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

Newslaundry on OpIndia

Is Newslaundry (newslaundry.com) a reliable source for the following content in the OpIndia article, removed in Special:Diff/944447105?

A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines targeting the leftists, liberals and Muslims. Mainstream media and the political opposition (esp. Indian National Congress) were oft-criticized; posts published by OpIndia Hindi from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. On February 12, OpIndia had organised an ideological seminar featuring prominent figures from right wing intelligentsia; Newslaundry noted the seminar to have spread communally charged conspiracy theories about the Kathua rape case, equate the Shaheen Bagh protests to formation of mini-Pakistan and engage in other Islamophobic discourse.

References

See related discussion on Talk:OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Do they have an editorial policy? I cannot find it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics, Talk:OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Newslaundry is an unreliable source with a clear bias and no indication of factual reporting. We should not allow Wikipedia becoming a platform to document feuds between the partisan sources in question. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable: According to this, they won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for their "investigative reporting".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable According to their about page they have won a lot of awards recently on the subject of investigation reporting and their work covering gender and human rights. But I couldn't find an editorial hierarchy. According to their hiring page, it looks like their reporters cover a variety of areas rather than having a "beat" and there isn't information about leadership. But I think the awards count for a lot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - No information on leadership or editorial policy. As a new media site much like OpIndia, no certification from IFCN regarding fact-checking (which AltNews, cited in the article under criticism, has).Pectore^talk 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable We have no way of knowing if the editor also writes for it, they appear to have no editorial policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• They do provide some information at this webpage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable No published editorial policy. Clear trait of bias as noted by some wiki editors. No redressal mechanism in case of feedback, I tried approaching them with no success. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable for OpIndia and other Right wing portals atleast. They’re in dirty spat with each others and regularly publish such stories which don’t have much factual accuracies. If we’re going to consider OpIndia (I think we already did) as unreliable then this also falls in same line. — Brihaspati (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable and generally reliable. Newslaundry was awarded the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards in 2015 for their extensive coverage of a political scandal in which members of parliament (in both the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party and the centre-left Indian National Congress) and other well-known people misappropriated US$15 million of taxpayer money through public sector undertakings for their personal or business interests. This five-part series is archived below:
  1. RTI Investigation (part 1): How politicians use PSUs as cash-vending machines
  2. RTI Investigation (part 2): How Vijay Darda used power ministry to further his business interests
  3. RTI Investigation (part 3): How ministers milk PSUs for ads and sponsorships
  4. RTI Investigation (Part 4): Corruption allegations surface against a BJP MP
  5. RTI Investigation (part 5): PSUs are an easy pool of money for politicians to dip into

The extent of the corruption exposed in this report is impressive, and the research involved multiple Right to Information requests. "The Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, the most prestigious annual event in the Indian media calendar, is a recognition of the highest standards of journalism" in India, just as the Pulitzer Prize is the most renowned form of recognition for American journalism. Newslaundry also won two Red Ink Awards, in 2018 for their coverage of the Kaveri River water dispute, and in 2019 for their coverage of a police cover-up of civilian casualties in Sukma.

It's misleading to compare Newslaundry to OpIndia just because neither is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Newslaundry is a news site, not a fact-checking site, and the IFCN only certifies fact-checking sites that are "dedicated solely to checking the discourse of politicians or detecting viral hoaxes in social platforms". Additionally, OpIndia was explicitly rejected by the IFCN in 2019, while Newslaundry never applied for certification.

Finally, Newslaundry puts a byline with an author name on each of the pieces they publish. That's better than The Times of India (RSP entry), and it's sufficient for a generally reliable publication. Newslaundry is like the Indian version of The Intercept (RSP entry), and has even more prestigious awards. — Newslinger talk 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable - per Newslinger. In addition, it also doesn't sum up that they would be factually inaccurate while also winning high prestige awards, I've yet to come across an allegation of misreporting against them which even mainstream media agencies face from time to time. Though there may be a degree of editorialisation in their content so care should be taken regarding that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable has a dedicated staff, uses bylines, has won awards for its journalism, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - No editorial policy available on the website. Concocted click-bait stories based on imagination. Retracted after clarification from the office of President of India. It published fiction instead of fake news. Not trustworthy.
  1. Newslaundry spreads fake news about president's puri visit Shubham2019 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

     Newslaundry was covering an alleged event that was initially covered by The Times of India, News18, and Times Now – other reliable sources. When the press secretary to the President denied the incident, Newslaundry officially retracted the story, demonstrating a strong reputation for error-correction, which is identified in WP:NEWSORG as a hallmark of a reliable source.

     As an aside, you're using "The True Picture" (thetruepicture.org, formerly thetruepicture.in), a site that was thoroughly discredited as a questionable source by a 2018 investigation from The Indian Express and a 2018 report from Boom (a fact checker that is certified by the IFCN). The Quint has additional coverage of the exposés. These analyses show that "The True Picture" is closely affiliated with BlueKraft Digital Foundation, a company that "has been involved in promoting various government initiatives, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s book ‘Exam Warriors.’" From this, it's clear that "The True Picture" is unreliable and has a strong conflict of interest. — Newslinger talk 09:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

     This reply is clearly not satisfactory, Newslaundry concocted a casteist angle in the issue. None of the articles cited give a hint of this angle. This was the reason they had to retract their imaginative story while others did not. It was clearly written to promote enimity between the communities and cater to a certain narrative to attack the government.As a side note, this kind of ideological reinforcement is being done by portals like Newslaundry, Altnews,Wire,Quint,Boom,NDTV. All of which are reinforcing each other's position and being cited in a circular manner to counter/manage the narrative or ideological resistance being provided by the portals of contradictory ideology. OpIndia, Republic,Swarajya, TheTruePicture,MediaBias fact check, Fact Hunt all are being campaigned against in wikipedia. The articles which attack the left wing portals are certainly written in Right Wing Portal and vice versa. Yet only one way citations are allowed i.e. against Right Wing Portal. Therefore there is no WP:NPOV.

Either wikipedia has a policy of not allowing different ideological point of views or we seriously need to re-evaluate why all right wing portals are outright dismissed as unreliable/deprecated/questionable and left wing portals are treated as gospels which can't be wrong and don't need to be questioned. Shubham2019 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not a reason to reject a source. We dismiss sources that can be shown to knowingly and willingly publish falsehoods which they do not retract.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Your argument against Newslaundry depends solely on criticism from a questionable source ("The True Picture") against a properly labeled "opinion" piece from Newslaundry. As the piece from Newslaundry was retracted before it was archived, your claims are unverifiable. The fact that Newslaundry is willing to retract errors is a positive attribute. Compare that to OpIndia, which has yet to retract their coverage of a fake letter falsely attributed to a Muslim body president, for example.

If the right-wing sites you listed were reliable, they would be recognized with awards and favorable coverage from other reliable sources. But, the IFCN – a politically neutral organization – rejected OpIndia in 2018, while it certified Alt News in 2019 and Boom (boomlive.in) in 2019. Newslaundry won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award and two Red Ink Awards, while OpIndia has never won any significant awards. These are some of the reasons Newslaundry, Alt News, and Boom are considered reliable, while OpIndia is not. Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) was discussed three times on this noticeboard, and is considered unreliable because it is self-published, not because it had any discernible overall bias.

The neutral point of view policy requires us to represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis added). — Newslinger talk 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I wrote to the Newslaundry editorial team and this is what I heard back...I don't think there is any problem sharing the relevant portion of the email message:

Thanks for reaching out.

We are currently redesigning our website and we'll have a page explaining our editorial policy on the upgraded site.

Of course, like any credible news organisation, our work goes through a series of editorial filters before it is published. I believe the quality of our work testifies to this. Mr Raman Kirpal, cced in this mail, is our managing editor. He's an award-winning journalist with several decades of experience in the industry and he takes the final call on what appears on Newslaundry.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I inspected the source code of older versions of Newslaundry's home page, and noticed that Newslaundry switched its content management system from a (possibly in-house) platform based on AngularJS as of 16 January 2020 to Quintype as of 22 January 2020. While most of the site has already been migrated to their new platform, there are a few pages that are currently only accessible through archived versions. This includes Newslaundry's About Us page, which includes a list of Newslaundry's staff and a list of Newslaundry's owners (with percentage ownership specified for each owner). This transparency reflects favorably on Newslaundry, and I expect to see the editorial policy when the site finishes migrating to the Quintype platform. — Newslinger talk 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Newslinger and others. I'm impressed by the apparent transparency (website transition confusion not withstanding) and their response to Liz. My only comment is that it might be, perhaps, that we should take any news items towards OpIndia (and similar sites) with a grain of salt per the concerns about an apparent on-going spat. Waggie (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable Do they have any Editorial Policy? Half baked stories with facts missing in most of there reporting, completely biased source. Santoshdts (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable They don't have a well defined editorial policy. The news reporting is mixed with biased opinions. They generally lampoon and criticises other media sources. There is a clear lack of objectivity. They have also published fake news in the past.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have a reliable source to back up the "fake news" claim? — Newslinger talk 06:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  They published a news story on the President of India, which was denied by the President's office. Newslaundry is not important enough to be covered by other reliable media portals. There are a few sites like these which are engaged in trashing each other online based on ideological differences, they publish hit-pieces on each other at random intervals, their editors and reporters fight on twitter. There's a clear lack of objectivity.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Your comment strikes a false balance between Newslaundry and the near-unanimously condemned OpIndia, and excuses OpIndia's unreliability as "ideological differences". Unlike OpIndia, Newslaundry corrects or retracts all of its stories that need doing so. — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per Newslinger. Note also that many comments above include uncited allegations. Daask (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Published editorial policy

Per WP:NEWSORG news organizations do not have to have a published editorial policy. Thus, it looks like many of the above comments are irrelevant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

True they may not publish them, it does not say they do not have to have them. Thus any argument based upon "I have no idea what their editorial policies are" are valid, they may not be strong arguments but they are still valid. Our criteria is "has a reputation for fact checking", whilst no publishing editorial policy is not an indicator they fail this, the lack of one is a good indicator they may not have such a reputation. After all if I have no idea how they decide what to publish I cannot know it is fact checked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Acceptable for this, on the face of it: any caveats are addressed by the use of attribution. Guy (help!) 16:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Jewish Virtual Library

Is Jewish Virtual Library[1] a generally reliable source, across all the areas it covers? It is currently used on 985 pages throughout Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The summary at WP:RSPS states that "The Jewish Virtual Library is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and has no warnings about it being run by the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, a lobby group run by a former AIPAC media editor. It is also misrepresentative of the discussions in the WP:RSN archive and at Talk:Jewish Virtual Library, which point out both the propaganda-connections and that many of its articles were sourced originally from Wikipedia.

The entry at WP:RSPS has the "Stale discussions" label, as there has not been a discussion about this topic for a number of years. It was added here, four months ago, without discussion. I have deleted the entry for now subject to this discussion.[2] Pinging @Guarapiranga and ToThAc: who added the entry, for their comments.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Wikiproject notifications: [3],[4],[5],[6] on 16 April. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The source's organizational affiliations aside, I remember having some concerns about its accuracy when working on articles related to Jewish history a while back due to contradictions between it and more academic sources. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact examples, and I wasn't able to find them in a five minute search of likely parts of my editing history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I was able to find this evaluation of the source in Religious Studies Review written in 2006: Second, the Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org), managed by the American–IsraeliCooperative Enterprise, has an excellent range of articles andsources on Jewish history, Israel, Zionism, the Holocaust, Jewish religion, and a number of other topics. As its sponsor’s nameimplies, the Jewish Virtual Library represents a Zionist viewpoint.However, the vast majority of its secondary sources are reliableand written from a scholarly standpoint. The Jewish VirtualLibrary offers one of the best single sites on the Internet forJewish historical and cultural information. That's older than I'd like for evaluating an online source, but I think that based on this praise I would say generally reliable for Jewish history outside Israel/Palestine, evaluate case-by-case and use with attribution for claims related to Israel/Palestine while still maintaining our preference for secondary sources over tertiary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The "Myths and Facts" section of the Jewish Virtual Library is a list of strawmen and "rebuttals", entirely one-sided in a highly complex and disputed topic area. It reads like a set of AIPAC talking points. Most of the answers link to sections of Mitchell Bard's version of the book "Myths and Facts" (Bard heads the organization which runs the JVL). That book was reviewed in 2002 by Donald Neff as follows:[7]

The Arab-Israeli conflict is littered with propaganda masquerading as information. Both sides are active in this black art, where distorting the facts to one side’s favor is considered success. In general, Israel and its supporters have been more adept in this poisonous pursuit, mainly because of their wide media access in the United States. The latest edition of Myths and Facts, however, is not one of the better efforts by the pro-Israel side, mainly because it is less adroit than usual at twisting the facts to the benefit of Israel... The original Myths and Facts was published as a byproduct of the Near East Report, a pro-Israel newsletter begun in the 1950s by Si Kenen, a tireless propagandist for Israel. Out of Kenen’s propaganda work grew the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), today the most powerful Israeli lobby... The current version of Myths and Facts is curiously without specific mention of its debt to AIPAC, although it acknowledges the pioneering role of the Near East Report. This is hardly encouraging since the latter is a reliable source of myths but hardly of facts. Author Mitchell G. Bard is a former editor of the Near East Report and a coauthor of the 1992 edition of Myths and Facts... Bard is now executive director of yet another pro-Israel group, the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), founded in 1993. Among its seven board members are Bard, Arthur Bard, and Eli E. Hertz. Hertz left the Israel Defense Forces as a captain after seven years and moved to New York to found a technology company. He is listed as sponsor of the latest Myths and Facts and chairman of the board of AICE.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable they cite Wikipedia and iMDB as sources [8][9][10] and may copy directly from Wikipedia. That said I don't think that pro-Israel slant is a good reason to disqualify a source, accuracy is. buidhe 23:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, changing my assessment. If they're citing us then we can't use them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable: I've used the Jewish Virtual Library in the past for sources for topics unrelated (or not directly related) to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it just seems that it isn't a good source. It is not completely accurate and mostly cites other sources that can or should be accessed by Wikipedians who follow Wikipedia's policies. I stopped using it when I realized it cites Wikipedia sometimes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. The only occasion where I'd consider citing this source is when there is an article written by a named author who is an acknowledged expert. Even then I'd be super-careful since JVL is perfectly willing to alter the text. Once there was a discussion about using an article in JVL cited to Encyclopedia Judaica (a reliable source), but some of it I knew to be nonsense. So I consulted the original EJ article and found that JVL had silently inserted some rubbish sentences of their own into EJ's verbatim text. Regarding Myths and Facts, which is part of JVL, a review of an early edition in an academic journal (Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 16, No 3, p165) includes the lovely sentence "The reason this book is undocumented is because one cannot document lies." It is nearly always possible to consult the sources JVL cites directly, so we don't need the unreliable filtering. In the case that triggered this discussion, JVL provided 19th-century demographic figures but when I looked at the source I found that the information came from the Israeli government Press Office and the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. Zero^talk 01:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable given the above comments. And of course if we can't find another source, then WP:UNDUE comes into play. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable for IP area One has to wonder about "pre-state Israel (1517-1948)" which takes it a step further than mere bias, parroting propaganda. Imagine if WP everywhere changed Israel to "post-Palestine".Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable If they use us verbatim for even one article that means (to my mind) they are not an RS, as how does that demonstrate a reputation for fact checking? There are better sources they use, so lets use those.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The last RSN discussion I can remember concluded that, as JVL articles were of variable quality, some unsigned, some written by reputable authors, whether to cite them or not should be decided on a case-by-case basis. That seemed sensible. Contrary to the entry on RSPS, the JVL has no obvious process, such as peer review, for fact-checking. My guess is that there's not much evidence for objectively measuring its reputation for accuracy. The decision to remove the RSPS entry looks reasonable to me. Do we actually need a new RSN discussion on the JVL?     ←   ZScarpia   11:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the JVL articles cited by four Wikipedia articles from among the first returned search results, they all have similar problems: no author is given; the contents don't cite sources; better sources for those articles should have been available. The Wikipedia articles were: Nazi human experimenting (which cites the JVL Nazi Medical Experiments: Freezing Experiments article [also the Documents regarding Nazi medical experiments article, which may be regarded as a collection of copies of primary sources]); Jesus (which cites the JVL Jesus article); Timeline of the Holocause (which cites the JVL Wilhelm Marr and History and overview of Aushwitz-Birkenau articles, among many others); Sweden (which cites the JVL Raoul Wallenberg article).     ←   ZScarpia   17:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• This does look problematic, per the information above. We should move it to a no-consensus statement ASAP, I think, and perhaps review it more thoroughly. Guy (help!) 11:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not Reliable I don't (and won't) edit in the IP area since it is all just politics. I wouldn't (and have not) use JVL in my Jewish history area editing. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Contextual reliability The New York Times used the site in a 2019 discussion on settlements in the West Bank and to source biographical details based on an interview with the site for a 2016 obituary. These are some of the most sensitive areas discussed here (bios and IP), so WP:USEBYOTHERS seems to imply at least some use based on authorship and article quality. Similarly, CNN used JVL to source biographical statements about Israeli officials in a 2002 article, Slate recommends this page as a good source of information on postwar interstate agreements, and Reuters cites it in a 2008 article on a Jewish ambassador to Bahrain. The source seems to be used infrequently, but widely. I agree that lots of its pages are terrible, of course, but it seems like a blanket statement is a step too far based upon its support in other contexts. Jlevi (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. How is WP:USEBYOTHERS measured? I could bring multiple equivalent references from reputable news agencies linking to Breitbart, Daily Mail, and even Wikipedia itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Use by other reliable sources is one factor that is considered when evaluating a source's reliability. This factor carries more weight for less popular sources (e.g. a non-notable publication with a small editorial team), and less weight for major publications (whose articles receive comment from reliable sources due to the publication's popularity). The context of the use is also important: coverage of the publication's content (e.g. this article on InfoWars's media bias chart) does not count as WP:UBO. I consider WP:UBO a minor factor compared to what reliable sources say about the publication's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. However, for smaller or less controversial publications with little to no direct coverage in reliable sources, WP:UBO may be the only data points available, and that would be sufficient to justify the publication's use on Wikipedia. Self-published sources and user-generated content (including Wikipedia) are unacceptable in most cases regardless of WP:UBO.

