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: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs

• Should we agree to halt the use of RFCs containing four options for "general (un)reliability" of a source, particularly when said RFC contains no specific instances of claims or citations?
• While it may be useful to deprecate heavily-used and clearly-unreliable sources, the corollary is not true: Wikipedia is unable to promote a source to "reliable for any assertion about any topic whatsoever"; reliability is always assessed based on the nature of the claims being made.
• With these parameters in mind, is it futile for us to continually open RFCs here on WP:RSN if an outcome of "generally reliable for everything" is counter-productive and misleading?
  • Sub-question: should such RFCs be permitted as long as they include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact, such as one which is currently in dispute on an article's talk page?

Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey (moratorium)

• @Elizium23: Could you provide a couple of examples of the types of RfCs you think should be halted? 01:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs)

  Sure: WP:RSN#RfC: Quadrant Magazine, WP:RSN#RfC: Daily Graphic and wgraphic.com.gh, WP:RSN#RfC: The Herald (Glasgow). I didn't even have to visit our archives for them. I am not sure where this template originated, but it has rapidly become the de facto method for opening discussions here on RSN, and I do not like it, no sir, not one bit. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: This RfC is related to the RfC at WT:RSN § RfC: Header text, which affects the header text of this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose halting RfCs. By generally reliable, we're referring to sources that have a strong reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. They usually have a reputable editorial team, and tend to be endorsed or used by other reliable sources for factual information. Context always matters, and the consensus shown in some discussions on this noticeboard restrict the scope of what a source is generally reliable for (e.g. The Verge RfC).

  Note that the word generally means "usually" in this context, not "always". The general classification of a source is only the starting point for evaluating reliability, and specific uses of a source can always be brought to this noticeboard for a more targeted review. If a source frequently publishes articles outside of its circle of competence, like in your example about science and religion, then the source should not be considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  Then perhaps the question we should be asking is: Is there evidence that [source] have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight? If a source meets these criteria, and independence from the topic, etc., then per WP:NEWSORG we may deem it to be generally reliable for statements of fact. But I do not think it is useful to whip up boiler-plate RFCs directly asking whether [source] is 'generally reliable' (and it's interesting that the qualification for statements of fact is, here on RSN, often missing from this question. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, The 3 RfCs you have linked (Quadrant, Daily Graphic, The Herald) do include the "for factual reporting" qualifier after "Generally reliable". If this is not descriptive enough, then I agree that it would be helpful to provide more detailed definitions of each option in RfCs of this type. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  For what it's worth? Zilch. Newslinger opposed directly quoting or pointing to the RfCs, successfully. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  Your reference and link to a discussion on edit filters have nothing to do with generally reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Newslinger: If "generally reliable" is supposed to mean "usually" it should be worded differently, because "generally" sounds like it means in the broadest sense. "In general" is not equivalent to saying "in the cases where this source is applicable as a potential RS". If Scientific American is "generally reliable" then it would be reliable for politics too. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  ​Thanks for bringing this up. I've started a discussion at WT:RSP § "Generally" in search of a less ambiguous word than generally. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  As a result of the above discussion, "Generally reliable" has been changed to "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" in WP:RSP § Legend. — Newslinger talk 14:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  I am neutral on the restriction ("include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact") suggested in the sub-question. While we should encourage editors to provide examples of how a source is being used, a question on the general reliability of a source shouldn't be unduly focused on one specific use of that source. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose halting RfCs. What's wrong with seeking a consensus as to the reliability of a source? I thought we were aiming to have high quality reliable sources? If an outlet is unreliable, it is unreliable WP:SPADE. I personally think it's a very useful means to ensure quality citations and avoid myriad edit wars and content disputes before they happen. Bacondrum (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't the whole purpose of this noticeboard to ask questions regarding reliable sources? Bacondrum (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't this discussion be held somewhere else? This is the reliable source noticeboard, isn't it? Perhaps the talk page would be more appropriate? Bacondrum (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose halting RfCs. It's appropriate to have one big discussion about a source's reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction since this doesn't usually change from article to article. This doesn't prevent us from discussing its appropriateness in a specific instance where things like attributed quotes or scientific/medical claims come into play. –dlthewave ☎ 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, though there are a tad too many of these lately. Generally a RfC here on the general use should be preceded by a discussion on a particular use (here), and also demonstrating that we have a general problem (e.g. We use source X in 100 articles, despite source X being described as Y....). Lately - there have been some RfCs here that jumped the gun on proper pre-RfC discussions. However, we definitely shouldn't have a moratorium on RfCs of these type generally - as discussions sources is exactly what this board is for. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Be more careful Don't reach straight for the RfC unless other options have proved fruitless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. RfCs should only be used in order to cleanly remove/"deprecate" currently in-use sources. For sources where no formal action is envisaged, start with a standard discussion. feminist (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as there ahave been far too many in a short period so that the discussion is often truncated, undetailed, lacking participation and depth of investigation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The four-way question is deceptive and not consistent with WP:RS. It misleads by claiming to be a "deprecation" so people who know this dictionary definition will think it's about "disapproval" but in fact the intent (not necessarily implemented) is that an edit filter will result in a message that references are generally prohibited. It misleads by claiming to be "as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail" but in fact the Daily Mail closers didn't say "deprecating", said the prohibition is of use as a reference, and said opinion pieces are okay. It misleads by causing links to essay-status pages as if they have some sort of authority, when the real authority is WP:RS policy (the one that says to always take context into account). The Herald (Glasgow) RfC is an example of misuse -- an editor included the question about treating like The Daily Mail, not with evidence that serious people might think that but it's in the four-way question. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir, but "misuse"? I felt The Herald belongs on WP:RSP. What is the process if not posting here and getting consensus? It was my first time at this noticeboard. I saw the "four option" query being used here as if it was a template or standard format, so I followed suit. Other contributors even thanked me for the submission or said they thought The Herald was already on the list of perennial sources. And since this is policy currently being voted on, I don't think I was wrong, so I thank you not to characterize my submission as misuse or abuse of the noticeboard. --SVTCobra 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

SVTCobra Indeed, all this talk of misuse and dishonesty is way out of line, what happened to the assumption of good faith? I too saw that NEWSLINGER had used that format and I thought it was a clear and efficiant way to get feedback, I never asked for anything to be depreciated. Isn't this notice board precisely for asking about the reliability of sources? I've seen very little reasoning used here, just claims that too many people are asking questions or that those who ask are being dishonest. Should probably get rid of this noticeboard then, why have it if you aren't allowed to ask too much or your going to be accused of dishonesty. Bacondrum (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither of the Daily Mail (RSP entry) RfCs (2017 nor 2019) concluded that "opinion pieces are okay". See Wikipedia:Citing sources for what reference means.

Even deprecated sources qualify for the WP:ABOUTSELF exception, which allows their use for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that they are WP:DUE and covered by reliable sources. The reliable sources guideline is being honored in all of these RfCs, because context matters in each of the four options. (The only exception is the CoinDesk RfC, and I opposed the proposal in that RfC's statement because this criterion was not met.) WP:DEPS defers to WP:RS and explicitly states, "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". If there is any confusion about what deprecation means, a link to WP:DEPS will clarify.

When an editor asks about a low-quality source, we should be able to say that it is questionable, and that it generally shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Repeatedly debating the inclusion of poor sources that have earned abysmal reputations for repeatedly publishing false or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, or pseudoscience is a waste of the community's time. RfCs of this type allow us to make decisive evaluations resulting in consensus that endures until there is evidence that the source's reputation has changed. Consensus is a policy. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I said "misuse" correctly but should have emphasized it was innocent misuse, which is obvious. I said "and [Daily Mail RfC closers] said opinion pieces are okay" because despite Newslinger's irrelevancies it is a fact, see the NPOVN archive of a May 2017 discussion and look for the words "Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here." Nobody said anything against "we should be able to say that it is questionable" because that's not the topic. Consensus is not a policy that allows overriding WP:RS because WP:CONLEVEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65 § Daily Mail, the full statement from Tazerdadog (one of the 2017 Daily Mail RfC closers) was:

Attributed opinions of people other than the author were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here.)

The attributed opinions of any article's author are covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, which applies to all questionable (and deprecated) sources, although due weight should also be considered. If you don't like the results of the two Daily Mail RfCs, you can try to convince the community that "its use as a reference" should not be "generally prohibited". Overturning the current consensus would require a third RfC on the Daily Mail, which is not advisable right now because it's highly unlikely to succeed.

Nobody is suggesting that WP:RS should be overridden; the type of RfC being discussed here uses WP:V and WP:RS to identify questionable sources for what they are: "generally unreliable". — Newslinger talk 08:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is "about self", an honest title that has nothing whatever to do with Newslinger's assertion. But that doesn't matter since now there's no dispute that the closers said attributed opinions are okay, which is one of the reasons the question is misleading. I said nothing in this thread about overturning WP:DAILYMAIL, perhaps Newslinger mixes that up with my remarks that one shouldn't say something is like The Daily Mail and its RfC when it's not. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:ABOUTSELF. Using the example from the NPOVN discussion, the article that Katie Hopkins published in the Daily Mail qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF as an uncontroversial representation of what Hopkins's own opinions are. However, this is only due in the article on Katie Hopkins (and if it were more prominent, it would be due in the Daily Mail article). It is not due anywhere else. Claiming that "the closers said attributed opinions are okay" is extremely misleading, since it conflates WP:RSOPINION (which the Daily Mail does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with WP:ABOUTSELF (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all questionable sources and self-published sources). — Newslinger talk 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The closer remarks that I pointed to made no mention of WP:ABOUTSELF, Newslinger while claiming to quote "the full statement from Tazerdadog" quoted only one full statement, another was "However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close.", the point at issue wasn't secretly WP:ABOUTSELF unless one believes that when Katie Hopkins wrote "Britain is faced with some hard questions ..." the word Britain was a synonym for Katie Hopkins. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, because the claim is that Hopkins wrote the statement in the Daily Mail, not that the statement is true. It is used in the Katie Hopkins article as a primary source equivalent, but is not due anywhere else. Since WP:ABOUTSELF covers this situation entirely, no additional exceptions were made for the Daily Mail beyond what is normally allotted for questionable sources. The 2017 Daily Mail RfC does not support the use of the Daily Mail for all "opinion pieces", but the ones eligible for WP:ABOUTSELF "were not considered in the RFC". — Newslinger talk 00:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I asked a closer, Primefac. The reply is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying with Primefac. The Katie Hopkins case was not the ideal example, since it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF in the Katie Hopkins article. I will defer to Primefac's explanation for attributed opinions of Daily Mail authors in articles other than the article of the author, although due weight still applies. — Newslinger talk 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If the term deprecation is an issue, anyone can submit a requested move from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to Wikipedia:Highly questionable sources or some other name. The name makes no difference to me. However, I get the impression that you're not objecting to the name, but to the adoption of edit filters and other mechanisms that discourage the use of highly questionable sources. There is consensus that RfCs are the preferred process for determining whether these mechanisms should be implemented. You can verify this through the 18 successful RfCs that deprecated 17 different sources, and you can also read this paragraph from the closing statement of the 2019 Daily Mail RfC:

Finally, a number of editors argued that other publications were similarly, or more, unreliable than the Daily Mail. We note that the unreliability of a different source is a reason to remove that source, and is irrelevant here; regardless, these other publications are outside the scope of this RfC, and if there are lingering concerns about other tabloids or tabloids in general, a separate RfC is necessary to assess current consensus about them.

— Newslinger talk 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There was absolutely zero "lingering concern" that something like The Herald (Glasgow) is a tabloid meriting removal, but there is concern here about the misuse of a misleading 4-way question that was never suggested in WP:DAILYMAIL closing remarks. As for "identifying questionable sources" -- great idea, because it's normal behaviour following instructions at the top of this WP:RSN page, i.e. it's not an RfC with four fixed questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

As of right now, nobody in the RfC for The Herald has claimed that it is a "tabloid meriting removal". WP:RFC lists a number of accepted uses for an RfC: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content." The type of RfC under debate solicits input on whether a source generally meets the requirements of WP:V (a policy) and WP:RS (a guideline). Outside of the instructions in WP:RFCST, declaring whether an RfC format is or isn't "normal behaviour" for other editors is excessively bureaucratic, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You brought up "lingering concerns about tabloids", I observed there was no lingering concern, so the excuse that you brought up doesn't hold. You brought up how good identifying questionable sources was, I said that's normal and in keeping with WP:RSN, I don't think I need to excuse that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

These 18 RfCs, some of which you participated in, show ample "lingering concerns" regarding a wide variety of sources, including tabloids. One of the goals of these RfCs are to identify low-quality sources like InfoWars (RfC), Breitbart News (RfC) (which you defended), and Occupy Democrats (RfC) as sources that should be discouraged from use. — Newslinger talk 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I assume the closer of this RfC will be capable of noticing that Newslinger changed the subject instead of addressing the point. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You're ignoring the 18 RfCs that showed consensus for deprecating the source (including two tabloids, The Sun (RfC) and the National Enquirer (RfC)) and cherry-picking one RfC that doesn't. I've addressed your point. — Newslinger talk 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as per dlthewave. François Robere (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose also per Dlthewave. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - those kind of RfCs are appropriate for sketchy sources which are widely used. Like Daily Mail or Fox News kind of stuff. They are not appropriate for more narrow topics or sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Newslinger and others, with the added notes that 1) this should probably take place on the talk page for this board and 2) there's already a discussion under way there on an overlapping topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Let's have a moratorium on RfCs about RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha! My thoughts exactly, thanks for the chuckle.

• Oppose but I agree with Icewhiz about the need to first establish that a source has specific reliability issues before going for a general RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above: These RFCs are useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated. Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare, and generally invoked as a last resort), I don't think any outcome is taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. Additionally, while it's accurate to say that we should judge each case individually, the reality is that we can't reliably get enough people to weigh in on each of them to ensure consistent assessment of sources; going entirely case-by-case with no broader RFCs would result in inconsistent and sometimes random responses based on who happened to weigh in. In particular, one of the requirements of WP:RS is that a source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", often the most difficult thing to assess - and one that usually doesn't vary much from use to use (or, if it does, it does so in a consistent expected way that can be noted during the RFC.) These RFCs can't predict or account for all possible uses of a source, but they're absolutely useful in terms of giving us a consistent, reasonably well-grounded definition of "does this source, on the whole, have the baseline reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires?" --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that a source may have a “baseline reputation for fact checking and accuracy” in one area, and not have one in another area. This was pointed out in the several Daily Mail RFCs... the DM is accurate when reporting on sports... not when reporting on politics and celebrities. This is why I am not a fan of these RFCs. They don’t examine context. Blueboar (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So, several things. First, and most importantly, the Daily Mail RFC was one of those "last resort" things I mentioned - it's different from most of the RFCs we use here. Because a few people kept trying to use the Daily Mail as if it were a top-tier New York Times-quality source despite a very clear informal consensus that it was generally not reliable (and even though it kept coming back to WP:RSN and getting basically laughed off the page), we took the unusual step of formalizing that consensus into a general banned-by-default RFC. Those are and should be extremely rare, reserved only for when people keep insisting on trying to use a source in clearly unworkable ways over and over (ie. when a source both rarely passes WP:RS and is extremely popular for controversial topics where it clearly fails WP:RS.) It wasn't a gauge-the-general-room-temperature-for-the-Daily-Mail RFC, it was a we're-at-wits-end-and-need-this-to-stop RFC. Those are a separate thing, but I think they're justifiable occasionally; even in sports, I don't feel there much we would want in Wikipedia uniquely sourceable to the Daily Mail that can't be found elsewhere. But for the more common sorts of "what does the community think of X?" RFCs, things like this can be noted in the RFC, if it's true. We're not limited to binary yes / no options - the purpose of those RFCs is to collect a general measure of the community's consensus on a source in one place; if you look at the RFCs above, they're generally cautiously worded and lead to fairly cautiously worded entries in WP:RSP to provide guidance to editors, not strict bans or the like. Also, you are more likely to have someone contribute who knows those details in a large month-long RFC with a lot of people contributing than to have it come up in a tiny brief discussion with only a few people - what makes you think that if you come here saying "I want to use the Daily Mail as a source for Joe Sportsman", you'll get anything but "hahaha the Daily Mail? No." from the vast majority of responses? In this sense the RFCs are useful because they're more likely to turn up someone who says "wait, source X is actually usable in situation Y!", which (if they convince people in the RFC) can then be noted down on WP:RSP as something that came up and will then be available to editors who wouldn't otherwise have known it (and may not have discovered it, if they just poked WP:RSN and got a response from a handful of random people for their exact issue, which seems to be what the support voters here want us to go back to.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It is what is says on the box: an RfC about general reliability. ANY website is reliable for the material it says about itself, but we try not to use / should be very careful with the use of those (primary) sources in the first place. It is a good thing that we establish as a community that a certain source is generally reliable, sometimes/often reliable or generally unreliable. The ones that the community decides that they are generally unreliable should be removed for non-primary sources, and the use as primary source should be scrutinized and may need removal. The use of such unreliable sources should be strongly discouraged and sometimes plainly be made 'impossible' (i.e. only be possible after a consensus discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:
  • A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the list of perennial sources.
  • A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time.
  • The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that. Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• At least in as much as it applies, I have long said that we should not be having RfCs or even dedicated threads purely for the purpose of listing a source (one way or the other) on WP:RSPS. See also Goodhart's law. GMG^talk 14:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support strongly. If someone cares about looking into a sources reliability and answering questions about it they can go here. RfCs for sources which have not been brought here before just bludgeon the process and waste everybody involved's times. Sources should only be brought to RfC if there was no consensus or the consensus was not wide enough. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support While some publications are more reliable than others, it's not as if some sources are gospel truth while others are heretical. Above, we are spending time on the American Conservative which publishes conservative opinion. Policy is however clear. Opinion pieces are rarely reliable unless written by experts. What point is there in having an argument about what people think about these opinions? TFD (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support The whole idea of a broad brush for a source is badly flawed. First every source varies in reliability. Second, reliability varies with respect to the text which supports it. Britney Spear's sister's book might be reliable as a cite for a "Britney's favorite color is.." statement, but not for a statement on particle physics. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Honestly all the RFCs without having discussion first is disruptive and not very helpful in general. A RFC should be a last resort and not a first try. It also ignores the general ideas of what we consider a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per PackMecEng. The number of frivolous RfCs on this noticeboard discourages widespread participation, which undermines the possibility of them being authoritative answers, and encourages users to start an RfC every time they have a question about a source, or a gripe with one. Further, the wording of "generally reliable" which I take to mean "in general" conflicts with the primary meanings of "general" and may be misleading. Only an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source anyway, would be "generally reliable". The RfCs are stamping a "general" seal of approval on sources that may have only narrow applicability. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify every single potential source here, and by doing so we store up potential problems for the future (bad decisions made without any context, which when applied to an actual case are clearly wrong in the context of that case). Just apply WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

PS - I also think a good argument can be made that these general discussions of source-reliability are against WP:FORUM. Unless there is a concrete issue related to article content being discussed, then ultimately these are just forum-type discussions about media in general. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

These discussions don't violate WP:NOTFORUM, since they affect article content. They also affect how editor conduct is evaluated in areas subject to discretionary sanctions. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Only in the sense that a contextless discussion on what countries, politicians, or political parties are "bad" might do - and I'd hope that we would be able to identify that as as a WP:FORUM discussion. FOARP (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The context is all of the articles the source is cited in, which can be found through an insource query or Special:LinkSearch. And this entire noticeboard focuses on evaluating whether sources have adequate reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. We're not determining whether various entities are "bad", but whether sources meet Wikipedia's standards. If these discussions were just forum discussions that didn't impact article content, there would be no incentive for you to post "Bad RfC" in all of the other RfCs on this page. — Newslinger talk 08:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, folks, stating that something is a Bad RFC means it must be a good RFC. My incentive cannot possibly be to point out that they are bad RFCs - I must be doing it because they are good ones!

Similarly, discursive, context-free discussions about sources that frequently reference the imagined political bias of the source and rarely cite meaningful evidence of general unreliability are not actually a determination of the source being "bad" in any sense - other than having the potential effect that they cannot be used. FOARP (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some sources are plainly unreliable for any factual information, and we shouldn't have to make a request for each and every article in which they are used. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose if prior discussion - I don't see why a full-blown RfC is needed if there hasn't been a prior general RSN discussion on it. However, if there has, why not seek out consensus? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose halting RfCs: such discussions and WP:RSP heuristics (which marks many sources as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise") are exceptionally helpful to newer users and those less experienced in determining if a source is reliable. Saying "reliability is always assessed based on the nature of the claims being made" tells a new user nothing. It's a rule for experienced users to bear in mind in edge cases, but not helpful to someone who wants to know whether they should go to The Register (yes) or Forbes (yes unless it's /sites/) or Breitbart (no) when they need a reliable source for something. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

/sites/ is now used for staff articles too not just contributors. example. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, good to know. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a general concept. Actually, I wonder whether we should stop declaring sources to be generally unreliable, and instead start pointing out the specific ways in which certain common sources fail the guideline. The Daily Mail, for example, is generally unreliable because it's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is poor, not because we don't like it. Declaring sources to be generally unreliable (beyond saying things like "DM doesn't meet the WP:RS guideline's definition of a reliable source – specifically, it fails point #1 in WP:NOTGOODSOURCE") overlooks the importance of WP:RSCONTEXT and usually is more of a question about WP:DUE weight anyway. (Yes, that website/fringe news site/politician actually did say that [which means the source is "reliable" under the WP:RS definition for narrow statements like "This source said that"]. But so what? There's no need to put any of that in this article in the first place.) In several cases, I think that these "GUNREL" declarations have actually been "tiny minority" declarations, and muddling the two concepts is a bad idea for anyone who wants to be able to think clearly and logically about content policies.
  Specifically, while I think we should stop having these RFCs, I am willing to perhaps consider the occasional RFC in contentious cases that have repeatedly appeared here at RSN and where RSN has had difficulty in resolving those discussions. (RSN regulars are perfectly capable of repeating "No, you can't use that anonymous HIV denial website to support a claim that HIV doesn't exist" as many times as necessary, without anyone starting an RFC.) As a practical matter, I also think we should stop having these "banned sources" RFCs on this page (use a subpage if you need to). Any of the alternatives that sound approximately like "Stop the RFCs unless you genuinely can't get resolve your content dispute any other way" would work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal as too rigid, but favor some minimal threshold. I would favor, as a general rule, that an editor starting a "general reliability" RfC would need to provide diffs showing (1) that the source was cited at least 5-10 times in article space (either presently, or in the recent past) and that there has been some of sort actual dispute about the reliability of the source. (I would not, as some suggest, require 3 different noticeboard discussions or anything like that—but I would require some sort of actual evidence, via reversion, talk page discussion, or noticeboard discussion, that the reliability of a source has actually been disputed.). Neutrality^talk 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – sources should be evaluated in connection with a specific claim in a specific article, and not generally. – Levivich 01:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is obvious utility in maintaining the list of generally unreliable sources. Obviously some people do not like the fact that some sources are generally unreliable. That is largely the point. Case by case review of Breitbart would be a titanic waste of time, and we'd need a {{still no}} template as well. Equally, a source that is a legitimate review case by case, is probably not right for deprecation. There should not be many deprecated sources but there absolutely should be deprecated sources, and managing this through RFC is the only obviously practical way of doing it. Not every new user can be expected to be familiar with our arcana, so the edit filters minimise bite, and again, we have to have some way of managing that. You could make a case for triaging, and putting those which meet the threshold for a proper debate at WP:CENT, but we have to have the RFCs. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose- Although I can see the arguments for dialing back the RfCs a little, I worry that forbidding all discussion is just going to make every mendacious propaganda site decreed reliable by default while preventing anyone from doing anything about it. Reyk _YO! 10:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the main question. I do agree that they're mainly for unreliable sources, though, rather than setting rules for what is reliable [in general]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Autarch (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2019

(UTC)

• Just a quick count of votes to date: 19 OPPOSE and 11 SUPPORT Bacondrum (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose moratorium, while supporting the inclusion of several specific examples whenever raising a general question about a particular source. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support the opinions of North8000 and FOARP appear to be persuasive. The use of a source should be on a case by case basis, per article. Looking back on some of these RfCs a case of IDONTLIKEIT appear to have created consensus to ensure that sources are no longer utilized, which leads to due to the reduction of available resources, some content taking on the weight of views of the remaining sources, while excluding the views of other sources thus leading to, well meaning but, non-neutral content. Thus as others have suggested CONTEXTMATTERS.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 11:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per the many reasons already noted. Having a more structured discussion seems useful. I’ve been in a few roundabouts where the core issues are ignored and productive movement is derailed , on purpose or not, to the detriment of getting consensus.
  I also find it very useful to know if given a choice of multiple sources to use, which ones are more reliable. Presumably we should be getting sources that will last and not be just good enough for the moment. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support ^{Second thoughts 10:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)} - sources are used for verifiability so it depends on what needs to be verified - see WP:V To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. It is a core content policy to which we should adhere. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs. — Newslinger talk 17:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Workshop

Some editors have suggested restrictions on when an RfC on the general reliability of a source would be appropriate, as well as changes to the commonly used 4-option RfC format. For more coordinated discussion, please list your suggestion in a new subheading under this "Workshop" section, so other editors can comment on them individually. ​​​​​​​​— Newslinger talk 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia's proposal

I still oppose option 4 of the "commonly used" format. In my view an RfC on reliability is only appropriate if there has not been a discussion here which generated clear consensus, or if there has been discussion scattered around Wikipedia which needs centralising in an easily referable place. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Alsee's proposal

Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:

• A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the list of perennial sources.
• A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time.
• The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that.

Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support some combination of this with GMG's proposal below being added to instructions at top of this noticeboard. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Alsee's proposal ensures that general reliability RfCs are decided on at least four rounds of examination (three previous discussions plus the RfC itself), and directs attention to sources that need the most input from editors. It delineates the difference between the general case and specific cases, and does not place undue weight on any single use of a source. RfCs are most useful for reducing the volume of discussions on sources that are discussed too often. This proposal is likely to make the greatest reduction on editor workload by ensuring that there are not too many RfCs nor too many discussions on this noticeboard. (A requirement of 4–5 discussions instead of 3 also sounds reasonable to me.) — Newslinger talk 00:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, too WP:CREEP-y. An essay to this effect might make sense, but these discussions are useful to gauge the general temperature of the community's views on a particular source, which helps people decide whether to open specific discussions and how to word them if they do (eg. letting people know the starting point and whether they need to argue a particular usage is an exception to the general community opinion on a source in one way or another.) More specific RSN discussions are useful but not sufficient for our purposes on their own, since they usually have very little participation and can therefore produce extremely swingy results between similar sources based on who happens to weigh in. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, maybe best left for an essay (or some mildly worded friendly advice at the top of this page). I think that formal RfCs exacerbate the problem of these swingy results because if there are 10 active RfCs on here all the time, people watching for RfCs may just start to ignore them. So while it being an RfC may give the impression of being authoritative or representing general consensus, the flood of them may make that not true. Or is that off base? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. François Robere (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support if original proposal not passed - This is a good alternative since it would still address the problem of people simply treating this page as a forum for discussing which sources are, in their view, "bad" in some contextless sense. FOARP (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Supt.-2nd Choice if "GreenMeansGo's proposal" below does not pass, see my reasoning there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The list of perennial sources should have its own inclusion criteria based on past RfCs. Assuming that were based on multiple past discussions, it's unclear what this proposal would allow for in the case of general reliability RfCs. I generally support the idea that we shouldn't jump to one of those RfCs without previous discussions of a source, but I'm reluctant to suggest codifying that rule or, as I've already implied, the necessary involvement of RSP, which should remain a meta resource rather than play a role in the consensus process. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo's proposal

You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable. GMG^talk 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

^^^^ !!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes - though I'd loosen this somewhat. I think it is OK to discuss a widely used source prior to article level discussions (however that shouldn't be a RfC - but a request for input - and should have specific examples - e.g. source W is used for X, Y, and Z. I have concerns because of A, B, C. In any case not universal). A blanket deprecation RfC should only be opened if there is an indication of a problem on Wikipedia (e.g. Daily Mail - was widely used). Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – This should become policy. – Levivich 02:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support CThomas³ (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support adding to instructions at top of noticeboard. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, too WP:CREEP-y. Perhaps as a general suggestion, but not as a rule - as discussed above, it is useful for editors to gauge the general "temperature" of opinion on a particular source, and I don't think we should have any hard restrictions on them doing so. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure, I didn't add the header above and keep getting surprised when I see this section pop up on my watchlist. But I'm not sure I at all understand the reference to CRUFT, which you seem to have made twice now. GMG^talk 19:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Oops, I meant WP:CREEPy, not WP:CRUFTy. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aquillion. And honestly there are sources out there that people try to use that are beyond the pale in basically any circumstance. So while no source is always reliable, being able to find out if a source is always unreliable is useful. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A more specific issue, which came up for the Newsweek RFC below, is that the precise wording of this suggestion would bar people from making general RFCs when a source is frequently discussed and frequently found reliable. (It would also bar RFCs when a source is frequently discussed with no consensus, which is utterly absurd, since those are the situation that most desperately requires a broader high-participation RFC that might reach some sort of consensus.) Having a broad RFC to settle perennial discussions of all sorts is general policy. I'm not sure we even can bar future RFCs of that nature per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. The whole idea of "let's have an RFC to set the rules under which people can make future RFCs" seems both WP:CREEP-y and sketchy. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • 100% on the issue of perennial discussion and general policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • That makes sense, we cannot change the rules for RfCs without an RfC advertised as doing such. I was thinking more along the lines of "advice" at the top of this page. Something to the effect that starting a formal RfC for every question about a source may overload the RfC process and limit participation. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem is... no source is ever “always unreliable”... if nothing else, every source will be reliable for citing a quote from that source (and is, in fact, the MOST reliable source for that purpose). Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the exception for quotes and opinion statements that is often trotted out. If a quote hasn't been repeated by reliable sources, it fails W:WEIGHT; if it has, why not just cite the reliable source? –dlthewave ☎ 17:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If we're at a point where we're discussing whether a source is "always unreliable" or just "mostly unreliable", then we shouldn't use that source. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is incorrect on two points. First, there are, in fact, "always unusable" sources, ones that can never be cited in any context; in particular, WP:USERGENERATED sources can never be cited, fullstop - no context exists under which it is ever appropriate to cite one. But more generally, most of these RFCs and discussions are asking about whether a source can be used for anything except the opinion of its author. There are a huge number of sources that are clearly not usable outside that extremely specific context. Context matters for some aspects of WP:RS, but not all of them - there are ways to fall RS severely enough to render a source totally unusable in any situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for the following reasons:

1. There's value in discussing the general reliability of a source - be it a writer, a publisher, or a specific creation - which may or may not have a reputation for reliability among experts. Do musicologists often cite Peter Schickele? No (though not for lack of talent), and the current rules allow me to reflect that with an RfC if the question arises.
2. The proposal assumes general RfCs are wasteful in terms of editors' time and effort, but the fact of the matter is that one general RfC is much less wasteful than a whole bunch of specific ones. If one is only allowed to bring fourth a general RfC after a "preponderance" of specific threads have been opened, then how much time would we have we wasted on those threads? And this is assuming good faith.
   1. BTW, how much is "a preponderance"? Is five a preponderance? Ten? Do you really want an editor to be "legally" able to open five threads on a bogus source in five different articles before someone is able to bring them here?
3. The purpose of RfCs is to resolve disputes, but by requiring that previous threads "have decided the source is unreliable" we'd be preventing disputes from ever reaching the RfC stage. After all, what's the point of an RfC if we already have a consensus? Just ban RfCs altogether.

Bottom line: if you really believe there's a problem with too many general RfCs being brought in, then there's a much better proposal on the table by Alsee. François Robere (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support It's the closest thing that approaches the purposes of WP:V judging in context, and it would tend to avoid the WP:NOTAFORUM stuff these open ended queries get. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to not only be about RFCs; too bureaucratic for a noticeboard. —PaleoNeonate – 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support The note at the top of this noticeboard clearly says that discussions should be about whether sources are reliable for specific purposes. Also, WP:V and other sourcing policies clearly state that reliability can only be judged in context. I don't think these general RFC should be completely banned, but people are opening them on sources that have never been discussed on the noticeboard, or for sources that are essentially never used in articles anyways. That just clutters up the noticeboard with useless junk. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Prefer Alsee's proposal, which applies the same treatment to the entire reliability spectrum. — Newslinger talk 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "preponderance" - some level of prior consideration might be worthwhile, but the phrasing indicates that a more significant number is needed, perhaps unnecessarily restrictive Nosebagbear (talk)
• Mixed (mostly support Icewhiz's modification): I agree that opening an RFC in the absence of any indication that anyone has ever attempted to use a source is kind of waste of time, but asking editors to open multiple WP:RSN discussions about an obviously unreliable source before finally having an RFC would be an even bigger waste of time. If I have a dispute over a source Rense.com that reaches a point where it's necessary to open a noticeboard discussion, then why not just go ahead and deprecate to save everyone the trouble of revisiting a clearly terrible source in the future? Specific content disputes should be the starting point, but maybe we should make allowances for editors (emphasis on the plural) to agree to broaden a discussion if a particular source looks like it warrants it.Nblund ^talk
• Support - absolutely! It's in our PAGs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion's proposal

I suggest discouraging any repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here. If there's no consensus to remove them, or if we've agreed to allow them under certain circumstances, then posting near-identical comments to several of them at once objecting to them in identical terms, like this is WP:POINTy. (Not to call that one set of edits out - it's the most recent example, but others have done similar things in the past.) The reality is that such discussions have been accepted practice for a long time, and absent an actual RFC against them or some other indication that that practice has changed, trying to shout them down by responding to all of them at once with identical objections isn't constructive. The appropriate way to halt a common practice you find objectionable is to first try and establish a centralized consensus against it, not to try and force through an objection that lacks such clear consensus through disruptively repeating your interpretation as fact even when after it's failed to reach consensus. Posting identical "bad RFC!" messages on a whole bunch of discussions at once isn't the way to move forwards, especially if there isn't really a clear consensus backing that objection up. Merely having a strong opposition to particular sorts of discussions, or strongly believing that they're against some policy, isn't sufficient justification for disrupting them like that if there's no clear consensus backing you up. Obviously this would just be a general guideline - people could still object to individual ones they feel are particularly unhelpful, but mass-copy-pasting an otherwise off-topic objection to every single RFC of a particular type that you think we shouldn't be having ought to require at least some consensus to back you up. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. The whole point of this centralized discussion is to settle this in a clean fashion so it doesn't constantly spill out and disrupt other discussions with meta-arguments. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The constant obstruction caused by these objections, written into multiple unrelated discussions without consideration of the sources being discussed, is indeed disruptive. The results of this RfC should settle this matter definitively. — Newslinger talk 01:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Bad question. You refer to use of the words "bad RfC" (in this case by FOARP but I have done it more often). You are alleging that saying that is "disruptive" and that someone has tried to "shout down" others. These are conduct accusations. Replying "oppose" to a conduct accusation is (I believe) an error, since it implies acceptance that the proposal is legitimate in this context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Bad Proposal If the outcome of this RfC is that we shouldn't have those types of RfCs, then that objection is the correct objection to make. It doesn't matter if you're objecting to 1 bad RfC or 10 - they would all be bad RfCs. If the outcome of that RfC is that we should have those types of RfCs, then that objection shouldn't be made even once. Galestar (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Right, but what happens if (as seems extremely likely at this point) this RFC is closed with no consensus? Those discussions keep happening, and the same few people keep posting the same few identical objections on all of them? I don't think that that's a reasonable way to proceed. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal starts with Regardless of the outcome of this RFC. This proposal is only even possible if 1 of the 3 outcomes is arrived at... Galestar (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And ends with ...that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here. Most of the proposals above would allow them under certain circumstances, so I worded it broadly in the sense of ie. obviously comments reminding people of a clear outcome here would be fine. (And, obviously, you are incorrect about 1 of the 3; there's also the situation where none of the options reach a clear consensus.) Nonetheless, I'll remove the first bit to avoid confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay I guess I didn't quite understand some of the nuance at first. I still think that this proposal should only be considered once its decided what kind of objections are allowed/disallowed/undecided. Maybe I just think too linearly and don't want to jump ahead to the part where we decide how many objections at a time are okay when we haven't yet decided (or failed-to-decide?) which objections are okay. Galestar (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bad proposal - WP:NOTAFORUM is a pretty basic rule on Wikipedia, and if people on this page want to repeatedly flout it by engaging in context-free, discursive "Which media sources do you feel are bad?" style discussions, then you betcha I'm going to point that out. It also clearly states what should and should not be RFC'd on this page right at the top, pointing out that an RFC flouts this can be no more wrong than pointing out that an AFD nomination fails WP:BEFORE, or that an RFC is wrongly factored (both of which are very common). FOARP (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Support as per proposer. Bacondrum (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as consensus can change and the proposal to disallow further RfCs about past RfCs doesn't allow for CCC. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 11:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  This proposal does not "disallow further RfCs about past RfCs". It discourages "repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs". — Newslinger talk 11:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Adoring Nanny's Concern and proposal

The problem I see with blanket rules about what is and is not reliable is that it replaces using one's brain to figure it out. Effectively, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS carries no weight. See this discussion where I was in effect told that it was inappropriate to actually examine the evidence in the various sources and come to an evidence-based conclusion, which is exactly what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS implies one should do. Instead, the accepted thing appears to be to blindly follow certain rules about what is and is not reliable. And that makes people cynical about Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest that what needs to happen is that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS needs to become policy that is actually used, rather than merely a "policy" statement that sits there but doesn't carry any weight in a decision about what is reliable and what isn't. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're proposing. WP:V, a policy, already states that "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." In the same paragraph, it defines the reliability spectrum: "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Reliability depends on context, but some sources are more reliable in general than others. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  ​Additionally, your application of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw § Undue weight and fringe viewpoints (your linked discussion) is incorrect. You said in Special:Diff/893517711, "The soundness of one's conclusions -- the question of whether or not they follow logically from the evidence one is examining -- trump everything." That is against policy; we must "fairly [represent] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (WP:DUE). WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is not a trump card that allows us to elevate a fringe opinion that is not supported by other reliable sources. If a person is convicted in court, and nearly all reliable sources report that they are guilty, it would be improper to grant a false balance to the minority perspective of a news reporter who claims that they are innocent, when that perspective is not corroborated by other reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 20:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Adoring nanny, I just read the discussion you are referring to and I thought "Everyone in prison is innocent", if the court found him guilty and reliable sources report as much, that's the end of the story as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If he contests the conviction and it is overturned, then he is vindicated, otherwise it's just another in a long line of criminals claiming to be innocent. Any personal assessment of the evidence is original research. Bacondrum (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, context matters should be applied to sources that are generally unreliable, in that if a source is generally unreliable it should be seen in context as generally unreliable...hope that makes sense? ie: a dishonest source may tell the truth from time to time, but they cannot be trusted because they are generally dishonest. Bacondrum (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Bellingcat (August 2019)

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

---

Is Bellingcat a reliable source? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC) I am here to request that Bellingcat be considered a RS. Here is information about the website which indicates that it is deserving of RS status:

• Reliable outlets overwhelmingly describe Bellingcat as an investigative journalism website (or synonym) and cover its stories favorably: NPR (Bellingcat “ has meticulously investigated conflicts around the world”)[1], Guardian (“Bellingcat has been responsible for revealing key aspects of some of the world’s biggest stories”[2] + “in its short life has broken scoop after scoop”[3]), Wired (“ just the latest in an ongoing series of reve¬lations the Insider and Bellingcat have made”[4]), CBS News[5], New Yorker (“Bellingcat’s news-making investigations”[6]), Australian Broadcasting Corporation[7], AP[8], NYT[9], Reuters[10], DW[11], AFP[12], and BBC[13][14].
• In an article for the NY Review of Books, University of Stirling journalism scholar Muhammad Idrees Ahmad said in June 2019, Bellingcat “ has chalked up an impressive record of breakthroughs… Its alums either lead, participate in, or support every notable open-source journalistic enterprise currently in operation. ”[15] According to Ahmad, Bellingcat is not only notable for its methodological sophistication but for the transparency of the process involved in uncovering stories. He notes that this has influenced legacy outlets to add greater transparency to their own reporting. INews writes, “Although most investigative journalism is shrouded in mystery, the [Bellingcat] platform shows their workings, detailing how they found out the story and which techniques they used”[16]
• Favorable coverage by reliable outlets such as CJR[17], Poynter[18], the Tow Center for Digital Journalism[19], Nieman Lab [20][21], Foreign Policy magazine[22], and Human Rights Watch[23]. Poynter: "In the verification business, Bellingcat is a website on a hill... for fact-checkers and other journalists, Bellingcat has an open-source list of tools that are essential for any online investigation."[24] Bellingcat research has been cited in the International Court of Justice[25]. The Guardian described Bellingcat’s Skripal scoops as “a series of blockbuster investigations”.[26] The Financial Times described Bellingcat's podcast about its own reporting on MH17 as "Extraordinary in detail, tenacity and execution, you can practically smell the sweat that’s gone into making it."[27]
• Major scoops and reports which were covered by establishment news outlets: Evidence that Russia was behind the MH17 downing[28][29], “broke the Skripal story”[30][31], "a comprehensive and contextualized report on the motives and movements of the Christchurch killer"[32], uses of chemical weapons in Syria[33], locating The Netherlands’ most-wanted criminal using Instagram,[34], a Russian troll factory website[35], a project to track military vehicle movements in Ukraine[36][37], . The International Criminal Court used information uncovered by Bellingcat in the arrest warrant for [[Mahmoud al-Werfalli].[38] and Bellingcat was “praised for the groundbreaking investigation” into a mass-killing in Cameroon.[39]
• Bellingcat staff are frequently cited as experts[40][41]. The Tow Center for Digital Journalism recommends that journalists and journalism students see Bellingcat for how to report on user-generated content.[42][43] Poynter recommends a Bellingcat guide for using LinkedIn data.[44] This study recommends a Bellingcat guide to open-source investigations.[45] The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network published "A 5-point guide to Bellingcat's digital forensics tool list"[46].
• Bellingcat staff have collaborated with the BBC[47][48]. Peer-reviewed books on digital journalism have chapters authored by Bellingcat journalists on how to conduct digital forensics.[49] Outlets such as the New York Times have hired Bellingcat staff as reporters.[50] Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins sits on an advisory board for the International Criminal Court on the use of technology in ICC cases.[51]
• According to Ahmad, Bellingcat has had an influence on journalsm: “Bellingcat’s successes have encouraged investment in open-source research capability by much larger and long-established media institutions (such as The New York Times Visual Investigations), human rights organizations (Amnesty’s Digital Verification Corps; Human Rights Watch’s soon-to-be-launched OSINT unit), think tanks (the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab), and academic institutions (Berkeley’s Human Rights Investigations Lab).”[52]
• Per Bellingcat, it has won the following awards: “Bellingcat has won The Hanns Joachim Friedrichs Prize in 2015, the European Press Prize for Innovation in 2017, the Ars Electronica Prize for Digital Communities in 2018, the European Press Prize for Investigation in 2019, and the London Press Club award for Digital Journalism in 2019. Bellingcat has also been involved with award winning collaborative projects, most recently the BBC Africa Eye investigation, Anatomy of a Killing, which has won multiple major journalism awards, including a Royal Television Society Award and Peabody Award.”[53]
• Bellingcat has corrected news stories by legacy outlets such as the AP and NYT[54].

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey: Is Bellingcat a reliable source?

• Generally reliable. For the reasons presented above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• See also: Talk:Douma chemical attack#RfC: Bellingcat coverage VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans rather comprehensive overview above, as well as my own past experience with its coverage. Bellingcat is one of the best things to have happened in independent journalism in recent years. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC) 20:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong No unless qualification included to indicate Bellingcat is a “grant-making organization that receives an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress through the Department of State” which gives, at minimum, an appearance of bias. (About BellingcatNED FAQs) Humanengr (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think perhaps you have confused Bellingcat with the NED, from which Bellingcat receives a grant, but as far as I can tell, has no other relationship? Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Not confused. Bellingcat receives government money via NED, regardless of claims of independence. That suffices to taint. Humanengr (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

But would you agree with me that Bellingcat is not a "grant-making organization"? That is NED. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t make a difference if they are or aren’t. It’s that their existence and function is supported by government. As far as making grants, I do see on that link that, at minimum, they have staff. So in that sense, they admit to providing grants. Humanengr (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It makes a difference to me in that I believe in the quaint notion that facts matter. Again, you are being unclear. In your view, does Bellingcat or NED "admit to providing grants"? Dumuzid (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What ‘facts’ are you referring to? And no, I don’t see where Bellingcat verbatim “admit to providing grants.” Humanengr (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact I mean is that you asserted that "Bellingcat is a 'grant-making organization that receives an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress through the Department of State.'" This is simply untrue. They receive a grant from the NED, which fits that description. That may be enough for you to deem them unreliable, but it does not change the fact that they are independent organizations. Bellingcat, so far as I can tell, does not make grants, nor does it directly receive an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress through the Department of State. Would you agree with me to that extent? Dumuzid (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The money trail — U.S. -> NED -> Bellingcat — is obviously indirect. Independent? The Board makeup gives a different impression. But, yes, I do agree that “Bellingcat, so far as I can tell, does not make grants” per se, “nor does it directly receive an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress through the Department of State.” Humanengr (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What does that have to do with its reliability? Reliable sources such as NPR, PRI, PBS, and Journal of Democracy are funded in part by the US government, as are countless peer-reviewed studies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Opposing nation’s media would be / are lambasted for similar appearance. Fair is fair. Thx for the list. Humanengr (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to propaganda outlets like RT, Sputnik and TeleSur, the difference is that none of those outlets have a reputation for reliability and fact-checking whereas NPR, PRI, PBS, Journal of Democracy and Bellingcat do have reputations for reliability and fact-checking (as well as state-funded news outlets such as BBC, DR, SVT, NRK, CBC, ARD, YLE, RÚV, Sveriges Radio, Radio France etc. - [55]). That they are government-funded is not the reason per se why they are unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

’Reliable’ only as conferred by a self-reinforcing loop. Humanengr (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

At this point it seems like you have a fundamental issue with WP:RS. We define reliability based on a source's reputation among a network of other reliable sources; if you feel that the entire mainstream media is flawed and unreliable, you've fundamentally rejected WP:RS in favor of trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

How about we start by applying WP:RS evenly? Any media that receives government funding gets treated the same, be it U.S.-allied or other is treated alike — banned, approved, approved w an attached caution. Humanengr (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of there's not a single source that has been downgraded in RS status for the sole reason that it's in some way funded by a government entity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe you had mentioned RT, Sputnik and TeleSur. On what basis have judgments been made re those? Humanengr (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

They are not RS because they repeatedly publish falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, past discussions on RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), Sputnik (RSP entry), and Telesur (RSP entry) criticized these sources for spreading propaganda and disinformation. In particular, there are 30 in-depth reliable sources that explicitly describe RT as a propaganda outlet. The fact that these sources are closely connected to their respective governments indicates that they are partisan sources, but does not directly impact their reliability. Their low reliability is tied to their poor reputations for accuracy.

Now, TASS (RSP entry) is another case in which some editors questioned its reliability solely because it is operated by a country with low press freedom (Russia). However, other editors did not think that was the primary factor and expressed a range of opinions on different grounds. In any case, the US is not a country with the same scale of press freedom problems, and the same arguments would not apply here. — Newslinger talk 04:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger, re "the US is not a country with the same scale of press freedom problems" — not sure how one makes a judgment on that from within the medium. (McLuhan re fish) Humanengr (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm deferring to the judgment of the Press Freedom Index. In 2019, the US is ranked #48 ("noticeable problems"), while Russia is ranked #149 ("difficult situation") out of 180 countries. — Newslinger talk 03:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Difficult to respect that ranking (even from within the fishbowl) given their methodology's 'indicators'. #2 is 'Media independence': "Measures the degree to which the media are able to function independently of sources of political, governmental, business and religious power and influence." Do any Western media operate independently of Western intelligence sources wrt accusations against non-Western-allied nations? #1: Pluralism: "Measures the degree to which opinions are represented in the media." Do any express doubts about Western intelligence from unnamed sources? etc., etc., Humanengr (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• General reliable That was a lot of links to go through but they make a good case as a whole. I don't get the objection to the funds they receive, since "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

On what grounds do you distinguish ‘bias’ from ‘propaganda’ (Snooganssnoogans‘s term above)? Humanengr (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. That said - I must ask why the question comes up - David Gerard (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Request requires amendment There are instructions at the top of this page and the create new section editing page. Please add links to the previous discussions in the archive to your request, the most recent of which I note is highly unfavorable and suggests a certain degree of consensus as generally unreliable. Please provide a link to the specific blog post on the bellingcat site you are seeking to cite. Finally please indicate the WP article in which you want to cite bellingcat and the text in the article you want it to support, either as quote or diff. (edit:piped link) Cambial Yellowing(❧) 07:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking through that previous discussion, it appears that occurred in 2015, when Bellingcat was just under a year old and there wasn't a track record of RS using its reporting or otherwise commenting on it. While the call of self-published/unreliable was the correct judgment at the time, we now have a sizable body of evidence that Bellingcat conducts reliable journalism. If you have more recent coverage suggesting that it's unreliable, then that's a different matter. That having been said, I do agree that it's a bit weird for an editor to come to RSN to make an argument about a given source without a context--generally the procedure is to either get wider feedback on a dispute involving a source's reliability, or someone with no familiarity with a source trying to get a basic sanity check on whether it's usable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I added a link to a current article talk space discussion and RfC regarding this source. I presume that discussion is what prompted this post here. Maybe the "general" presentation of the query here was to mirror the similar presentation of the 2015 discussion? VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans. David Gerard, the reason that the reliability of bellingcat is being discussed is likely because Cambial Yellowing, a three-month-old account, has been attempting to purge bellingcat's highly reliable coverage of the Douma chemical attack from that article, citing an RSN discussion from 2015. Furthermore, this account has continually and falsely characterized bellingcat as a "highly dubious blog." (As an aside: Cambial Yellowing, if you have previously edited Wikipedia as another account or an IP, you might want to disclose that now.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, TheTimesAreAChanging. The age of my account, as you know, is totally irrelevant. I will thank you to refrain from making thinly-veiled and groundless accusations. That is not a form of argument, and is inappropriate behavior. You have given your opinion; there is no reason to pretend others' opinions are, in your view, "false". You are, presumably, not a child. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 08:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans, et al. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, with the obvious caveat that context matters. I would expect WP:EXCEPTIONAL to be carefully considered here. VQuakr (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable in general as per all the above comments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans, Rosguill, and my own experience with them. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable Lol, if anyone thinks that the US government gives money to "neutral" sources/information, they need to think again. Or read, say Who Paid the Piper? or a zillion other such works. Eliot Higgins was an unemployed guy with ZERO academic background in the Middle East area, and then he got funding as he wrote what "some people" liked. (BTW, I was just re−reading about the 2001 anthrax attacks and Bruce Edwards Ivins: please note all those American WP:RS who reported that "this was the chemical signature of Iraqi-made anthrax". A complete lie. Heh, not to mention the Nayirah testimony: US sources a have a LOOOOOOOOOONG history of falsification when it comes to any military conflict that the US is involved in. Sorry, but that is just the facts.) Huldra (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Bellingcat does receive a grant from an organization funded by the U.S. government. It receives no government money directly, as far as I can glean. Moreover, it also receives similar grants from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and is headquartered in the U.K. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

And.....? Do you think a single one of the writers/authors who were paid by the CIA during the last 70 years were paid directly by the CIA? Not that I can see, And do you really think that the US is the only government playing these games? Huldra (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

And who are you, Mr/Ms 78.147.36.67, who knows me so well? And yes, I do recall, say, Judith Miller, working for The New York Times, getting a Pulitzer prize (together with the rest of the NYT team) in 2002, for (among other things), "proving" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs at the time ....One could roar with laugher, ......if it hadn't been for all those hundred of thousands civilians Iraqis killed, and millions who became refugees (many in Western Europe, where I see you are?) As the expression goes: "Fool me once: shame on you. Fool me twice: shame on me". Huldra (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Snoo's exhaustive research. Neutrality^talk 00:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable but with occasional reliable for attribution content. The site's main author offers many attempts at analysis of highly technical subjects under the rubric of open-source investigation. These analyses lack scientific detail and rigor. They have undergone no peer review process nor scientific editorial control. The author, Eliot Higgins, is an education dropout with no scientific training and no qualifications in any scientific field. The site's editor is a journalist and poet with a BA in English and no scientific background. While Snoogans has collected an extensive list of journalists and serious journalism-related sources which support the site, notably absent is a single reference from a scientific publication or scientific organization working in the technical fields in which the author is claiming to offer serious analysis. The author's work has come under severe criticism, including from qualified and recognized experts in those fields. Its response has often been far from scholarly.

Just as we would not cite the London Telegraph or the New York Times on the copenhagen interpretation or flash suppression, Bellingcat is not a scholarly source for the technical areas on which it frequently seeks to comment — determining weapons delivery trajectories, chemical dispersal, aircraft physics, and so on.

The site has some content which is not technical, but simply careful work in non-technical areas done online. Some of this content appears useful and potentially reliable, though there is little attempt made to test the provenance and integrity of the image content which it is examining "forensically". Such on-the-ground investigation would be fundamental to any serious professional forensic investigator's examination of such material.

There is some content which is written by individuals with subject expertise, and therefore useful with attribution. It comes with the caveat of also having undergone no peer review process nor scientific editorial control. Just as we would not rely on papers written by specialists but unpublished and unreviewed, the articles of this type can similiarly not be relied upon for material in Wikipedia voice.

