local consensus, but neither the DM RFCs nor RSOPINION prohibit their use. All factors of RSOPINION must be followed, with in-line attribution to the writer and source. --Masem (t) 14:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Your bizarre personal interpretation of WP:RSOPINION does not do nearly what you think it does. Deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable sources - as in, more unreliable than run-of-the-mill self-published sources. You seem, functionally, to be trying to leverage your bizarre personal interpretation into an end-run around deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Don't open the door for "opinion" claims. A lot of Dailymail columnists are notable like Alex Brummer, Stephen Glover, Max Hastings, Dominic Lawson, Quentin Letts, Richard Littlejohn, Jan Moir, Bel Mooney, Andrew Pierce, Amanda Platell. Today it's a TV critic, tomorrow is an economist, political analyst, political commentator etc. RSOPINION talks about opinions from reliable sources, doesn't support Masem claim.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• See WP:DAILYMAIL. Only use for it I can think of at the moment, in the light of the current UK bogroll shortage, is as a substitute. It's a bit rough on the arsehole, but nevertheless satisfying, and functional. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• If a person, in a position of providing a professional opinion in their role as providing such an opinion professionally, and who perhaps has a long-standing career with work outside of the Daily Mail, cannot be used as a source for their direct opinion, then does that person still exist? Koncorde (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  What do you mean by still exist? That's not an opinion piece, it's an article written by a Dailymail columnist. Even if the Dailymail columnist is notable, we don't use it. Most of the Dailymail columnists are notable. We should not use the Dailymail even with attribution. If what the person said in the Dailymail was notable then there should be secondary sources and we can use secondary sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That looks like semantics. So a columnist that is otherwise well known for doing the job that they do, but happen to do it for the Daily Mail doesn't exist and neither does their opinion, unless it is subsequently published in another reliable source. Koncorde (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

They have to be a pretty notable expert in the field that even their casual blog posts in deprecated sources would be Wikipedia-worthy. Open slather for anyone writing in the DM with a Wikipedia article to their name would be inane - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Which is great, that is your opinion and I am overjoyed that we both think it's a piece of shit newspaper. However your stance simply reinforces that this is in fact a ban on any content associated with the Daily Mail, regardless of how notable or significant the individual or their opinion or if they have previously done any work for any other RS. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's "a piece of shit newspaper"? At this time of coronavirus shortages, that suggests it's more useful than hitherto thought. Hope it's suitably soft. Caution: may entail cancer risk. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with those saying we can not have a blanket ban here. When assessing DUE WEIGHT for an opinion, the reputation of the person giving the opinion is of significantly greater importance than the reputation of the publication in which he gives it. Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Formally make Spotify a "generally unreliable" source?

Apologies if I'm not following correct procedures here, RSN isn't one of my usual haunts. I searched the RSN archives and RSP, but I didn't see any official determination of what kind of source Spotify is. I often see musician biography drafts (nearly all of which are autobiographical) source to artist pages on Spotify. As far as I can tell, Spotify artist pages are submitted by the artist or label, so they're self-published sources and usually full of puffery anyway ("so-and-so took the world by storm with their chart-topping first album 'We're Notable! Really!'" or something like that). Does this seem reasonable enough? creffett (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It's unlikely that Spotify hires its own journalists to produce these profiles, so they are probably taken from press releases and material found elsewhere. This would also apply to Amazon.com, Last.fm and similar sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Only comment I would add is to make sure we provider users with what are RSes for album catalogs and equivalent for what spotify/etc. are being used for now. --Masem (t) 06:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources like Spotify, Amazon and Last.fm are generally reliable for things like album track listings, but they are not ideal. The real problem area is WP:BLP, and there should be a bright-line rule preventing their use in BLP articles. So in some ways, this is more on topic at WP:BLPN.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, agreed on the bright-line rule, though these also pop up in band articles, which kind of straddle the BLP line. Personally, I think that if an artist/band is notable enough for an article there will be a review or something out there which mentions a track list, but I'm willing to compromise since a track list is a pretty straightforward fact. creffett (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The bios are mostly an old AllMusic dump. Some indie bands write their own bios. So in general, we should look for better sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The bios would fall under WP:SELFSOURCE or WP:BLPSELFPUB. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Prose, unless sourced to a known, reputable reviewer, are now and have always been considered unreliable. Track listings are better sourced to something like AllMusic, or a publication where an article has an actual byline. If none can be found, it's unlikely that the subject is notable, but this would be the only reason to use Spotify (or Apple Music, the iTunes Store, Amazon, or other sales channel) as a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