Looking at the provided links, "A Look at the West Bank Area Netanyahu Vowed to Annex" is a weak case of WP:UBO, since the article frames the statment as something the JVL said: "The Jewish Virtual Library, a website run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, said that...". "Doris Roberts, Mother on ‘Everybody Loves Raymond,’ Dies at 90" does not count as WP:UBO, since the article treats the JVL as a primary source: "She made this plain in a Jewish Virtual Library interview". But, "Sources: Sharon taps new defense minister" and "Bahrain picks Jew as U.S. envoy, local media critical" do count, because they use "according to the Jewish Virtual Library"; "according to [publication]" is the one of the best indicators of WP:UBO if used as an attribution of a straightforward assertion, and not in a context that portrays the publication negatively. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

In the current language of the RfC, I agree that this source is Not reliable in general. I add these uses above in large part because I have not seen this point included yet, and it seems worthwhile to consider. Jlevi (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. JVL is a propaganda tool with a clear agenda to falsify history and reality. It was created by the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise: [11]. JVL has several maps showing the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as being "Israel", see pages 65, 74 and 77:[12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• One man band: despite our puff-piece articles on the Jewish Virtual Library and the grandly named "American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise", both of which are replete with WP:ABOUTSELF references, I have found no detailed information on this organization from third party sources. So I looked up the AICE tax filings (here for 2018 and 2017). In 2018 they had revenues of $196 thousand dollars (p.1), of which $164 thousand went straight to pay Mitchell Bard (p7) and $23 thousand went to "occupancy" (p.10, which presumably is for the usage of his home-office). The Vice President/Secretary is Mitchell Bard's son, Arthur (last page). The 2017 report also includes a section explaining the Jewish Virtual Library, which states: "THE JVL ALSO INCORPORATES OUR PUBLICATION, MYTHS AND FACTS: A GUIDE TO THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT, AN ESSENTIAL RESOURCE FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THE DISPUTE, KNOWN AS THE PRO-ISRAEL ACTIVIST'S "BIBLE". THE JVL ALSO INCLUDES MATERIAL FROM OUR STOPBDS.COM SITE THAT PROVIDES VITAL INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND, RESPOND AND COMBAT THE CAMPAIGN TO BOYCOTT AND DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A bit of a digression, but looking at WP's article on the JVL, there's a fairly horrible bit of original research in the Reception section, where it's claimed that the JVL is "regularly cited" by various sources. To try to justify the claim, it links to webpages in some of the listed sources. The one for the BBC appears to be from a member of the BBC Club in the Compton Road Library section of that part of the website. The information taken from the JVL is in a 'Facts' sidebox above which is a warning that, "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites." It then goes on to make the same kind of claim for its being "listed as reference" by a number of universities. The "reference" listed by Purdue University is an inclusion of a virtual tour of Prague in an Internet Resources section.

Returning to the main point, there are probably many articles in the JVL whose contents are not touched by the controversies of the the IP conflict. For those that are, there is an underlying problem of how to edit neutrally in Wikipedia when much of the source material is politicised, sectarian and affected by denialism, falsification, omission, misrepresentation and distortion. The problem then is that you're dealing with different narratives of which the JVL is transmitting one.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would be hesitant to delist something that is being used in a content dispute in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area and note that delisting it would add more bias to articles in that area. I would also ask people to note that many people here have no problems with using Applied_Research_Institute–Jerusalem in the same IP area. People are also conflating subjects in the general Jewish area and in the IP area. I think a distinction can be made. We should not remove this resource from the encyclopedia merely because people don't like it in one area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have an image in my head of this one guy behind AICE/JVL sitting at his home-office in his pajamas occasionally updating an entry or writing a new one. It seems to, in practice, be a glorified blog. Sure he occasionally gets credible writers to write attributed articles, but even then who fact-checks them? This guy is an expert in public relations advocacy and nothing else. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Self published in addition to there being no fact-checking process (since it is a one-man website), it turns out that JVL is also an WP:RS/SPS. The book that is incorporated into the JVL, "Myths and Facts", is published by CreateSpace. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is clearly false. - [13] JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also found that impressive at first. But the "Board of Directors" are paid zero (per the tax return) so likely don't do much (that may be ok for a real charity, but given the amount Bard is paying himself it seems unlikely they would do meaningful work pro bono), the "Advisory Board" are wealthy people who donated, and the "Honorary Committee" look like a list of political types that Bard knew from his time at AIPAC. In summary it is clear that none of these people do any work, there is no office or similar – i.e. as mentioned above this is just a glorified blog. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Onceinawhile, I see that you've converted this discussion into a request for comment. RfCs are more restrictive than ordinary discussions on how the initial comment should be worded. Could you please add a signed "neutral and brief" statement immediately below the {{rfc}} template to meet WP:RFCBRIEF? — Newslinger talk 12:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger I have done so. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thank you. — Newslinger talk 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I oppose this people when commented didn't now this an RFC.If someone want to start an RFC it should start a new discussion Shrike (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shrike, I don't think this is an issue since an RfC extends the discussion to a minimum of 30 days, and neutrally publicizes it through the feedback request service. In the past, discussions on this noticeboard have been upgraded to RfCs once they turned out to be more controversial than initially expected, to attract participation from a wider section of the community. If there is consensus here to downgrade the RfC back to an ordinary discussion, it can be done. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Sir Joseph.The JVL is valuable source but like any source that may have some slant should be used with care..No one yet proved any proof of unreliablity. And the fact it used by multiple scholarly papers as source [14] and this our sign of reliability as per WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable in large parts, though some things it can be used as a convenience link for when they have copies of hard to find documents. But things like Myths and Facts is straight up propaganda and the articles that cite and or duplicate Wikipedia show the generally low quality of much of the material on the website. nableezy - 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable - Per nableezy's rationale. NickCT (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable: frequently uses Wikipedia as a source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable: If they are (whomever "they" are) citing Wikipedia, there's clearly an issue with the reliability of such a source, regardless of use by others. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly not reliable. Using Wikipedia ss a source is a red flag. Not seeing it cited much n my quick glance at Scholar/Books. I think in some cases it may be used with due care as a PRIMARY source, and I think it may host copies(?) of some possibly, and I stress, poissbly (I need to look into this further) reliable articles ([15]), but those uses would be an exception to the rule. PS. On second thought, I am not sure JVL has permission to even reprint that article, so even its use as a mirror might be problematic due to a possible copyvio angle.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable, at least not for anything concerning Palestine/Palestinians (It might be reliable for things concerning Judaism.) Take the Deir Yassin massacre, which becomes "The capture of Deir Yassin": a total white-wash which ends with: "References to Deir Yassin have remained a staple of anti-Israel propaganda for decades because the incident was unique." (My bolding)

That is simply complete bulls..t. There were several other massacres, some larger that Deir Yassin (see eg Al-Dawayima massacre); what was unique about the Deir Yassin massacre was that it was the most publicised of the massacres, Huldra (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable any site that duplicates content from Wikipedia can't be considered reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 14:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: many articles at JVL come from Encyclopedia Judaica. (On a talk page, I recently mentioned their page on arenda which is much better than anything on *.wp on the subject). I have trouble seeing why using that link would be a problem. As with most of these blanket pronouncements, I fear that "we" are tossing the baby out of the pram with the toys sometimes. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable and deprecate per above. Daask (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I find it alarming that neither the articles for Jewish Virtual Library nor American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise mention any negative reception for the JVL, such as the review by Donald Neff linked earlier in the discussion above. The JVL article at least has many positive sources in the "Reception" section, I don't see why it can't have criticism as well, but unfortunately I don't have access to JSTOR nor any other repositories for journals and articles of the sort, which makes finding sources challenging. Sorry if this doesn't belong in this discussion, FWIW I also support the view that it's not generally reliable and any current articles citing the domain should be reviewed and/or removed. Nanophosis (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Burden of proof for disputed

Where a source has been appropriately tagged in good faith as disputed, e.g. using {{sps}}, {{dubious}}, {{better}}, on whom does the onus fall? Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

1. On those seeking to include the source, to show that it is reliable as used, per WP:ONUS;
2. On those seeking to remove the source, to show it is unreliable, per WP:PRESERVE.

Opinions (burden of proof)

• 1, because anything else is a POV-pusher's charter. Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1, since WP:PRESERVE depends on WP:ONUS. WP:PRESERVE states that:

Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

The words "would belong" link to WP:ONUS, and WP:ONUS is part of the verifiability policy. WP:ONUS takes precedence over WP:PRESERVE regardless of cleanup tags, so the cleanup tags aren't really relevant here. — Newslinger talk 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• 3. Neither, because this is a false dilemma that attempts to misrepresent/strawman the actual issue, as several editors have raised in the discussion section. No one is arguing with JzG about the purported subject of this RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• It depends, as we have had cases of editors in the past that have mass-tagged with these types of labels which have been shown where the tagging is wrong. Where there is consensus that the tag applies, then the onus does fall on those that which to retain the source and/or information to ultimately deal with it, though the process of how that happens depends on numerous factors. So it's not a simply-answered question here. --Masem (t) 13:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1 - this is a rather straightforward application of existing policy, as Newslinger points out. A converse rule also faces the problem of proving a negative. Neutrality^talk 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1 - WP:BURDEN is policy, the countervailing claims aren't. This is straightforward application of fundamental Wikipedia editing policy. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to do the reading - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1: I just took the time to carefully read all of the linked policy/guideline pages (always a good thing to do when one is already pretty sure what they say) and choice 1 is indeed a a rather straightforward application of existing policy. Plus, the person posting it is named "Guy" which I am sure everyone will agree^{[Citation Needed]} is always a big plus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1 per Newslinger and others, and per WP:BURDEN and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Also, it's better for Wikipedia to not say a thing than to say a false thing, which is why we insist on reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1: WP:ONUS's statement that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content is a clear unqualified statement.
  On the other hand, WP:PRESERVE's statement is qualified by if they meet the three article content retention policies, which is predicated on demonstrating that the material indeed completely satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Whether a claim that the material satisfies those policies is assessed, naturally, by consensus. Once consensus determines that these are satisfied, then the content should be preserved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• 1, unless the source appears in green on the list of perennial sources. If there is already consensus about the source’s reliability then all that editor needs to do is note that consensus (perhaps in the edit summary of a revert) and the onus transfers to the challenger. I’ve seen instances in which the reliability of a source like the NYT or Telegraph is questioned on the talk page and the challenger actually expects to be taken seriously, there is a limit to onus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not a valid question as posed, are we talking about new or long standing content? Is the tag in dispute? I agree with The Drover's Wife that this isn't a valid A/B question and with Masem's thinking. Certainly if something fails V then it can be removed. However, if a difference citation that passes V is found then we should treat that content the same way we would any other reliably sourced material (sink or swim based on WEIGHT, CONSENSUS etc) and if it was long standing content it should be assumed to have consensus for inclusion. What if the tag is in dispute? If there is no consensus on the validity of the tag then I think we follow the same rules as consensus, that is lack of consensus means keep as is. Else editors could game the system by tagging the sources that support content they don't like as suspect and use that as reason to remove long standing text. So while #1 is the correct answer in many cases it is not the correct answer in all cases. Springee (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (burden of proof)

This is one of two interlinked issues above - they need to be picked apart. This is my attempt to distil the central point The Drover's Wife is making, which seems to me to be a valid question. Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not, in any way, the point I was making. You've got a bad habit of deliberately misrepresenting the explicit points your critics make so you can shoot down your own straw-Wikipedian. As I said below: this is a false dilemma, because sources being tagged as self-published does not mean they're being tagged as "disputed", they're being tagged as self-published, and we have specific guidance as to what to do in those situations in WP:SPS. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding self-published sources, you need to propose an RfC to change those - not to engage in this bizarre attempt at wordplay circumvention where you claim all self-published sources are "disputed", therefore allowing you to ignore existing guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma? If the problem is serious enough, the whole text being referenced should be removed, not just the source. --MarioGom (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a false dilemma for a different reason - the addition of a tag to an article does not necessarily imply a substantive dispute about the article's content. Quite a bit of tag-bombing is gratuitous IMO and represents one editor's ideosyncratic opinion rather than an actual dispute. So I would say that content isn't "disputed" unless there is a Talk page discussion underway, in which case BRD, BLPDELETERESTORE and ONUS would be among the competing principles at play. Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma, as for the others. A source being tagged as self-published means that it has been tagged as self-published, not that it has been tagged as "disputed" or "unreliable", and so Wikipedia has always provided the guidance in WP:SPS as to what to do in those situations. JzG evidently disagrees with WP:SPS, so he's been trying to turn this into a burden of proof issue to allow him to sidestep that guidance. He doesn't have to show that it's unreliable, he just has to follow Wikipedia's existing guidelines regarding what self-published sources are appropriate and when even if he doesn't want to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not rehash this again in a new thread?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with closing this WP:POINT nonsense and sparing the rehash, yes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point you are involved, and that we not be appropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I said I was good with closing it, not that I would do it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know the context this arose from (update: what I get for looking at most recent first -- reading through the other discussion now; in any case, it doesn't affect what I write here), but my thoughts are similar to Newimpartial's here. It's unclear what the implications of this RfC would be. Is a tag considered valid by default? Is the burden on the tagger to present an argument first? Is this about tagging, removal of tags, removal of sources, removal of sourced content, etc.? Why is this based on tagging at all? What difference does that make to a challenged source? Ultimately, WP:PRESERVE is a good idea to keep in mind, but doesn't trump WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN when material/sources are challenged, but I don't think there's any neat way to frame that in an RfC given the amount of gray area there is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this might be better if rather than this we had a discussion (maybe at village pump) about having a clearer definition of when to use SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am OK with that as well. But there are different kinds of SPS. Blogs, vanity presses and predatory journals are all kinds of SPS. Guy (help!) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

True, but the issue is not "is it an SPS" but "can we uses this SPS". So either the tag "SPS" must mean its a dodgy SPS or it just means its an SPS. What we need is clarity on what the tag is for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF between them cover just about any situation in which I'd think it logical to use an SPS, and both of them are plenty specific - I'm not convinced that we'd be even having this discussion if JzG (and anyone else in that boat) just read the damn policies and acknowledged that they understand that they exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

just read the damn policies Your assertion that he literally hasn't is frankly bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, well, to be fair, they do get edited over time, and not always by people looking to retrospectively make their edits compliant. Guy (help!) 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole crux of this dispute (at least the portion of it that I'm involved in) involves JzG removing self-published sources that are compliant with WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. It is impossible to resolve it if neither if you will acknowledge that they exist and engage in any way with why you are not following them. There would be no point having this noticeboard at all if everyone responded in every case "I refuse to engage with the existing written consensus guidance on this source or group of source, I argue that it's unreliable anyway and demand that you prove me wrong", which is what the various responses amount to an attempt to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, {{citation needed}} Guy (help!) 23:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is saying SPS can never, ever be used. Just that those who want to use it have the burden of demonstrating why it can be and getting consensus for it. Concerns over tag bombing seem irrelevant because the tag is really a side issue - SPS are SPS regardless of tagging. Just because one can tag an SPS instead of removing them does not imply that SPS should be left in place - material can be tagged as unsourced or OR as well, but the same material can also be removed per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. Tag vs. removal is optional based on whether you think the content may be reliably sourceable/due and that someone else may find a source. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have in/out policies in this area: WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, both of which are long-accepted. Refusing to acknowledge that those policies exist and claiming that there's a "burden" of convincing a random editor that they should have to follow said policy is a stance that, if adopted more broadly, would make this entire noticeboard essentially moot: why bother establishing clear guidelines on the usage of sources if they can be ignored on a whim when someone disagrees with them? The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If a self-published source can be shown to be written by a subject-matter expert, or if the use of the self-published source can be shown to qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, then WP:BURDEN is satisfied. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Florida Bulldog reliable?