As I stated before, the request above needs to include the specific content that editor is seeking to reference and the text they wish to support, per the instructions at the top, in order to form a proper assessment. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 01:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose findings of general reliability or unreliability for government-funded organizations. (Yes, I know the NED is a private foundation receiving money from the US Congress, which then finances -- inter alia -- Bellingcat). In my experience even the "best" sources can turn out to have been unreliable (NYT, for example). I believe we should proceed on a case by case bias... is // Elliot Higgins // a reliable source for // X // claim... Here I assume the real issue that prompted opening this "general" reliability thread was Higgins publishing on 4 Aug 2019 a negative piece about Tulsi Gabbard. This explains why the thread was opened on 4 Aug 2019 by the principal author of Tulsi Gabbard's BLP. (as of 4 Aug 2019) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, but some cautions exist. The concerns about its funding and potential bias stemming from that are not generally an issue to using a source (for instance, we rely on the CIA World Factbook), provided there's no indication that that potential bias has caused them to release inaccurate or misleading information; but they do have to be considered when evaluating WP:DUE weight or WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, so it's still worth keeping in mind. Regarding the concern that it's not as reliable as an academic paper written by a specialist - I mean, that's a pretty high bar? But also, it's important to remember that those papers also have issues - they're frequently difficult for non-experts to assess or weigh, and rarely provide the broad overviews that we need for our articles; it's very easy for papers, taken out of context, to produce a misleading view, which is one of the reasons eg. WP:MEDRS urges caution. Secondary high-quality analysis sites like this, while they obviously have their own limitations, are important to fill the gap between "breaking news stories" and "in-depth technical papers by experts". --Aquillion (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What you describe as a "pretty high bar" is the standard set by sourcing policy. Secondary analysis means review articles, monographs, textbooks or other materials written by experts, which reference the relevant specialist material. It does not mean amateur sleuths who have no training in the field, and make no reference to the relevant specialism and literature. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 22:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't say what you say it does. You are citing a subsection of the section WP:SOURCETYPES, which lists several different types of sources. If our sourcing of specific historical events from the last few years was limited to peer reviewed articles, our coverage would be scant indeed. The actual definition of a secondary source, as used on Wikipedia, is at WP:SECONDARY. VQuakr (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Questionable Strong Oppose - after reading NPR article and seeing dependence on social media as their source - can't believe it is even being considered as a source. ^{12:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)} - editorial board filled with reputable professionals? No...uhm, so where does the information come from - has he subscribed to a newswire? Surely he doesn't go out in the field and do investigative journalism, or does he? What makes it reliable - what makes any source "reliable"? Stick with academic sources and stop depending on RECENTISM. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The links above (for me, especially this one) do a pretty good job of answering your questions. It may not convince you of reliability (or indeed may convince you otherwise), but at least some light may be shed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Atsme: seeing dependence on social media as their source: My impression is their use of social media is akin to this: Fitness tracking app Strava gives away location of secret US army bases (e.g. they mine social media for inadvertently-leaked information). - GretLomborg (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• ‘IFFY - IT DEPENDS’ - I’d say maybe, depending on context. This seems more like one persons blog that grew into a sophisticated Blog, rather than meeting the usual RS criteria of press sources. I’m seeing no announced self statement on their website, no editorial controls, no retractions evidencing good practices and self-admission when wrong. The articles look to be hard fact-oriented analysis, but I’m not seeing a stable topic focus or staff that built expertise up.
• Acceptable with attribution, whether undue or not would be decided on a case by case basis, for the reasons laid aout above. NPR says "an international Internet research organization that has meticulously investigated conflicts around the world". I don't think we get to decide it's unreliable just because it documents a Trumper being radicalised in a very short space of time. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Granted, I'm an IP user so you don't have to listen to me, but anyone could sit at home and use Wikipedia and Google Maps to build enough scaffolding around whatever the State Department's line is in order to support it. "Open-source investigation" is a euphemism for "amateur Internet detective work", and Bellingcat is only well-regarded because it gives any point being made the appearance of rational, researched, nonpartisan, and civilian legitimacy. 161.11.160.44 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for news topics. Bellingcat's favorable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy has been confirmed by a large number of reliable sources. The evidence presented by Snooganssnoogans shows that Bellingcat is frequently used by other reliable sources. The site's open-source intelligence methodology allows its research to be easily verified by other reliable sources, and has earned the site ample credibility despite being new. We do not require academic peer review for news topics unrelated to biomedicine. As always, caution and in-text attribution are recommended for controversial claims. — Newslinger talk 05:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Not really familiar with Bellingcat, but in any case I prefer attribution for controversial statements for this kind of work. Open-source investigation is not free from bias, as verifiability does not necessarily imply full coverage and neutrality. Daß Wölf 05:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Users should apply WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Except in extreme cases, which this is not, it's far preferable to a blanket rule that thus-and-such a source is or is not WP:RS.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: As I mentioned above, the article that appeared the day this blanket reliability thread was opened is sharply critical of Tulsi Gabbard. It is unclear if this is the article that we are meant to be evaluating the reliability of. Nevertheless, I think it is worth spending a moment looking at it. Though the article spends a lot of time discrediting MIT weapons expert Theodore Postol, it oddly completely glosses over the publication of his strong denunciation of the OPCW report after an engineering assessment was leaked to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda, and Media <-- why is this red?? in May 2019. Since then both Postol & former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter have been sharply critical of the mainstream media's criticism of Gabbard's skepticism. Neither Postol (who points out how easy it would be to shoot helicopters flying at 50-100m above a building in Douma) or Ritter (who addresses Khan Shaykhun saying the Douma airstrike has already been "largely debunked") bother to spend too much time addressing Higgins' messy piece directly, though in time it seems pretty clear (to me at least) that the surprising lack of discussion of this major development (and the attempt to discredit Postol) will end up having been quite damaging not only to the credibility of this Bellingcat piece, but quite possibly to Bellingcat's general reliability as well. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard that would suggest this article is being considered to support a statement there. Hard to draw any conclusion about suitability without seeing the specific claim that Bellingcat would be used to support. Caution would indeed be warranted per WP:BLP, and for discussion of her position on Syria we have lots of top-tier sources to choose from instead. VQuakr (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - of course with all sources context matters but generally it is a reliable source. The accolades it has received from other reliable sources exceeds most sources, the evidence of its reliability exceeds most other reliable sources. -- GreenC 16:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, but attribution sometimes should be provided per RS considering it reliable. Nevertheless, Bellingcat is sometimes the only investigative source available that deeps into a specific aspect of an event, attribution is recommended.--MaoGo (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - Bellingcat has an excellent reputation for factual reporting and they acknowledge when they get it wrong All this talk about government funds rendering outlets unreliable by default is absolute, total and utter nonsense. Sure, state broadcasters like RT or "news" outlets like Granma are simply propagandists, at the same time much of the highest quality reportage globally is produced by public broadcasters like the Public Broadcasting Service. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service, the Public Broadcasting Service, Al Jazeera and the British Broadcasting Corporation are some of the most respected news outlets in the world. The ABC and the BBC in particular are outstanding, probably the highest quality outlets I can think of. The ABC and the BBC are both 100% government funded...no reasonable person would dispute their general reliability (the acts relating to the ABC enshrine the highest journalistic standards, in law). Why would a commercial outlet be more reliable? They are beholden to people with their own agendas (Murdoch for example, runs blatant political campaigns and his outlets routinely publish falsehoods), owners, shareholders and advertisers. The quality of the source must be judged on the quality of it's reporting, not where the funding comes from. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• (bot-summon) Most of the "not reliable" arguments seem to come in two flavors: "government-funded hence partisan" and "all mainstream media is crap because Iraq war". For the former, Bacondrum's refutation is on-point: reliability is evaluated from the results, not political or economical allegiances (of which no newspaper, scientific journal, or any type of source is free). For the latter, yeah, most media is crap (and not just when disinformed via a massive government campaign), but it's the least crappy we have; if you are seriously saying the New York Times should be considered "generally unreliable", you are advocating for 99%+ of WP articles about post-2000 events to be nuked since no source would ever be reliable enough. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References

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

Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites - The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox

UK progressive online only news sites such as The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox have been described by the BBC as making a huge impact and earning a massive following." They are all subject to a state approved regulator, IMPRESS and receive a positive rating from NewsGuard.

• Evolve Politics
• The Canary
• Skwawkbox

They are relevant across a range of articles relating to British current affairs.

Using these sources in Wikipedia articles aids in NPOV as they present a progressive viewpoint and content often absent from the mainly conservative mainstream media, which is owned and directed by commercial companies. Even the non commercial Guardian is not a consistent supporter of the current Labour Party, which is the offical political opposition in Parliament. While this is a subjective view on my part, it may be that these sites were originally more sensationalist to establish themselves and over time have become more reliable. However, some editors still regularly delete content from these sites, on the basis that they are fringe. Can we have a consensus that they are sufficently reliable as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to be used? Jontel (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Even as I may like them, I have a certain trepidation about a blanket declaration that they're solid RSes for all purposes in Wikipedia. With-attribution, as the partisan sources they are maybe. But I'd like some evidence of actual reliability as sources. And being signed up to IMPRESS doesn't really mean much - "No national newspaper has signed up to the new regulator" - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

References

You say "some editors still regularly delete content from these sites". Why not identify these editors and the article talk pages where you have tried to discuss with them? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to echo Peter’s comment. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another... so we would need to see HOW these sources are being used (what they are being cited FOR) before we can say whether they are reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm highly skeptical of The Skwawkbox, as it is a blog operated by a single person (Steve Walker, who is not any of the people listed on the Stephen Walker disambiguation page). That classifies it as a self-published source. Evolve Politics lists two people in its about page, Tom D. Rogers, and Jessica A. Miller, which is still in self-published territory. The Canary has the largest team of the three, with several dozen people listed on its team page, and I would not consider it self-published, although I have not yet examined the site's content or reputation. — Newslinger talk 15:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I would say that these sites are typically useful as a source for quotes and statements by progressive politicians and activists to whom the sites are sympathetic, meaning that the sites will likely be reliable for this, when attributed, when these quotes and statements are not covered elsewhere. There is no need to use them for the facts of significant events, as that is available from more mainstream sources. Nor would their opinions carry much weight. They have small staffs, but that is not such a handicap for online publications. I would invite the views of Icewhiz, Bondegezou, Bellowhead678, RevertBob Slatersteven and Bangalamania without making specific assertions. Also, G-13114 Here are two discussions: Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_3#The_Canary and Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_7#RfC.4_IJV/JSG/JVP_/_Oryszczuk Regarding providing evidence of accuracy as requested by David Gerard, what would that be? On NewsGuard standards, they rate The Canary 8/9, Evolve 8/9 and Skwawkbox 9/9. On Impress complaints unheld in whole or in part over three years, The Canary has two, Evolve one and Skawkbox five. A 2019 survey by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that The Canary was trusted by its readers more than publications such as Buzzfeed News, the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, HuffPost, The Independent, Sun and regional press, and almost equal to the Daily Telegraph.Jontel (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Meh... “trusted by readers” may be another way of saying “bias confirmation”. I would be more interested in what critics say. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Critics are typically political opponents or competitors and usually both, so plenty of motivation for bias. However: [Press Gazette] [Buzzfeed][News Stateman] This critiques MSM coverage of UK Labour Party, so making a case for additional sources. [Media Reform] Jontel (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jontel's comment that they are acceptable sources for left-wing politicians' comments on issues, but not much else. However, even in this context we still should be wary. Just because a comment is true, doesn't mean it should be included, and I am not convinced that being covered in the Canary is enough to warrant inclusion of comments into articles not about the politician in question. Bellowhead678 (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar:I am curious as to these comment of yours."I have to echo Peter’s comment. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another.". How can a source be reliable and not reliable? How about the New York Times or Washington Post? Can they be reliable in one context and not reliable in another context? What then is the criteria upon which reliability is judged?Oldperson (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, for example, a tweet from Donald Trump that says X is an idiot, is an RS that DT tweeted that, but not an RS that X is an idiot. WaPo and NYT are great for lots of stuff, but when you get into the area of WP:MEDRS the desired bar is often higher. This [56] is WaPO. It's still only RS for the authors opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Nooooo, not hardly. These are no better than the likes of the Daily Caller. Popular <> accurate or trustworthy. Remember: millions of people trust te Daily Mail. The ususal rule applies: if a better source exists, us it, if it doesn't, it's probably bollocks, or at least its significance is exaggerated. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• These are entirely the opposite of "reliable sources" - they are deliberately highly partisan, often loose with facts, sometimes engaging it outright fantasy... The Land (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• They are not remotely reliable. They are highly partisan. (Yes, in very limited circumstances, they might be reliable for certain quotations, but, generally, no.) Look at The Canary: here's a current article, entitled "The BBC’s pro-Johnson propaganda is so absurd even a former Tory deputy PM has had enough". We consider the BBC RS. If we accept The Canary's view, the BBC is not RS, it delivers "pro-Johnson propaganda". We can't have an RS list including both! Now read the actual article: it misrepresents what Heseltine says to fit an agenda. Read The Skwawkbox, it's just non-stop pro-Corbyn spin. Bondegezou (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• I have to agree with what has been said above. Appropriate perhaps for quotations or the personal views of RS figures in limited circumstances, but that's about it. These websites have been criticised for clickbait and fake news from across the political spectrum, not just political opponents. The Skwawkbox's page notes that it has been used by Corbyn insiders to get its messages across, so there may be the occasional instance where it's relevant, but I'm not 100% sure on that one. Whatever the consensus view is on these sites, I do think they warrant a listing at the perennial sources page. --Bangalamania (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for news. These serve the same niche in the eco system as Guido Fawkes (website) - just from the Left. The have all sorts of interesting leaks, intentional leaks, and breaking news - however the more noteworthy stuff gets picked up by mainline sources a few hours later (e.g. Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, etc.). In some cases they might have a notable opinion piece - and they are probably OK for that - but in most case they are WP:UNDUE (if you can't get it published somewhere else....) - it might be DUE in a more obscure article of ours if there is someone senior behind the op-ed. (they also have some very far-out news and oped pieces). In this academic book - Skwawkbox and The Canary are described as "dubious sites". In this academic book The Canary and Evolve Politics are described as producing "tabloid style hit-pieces". All these outlets -are part of a network of similar sites supportive of the Corbyn wing in Labour - [57]. In this academic book and this one they are described as alt-left (for Americans reading this - in the US the alt-left isn't much of a thing - a myth even. In UK politics - things are flipped around - including Russian support (traditionally, and continuing today, to leftward elements in Labour) - much of what has been going on in the alt-right stateside, has been alt-left in the UK (of course - the UK has its own fascists - hard right - but they are enjoying (thankfully!) less popular support in the recent past). Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A "Marxist critique"! Any port in a storm? A book written by two academics and published by a specialist in academic literature, certainly. It would be nice, though, if equal enthusiasm was shown for work produced by academics under the imprimatur of universities ([58][59]) who don't share the viewpoint of Bolton and Pitts.[60][61][62] Note the bit in Political Communication in Britain just above where you linked to where it says:"A study conducted by LSE confirmed what many on the political left had suspected, finding coverage concerning Corbyn was disproportionately negative, and, while acknowledging the democratic importance of media scrutiny, deemed the print media to have regularly strayed beyond its purview as 'watchdog' to an 'attackdog' position."     ←   ZScarpia   19:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable There is a difference between bias and propaganda.This a propaganda sites with fake news as shown in this thread --Shrike (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• These sites are OK as far as they go, left POV and I would say exactly the same if they were right POV. The mainstream news is politicized right and left, so a little bit more right and left isn't going to make that much of a difference. They are kind of like a web based Fox News for the left, I don't regard them as propaganda, just ideologically driven. I would say use with caution.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not generally reliable, and in particular The Canary is problematic - Private Eye has highlighted numerous issues relating to it over the last couple of years. Please note that being a member of IMPRESS means little. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this whole RFC - we are supposed to assess three sources for reliability, regardless of what they are relied on for. Context matters and you haven't given us anything except "these sources are left wing and I think we should allow left wing sources". Answering this is inevitably going to involve a lot of "I like this"/"I don't like this" (for the record , I don't like these sources and don't think them particularly reliable) which renders the RFC pointless. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• I am quite familiar with the Skwawkbox and the Canary. The Skwawkbox is a valuable resource for information on the inner workings of the Labour Party. It does support Corbyn and is generally critical of what is calls the centrists and Blairites. It also publishes examples of state and corporate media bias against Corbyn. The Canary provides a useful perspective on current events. I have not seen any problems with the reliability of either outlet and would use both the Skwawkbox and the Canary as sources of information with attribution. I have not read Evolve enough to comment. Burrobert (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I doubt that we would have considered Militant to be a reliable news source three decades ago when the Militant Tendency was doiong what it did and the activities of the present Momentum group, which these websites generally promote, is claimed to bear many similarities, in particular in terms of machinations for take-over of constituency parties and indeed the central party administrative and policy mechanisms. They're propaganda organs posing as news sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable - Based on arguments presented above. From what I've read and seen, these sources may be skewing facts to confirm their worldview. Red flag for a source - it may suggest the source is propaganda or publishes information for some ulterior agenda. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• All three are generally unreliable; I think Icewhiz hits the nail on the head when they describe them as "the Guido Fawkes of the Left". I'd even go so far as to deprecate the Skwawkbox (as well as Guido, FWIW): their assertion earlier this year that February has over 2,000 days shows that journalistic integrity is on a different planet to them. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• The Canary - Reliable:

The Canary says about itself:

"We remain completely independent of any advertisers, funders, companies, political organisations, or political parties."

"Today, a handful of powerful moguls controls our mainstream media. As such, its coverage is largely conservative. But we have created a truly independent and viable alternative."

"In April 2019, The Canary became one of the first UK media outlets to be awarded a green trust mark for news credibility and transparency from monitoring and rating site Newsguard."

"Media Bias / Fact Check has also reviewed our website. It states that, “we rate The Canary Left biased based on story selection that typically favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.”"

"As well as our Editor-in-Chief and Editors, Ed Sykes, our Sub Editor, maintains our high editorial standards with the help of three Copy Editors. Each article goes through a rigorous five gate process to check for accuracy."

"Unlike the mainstream press, which regulates itself, we are regulated by IMPRESS, the only independent press regulator in the UK. IMPRESS is the only regulator to be recognised by the UK government’s Press Recognition Panel. We adhere to the high journalistic standards set out in the IMPRESS Standards Code and are held to account if we ever fail to do so."

"We also have our own Code of Practice, which lays out the standards and ethical principles that guide our writers and editors whenever we make journalistic decisions."

"If you spot an error in any of our articles or you think we may have broken the standards set out in the code please see our corrections and complaints policy for information about how to contact us, the complaints process and how we publish corrections."

{more to follow}     ←   ZScarpia   16:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment

• leighrayment.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

We have a large number of links to Leigh Rayment's pages - in the thousands - and even a template, {{Rayment}}. I have some concerns.

• The site has obvioualy been hit by a keyword stuffing hijack, Google his name.
• The biography shows no evidence of reliability.
• Many of the links appear to be functionally useless, e.g. to /baronetage from dozens of articles on baronetcies - isn't a source for text on the article as it claims (e.g. Albert Spicer) and doesn'#t appear to be that useful.
• Much of his content cites no sources. When he does, it's to things like The Newgate Calendar, a rather lurid populist book which would definitely have been prone to embellishment, especially in its days as a penny dreadful.

The template was created by Kittybrewster, a valued and delightful man who nonetheless has a history of adding articles of questionable significance. A few citations to an L. Rayment exist in the literature, but this is Louise, not Leigh, and they are English, whereas the bio says he's Australian. Many of the links were added by Tryde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has left the building so I can't inquire further.

On balance, I think this template should be deleted and the links nuked as a self-published source. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Zero input, I have no further info from off-wiki, I will start tagging as {{sps}} if nobody objects? Guy (help!) 17:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been removing Rayment sources for years now. I thought it was already determined to be unreliable and SPS. Don't know where I got that idea from but I do agree with it being so! - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Valuable corroboration, thanks Sitush. Guy (help!) 20:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Jim Saleam's PHD

Jim Saleam is a well known Australian neo-Nazi, a holocaust denier and a criminal - convicted of involvement in racist hate crimes (including attempted murder) also convicted of fraud.

On release from prison, for an attempted racially motivated murder, Saleam attained a PHD. His PHD thesis was being used as a citation for analysis of the 1930's proto fascist movement, the New Guard. To my knowledge no one ever reviewed or republished Saleam's thesis, it never went anywhere, it's been ignored by the broader academic community. He is not notable for anything other than fraud, neo-Nazism and attempted murder.

I do not believe this is a reliable source by any measure. What do other editors think of this source? Bacondrum (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If the thesis was reviewed by qualified experts and the doctorate was awarded by a legitimate university that followed its normal policies and processes then the document is almost certainly a reliable source. What the author has done otherwise isn't relevant. However, if no one else has ever cited the document then it probably doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article on the grounds of due weight. ElKevbo (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I see his thesis is used for this edit: [63]. So... work of a far-right extremist used to "balance" the article about a far-right organisation of the 1930s. Joke of the day? In any case, he is not a renowned (and respected) expert in this field of study, his opinion is certainly undue. Pavlor (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I believe it has due weight. Please see the concerning article's talk page under "Jim Saleam's PhD" for my argument. AwakenedWorld (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious Saleam is object of study for historians you mentioned, not renowned expert for 1930s Australian politics. His personal history aside, he is only some no name graduate with PhD (thousands of these in the world...), there is really no reason to have his opinion in the article. His thesis may be useable for uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for the edit, you tried to push through. Pavlor (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

To compare him to the swathes of PhDs in the world, and hence to invalidate his opinion in the article, would be to ignore his heavy role in the Australian far-right scene since the 80s. He's not a no-name by any stretch of the imagination, being someone with so much experience. AwakenedWorld (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

He has next to no scholarly renown. As you wrote himself, his only notability is based on his political activity - and even here he is only a marginal voice (1.2 % best electoral result...). Once he becomes accepted as a scholar (or successful as a politician), his opinion may have some weight. Until then, he is certainly not the source we are looking for. Pavlor (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

He clearly has been accepted as a scholar, as evidenced by his citations. Given that it's the responsibility of editors to uphold WP:NPOV, I would be happy if another source representing a similar minority view is added. This would settle the dispute and achieve the same utility as Saleam's dissertation, hopefully without further hiccups. However insofar as that minority view is not represented, I argue strongly in favour of due weight for Saleam. AwakenedWorld (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I fear your understanding of NPOV and due weight is not compatible with policies you cite. If you want to add this POV to the article, simply find better source. Pavlor (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Red flags aside, this thesis does not appear to have had any significant scholarly impact. Almost every time it is cited in academic literature, the author is actually writing about Saleam himself, not referring to his research. I think it can be safely discarded. It's entirely reasonable to consider modern neo-nazi perspective in a legacy section of an article on a much older far right group, but that can be done from the point of view of authors who are not neo-nazis. There are even a couple of historians who mention Saleam's opinions in this respect. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed? I think combining those historians' opinions with Ivar the Boneful's solution could work. AwakenedWorld (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's had about as much scholarly impact as your typical PhD thesis on a niche historical topic. I don't think you're correct about how his thesis has been cited. Google Books and Google Scholar both turn up several instances of his thesis being cited and his arguments mentioned or discussed by other historians of the far-right. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The University of Sydney doesn't hand out PhD's willy-nilly. Many works about the histories of obscure/extremist political movements are written by those involved in the movement or sympathisers, it doesn't mean they're not necessarily scholarly. I don't see a particular reason to reject this source across Wikipedia, and I see it is already cited on half a dozen other Wikipedia articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search="the+other+radicalism". His political affiliation could be noted more clearly. Possibly having a whole paragraph in the article lends undue weight to Saleam's views and it could be condensed into a couple sentences. Have any other scholars responded to his argument? If so that could be a way of balancing his views. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think that would be most appropriate. AwakenedWorld (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• We don´t reject (well at least some of us) this source as unreliable, we reject its particular use in the article as undue. As Someguy1221 wrote above, extremist POV can be covered by works of more mainstream historians. Pavlor (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, would its pairing with other sources of the same minority view be suitable in your opinion? AwakenedWorld (talk)

I mean use one high quality source to present this POV. If some good source mentions Saleam´s opinion, then this may be useable - with proper attribution. Pavlor (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Bacondrum's opinion before proceeding with a draft. I'd prefer to have some consensus here. AwakenedWorld (talk)

I'd accept one high quality source to present this POV or a source that mentions Saleam´s opinion - with proper attribution. But, if the section is merely about Saleam's view of things then it is undue. Bacondrum (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll prepare something in a few days. I invite you both to keep a watchful eye on the page, and please interject with your own improvements if necessary. AwakenedWorld (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry if I got my hackles up. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from in objecting to the use of this vile and hateful man as a source. Bacondrum (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can understand. AwakenedWorld (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It meets rs per Scholarship. But all that means is that the facts presented in the thesis can be considered reliable. That does not mean that any of the opinions expressed in the article should be included. That is determined by Due and undue weight: "each article [should] fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If reliable sources have ignored these opinions, then they fail weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. It is a PhD, that's the beginning and the end of what can be said for this offered source. It's not notable and is ridiculously UNDUE for the purpose of "balancing" the article. And I'll mention that "activist", as AwakenedWorld wishes to designate Saleam in the New Guard article, is also ridiculous. If Saleam ends up being mentioned in the article, which I'm strongly against, I suggest using our article Jim Saleam to indicate what Saleam is actually notable for: "Australian far-right extremist Jim Saleam", or "convicted criminal and neo-Nazi Jim Saleam". I blinked in disbelief when I saw AwakenedWorld's argument on Talk:New Guard that talking about Saleam's "purported" [sic] Neo-Nazism (AwakenedWorld considers Neo-Nazism "a vague phrase") constitutes "an an attempt to poison the well".[64] What? No, not at all. Also, as long as we're on the subject of New Guard, why have we been allowing elaborate self-promotion in the article, by quoting their program at length? What is all this about loyalty to the throne, uniting all loyal citizens, maintaining the full liberty of the individual, etc, etc? We don't do that for any political organisations, or indeed any organisations, because then they would all appear wonderful. Compare Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. I've removed the section, with an explanation on talk. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC).

climatecasechart.com

Source: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

Article: Tim Ball

Content:

On 22 August 2019 the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball,

on grounds of delay

.

Rakeroot (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, my quesiton is: Is the source reliable for to the grounds of dismissal?

I don't find this information anywhere else. Rakeroot (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The insertion was here by Dave souza. The climatecasechart page says that is "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer" without pointing to what media and what statements, so could be depending on blogs and tweets (that's all I've seen about this detail so far). Poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Am inclined to agree that this source only presents hearsay in its statement that "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer, on August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay." On that basis, this isn't a reliable secondary source for the court's dismissal of the case. . . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I argue that, the fact that the case is dismissed is not disputed so the source could be used for this. Rakeroot (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• You know, I would say that site is RS for factual claims. It does not seem to editorialise, it is backed by a reputable and identified group of people, it comes under the auspices of Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and it backs everything with citations to original material. So as a source of for a summary of the legal outcome of a case or filing, it is appropriate. Wikipedia doesn't apply the hearsay rule, because we're not a court. Guy (help!) 12:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

He Did Not Fear: Xusro Parviz, King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire

He Did Not Fear: Xusro Parviz, King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire [65]

Not too sure about this one - it's first time I've seen this author. He seems to be relatively new in the academic world and quite young. The publisher is Gorgias Press. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The book meets rs. What that means is that we can assume the book is factual. An academic publisher has had other academics read it and chosen to publish it. That doesn't mean that the opinions or conclusions expressed in the book are necessarily significant, although they should be well-reasoned. TFD (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

samvadindia.net

Can the website of the organization bestowing a literary award be used as a source for who received that award, and who was on the jury awarding it? Specifically asking for recipients of the Raja Rao Award formerly given by Samvad India Foundation (http://www.samvadindia.net). Thanks. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Yes, provided the site is not user-generated but it does not prove notability of the award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Atlantic306, many thanks. I do have other sources for the notability. Website has a page for each award recipient with a very thorough biography, for example this biography of Yasmine Gooneratne. Want to be sure this is usable as one of the sources for these, though not as a sole source. Thanks again! Hyperbolick (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

markathitakis.com

Hello everyone! I was wondering if this source here would be considered reliable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? I would be using it for theLittle Eva: The Flower of the South article, and I would be specifically citing this sentence: "The creepiest, easily, is Little Eva, Flower of the South, an 1853 children’s book in which the title character is saved from drowning by Sam, a slave.".