A spot check confirms that Spotify uses the same artist bios as AllMusic (RSP entry), e.g. Spotify vs. AllMusic for Michael Jackson. In the past, editors have considered AllMusic marginally reliable for biographical information. I would cite AllMusic instead of Spotify, since AllMusic has a stronger reputation for music reviews. If there are more reliable sources available (especially if the artists are living persons), I would prefer those. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

They probably copy the artists' short form PR profile.--Pikavoom (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes

Genuinely suprised this isn't on the perennial sources list, currently has 84 articles   using it. As far as I am aware Guido Fawkes is simply a right wing political blog with no editorial oversight and is Daily Mail and Sun tier in terms of quality for fact checking. It shouldn't be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia for the same reason The Skwawkbox isn't. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Would agree. Why is this used?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's one of the more long-running political blogs, but in the end it is just a blog and shouldn't be used, except in its own article and Paul Staines. There may be other odd exception where something that it's written has been picked up by RS and become notable. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Then we would use those.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, absolutely. I would not use this any more than I'd use Occupy Democrats (which I successfully proposed for deprecation). We also know that Paul Staines is not above using smears and falsehoods. It's unclear how much of his blog is written while sober - he has a documented issue with alcohol abuse. Guy (help!) 09:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: The source has been mentioned five times before on the noticeboard 1 2 3 4 5, with the general consensus being that it is an unreliable source, so I definitely think adding it to the perennial sources list is pertinent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 - generally unreliable at the very least - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

While it is one of the more respected UK political blogs out there, breaking items that are often reference by media, it is still a blog. I agree it shouldn't be used.--Eostrix (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Eostrix, for some values of respected.... Guy (help!) 09:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Detested as well, certainly. But the likes of the British Broadcasting Corporation do WP:USEBYOTHERS Fawkes: [26][27][28]. In the upper echelon of blogs, but still a blog.--Eostrix (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Daily Express and Daily Mirror

At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources we have Daily Express being quoted as being similar to the Daily Mail. Well I think that needs to be slightly adjusted, as a newspaper they have in fact been more reliable than the Daily Mail, how often have you ever heard the Daily Express being shammed or getting in to trouble?

Also I don't even know why you have Daily Mirror being more reliable than the Daily Express and other papers, they really are the same as The Sun. I don't think Daily Mirror sources should be allowed on wikipedia. I have much more respect for the Daily Express over the others I've mentioned. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree the Daily Mirror should be depreciated.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, the Express is different in character to the Mail: they show less evidence of false and politically motivated stories, but they have a remarkable tendency to publish conspiracy theories. UFOs, Diana bollocks, Maddie McCann and more. So yes, the Express is a pretty terrible source. The Sun has another specific problem, around involvement in phone hacking and other underhand methods, and of course its role in the Hillsborough coverup - leading to the Liverpool boycott and the startling finding that Liverpool is substantially more pro-European than other comparable places, attributed to less exposure to anti-EU propaganda in the Murdoch press.

I'm not aware of accuracy / fake news issues with the Mirror, though it would not surprise me. Any specifics please? Tabloids should all be on a "with caution at best" list anyway, obviously. Guy (help!) 11:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This [[29]], OK they sacked him but it means under Morgans leadership it published fake stories.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you know, I had forgotten that Piers "Morgan" Moron used to be the editor there, despite being a Private Eye reader (he was a prominent fixture in Street of Shame). Guy (help!) 15:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I still think the Daily Express needs a slight rewrite on the list, yes they do seem to like to report on the bizarre, conspiracies, stuff like that. I felt more worried that The Mirror wasn't red listed! Govvy (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at this story in the Express. It suggests that Elvis is still alive, while the right hand sidebar asks "Nostradamus 2020: Three predictions that came true - is coronavirus the fourth?" And the Express is supposed to be a serious national newspaper. It was at one time, but nowadays it spends far too much time on stories that look like they have been lifted from the Sunday Sport of WORLD WAR 2 BOMBER FOUND ON MOON fame.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yea! I remember that they always say something like "WW3 ALERT" or "WW3 FEARS" in their titles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, one of my claims to fame is that I was libelled in the student newspaper while at uni by its then editor, Dominic Mohan. He used to run clones of the Sport's ludicrous headlines. Guy (help!) 15:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of problems with the Mirror; it has a far better reputation than the other tabloids. I see Express as one of the worst. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This [[30]]?Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The thrust of that article is that this is uncharacteristic of the Mirror, of which the article is generally complimentary. The Mirror is certainly not 100% reliable, e.g. it often sensationalises as with that example, but it is widely considered a league above other UK tabloids and a league or two above the Mail and Express. If you look at stats on trust in news sources, at numbers of PCC/IPSO complaints/breaches upheld, or assessments by fact checkers, the Mirror performs better than other tabloids but worse than most broadsheets, while the Express performs similarly to or slightly better than the Express. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