Is the Florida Bulldog online news outlet reliable for Biographies of Living Persons or other topics?
ToeFungii (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Florida Bulldog is an online news outlet that focuses on investigative reports according to its mission statement (See Here).
• Began as a county reporter in 2009 and starting in 2015 began covering South Florida news.
• Reported extensively, including FOIA lawsuits, regarding 9/11 (although not used on any Wikipedia 9/11 articles).
• Has: published conflict of interest policies, a full-time editor, a Board of Directors, a Board of Advisors, and a donor list; a 501C3 operation that does not post its IRS Form 990s.
• The exact size of its staff and their level of employment is difficult to determine.

Note: The primary reason this source is being listed is due to content on Gregory Tony. The Bulldog published an unfavorable article about Mr. Tony who contradicted statements in a traditional & online newspaper, the Sun-Sentinel.
The two articles are: Bulldog article | Sun-Sentinel article.

Comments
Well its does seem to have a clear line between editor and writer, but I note a disturbing obsession with 11/9. I would need to see that have a good reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Not exactly answering the question, but does he even merit an article? not sure what category Sheriffs fall under to check the notability requirements. Certainly doesn't show WP:GNG at present - its a BLP, with only two references! Curdle (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• That seems to be wrong Sun-Sentinel link posted above. The Sun Sentinel article discusses the Florida Bulldog article for what it's worth.[16]. Not only this, the underlying decades old Philadelphia Daily News news story about the shooting is discussed here.[17] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Biased - The Bulldog appears to be similar to the Washington Examiner and Times in that it leans/slants its reporting. In looking through the Bulldog's staff, directors, and advisors they all appear to lean a particular political way based on past position (incl elected/appointed) and donations. Its historically top donor is Michael Connelly who according to the FEC has donated frequently to liberal/Democrat candidates and organizations (he's donated over $40,000 per year since 2014 and over $10,000 since the site began.). See donors and FEC Contributions, but others are also liberal/Democrat contributors. So while it has a better structure than a blog, it has a definite political viewpoint that is expressed in its articles. Also the Bulldog's biggest claim to fame is its 9/11 reporting as it devotes a significant portion of its site to it, but none of its reporting is used as a cite here on Wikipedia.

For the article in question, Tony was appointed by a Rep, so even though he is a Dem, he's not the chosen Dem. The Bulldog article never lists its story sources, and it's since been picked up by other news outlets. If Tony had in fact been charged, there would be a paper trail and it's never sourced in any article. Tony can't prove a negative, ie he wasn't charged, so all he can do is make statements. as proposer ToeFungii (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment responses to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Gregory Tony also discuss the Bulldog's reliability. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about The Daily Mail)

• Daily Mail fakes own historical front pages --Guy Macon (talk)

Quote from WP:DAILYMAIL: "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically"

We need to modify our handling of old pages from The Daily Mail to say that care must be taken to cite the original historical material and watch out for modern, edited versions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Christ on a stick, what is wrong with them? This is exactly why some of us do not think the "discouragement" goes far enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly suggest removing the text "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context" from WP:RSP, or cautioning also that they literally fake their own historical articles. Never trust the DM - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Instead of using their own historical material, they took the trouble to invent fakes that look "old-timey" (and they buried a vaguely-worded disclaimer four pages down). Do they think that slightly yellowed images won't bring in the clicks? Is fabrication simply their instinctive course of action? In any case, I support David Gerard's suggestion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I could formulate a rewording ... but idiots try to drive trucks through anything that looks like an exception. So I'd suggest this behaviour is egregious enough to remove the sentence. If people want to argue it case by case they can show they went to a microfilm archive or something, 'cos we literally can't trust the online version or reprints not to make stuff up - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be my take, There are archive versions not held by the Daily Myth. Thus any use if the DM must be independent of the DM.Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, in this case BoingBoing seems to be insinuating that the Mail may have been trying to make themselves look less pro-Nazi, so there is a motive beyond a contempt for journalistic integrity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair it looks more like a case of "our readers are so shallow they cannot understand anything not couched in modern terms and style". What I do not understand is why bother to make so much effort to create a "Fakesimalie". They could have done a "Yay for us 70 years ago" without "faking" a front page so totally (such as "for King and Empire").Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove wording. This is yet another reason why we cannot trust this source. buidhe 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.[18] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would rather this had been given more time for wider feedback, not that I disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am tempted to revert that for 2 main reasons: 1. The inclusion there is the result of two RFC's. The wording is a summary of those RFC outcomes. By changing the wording fundementally in that manner, it no longer reflects the RFC. What that change does is prohibit (at least that is what it will be taken to do) all uses of Daily Mail historical material. It certainly needs a bigger discussion than the brief one here. 2. Its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Daily Mail despite its more recent faults has plenty of decent reporting over the decades previous. We cite the original publication, not The Daily Mail's reworked version of it. A more appropriate response would be adding wording to ensure the material cited has been verified from copies of the orignal. We take it on good faith anyway that written sources we dont have access to say what the editor says they do, and any editor using this as an excuse to misrepresent sources would be rumbled pretty quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would we rather used a nuclear bomb over such blatant crappyness, but I get your point, and said as much myself early on. Yes I would rather you reverted and this was made a formal RFC to overturn the last two.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See [19].

Looks like I need to start a new Daily Mail RfC in order to make any changes to the Daily mail entry in the perennial sources list. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See below - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So we are using a situation source (Boing Boing) to determine the RSP entry of the Daily Mail, that seems rather odd. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It would if that were an accurate summary of the above. Fortunately, it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That is an accurate summary of the above and additionally there's no proof. According to a source as good as boingboing.net The Times (apparently the May 2 1945 New York Times is meant) said "London newspapers received the announcement of Hitler's death just as the early editions were going to press but the second editions went 'all-out' on the news, with long obituaries of Hitler and biographical sketches of Doenitz ...". Thus the copy with the label "4A.M. Edition" might well greatly differ from what ends up in archives, and layout might greatly differ too if the early-morning audience was more inclined to visuals. The boingboing.net accusation is far more plausible but in the absence of a reliable source, or a copy of a "4A.M. edition" that differs from the picture, it's not established fact. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The term for it is historical negationism which has an illustrious history of practitioners. It is beyond the pale given it is an attempt to rewrite their own history as Nazi sympathizers. -- GreenC 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary

The WP:RSP summary on the Daily Mail includes the sentence "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". However, the Daily Mail also presents altered versions of its historical content, as documented above. (At the bottom of the altered content was a small single-sentence disclaimer noting it had been "specially edited and adapted" - which was not noticed by many members of the general public.) This leaves readily available historical versions of Daily Mail content questionable - as well as its untrustworthiness per the 2017 WP:DAILYMAIL RFC and its 2019 ratification, the site dailymail.co.uk appears not to be trustworthy about the Daily Mail's own past content.

Suggested options:

1. Remove the "reliable historically" sentence from the summary on WP:RSP
2. Add a qualifier: "Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail."
3. Do nothing
4. Something else

10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested action on WP:RSPDM

• Remove the sentence - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as the material they did publish might be reliable, they are just not reliable for having published it. But if it is reliable someone else would have written about it. Thus (and given the possibly of accidental or deliberate abuse) I have to change to remove, if they cannot be trusted over what they themselves have published they cannot be trusted over anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per David Gerard's reasoning below. As a secondary consideration, we should be discoraging use of historical newspaper sources anyway. buidhe 10:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove, with the caveat that the print edition may pass, so a print archive might be acceptable? Guy (help!) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So (in essence) remove and add qualifier?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't even add suggested ways to use the DM, they'll be taken as blanket permissions - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look likely to pass, but an official WP consensus opinion that dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source for the content of the Daily Mail would certainly be interesting - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the qualifier, per Slatersteven, and also the notion that these sort of qualifiers confuse the situation. --Jayron32 14:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier (though perhaps not needed as obvious). If the dailymail is unreliable, that may extend to their own historical content. But if you pull a dailymail piece off a microfilm archive or online archives not run by the mail ([20], [21]) then there shouldn't be any problem in that regard.--Hippeus (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the best answer is [A] just remove all mention of historical from the Daily mail entry of RSPDM, and [B] have the closing summary of the RfC you are reading now specifically mention that a microfilm archive or online archives not run by The Daily Mail is as good or as bad as the source where you read it. Having this subtlety in the RSPDM will indeed lead to misuse. Having it in the RfC closing summary will allow any editor to use the historical page (assuming that her local library's microfilm collection or www.historic-newspapers.co.uk are reliable sources for what was printed all of those years ago; if some other source starts faking historical newspaper pages we will deal with that specific source in the usual way). So I !vote Remove. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC I will not say "support" or "oppose" because that might suggest respect for the WP:RSP essay-class page, which I do not have. It is in fact quite easy to see document images for back copies of the Daily Mail via Gale. (I did so for the May 2 1945 front page via my local library site for free, I assume that others have good library sites too.) WP:DAILYMAIL makes it clear that editors have a right to use such material in some circumstances, regardless what people say in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove the sentence, and add a statement that historical content on dailymail.co.uk may have been significantly modified from its original version. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier It is possible to trust archives that were archived by trusted sources such as a national library, at the time of publication. Trustworthy archives exist as evidenced by the original BoingBoing post that found the original. -- GreenC 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Something else - Clarify, do not make false statements. PRESERVE the indication of where there is good content of Daily Mail. I do not see support given re their current print about history, but if you need precision that the good is historical items not current items about history, it should per WP:BATHWATER clarify the good is older published work. These might not be readily available elsewhere, as there simply isn’t much historical sources, and if the guide indicates the previously acknowledged good data is bad, then it’s just a case of the guide is giving false information. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is certainly good content from the Daily Mail... but there is no indication of which content that is. The OP didn't point out the old content is good, but that it cannot be trusted. They aren't going to put warnings on their stories saying, "This content is okay, the rest is a bit dodgy." It's just not going to happen. This is how these papers compete with each other. They wind up people who otherwise like to believe they don't want to be informed about reality, but warned about reality. They aren't worried about Wikipedia. They are worried about Facebook and Twitter. It feels like they are being thrown out. They aren't even here. They've little to no interest in what this site represents. They just want to make a splash in the pond, not write an encyclopaedia. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Add the reality, or what is the point? Anything less is just covering it up more. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:RSPDM

I think we should just remove the sentence. It's ill-defined and not well supported in the RFCs themselves - when, precisely, was the DM not terrible? By what measure? - and IMO, encrusting a qualifier with further qualifiers is not clear. And qualifiers have historically been used by editors who want to use bad content as an excuse to add otherwise-unusable content - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that there are things they are notable for (such as the photo of St Pauls), but then if its notable others would have noted it, we don't need to use the (well this) Daily Myth).Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If the result here is "Remove", it would probably also make sense to include an explanation that prevents this from being interpreted as contradicting the original conclusions. Maybe something like, "The original WP:DAILYMAIL RfC left open the possibility that it may have been more reliable historically, but a subsequent RfC [link to this discussion] determined..." Sunrise (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

certainly - it'll be linked as a third listed RFC, link it from WP:DAILYMAIL which is the 2017 RFC ... there will be various sensible ways to handle it. The present text has been modified in uncontroversial ways before, e.g. I noted other "dailymail" domains which aren't the DM, and dailymail.com used to be a proper newspaper, the Charleston Daily Mail, which is in fact used as a source in Wikipedia, before the DM bought it from them - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

certainly not - that would modify the closed and archived WP:DAILYMAIL RfC even though the subject here (read the topic, read the questions) is not about that, and even if it were it would not be legitimate here. If you want to overturn what the closers concluded in WP:DAILYMAIL your recourse is WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:RSPDM in general is not as well written as it could be, and undermines itself in significant ways. In particular, it does not cite its sources or attempt to justify its objections. In order to find those sources we are presumably expected to trawl through a total of 45 separate discussions.

The Daily Mail is a well-established newspaper with relatively wide circulation. It is well known that it is biased, and it is also well-known to be disliked by precisely the sort of demographic that (one would assume) would edit Wikipedia. Given the zeal with which the DM is removed, it is quite easy for someone not intimately involved in the debate to conclude that the issue is not so much that the DM is unreliable, but that editors who denounce it do so for POV reasons. Particularly when the text being removed is something inherently subjective (e.g. a movie review) or where it is used as an example with explicit attribution (e.g. in a section on press coverage of an event).

It might therefore be useful to augment WP:RSPDM and WP:DAILYMAIL with a new essay, putting the reasons for our attitude to the DM and giving appropriate examples so that editors less familiar with the history can catch up and understand why it is being removed. Kahastok talk 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. The DM has similar politics to the Times and the Telegraph, but - and this is the key point - those behave rather more like papers of record that aren't given to fabrication.

The primary objection that Wikipedia-type people have to the DM is that they are repeated, habitual liars who make stuff up, and are extensively documented as doing so. Do you really not understand that that's the problem? - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it's probably too much to expect you to actually read what I wrote before writing an abusive response. Kahastok talk 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems just silly, RSP is lazy and obviously a blanket statement will be sometimes flawed by giving false conclusions. Instead of examining specifics of an item in context per RS, or dealing with Mail had some bits accepted as RS, this just further pursues the false dichotomy of everything published by X is bad in every way or everything published by X is perfect in every way. Silly. The real question should be at what point are we to just ignore the WP:RSP supplement entry in favor of using the senior guidance WP:RS and/or get actual specific judgement of WP:RSN instead ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional RfC Question: Under what conditions can we trust The Daily Mail?

(Background discussion moved from section above. See below for the actual additional RfC question)

Let's talk about the basic error in thinking that led us here. Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that:

• The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote,
• wouldn't fabricate an interview,
• wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words,
• wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name,
• wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine,
• wouldn't lie about material being original and not plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait,
• etc., etc.

Those who "just know" that there are times when the Daily Mail isn't lying expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation. Last week I had no idea that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages but I knew from experience that they lie in all situations. Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation. I am getting sick and tired of playing Whac-A-Mole. At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You will of course believe that this is precisely a problem I keep hitting in DM removals. "Surely it's reliable for his words!" No, why would you think that, it's the DM - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the above, I propose the following:

There are no situations where the post-1960 Daily Mail is reliable for anything. See below for claims about itself.

• If TDM publishes an interview, that does not establish that the interview happened or even that the person interviewed or the person doing the interviewing actually exists.
• If TDM publishes material under a byline, that does not establish that the person named wrote it, even if the person s famous or a paid TDM contributor. TDM can and will fabricate any material and publish it under any byline.
• If TDM publishes material, that does not establish that TDM has the right to publish it or that it was not plagiarized from another publication. All material published by TDM should be treated as a possible copyright violation.
• If TDM plagiarizes material from another publication, that does not establish that TDM did not edit it, introducing false information.
• Regarding using TDM as a source about itself, we can write "On [Date] The Daily Mail wrote X", but we cannot use any internet page controlled by TDM as a source for that claim. TDM cannot be trusted to not silently edit pages it publishes without changing the date or indicating that the page was edited. We should instead cite the Internet Archive Wayback Machine snapshot for that page. For printed pages, we need to cite a source that TDM cannot modify, such as an independent online archive or a library's microfilm collection.
• (added on 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)) In particular, the dailymail.co.uk website must never be used as a citation for anything, including claims about the contents of the dailymail.co.uk website or the print version of The Daily Mail. We are not to assume that what we read on any dailymail.co.uk page is the same as what was there yesterday, nor are we to assume that the content will be the same tomorrow, nor are we to assume that there will be any indication that a page was edited. We also are not to assume that users in different locations or using different browsers will see the same content.
• Even in situations where we have yet to catch TDM publishing false information, TDM is not to be trusted.