The site is self-published through WordPress, but according to the about page here, Mark Athitakis has been published in both The New York Times and Washington Post. I know self-published blogs are generally not considered reliable, but I was wondering if this individual's other publications would his blog suitable for Wikipedia. I thinking more on the negative side, but I would like to get some feedback/input. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Commission de Toponymie for statement about earliest official naming

In the article Jumbo Lake, it is asserted that

Lac Jumbo was officially named on 3 October 1972.

sourced to Lac Jumbo, Commission de toponymie de Quebec, retrieved 2019-09-01

The Commission de toponymie source shows a "date d'officialisation" which is presumably reliable for assertion that this lake was listed in their database of names on that date in 1972. However is it reliable for assertion that the lake was first officially named on that date? (Q1)

And, if experts here could please venture into notability as well, does it seem appropriate to include such a statement into every article about towns, cities, natural features in Canada? (Q2a) Or should the Commission de toponymie's date be mentionable only when the act of naming is shown to be notable in a different source, such as for a renaming of street to honor a fallen firefighter or whatever, when the source is commenting about the naming date specifically? (Q2b)

• Comment. (Adapted from discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumbo Lake.) I believe that the statement is possibly completely false, if it is meant to establish the first official recognition of "Jumbo Lake" or "Lac Jumbo" for this lake. I believe that mentioning it at all is giving outrageous salience to a non-notable bureaucratic action, and is trivial beyond a degree acceptable to mentioned in an encyclopedia. It is true that The Commission de Toponymie source about Lac Jumbo does include "Date d'officialisation: 1972-10-03". But I do not believe at all that the lake was named in 1972. I think that was when the Toponymie commission added an entry into their database. This is similar to how WikiProject SHIPS editors incorrectly believed for a long time that a date entered into the DANFS database (or into some other U.S. ship commission office) was the christening date for a ship, when it could be shown by news reports sometimes that the launching of a ship and its christening happened on a different, earlier date. It turned out the DANFS database (or whatever) date was the date that a government unit got around to entering it into their database, only. Here, I disbelieve that this was the first official recognition of the name of this lake, and it is not worth mentioning that this was the date that one bureaucratic unit "recognized" it. I have some familiarity myself with another lake in Quebec, "Sixteen Island Lake", from well before the "officialisation" date in 1996 reported in Commission de Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles (but maybe that is supposed to establish the official date for just the post office?). IMHO, there is no way in hell that this lake was not officially recognized in many ways, previously, before then, and before the 1968 date given in this other Commission de Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles. For 16 Island Lake, the Wikipedia article mentions, based on other source(s) that its name was in use by 1898 for the post office. Am I "daft" for asserting that this sentence should obviously be removed from the article (and/or from an area article which may cover the topic of the lake)? It was asserted in the AFD that my view is "daft" and that "Government websites may have mistakes, but we generally treat them as reliable sources."

Thank you for considering this question. I think this is my first time raising questions at wp:RSN, so please forgive me and direct me if I should be posing this differently somehow. (Also should this be registered as an RFC somehow?) --Doncram (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

So, this is just my opinion, for the little it is worth, but I share your concerns about the bureaucratic nature of the labeling. That said, I also think it is inherently notable that the government is making these assertions (even if sometimes dubious). Thus, for me, the best middle road would seem to be using such statements with attribution, and presenting conflicting information where it is available. On the other hand, we need to be careful not to venture too far into WP:OR territory. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. For another example, Édifice du Club-Universitaire-de-Montréal is about a club founded in 1906, whose building was built c.1912, and was listed as a monument historiques du Quebec on September 29, 1986. The "Date d'officialisation" is May 7, 2003. I don't think it is fair or appropriate to state the 2003 date in any way in an article about the club (long-needed, just created). --Doncram (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC) --01:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I do think you are a bit overthinking "date d'officialisation," as it seems to obviously simply mean the date said name was accepted by the Commission, and not the date of original naming or even government usage. Still, I understand the frustration. Dumuzid (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The Commission de toponymie du Québec, a government agency, checks place names in Quebec and gives a stamp of approval. They say they made "Lac Jumbo" official in 1972. I see no reason to doubt them. There are over 2,000 citations to them, so we have a massive clean-up job if they are dodgy. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no special knowledge of this, but I share Dumuzid's skepticism. What name appeared on government maps pre-1972? It should be easy to check. If it is the same, isn't that also a form of official recognition? It would be best if a source is found that explains precisely what listing by the Commission means, rather than guessing. McKay (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Ghion Journal

I found an article from Ghion Journal. I can't be sure whether the source is appropriate for Cold War II (renamed as Second Cold War). The source has POV commentary against the US mainstream media. I don't know which other sources have the same view as that source. -- George Ho (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Copies of reliable sources on blogs

I am looking for clarification regarding scans of reliable sources on personal blogs. Specifically, would the scanned stories at https://dontparade.blogspot.com/2016/08/newsday-tv-book-august-6-12-1972.html qualify as "reliable" despite being hosted on blogger.

I reverted an editor for sourcing a claim sourced to the second image on the blog page on the basis of WP:BLOGS. However, the editor insists the original Newsday story is the source and not the blog. I can't find a policy or guideline addressing this issue directly but Youtube video clips are discussed by WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher."

Following the advice at WP:NOYT would indicate that at screencap of a reliable source on a blog is not a reliable source. That said I highly doubt somebody has faked a screencap of a 50-year-old source about some uncontroversial information about a film so it is almost certainly a genuine rendering of the original news story. It is a essentially a DIY archive.

Is there a specific policy or guideline or general practice that governs this type of thing? Betty Logan (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In the case of Robert Stewart (saxophonist) there was a personal webpage with pressclippings, including WaPo, JazzTimes etc. Editors at the time felt these could be used to some extent, citing the publication, not the webpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Since these stories are from 1972, and there is no indication that the owner of the Blogger (RSP entry) blog has the right to republish the Newsday content, I would consider this to be copyright infringement. Per WP:COPYLINK, we should never link to material that infringes copyright. You can still cite the original Newsday articles, and it would be best if you could confirm the contents of the articles from a more trusted source (e.g. the actual Newsday book, or a trusted database like Newspapers.com or NewspaperArchive – available through The Wikipedia Library, and can be linked to), since it's difficult to determine if these scans are altered. However, don't link (or provide a URL) to the blog in the citation. — Newslinger talk 10:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• See this resource regarding Newspaper copyrights. It's pretty handy. I agree that the citation should be the actual source not the blog. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the information! We don't know whether there is a copyright notice on the media (without access to the original media) since only part of the documents were photographed and shared, but I can't conclusively say that it's a copyright violation from what is presented in the blog. — Newslinger talk 16:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Something to remember here, the citation is not the link or the URL. The citation is the bibliographic information that allows someone else to find the original source. For a book or a newspaper article or something like that, it doesn't need to be online. If it is, and is available in a clean link unencumbered by copyright violations, a link is a nice thing, but you don't have to link to a direct copy of a source for a valid citation. Just give the full bibliographic details and you're fine. If you found it as a copyvio scan on a blog, don't tell anyone. Just cite the original article and leave it at that. You're fine. --Jayron32 14:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• One caution... it is not difficult to manipulate documents. Copies found on unreliable websites may not be “true to the original”. Always try to find and cite the original. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• We have an essay WP:Convenience link that explains the issues. I think the main points are: (1) Someone has to check that the copy matches the original; (2) Don't link to copyvios. McKay (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Is a biography on a micronation's website a reliable source for a BLP?

The BLP in question is Igor Ashurbeyli and the website is here. The micronation is Asgardia (a bit of a mess that I cleaned up a bit - mainly sourced to its website and a journal where he is editor-in-chief run by something he founded, Asgardia Independent Research Center). It looks as though it is used in other BLPs as well.[66] As a side issue, why can't I find the articles using ROOM[67] and asgardia.space with External links search? [68] I'm dubious about either of these being used as sources. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any information where that site is used on its own, or at least it is always part of a string of over-citation so there is really no need to keep it. To answer your question though, I would say it could be used with the same restrictions as an ABOUTSELF source. I would not use it as a source for his receipt of The State Science and Technology Prize or Gold UNESCO Medal. Jbh ^Talk 13:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur with JBH. For non-controversial ABOUTSELF claims it's probably fine. For anything significant, no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Andy Ngo

There is currently an RfC Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_Do_sources_support_calling_Ngo's_statements_on_the_hammer_attack_"false"? at Andy Ngo that may be of interest to people who participate on this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source?

It is a blog. Although it lists 4 contributors in addition to "editor" Brad Linder in the about page, in reality Brad Linder is essentially the only author in 2019 (1 exception), and there have been only 2 authors since February 2016.

I've been recently tempted to use it as a source, a couple times, to change a primary source to a secondary source, like magic; however, this seems wrong.

It was suggested to bring it up for discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:/e/_(operating_system)&diff=913365830&oldid=913365695

I'd appreciate other views. Below are more details. Thanks.

It has been used as a source for many articles in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

95 results

Sometimes it is called "blog" in Wikipedia References, sometimes not.

I believe it mostly re-words and repeats press releases, and blog posts by companies. An example, recently:

https://liliputing.com/2019/09/first-batch-of-purism-librem-5-linux-smartphones-ships-in-late-september.html#comments

versus

https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-shipping-announcement/

In the liliputing blog post above, comments seem to confirm this:

"Some Guy: ...Also, this article seems to have been posted before anything about this is on purism’s website."

"Brad Linder: I guess someone forgot to tell them that the embargo lifted at 11:00AM 🙂"

"Daily Deals" are almost indistinguishable from "articles." https://liliputing.com/category/deals

The about page calls Brad Linder editor; however, he is also the primary author, and the ONLY author for the last 8 months, with one exception by Lee Mathews on 8/26/2019.

It says, "Liliputing has been mentioned on hundreds of news, and technology web sites," and gives 11 examples. However, 1 - Computer World is a broken link, most are several years old, and 1 - Techmeme, "works by scraping news websites and blogs,..."

https://liliputing.com/about

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Brad+Linder+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

57 results

Lee Mathews https://liliputing.com/author/lee Last article 08/26/2019, but this is the first since 12/26/2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Lee+Mathews+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

1 result

Lory Gil https://liliputing.com/author/lory Last article 02/05/2016

K. T. Bradford https://liliputing.com/author/ktbradford Last article 08/20/2014

James Diaz https://liliputing.com/author/cybergusa Last article 09/16/2011

The site warns: "Disclosure: Some links on this page are monetized by Skimlinks and Amazon's and eBay's affiliate programs."

It is heavily loaded with affiliate javascript from MANY different sources, as seen with noscript, etc.

-- Yae4 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ugh. That site is basically a collection of advertisements. Guy (help!) 21:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Example of editing by readers:

Victor C: Brad, just letting you know, the WIN is mono. They had to remove the left speaker for the fan...

Brad Linder: Whoops! Fixing that now.

https://liliputing.com/2016/10/gpd-win-handheld-gaming-pc-quick-review.html , Reference 14 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPD_Win -- Yae4 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

While it's SPAMmy, It can certainly be used in a limited capacity. For instance on the Kodi (software) article, https://liliputing.com/2013/05/xbmc-running-in-linux-on-a-tv-box-with-an-amlogic-am8726-mx-chip-video.html is used to support that the software supports the AMLogic VPU chip. This is not an unreasonable use. Good to see that they make corrections to articles, which is good editorial oversight. It should not be used for anything other that plain, factual coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Making corrections after initially publishing inaccurate information, after readers point out the mistakes, is not "editorial oversight." Editorial oversight is having an editor, independent of the author, who catches mistakes before publishing. At this blog, the author is the editor, or vice versa. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Blogs do not generally update their posts. If there is the ability and will to recognize errors and omissions, that implies that there is some editorial oversight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I wanted to use infosec-handbook.eu (blog) as a source too, but couldn't because it doesn't meet the criteria. BTW, it also updates based on reader feedback (and has more active authors). If we use liliputing for that video, then we could use any blog with a fancy appearance and tons of advertisements as a way of including youtube videos. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What you were restricted in using that other website's content for is not up for discussion here.

We're not using the video itself, in the case I quoted, it's a specific discussion that is being used to support one fact. It is not generally reliable, as is the case with most other blogs. However, even blogs may be used under some circumstances. This is not a binary use vs. do not use situation, it's a large scale and judgment must be used to determine whether an entry can be used to support a fact.

Also, as stated above, it cannot be used to help determine if a topic meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The point was other blogs also do make corrections based on reader feeback, contrary to your claim.

Go down the list; Liliputing breaks most criteria: NO editorial oversight (aside from readers), self-published, blog, examples of making mistakes, sponsored content or primary purpose of showing you ads and getting you to click affiliate links. As I understand the process, if two of these discussions conclude it's a non-reliable source, then it goes on the "binary" list as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources

If that "one fact" is really worthy of being included, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Liliputing

Is Liliputing (liliputing.com) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog? — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Liliputing)

• Self-published source. I'll repeat what I originally wrote on 10 September: Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Advert-infested clickbait of no real merit and no evident quality assurance, much better sources exist. Guy (help!) 21:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally Unreliable Anything but a factual statement is not reliable. Cannot be used for GNG or other reliability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Should not be used as a source. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. (bot brought me here) Not anywhere close to the level of Wired, ZDNet, or even krebsonsecurity(Brian Krebs).---Avatar317^(talk) 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Liliputing)

• I've created a new subsection for the RfC to meet the "brief and neutral" requirement for RfC statements. Yae4 originally created the RfC in Special:Diff/919418976, but the RfC statement was too long to be transcluded into the RfC category lists. Discussion on Liliputing originally started at Talk:/e/ (operating system), then sprawled to other pages including Talk:Kodi (software). According to Yae4, Liliputing was used in 95 articles on 9 September, but this count has since declined to 12 articles   after removals. Pinging previous commenters JzG and Walter Görlitz as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer hardware task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "The Western Journal" (September)

Should The Western Journal be deprecated? Or listed as generally unreliable? Or something else? X1\ (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For the WesternJournal.com, see earlier Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Western Journal, and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Western Journal for comments on The Western Journal's reputation. Note: I have only been in a previous "rating", and haven't kept up on potential process changes here. X1\ (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I pulled it from Mikhail Abyzov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Kyle Kashuv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The first is a blatantly bad ref and use of that ref. The Kashuv ref isn't remotely as bad, but appears to be the type of warmed-over press that the NYTimes identifies.

I'm only seeing 12 uses as references at this time --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I see westernjournal.com  . X1\ (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Western Journal)

• Unreliable as a source for facts, and too extreme for opinion in most cases. It should be deprecated as a source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate it This analysis by the NYT seems to be all that needs to be said about this disinformation outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• This probably doesn't need an RfC - it's obviously not a reliable source for anything other than ABOUTSELF. Guy (help!) 21:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Same as BullRangifer (above), agree with u:Simonm223 and u:JzG. X1\ (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable based on the Times coverage and the fact that it managed to get itself blacklisted from Google News. --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable per the RS on their wiki page. However, per those same RS, their corrections page is a recent addition and they did retract an article that was wrong. In light of this, deprecation is going too far. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable getting blacklisted from two major news aggregators is bad enough, but the NYT coverage nails it for me. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable - NYT story makes clear that the site does not have any actual reporters of its own, and that its content is essentially just aggregated and rewritten stories from other conservative sources such as Breitbart. There is thus no reason to use the site regardless of reliability - anything they publish can be found elsewhere in original format if we wanted it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. Clearly identified as unreliable by several sources. Furthermore it generates little or no original reporting, any citation should point to the actual original news report (with Reliability evaluated in terms of that source). There is therefore little or nothing lost by deprecating this source. I considered just closing this as unanimous WP:SNOW. However given the social-media footprint and strong partisan affiliation, this case warrants burial under a large strong consensus to firmly put to rest any attempts to re-litigate this issue. Alsee (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Utter garbage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate per Simonm223. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate per Doug/NBSB — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The Western Journal)

• Comment Their corrections are here. [69] They also say at the bottom of every article that they are "committed to truth and accuracy in all of our reporting." This certainly gives an impression of reliability. However, prior to voting, I am interested in what evidence others may bring to the table. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Fox News had "Fair And Balanced" as a strapline. That was bullshit, by common consent. Guy (help!) 21:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Have you followed Western Journal long? It appears, per their wp page RSs, that had serious credibility issues regarding wp standards for RSs. Can you speak to how they now intend to use the westernjournal.com/corrections section? If they don't correct the articles themselves, a separate page will often be ignored. X1\ (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Hence my interest in other people's evidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Some references used used previously here. X1\ (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Has Western Journal ever retracted an article? Do they use credible references within their articles (citing them as sources)? X1\ (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

New York Times' - Epstein reporting

Please consider whether the NYT article should have its Epstein coverage demoted to "reliable but not independent" based on some or all of the following points is sufficient sourcing for the claim highlighted in point #5. (Striking original request per Newslinger’s comment). petrarchan47คุก 00:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

___

1) NPR calls out NYT for dropping the ball on Epstein coverage

NPR describes how 3 media outlets whitewashed Epstein coverage for various reasons. One of them was the New York Times: How the media fell short on Epstein

___

2) Current NYT CEO Mark Thompson & the BBC pedophile scandal and alleged coverup

• Telegraph Nick Pollard, former head of Sky News and lead investigator into the Savile inquiry claimed that former BBC boss Mark Thompson lied over Savile evidence"

• Vanity Fair examines Thompson's role and seemingly conflicting statements Vanity Fair

• "Thompson is now attempting to reconcile two apparently contradictory statements over what he knew about a TV report into Savile by the BBC's Newsnight programme." Guardian

• Thompson confronted about his contradicting statements about what he knew, stumbles through interview Channel 14

• Front Page Mag concludes in Mark Thompson: From Pedophile Cover-Up to the New York Times: "As long as Mark Thompson holds the Old Gray Lady’s reins all the news that’s fit to print may not include exposing elite pedophile rings. It didn’t at BBC under Thompson’s leadership and there is no reason to believe this has changed."

• Background on the scandal:

Extended content

"[BBC] staff turned a blind eye to the rape and sexual assault of up to 1,000 girls and boys by Jimmy Savile in the corporation's changing rooms and studios." Guardian "at least 72 people were sexually abused by the DJ and presenter while he was working on BBC shows, including eight victims of rape. The youngest was just 10 years old. The largest number of assaults – 19 – happened during recordings of Top of the Pops." Independent "BBC foreign correspondent Caroline Hawley said that “she thought she had told Thompson the broad context of the axed Newsnight investigation into Savile” at a pre-Christmas drinks party at BBC Television Center in late 2011." BBC "Savile was accused by 107 staff at the BBC over the course of his decades of abuse" BBC 'Jimmy Savile raped children as young as nine' while working at BBC, leaked report unveils

___

3) Joi Ito - NYT BOD (2012-2019)

MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito and colleagues concealed Epstein donations and affiliation with the program. Ito knew Epstein donations were disallowed and created a coverup at MIT of the source and amount of donations. He also sought Epstein donations of $1.7 million for personal projects. Ito stepped down (but was not fired) from the NYT board of directors, as well as several other boards and the MIT Media Lab, on the heels of the New Yorker piece.

• a good summary of the controversy for those unfamiliar

• bombshell New Yorker report that led to Ito's resignation

Apparently the NYT had the scoop but sat on it. WaPost: "Before Ito’s resignations, prominent women in the media world such as Xeni Jardin had spoken out on social media against his ties to Epstein"

Xeni: "I told the [New York Times] everything. So did whistleblowers I was in touch with inside MIT and Edge. They printed none of the most damning truths..."

___

4) Soft, almost romantic description of Epstein's abuse:

• New York Times summary of the complaint by Jane Doe 1: "the massages quickly became sexual"

Compare with other media:

• WSJ "repeated rapes and assaults"

• CNN "pressured into giving him massages that transitioned into sexual abuse"

• CBS "sexual battery and sexual assault"

• VICE "The massages ...turned into several instances of sexual assault"

___

5) Possibly inaccurate coverage of Epstein-related court documents

Two thousand pages of previously sealed court documents were released the night before Epstein was declared dead. The New York Times makes a claim that no one else (except Alan Dershowitz and Ghislaine Maxwell) has, a claim now mirrored in our Jeffrey Epstein article:

NYT "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue."

Wikipedia: "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false."

The claim was made midway through a fluff piece about Trump-fueled conspiracy theories involving Bill Clinton. Besides this brief mention, the NYT has not reported on the documents. WP editors have taken its statement to mean that Guiffre admitted Clinton was not on the island, contrary to her earlier testimony. They have decided that because it was printed in the Times, it must be true, and lack of corroborating reports, and the presence of contradictory reports, are seen as irrelevant because the NYT is considered to be reliable.

• Law and Crime reported on the documents: Underage girls present when Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein's island

In transcripts of Giuffre’s deposition released by the court Friday, Bill Clinton‘s relationship with Epstein is expounded upon. Giuffre alleges that Clinton was around when she was with Epstein on his island. Giuffre claims that she “flew to the Caribbean” with Epstein when she was 17, and that while she was there, Maxwell bragged that she picked Clinton up in a "black helicopter that Jeffrey [Epstein] bought her". Giuffre further says that she had spent time with Clinton and that while his secret service agents were there, they weren’t "where [everyone] was eating." ... While the details of the alleged helicopter trip were, thus, unclear, Giuffre’s other statements in the deposition, if true, confirm Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey Epstein’s island while underage girls were present. This runs contradictory to Clinton’s claims that he has never been to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.

The documents say Guiffre was directed to have sex with former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, among other powerful men. NYT mentions this nowhere in its reporting. Those who do cover the Richardson allegations include but are not limited to:

vice, Reuters, wapo, vanity fair, daily beast, cnbc, nbc, Rolling Stone, cbs, NY Mag, Bloomberg, Wapo.

Most media did not mention Clinton at all; I've included the text from those that did because it shows how vastly different the NYT report is from all other accounts. No other media mentions any lie or misstatement whatsoever from Guiffre in their coverage:

Extended content

FORBES A court unsealed documents from a lawsuit filed by an accuser of Jeffrey Epstein that claim a number of powerful men were involved in Epstein’s alleged ring of abuse—and that President Trump and former president Clinton took previously unreported trips with the former financier... Bill Clinton: The former president visited Epstein’s private island while Giuffre was there, she claims in one of her depositions. Giuffre stated that Epstein held a dinner for Clinton on the island. (In a statement previously made to Forbes, Clinton denied ever visiting Epstein’s private island.) TIME In court documents that were part of the defamation lawsuit unsealed Aug. 9, Giuffre said that Trump never had sex with any of the women, but that Epstein told her they were friends. Giuffre also noted that she remembered Maxwell telling her that she and Clinton flew in a “huge black helicopter.” Politico The logs and depositions of Epstein’s pilots also detail former President Bill Clinton’s use of Epstein’s planes to travel around the world for the Clinton Foundation and to make paid speeches. “President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York,” Clinton spokesman Angel Urena said last month “He’s not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade, and has never been to Little St. James Island, Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, or his residence in Florida." Chicago Tribune Giuffre, as part of her sworn testimony, also states that she met former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore and future President Donald Trump, and that Epstein once held a dinner for Clinton on his island, Little St. James, off the coast of St. Thomas.

Thanks for your help. petrarchan47คุก 22:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I've read this several times and frankly I'm a little flummoxed. The NYT is pretty ironclad as far as RS go, it's one of the most respected and trusted papers in the world. Are you really trying to argue that it's somehow not "independent" in covering Epstein (ie, that it's somehow pro-Epstein?) That's a pretty bold claim to make and not one that is particularly well at all supported by what you've linked here. And I'm pretty uncomfortable with what you seem to be implying about Thompson... Fyddlestix (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not making implications here, I'm providing data points with varying degrees of relevance. Thompson's move to the NYT was very controversial, even by fellow NYT employees: N.Y. Times Columnist Questions New Boss' Handling of Pedophilia Scandal. petrarchan47คุก 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, what edits/articles is this even about? There's no point debating the NYT's reliability/independence on this story in a vacuum, what specific content is at issue here? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is about whether the New York Times is a reliable source for a statement about Virginia Guiffre retracting a statement about Bill Clinton visiting Epstein's island. The statement in the article is "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false." which is cited to a New York Times article which includes the statement "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.". At the risk of seeming like I am not assuming good faith, I think it is important to point out that previous attempts by Petrarchan to remove this statement from the article include attempting to contradict the Times' reporting with both semantics and original research ("'an earlier claim she made about' could mean anything. Maybe she claimed he had a striped shirt on at the island, but later remembered it was a Hawaiian shirt. You should be able to find this admission of a lie in the documents by using the word search option. If indeed you find it, I will make a donation to the NYT for their fantastic reporting. Because apparently they're the only ones to uncover this, which strikes me as odd."). I see this as little more than a further attempt to discredit what is undoubtedly a reliable source, and am wholly unswayed by the "evidence" being presented. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like a raving conspiracy theory to me - and Wikipedia editors need to be very careful about saying people are "linked to" a pedophile scandal and spinning implications about that. Might need a BLP-savvy admin to look at this posting. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping for a BLP-savvy admin (or editors) as well. I was thinking Slim Virgin might be of some help. I've changed "linked to" to "&" because I didn't mean to go beyond what sources say, and "linked" is probably too strong, as you say. petrarchan47คุก 23:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Caution, none of them are infallible. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

If, but and maybe, speculation should never really be RS, when its this speculative.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Falling short" isn't the same as "not reliable." The NYT isn't infallible (no source is), but if you want to cast its reporting into doubt or keep it out of the article, you need a source contradicting it directly on that particular point, not a source bemoaning its coverage of the topic in general. Even with such a source, I'm skeptical that you could exclude a major, relevant statement in an article by the NYT - at best you can say "the NYT said X, while [other source] disagreed" or some similar construction making the disagreement between sources clear. That is to say, the Times is such a widely-read and high-quality source that when they get something wrong, that itself usually becomes part of the story that we need to cover. But even then you'd need the disagreement to be direct and obvious to avoid WP:SYNTH - you can't just say "the NYT said [specific thing X], but their general coverage of the topic was questioned by Y." Also, as an aside, I'm fairly sure Front Page Mag doesn't pass WP:RS, so you're not helping yourself by citing it disagreeing with the NYT (of all sources.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You might want to read this. I'd say Columbia Journalism Review is a pretty decent source about reliability, wouldn't you? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very aware of that (no source is perfectly 'neutral', either.) But that says that the NYT's bias (from the perspective of the left) is largely one of focus and emphasis - none of the stories there are described as wrong or even individually misleading; and even when the overall focus gives the wrong impression it's not intentionally misleading its leaders the way some other sources might - that piece is pretty clear that the problem, from the author's perspective, is that the Times genuinely sees the world through the lens they use to report things. It's just that the NYT's particular perspective (which has, as it says, always been a thing - and is always a thing for any source) is becoming more obvious and attracting more commentary because there's fewer readers who share it. That doesn't make the NYT unreliable for a simple statement of fact like this, and (for the better or worse) it doesn't yet change the fact that the NYT is the paper of record. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

But what is the NYT actually saying? If you look at Newslinger's comment, you'll see our interpretation doesn't have support in the source material. Also, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 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. If I'm reading this right, an article about the documents and their contents would be preferable to this one from the NYT that is focused on conspiracy theories and mentions the documents only in passing. petrarchan47คุก 23:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• An examination of the five points listed above:
  1. The NPR story states that The New York Times editors "benched [correspondent Landon Thomas Jr.] instantly from any professional contact with Epstein" when they discovered his conflict of interest, and then "By early January 2019, Thomas was gone from the Times". The NPR piece condemns only the correspondent (Landon Thomas Jr.), but not the NYT as a whole. I would exercise caution when using Thomas's coverage of Epstein (e.g. his 2008 profile of Epstein) in any source, not just the NYT. The NYT's rapid removal of Thomas is a positive indicator of its reputation.
  2. The Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal has nothing to do with Epstein. Mark Thompson is not even mentioned in the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article, although I see that Mark Thompson (media executive) § Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal states that "Thompson departed the BBC before public exposure of the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and is not noted in the BBC chronology of the unfolding coverage". A short mention of Thompson's media responses might be warranted in the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article if due, but this scandal involves the BBC personality Jimmy Savile, and is unrelated to the NYT's coverage of Epstein.
  3. The NYT's coverage of Joi Ito is non-independent and should be attributed in-text, as Ito is a former board member of The New York Times Company. Because Ito was removed on September 7 after his conflict of interest was revealed, NYT's coverage of Epstein (outside of his interactions with Ito and the MIT Media Lab) after this date is unaffected. Coverage before this date falls into a gray area. Since the main concern is that the NYT may have resisted reporting some of the allegations against Epstein while Ito was a board member, editors should seek to supplement NYT coverage on Epstein with coverage from other reliable sources to ensure that all available information from reliable sources is considered.
  4. The NYT article also used the subheadline "The woman said her life was permanently scarred by the sexual abuse that started when she was 14." Your quote, "the massages quickly became sexual", does not exist in the article. The actual quote was "That first massage quickly turned sexual", and the next paragraph elaborated that 'she returned to Mr. Epstein’s home “countless times” until she was 17, with the visits becoming more frequent and the abuse becoming more severe.' The NYT's coverage here is in line with the descriptions from other reliable sources.
  5. I traced the NYT claim to pages 1910–1917 of the Epstein documents (387MB PDF version; linked from the article):