And I have linked already to the fake solders photos. I have said it before and I will say it again, all this proves is that all of our tabloids should not be RS. Here is is again (note sticking to the story [[31]]. We also have this [[32]], which is enough for me to say we should not use a source that is "mixed" for factual reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your second link, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry), since it is self-published by Wikipedia's standards. No comment on the rest. ​— Newslinger talk 06:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Its the only one I found up to that point (apart form the DM own one). If you have a better one please link to it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Anyone who reads these newspapers knows that Mirror is better than Daily Express. In fact, I think the Daily Mail is slightly better than the Daily Express.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about improving what is written in the summary for the Daily Express at the moment what is written is "The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail." I really feel that needs to be improved, explain more what the Daily Express is about, not just tag it the same as the Daily Mail when it's run differently. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If publishing fake news about the Iraq War were reason to ban a publication, then we would have to ban all major media in the U.S. and UK. They all promoted the false story that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The Mirror was accused of publishing photographs of soldiers torturing prisoners. These photographs had been created by Private Stuart Mackenzie of the Royal Lancashire Regiment. Ironically the accusations he made turned out to be true. I think that current policy is adequate. In general we should use broadsheet publications rather than tabloids. In the same sense, a professor writing a paper on ancient Rome would cite academic sources rather than History Channel articles. It's not that the History Channel publishes false stories, it's just that academic sources are better. TFD (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• The current advice seems adequate to me, both Express and Mirror should be used with caution but they can be reliable for non-controversial topics such as sport, film reviews, music etc, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Spiked

Spiked is currently used in 268 articles  , the publication has a somewhat confusing political history as it was originally founded as "Living Marxism" but the magazine is considered to have a right-libertarian slant. Media Bias/Fact Check rates their fact checking record as "mixed" while also stating that there are "many articles featuring anti-feminist tones" and that "they are fiercely pro-Brexit and when covering USA politics they report favorably on President Donald Trump",it has also recieved significant funding from the Charles Koch Foundation. The source has been discussed a couple of times before 1 2. It seems similar to Quilette, with it essentially being a right-wing opinion magazine, and therefore an inherently unreliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)}}

No comment on Spiked (spiked-online.com), but I need to point out that Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is considered generally unreliable because it is self-published. I would rely on more reliable sources to gauge Spiked's reliability. — Newslinger talk 06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

My bad on that one, Spiked seems to be covered far less by reliable sources than Quilette, so I retract my comment for the moment, and will reformulate it at an opportune time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why Spiked would be used as a source for anything here. It is purely a platform for (contrarian) opinions, and so if it is used as a source for anything other than the opinions of its contributors that would be worrying. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's being used in the Neoliberalism article to back the statement: "In the 21st century, the term has increasingly been used to denote the free-market economics of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, including their criticisms of government intervention in the economy, which has tied the school to neoliberal thought." So it is being used as a source other than for opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

aglasem.com

Recently spammed by 182.69.143.56, once frequently used by RichaChaudhary (76 links) and Rameshpoonia1 (12 links), currently used as the only reference of articles like Government Medical College, Jalgaon by Soumitrahazra (30 links), with a huge history of additions on many wikis (see meta:Special:PermanentLink/19939844 for the last 190 additions), but apparently often removed later (see Special:LinkSearch/https://*.aglasem.com for the few remaining links on the English Wikipedia).

• Is aglasem.com a reliable source, especially when it is the only one in an article?
• Soumitrahazra, do you have any connection to aglasem.com?

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok... I do not have any connection with aglasem.com. However, these colleges exist that's clear from their own website. Wikipedia needs some independent link supporting this...that's why I use that. However, it is necessary to include as many references as possible. Some students of this college will eventually do that.

Soumitra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumitrahazra (talk • contribs) 21:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussingFilm

Is DiscussingFilm a reliable source? This started at the WikiProject Film talk, where Erik (talk · contribs) answered the following:

"You can ask here and/or at WP:RSN. It looks like the website is essentially a WordPress blog that has a team. However, I do not see any corporate/partnership credentials, and I am not seeing this website ever referenced by publications in Google News that jump out to me as reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)"

I thought it belonged better here, where more people can state their opinion. El Millo (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I see on their team page that they have an editor (though he is just one of the co-founders), as well as a stable of writers. For what it's worth, Digital Spy (which is reliable via WP:RSP for entertainment and movies) references the editor a couple times in its coverage. (Jlevi (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces

News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Kolya Butternut says, "I interpret that to mean that the opinion itself cannot be used as a statement of fact, but facts reported within the editorial can (at least I thought I read that within some PAGs...)." [Kolya Butternut, 21:28, 31 March 2020, Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?][33]

Is that how the policy should be interpreted?