Note: I picked post-1960 because 1960 was when David English started his career at TDM. If anyone has evidence of TDM fabricating material before then, we can change the cutoff date. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional RfC Question Discussion

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support As it is becoming clear that they cannot even really be trusted for their own opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• The "1960" date - or any other date, or possible or impossible excuse - will absolutely be taken as a green light for open slather on filling Wikipedia with DM cites - I base this claim on the spectacular examples of DM fans trying to find loopholes in the words "generally prohibited", including one earlier today who claimed that "generally prohibited" didn't mean completely prohibited, therefore his use was probably good.

So I would not support listing a date without strong support for the DM ever having been good at any previous time - that is, clear positive evidence, rather than a lack of negative evidence.

Examples of all the things they do would probably be good too.

I would also explicitly note that the dailymail.co.uk website (by name) literally cannot be trusted as a source for the contents of the Daily Mail, amazing as that sounds - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Point well taken. I just removed the "post-1960" wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I also added a paragraph covering the possibility of TDM serving up different content to different users. There are documented cases of e-commerce sites giving you a high price if you are using an iPhone and a low price if you are using Windows XP, higher for Beverly Hills and lower for Barstow, etc. It would be technically possible for TDM to serve up different content regarding, say, Brexit to UK, US, and EU readers, and really hard for us to detect them doing so. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

See below for what DM advocates are like in practice. I could do with backup here from those who can actually read policy - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support without the post-1960 wording - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support without the post-1960 wording, per above. Let's not waste any more time on this garbage source. buidhe 20:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • BTW, if people really want to get rid of DM references - talk on WP:RSN doesn't have any effect against dedicated DM warriors (and there really are dedicated DM warriors). The refs need to be got rid of, one edit at a time, and their removal defended (using literally our actual policies). This search is a good start - just start at the top and work down, judging usage and removing or replacing per the RFCs. If a few people even did ten a day, that would help improve Wikipedia greatly - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - please respect the seniority in guidance of RS and RSN, and a comment section within a RFC is not a valid RFC. What is in RSP is just some editors opinionating and phrasing, not necessarily a summary or strong consensus of views. If it was wrong in this case is just another example of such is imperfect and limited. I have always found the RSP idea simply too dogmatic and plainly a lazy and silly premise that there can be a perfect dichotomy of all-perfect or all-wrong that applies to all content of a publisher for all time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this unique to the DM?

Do other news sources do this? If so, we probably need to address it at the policy (WP:RS or WP:V) level. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ish, I seem to recall that mock newspapers are common enough, but something tells me they are rather more obvious about not being genuine. But yes I can see this may need to be more general.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We would have to find a source that [A] Is willing to lie about/fake anything at any time, and [B] has been around for over 100 years. Infowars will lie about anything but nobody is going to believe a claim that something was published by Infowars in 1917. The New York Times might say "we published X in 1917" but they haven't shown themselves to be willing to lie about anything and everything. As far as I can tell, there is only one source that fits both [A] and [B]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mmm, the NYT flaws are something RSP supposedly should note, (e.g. they have a thing on for Trump,) and RSP supposedly was/is to capture RSN discussions, not go off and try to evaluate 100 years of publishing where there is no article usage in question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Typically you'll see a scan or image and then the actual original text as text - you won't see the actual thing the DM did, which was to say in the headline:

Read history as it happened: Extraordinary Daily Mail pages from the day Adolf Hitler died 70 years ago this week

and then - as a tiny text box in the bottom right corner of the fourth cover image:

SPECIALLY adapted and edited from the original Daily Mail editions of May 2, 1945 and April 30, 1945

without even the original images. And with the text of the articles changed from the 1945 text.

If you wanted to claim this is something that other newspapers do, requiring a general solution, I think you'd need to first provide evidence of other papers doing this - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No this is totally not unique. If you are from the USA, hear this, people know in the UK and Ireland that the tabloids are sensationalist. Sensationalism is not a dirty word in the newspaper media over here. All national sized newspapers are openly biased in one way or another. The least sensational is the London Times (not the Irish Times, the Irish-only national papers are almost as bad as the British ones). This does not mean they are like the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. That is not what a tabloid is over here. The newspapers are all walking the sensationalist line over here. Like your TV news. Ours is the other way around. Our TV news is almost impeccable. Newspaper news used to feature a teenage girl with her boobs out every day. Get it. Understand. It's not a secret. Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed. Our newspapers are like, boobs out, SPLASH SHOCK EVERY SINGLE DAY HEADLINES, every single day. You can rely on them for daily gambling news. Newspapers here are the actual authority on that. One of the less popular daily tabloids, the Daily Sport, is nothing but gambling and boobs. There have been sitcoms about British tabloids since maybe forty years ago. They are not ashamed of what they are. It is simply what they are. ZOMG LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN CAN I HEAR THIS RIGHT???? Yes. Just like that. It has muted over the years, but it is still obvious. They run conflicting stories, they sensationalise, *they are often an important informative part of culture*... not simply nonsense like the Weekly World News, always based in fact... but that is as far as they can be surely trusted. If they say a bomb went off, you can be sure one went off... If they say the sky has fallen down, yes, get your umbrella out. Do they receive letters from Elvis on Pluto... no that is not what people are saying about them. Can you trust them to word and check facts as an impeccable source of information? No!! They are sensationalist. They actually try to walk the line between being honourable and being in court. They are not ashamed of that. They exhibit personality, bias, seriously... people do not respect them at all... people love them... You've watched or seen Japanese gameshows, and thought, maybe a lot of the Japanese are actually crazy, right? But RTG... how is newspaper culture supposed to compare to crazy Japanese gameshows??? Well... we can't do Jerry Springer and Oprah like you can... can we. It's like having a different accent. We stress different words. We have different attitudes about different individual things. Overall, it's pretty much the same insofar as it can be. It's like getting to know a different city. It might be north-south. It might be east-west, or it might be none of the above. ~ R.T.G 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Re "Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed", see [22] and [23]. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well you can't win them all, but the non-regional newspaper press defaults to popular sensationalism, not impeccable documentarianism. We rely on these sensationalist journals because they are popular and free on the internet, but they are off the cuff, and that is not what Wikipedia is trying to be. Good grief, did I delete the part where I pointed out that we have "newsagents" instead of "drugstores"? Newspapers are very useful to culture over here to inform people of incidents and events in the world around them, but they exist to sensationalise. ~ R.T.G 14:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User:RTG Agree, at least for recent history. Newspapers in the U.K. were more restrained and respectful before the 1970s. In the United States, for many years mentions have noted that television news switched to being entertainment and sensationalizing, and newspapers reliability and neutrality were in decline in the 1990s as another ‘death of truth’. Newspapers seem to largely be BIASED, going past individual specialties (e.g. Wall Street Journal covers business) into catering to their local market or playing to a subscriber audience. (e.g. NYT runs anti-Trump, Washington Examiner runs pro-Trump). In some ways that makes it easier for WP to find the POVs, but in general it is a WP issue as editors proclaim EVERYthing from NYT is not just RS but also TRUTH and WEIGHT because NYT said so — or proclaim EVERYthing from Mail is FALSE so not RS and large WEIGHT POVs get obliterated. Seems like 80% or so of what U.K. population sees is deemed non-existent right now. Unless it’s BBC or London Times, it just isn’t acknowledged to exist. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to be done about that. It seems maybe even dangerous, not to have any biases in media at all, and that is because the people themselves cannot be strictly trusted. The people themselves are no more worried about their information services building an encyclopaedia than the Daily Mail is. I struggle with it. What is the popular meme? Even if you tell the people the best thing to do they won't do it. Jimbo Wales has been trying to start a people-driven news service for years. The current iteration is https://wt.social/ ~ R.T.G 11:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted

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.

---

Problem at For Your Eyes Only (short story collection) - see reversion with dismissive edit summaries, ignoring obvious policy issues, and personal attacks on Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection). More eyes needed.

I'll flag more of these in this section as they come up - I assure you, this is an absolutely typical example of the genre: ignore all policy and guidelines, dive straight into the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior and stop with the outright lies. If you’d bothered to read the bloody message on the talk page, you’ll see that I said I would replace the source. Stop being such a dramah monger. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please desist in your personal attacks - these are a violation of the policy WP:NPA. I believe my claims are fully supported by the material in the history and on the talk page - you reverted against policy and strong consensus, and made personal attacks. You also responded to citation of policy with citation of essays. Have you considered following Wikipedia hard policy, such as WP:BURDEN? - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No personal attacks, and stop being so disruptive. I have said I will find a replacement in the morning (I first said it about 5 or 6 posts ago, but you've ignored it and kept disruptively pressing your point). Take your little crusade elsewhere until I've had the chance to look properly. It's 12:40am and I'm off to bed, but (for the nth time), I will look again in the morning. In the meantime, reflect that there are ways and means of doing things, and you are not doing things terribly well. - SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

www.dailymail.co.uk is not an acceptable source. You say you have a better source? Then use that source. Do not re-insert any citation to The Daily Mail. Also, please don't make obviously false claims like "No personal attacks" when 23 minutes earlier you posted a personal attack ("Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior... Stop being such a dramah monger.") --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

FFS... You really don't bother reading what people say, do you? "You say you have a better source?" I've not said that at all. On several occasions I have said that I will look for one,after a night's sleep. If you are looking for the best way to piss people off with your little crusade, you've found it: an inflexible approach of edit warring to instantly remove information that has been in place for several years, without allowing a few hours for that information to,be replaced? Get a fucking sense of perspective. As to the supposed PAs: I have given a fair description of your approach to this situation. Now back the fuck off for a few hours to allow for a search for a new source. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Or you know, you get a sense of perspective and re-read WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:CIVIL. Leave the unreliably sourced information out until you have reliable source to back it up. Like everywhere else on Wikipedia. The world will not end if those passages are missing from the article for a few hours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. SchroCat, I don't even need to leave this thread to see you ignoring policy and being combative and disruptive. Guy Macon clearly read what you wrote, he fucking quoted your personal attacks! If "dramah monger" really does fall under WP:SPADE, then it would be perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to suggest that you're the one starting the drama as if out of some sense of blind entitlement, and being a hypocrite in expecting others to give you a few hours to bring in a replacement source instead of just letting the page not have that information during that time. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• He obviously didn't read it, given what I've said, but if you want to back up a disruptive process by using personal attacks to call me a hypocrite with a "sense of blind entitlement". then I guess the blindness is thick on the ground here and the PAs are fine to throw around. As I said on the talk page, the information has been in the article for several years, and to a source that is not banned (and yes, Headbomb, the world will also not end if those passages remain in the article for a few hours while an alternative is sought - particularly as some was removed and some left with a cn tag - no logic there at all. And I'll let you strike your sentence saying the information was "unreliably sourced": it wasn't). I had acknowledged that I was going to look for an alternative source, and yet that still gives someone the right to edit war, rather than a few hours grace to find an alternative? Common sense has been replaced with the crusading zeal way too much. You lot have an apexcellent way of pissing people off by not bothering with common sense and choosing the most inflexible and disruptive path that inconveniences readers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I've struck the lie in the title: I am not an advocate for the Mail and never have been. I voted in favour of the ban of the source and I'm glad to see it being removed, but it's the manner and method of that removal that is disruptive. Find a different way to deal with it, rather than edit warring and then calling me a "DM advocate". (That also falls under NPA, but I don't expect anyone will bother with leaving stupidity messages to warn Gerard about civility with name calling). - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the 2017 RFC and 2019 RFC, I don't see you on either. Did you change usernames? - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This edit removed a reference to the Mail on Sunday. Has the Daily Mail ban been extended to the Mail on Sunday? While they have the same owner they are editorially distinct as far as I am aware. From what I recall of the discussion all the evidence of falsified stories/quotes related exclusively to The Daily Mail title and its online presence. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither WP:DAILYMAIL or WP:DAILYMAIL2 covered the Mail on Sunday and there has been no RfC since then that would mean the source is unsuitable. Nice to know the disapprobation of the above (not to say the edit warring and grief) has been over the illicit removal of information cited to a source that is not deprecated. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I've tweaked the title again to reflect the reality. - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat,

• Did you make this edit?[24]
• Did that edit add the source www.dailymail.co.uk?
• Did you also add "work=Daily Mail" in that same edit?
• Is www.dailymail.co.uk the URL for The Daily Mail?
• Did I revert you with this edit?[25]
• Was my edit summary in any way unclear?
• Did you then edit war to re-insert the source www.dailymail.co.uk?[26] again?

These are simple questions. You should be able to provide yes or no answers to each of them, but please do feel free to explain, in detail, why your edits actually added (and were reverted for adding) The Daily Mail] but you are now claiming[27][28]that they only added The Mail on Sunday? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Was this or this removing a banned source? Yes or no? Did this whole annoying mess start with the boundaries of WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DAILYMAIL2 being pushed to delete information removed from a legitimate source? Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source? These are simple questions. You should be able to provide answers to each of them.

And again, it comes down not just to the removal of information (some of which was removed illegitimately, some legitimately), but in the crass and inflexible way it was done. As the information has been there for over a decade, was it urgent that it was removed immediately, even after I had said I would look for an alternative after a night's sleep? Again, this is a simple question. You should be able to provide an answer for it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A less easy to answer question is how many illicit removals have been made of information sourced to the Mail on Sunday? I do hope that a concerted effort is made to replace the information that should not have been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Evasion noted. I will take your refusal to give a straight answer as an admission that in this edit[29] you did indeed insert a citation to The Daily Mail. Again, please stop claiming that you only added a citation to The Mail on Sunday.

Re "Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source?" First ONE REVERT IS NOT EDIT WARRING. Please retract your false accusation and apologize. Second, I am not required to carefully examine your edits and remove only those portions that violate Wikipedia policy. It is your responsibility to make edits that follow policy. If someone reverts an edit of yours that contains a policy violation along with other material, It is your job to create a new edit that only contains non-violating material. Instead you purposely re-inserted the citation to www.dailymail.co.uk -- a citation that you yourself admit is not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"One revert is not edit warring": yes it is, despite the shouty caps and bolding, if there has been a back-and-forth a couple of times and you join in, then you were as guilty of edit warring and me and Gerard. So no, no retraction, and certainly no apology. As you seem to be trying to avoid any responsibility for removing information cited to a legitimate source, there is little I can (or wish) to say or do. But you keep telling yourself you are perfect and I am the bad guy, if that's the way you want to go. You were in the wrong for some of these actions. Your evasion on the question of how much legitimate information has been removed is noted. No surprises. I'm off; I'll leave you to have The Last Word - I'm sure you'll enjoy that. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And again you misrepresent Wikipedia policy. WP:EW says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions... What edit warring is: Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." (emphasis added). Making false accusations against other editors is a form of personal attack. I think it is becoming clear that your behavior is something that needs to be dealt with at WP:ANI. Given the previous blocks in your block log for edit warring and personal attacks, an indefinite block is likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I misrepresent nothing. I was actually blocked for undertaking one revert in an edit war between two others, so feel free to take that case up on my behalf. And if you honestly think that going to ANI is a beneficial step, crack on and do just that. Or is it an empty threat and a way to raise my block log? Don't ping me to this page again, I really have no desire to discuss anyone so willfully obtuse who refuses to acknowledge that they have erred even in the slightest (I have admitted it, by the way: it's just you who are trying to evade any sense of doing anything wrong.) - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment I think there are two issues that emerge from this discussion:

1. It appears that Mail on Sunday is not proscribed by either RFC, and as such citations to it should not be removed without further discussion.
2. There is then the manner in which the sources to The Daily Mail are being culled. While a consensus exists to remove it as source I cannot honestly say this edit exemplifies good practice. The problem with The Daily Mail is that it is untrustworthy, but much of what they report is still accurate. This was acknowledged in the RFC, and one of the arguments advanced by editors in favour of a ban was that an alternative source could be located for credible claims in most cases. Unfortunately this solution is being thwarted by an aggressive culling campaign. This edit removed legitimate encyclopedic information, which is probably to the detriment of the article. In the case of non-controversial claims that are not about living people would it not be better practice to simply remove the source and replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag? While SchroCat technically shouldn't have restored the source I get the sense from him that what he was really doing was restoring the information, and he eventually located alternative sources. Is this not the most desirable outcome?

Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan, the Mail is deprecated. That means it's untrustworthy. If something is only in the mail, we can't use it; if it is in another source as well, use that instead. Don't use the Daily Mail as a source. Or any tabloid, for that matter. The print edition of the MoS may be considered reliable case by case. But is still a tabloid so a better source is always preferred.

I have two particular problems with the Mail as a source for Wikipedia. The first is how it's used, which is often for trivia, especially salacious trivia (that's their speciality, google "all grown up"). The second, and related, is the notorious "sidebar of shame". I have a serious problem with linking to any site carrying that kind of bullshit from any Wikipedia article. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So a "quality broadsheet", e.g. The Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc., which quotes the Daily Mail as it's sole source would be acceptable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, yes. They can be expected to have fact-checked it. But calling the Telegraph a "quality broadsheet" is a bit of a stretch these days. Guy (help!) 11:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How would you describe it? Next on the list to be a banned? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, no-one is claiming that the Mail should be retained as a source. Two RfCs (in which I voted to ban its use both times) have confirmed that. What we are talking about is two different things here: 1. Much of this grief started because Gerard edit warred to remove a citation from the hard copy Mail on Sunday. That should not have been removed, and he has still to account for that. 2. The process when information from the Damily Mail or dailymail.co.uk is flawed. In this case the information has been in the article for over a decade, and yet it was suddenly necessary to delete it immediately without providing an adequate window to find a replacement? No. That's just dumb. It doesn't help our readers and it annoys the crap out of people. I said on the article talk page right at the start that I would find a replacement, but this was ignored, and the edit warring continued. How does that help anyone? As it was, the information was finally left in the article overnight (UK time) until I was able to find a replacement in the morning. I cannot see any benefit in the inflexible, unthinking immeditate removal-without-the-option approach. The information is still in the article, and all now connected to a reliable source (two sources at one point). The best outcome has been achieved despite the fervour for the inflexible and immediate approach. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I had always assumed that anyone removing a DM source was supposed to search for an alternative source, or add a {{cn}}, or both. Not just remove both DM and the info itself wholesale in one edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not recall that ever being said, and will make more work as at some point the unsourced material might have to be removed (per wP:v.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to "make more work" by having to search for the info and a fresh source all over again? Isn't one expected to search for a better source for information sourced to any unreliable source? Isn't that normal procedure? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tagging with {{Deprecated source}} would also have had the desired effect of highlighting the problem. If such a tag had been left on there for a day or so, that would also have avoided all the kerfuffle; as it is there has been a lot more work invoved because someone edit warred to remove a source that is entirely legitimate`. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

True, but it is a users choice if they wish to remove badly sourced information or tag it. There is no policy that even implies you should add back badly sourced information. We gain nothing with tags all over the pace saying "bad source" "dodgy information" "BorisJophnsonsaidit", we do however (I would argue) lose. Wikipedia has a reputation for unreliability. If our articles are littered with crap even we think is unreliable that image is hardly going to improve.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting we "add back badly sourced information". Quite the reverse. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, no, the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources. It's an instance of BRD. There have been attempts to claim this by people who fundamentally oppose the entire idea of deprecation, but it's not policy. Guy (help!) 11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of this information was added when the DM was still considered to be WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So? If it is now a dodgy source its a dodgy source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So Guy said "the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources". I'm just saying that when it was originally added the person may well have been justified in using the DM as a reliable source. A person just removing the source now isn't adding anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No they are removing something we now know cannot be trusted for information. What Guy said applies just as much to wanting to add information back (or indeed retaining information). This is why the DM was deprecated, because of its massive over use. We now have to clean up that mess.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

But there is absolutely no need to do it in such an inflexible and disruptive way. When Gerard removed a legitimate source and edit warred on it, there was no mess to clean up. When two editors decided to delete information supported by the Press Association and a Scottish newspaper, we're crossing a line between responsible housekeeping and disruptive editing. The orginal title of this section was "‎DM advocate". I'd rather be called a cunt that a DM advocate, but such is the mindset of a small group of zealots that anyone who asks for an 8-hour moritorium on removal is the subject of abuse and lies. Your call on whether you think this is an ideal pathway for the inhabitants of the RS board to behave, but I suggest the approach needs a rethink. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. It looks to me to be a rather odd case of WP:BRD. I'm just suggesting that removing material and a DM source wholesale, without any attempt to find an alternative source, might do more harm than good. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

True, but wp:brd is clear that once material, has been removed it is down to those who wish to include it to make a case at talk, not just add it back with a change of source (you are right, by the way, the new sources should have been enough as far as I can see). Thus (whilst) the DM part of this debate is about RS, the rest is not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. So all those instances where I've followed David Gerard round and re-added stuff with a good source (and which he's consistently thanked me for), I should have instead taken to the Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) And it's not like I've really "followed him round" at all. I've seen his standard edit summary about DM pop up in my watchlist and when I've gone to look at the deletion I've thought "oh that looks like a very reasonable claim, there must be at least one other RS source that supports that...."

That's taking a misreading of BRD too far for any common sense approach. If the source is being challenged, then replacing the source is sufficient, even if that is just replacing exactly the same information, including qquotes. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We also have wP:agf, I have no idea abvout this case but I have had trouble finding sources others have found. You are assuming no effort was made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A more useful edit summary might say "I've looked for a better source and I can't find one, so am removing"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Three things: firstly, I was talking in general about providing a different source when material is challenged. (Don't forget that the verification policy says that @Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed". There is, written into policy, a way that information does not have to be unthkingly removed as a matter of course. It can be tagged for a short period to allow for a replacement to be made. Secondly, If it is removed, there really is no reason to have to discuss replacing it with an alternative source on the talk page. Replacing the information with a new source is entirely appropriate. Thirdly, it seems that a few people have said they can't find the information (although raising AGF is a bit of a straw man here). I found it in two sources and Sarah SV found two sources using variants of the quote made to different journalists; I also found another variant on the official Bond site. Just because the person desparately removing as many DM sources as quickly as possoble didn't find an alternative (and yes, that does pre-suppose they bothered looking), it doesn't mean the infomation isn't there to those who know how to look for things properly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, Oh, so David's actions resulted in better sourcing. So we're good then. Shall I close this? Guy (help!) 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, may as well gloss over the removing of a legitimate source and the sub-standard way people are demanding the immediate removal without thought to the loss of legitimate information. The lack of flexibility is always a given when a crusade is in progress. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please only discuss the DM, anything else just confuses the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as we are clear that the Mail on Sunday (paper version, not online) should not have been removed. At. All. Neither should the other sources. Part of the problem is that I have seen no comment from Gerard to acknowledge that they were wrong to remove it in the first place and doubly wrong to edit war to remove it a second time. I hope this disruptive approach is not something that is going to be repeated. In terms of the DM info, allowing a short moritorium on finding a new source seems to be a common sense way of approaching this, rather than such an inflexible approach that is currently in favour. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This RFC is about the daily mail, only the DM and just the DM. If you have other RS issues start a new thread. If you have issue about user conduct this is not then place.Slatersteven (talk)

Actually this sub-thread is (currently) titled "dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted". Since its opening post it has been nothing to do with the RfC (as such it should never have been a sub-thread of the RfC in the first place; the topic of discussion has not essentially changed since the first post, given we are still discussing matters relating to the opening post). We can change it from a sub-thread to a full thread if you prefer? - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As this is not (and does not appear to be) an RS issue, but rather an issue over user conduct this is not the right venue anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Very true. Once has to question way it was opened in the first place, and why a personal attack was used as the original title. Never mind - but I really don't have high hopes that this has made any difference, and will not be surprised when it inevitably happens again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Another unreliable source? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com)

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.

---

In this edit,[30] SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) replaced a citation to [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] with a citation to [ www.mi6-hq.com ]

[31] says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject."

[32] says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team."

So, generally reliable or self-published fan site?

The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from [ www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510171/Live-Let-Dye-Daniel-Craig-turns-clock-darkened-hair-007-photocall.html ] (25 January 2008). mi6-hq.com published it at [33] on 30 January 2008. This highlights one of the problems with replacing citations to The Daily Mail; if you search for other sources that say what DM said, you find a bunch of low-quality sources that pretty much parrot what was on the DM page a few days earlier. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty obviously not an RS, no - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I am getting the usual insults and refusal to follow Wikipedia policies at Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)#Replacing one unreliable source with another? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com). Normally I would report this at ANI, but I am still recovering from my recent Cardiac Arrest and I don't think the stress would be good for me. Would someone else here be willing to file it? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It gets worse and worse. He now claims that in the last few days you went to a library, found not just one but two sources that by an amazing coincidence just happen to contain the exact same quote from The Daily Mail that he edit warred to keep in, and yet for some inexplicable reason he cannot remember who Daniel Craig said it to or when he said it. Meanwhile, the person he says authored the source (Noah Sherna) doesn't seem to exist, but in yet another amazing coincidence, Sherna Noah writes for The Daily Mail.[34] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't lie. I have claimed nothing of the sort. I have also made no comment on who Craig said it to, so I am unsure where these falsehoods come from. I have advised exactly how you can verify the source, so try reading what I have said properly and use the link provided. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Sherna Noah works for the Press Association. The Guardian also has a version of the same quote; I've left it on the talk page. It appears to be the same point made during an interview with a different reporter. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, someone needs to read WP:FANSITE. Guy (help!) 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, no they don't. Macon needs to ensure he posts all the facts and 1. doesn't miss out key points (like two other reliable sources were added shortly afterwards), and 2. he doesn't lie, like he has above (I did not claim I went to the library and I did not say anything about who Craig was talking to; feel free to look at the article talk page to find out where I have said either of those things. They are entirely false). BTW, FANSITE shortcuts to Wikipedia:External links, which isn't the guideline you are after - you mean WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, mi6-hq.com isn't a fansite, then? Someone should tell the person who maintains it. Wikipedia isn't a fansite either. These articles would mostly be improved by being about half as long. Guy (help!) 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, that's not what I said. I was pointing out the link you provided, to FANSITES, actually discusses the addition of fansites in external links, not within articles. The pertinent link on this occasion WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library, meanwhile refusing to say where you checked the source, a reasonable person would conclude that you checked it in a library. (later you decided to reveal that you checked in using an online source). When you repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of where and when Daniel Craig said that, a reasonable person would conclude that you most likely can't answer the question. When you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites (the actual wording is "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable") a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules (something we have already seen with Wikipedia's rules againstr personal attacks). When you repeatedly claim that if you make an edit that violates Wikipedia's sourcing policies, the person reverting you is somehow required to carefully search your edit for any portions that don't violate Wikipedia's policies, and you just flat out ignore it when you are told again and again that there exists no such requirement, a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to even discuss whether you are following Wikipedia's rules.

This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source and with David Gerard asking you to follow our rules.[35] and correctly identifying [36] that your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source. Your subsequent behavior here has demonstrated that he was right. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library": I didn't. I told you to go to THE library - the one we have on WP. I even fucking linked it for you. If you're not able to click on the link despite it being handed to you a second time, I do begin to wonder just why you are being so obtuse. Other inaccuracies here include "you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites": you'll have to read what I said a little more closely. I said "WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites", and actually there is some deliberate leeway in the wording of the guideline (for example, if such a site was being written by one individual who was a published expert in the area, then it would be a point for discussion). "incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules" another tedious PA you like to throw out, and hopelessly wrong too, ditto the link to IDHT - all tiresomly inaccurate.

More nonsense follows; "This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source". Again, that's a straight lie. This started when Gerard removed a reference from the paper version of the Mail on Sunday. A legitimate source. I'll keep repeating that a legitimate source was removed until it finally sinks in and you stop telling porkies. "your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source" Another straight out falsehood. I don't know how many times I have had to say that I support the ban on the Mail (that I voted for twice) and the idea it should be removed: it's the crass and inflexible way it is being done that it disruptive. Now, if you're done with trolling and telling lies, I'll leave you to it. There is nothing contructive to be had in listening to more falsehoods from you - you appear to be in competition with the Mail to see how many inaccuracies you can cram into each line. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

[self-reverted] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, this is thoroughly out of order. SchroCat, it would be better not even to respond. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have already asked you once not to ping me to this page. Stop. You are behaving like the worst sort of disruptive troll. Stop. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• mi6-hq.com? Is that Mike Corley? Guy (help!) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Mike Corely appears to be focused on conspiracy theories involving MI5 persecution. I don't think he has much interest in James Bond, but of course mi6-hq.com is a fansite where anonymous users can post content, so you never know. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not discus 15 different sources in one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Daily Mail: The halving

In Q3 2018, there were 27,336 uses of the Daily Mail as a reference on Wikipedia. At this moment, there are 13,630.

The cleanup of the backlog of bad sources continues. Please use a search something like this one, and help improve Wikipedia. If a few people can each do even ten a day, that'll make Wikipedia a noticeably better place - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Two genealogy sites

• royalark.net  
• worldstatesmen.org  

Most of List of current pretenders seems to be drawn from two web 1.0 sites: Royal Ark and World Statesmen.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Self-published royalty websites showed consensus against using Royal Ark in respect of living individuals (all entries on the pretenders list are living). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Kekoolani predicated much of its argument on the assumption that this consensus holds. If anything, World Statesmen looks worse.

There are nearly 2,000 citations to royalark.net and over 3,750 to worldstatesmen.org.

It looks to me as if these should be deprecated and added to the unreliable sources filter, as this is functionally indistinguishable from spam at this point. Guy (help!) 18:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can also add thepeerage.com   to this list, which has nearly 10,000 citations and appears to be a self published source. What's your opinion on the reliability of Burke's Peerage and the Almanach de Gotha? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, ech. Burke's used to be worthwhile but it's hard to say now. That said, both are storied institutions so don't fall into the same bracket as these self-published nobility fansites. Guy (help!) 11:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Three genealogy sites

Deprecate the following self-published sources:

• royalark.net  
• worldstatesmen.org  
• thepeerage.com  

Despite being widely used, these do not meet the tests for reliable sources. Guy (help!) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support all as proposer. Guy (help!) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support all per Guy ~ HAL333 21:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• This feels like mission creep in terms of the source deprecation process. It was originally created for fake news sites / sites that routinely publish fabricated information, such as the Daily Mail, and not self-published sources like these ones. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Media Research Center and its arms (CNS, Newsbusters, MRCTV)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the Media Research Center and its various arms (CNSNews, Newsbusters, MRCTV)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (MRC)

• Option 3 or Option 4. The organization (and its arms) has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, MRC is "propaganda clothed as critique"[37]. The MRC rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and has been characterized as part of a movement that seeks to obscure the scientific evidence on climate change.[38] CNSNews falsehoods:[39][40][41][42][43] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• MRC content on climate change:

• Claiming that the real threat is not global warming, but global cooling: "ABC, CBS, NBC news programs ignore scientists and studies warning of potential cooling threat."[44]
• "There's no more clear religion in the mainstream media than the religion of global warming"[45]
• Pushing the discredited Climategate faux controversy long after it was debunked: "Five Years Since ClimateGate: Ten Credibility-Killing Quotes from the Data Files the Media Ignored"[46]
• "ClimateGate 1 Year Later: Networks Barely Cover Scandal, But Defend and 'Exonerate' Accused Scientists"[47]
• "Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming All 92 Times"[48]
• Uncritically citing prominent non-scientist climate change deniers[49][50]
• "Media Myth: Networks Stick to Warming Theme Despite Avalanche of Chilling News"[51]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or Option 4. Is there a legitimate use for this source at all? - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC) - nah, let's go straight Option 4 - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4. Some of the arms, at least CNSNews and Newsbusters, should probably be deprecated regardless of what we do with core MRC content. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Commenting with additional information.