Video Deposition of Virginia Giuffre, Volume II Examination by Ms. Menninger (pages 1910–1917)

7 Q Okay. You have mentioned a journalist by 8 the name of Sharon Churcher. 9 A Yes. 10 Q You are aware that Sharon Churcher 11 published news stories about you? 12 A Yes. 13 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 14 Go ahead. 15 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Is anything that you 16 have read in Sharon Churcher's news stories about you 17 untrue? 18 A I think Sharon did print some things that 19 I think she elaborated or maybe misheard. But, I 20 mean, if you have a specific document to show me, I'd 21 love to look at it and read it and tell you what I 22 think. 23 Q Is there anything, as you sit here today, 24 that you know of that Sharon Churcher printed about 25 you that is not true? 1 A Not off the top of my head. If you show 2 me, like, a news clipping article or something, I can 3 definitely read it for you. 4 Q Is there anything that you know of that 5 Sharon Churcher has printed about Ghislaine Maxwell 6 that is not true? 7 A No, not off -- no, not off the top of my 8 head. 9 Q Is there anything that you recall saying 10 to Sharon Churcher that she then printed something 11 different than what you had said to her? 12 A Yeah, I've read stuff. I mean, I just -- 13 I can't remember what, but I read something that I 14 think was, Oh, she got that wrong. I can't remember 15 an exact example off the top of my head. 16 Q Did you ever complain to Sharon Churcher 17 about things that she got wrong? 18 A I didn't see a point. I might have, but 19 I -- I didn't see a point really because it's already 20 printed, you know. 21 Q You had a fairly voluminous set of 22 communications with Sharon Churcher by e-mail, 23 correct? 24 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 25 A Voluminous, like a lot of them? 1 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Yes. 2 A Yes. 3 Q And during any of those communications, do 4 you know whether she printed things about you after 5 you had any of those communications? 6 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 7 A I don't know. I know a lot of stuff was 8 printed, and I never really stopped to read who 9 printed the article, or wrote the article, I should 10 say. Sorry. 11 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. I'll show you 12 Defendant's Exhibit 7. 13 (Exhibit 7 marked.) 14 THE DEPONENT: Thank you. 15 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) I'll let you read 16 through the statements on the first page there, and 17 if there is anything that is not absolutely true, 18 just put a check by it and we'll come back to it. 19 A It's not very clear how she wrote it. "I 20 flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine 21 Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black 22 helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her." 23 That wasn't an eyewitness statement. 24 Like, I didn't see her do it. Ghislaine was the one 25 who told me about that; that she's the one who flew 1 Bill. 2 Q All right. If you just want to put a 3 check by it, then we'll just come back and talk about 4 each one. 5 A Okay. 6 Q Just to move things along. 7 A Okay. I have made three checkmarks. 8 Q All right. 9 MS. MCCAWLEY: And I just -- before you 10 continue, I just want to identify for the record, 11 since this doesn't have any identifiers on it, are 12 you representing that these are statements from 13 Sharon Churcher? 14 MS. MENNINGER: I'm not representing 15 anything. I'm asking the witness questions about 16 these statements. I asked her is anything on here 17 not true. That's all I asked her. 18 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) So which ones did you 19 put checkmarks by, Ms. Giuffre? 20 A I'd have been -- I'm sorry. "I'd have 21 been about 17 at the time. I flew to the Caribbean 22 with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick 23 up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had 24 bought her." 25 Q Okay. And what else did you put a check 1 by? 2 A "I used to get frightened flying with her 3 but Bill had the Secret Service with him and I 4 remember him talking about what a good job" -- 5 sorry -- "job she did." 6 Q Okay. And what else did you put a check 7 by? 8 A "Donald Trump was also a good friend of 9 Jeffrey's. He didn't partake in any sex with any of 10 us but he flirted with me. He'd laugh and tell 11 Jeffrey, 'you've got the life.'" 12 Q Other than the three you've just 13 mentioned -- 14 A Yeah. 15 Q -- everything else on here is absolutely 16 accurate? 17 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 18 A Yes. Well, to the best of my 19 recollection, yes. 20 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. What is 21 inaccurate about, "I'd have been about 17 at the 22 time. I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then 23 Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge 24 black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her"? 25 A Because it makes it kind of sound like an 1 eyewitness thing. 2 Q Okay. Did you say that statement to 3 Sharon Churcher? 4 A I said to Sharon that Ghislaine told me 5 that she flew Bill in the heli- -- the black 6 helicopter that Jeffrey bought her, and I just wanted 7 to clarify that I didn't actually see her do that. I 8 heard from Ghislaine that she did that. 9 Q You heard that from Ghislaine, and then 10 you reported to Sharon Churcher that you had heard 11 that from Ghislaine. 12 A Correct. 13 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 14 A I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine 15 that sounded too true -- too outrageous to be true, 16 but you never knew what to believe, so... 17 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. And after 18 Sharon Churcher printed what she said you said, did 19 you complain to her that it was inaccurate? 20 A I might have verbally with her, but again, 21 I didn't see a point in making a hissy over it 22 because what was done was done. She had already 23 printed. 24 Q What was inaccurate about, "I used to get 25 frightened flying with her but Bill" said -- "had the 1 Secret Service with him and I remember him talking 2 about what a good job she did"? 3 A I just don't remember saying that to her. 4 I don't remember saying I remember him talking about 5 what a good job she did. 6 Q All right. 7 A I just don't remember that at all. 8 Q Okay. And I guess, just to be clear, my 9 questions wasn't do you remember saying this to 10 Sharon Churcher; my question is, is that statement 11 accurate? 12 MS. MCCAWLEY: Well, objection. 13 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did you used to get 14 frightened flying with her? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. Did Bill have the Secret Service 17 with him? 18 A They were there, but not like on the -- 19 not where we were eating. 20 Q Do you remember Bill talking about what a 21 good job she did? 22 A I don't remember that. 23 Q So what is inaccurate about that 24 statement? 25 A I just -- it's inaccurate because I don't 1 remember him talking about what a good job she did. 2 I don't remember that. 3 Q Does it inaccurately suggest that Bill had 4 the Secret Service with him on a helicopter? 5 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 6 A Well, not being an eyewitness to it, I 7 wouldn't be able to tell you. I can't tell you what 8 I don't know. 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) And do you believe you 10 said that statement to Sharon Churcher? 11 A I mean, Sharon and I talked a lot, and if 12 she misheard me or just wrote it in the way that she 13 thought she should, I have no control over that. So 14 I'm not too sure. 15 Q Did she record your interviews? 16 A Some of them. Some of them she didn't. I 17 mean, we, like -- we, like, met for like a week, and 18 we spent a lot of time together, and then even after 19 that we just continued, like, kind of a friendship.

Sharon Churcher is the Daily Mail (RSP entry) writer who published the piece "Teenage girl recruited by paedophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton". From the transcript, Virginia Giuffre disputes Churcher's quotes of her that were published in the Daily Mail. There are two possible conclusions that could be drawn from this transcript: either the quotes are accurate (and Giuffre told Churcher statements that she later retracted in her video deposition), or the quotes are inaccurate (and Churcher published false information in the Daily Mail). The NYT's claim, "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue", appears to assert the first conclusion with the key words "claim she made".

Overall, I don't see any major concerns with the independence of NYT's reporting of Epstein with the exception of the issues related to Thomas (#1) and Ito (#3). As with any source, in-text attribution is recommended for contentious claims and exceptional claims require coverage from multiple reliable mainstream sources. — Newslinger talk 17:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on all counts [EDIT 10/6: regarding point #5 (I did not mean to agree that there are no concerns with the other points)], and thank you for digging up the source material. Having read the section from the transcript, I still don't see how it can be interpreted as 'Guiffre admitted she never saw Clinton on the Island". It looks like they are quibbling over the helicopter aspect. Guiffre again states that he was there, with Secret Service. The wording from the Times isn't clear to me; they could be referring to Guiffre admitting she hadn't seen evidence that Clinton arrived on Maxwell's helicopter, but certainly there is no justification from the transcript for the claim we're making in WP's voice.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. To claim both that Clinton wasn't on the Island, and that Guiffre is known to make gross misstatements about incredibly powerful people, is a serious matter if not properly sourced. That is why I've taken issue with the whole thing. Guiffe has never been credibly accused of lying or making inaccurate statements. The FBI is preparing to interview Prince Andrew based on Guiffre's testimony and evidence (photographs, corroborating flight logs) alone. If she had been discredited in the way WP is now suggesting, we would have heard about it. It would impact much of the ongoing investigations and court cases, no? Alan Dershowitz is trying to get out of a defamation suit brought by Guiffre (one he invited only months ago), but in his defense he has never brought up the 'fact' that Guiffre has admitted to, essentially, lying about an ex President. He's brought up everything he can think of (Yes, I had a massage at Epstein's but I kept my underwear on and did not enjoy it*), but not that?

If Guiffre had admitted in the documents to lying about Clinton being on LSJ, why did no other media pick that up? Why did journalists who focused on the documents (unlike the NYT piece which focused on Trump and Clinton) actually reiterate that Clinton was said to have been on the Island?

As I've said at the talk page, I do think this statement sourced only the to NYT should be removed until corroborating sources can be found. (I'm not sure why this makes me the bad guy...)

Right now, WP is both calling Guiffre a liar, and exonerating Clinton based on this one single line from the NYT, a line which is either inaccurate or being misinterpreted by WP editors. The NYT has printed serious inaccuracies before, like the entire time they claimed WMD's existed, so this attitude that they are infallible strikes me as odd. petrarchan47คุก 23:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right in that a single sentence from an NYT article ("The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.") is not enough to substantiate the exceptional claim that Giuffre made a false statement. I can't be certain that the NYT was wrong, since the NYT article doesn't specify which "earlier claim" Giuffre allegedly made, and because I only performed a text search on the Epstein documents instead of a thorough review of the entire 2024-page PDF. However, if I were a reporter, I would not accuse Giuffre of making a false statement based on the excerpt of the transcript I posted above, which is the most relevant portion of the documents I was able to find through a text search. — Newslinger talk 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That was the only section in the transcripts I found to be relevant, also. The NYT says "a claim", indicating there were several. But it was actually the journalist who got the facts wrong, and the transcripts show Guiffre was merely correcting the record (about seeing the helicopter first hand vs hearing about it from Maxwell). Wikipedia changes it to "the claim", and has been calling Guiffre a liar for over a month. The NYT couches their statement in a paragraph about Clinton and the island, so even though they don't specify, they are guiding the reader surreptitiously, I believe, to read this as WP editors have done, contrary to the documents they cite. It is inconceivable that out of at least 20 media orgs that covered or mentioned the documents, the NYT were the only ones to discover this supposed admission by Guiffre. There are only two possibilities: NYT fact-checkers are incredibly inept, or this was an act of deceptive journalism. In either case, I don't see how this can be ignored going forward. This is fake news, and not inconsequential. The subjects could hardly be more famous and influential people. petrarchan47คุก 15:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the term fake news here since it takes more evidence to show deliberate disinformation than negligence (or just ambiguity), and I don't think the burden of proof for the former is met. There's not enough detail in that one sentence to be certain whether it is correct or incorrect. This case does illustrate that passing mentions in articles tend to be less reliable than claims that are substantiated with longer and more detailed explanations. (Perhaps WP:CONTEXTMATTERS could be expanded to include this principle.) I'll submit a correction to the NYT. If I get a response, I'll share it here (if the discussion is still open) and at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein. — Newslinger talk 17:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You read my mind about writing to NYT. I so appreciate all your responses and the effort of contacting them. I trust we will be as discerning about them as we would say, Fox News, with regard to their response. I have followed this Epstein story extremely closely and can assure you that in those 2,000 pages, Guiffre is not found to admit to what NYT suggests. I cannot see the placement of their ambiguous statement as anything but a deliberate attempt to mislead. The entire paragraph is in defense of Clinton and about the Island. So we have really no choice but to assume that was the subject, however the sloppy wording gives them an out - "Oh we meant the detail about the helicopter, we just didn't think readers needed to know" - except for the fact that they got even that one detail wrong, it was the journalist and not Guiffre who misspoke.

One reason I think it's important to consider the bigger picture via points 1-4 is because of the attitude here in general towards the NYT, namely that they are somewhat saintly and infallible, and it's impossible to imagine they would purposefully mislead. However I've discovered that regarding Epstein coverage, in short, they hide or ignore damning evidence and facts (Xeni and whistleblower's Ito info, Richardson allegations), they report that which isn't true (point 5); they use softened language to describe child abuse as consensual (even once is too much, and placed at the beginning of the article means more readers are likely to see it); they were fine with Ito until he was outed; and it cannot be ignored that their current CEO was at the helm of the BBC during the entire Savile scandal when the BBC shelved an investigation into the pedophile and instead aired two Christmas specials celebrating him - this is a CEO who claimed not to know anything about any of it and has been credibly accused of making conflicting statements in his defense. petrarchan47คุก 02:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Newslinger, I believe, just wrote something similar to what I was going to note: the NYT discovered something wasn't right with one of their reporters and so they benched him. Good! I am not aware that anyone here is saying that the NYT or any other outlet is fallible. Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I don't think the NYT's general reliability is in question here (although I think you meant to say "infallible"). The motivation for this discussion appears to be a specific case where the NYT's coverage needs to be corroborated with additional reliable sources to support an exceptional claim. — Newslinger talk 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• The NYT article is Michael Crowley, "Trump Shares Unfounded Fringe Theory About Epstein and Clintons", The New York Times, 10 August 2019: "The documents unsealed yesterday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein's accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue." But which claim exactly? The Jeffrey Epstein article (permalink) cites this in support of: "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false." The WP article discusses "her previous claim" as though there was only one claim—that Clinton visited the island—and therefore that must be the claim that is false. I agree that we can't infer this from the NYT article, and their source contains over 2,000 pages. The NYT needs to introduce a "{{page needed}}" template. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems like an easy fix to change "her previous claim" to either "a previous claim she made" or (although it nudges up against original research) "a previous claim attributed to her" (also I think discussions of content, other than for frame of reference, probably belong on the article's talk page, and not here where the focus is/should be about the reliability of NYT as a source) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarah. I agree with the general sentiment here that without corroborating sources, this NYT mention of an ambiguous claim should not be in the article per:

• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 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.

• WP:EXTRAORDINARY Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.

I'll remove the statement from the Epstein article until we can satify sourcing requirements. Calling Guiffre a liar in WP's voice is unacceptable and mustn't continue. petrarchan47คุก 02:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep saying we can't call her a liar; by my reading, the (carefully-worded) line you object to does not do so. It says The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false; a claim being false does not mean it was a lie, especially given that the context makes it very easy for Giuffre to have simply been mistaken. Furthermore, the statement that she was mistaken is not exceptional - numerous other sources in the article support that, eg. The Secret Service told Fox News in 2016 it had no record of agents being on the island. Giuffre claims Maxwell told her she flew Clinton to the island on her helicopter, although she conceded, "I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine that sounded too true – too outrageous to be true, but you never knew what to believe." Maxwell denied Guiffre's claim that Clinton visited the island. In fact, it is Giuffre's accusation that is WP:EXCEPTIONAL here. Furthermore, reporting such an exceptional claim about a living figure without covering exculpatory reporting in a high-quality WP:RS clearly violates WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

She made a previous false claim - that is another way of saying she lied, as Newslinger notes as well (However, if I were a reporter, I would not accuse Giuffre of making a false statement). I'm sorry I have to disagree with you here on numerous points. Guiffre's claims are peppered throughout the Epstein article with no problems. It's only when it comes to Clinton that problems arise. Jimmy Wales had to come in and add the bit about the flight logs himself because editors kept whitewashing Clinton coverage. Guiffre's claims have not been considered a BLP issue heretofore and I don't see why Clinton becomes the exception. Guiffre's claims have RS to back them, but the reference to it being a false or mistaken claim DOES NOT, therefore we don't add the latter until it does. That does not justify removing all of it. The NYT piece was never RS for this statement, there is nothing to clear up. The guidelines are clear on this.

"The Secret Service told Fox News in 2016 it had no record of agents being on the island" does not mean Guiffre was wrong. These two claims can exist together - Guiffre says they were there, they say they have no record. Wikipedia records conflicting facts all the time, and properly cited, as out article has done, it's fine. If Clinton did arrive on a helicopter, there would be no flight logs; perhaps the SS doesn't record helicopter rides. I am only interested in recording what RS says, I'm not interested in determining the "truth" if that's not possible given the facts at hand. There are no claims in the article that support the notion Guiffre made serious mistakes in her account at any point. We have back and forth between the official stance of the SS, we have Maxwell claiming it's all false (but she is an accused so there is a COI issue). We also have official flight logs showing that actually Clinton's claims about how many flights he took are at odds with the truth.

I am going to restore all but the NYT piece since that is the only source that is problematic. No, it is not a BLP issue. Guiffre's claims are just that - they don't represent the official truth since they have not been in court, we are simply recording what is in RS.

Your demand at the Epstein page not to restore any of this until the NYT debacle is "cleared up" makes no sense. It was never a proper source for this to begin with, and there is no question posed to them to clear up, there is simply a note for them to make a correction since their claim has no support. We aren't going to await around to hear from them. You can't make up rules, or create ultimatums as amorphous as this. Once you find proper RS to refute or further explain, we will add it immediately. petrarchan47คุก 19:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Another RS which directly contradicts the NYT: But she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office.*. petrarchan47คุก 20:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

NYT has not responded - Compromise

The NYT may not respond at all, so Aquillion's decision to remove the details about Clinton until the NYT responds is untenable. He is insisting that the NYT piece must be mentioned if the claim about Clinton and the island is mentioned. I compromised with the following:

In court documents unsealed August 9, 2019, one night before Epstein was found dead, Virginia Guiffre claims to have seen Clinton on Little Saint James where she said Epstein threw a party for the former president. FORBES Guiffre noted also that Ghisllaine Maxwell told her she and Clinton flew in a "huge black helicopter." TIME The New York Times reported that in the documents, Guiffre admits she was wrong about a claim she made regarding Clinton, but they did not specify which claim.NYT

This edit was reverted by Soiblanga who states that there is no ambiguity in the NYT statement, contrary to what Newslinger and Slim Virgin state above. He also states that Guiffre's claim "has been exhaustively debunked".

I would appreciate some help as I can't seem to reason with editors and don't quite know what else to do. petrarchan47คุก 03:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that Giuffre's claim has been exhaustively debunked. I said that your assertion that the NYT sentence is ambiguous as to which claim she later acknowledged as false has been exhaustively debunked. Either you have serious reading comprehension problems or you are not behaving in good faith. And if you're gonna misrepresent what I said, you could at least have the common courtesy to ping me on it. I would appreciate some help as I can't seem to reason with editors and don't quite know what else to do. Oh. The. Irony. soibangla (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I arrive at this looong discussion belatedly and have read parts of it, primarily related to the NYT sentence reporting unambiguously that Guiffre later acknowledged her earlier claim Clinton visited Epstein's island was untrue, and here's my bottom line. None of us are in the position of second-guessing reliable sources on a selected basis, especially if it debunks a years-long narrative that some may have embraced as established fact, only to see it debunked years later, and they just can't accept it. "A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on," and now the truth has finally caught up to the lie. The NYT is one of the best sources of information on the planet, and that's not by accident: it's because they employ seasoned, vetted journalists/editors who catch things others miss, or others choose not to report for reasons that may include space/time constraints. The fact no one else reported that particular nugget of information does not mean the NYT got it wrong. The moment we start second-guessing highly reliable sources on a selected basis is the moment we step into a slippery slope resulting in every reliable source falling into question, until we conclude nothing is reliable anymore, and at that point Wikipedia might as well just shut down. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, you pinged me elsewhere, but I'll leave a comment here instead as I see this has started up again. This is my final comment because I'm not following this. Obviously, you should err on the side of caution. There must be another source that supports what the NYT said; if there isn't, then it's best left out. Also, are all the unsealed documents available; if so, can you find the claim yourselves? Sorry, that's all I can contribute. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thank you for your response. I note that you did not address the question I pinged you about. The NYT sentence is absolutely unambiguous. soibangla (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Federalist (website)

I didn't find any direct discussions on the website itself in RSN but it's cited as a source in Trump–Ukraine controversy#Whistleblower evidence rules as promoting a conspiracy theory and was directly linked from Donald Trump's twitter feed: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge which the remainder of the section disputes. Aside from the appropriateness of being cited above (as Trump's promotion of their article prompted other reporting), I hate immediately dismissing any right-leaning publications as non-RS, but the wiki page The Federalist (website) has some other things that give me pause. Pending feedback, I'd possibly also add a line to the lede stating that the website has been known for promoting conspiracy theories.-Ich (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• It was co-founded by a man who had to leave the WaPo because he was caught plagiarizing [70], the question "Who funds The Federalist?" is a meme among journalists [71]... It's unreliable in a way that right-leaning publications don't in principle have to be. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• ^ agreed. There's no particular reason to cite the Federalist there, since other sources are already pointing to it as the original source for the claim. As for the broader question of reliability: I wouldn't use it as a source of fact for anything remotely controversial, and I suspect it would be WP:UNDUE for statements of opinion in most cases. Like a lot of sites on the right (Washington Examiner, Washington Times) they offer some occasional niche reporting, but they're abjectly terrible around anything remotely controversial. They're particularly bad on stuff related to LGBT rights: they regularly publish articles (example) that cite ACPeds, an anti-gay junk science group. Nblund ^talk 16:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• It is a RS for this purpose. A conspiracy theory is a theory until it's proven not to be, and we have been including conspiracy theories about Trump since he announced he became a candidate. When notable enough for inclusion, theories and speculation should be cited to the source using in-text attribution and not presented in WP voice, if they are to be included at all. Keep in mind, the allegation of Russia-Trump collusion was a conspiracy theory that has long since been debunked but we included almost all of the details of the conspiracy theory in the Trump-Russia dossier along with many other articles and his BLP. Were there any corrections in MSM? Have the conspiracy theories been removed from the WP articles? If we're going to eliminate conspiracy theories and speculation, let's not do it on a partisan basis or simply because we don't agree with them, and then try to discredit the source to keep it out of the pedia. The latter is getting too close to noncomplinace with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is proposing that the claim about the whistleblower rules should be removed all together. The question is whether we should cite The Federalist. We have other, more reputable, sources that have described and debunked the claim, so citing The Federalist seems pointless. If The Federalist is the only source available for a claim, it probably isn't notable enough for inclusion. Nblund ^talk 17:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the Federalist should be cited as the source for the original allegations. And I think it has received enough attention that it should be included. I would also recommend giving the pro-Federalist side its due. E.g., see this piece: [72]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have explained why The Federalist's story is false and misleading. We absolutely don't need to give WP:FALSEBALANCE by pretending otherwise. There's also no reason to direct users to a demonstrably false news article when we have better sources readily available. Nblund ^talk 17:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It isn't false balance. RCP is a good site, and these authors seem to have relevant experience, and give voice to a substantial minority view on this matter. Their view deserves mention, with attribution and a note that they're conservative. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

One "COMMENTARY" piece written by two employees of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation does not hold a candle to the many reliable sources across the political spectrum (listed below) that describe the view as a conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 18:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That's one prominent example of a lot of pieces on conservative sites that make the argument that while the sources you've cited are correct that the law wasn't changed (something Sean Davis never claimed, by the way), the ICIG did change, in response to this complaint, internal policies concerning how they determine whether such a complaint is credible--a determination that the law left for the ICIG to make. I could go dig up a bunch of additional similar stories by conservatives, but I assume you're not interested. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 18:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here goes: Sean Davis's own reply, this Fox News story says something similar, Red State also expresses the same view. There are more of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. After reviewing the ICIG press release alongside all of the articles mentioned in this discussion, I think the wording Wikipedia uses to describe The Federalist's allegations is a matter of due weight, and a discussion on the wording would be best handled with an RfC on Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy or the neutral point of view noticeboard. All sources agree that the ICIG replaced the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with a new form that contained different language, but some conservative publications claim that the form change was politically motivated (e.g. "raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint"). The accusation of political motivation is the item that most reliable sources have described as a "conspiracy theory".

Regardless of how editors eventually decide to phrase the description, I believe The Federalist's article "Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge" falls under WP:ABOUTSELF in the context of its role in Trump–Ukraine controversy § Whistleblower evidence rules, and can be cited with in-text attribution and appropriate analysis from reliable sources. Donald Trump's September 30 tweet is cited in the article under the same principle, despite Twitter (RSP entry) being a self-published source. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, you say that The accusation of political motivation is the item that most reliable sources have described as a conspiracy theory and you link the Snopes article. But the Snopes article finds fault, not with the claim that there was political motivation, but with the claim that there was any change to "the rules" at all. As they put their conclusion: "No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress." So they're interpreting Sean Davis as claiming that there had been a legal requirement that was changed by the ICIG. I.e., they think that Sean Davis and Trump are asserting that the ICIG changed the law and that this claim is a conspiracy theory. My vote would be to accurately state this line on the situation, which seems to be what we find in most major news reports on this. We may then briefly note the conservative reply: that the complaint is not that there was a change in the law, but that the ICIG changed their internal policy about how they would determine what counts as a credible complaint, and that they scrubbed their old policy off of the relevant forms in order to avoid the appearance of conflict with the way they handled the recent complaint about Trump. I don't see that RS actually address this response at all, at least so far. In fact, because of this, my own preference would be to wait a month or so before including anything on this story at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The Snopes article directly referenced the deep state conspiracy theory in their description of The Federalist's claim: 'The claim originated on The Federalist website, which published a story on Sept. 27 that was not only inaccurate but played on the “deep state” conspiracy theory, an idea now popular among both fringe fanatics and White House officials alike. It posits that U.S. intelligence agencies are scheming against Trump.' I agree that Snopes does not use political motivation as the basis of their argument against The Federalist's article, but Snopes does claim that The Federalist's article contains a conspiracy theory that alleges political motivation.

Many of the other reliable sources are similar in that they describe the The Federalist's claims as a conspiracy theory, because the sources assert that the article's claims are false on technical grounds (i.e. the rules did not actually change) and that the article's claims allege political motivation. Example descriptions of political motivation allegations:

• CNN: "President Donald Trump tweeted a conspiracy theory suggesting the rules for whistleblowing had recently changed in order to accommodate the recent whistleblower complaint against him"
• USA Today: "Trump's allies have been repeatedly portraying a recent change in the whistleblower complaint form to allow second-hand information as a move by anti-Trump bureaucrats to permit the official accusation of presidential misconduct to move forward when it had no standing to begin with"
• Washington Examiner: "Republicans are now adopting the arguments of the DNC circa 2016, claiming that the whistleblower alleging damaging claims against President Trump's dealings with Ukraine is a corrupt actor who gamed a rigged rules change and that this conspiracy renders the actual contents of his complaint as illegitimate."