TFD (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I thought I read something that speaks to this somewhere else. I think here the opinion piece can be used as a source to simply state that an allegation exists. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That is my take, Opp edds cannot be used for statements of fact, only for attributed opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is my take too. A good op-ed piece, if it starts making statements that are fact-like, will reference or link to the source they got that fact from , as a good debater would do so. Or otherwise they are going to cite an easily sourceable fact (such as in the current environment "There have been over 1000 deaths in the US from COVID." which editors can find a good RS to back up. If you can't find additional sourcing to back up such "factual" statements they need to be treated as a claim and subject to other polices re: inclusion. --Masem (t) 19:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Unpublished ridership numbers

Several editors have been adding ridership data to Metro-North Railroad station articles (for example, East Norwalk station). The source is an internal document that was obtained with a FOIA request; it was never officially published, and the only publicly-available copy is hosted on a personal Google Drive account. I believe that this does not meet WP:PUBLISHED, and as an unpublished source with no official public availability it is not a reliable/verifiable source and should not be used in articles. Pinging @Lent and Kew Gardens 613: who have been adding these over my objections. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I was not adding them, and was going to bring it here, but @Lent: went ahead and added them.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, User:Lent here: I didn't see this until now. I will stop now. I just finished the New Haven Line and its branches.

As I was recently chided about liking to use sources available online, as per Verifiability#Access to sources: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.", I guess I was too eager to get the numbers up. So I assumed the FOIA document, once online, was sufficient. Again my apologies. This is how I learn :)

Thinking back, I guess I misinterpreted our conversation on this subject.

Please let me know what changes, including reverting back, need to be made.Lent (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW: the old passenger numbers, posted by others, do not always have obvious sources, like this edit to Fordham and some are derived (though sometimes the assumptions are in the comments) like this <!--117180 daily weekday arrivals, 116160 daily weekday departures, 48960 Saturday arrivals, 48470 Saturday departures, 36950 Sunday arrivals, 40700 Sunday departures. This gives us a yearly total of ((117180+116160)*5+(48960+48470)+(36950+40700))*52 = 69,722,560--> in Pennsylvania Station (New York City)

Thanks for your patience with me. Lent (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless a reliable third-party source has requested the FOIA, or is republished or discussed FOIA numbers, these are inappropriate. Eg NYTimes does FOIA all the time, that's fine, but a random person is not a RS. --Masem (t) 19:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does it make a difference who requested the FOIA, when the information would be the same?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's the reliability. If the NYTimes published the net result of the FOIA, I know the information is not doctored, etc. If a random person publishes it, I do not know that, though if a third-party reliable sources reviews that and publishes their own summary, that gives a bit of review to say they don't think the documents were doctored. --Masem (t) 19:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I got sent an email from the MTA. Is there a way I could show that I got the information from the MTA and that it was not doctored?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 and Masem: I went back to the email I received and just realized that the files are also on an mta sub website here:

• https://mta-nyc2.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/591171/1572463095/filename/2018_Weekday_Station_Boardings.pdf
• https://mta-nyc2.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/591172/1572463095/filename/2018_Weekend_Station_Boardings.pdf
• https://mta-nyc2.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/591170/1572463095/filename/2018_Inbound_Station_Boardings.pdf

These are from an MTA sub-website, and unless you hacked into the website, there is no way to alter the documents. Given that this is hosted on the MTA website, is it okay to use this as a source? Thanks so much.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No, those links only work for you logged into your account. They 403 for anyone else. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This become a WP:PAYWALL issue. As long as those aren't "hidden" files, in that a logged in user can find their way there by some link or search, then yes they can be used. Being a paid user is not a limitation against those sources. But they need to be non-hidden links. --Masem (t) 19:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I just tried them in a private window and saw that they do not work. If I provided evidence that the MTA actually made the document, and that I did not alter it, could it work?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

israelunwired.com

Jedwabne Pogrom

(1) Citation to https://israelunwired.com/most-controversial-polish-holocaust-movie-ever/ gets added: [34] for:

According to the film, the Jedwabne incident was not an exception but rather the rule in which tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by their neighbors in villages across Poland, Russia and Ukraine.

.

(2) I remove per WP:RS: [35]

(3) My removal gets reverted [36]

(4) I take it to the Talk page, quoting what https://israelunwired.com/israel-unwired-about/ says about itself:

"Today’s conflict is on two fronts – the military front and the public opinion front. The main driving force for public opinion today is Social Media and online activity. Israel Unwired serves as a voice for Israel and the Jewish people that mainstream media rarely feature. At this point, hundreds of thousands of people are being reached everyday across social media channels. That places Israel Unwired at the forefront of impacting individuals worldwide about Israel and the Jewish people." [37]

(5) Source and content remains in article.

Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)