*Newsbusters and MRCTV were proponents of the fringe idea birtherism a few years back, and they were criticized by The Atlantic for this behavior in 2009 [52]: "Conservative media watch group Newsbusters argued, 'Anti-Bush 9-11 'Truthers' get a fair hearing from the New York Times, but anti-Obama 'Birthers' are harshly criticized.'" In a NYT blog, conservative commentator Ross Douthat notes in 2009: "Mark Finkelstein of the ever-vigilant Newsbusters pounced on this last comment, accusing me of pandering to liberals by suggesting that conservatives who 'question Barack Obama’s place of birth are too dense to realize that Hawaii is a state of the union.' I’m not entirely clear on why Newsbusters feels compelled to defend the honor of the birther movement, but no, I don’t..."

*On the other hand, The Daily Dot describes them in 2020 as one of the best partisan fact-checking sites, as well as: "a website that devotes itself to 'combating liberal media bias.' NewsBusters was launched by the Media Research Center in 2005, the same group behind CNSNews.com. It has been criticized by Media Matters and others for its questionable fact-checking techniques."

*AP News seems to include perspectives from Newsbusters as an example of a conservative viewpoint: [53] [54] [55] This only seems to have been done in a handful (<10) articles, and the coverage is minimal (a sentence or two). The AP does not comment on the quality of Newsbusters. Bloomberg does something similar occasionally.

*Adding to Snooganssnoogans's collection of factcheck failures, here is a piece of evidence showing a lack of actual fact-checking: [56]: "We contacted Newsbusters and indeed, their executive editor Tim Graham told us they had regurgitated the story from another source without trying to contact Nance before posting". In addition: [57] [58]

Jlevi (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4. Bad enough that there is no legitimate use. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2 - as with all news media, we proceed with caution and stick to the facts, unless we're citing the opinion of a renowned expert and using intext attribution. I challenge what appears to be partisan criticism as the reason to downgrade these sources. In today's polarized media environment, we can expect to see media being critical of each other because they're typically agreeing with different sets of facts based on their POV. Our job is to maintain neutrality, and we cannot accomplish that if we discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them. Also, keep in mind that fact-checkers may have to be critical of the sources they're fact-checking, which means they're not making friends. As editors, we look at the facts and corroborate the material we intend to add or remove in our articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• This editor has provided nothing to indicate that MRC and its arms have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Bizarrely enough, the editor's sole argument for the reliability of MRC is that actual reliable sources have found MRC to be unreliable (!). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Atsme, that's a statement of principle based on repudiation of (e.g.) https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud, but is not specific to this particular source, which is clearly inaccurate. CJR rejects this source entirely, and its statements on things like climate change clearly indicate that it can'ty be relied on.

  I understand that you want conservative sources to be considered reliable. The problem is that mainstream sources are reliable first and political second (e.g WSJ, WaPo) whereas a considerable body of academic research shows that conservative sources are conservative first, last and all points in between. There used to be a time when conservative-leaning media behaved like liberal-leaning media, but that is pretty much over. The conservative media bubble is unmoored from fact. Guy (help!) 23:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree with the two arguments presented directly above that are aimed at discrediting my iVote. With regards to the gentlemen's opinions as to what is or isn't a RS, I remain openminded and responsive to constructive criticism - no one is perfect - and I probably would be more inclined to pay attention to your opinions as to what is or isn't a RS after I see the NYTimes and WaPo return the coveted Pulitzers they were awarded for what the Pulitzer Board described in USA Today as: "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration." Until then, I choose to trust my instincts and experience as a WP editor, coupled with what I've learned after a very successful 30+ year career as a media professional. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  You realize you just sunk everyone who had built there argument on yours by going full WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS right? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  I do not see a right great wrongs argument above. Please explain. PackMecEng (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  I believe they’re saying they disagree with the entire way wikipedia defines reliability and that they do not consider NTY and WaPo to be reliable sources. Such an argument would be well beyond the bounds of this discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  That is not what I said or what I meant. There is no RGW on my end - the focus is and should be on using sources in context not deprecating everything and anything, or labeling it unreliable because it doesn't align with a one's political POV - such an argument presented is an argument lost. WP:RS - that's our guideline...WP:NEWSORG, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS...that is what we follow and use to make our determinations about what sources we cite, depending on context. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, @Atsme: what did you mean then? It seems like you’re suggesting that they did inaccurate reporting RE Trump and Russia and as such would be inappropriate to use in that context, did you mean to suggest something else entirely? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  What you said, and presumably meant, was that you saw the problem as being that we discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them - so yeah, that is what you appeared to say and mean. If you seriously claim the NYT or WaPo is "left-leaning", then words have stopped meaning things - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  David, CJR is a trusted source - read the linked article if you haven't already seen it. My thoughts about your presumptions and analogy would probably put you to sleep, so with a bit of levity, I invite you to read this article but scroll down to the list #1 - #12. I think Walden may be onto something. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  They are left of say the AP, NPR, BBC, and such.[59] Being left of sources that are closer to the center is what left-leaving means. Though I suspect you already knew that and your comment was just hyperbolic. PackMecEng (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Your source there says they’re centrist (*slightly* left of center) and are in the same narrow range as the AP, NPR, and BBC. Also just FYI Wikipedia doesn't "discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them," you seem to be operating as if that were a statement of fact and not hyperbole. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What gives you that impression? I made no mention of it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize then, thats my mistake. On the core issue I’m still struggling to see Atsme’s point here and I’m pretty sure we share a party affiliation. The MRC family of outlets may be conservative but they have some serious reliability problems, in particular related to misinformation and fact checking. I’ve voted to deprecate RT and CGTN on the exact same grounds elsewhere on this page so the argument that there is no meat on the bones here and its all a liberal charade just doesn't fly with me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or Option 2 per Atsme. Too much eagerness on this noticeboard to make use of powerful tools like deprecation, which should be used in a highly sparing matter. Loksmythe (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2. Many RS outlets refer to MRC as, for instance, a "conservative media watchdog". https://www.google.com/search?biw=2048&bih=1062&sxsrf=ALeKk01xy2gcdRAiOirM0ysvsYKhhdRkbA%3A1589073340798&ei=vFW3XrexMIaoytMP1OK6sA4&q=%22media+research+center%22+site%3Ausatoday.com&oq=%22media+research+center%22+site%3Ausatoday.com&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQA1DMC1iUEGCmEWgAcAB4AIABOogBtAKSAQE2mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi3__-_j6jpAhUGlHIEHVSxDuYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5 Wikipedia should follow the lead of the typical RS, not the lead of a handful of critical stories. Bigger picture, Wikipedia is increasingly in danger of deprecating any voices that disagree with the dominant cultural narrative in the United States. If someone has done a study or analysis showing MRC to be less factually reliable than other outlets, we should look at that. Otherwise, options 3 or 4 would merely make Wikipedia less neutral. When there is a factual dispute between MRC and another fact checker, editors on a given page should look at the respective arguments (and potentially present the two viewpoints to readers, if appropriate.) --MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• If the "typical" appearance in reliable sources is a superficial mention, like a three-word description with no deeper analysis, then Wikipedia should not rely upon that, but instead focus on the analyses which have looked more carefully. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or Option 2 as per Atsme, let us not try to get rid of all conservative media on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• First, nobody is trying to do that, and second, this argument does nothing to establish the reliability of MRC specifically. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or Option 4. Has none of the indications of a reliable source; it's a partisan media criticism website that promotes, e.g., climate change denial. Mann 2012 at page 64 describes "Web sites like Newsbusters" as "willing accomplices in the campaign of deceit ... that often propagate climate change disinformation." On extremely rare occasions it might be cited for its own opinion with in-text attribution, but in most cases that would be undue weight. Neutrality^talk 17:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per above. ~ HAL333 21:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per what above? MRC organizations' confirmed history of pushing falsehoods and fringe rhetoric? Does that make it generally reliable in your opinion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or maybe 4. This is a parody of fact-checking. Guy (help!) 23:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• 3–4 The organization promotes fringe disinformation and conspiracy theories including global warming denial and birtherism. buidhe 00:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, especially Newsbusters. Partisanship trumps facts. -- Valjean (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2 largely per Atsme. The sweeping generalizations posed in the RFC are not always applicable, especially when examining the context. If there are issues with sourcing affecting a certain claim, it can be discussed and handled specifically. Is this even really a big problem here or a solution in search of one? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. While I would stay away from this source due to its skewed and contrarian fact-checking, I see that it is fairly relevant to the conservative media, and it could be used to cite opinions of prominent conservatives, but that is all anyone can use it for. Everything from MRC needs to be attributed. FreeMediaKid! 20:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 because they are awful. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4 per Neutrality, et al. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (first choice) or 3, seems to be extremely skewed and occasionally crossing the line into conspiracy-theory promotion. Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4, since this is a source that supports clearly false information like climate change denial, it cannot be used to cite facts. Some of its affiliates should absolutely be blacklisted, but the main org could still conceivably be useful to cite opinions with attribution. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2. Media Research Center has been cited by a range of RSs for facts. For instance, The Hill [60], Fox News [61] [62], The Washington Post [63], CNBC [64], USA Today [65]. Though MRC should be used sparingly when sourcing content related to global warming. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The USA Today and Hill articles are opinion pieces. The CNBC link is broken. The WaPo piece gets a comment from Tim Graham who works for Media Research Center but does not use them as a source and does not comment on their reliability and in fact the article suggests the Graham’s comment contained a significant inaccuracy. That appears to leave only Fox and that lacks an explicit endorsement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's the non-broken link for CNBC [66]. Just becuase they are opinion pieces that does not discount them from being used. The USA Today and The Hill used a fact from MRC's findings related to Trump's media coverage. The author's may provide their opinions about Trump's media coverage later on but that does not exclude from the fact MRC is being used to supply facts for these RSs. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"Just becuase they are opinion pieces that does not discount them from being used.” yes, yes it does actually... They havent gone through the paper’s editorial process and thus using them for the RS’s position on a source’s reliability rather than the author’s personal opinion on a sources reliability is inappropriate per WP:NEWSORG. Jeezy petes that CNBS article is another opinion piece. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific policy that supports your POV here? The RS policy talks about using opinion articles as citations for Wikipedia articles. Where does it talk about using them to establish reliability? Springee (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 As with any source, my first check is whether or not they have a corrections policy. They do.[67]. Moving on to the objections above, I notice that a lot of them have to do with predictions of the direction of future climate change. Because we don't know what will happen, that is not factual information. Even in the event that their predictions turn out to be wrong, they will be no more disqualifying than any of the absurdly wrong predictions about covid [68][69][70], climate change [71], elections [72][73], or any other future event that have appeared in sources we accept as a matter of course. That said, articles that are about future predictions of events that can't be known for certain should be treated as opinion pieces, and it would be equally wise to do the same with other sources, too. Similarly, some rate of arguable factual errors does not disqualify them, unless one wants to disqualify the NYT for The New York Times controversies#Duke University lacrosse case reporting, which was typically debunked on the same day on a widely-read blog by an expert on the case [74], yet continued for over a year anyway. More recently, we have The 1619 Project#Critical response. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or option 4. It's clear that it starts with its conclusions, then seeks "evidence" to support them. Exactly the wrong way to do journalism. There are quality, reliable news sources whose editorial board leans towards the American political right, such as the Wall Street Journal or The Weekly Standard. It would be more helpful if people stopped trying to defend the crap ones like this, as it tends to give the impression that conservative-leaning media is by default bad media, and that people who defend these sources are more interested in their political leanings than the factualness of their reporting. --Jayron32 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Mainstream" sources do precisely that all the time. For example, take the proposition "Reade Seligmann is a rapist." Now everyone acknowledges this is proven false, but "mainstream" sources ran with the opposite conclusion for months after it was proven false. The same thing is still going on with the proposition "Daniel Holtzclaw is a rapist." If you follow the "garbage" sources and actually look at their evidence, it's obvious that he isn't. But Wikipedia sourcing rules don't allow that, run into WP:RGW, and so forth. A third example is the proposition "Ilhan Omar married her brother." Again if you really dig into the evidence, you reach the opposite conclusion from what the "mainstream" sources say. They could see reality easily enough if they chose to, which they don't, and it's a repeating pattern. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: This is controversial, but I agree with MaximumIdeas that reliable sources describe it as a "conservative media watchdog", or something along those lines. It does appear to do some fact-checking regarding inaccuracies targeting conservativess. Overall, the reliability can be conflicted according to who you ask, so additional considerations should be applied, such as attribution.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (MRC)

• I've upgraded this discussion to an RfC, as it potentially conflicts with consensus established in two prior RfCs:
  1. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters (2010): No consensus on Media Research Center
  2. RfC: CNSNews.com (2019): Consensus that CNSNews.com is generally unreliable

Additionally, a deprecation proposal requires an RfC by definition. See the perennial sources list entries for Media Research Center and CNSNews.com for past discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

CleanTechnica, again

Some days ago I created an article stub on CleanTechnica. Its talk page now has a question from QRep2020 whether the article should be deleted as unreliable, with reference to an earlier discussion on this Noticeboard. We certainly have articles on news media that is non-reliable, so the talk page question is easily answered. However, I noticed that the discussion of CleanTechnica as reliable source was very brief, started by the aforementioned QRep2020 and with just two comments, from Masem and Springee. Among the points raised by the previous discussion is that the source favours one technology over another (to the detriment of hydrogen as an energy carrier) and that the source "content appears to summaries of reports and press releases". While there objectively are challenges with hydrogen, it was easy to find an article South Windsor High School, where the CleanTechnica writer is themselves interviewing the person cited and where Fuel Cells "save the day". (It's not explicitly stated that the Fuel Cells are using hydrogen, but hydrogen is basically only usable with fuel cells, so it is as a minimum supporting the main hydrogen use case). This specific source citation was validated by Ser Amantio di Nicolao.

Prairieplant, Minesweeper, Varnent, rodw, Back ache, Mariordo, N2e, Rfassbind: Wikipedia has 200+ articles that cite CleanTechnica and the editors of each of these citations has made the determination to quote CleanTechnica in support for the added information. While we can not ask the opinion of everyone who previously made such a determination I am now asking a few of you for your opinion regarding the reliability of this source. Lklundin (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We can have articles on notable sources that are not reliable for being used on WP. (That said, what's on CT's article right not isn't going to pass the GNG....) The problem with the site is not so much a specific focus on a type of clean energy but that generally it looks like a industry-promotional site. The writers there may seek out stories but it looks more like they are tipped to stories from companies that want them to be written up, which are the types of sites we generally avoid. As i noted, they will provide links to actual reports of use which should be the sources to be used instead. --Masem (t) 13:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is might be able pass WP:NOTE but the number of reliable sources about CT are going to be very limited. My concern with CT as a RS is largely based on what I've read from sources that don't pass WP:RS criteria but none the less make strong arguments. I generally feel CT is very promotional and is likely feed select bits of information from companies. Conflicts of interest are not clearly identified. In general I would be wary of using CT as a source for much of anything and would generally assume any reliable fact reported in CT could be sourced elsewhere. Still, I think the site is often cited by mainstream reliable sources as sort of the opinion of an industry watcher. I would be reluctant to remove any citation to CT without some reason to be suspicious of it. I suspect most of the material cited to CT is going to be non-controversial claims. Springee (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the 8 articles where the above mentioned (8) editors chose to cite CleanTechnica as a source, I have looked at another 50 articles that cite CleanTechnica - out of currently 822 articles in main that mention it (although some not as a source), and have made these observations:

• In these 58 articles 50 different (43 named + 7 IP) contributors have made the determination to cite CleanTechnica,
• The information added has not been reverted or significantly modified by subsequent editors, suggesting that the content is non-controversial and that a larger number of editors see it as useful.
• Occasionally other editors have reviewed these source citations (updating the access-date, introducing citation template, etc.), again suggesting a wider acceptance of the source among editors.
• Larger articles typically cite more than one CleanTechnica source, typically by different editors suggesting an even wider use of the source than the search suggests.

Give some extra days I (or someone else) could review another 50 articles that cite CleanTechnica, but I see no indication that additional sampling among the about 800 CleanTechnica uses would change these observations.

With a wide range of Wikipedians who have deemed to cite CleanTechnica as a reliable source, there is nothing concrete to suggest that this source should be the contrary. Given this overwhelming body of existing material, we would need concrete, compelling reasons to consider it an unreliable source, rather than the so far provided comments that are more speculative. Lklundin (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think one generally assumes reliability of a source until proven unreliable. Usage by other editors also doesn’t really mean anything.