A false theory is only a conspiracy theory when it alleges a conspiracy. These sources claim that The Federalist's article contains a false theory that alleges a political conspiracy, which by definition would be a conspiracy theory. Most of the reliable sources mentioned in this discussion so far which use the conspiracy theory label correctly state that The Federalist's article alleged a change in the rules (some quoting Trump's September 30 tweet, which used the word "RULES") and not a change in the law, although most sources also reported that the law did not change. — Newslinger talk 05:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't agree with you about what the conspiracy theory is supposed to be according to Snopes, but forget that. When the sources say the "rules" did not change, they mean the law didn't change. Thus, they think that Sean Davis alleged that the ICIG changed the law. I believe that should be made clear in our article. And it should be made clear that Sean Davis (and other conservatives) have responded that this was never what they meant. But perhaps we should not continue discussing this here. On the narrow question of whether the Federalist piece should be cited, I think you and I now agree that it should (or at least can) be cited. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we both agree that The Federalist can and possibly should be cited in this context, albeit on different grounds. How the article should describe the sources' use of the term conspiracy theory is outside this scope of this noticeboard, but I'm sure this will eventually be hashed out at Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy. — Newslinger talk 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Added "possibly" to allow for editorial discretion. — Newslinger talk 21:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - Sean Davis alleged that the whistleblowing document requirements was changed. In fact, in May 2018, the whistleblowing document already stated that it was allowed for whistleblowing reports based on "Other employees have told me about events or records involved". and even Other source(s). [73]. By that measure, Davis' claim that the ICIG secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings is false. The firsthand knowledge requirement is for the ICIG to establish via their own investigation, not for the whistleblower to establish. starship.paint (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint my old friend, good to see you again. So you think that, because the form they altered had (and the new form still has) a box you can check to indicate that you got the information second hand, this shows that the ICIG always allowed second hand information as the basis for a finding of "credible" even though they explicitly said on the previous form (and in other policy documents) that they only found first-hand reports credible? Do I have your position right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight - I'll let CNN explain it for me: [74] This does not mean that the inspector general would reject a complaint if it presented only secondhand knowledge, but that firsthand information would be needed for the complaint to be found credible and passed further up the chain of command. The inspector general has 14 days from the time the complaint is submitted to investigate and make a determination as to whether the urgent concern is credible. And that's exactly what happened in the case of this whistleblower. So, the ICIG's preliminary review involves the ICIG finding the firsthand information themselves. If you want a Republican source, here's Chuck Grassley, co-founder of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus: "Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim's credibility," the statement continues." starship.paint (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Starship.paint, so the boxes don't have anything to do with it; glad for the clarification. Your idea in this last comment is that when the ICIG document said If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA it did not mean that the person filing the complaint needed to provide first-hand information, but instead that the person filing the complaint could provide nothing more than second-hand ... assertions, which the ICIG would then investigate to see what they could dig up. But, obviously, that isn't what the statement of ICIG policy that I just quoted means. I guess your idea is that the statement on the form was in error, and that this was never their policy? Why would you think that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - of course I'm not the ICIG, but here is what I think. You shouldn't have cut out nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions the second time you quoted it. When the ICIG writes unsubstantiated, to me at least, it seems that they have to do their own investigation to determine if first-hand information is substantiated - of course you can't just accept claims as they are as credible. If so, why don't you think that they also have to do their own investigation to determine if second-hand information is substantiated? starship.paint (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I think that their internal policy, as stated on the form, clearly indicated that the ICIG would deem a complaint non-credible if the assertions made were only second-hand, or (not and!) if the assertions were unable to be substantiated. Now the word 'or' here means that they would deem non-credible if either of these situations were the case. So, equivalently, in order for them to deem the complaint credible, the complaint would have to include first-hand assertions, and would also have to be substantiated (perhaps after some investigation by the ICIG). I mean, I'm just reading the policy they removed from the form. It seems like you're reading 'and' where they said 'or'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - we both agree at the end of the day, the ICIG needs to be in possession of firsthand substantiated information to determine credibility. For that to happen, it definitely needs to do its own investigation, even if it were provided with documents, to ensure that they are not faked. This being the age of deepfakes, even videos can be faked now. Since the ICIG always has to investigate with a preliminary review, it can obtain firsthand information itself, don’t you think? The whistleblower would have to give up their sources, or at least which department the sources work in. Then the relevant federal employees would be interviewed by the ICIG, in a bid to find firsthand substantiated info. starship.paint (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Sure, we agree that the ICIG needs first hand info, and that the ICIG needs to investigate. And of course I also agree that the ICIG can obtain first hand info in the course of that investigation. So that's what we agree about. Perhaps you will also agree that ICIG internal documents used to say that they required the whistleblower to provide first-hand information. And they changed those documents in response to concerns about how the press would talk about the present case. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I believe that the ICIG needs firsthand, substantiated information to accept a report as credible - but I believe that to determine this, the ICIG needed to conduct its own investigation to find substantiation instead of just rejecting all secondhand reports straightaway. Therefore, I believe that the last sentence of the removed paragraph was certainly misleading, and I believe that they removed that paragraph because it was misleading and did not follow the law - even though the whistleblower did use the old document. starship.paint (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Right, you're suggesting that the ICIG didn't change policy, that the ICIG always had the present policy, and that the removed statements were removed because they were just not accurate. Well, I don't know how you could know that. But at least you seem to be agreeing that their policy statement was altered in response to this case. Whether that reflects an alteration in underlying policy, or instead was a matter of correcting inaccurate policy statements, is impossible to say on the present evidence. But it sure is suspicious! In any case, I don't see that either policy "did not follow the law" since the law leaves it open to the ICIG to determine an internal policy about what will and what will not be deemed "credible". Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - certainly, I don't know anything, I'm not a legal expert. That's why I rely on reliable sources with access to these legal experts. Here we have NBC News: But the law hasn’t changed, and there is no requirement that whistleblowers stick to first-hand information in their complaints precisely because those filings are designed to trigger official investigations that would uncover such first-hand information, three attorneys who represent whistleblowers told NBC News. All these three experts were named: Eric Bachman, an attorney with Zuckerman Law who represents whistleblowers ... David Colapinto, an attorney with Kohn, Kohn, and Colapinto who represents whistleblowers, and who is a co-founder of the National Whistleblower Center ... Bradley Moss, an attorney who specializes in representing whistleblowers, furthermore, a potential conflict was interest was stated in the case of Moss - Moss is a partner at Mark Zaid, P.C., the firm representing the Ukraine whistleblower, but he said he is completely "walled off" from the individual's representation - which further promotes the credibility of this piece when they take an action to possibly decrease the credibility of Moss. Naming the experts further increases credibility for any falsehoods are preserved in the public record and can be used against them. There's also circumstantial evidence from even later back, here we have a submitted whistleblower form to the ICIG in 2014 which at the start clearly states I am an appellant with direct or indirect evidence in the above-mentioned appeal to the External Review Board. starship.paint (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: This last reply of yours would make sense if I had asked "what source will take responsibility for the claim that the law wasn't changed?" But I didn't ask that. Nobody ever said the law was changed, and it's so mind-numbingly dumb that the whole media started frothing and the mouth and repeating over and over that the law wasn't changed as if anyone had claimed that it was changed. The law leaves it to the ICIG to determine what a credible complaint is. The ICIG then changed their policy statements on how they do that, in response to this case, because they were not going along with those statements. That's suspicious. And the fact that several lawyers say the law wasn't changed, and that the ICIG should investigate based on second-hand info, does not prove that the internal policy wasn't changed. That's the whole point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: The law leaves it to the ICIG to determine what a credible complaint is. ... and how would you know that, can you substantiate that? starship.paint (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: The law says "(A) Not later than the end of the 14-calendar-day period beginning on the date of receipt from an employee of a complaint or information under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible. Upon making such a determination, the Inspector General shall transmit to the Director a notice of that determination, together with the complaint or information." So the ICIG makes the determination whether the complaint is credible. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Well, okay. So I just read that [75] the ICIG stated that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees. So there indeed was a change in the forms because the ICIG felt that the previous form was misleading. I will again point out that the submitted 2014 report to the ICIG backs that up when it states I am an appellant with direct or indirect evidence in the above-mentioned appeal to the External Review Board. starship.paint (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: First of all, I just totally won our little game of indent chicken. Second, that 2014 document is extremely weak evidence that is only tenuously related to the matter at hand. Finally, I think I know that (i) the ICIG is granted authority by the law to determine whether a complaint is credible, (ii) internal ICIG documents clearly stated that the ICIG policy was to find a complaint credible only if the whistleblower made first-hand claims, (iii) they changed these documents in response to this case by their own admission. I find that all to be extremely suspicious. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I'll get you next time on indent chicken. We will have to agree to disagree on the matter at hand. My own standpoint is that due to the mitigating evidence: the wording in the other parts of the 2018 form, as well as the 2014 form, as well as the lawyers' comments, as well as Grassley's comments (as a Republican, he has a vested interest in protecting the president, that he would break from that is noteworthy), that is enough circumstantial evidence that (ii) is not as clear-cut as it seems, and that the offending sentences may have been misleading, and were corrected. starship.paint (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: It's not that you doubt (ii); rather, it's that you think it isn't suspicious because you're convinced by the other things you mention that the changed wording was just in error. Perhaps we can at least agree that it's not a conspiracy theory to believe (i) - (iii) and find the facts suspicious in this case. Perhaps we can also agree that the scores of "fact check" articles that make the point that the law didn't change are not being responsive to the concern. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - even if we believe (i) to (iii), there still could be a conspiracy theory. The Federalist story falsely reports that the 2018 form states any complaint must contain only first hand knowledge, all while failing to report that the 2018 form already had options to report secondhand evidence and other sources. The Federalist goes on to emphasise that the whistleblower’s complaint had lots of secondhand evidence, and it also argued that hearsay is not admissible in court. It may be a conspiracy theory to suggest that any secondhand evidence was never admissible, and that the ICIG changed the form to allow secondhand evidence specifically to target Trump (when indeed the 2018 form already had an option to report secondhand evidence). Anyway, the ICIG states that the whistleblower has some firsthand evidence. I read the complaint, the whistleblower stated he was not a witness to most - (not all!) of the events. starship.paint (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I agree that Sean Davis should not have said any complaint must contain only first hand knowledge. That is not a correct description of what he had found out. Failing to express the situation well, though, when the underlying facts are worthy of reporting and are highly suspicious, does not amount to a conspiracy theory in my view. I think that while the statement you quote from Davis was somewhat incompetent, you should still be able to see that the guy had a point, which I have expressed correctly. As for firsthand evidence from the whistleblower, it's entirely mysterious that the ICIG responds to this whole thing in part by claiming that the whistleblower did actually have first-hand evidence. Nobody seems to know what the first-hand evidence from the whistleblower was supposed to be, and, to my knowledge, the press has never asked or shown any interest! Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - Davis had a point. The thing is, he used that point to spin into unchartered waters that all “hearsay” should be rejected. He has been corrected by numerous media that the 2018 form had options for secondhand evidence. Yet he never corrected his original story (his omission was either bad faith or sheer carelessness, and a lack of correction is either bad faith or sheer ignorance). This makes the Federalist unreliable. As for the whistleblower’s first hand evidence, there is a redacted section in the complaint. Maybe it is there. Or, maybe, what counts is that the whistleblower read the original transcript of the call. It’s in the complaint that the whistleblower said he did that. Anyway, key allegations in the complaint were already confirmed by the White House (investigate Biden, investigate Crowdstrike, talk to Barr + Rudy, store transcript in very classified location). Of course the focus should be investigating the allegations rather than attacking the whistleblower and the process. starship.paint (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I think we're now in agreement for the most part. I'd add that the point itself, though badly expressed, is not a conspiracy theory, and the media "factchecks" have largely been really dumb. It's depressing. I think we'd serve readers to make the actual point he was making rather than pretending that he had no point. Unfortunately, the only sources that do this are right leaning and will probably not be allowed, even with attribution. Such is the situation at Wikipedia. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - again, I will reiterate, when points get expanded upon, they can turn into conspiracy theories. Here's what we know. (A) The ICIG removed a paragraph from the 2018 form entitled "First hand information required". This is not a conspiracy theory - it happened. (B) Federalist: only first hand information allowed. This is false. (C) Trump: WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy: But just days before the Ukraine whistleblower came forward, the IC secretly removed that requirement from the complaint form." Conspiracy theory - the whistleblower used the old form. Perhaps the ICIG indeed changed the form to save themselves from criticism from an error from a previous ICIG, but the accusations are effectively insinuating that they changed the form to target Trump. starship.paint (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I'm not denying that. (I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not denying it either.) I'm claiming that the actual point--not the misrepresentations or misstatements or expansions of it--is not a conspiracy theory. That's all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I would conclude that one of the key points raised by the Federalist was not a conspiracy theory. However, when I consider the article as a whole (it does have other points, not just one), it gets more questionable, and in my view it implied a conspiracy theory which others did understand. starship.paint (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Ok, I'm not going to disagree because my main point is that, even though one of the key points raised by the Federalist was not a conspiracy theory, this key point will never be allowed in any article on Wikipedia, even attributed, nor will any non-conservative news outlet concede that there was a key point. Instead, those who control these outlets will froth at the mouth and say that you need an act of congress to change the law. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - using this source [76] - I can report that the forms were changed, with a section containing the sentence If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA." was removed. starship.paint (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Great, give it a try and we'll see if it's reverted. The current version also construes Davis as having falsely claimed that the law itself contained the requirement. He never claimed that, of course. So I wish that were changed too. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Since the text in Trump–Ukraine controversy § Whistleblower evidence rules is crystal clear that the article in The Federalist is a conspiracy theory, and the article itself is the subject under discussion, the article can be cited as a primary source if it is supplemented by reliable secondary sources that cover the article's role in the conspiracy theory. Although The Federalist can be cited as a primary source, it doesn't have to be, and that decision is largely made on editorial discretion. The key question is whether citing The Federalist would help readers understand the conspiracy theory in the context of the Trump–Ukraine controversy. — Newslinger talk 17:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there any RS that call it a "conspiracy theory"? I'm not aware of any. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, on second look, there is exactly one source that calls it a conspiracy theory: partisan source The Daily Beast. CNN, WaPo, and Guardian do not call it that. Thus, in following the major RS, we should not call it that without attribution to DB, since it's an opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Snopes, CNN, NBCnews Nblund ^talk 18:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Other sources that use the term conspiracy theory to describe the matter include The Independent (RSP entry), Vox (RSP entry), USA Today, and even the conservative Washington Examiner (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 18:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Was the Trump-Russia collusion allegation said to be a conspiracy theory in any of our articles? The word "conspiracy" is laced throughout Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). The NYTimes used "conspiracy". Shall we maintain consistency here? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" as it is commonly used has a specific meaning. The phrase you want to use when discussing things like Trump-Russia or Clinton-Email is something like "allegations of a conspiracy" "X claimed that Y conspired" "convicted of engaging in a conspiracy". etc., depending on what is in the sources. "Conspiracy theory" should be reserved for things like "Big Pharma is covering up THE TRUTH about vaccines" or "The DNC is running a pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends on whether there are enough reliable sources that use the term conspiracy theory to describe the collusion allegations. As Guy Macon said, there's a distinction in connotation between the highly negative term conspiracy theory and less negative phrases (such as allegations of conspiracy). Since the conspiracy theory label is an exceptional claim, we would need multiple high-quality reliable sources that use the exact term conspiracy theory to support its use in any Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 18:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy, Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard — Newslinger talk 21:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• The following is a general comment on this topic, and is NOT to be construed as disagreement with or criticism of any particular individual.

We all have biases, conscious and unconscious. Some of us are, for what we consider good reason, Rooting For Team Blue or Rooting For Team Red in the ongoing dumpster fire that is US politics.

If you look inside yourself and see that you are indeed Rooting For Team Red or Blue, you are likely to have an unconscious bias causing you to not recognize conspiracy theories that attack the other team and to be especially sensitive to conspiracy theories that attack your team. You may even have convinced yourself that only the other team has a problem with conspiracy theories or fake news. Please make you best effort to avoid any hint of unconscious bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Some months back there was a discussion of whether to call Spygate a conspiracy theory. It turns out that it is called a conspiracy theory in two cherry-picked news sources: one piece in the LA Times and one in Haaretz. Every single other major news organization refrained from calling it that (unless in opinion pieces). When challenged to make our article reflect the minimal weight that RS news reports gave to 'conspiracy theory', the reply was that a conspiracy theory is just a theory about a conspiracy, and consensus was unmovable on this. Since it was uncontroversial that Trump's Spygate theory alleges a conspiracy, it was deemed a conspiracy theory. But of course when we turn to an article where it goes for red and against blue to use 'conspiracy theory', we suddenly get real strict about what it means, and it can only refer to things like alien abductions and black helicopters and so on. So yeah, let's be less partisan in our use of the term, I agree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It should never be cited as a reliable source, especially after their recent debacle. It should be cited only to show what they've asserted, solely for the purpose of debunking the endless conspiracy theories in which they participate in trafficking. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

And such mention of The Federalist can be done without using them as our source, but by quoting RS which mention them. ALL content must be sourced to RS, including falsehoods, allegations, and conspiracy theories. We do not use the original, unreliable, source. Readers can use the RS to then find the unreliable source, if they are so inclined. Our determination of due weight is always determined by the mentions in RS. If some weirdness isn't mentioned in RS, then we don't mention it at all. It has zero weight, regardless of how widespread it is in unreliable sources. For example, Fox News can mention nonsense all the time, as it is wont to do, and that doesn't give it any weight for our purposes, only in the minds of believers who use unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable, probably on par with the Washington Examiner (RSP entry). Does not pretend to be politically neutral. More of a source for opinion than for reportage. feminist (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC announce: RFC on the use of the term "conspiracy theory"

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC on the use of the term "conspiracy theory" --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC WITHDRAWN. starship.paint (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

An eyewitness account

The subject has been discussed at Talk:Gas van#An eyewitness account. The source in question is an article by Alexander Lipkov entitled Я к вам травою прорасту… Роман свидетельств, i.e., I will sprout grass on you. Novel of Evidence. It has been published in the Russian-Language magazine Kontinent in 2005.[77] According to an entry on Johnson’s list, it is a Literary Quarterly publishing “stories, narratives and short novels”.[78] Lipkov is an author of books and documentaries. The texts mainly consists of interviews recorded during the filming of the documentary “I will sprout grass to you ...”, directed by A. Kolesnikov, 2005. This publication is used to support the following claim in the article on Gas vans

“According to an eyewitness, the executioners used multiple large trucks, each loaded with up to 50 naked people, some of which still remained alive upon arrival to the firing range.”

There is an additional note explaining:

The eyewitness, a former NKVD officer, was interviewed by Lidia Golovkova, the principal compiler of the Butovo memorial books, and by former FSB officer Mikhail Kirillin, who was a member of a group to rehabilitate victims of Stalinist repressions. According to a driver of such truck, the gassing was necessary to exclude the possibility of a riot.

My objection with this source is, that it does not include the actual “eyewitness account”. Rather it presents an interview with Lidia Golovkova and Mikhail Kirillin who report what the “eyewitness” has told them. They provide some biographical information, but neither the name of the “eyewitness”, nor any details, when, where and under what circumstances they collected the information. I consider that to be an unreliable primary source which should not be used as a source for Wikipedia in accordance with WP:PRIMARY.--Assayer (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Attribution would be best, "according to... an eyewitness...".Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Kontinent seems like a reasonable source for an interview, but yeah, I would suggest an in-text attribution. Interviews, I believe, are citable for yes, someone said this and it's WP:DUE, and the framing text can be used to establish their credentials (ie. yes, he is an eyewitness)... but they don't necessarily do fact-checking for the things people say. So that's a valid source for "an eyewitness said that they saw X" (or maybe even "an eyewitness quoted in Y said that they saw X"), but not for the fact that X is unambiguously true. --Aquillion (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think the journal and the author are fine and qualify as a secondary RS, but it is the best to provide direct citation and direct attribution. Also, one should double check where the claim originally comes from because the original source has been explicitly quoted ("...") in the secondary source. In one case, the original claim comes from Golovkova who was described in RS this, "a principal compiler of the Butovo memorial books". In another case, the original claim comes from Alexander Mikhailov, Major-General of the FSB Reserve: [79]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

in this case, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. People's recollections of events decades ago are frequently poor. TFD (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think in this case we should not consider the reliability of the eyewitness, but that of Lidia Golovkova and Mikhail Kirillin. If they are telling us that this is a trustworthy story given their research on the subject, we don't need to check that ourselves, nor do we even need access to the primary source. We just need to ask what their reputation is. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not an "exceptional claim", but a claim consistent with all other sources on the subject, i.e. all sources that tell anything about Soviet gas vans. The only difference with other sources are a few details. My very best wishes (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if that was a publication by Golovka and/or Kirillin on the subject, preferably with proper footnotes and sources, but it isn't. This is Golovka and Kirillin narrating what they know about the subject, stating that an eyewitness helped them to find out about the details what had happened at Butova. Without any information about the origin of the interview, without identification of the primary source, these claims are not verifyable. Nevertheless, if I understand the discussion correctly, in the article the claim should be attributed to Golovka/Kirillin instead to an "eyewitness", shouldn't it?--Assayer (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a narrative by Golovkova. However, she tells this is according to words by an NKVD officer (an eyewitness) who was a direct participant of these events. She and Kirillin said who he was and briefly described his biography. He was the key person who helped them to discover the Butovo firing range. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's ordinary in this type of situation for journalists and similar to not reveal the primary source of information, but this does not make the content unverifiable in Wikipedia-speak. That policy does not require us to be able to track down the ultimate source, and it should not either, when there is a good reason to expect a secret. If, as suggested by MVBW, this person helped G&K find that firing range, this directly shows that they didn't just seek to make a documentary of what people told them - they actually looked into what they were told to obtain both new and corroborating information. Basically, they were engaged in investigative journalism. So the question for us is whether G&K are reliable for that, in which case their validation of the primary source is sufficient. If the claim is not exceptional, it doesn't even necessarily need attribution. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, your position that anything said by a former NKVD officer must be credible is not the standard required by reliable sources. It seems to me that you are willing to believe anything they say when it supports your beliefs. The only reliable source that mentions the topic says, "Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief of the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a gas chamber on wheels, an airtight lorry camouflaged as a bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butovo."[80] It is sourced to an article in Komsomolskaya Pravda (a tabloid in the Soviet Union!), October 28, 1990, p. 2. The non-reliable sources used in the article embellish the story so that Berg was supervisor of a fleet of vans. But no other reliable source has paid any attention to the story, which means it is not reliable, because "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include...surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources." A google book search reveals four references to Berg: Cotton's book, a book with an excerpt from his book, a book from a non-academic publisher, probably sourced to Cotton's book and the Wikipedia article.[81] I don't even think that we can reliably state that Berg himself ever existed. TFD (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, this page currently does not refer at all to "Komsomolskaya Pravda". It uses 8 other RS including publications by academics and reputable historians in the part about Soviet gas vans (+ 2 more RS are noted on talk page). There are no doubts that Berg actually existed because some sources (including this one under discussion) tell about his criminal case kept in the Soviet archives, where the involvement of Berg in the use of gas vans has been officially recorded and discussed. If he was an actual "inventor" of the gas vans is less clear. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I know the article doesn't refer to Komsomolskaya Pravda, which is a good thing because it pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. But it's the source that the only reliable source in the article cites for its information. It turns out though that the NKVD officer did exist, but he is referred to as "Isaiah Berg." TFD (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Kontinent, two things must be taken into account. First, according to the introduction, the author is a writer who specialized in cinematography. Furhermore, according to him, the text is a collection of eyewitness testimonies, and the author does not claim he did any fact checking. Therefore, it would be correct to see it as a collection of primary sources.

Second. Among the testimonies, I found the following statement:

"And the testimony of Berg himself, no matter what he says about himself, is by no means evidence. Maybe they knocked them out of him in the same way as he knocked them out of others at one time."

That means that, although the interrogation protocol looks reasonable, and Berg really directed exhaust fumes to a van(s) to prevent possible resistance of the victims, formally speaking, the interrogation protocol can be trusted at the same extent as a protocol of interrogation of Bukharin or Tukhachevsky.

That means Berg's interrogation protocol, the only document Komsomolskaya pravda article is based upon should be treated with caution. And, accordingly, that undermines a credibility of all other sources that are based solely on that KP article, including Solzhenitsyn, Albatz, Merridale, etc.

I think this book may be used in the article about the Great Purge as an example of an overall brutality of those time events, although it is desirable to double check these facts if possible.

In general, I would prefer to wait until this information is published in some good peer-reviewed scholarly journal before adding this content to Wikipedia. By using such poor quality sources for writing about such serious topics as the Great Purge, we make Wikipedia sensationalistic and journalistic in a worst sense, thereby undermining a credibility to this resource in general. Yes, some local newspaper may be a good source for an article about some High school, however, it is hardly a good source for an article about Uncertainty Principle. The articles about serious and important topics require serious sources, otherwise noone will trust Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The more I am reading the less this story seems clear to me. One testimony says:

"A thorough reconciliation was carried out in this reception building: whether the person who was brought is the one who was sentenced. There were so many namesakes that there were mistakes, and it happened that a man was sentenced to be shot, and they were shot after 3-4 weeks, because another was brought instead. There was even a unique case when a person was written that he was a Pole, and he was able to prove that he was Russian. And the decision of the “troika” was canceled."(...)"Screening of documents was carried out very carefully. Without a photograph, a person was not accepted. In each document it was written that photography is obligatory: the person checked against the photograph. And here, as the former commandant told, the decision was announced to the sentenced. You can imagine what was happening there after that."

That means after the victims arrived to the execution place, they were subjected to a strict identification procedure before they were shot, and, in some rare cases they were released. That would be impossible if they were suffocated to death during transportation. All of that is very odd...--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the quotation above ("A thorough reconciliation ...) is irrelevant because it is not about people who were transported by gas vans, but about people who were shot at the firing range (most people were simply shot after transportation by ordinary trucks, according tho this and other sources about Butovo firing range). Secondly, no one suggested to include the testimony by Berg to the page. And yes, his case by itself is not a proof of anything. No one tells it's a proof. We only know from this source (according to Golobkova) the following. In 1953, the family of Berg filed for rehabilitation. Then his case was reviewed, and the gas van story came to light. Several executioners, who were then all alive, were called and interviewed. Two of them admitted that gas vans were used, but two others denied it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"That means Berg's interrogation protocol...". This is all original research. For example, there is no any reason or sources to assume that the claims in books by Albats and Solzhenitsyn were based exclusively on a publication in the tabloid, even if they used it as one of references ([...]). None of these books directly quotes the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda. Instead, the experts tell their own views (Albats: Owning to the shortage of executioners, Chekists used trucks that were camouflaged as bread vans as mobile death chambers. Yes, the very same machinery made notorious by the Nazis - yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention, in use years before the ovens of the Auschwitz were built). We are not in the business of speculating how exactly experts or historians on the subject came to their conclusions. We simply say what RS (their books) say. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, the first English article about the Soviet gas vans was written by holocaust-denier Udo Walendy in 1991.[82] and it has been the subject of extensive literature by holocaust deniers. It feeds into their world view: not only didn't the Nazis gas anyone but the Jews did. Basically all we have is a few second or third hand stories which have only been taken seriously in one reliable source, which is a red flag. Why don't Rummel, Valentino, Courtois and all the other writers on Stalin's mass killings mention it? Probably because they have a higher standard of reliability than we apply to the article. TFD (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There's an article about this on "Holocaust Controversies," an anti-denialist website founded by Nicholas Terry, a senior lecturer in history at Exeter. See "A Study In Hypocrisy: The "Revisionist" Treatment Of The "Soviet Gas Vans"". It makes the point that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not the claim is true. TFD (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the claim that Nicholas Terry is saying there is insufficient evidence to prove one way or another? He states:

’’”Needless to say, it was a one-time, local, makeshift invention, not widely used. There is no credible evidence that its use was well-known at the time and it certainly has no relation to the well-documented Nazi gas vans.”’’

Terry seems to accept that Soviet gas vans did in fact exist, but were not well known or used on the same scale as Nazi gas vans. So what exactly is the issue here? —Nug (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Terry seems to accept Soviet gas vans probably existed, but it is hard to tell anything for sure. That contradicts to the claim that that fact was firmly established and well described in reputable scholarly sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Nug, that's out of context. Terry means that if the vans existed, it was one time etc. That's clear from the preceding comments: "The evidence on which the claim is based is reviewed in L. Golovkova (ed.) et al., Butovskij Poligon: 1937-1938. V Rodnom Kraju; Dokumenty, Svidetel'stva, Sud'by, Vol. 8, Moscow, 2004, pp. 72ff. The authors had access to all the relevant files and don't make any conclusion as to the historicity of the gas vans....Leading deniers accept the "Soviet gas vans" story based on rumors, hearsay, and unsourced statements of various people who don't even pretend to be witnesses....The nature of the sources does not permit us to make "strong" conclusions. And neither can this evidence be dismissed." TFD (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the book by Golovkova (ed.) et al., Butovskij Poligon: 1937-1938. V Rodnom Kraju is a valid source, just as one discussed in this thread. If anyone has access to this book and can directly quote what it actually tells on the subject, that can be included on the page. I assume her statements in the book will be consistent with her statements in the source under discussion. Are you saying that the book holocaust-denier Udo Walendy need to be used for references on the page? None of other ~10 sources about Soviet gas vans even mentioned this book. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

However, the link to "A Study In Hypocrisy..." is just a blog post by someone who claimed to be "Sergey Romanov". This should be completely ignored, unless reliably published. Whatever it tells about work by Golovkova, etc. can be just a fantasy by someone on the internet. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I sure saw that coming.... Well, that blog has been frequently cited by historians like Mark Hobbs in the The Routledge History of Genocide, and Gordon Thomas/Greg Lewis, Defying Hitler. Nicolas Terry has also edited a volume on Holocaust and Genocide Denial for Routledge in 2017. So, that's not the usual kind of blog.

For example, there is no any reason or sources to assume that the claims in books by Albats and Solzhenitsyn were based exclusively on a publication in the tabloid, even if they used it as one of references One of the oddest arguments I have ever heard. As if historians just name or don't name their sources at will. Well, the article in the tabloid is the only reference given by Solzhenitsyn, Albats and Colton. Solzhenitsyn even writes, that he learned about the gas vans "from the astonishing disclosure in 1990".--Assayer (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you propose to use this blog as a source on the page? We can't even if it was cited by someone else. Books (like "The Routledge History of Genocide", or "Defying Hitler" you mentioned) can of course be cited if they tell something about the Soviet gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Conversely if books like the Routledge History of Genocide don't mention it, then there is little reason why we should. Terry's blog, which is rs per WP:SELFPUB, tells us that the story has received very little coverage in reliable sources (although it is widely cited in anti-Semitic and anti-Communist literature), and fact-checkers would rate it as "unproved." It is certainly a red flag. I don't therefore see any reason to include it. The second hit for gas vans isai berg on Google search after this article is a right-wing blog that says, "Another Jewish mass murderer was Isai Berg, As it turns out, Berg invented the mobile gas chamber, which he used to murder opponents of the Holodomor." The rest of the hits are pretty much the same, except for Terry's website. It's certainly something that one would be very likely to read about if one got all one's information from relevant mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this search is more trustworthy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• If subject X was NOT included in an encyclopedia or a book, this simply means it was considered as a low-importance subject by authors, nothing more. Yes, this is arguably a low-significance subject. Google searches tell the same. But it does not mean there are no sources on the subject. The specific sources have been provided. If I understand correctly, no one suggests using the blog. Yes, it is WP:SELFPUB, but not by Terry. It was signed and posted by this user [83]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Going back to the beginning of this story, I would like to see examples of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from the memoirs collected by Lipkov. By its style, and even a name, it is a compilation of testimonies, i.e. it is a primary source. The very title of this book ("Novel of evidences") implies the author does not pretend he presents his own analysis. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• In re: there is no any reason or sources to assume that the claims in books by Albats and Solzhenitsyn were based exclusively on a publication in the tabloid, even if they used it as one of references -- what other sources did they use? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There IS a reason to claim that Solzhenitsyn used only the KP article as a source. That automatically follows from Solzhenitsyn's own words. Here is a full quote:

"А вот поразительное промелькнувшее в 1990 сообщение, из которого мы узнали, что знаменитые душегубки изобретены, оказывается, вовсе не у Гитлера во Вторую Мировую войну – а в советском НКВД в 1937. И изобрёл их (да не в одиночку, наверно, но организатор изобретения был он) – Исай Давидович Берг, начальник АХО (адмхозотдела) УНКВД Московской области. Вот почему бывает важно знать, кто занимал вовсе и не верхние посты. А получилось так. И. Д. Бергу было поручено исполнять решения "тройки" УНКВД МО – и Берг исправно выполнял поручение: возил на расстрелы. Но когда в Московской области стали заседать одновременно три "тройки" – уже справиться было расстрельщикам невозможно. Тогда и догадались: жертв раздевать догола, связывать, затыкать рты и бросать в закрытый грузовик, снаружи замаскированный под хлебный фургон. На перегоне выхлопные газы шли внутрь грузовика – и до дальнего рва арестанты были уже "готовенькие". (Надо сказать, что и сам Берг вскоре был расстрелян, в 1939, – но не за эти злодейства, разумеется, а по обвинению в "заговоре". И в 1956 – благополучно реабилитирован, хотя в следственном деле его и тогда хранилась, и дохранилась вот до новейшего времени, и прочтена журналистами – история этого душегубного изобретения!)[883]"

Google translates it quite adequately, so I don't show a translation here. Only the first sentence and the ref 883 are important here. The first sentence says: "But the astonishing message that flashed in 1990, from which we learned that the famous dushegubkas were invented (....) in the Soviet NKVD in 1937.", and the ref 883 is Zhirnov's article in Komsomolskaya pravda, 1990. That means Solzhenitsyn explicitly writes that all information he was operating was taken from that 1990 article by Zhirnov.

In my opinion, Solzhenitsyn is a good source, and very useful one, for it demonstrates that Solzhenitsyn didn't know anything about Soviet gas vans before 1990.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: this citation shows that Solzhenitsyn used the article in Komsomolskaya pravda as his source. Was it his only source? I do not know because he tells "by journalists" (plural). But you are missing the point: the book by Solzhenitsyn is a lot more reliable source than the article in Komsomolskaya pravda - per WP:RS. Therefore, we should use his book as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Non-RS for the purpose of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. Seems this section has gone off topic, discussing other sources like Solzhenitsyn. Agree with the initial comments by third parties at the start of this section, Kontinent appears to be a valid source for interviews, with appropriate attribution. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout

There's a disagreement over this edit on the page for Guus Berkhout. The statement cites a factcheck from Climatefeedback.org, which is a fact-checking organization that brings in subject area experts to analyze claims about climate change. @Peter Gulutzan: has argued that the site is a self-published source, and can't be used for a statement about a BLP. Is this source acceptable for this purpose?

Previous discussion of the site Nblund ^talk 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Sciencefeedback.co (the parent site) is an accredited member of the Poynter Institute's fact checking network, they have clear editorial standards, and a good reputation for accuracy. I don't believe they meet the definition of a self-published source, because the scientists who write the analyses are separate from the editors. To my mind, they are similar to other fact checking organizations like Politifact, Snopes, Science-based medicine, all of which are recognized as generally reliable and not self-published. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Specifically reliable in this instance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Since my edit summary mentioned WP:BLPSPS the appropriate forum is WP:BLPN not WP:RSN, and opinions like "generally reliable" are irrelevant. The criterion is not that reviewers are separate from editors, but that they are under editorial control and being reviewed themselves. The context is that scientist group A wrote a letter, and scientist group B attacks the credentials of group A, and Wikipedia publishes group B's comment without even linking to group A's letter. So as well as WP:BLPSPS we have WP:BLPBALANCE and possibly WP:WELLKNOWN depending how well known Mr Berkhout is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• A group of mostly non-experts push fringe science. A legitimate fact-checking outlet which relies on recognized experts point out the fringe science pushed by the group. Apparently, in your mind, Wikipedia should not adhere to WP:FRINGE nor WP:NPOV, because pointing out fringe science is a violation of neutrality. It would be harmless silliness if so much time wasn't wasted on having to revert similarly motivated edits by you all over Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Peter Gulutzan I'm not sure I follow your argument: the reviewers are under editorial control from the editors/publishers. The reason for WP:BLPSPS is that even expert blogs have no external mechanism for ensuring accuracy. Nate Silver could have a couple of drinks one night and decide to tweet something libelous about Scott Rasmussen. There would be no way to stop him, because he's both the "publisher" and the "author" of his own Tweets. He wouldn't be able to do the same thing on Fivethirtyeight.com, though, because the creation of content and the publication of content are separate from one another at that site. Nblund ^talk 15:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Re scientists: there might be as many doctorates among the authors being attacked (certainly Berkhout+Lindzen+Nordin+Vahrenholt, maybe Rittaud+Prestininzi) as among the attackers. Re editorial control from the editors/publishers: Science Feedback's "about" page says "We invite scientists with relevant expertise to comment ... Science Feedback editors provide a clearly stated summary of the scientists’ comments" which is all, summarizing is not controlling. However, Nblund did the right thing by seeking consensus, and so far seems to have it, unless more editors disagree. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I get the impression that there is a large subset of Wikipedia users who, for some unfathomable reason, are not aware of the easily-understood fact that doctorates or other academic degrees are specific to one subject and do not enable an academic to speak any more sensibly on subjects outside their expertise than a non-academic would. And they don't even understand it after you explain it several times. Those users often support climate change deniers and use the reasoning that those climate change deniers have doctorates, neglecting to mention that those doctorates are mostly in completely irrelevant stuff. Case in point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable. The fact check in question, 'Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science', is reliable in the context of this edit, which uses in-text atribution. It was authored by 6 different reviewers: 2 professors (including Timothy Osborn), an assistant professor, and 3 researchers/scientists. The fact check also underwent review from a named editor. Although Climate Feedback uses a contributor platform, it sets high requirements in its reviewer application process, including a "PhD in a relevant discipline" and "at least one published article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last three years in the field of climate science or climate change impacts". Climate Feedback publishes the methodologies the site uses to evaluate articles and claims. Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) accreditation is the gold standard for fact-checking websites, and Science Feedback (which operates Climate Feedback and Health Feedback) qualified for this accreditation in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

  WP:BLPSPS claims do fall under the purview of this noticeboard, as the determination of whether a source is self-published falls under both the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. Considering the high requirements of the reviewer application process and the presence of a named editor in every fact check, I don't consider Climate Feedback a self-published source. As Nblund mentioned, Climate Feedback is comparable to Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry), which was determined not to be a self-published source in its January RfC. (All of my comments also apply to Health Feedback, which is very similar to Climate Feedback.) — Newslinger talk 04:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times, once again

The Epoch Times is currently listed as a questionable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and usually described as a "falun-gong mouthpiece" in previous discussions. They have recently come under scrutiny for being a Trumpian partisan outlet as well, to the point where Facebook banned them from further advertising on their platform. At the moment they still have those same video ads running on YouTube, with a guy snapping his fingers to changing headlines, using alt-right bingo buzzwords like "mainstream media", "hidden agendas", or "Russia hoax" that could've just as well come from a Trump campaign spokesperson. I think it is time to reclassify this website in the same category as the The Daily Caller and the National Enquirer. --bender235 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times (RSP entry) is currently classified under "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", but we haven't had any noticeboard discussions since the August NBC News report "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". Deprecating The Epoch Times would require consensus in a formal request for comment, which this discussion could easily be converted into. — Newslinger talk 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias does not make it not RS as such, usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a typical "biased source" and as such can be used per policy with appropriate attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times isn't a matter of bias. It's a matter that it deliberately and calculatedly publishes misinformation. It should be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bias doesn't make a source unusable, but intentionally misleading its readers does. The Facebook ban was for that sort of misinformation, which I feel is a decent reason to consider them unreliable - Facebook doesn't ban ads from news sources lightly (after all, doing so costs them money.) NBC News' coverage describes them as spreading conspiracy theories about Trump's political enemies, and the New York Times says the same thing, which would at the very least make them a WP:FRINGE source, not one we can really use for very much. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah this isn't just bias. In addition to more or less openly campaigning for Trump, they've got credulous reporting on Qanon and Pizzagate, as well as vaccine scaremongering, and viral cancer quackery. Reporting from NBC News, Buzzfeed make it pretty clear that they're pushing false or misleading viral content related to contemporary politics. This is exactly the sort of content that has no place on Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That does not look good at all... My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklist ASAP. How has this propaganda machine not been blacklisted yet? It's really remarkable—it couldn't be clearer that under no circumstance is The Epoch Times a reliable source, IMO. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support RFC I'm not sure if this came up the previous discussion, but the Washington Post also reported on some issues with Wikipedia's use of the Epoch Times at the entry for Hunter Biden. This search of main space links turns up a number of cases where they're cited for pseudo-science (this story at Past life regression, and heavy use of this crazy story at This Man), and it is still cited on a number of BLPs and on stories related to Trump-Russia (Joseph Misfud, Paul Manafort). It's even cited at the entry for QAnon. The site is ubiquitous on social media, and it looks just presentable enough that users might sometimes mistake it for a reliable source. Based on this, I think its worth establishing a general consensus. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Epoch Times

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Epoch Times (RSP entry)?

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

— Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Context matters: Please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of The Epoch Times's news coverage, such as edition (the English edition at theepochtimes.com   and the Chinese edition at epochtimes.com  ), topic (e.g. Chinese politics, American politics, international politics, and Falun Gong-related topics), and year of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Epoch Times)

• Deprecate ASAP. Under no circumstance should this Falun Gong propaganda machine be considered a reliable source. The links provided by other users above make the source's utter unreliability crystal clear. For those new to the topic, I recommend this recent write up (The New Republic), think Russia Today—as the New Republic article puts it: "The Times has built a global propaganda machine, similar to Russia’s Sputnik or RT, that pushes a mix of alternative facts and conspiracy theories that has won it far-right acolytes around the world." :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 This isn't a good source, but judging by its complete usage, I don't see a reason for general prohibition on its use. The domains theepochtimes.com (English version) and epochtimes.com (Chinese version - is this RfC about both?) are used 1,348 times in Wikipedia. Most that I glimpsed through were rather uncontroversial, especially from the Chinese domain. The discussion above was rather insincere in my view. The Facebook advert ban was due to circumventing Facebook's political advertisement rules, not its news coverage. A QAnon story is being cited in support of deprecating it, but all I see in that story is reporting what the QAnon is, not advocating for it. Yeah, they also have more trashy stuff like the vaccine story as a "VIEWPOINTS" article, but so do many other lower-end sources like The Huffington Post. As for being pro-Trump: WP:PARTISAN applies and it should not be used for controversial statements. It's not feasible to deprecate all lower-end sources from the right-wing of the political spectrum. --Pudeo (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the Epoch Times, they are unaware of why they were blocked from Facebook ([84]). Whether that's true or not is unclear, as the source is itself not unreliable, but what is clear is that the Epoch Times is a propaganda outlet for Falun Gong—it's about reliable and journalistic as Russia Today. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The articles states If the Q posts are real, they may indicate that the Trump administration has established an alternate channel to speak to supporters, bypassing news outlets and social media altogether for something more direct. They're clearly pushing this as a plausible idea. Also: they were banned by Facebook because they created sockpuppet domains so that they could continue to run conspiracy themed ads that failed to meet Facebook's absurdly lax standards. This isn't just a low quality source. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. "Context matters" is not an appropriate approach for a source that just makes stuff up while claiming not to - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. I'd say close to RT or Global Times for Chinese politics and controversial statements, close to CS Monitor or Deseret News for general topics. Epoch Times is a publication associated with a new religious movement suppressed by China. It's obviously biased against China and its ruling party (thus WP:PARTISAN applies), but it runs both ways: Global Times is unlikely to be much better of a source for Epoch Times than vice versa. feminist (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The Epoch Times peddles unconfirmed rumours, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, and antivax propaganda, causing itself to be banned by Facebook. See NBC expose, Washington Post article, and NYT article. According to The New Republic, its European sites are even worse, and have become the mouthpiece of the far right fringe. -Zanhe (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate As per sources on the Epoch Times page they "peddle conspiracy theories about the 'Deep State,' and criticize 'fake news' media" and "its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• 2 As I said bias is not a criteria for exclusion. We can use it if we attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - per Zanhe above and MarioGom below. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• 4 (Deprecate) or 3 Some news pieces are just fine, but usually a more realiable source exists for the same events. On the other hand, they insist on pushing for WP:FRINGE theories, they use news pieces as a hook for conspiracies (see my comment in the discussion) and you cannot just single them out by excluding opinion pieces. This undermines the reliability of The Epoch Times as a whole. Their magazines include a lot of WP:FRINGE commentary of notable wingnuts and charlatans, which may be useful for attributed quotes of these subjects' views when they are WP:DUE. --MarioGom (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - per Zanhe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, would need a very strong reason to include this as a source for anything. Guy (help!) 12:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - The Epoch Times was founded as a propaganda outlet for a new religious movement and has, over time, gotten less reliable rather than more. While it was previously a relatively trashy outlet that was generally untrustworthy for anything controversial but might serve for routine, non-controversial information, it has transformed into a platform for pseudoscience, conspiracism and misinformation. The veneer of respectability and the ubiquity of Epoch Times newspapers in major urban centers makes it a substantial risk as a source of RS-looking misinformation on Wikipedia. We need to eliminate this source once and for all. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate both versions. A source that merely has a perspective (even a strong perspective) is usable, but a biased source that also spreads conspiracy theories or fringe theories in the service of their bias is not; it's clear that this source lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Since both versions are under the same management and seem intended to serve the same purpose, neither seems like a usable source. --Aquillion (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate This does not seem reliable, especially given its history of consipracy theories and support of what elsewhere could be considered Fake news. --- FULBERT (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate seems appropriate here because they publish conspiracy theories and hoaxes, and they've willfully mislead readers and advertisers. From what I can tell, the overwhelming majority of the content is unattributed aggregations of other news stories. The writers for the site are doing dozens of stories per day. Jack Phillips wrote 15 on October 8, none of those stories appear to involve any original reporting, and there are plenty of other sources for all of them. The content that is "original" to the site is garbage. They've repeatedly pushed QAnon, and now "Spygate", and their "wellness" reporting is rife with quackery. Stories like this one appear to be unmarked advertising, and they've given over a decade of breathlessly positive coverage of the Shen Yun performing arts company. None of that coverage discloses that the performing group is a project of the Falun Gong. Obviously there are worse sources out there, but this one seems to pose a high risk of causing a problem here because they have the look of a credible website Nblund ^talk 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. No reason for an encyclopedia to use such a low-quality publication. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2- per feminist and Slatersteven. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 (first choice) or "2" (second choice). Looks similar to Fox news or RT (Russia). My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate/Option 4 Too unreliable. If they have reliable articles, it will be covered by other news outlets too. The Banner talk 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 I dislike the trend towards deprecating sources willy-nilly. I think it should be reserved for extreme cases. I looked at some of the examples of allegedly "fake" reporting listed here, and my impression was that the Epoch Times was writing a story about something that didn't need a story written about it, but I didn't see anything that was obviously false. That said, I couldn't find a corrections page on their site, so I'd go with option 3. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The Epoch Times)

• I was initially reluctant to start this RfC, but many editors in the above discussion proposed measures that should undergo wider community review. With 5 previous noticeboard discussions, The Epoch Times is a controversial source that deserves a thorough examination. Pinging previous commenters Bender235, Slatersteven, My very best wishes, Simonm223, Aquillion, Nblund, and Bloodofox as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newslinger: please clarify whether this would deprecate the Chinese edition (epochtimes.com - 519 uses) in addition to the English version (theepochtimes.com - 829 uses)? --Pudeo (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • ​That's a good question. The options are just suggestions and it's up to individual editors to specify which editions of The Epoch Times their classifications apply to. If there are two separate consensuses for the English edition and the Chinese edition, we would create a split entry on the perennial sources list, e.g. RT (general topics) and RT (controversial topics, international politics), and the editions would be treated differently. An opinion without a qualifier would apply to all aspects of The Epoch Times (including edition, topic, and time period) as a whole. I'll clarify this below the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 04:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times pushes for all kinds of WP:FRINGE theories, not just QAnon and antivax as others mentioned. They have a lot of articles promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (The Communist Sexual Agenda, The Infiltration of Marxism Into Higher Education (Part 1 of 2)). Note that this is not confined to opinion sections, they also use news pieces as coatrack for it. Let's take Hundreds of Young Transgender People Asking for Help to Return to Original Sex: Report. If we wanted to use that story, we could just use the original from Sky News ([85]), since The Epoch Times just uses the Sky News report as a hook to promote theories about communists promoting homosexuality to undermine the family and so on. --MarioGom (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Note also the push for pseudoscientific theories on medicine such as functional medicine, promotion of bogus claims on cancer treatment by Cancer Treatment Centers of America#Controversy, etc. It seems related items have been used as a source in Wikipedia: Woman Has Spiritual Near-Death Experience, Cancer Cured as Result? --MarioGom (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine MarioGom (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Why are we even having this discussion? Did someone blank Wikipedia:RSCONTEXT without telling me? Does the FAQ at WT:V which has said "The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support" for years, suddenly disappear? This source, like every other source, can only be judged to be reliable in context. It's not "reliable" or "not reliable". As a general rule, this source is going to be "reliable for certain narrowly written and carefully contextualized statements". It may be best to use it with WP:INTEXT attribution. It may not be the best possible source for general information. But reliability is not a yes-or-no situation. The whole concept behind this RFC (also: an RFC on a high-traffic noticeboard? What's going on with that?) is flawed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We're having this conversation because the argument has been made that this outlet has equivalent reliability to sources like The Daily Mail and The National Enquirer while still being used as a source in multiple articles. As it is actively anti-reliable as a source, site-wide action is necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Was there a series of real dispute that editors had difficulty resolving? I'm not seeing evidence of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WhatamIdoing: Sources can be used in certain contexts even if they are WP:DEPRECATED. You may have to argue with someone who thinks that deprecated means completely blacklisted, but it should be ok otherwise if it is justified. Do you see any problem with this specific RfC? Or you are against the source deprecation process itself, or maybe the perennial sources list? --MarioGom (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm against anything that indicates to other editors that the rest of us think don't think they can figure out how to write a decent article without the rest of us telling them to follow some more rules first. People with a classical education might be thinking about the Woes of the Pharisees here, and I admit that it's not far from my mind.
      MarioGom, I see your account is just two and a half years old, so you probably don't remember when Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was taken seriously as a policy, when the article was more important than the rules, and when "You may have to argue with someone" to be permitted to do what was right by an article meant that a policy or process was fundamentally broken. If RS/P results in editors having to argue with mindless rule-followers about whether it's okay to improve an article, and if it's putting the emphasis on what's "allowed" instead of what's best for the article, then I'll be against it. If it provides practical help to editors writing articles, then I'll be all for it. Perhaps you can tell me which category you think it's most likely to fall into. So far, all I see is that the list grows endlessly, and it is largely populated by people who aren't creating much content, and largely used by people who aren't genuinely trying to figure out whether a source is desirable in a particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The way I look at it (certainly others may feel differently) is that, given the (absolutely appropriate) emphasis on Reliable Sourcing, the RS/P is an incredibly useful tool, especially for new editors who may not have a firm grasp on what constitutes a reliable source or know how to dig through the RSN archives. I know it certainly was for me. I also believe that its usefulness is directly connected to its accuracy, and these discussions help to improve that accuracy by giving an accurate measure of a source's basic credibility. Even RSCONTEXT says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Discussions like this help us assign a rough reliability, according to this exact metric, to sources. Yes, context is still important, but that doesn't mean that the New York Times and the National Enquirer should be treated the same, as if they each require the same amount of scrutiny to determine whether a given article in either is acceptable to cite for an article here. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • AmbivalentUnequivocality, could you explain that bit about RSCONTEXT better? I'm not sure how it relates. That sentence, in plain English, means "The New York Times, which has more than four thousand employees, is usually more reliable than little tiny newspapers like The Mulberry Advance, whose sole employee has to do everything from selling subscriptions to writing articles to sweeping the floor". I don't see how any discussion on Wikipedia could realistically "help to improve that accuracy", because "according to this exact metric", the only way for a source to become more reliable is to hire more journalists. The number of Wikipedians involved in these RFCs is irrelevant "according to this exact metric". "This exact metric" is about what they do, not about what we do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
          • WhatamIdoing Certainly. My reading on that sentence is slightly different than yours. I don't see it as being the same as "More employees = more reliable" because not all publications utilize their employees the same way. It is about how many people are actually engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing. More employees does not necessarily mean that they have more people doing those things. A large paper could employ thousands of people and still not commit any sizable number of them to fact checking, and a small paper could have relatively few employees but still conduct robust and thorough fact checking on what material they publish. It is what they do with their employees, and how well they do it, that matters. Yes, this metric is about what they do, but our part in it is elucidating what it is that they are doing. Our part is figuring out how robust their reputation for fact checking is, how strong their editorial oversight is, how readily they retract and correct errors. Publications that knowingly publish false claims, or unknowingly publish easily disprovable ones, clearly show a lack of such robustness. We can improve the RS/P by accurately assessing how well a given publication commonly meets these criteria. There is value in having a list that accurately represents the general quality of various sources according to the established criteria of what constitutes reliability, but to do that we must determine how well a given source meets those criteria. I believe that is something we can do, and I believe that discussions like this aid in achieving that goal. Treating every source as though they are all equally likely to produce reliable reporting seems shortsighted to me. Yes, reliability is about what they do. Our discussions do not make a publication reliable or unreliable. But our discussions do help accurately assess whether they are doing the things that are considered indicative of general reliability (Robust fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.), or whether they are engaged in behavior that is indicative of pervasive unreliability (Intentionally publishing false or misleading claims, pushing fringe conspiracy theories, etc.) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
      • WhatamIdoing: So if I understand correctly, you are against the deprecation of sources itself or this kind of RfC, but you have no particular concern about this specific RfC. I can understand that. It has certainly been problematic for me in the past. For example, when spotting an inaccurate story published at a sourced marked as generally reliable on perennial sources. But that's beyond the scope here, I guess. --MarioGom (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • That's the issue as I see it, and not beyond consideration here, that commentary must be distinguished from credible news, even in articles that are reporting some news. A neutral point of view doesn't sell many books or newspapers. Jzsj (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Frankly I think the use of newsmedia is generally inappropriate for an encyclopedia and leads to many of our woes surrounding WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT and WP:DUE across the site. When a newsmedia source compounds this problematic character by straight-up fabricating news to push a POV, well, if I think we shouldn't be leaning so hard on the NYT you can imagine what I think about such tabloids. And the Epoch Times, which was founded with the intent of being used as a propaganda outlet is one of the worst of a bad bunch. I'm sure an WP:IAR case might exist where deprecation might prove a challenge, but honestly I don't see it. And avoiding a 99% improvement to avoid a 1% chance of future impediments seems like weak cost-benefit analysis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • ^agreed. The consensus on deprecation can always change, but I have spent some time browsing the site, and I really haven't found a single story that appears reliable and not covered by a more reputable source. The Washington Post reports that the majority of the staffers are mostly part-time/volunteers rather than journalists, so it seems pretty unlikely that you're going to see any real reporting coming from them. Nblund ^talk 17:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
            • I agree with Jzsj's point. That's why we avoid {{one source}} articles. Librarians make a distinction between having "a balanced book" and "a balanced library": while there's a place in the world for a balanced book (history textbooks for schoolchildren spring to mind as an example), it's usually better to have multiple books (e.g., a book about a war that argues persuasively that it was all economics, a book that promotes the diplomatic aspects, a book that that focuses on the Great man theory, etc., so that you end up with a balanced view). But you have to read multiple sources to figure out where the sources differ from each other.
              Simonm223, it's always good to find an idealist on the English Wikipedia. ;-)
              Nblund, I believe that's true. However, the definition of "reliable" isn't "the most reputable source we could use for this statement". "Barely reliable" is still reliable. (IMO this source is probably "reliable enough" for some claims. You won't see me seeking it out, however.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Just a warning even about high school history books. It's reliably reported that conservative groups attend trustees meetings as in Texas and New York, and any trustee who approves of a book that criticizes capitalism or American democracy is "history". The few publishers don't take a chance with such books. To get a more objective course in American history one needs to use a college textbook. Jzsj (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: VG Chartz

Other than sales data, what would best describe the reliability of VG Chartz as a whole? (More detailed query below.) ToThAc (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's already been informally established that VG Chartz is unreliable for everything pertaining to sales data. One excerpt from a certain bureaucrat of a non-Wikimedia wiki even summed up the following here:

Due to its popularity and being the most immediately visible source when researching sales data, it's hard not to address VGChartz.