A more useful barometer: what do independent reliable sources say about CleanTechnica? I’ve only found this Mashable profile so far, which describes it as a blog. However, their about page mentions that

Our work has been referenced by the New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, MSNBC, Think Progress, Reuters, Scientific American

Finding these examples and seeing the extent to which they reference CleanTechnica may demonstrate a solid claim for reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct, we certainly do not assume reliability until proven otherwise. Every editor is supposed to quote a reliable source and while some may fail to do so, wide usage by a range of editors is a strong if implicit indication that the source is indeed reliable. Be that as it may, an Internet search for CleanTechnica that excludes the site itself yields plenty of examples of other news media that cite CleanTechnica as a source. In a few days I expect we will see examples among the above mentioned news media citing CleanTechnica for their stories. Such examples could fittingly provide some content and indication of notability to the related CleanTechnica article. Lklundin (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Just ran into this discussion. It seems pretty obvious to me that CleanTechnica is frequently cited as a reliable source by other news sources - [75] [76] [77] [78] etc, and features op-eds by famous people (for example, here's one from Gavin Newsom[79]). If sites like Business Insider, Forbes, Bloomberg, the NY Times, etc consider CleanTechnica worth citing, it'd be pretty ridiculous if Wikipedia didn't. 157.157.83.50 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is an IP address opining here? The above doesn't really make them reliable so much as just a blog like site that is happy to published content for others. I would be happy to use CT as a source to say something like "Ford said that Ford will release such and such an EV". That's just regurgitating a press release. I wouldn't trust CT to be critical when reporting something like "Tesla to have 1 million robotaxies on the road this year!" Same when "sources leak" an "internal" email at Tesla that causes the share price to move up. Springee (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please avoid WP:ABP arguments? Lklundin (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

In response to the suggestions from MarkH (and partly with the suggestions from the IP-editor) I have gone ahead and upgraded CleanTechnica from stub to start-class, citing a quite wide range of WP:RS. There are plenty more examples that can be added from any willing editor, but with the examples currently provided we are clearly able to close this discussion.

On a related note, I will follow up on my above presented idea that a massive body of already cited material from a wide range of editors constitutes a large number of small but specific WP:RS validations performed by the editors who decide to cite the source - who in this case probably number in the hundreds. It should be quite possible to write a bot that for a given search string (e.g. cleantechnica.com) will identify all edits that have introduced that string in a source citation all over Wikipedia - and by whom (and whether such an edit was reverted) and present this list to e.g. reviewers on this board. This could help in several ways, e.g. identifying a small group of editors who introduce a large number of citations of a possibly unrealible source or (as my sampling indicates for this case) a large number of editors who each introduce one or a few citations of that source. Lklundin (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

CT should only be used as a limited RS and with great caution. As a source of statements of others perhaps but not as a source of reliable, independent commentary. The chief editor has been accused of bias/conflict of interest in his coverage, especially as it relates to Tesla Inc vs other companies/competing technologies [[80]], [[81]], [[82]]. Articles like this are pretty egregious [[83]] in their pro-Tesla bias. Articles such as this one are pure op-ed yet the site does not indicate as such. This is more troubling given the fiscal ties between CT and Tesla both in terms of may editors being share holders and the way Tesla effectively trades access for favorable coverage. Springee (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: RT (Russia Today)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the RT (TV network)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Per the WP:RSP, there is "no consensus on the reliability of RT" on general topics but a consensus that "RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics." This strikes me as a strange status, given that RT pushes disinformation, conspiracy theories and falsehoods (per the citations in the RSP list). RT also pushes constant climate change denial content in its "news" section.[84][85][86][87][88] In 2009, the news section of RT uncritically quoted renowned conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as if he were an authority on climate science.[89] In 2011, the news section of RT uncritically quoted two prominent non-scientist climate change deniers without any pushback or additional context.[90] This leads me to wonder whether there isn't sufficient reason to deprecate RT?

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That indicates a need for the typical ‘what is it now’ option:

• Option 5: No need to change existing guidance “RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics.” And for general topics, no consensus although “Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact.”

After all, unless RSP has been wrong on this despite several previous checks, the Red is on topics related to Russian interests... and outside of that, seems meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (RT)

• Option 4 per "wait, we haven't done that already? it's a propaganda machine, for crying out loud". XOR'easter (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4: State sponsored propaganda machine without any independent editorial oversight --Shrike (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - how heavily used is it? Also, would this include SputnikNews? - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: It's around 3,700   articles Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

gawd, one to kill with fire - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, that's amazingly bad. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, but... I want to say on non-political stories of news events within Russia, like natural or man-made disasters, RT tends to have more coverage than we'd get out of other international sources and they have little reason to mask this information. But this is more where I'd see a carve out for when only RT can be used and nix the rest if that's a reasonable approach. --Masem (t) 15:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - See RT_America#History (last 3 paragraphs), other reliable sources do not consider it a reliable source. However it can have an important place on Wikipedia for demonstrating the official views and positions of Russia, even if those views are blatant denialism so long as they are framed correctly. Unfortunately, #4 is supporting a complete and total wipe of every RT sources on Wikipedia regardless of its context and content (see what is happening to DM). -- GreenC 15:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  The way you talk about wiping every Daily Mail source from Wikipedia regardless of its context and content you make it sound like a bad thing. Alas, there exists no context or content that makes The Daily Mail trustworthy in some situations. They are never to be trusted. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Additional RfC Question: Under what conditions can we trust The Daily Mail? for detailed reasons why we can never trust The Daily Mail. RT is another matter. They are completely unreliable on many topics, but take a look at [91]. That's the sort of thing RT covers in more detail than other sources. So I choose Option 4 but I also hope that we can find wording to allow limited use for things like the death of Yevgeny Mikrin. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is my stance too, where the topic is fully apolitical, RT usually is not doing anything weird and is the most detailed source. --Masem (t) 16:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thats kind of the catch-22 with state sponsored propaganda outfit like these, if it wasn’t somehow political they wouldn’t produce/run the story by definition. *Nothing* they publish is “fully apolitical.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes. Having some proportion of the content be seemingly unobjectionable is a means of veiling the misinformation behind superficial respectability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: per XOR'easter and Shrike. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 A quick google search brought up multiple lies. Nor am In sure it can be even used as an "official" Russian moth piece as it pretends its not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 for a while it was argued that RT would get better or is useful in some circumstances. I don’t think those arguments hold water anymore. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Not sure why anyone would want to censor On Contact. ^^ Here they are interviewing Siddharth Varadarajan, editor of The Wire (India). https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/482554-right-wing-populism-india/ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I !voted before this became an RfC and am withdrawing my vote as I am uncomfortable defending RT as a general rule, since I myself have never cited it. I don't believe in giving blanket passes or making blanket bans, but I am in the minority on that and don't have to deal with one of the hotspots in which it might be (ab)used. Apologies but the change to an RfC convinced me to stay out of this. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - well established that RT is a propaganda/disinformation outlet of the Russian government. Neutrality^talk 17:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Aside from the problems I identified in OP, RT promotes 9/11 Trutherism ("911 Reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job"[92]), birther conspiracy theories ("Obama’s birthplace mystery raises doubts"[93]), coronavirus disinformation ("Russia Today... broadcast that hand-washing was ineffective against coronavirus"[94], Seth Rich conspiracy theories[95], Hillary Clinton health conspiracy theories[96], Bilderberg conspiracy theories[97], and random-ass 4chan conspiracy theories[98]. RT has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Rather, it has a reputation for falsehoods, conspiracy theories and disinfo. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate for any factual information (per above—that's too much disinfo to trust for much of anything), but can be used for the views of the Russian government where WP:DUE. buidhe 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• 4 - Is propaganda. Even if some of its articles are not propaganda, that others are propaganda, is why we should not use it for anything. We don't need to cite to RT to show the positions of Putin. We can cite to reliable sources discussing Putin's positions and/or how RT is propaganda. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 very biased Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 Agree with some of the above commenters that RT can be useful for non political content related to Russia, otherwise I would avoid using it due to disinformation concerns. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Regularly publishes disinformation, regardless of the quality in some topics, It's too great an issue to overlook. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 for most things. Not better than 3. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Cannot be trusted. Guy (help!) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. As discussed in Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11 § RfC: Propaganda, at least 30 in-depth reliable sources describe RT as a propaganda outlet. The list is reproduced below:

30 in-depth reliable sources describing RT as a propaganda outlet

Warrick, Joby; Troianovski, Anton (December 10, 2018). "Agents of doubt". The Washington Post. Adee, Sally (May 15, 2019). "The global internet is disintegrating. What comes next?". BBC. Ward, Alex (March 12, 2019). "When a Dissident Becomes a Collaborator". The New Yorker. Paul, Christopher; Matthews, Miriam (2016). The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model (Report). RAND Corporation. Norton, Ben; Greenwald, Glenn (2016-11-26). "Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group". The Intercept. Peinado, Fernando (16 April 2018). "La campaña de desinformación de Rusia sobre la guerra en Siria". El Pais. Flock, Elizabeth (May 2, 2018). "After a week of Russian propaganda, I was questioning everything". PBS NewsHour. "RT's propaganda is far less influential than Westerners fear". The Economist. January 19, 2017. Manthorpe, Jonathan (May 2, 2019). "All the news not fit to print". Asia Times. Arrowsmith, Kevin (May 7, 2019). "Blame politicians for fake news, RT chief tells Whitehall media forum". The Sunday Times. Bidder, Benjamin (August 13, 2013). "Putin's Weapon in the War of Images". Der Spiegel. Riley-Smith, Ben (13 May 2019). "Kremlin propaganda arm RT America warns over dire health impacts of 5G networks". The Telegraph. Schwartz, Jason (February 6, 2018). "Russia pushes more 'deep state' hashtags". Politico. Seddon, Max (October 9, 2017). "Russia threatens severe curbs on US media". Financial Times. Graham, David A. (7 September 2017). "What the Russian Facebook Ads Reveal". The Atlantic. DiResta, Renee (30 August 2018). "Free Speech Is Not the Same As Free Reach". Wired. Shuster, Simon (March 5, 2015). "Inside Putin's Media Machine". Time. Aleem, Zeeshan (10 November 2017). "RT, Russia's English-language propaganda outlet, will register as a "foreign agent"". Vox. Morris, David Z. (17 September 2017). "Inside RT, Russia's Kremlin-Controlled Propaganda Network". Fortune. Weir, Fred (17 January 2017). "Inside the belly of Russia's 'propaganda machine': A visit to RT news channel". The Christian Science Monitor. ISSN 0882-7729. Yochai Benkler; Rob Faris; Hal Roberts (2018). Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (24 September 2018). Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-19-091582-7. Marcel H. Van Herpen (1 October 2015). Putin's Propaganda Machine: Soft Power and Russian Foreign Policy. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-1-4422-5362-9. Snyder, Timothy (3 April 2018). The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Crown/Archetype. pp. 161–162, 209–212, 306. ISBN 9780525574484. Nance, Malcolm (2016). The Plot to Hack America: How Putin's Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781510723337. Ajir, Media; Vailliant, Bethany (Fall 2018). "Russian Information Warfare: Implications for Deterrence Theory". Strategic Studies Quarterly. 12 (3): 70–89. ISSN 1936-1815. JSTOR 26481910. Oates, Sarah; Steiner, Sean (17 December 2018). "Projecting Power: Understanding Russian Strategic Narrative". Russia's Public Foreign Policy Narratives (PDF). 229. Vol. 17. University of Bremen: Research Centre for East European Studies. pp. 2–5. doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000311091. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help) Orttung, Robert; Nelson, Elizabeth; Livshen, Anthony (19 January 2016). "Measuring RT's impact on YouTube". Russian Analytical Digest. 177 (8). Center for Security Studies. Abrams, Steve (2016). "Beyond propaganda: Soviet active measures in Putin's Russia" (PDF). Connections: The Quarterly Journal. 15 (1). Partnership for Peace Consortium. Reire, Gunda (2015). "Euro-Atlantic values and Russia's propaganda in the Euro-Atlantic space" (PDF). Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. 13 (4).

It is important for Wikipedia to take a hardline stance against state-sponsored disinformation, which RT regularly broadcasts. When the perspective of the Russian government is needed in an article, news agency TASS (RSP entry) is a superior source. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3.999 Propaganda outlet. But if they interview Putin or Lavrov then I think they can be trusted not to mangle Russian officials.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. It’s my main source for news. Very professional approach with some great presenters on its TV network and incredible diversity of opinions. Its web service is reliable and has a wide coverage of events and places. Its coverage of my small corner of the world is invariably accurate. Ruptly provides unmatched video from all parts of the world. Burrobert (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2.5 Seems a bit of a gap from 2 to 3. I think deprecation is OTT and attribution is as usual sufficient to deal with potentially suspect material. I just rolled over to rt.com and I don't see anything too outrageous there (other than the usual anti-US spin).Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per above. ~ HAL333 21:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 per above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 This is simply a propaganda outlet concerned with promoting the Russian government, not truth or verifiability. Of course, there are very specific situation were it can be useful as some people have mentioned, but those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)~
• Option 4. In Russia, source deprecates you! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Any story they post which may be true and reliable would be reported by a more reliable source that isn't a government stooge. For any story or perspective of which they are the only source, I wouldn't trust them any farther than I could throw them. Usual exceptions carved out for direct quotes and for demonstrating the positions of the source itself in direct attributions. --Jayron32 14:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Like the Devil, RT spouts lies and falsehoods with the intent of causing chaos and political strife. Even when they do report accurately, there is no reason to use this Kremlin mouthpiece when independent journalism exists. Also, I do not care whether Russia bans me for saying this or even tries to hack my Wikipedia account, but I think that if Hitler were possessed by a demon, Putin is possessed by Satan. He and his news outlets are that bad. That may be greatly exaggerated, but I know no other words that describe my frustration with the government. I could have said worse. FreeMediaKid! 19:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Snow Option 4 As RT just tweeted more antisemitic conspiracy theories. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.999: Per Bob the Snob. The standard has to flow from WP:RS. And there's massive issues with accuracy and independence here. It remains possible that a state-owned media isn't necessarily state-controlled. We'd want to look for legal protections that guarantee press freedom, and see if those rights are safe-guarded by the directing state. We'd also want to look for the rights of opposing media and opposing parties more generally in that state, the literal "free market of ideas". The fact that list of journalists killed in Russia is still a thing should put things in context. The presumption should be to remove the material cited to RT. If there's a discussion that leads to a consensus to include the source for some good reason (like describing the state's views, or describing a situation that no independent journalist has access to), we should note the source's ownership and control where we refer to it in the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, regrettably. It's unfortunate to lose the occasional citations where RT reports on something objectively, but there are just too many conspiracy theories being recycled on RT without any level of fact-checking. Kaldari (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC, and generally 2 - Umm, this is a call for lynching, *not* a neutral statement of question under way. That said, we’re talking of a publisher for a wide variety of shows, and outside of political guff I think there is clearly some decent reputations and good source content. To any ranting away above or in response... are you *so* certain there is nothing good that you would agree to being wrong with one good counterexample ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  This RfC is authorized by WP:RSNRFC. The brief and neutral statement required by WP:RFCBRIEF ends at the first signature, as that is the statement that is transcluded into the RfC lists and publicized through the feedback request service. — Newslinger talk 06:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  User:Newslinger Thank you for the cites, but RFCBRIEF requires *all* parts of the statements to be neutral.