Much has been written about the reliability of VGChartz. As explained on the site's methodology page, it has access to data from an undefined sampling of "retail partners", filling in the rest by guessing based on various trends (while the aforementioned trackers do not have access to every retail chain and do some number of "filling in the blanks", they are proven to track a substantial amount of retailers, unlike VGChartz). The fact that VGChartz numbers have frequently been contradicted by more official channels and other anomalies (In one instance, the site reported the game Arc Rise Fantasia as a best-seller for June 2010 despite the game not being released until the end of July) have led to several sites banning it as a source. As far as the wiki is concerned, VGChartz is not reliable and should not be used as a reference for sales data.

References

However, I have repeatedly seen VG Chartz cited in areas other than sales data; most of it is to cite release dates and companies behind certain games, with some relevant news articles as well. Moreover, most of the criticism towards the site is usually limited to just the site's methodology in obtaining sales data. And so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, what options would best describe VG Chartz's reliability?

1. Generally reliable
2. Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (recommend better source)
3. Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (require better source)
4. Generally unreliable

Cheers - ToThAc (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (VG Chartz)

• Option 4 per above. I also strongly oppose option 1. After some digging around, I learned that most of the articles on the site are user-generated content, while the news coverage could use better sources. ToThAc (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 - there’s already a pretty solid consensus on this amongst anyone who understands how Wikipedia defines an RS, and nothing has changed. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• It has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources for who knows how long. Why are we having an RFC about it? --Izno (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Izno: This is about addressing the reliability of other parts of the site (articles, news, previews, etc), not necessarily their sales data. ToThAc (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 - there have been multiple discussions on VGChartz that show it is unreliable. What makes this discussion any different? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Ive yet to see data sourced to VGChartz that cannot be sourced to better quality sources. --Masem (t) 03:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Seems it has a reputation for non accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 It's pretty clear that it can't be trusted. I've never seen it be viewed as reliable before, and we shouldn't start now. Nomader (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (VG Chartz)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 02:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and Namcokid47: In case this wasn't already clear to either of you, I'm addressing the entire VG Chartz website, not necessarily their sales data (which has already been proven unreliable). ToThAc (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that, and I am still opposing it. Nearly all of the content on there is user-generated, and lots of the articles are not in the best of quality. I still consider them unreliable. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. ToThAc (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Pride of Tamil Cinema

During the first FAC of Mullum Malarum, this book was rejected as RS. Vensatry said, "Although [Pride of Tamil Cinema] had won a special mention at the 62nd National Film Awards, it looks like a WP:MIRROR, as the book paraphrases stuff from Wikipedia articles and the NFA archives of Directorate of Film Festivals." Co-ordinator Utcursch said, "Pride of Tamil Cinema explicitly mentions Wikipedia articles as its sources. It also cites some websites that would be considered questionable by WP:RS standards. Therefore, its use as a reference in an FA is questionable." When I raised this issue some years ago, Utcurshs' view remained unchanged. However, recently Fowler&fowler said, "Dhananjayan's mention of Wikipedia means that he read the Wikipedia page, and may have been influenced by it, may have included some content, or meta-content, from it somewhere, but not in verbatim form. It doesn't outright invalidate the use of the book in a Wikipedia article." (read more here) In fact, the Mullum Malarum chapter in the book did not copy from Wiki at all. So what to do? Who's right? Is the book usable to any extent? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Utcursch, you got time? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Rolling Stone's 'Useful Idiots' podcast a RS?

On the Jimmy Dore page, there are attempts to insert comments made by this far-left conspiracy theorist in a podcast interview, with editors arguing that this podcast constitutes a reliable source. Is it a RS? And should Wikipedia allow editors to randomly pluck comments made in hour-long interviews? It seems to clearly fail RS and DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why (as an interview) it is not usable as a source for his opinions. In fact this [[86]] seems to put it firmly in the news blog category. It does not even seem to have the usual "these are not the views..." type disclaimer, Rolling Stone are owning it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

So long as there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the statements then it would be a reliable source for a comment made by Dore. That doesn't imply WEIGHT and using comments out of context or giving them more weight/significance than they had in context should be avoided. Springee (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Far left"?? He's fairly neutral as he calls out A LOT of faults with both sides, infact a lot more faults with the Democratic party than he does with the GOP TBH? He's always on about Russiagate being a hoax, the impeachment being a distraction/waste of time, how the Mueller Report couldn't even show how the DNC servers were hacked and that they paid Crowdstrike to come up with a conclusion they agreed to, and yet you think they're "far left"? Very strange indeed... Apeholder (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Does this Mother Jones article accurately summarize the arguments made by the PragerU videos it cites?

• PragerU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:PragerU#Mark_Oppenheimer_Mother_Jones_article

I have a concern regarding this Mother Jones article[[87]] regarding it's summaries of some PragerU videos. My concern is the summaries are misleading or falsely present the arguments being made. These summaries are then being used in the Wikipedia PragerU article. The 5th paragraph of the MJ article includes several single sentence/phrase summaries of several PragerU videos. The specific videos in question are provided via links in the MJ article. The PragerU article cites the following sentence to this MJ article, "Still other videos argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong, there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap does not exist." This is an accurate summary of information from paragraph 5 but I do not believe the MJ summary is accurate/true to the contents of the videos. I will note that PragerU is considered a fringe source and thus it's claims are not considered reliable even if they align with more reliable sources.

From the Wikipedia text:

• "...argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong,"[[88]] This is a touchy subject and one I'm not as well versed in so I don't want this to be a touch point for this discussion. In watching the video I don't believe the commentator, Richard Lindzen says the consensus is false rather that the debate among climate scientist is about the extent. The main thrust of the video is to criticize those who the video says profit from raising the alarm. I do not know enough about this subject to question the arguments but I don't think it's correct to say the video argues that "scientific consensus on climate change is wrong".
• "...there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans," [[89]] I think this is a clear cut case of false summary. The video is talking about evidence against the view that African Americans are disproportionately shot by police. Basically it's only looking at a narrow subset of police-African American interactions and never claims that there aren't some police who are racist. Again even if the arguments are wrong the summary does not accurately reflect the content of the video.
• "...gender pay gap does not exist" [[90]] The video starts by acknowledging the aggregate gender pay gap but then goes on to argue that it's a myth that the gap is due simply to employers taking advantage of women to pay them less. It's argument that the the pay gap largely doesn't exist when considering like job, like skill set appears to be the core of the "gap doesn't exist" argument. This is an argument shared by others in mainstream sources. Again, even if the ultimate conclusion is wrong the summary should be accurate to the source.

My overall concern is that the MJ article is, in my read, falsely summarizing the arguments of others. Wikipedia is then citing those summaries as fact. My question for the group is, are these summaries accurate? Does this make this MJ article unreliable in general or more narrowly in terms of summarizing the arguments made in the videos? Note, this is not a question about if the videos make sound arguments or if the arguments should be considered fringe, only are the MJ's summaries true to the arguments being made by the videos. Springee (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Some of this seems pedantic to me. Based on the transcripts of the videos, they do argue that the gender pay gap is a myth. The title of the MacDonald video about police is literally titled "Are Police Racist", though it does focus only on police-involved shootings. I think the summary by MJ of the messages being given in these PragerU videos is correct. For the latter 2 bullet points, minor tweaks like "there is no discrimination in police shootings of African-Americans" and "...gender pay gap is a myth". Given that this is a fringe source being described by MJ, I think it would be incorrect to delve into semantics while ignoring the messages being communicated. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Concur with EvergreenFir. Mother Jones is a reliable secondary source and they're describing the views of a fringe source with a clear remit to mislead. some latitude can be extended over semantics in order to avoid WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Mother Jones isn't a robustly reliable source. It is a very biased source with a strong left lean talking about the arguments made by a right leaning source. More to the point, just because MJ is generally reliable does not mean there summaries here are reliable. I understand the concern with including the videos. If they aren't sourcing information it begs the question why are they cited at all. However, PROFRINGE doesn't establish that MJ's has reliably described the PU source videos. To avoid PROFINGE and ABOUTSELF issues I would suggest removal of the specific MJ summaries. The questionable summaries could be removed. Here is the original, "Still other videos argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong, there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap does not exist." This would avoid the issue, "Still other videos discuss scientific consensus on climate change, police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap." By avoiding making claims as to the arguments in the PU videos the concern regarding false summaries is avoided without raising PROFRINGE/ABOUTSELF questions. That said, I also think the article in general should be questioned given the self serving/misleading nature of MJ's summaries. They have effectively setup strawman arguments as to what PU is claiming so they can easily knock them down. Do keep in mind that MJ was all but born out of making alarmist yet largely false claims (see their Ford Pinto coverage). Springee (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

MJ is a partisan source that describe another partisan source that have opposite POV I think its better not to use such source .Shrike (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a very accurate summary. Springee (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, Mother Jones, bias or not, is regarded as a generally reliable source. The same cannot be said for PragerU, which is both biased and unreliable. I agree with EvergreenFir that the argument against Mother Jones' descriptions is largely based on semantics, and is rather unconvincing. Furthermore, I think that the proposed change to "Still other videos discuss scientific consensus on climate change, police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap." is too euphemising. It's a bit like changing the Alex Jones page from saying he is known for "promotion of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories" to saying he "discussed the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting". They don't just discuss these issues, they take a FRINGE position on them, and that is pointed out by reliable sources and should be represented in our article. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The question was posed on my talk page and reiterate what I said there. As the MJ article is clearly biased against PragerU, it is better simply to attribute the video descriptions to MJ in prose. MJ is reliable enough, but their descriptions of the videos do seem crude and is just better to say MJ as the source of the summary. --Masem (t) 20:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

For POV concerns, the proper approach is to compare MJ to other sources, rather than assume bias in this specific situation. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Two thoughts here... first, don’t use headlines as an indication of the content of a video or news media article/opinion piece. Headlines (even in the most reliable sources) are essentially click bait. Second, I have a problem with using opinion outlets to describe other opinion outlets. MJ is a reliable source for attributed statements about the opinions of MJ contributors, and Prager is a reliable source for the opinions of Prager contributors... but neither is reliable for the opinions of each other. I suppose one can say that “MJ’s opinion of Prager’s opinion is X” (attributing everything)... but that leads to question’s of DUE WEIGHT: is MJ’s opinion of Prager’s opinion really important enough to mention. Finally... this whole argument could be resolved by SUMMARIZING Prager’s videos (as a whole) instead of discussing them individually. If we don’t discuss individual Prager videos, then we don’t need to discuss individual reactions to them. Look for sources that critique/praise Prager as a whole... and discuss it in generalized terms. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• The summaries from MJ are inaccurate, and they should not be stated in wikivoice, but should at the very least be attributed. Ideally, we could include information from the summaries we find in other sources, possibly also with attribution. For example, compare this summary of the gender pay gap video from a conservative opinion piece at The Hill: The inconvenient truth behind the “pay gap” numbers is that, to the extent any real pay gap might exist between men and women, the factors that account for it seem to relate more to the choices that liberated, self-directed women are free to make in our country than they do to any sort of institutional discrimination. PragerU has produced a well-researched and concise video that makes this point extremely well. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm of the opinion that problems like this are definitely not just semantic-- misleading choice of words is critical in a general attempt to mislead. As I would not consider Mother Jones reliable for any claim, much less one about the journalistic integrity of a news outlet oriented on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I do not think it is an appropriate source in the PragerU article. As Blueboar suggested, a summary of praises and criticisms seems like the best approach here. Zortwort (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I see at least two glaring problems in the above arguments. First, the Mother Jones piece is not an opinion piece, it is an actual article from the Politics section of a source that is in fact considered generally reliable, so comparing it to actual opinion pieces (not RS) is false equivalency. Second, and this is a specific one, in response to Springee saying ""...there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans," [[91]] I think this is a clear cut case of false summary.", this is directly refuted by Larry Elder, a narrator for several PragerU videos, who writes in the Boston Herald "YouTube also restricted one I wrote and narrated, 'Is America Racist?' in which I refute the narrative that police engage in “institutional racism” against blacks."(emphasis added)(https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/08/26/conservative-voice-finds-insta-audience-reined-in/), which is exactly what the MJ summary says that PragerU says. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

AU, I think I understand your argument. I believe you are saying the PragerU video's claims are wrong. You may be correct. However, that isn't my concern here. A PragerU videos could say the moon is made of Swiss Cheese. If MJ then claimed Prager's moon video said the moon was a ball of liquid mercury that would still be a false summary. The critical point is that, right or wrong, the MJ summary was not true to the arguments made in the video. The police racism summary falsely suggests a topic scope that the actual content of the video doesn't cover. The Gender Pay Gap video actually admits there is a difference in aggregate but the critical focus is that claims that the gap are due to discrimination and bias by employers isn't supported. I think context is important here as politicians have been using the pay gap talking points to push for new regulations. As for the climate change one, well, my read is the video primarily says the problem is the actual scientific debate rather the way politicians, environmentalists and the media are using the debate for their own purposes. Again, the question isn't "is PragerU actually right?". The question is, "are PragerU's critics correctly summarizing the arguments made by PragerU?" Springee (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My point is not that they video's claims are wrong (they are, but that's not my point). My point is that you said that it was "a clear cut case of false summary" for Mother Jones to say that PragerU has videos claiming that "there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans", and yet a PragerU narrator says that "I wrote and narrated, 'Is America Racist?' in which I refute the narrative that police engage in “institutional racism” against blacks." So, how is that description inaccurate? If they say PragerU has a video in which they claim that police do not discriminate against blacks, and a PragerU narrator says that in a video "I refute the narrative that police engage in “institutional racism” against blacks.", how is that substantively different? How is that "a clear cut case of false summary"? Are you saying that you know better than the PragerU narrator what point he was trying to make with his video? AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to demonstrate, Semprini! Now if an RS was to say "users of Wikipedia say Semprini!" that is accurate. If however it said "Wikipedia says "semprini!"" that is not. Now whether or not the police in the US are institutionally racists or not is not the issue. They need not be yet still have racist cops (without the issue of the US has more then one police force, some of which maybe, but the majority may not be).Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be wary of using a partisan source for analysis of another unless that analysis has been widely accepted by other RS. I would say this can be used with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Morning Star (British newspaper)

I'm checking WP:RS/P#Morning Star, which currently lists the MS as a "No consensus" source and cites that the New Statesman described it as "Britain's last communist newspaper". This seems rather to understate things - it's actually the house organ of the Communist Party of Britain. It's linked from their site. It lists its editorial policy as being in accord with their manifesto "Britain's Road to Socialism", and that manifesto states "On the economic, political and ideological fronts, the Morning Star as the daily paper of the labour movement and the left, with its editorial policy based on Britain’s Road to Socialism, plays an indispensable role in informing, educating and helping to mobilise the forces for progress and revolution.".

The MS itself states that "while the Morning Star’s editorial line may be guided via an annual democratic endorsement of Communist Party of Britain strategy document Britain’s Road to Socialism ... the paper is in fact a co-op owned by its readers for its readers", and describes itself as "often a lone voice reporting the stories that other media refuse to touch", which has WP:N implications.[92]

I'm not necessarily arguing for a change in its status, it's certainly possible to cite it with caution, but maybe the list entry should be updated to reflect this? Vashti (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

being communist to my mind is not a reason to change its status.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Being the official publication of a fringe (they have 775 members, and are one of about a dozen "Communist Parties of Britain") political party isn't something that should be highlighted at WP:RS/P? Vashti (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No, as size of membership (or even staff) is not an RS criteria. Even SPS (one person publishing their own material) can be an RS. We need more then "but communists".Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. Vashti (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It is kind of nutty, if you Google image search their front pages: "LABOUR VOWS TO TAKE ON GLOBAL ELITE", "BLOOD ON HIS HANDS", "TAX THE RICH - DON'T ROB THE POOR", "WAR CRIMINAL NOT WELCOME", "A SHOCKING CONSPIRACY", "BANKERS' PM PLOTS NEW ATTACK". It combines hard-left WP:PARTISAN viewpoint with British tabloid-journalism, so I would not consider it reliable but I would not deprecate it either. --Pudeo (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

From looking at their website today, all of the most inflammatory headlines appear to use quotes from individuals or groups interviewed in the article (e.g. "'Major safety failings' at prison holding Julian Assange", "XR demands BBC tells the whole truth of climate change"). It's questionable as a visual editorial style, but I'm not sure that it necessarily tells us much about the reliability of their coverage.

On another note, as it is a partisan publication, its choices of who to interview are very much grounded in its partisan perspective, and we should assess DUE accordingly. For example, when covering this week's Turkish invasion of Syria, the Communist Party of Turkey's opinion is unlikely to be the most important one for us to report. On the other hand, if we ever are in a situation where we specifically want communist (and specifically Marxist-Leninist parties') perspectives on an issue, Morning Star seems like a good resource. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Brigid Alverson

I found this person while doing some searching for RS when it comes to reviews: [93], [94]. It says that Brigid Alverson was a judge for the 2012 Eisner Awards among other things. Can info on her blogs be used for reviews or "best of" when it comes to manga? [95] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

What else has she done?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

She has an MFA in printmaking, was interviewed by The Boston Globe [96], and did a piece on Publishers Weekly. [97] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure this is enough to pass as an expert who blog we should consider an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

beautypageants.indiatimes.com

Would like to establish a consensus on whether India Times Entertainment Times sub-site, beautypageants.indiatimes.com is a reliable source for beauty pageants. An example usage is https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/Daegu-Lee-Ihanui-Uhuijun-to-represent-Korea-at-Miss-Earth-2019/eventshow/70190536.cms as one of 35 citations to this source at Miss Earth 2019. It carries this disclaimer at the bottom of the page: "ETimes is an Entertainment, TV & Lifestyle industry's promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising." -- Bri.public (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The contact information listed at [98] is "Miss India Organization" so I think this is pure native advertising. -- Bri.public (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Have listed at WP:WPSPAM, but would still appreciate another editor's confirmation that this is a bad source. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any differentiation between paid for pieces and independently written pieces, (such as a byline) the film reviews seem ok as a lot of them are bad reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

All I can tell you for sure is that https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/ lists exactly two contacts: Head Talent Monetization - Miss India Organization and Brand & Operations Head - Miss India Organization, so I suspect Miss India are responsible for everything under beautypageants.indiatimes.com. I did not see any film reviews here. I'm not sure about the rest of India Times "Entertainment Times"; is that where you saw a film review? -- Bri.public (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It also appears that India Times parent company The Times Group owns the name "Miss India". See Femina Miss India. The so-called "Miss India Organization" may be a subsidiary or simply IT employees. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be COI and (in effect) SPS issues here. This should be treated like (in effect) a blog hosted by them.07:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I was mistaken about the film reviews, this beauty pageant section does seem to be non-independent so not useful for notability but perhaps ok for very basic facts imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian

Is this Guardian article 'Protecting rioters': China warns Apple over app that tracks Hong Kong police reliable as a source for this statement: It also criticised Apple for allowing "Glory to Hong Kong", an unofficial anthem frequently sung in the protests, to remain available on its music service.? I ask this because two separate IP editors have modified "Glory to Hong Kong"'s description on the HKmap.live article, despite the source describing the song as an unofficial anthem frequently sung by protesters during the ongoing anti-government movement. feminist (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Might need attribution, but The Guardian is about as RS as you can get in print new media.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek

I wonder if it is possible to use the newsweek article for verifying the following material? "American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran. Tanks!Saff V. (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ish, not sure it says quite that. But its a close approximation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Lynda Telford, reliable source?

The book, Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered, by Lynda Telford, published by Pen & Sword. I have found no mention of her having a specialization in any field and her writing appears to be that of more popular history than academic. Telford has also authored, Tudor Victims of the Reformation, Women in Medieval England, and Women of the Vatican: Female Power in a Male World.

Does anyone have any information concerning this author? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Pen & Sword is considered a mid quality popular history press. Telford doesn't seem to have any academic degree in history, so I would say fine for non-controversial information, use with caution for any disputed areas and avoid giving undue weight to opinions. Academic presses are usually the gold standard for history articles. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for Helen Caldicott article

I'd like some help with some critical information added to the Helen Caldicott article. My problem is with the final paragraph in the "Early activity" section. It uses one source, Benjamin Redekop, who had his article "'Physicians to a dying planet’: Helen Caldicott, Randall Forsberg, and the anti-nuclear weapons movement of the early 1980s" published in The Leadership Quarterly. I've not been able to access his article but I did find this: [99] I'd guess that his estimation of Caldicott is right on, so that's not the problem. My problem is with calling him a historian and using what I believe to be cherry picked critical comments from his article which actually was about leadership styles. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

All’Insegna del Giglio

Is this a reliable source for stating that the occurrence of the West African crocodile in the Guelta d'Archei is a consequence of the African humid period? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Continuation of "Is TidBITS a blog, or is it a reliable secondary source?"

In the last comment in this section (archived while I calmed down), Guy said "Well that's a remarkable bit of selective reading: you choose to interpret the replies in a way that gives you permission to reinsert the trivial crap back into the article." If that's a concession, it's a rather strange one—mixed with abuse.

Assuming it's not a concession allowing a modified roll-back to before the first of Guy's September edits, it's time for Guy and Scope_creep and Pavlor to provide a good faith explanation of why the Retrospect (software) article as of 19:11, 12 September 2019 "was bloated with trivia", "really horrible", a "product manual", and "a marketing piece". To focus the discussion, I've done some appropriate rough counting of items in that article and in two WP articles about competing enterprise client-server backup applications—plus enlightening item counts for a competing personal "push" backup application.

The Retrospect (software) article as of 19:11, 12 September 2019 had 46 mentions of distinct features in 1.2 screen-pages. 12 of the cites for those features were to first-party references; these were to 2 User's Guides, a cumulative Release Notes, and a Web-linked collection of Knowledge Base articles. There never was a version history section; the Fall 2016 version was historically-structured with some how-to, but JohnInDC eliminated all that in Fall 2017.

The Backup Exec article as of 00:14, 9 October 2019 had 49 mentions of distinct features in 1.6 screen-pages. 36 of the cites for those features were to first-party references—only one of which was cited more than once. There's a version history section, but it only contains release numbers and dates.

The NetBackup article as of 16:59, 3 September 2019 had 38 mentions of distinct features in 1.0 screen-pages. All 16 of the cites for those features were to first-party references—only three of which were cited more than once. There's a version history section, but it only contains release numbers and dates.

FYI the Acronis True Image article as of 02:47, 27 September 2019 had 30 mentions of distinct features in 1.25 screen-pages. 7 of the cites for those features were to first-party references—none of which was cited more than once. There's a version history section that includes mentions of features, so I've counted its length as part of the feature screen-pages. As I pointed out to Scope_creep early in the now-archived Discussion of a September 2017 RfC (here's the diff, but it includes earlier and later sections whose comments were interspersed), he may have considered this "an ideal article to determine how to structure this [Retrospect] one"—but "Acronis is a 'push' backup system in which each individual conceptual 'client' pushes data to a backup 'host' (which may not be a full-fledged computer) at its non-'host'-controlled option". That fact explains why the Acronis True Image article, which is about a personal backup application, lists fewer (sparsely-referenced) features than the above-discussed 3 articles about enterprise client-server backup applications.

The 4 paragraphs directly above show that the Retrospect article listed about the same number of "trivial" features—mostly the same ones with better-linked names—as the articles for the other two enterprise client-server backup applications. I put in the better-linked names at the insistence of Scope_creep in Fall 2017; he said using the developer's own feature names was "marketing". IMHO the other reason the feature sections of the Retrospect came across as "marketing" is because—greatly shortened at the insistence of JohnInDC in fall 2017—I included brief descriptions of the features. By contrast, the other two client-server articles don't include any descriptions; almost all the links for feature names in those two articles are ones I added myself in January 2019.

The Retrospect article actually had an "anti-marketing" item—staying within the limits of WP:NPOV—in the first and third paragraphs of the History section until Guy deleted it. The Windows variant of the application suffers to this day from the absence of a true Administration Console, which the Mac variant and the other two enterprise client-server applications have, but there's no second-party reference that says so. I used to have a link to a section of the Windows Vista article that explains the absence, but that was deleted in Fall 2017 and probably violates WP:Synthesis. Since I intend to put the features sections back into the Retrospect article with no first-party references (at the cost of two or three feature items), that "anti-marketing" item will stay out because its references were a Retrospect Knowledge Base article and the Retrospect Windows cumulative Release Notes (improvements to a poor Console substitute).

Can anyone point to a Wikipedia rule that says a specification of a software application's non-trivial features is ipso-facto "a "product manual" or a "marketing piece"? Can anyone specify which are the trivial features I listed in the Retrospect article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovidBenAvraham (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, this is a dispute over whether, and to what extent, to rely on a WP:PRIMARY / non-independent source for software features, right? That question might be a better fit for WP:NPOVN, especially if the disagreement is over whether it's trivia or has a promotional tone, but generally speaking... a small amount of uncontroversial technical details can be cited to such sources, but it's always important to avoid citing too much of the article to them; entire paragraphs or sections cited to them are supposed to be avoided. It's also important to avoid self-serving claims or a WP:PROMOTIONAL tone, which seems to have been the main objection here (another reason why WP:NPOVN might be a better place.) Also, if you do post this elsewhere, it might be best to narrow it down to the one major question under dispute - few people are going to read a massive multi-paragraph essay like that, and the back-and-forth of the dispute isn't really important. Things like WP:AGF (if that's actually a problem there) are editor-conduct issues, not things WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN can help you with. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)

{{subst:DNAU|{{{1}}}}}

Should The Gateway Pundit be deprecated? Or listed as generally unreliable? Or something else?

See thegatewaypundit.com  ; and for earlier thegatewaypundit.com discussion see earlier Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256#Among low-quality sources, the most popular websites are right-wing sources; along with other previous mentions at: 256, 250, 241, and 233. X1\ (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)