If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp. If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise

The material below the ‘first’ statement is also part of the RFC, and all description of the issue is to be neutral - which here is just a vague denunciation and call to mob action. There does not seem to be a RFC question in discussions needing dispute resolution, nor of RT (TV) as a ‘perennial’ source, nor is there in the statement any details being considered - does anyone even know what publications are included under this generic corporate ban ? This isn’t looking to ban specific publication or a specific website or a specific program, it’s looking to ban anything (unstated) tied to the entity RT (TV network) — because of unspecified claims. The lack of neutral statement, lack of any specifics to the proposal, lack of evidence or policy cite - and lack of any apparent need...I mean if there are actual usages being proposed to RSN, then let’s see them. The RSP is *supposed* to be about that yes? Or is it a forum for at-whim denunciations? This one is just not a valid RFC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The RfC statement ends at the first signature. Any additional comments are part of the RfC discussion. There is no restriction in WP:RFC that forbids the discussion starter from participating in the discussion. It is common for editors who author the RfC statement to immediately follow the statement with their opinion on the issue. Examples include these recently closed RfCs from the WP:RFCL archives: Talk:The Camp of the Saints § Request for comment, Talk:List of Christian denominations by number of members § RfC about whether this article should include Anglicanism under the Protestantism heading or as its own section, and Talk:Adolf Hitler § Request for comment on number of Jewish deaths in The Holocaust. All of these RfCs (and many more in the archives) were valid, and so is this one. This RfC format was broadly authorized in WP:RSNRFC. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Everything above the Survey is part of the RFC statement. Here, what little is above Snooganssnoogans first signature is reasonable, but then he goes into denunciation. Tell you what, I’ll exercise RFC norms and put in the default and see if that flies. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Your addition looks fine to me. — Newslinger talk 04:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thats a completely inappropriate word to use in this context, I will be placing a note on your talk page and we can discuss this further there. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  User:Horse Eye Jack. Mmmm... spreading of hatred, incitement to mob action and extermination, done outside of any due process or judicial norms of evidence and law... the word ‘lynching’ seems metaphorically spot on. I suppose you could make literal use of ‘rigged proceeding’ or ‘Kangaroo court’, but the latter term always seemed offensive to Aussies by my lights. At any rate, not a neutral RFC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4. I debated Option 3.999 per Bob not snob, but I don't think Wikipedia should link to a conspiracy theory promoting propaganda machine for official statements either, even if they can reliably report on Russian leaders. I suggest that instances such as Shooterwalker describes should cite other news outlets which discuss RT's reporting. RT can't establish its own reliability or notability; we need other sources to even discuss it. Daask (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• My argument for not using RT to cover official statements by the Russian government is that RT might not provide appropriate context to those statements. For example, if the Russian government's official position entails falsehoods and conspiracy theories, then RT would omit that context whereas actual RS would provide that context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 Per pretty much countless RS, not reliable for anything. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (RT)

• I've upgraded this discussion to an RfC, as a deprecation proposal requires an RfC by definition. See the perennial sources list entries for RT (general topics) and RT (controversial topics, international politics) for past discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see how reporting unpopular opinions makes a source reliable, particularly when those opinions have already been published in reliable sources. What makes sources unreliable is when they treat opinions as facts. For example, your first example quotes climate change denier James Taylor in an article from 6 years ago in Forbes, which is America's foremost business magazine. It's doesn't present his opinion as a fact. Conservative media, such as Forbes, Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal, the Telegraph, the New York Post and the Washington Times pay too much attention to lots of unpopular positions, but are still considered reliable sources. What puts RT in a different category? Incidentally, I watch RT occasionally: Lee Camp, Rick Sanchez, Chris Hedges, Mike Papantonio, and formerly Larry King and Ed Schultz. None of them are climate change deniers. On the other hand, CNN once had climate change deniers Glenn Beck AND Lou Dobbs on for four hours every night. PBS hired William F. Buckley, Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan. Ann Coulter was a correspondent on MSNBC.TFD (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  The Four Deuces, what makes RT not a reliable source is that they do not have independent editorial oversight. Yes, they have editors, but their editorial oversight is ultimately Putin (and by extension the Russian government). It's true that not everything RT puts out is propaganda, or false. I also sometimes watch RT for news, and sometimes they cover stories in an objective and factual way and provide a different perspective than what you find in mainstream US media. But that doesn't make them a reliable source for Wikipedia. IMO, no government-controlled media can be a reliable source, because politics will always cause the editorial oversight to not be independent. We can't separate the propaganda from the "clean" content, so we can't trust it. Unlike, say, The New York Times or Wall St Journal, where we can be confident the editors aren't taking their marching orders from the President. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• In general, most international news stories on RT are factual and relate to true events, and provide center-right coverage. However, they for stories involving Russia they are highly biased in favor of Russia and occasionally run Pro-state conspiracy stories. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PeoPo.org

PeoPo.org is a Chinese (Taiwanese?) "citizen journalism platform" "encouraging citizens to register as users and report on public issues".[99] In other words, it is a site for user-generated content, which according to WP:USERGENERATED is "generally unacceptable". I tried removing it as a citation from North–South divide in Taiwan, but was reverted and asked to bring the issue here. Kaldari (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PeoPo.org)

Generally unreliable for factual reporting, I can see some cases where it could be used with attribution but they are not numerous. In general citizen journalism has issues from WP’s point of view. Also definitely Taiwanese not Chinese, this sort of thing is literally illegal in China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, generally unreliable unless the author of the particular article is a subject expert, in which case treat it as a self-published source. — Bilorv (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally Unreliable - Most of the articles on PeoPo.org appear to be written by users with little to no credibility themselves. As the Chinese-language version of the code of ethics states, writing on the site is open to anyone (except for governments and for-profit companies):

1.2 不論年齡、職業、性別、國別，任何人皆可免費申請本平台發稿帳號，報導各地事件和議題；唯有非政府組織(NGO)及非營利組織(NPO)可以用組織身分申請發稿帳號。

1.2 Regardless of age, occupation, gender, or country, anyone can apply for a journalist account on this platform for free to report on events and issues in various places; only non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profit organizations (NPOs) can apply for journalist accounts as an organization .

—"PeoPo公民新聞平台使用規定" [Regulations for the Use of PeoPo Citizen News Platform]. PeoPo (in Chinese). Public Television Service Foundation. Retrieved 12 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

The articles by approved NGOs and NPOs may be of higher quality than those of most of the citizen journalists however, due to the specific rules regarding their contributions. Articles by PTS Taiwan and the Indigenous Peoples Cultural Foundation are likely vetted by the organizations themselves, with both publishing (seemingly reliable) news on their own websites. The articles by citizen journalists should generally not be used in place of higher quality sources, although in some situations such as articles from approved NGOs or NPOs, the articles may be reliable as sources. K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)} 14:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PeoPo.org)

I am uncertain about the quality of all content from PeoPo but I would suggest that "just looking into the specific news coverage that is cited by North-South divide in Taiwan". We do not need to make effort to completely review PeoPo, which can be exhausting to us. Dormantor (talk) 1:48 am, Today (UTC+8)

If we make a conclusion, the conclusion is for PeoPo, not only for specific new cited by North-South divide in Taiwan. So I think we need to check PeoPo, not specific PeoPo news. --Wolfch (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Pride.com

There was a discussion back in January on the talk page of the article for ContraPoints, in which the reliability of Pride.com was briefly discussed. In the discussion, I asserted that the reliability of the website should probably be taken on a case-by-case basis. The site is said to prominently feature user-submitted content, but it also has an editorial director, and features content by established figures. For example, Jessie Earl, who has also written for The Advocate, has written articles for Pride.com. Fellow editor Bilorv agreed that the Pride.com article used on the ContraPoints page was an acceptable source in that case. However, I'd like more editors to weigh in, so perhaps a consensus regarding the site's status as generally reliable, generally unreliable, or marginally reliable could be listed at WP:RSP. This is my first time starting a discussion on this noticeboard, so I hope I'm doing this correctly. —Matthew - (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable or generally unreliable per discussion below, pending further information. Similar to Buzzfeed in style, which is categorised as "marginally reliable" on RSP. Potentially usable when the article in question is authored by a journalist known for their work at respectable publications. — Bilorv (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@MatthewHoobin: Do you know what the process of having an article published on Pride.com involves? Do all articles have to be reviewed by an editor before being published, or can people just post content on demand, similar to Medium.com? Are there published editorial guidelines? Kaldari (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Matthew. For this to be a formal RfC, I think you need a template at the top of the section with the right category: {{rfc|media}}. You might want to move these comments into a discussion subsection after adding that. As for the source, I'm not even sure Pride.com has an about page. Learning more about its editorial policies would be good, but my inkling is that it's like Buzzfeed, where our consensus is "yellow" and begins Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. I think articles are only usable when written by a journalist known for writing for other respectable sources. A lot of their content wouldn't be usable by WP:NOTNEWS, yet more would be better sourced elsewhere and that leaves its main uses as reviews of TV/film/whatever made by significant critics and special cases, so far as I can see. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Pride.com does seem reminiscent of Buzzfeed in its presentation. I haven't been able to find an About page on the website either. I've tried reaching out to Here Media, the company that owns Pride.com, via email to ask if they have any publicly available editorial guidelines. Hopefully they do and we just haven't been able to find them. The key term there is "publicly available" or "published", because if I get an email response just telling me about their editorial guidelines without providing me with any links, that won't be much help. —Matthew - (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding New Bank & Financial Institutions

Dear Wikipedia Pros,

I started to write about banks & financial institutions for adding into Wikipedia. I found a missing bank but has a good notability on various finance magazines. There are some reliable sources which I want to ensure before start writing. Need your advice about the reference sources and notability before start writing.

Ripple Has Signed Up A Bank To Use XRP For Payments. So What? Could Ripple's XRP replace correspondent banks? This bank says yes Financial Services Regulatory Authority - Regulated Entities Financial Conduct Authority Carribean Association of Banks Inc EURO EXIM BANK LIMITED - Overview (free company information from Companies House) [100] [101] [102]

I also need your support/help in learning to do things right as its my first step in Wikipedia.

I think this is more a case of wp:n, of the sources you list most are either not suitable to establish notability (listings with regulators for example) or seem to actually be about something else (such as XRP).Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

ahaha, this is in my wheelhouse.

The Forbes link is a contributor blog post. I know Frances Coppola and she knows her stuff - but I'm not sure she's famous enough for it to pass Wikipedia muster as an expert self-published source.

Not sure about American Banker - trade publication, of the sort that runs all sorts of nonsense, and this is definitely that and about crypto.

FSRA St Lucia is the local regulator, so is authoritative for its scope. Same for the FCA.

CAB is an industry association which explicitly states its mission is promotion - not an RS.

I'm not sure we use direct Companies House info much. In any case, it's user-submitted content and generally not checked by Companies House.

CFI.co, says it's a news outlet - I'm not sure how good a one.

You appear to be writing something on Ripple, XRP and Euro Exim Bank. This is a fascinating topic, and I really wish there were more solid RSes on it (and that Martin C.W. Walker and Frances Coppola would write about it for more of them - and tr0lly's blog nails the whole Ripple thing hilariously, and is utterly unusable on WP). But given it's WP:GS/Crypto material, I'd suggest that, as for most crypto material, stick firmly to the financial press - Bloomberg, WSJ, Financial Times (FT Alphaville counts, and has had a few things to say about Ripple), and the larger mainstream RSes with good finance coverage (NYT, Reuters) - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

American Banker is a highly respected financial publication, with credibility comparable to the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times, so I think it’s clearly RS. That said, the article in question doesn’t seem to say much more about Euro Exim Bank than that it is a bank and has clients. The Forbes.com article discusses the bank in more detail, but in a way that cuts against notability. John M Baker (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

WhatCulture

WhatCulture, the website where contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications", probably deserves an edit filter. Last month, I took the issue to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist because its use on Wikipedia is being a problem. It is generally specifically used for lists, celebrities, films, video games, and especially wrestling, and one can obviously tell the format of the coverage just by looking at its homepage. Frankly my blacklist suggestion was declined due to the lack of actual spam (the raison d'être of the blacklist), and during that time I came to better understand the use of edit filters. I then realized that I could either take the issue here on RSN or on WP:EFN, in which case the former is obviously correct. Normally, I do not request for putting warnings on links that should be avoided, but when those links become widely used, they become more or less an epidemic that needs to be curbed. I am not sure what I would be using that website for, if anything, so it would help if anyone can tell me why the source is at least useful. FreeMediaKid! 21:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable and would love to see it blacklisted. I'd put in the pile of "humor-based publications" like Mad and Cracked that are meant to be fun to read but have zero journalistic merit and should not be used for any real claims. --Masem (t) 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable Top 10 clickbait garbage absolutely a terrible source. Watchmojo should also be added the list for the same reason, it is currently used in 30 articles   Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable The pro wrestling project included WhatCulture as a unreliable source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable - the pro wrestling wikiproject has had this on its list of unreliable sources for some time, it is unreliable for any claim.LM2000 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable Some of their lists are fun but not appropriate as a source. The only exception I could see would be if they interviewed any notable wrestlers/media personality, in which case it may be usable as a primary source regarding the interviewee.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Apple Daily

Given that references to Apple Daily are used in a lot of Hong Kong-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Reliable, but may require further investigation
• Option 3: Unreliable for certain topics (such as those which may be considered controversial)
• Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 5: Publishes incorrect or fake information and should be deprecated.

Thanks. 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Apple Daily)

• Option 4 or Option 5: It's a tabloid that regularly relies on poor sources, such as using a tweet from Solomon Yue a protest conspiracy theorist to cover which Hong Kong officials are on the U.S. list of sanctioned individuals in this article (now being added en masse to articles). A recent example of it producing false (i.e. factually incorrect but not necessarily with the intent to misinform) news (bolding mine):

  For example, a protest supporter last month posted a misleading image depicting Lam using her mobile device during the enthronement of the Emperor Naruhito, a sign of disrespect. Within hours, the post was shared thousands of times, including by prominent activist Agnes Chow and local news outlet Apple Daily. It turned out the image was actually taken before the event started, according to a report from Annie Lab, a fact-checking project at HKU’s Journalism and Media Studies Center.
  — A 2019 article by The Japan Times

  It's been described by academic sources as producing sham news, among a host of other journalistic issues:
  • A Wall Street Journal article (1999): describes it as giving readers a heavy diet of sex and violence and having been attacked for bringing tabloid journalism into Hong Kong homes
  • A Far Eastern Economic Review article (Taiwan — Lai's Next Move: The publisher with the Midas Touch hits new highs. But mainland China remains a dream (2001)): describes it as a racy tabloid
  • An EJ Insight article (2019): describes it as having never claimed to be objective or unbiased, particularly in reference to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests
  • A journalism book published by the The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press (2015): criticizes it for breaches of privacy and paparazzi-like conduct.
  • An academic reference book by Berkshire Publishing Group (2014): its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred
  • An academic book on HK media by Routledge (2015, quoting 2005 criticism): Apple Daily has been described as 'well known for its brazen, sensational news coverage ... Legitimate political and social topics have been supplanted ... by sex, sensational crimes, the rise and fall of celebrities, scandalous paparazzi investigations, rumors, and even sham news.

To its credit, it's an example of press freedom in Hong Kong with extensive coverage of the protests, and is a rare publisher in HK that is willing to take on the Chinese government. Nevertheless, it's a tabloid that engages in the usual poor journalism practices across all types of content. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC); modified 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC); expanded 08:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC); struck Option 5 on basis on undemonstrated intention in false reporting 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC); parenthetical on "false" to save everyone's time 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC); add years of sources 18:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3, I think we should treat them with the same care we treat the New York Post and New York Daily News, they are usable in some circumstances but we always prefer higher quality sources. A distinction should be made between Apple Daily and the purely tabloid Next Magazine which should be deprecated. We must also be careful to make it clear that this is only about Apple Daily HK not Apple Daily Taiwan which has a completely different staff and editors (the Taiwanese one being much better, although they just had cuts [103] so who knows what the future holds). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, changing iVote per [104] (the EJI Insight article provided above). They appear to currently be the third most reliable paper in HK and on a ten point scale score barely lower than SCMP (5.71 vs 5.89). The tabloid stuff looks to be largely in their past or confined to the separate Next Magazine publication. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 If it just a question of whether it is reliable, I would say no. I don't see a clear-cut case of intentional false reporting, so I don't think Option 5 is appropriate. In general, I would avoid it and seek better sources. However, ironically, I think the "controversial topics" of option 3 are where it may be valuable as a source. There simply aren't many news outlets covering Hong Kong political dissent, and I don't see major concerns about its coverage of this topic in particular. Editors should use it cautiously on a case-by-case basis. Daask (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3. Apple Daily isn't a fake news site, however some of the info may be opinionated against the government and should be treated with caution. It might, for example, downplay the violence by protesters and exaggerate use of violence by police. However, if it is reporting the GDP of France, it should be reliable. Political articles almost certainly cannot be quoted directly; they should be paraphrased if possible. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

striking out option 2 per arguments below. Not as bad to require a 4, but definitely not desirable in BLPs. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Apple Daily)

• @MarkH21: please either source or retract, the statement that Solomon Yue is a conspiracy theorist violates WP:BLP no matter what space its made in unless backed up by a WP:RS. I noticed its unattributed on their page, it has been removed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye Jack: Sorry, I took the statement from the WP article lead at face value too quickly. Digging in further though, sources do prescribe him as tweeting conspiracy theories:

  It’s a theory that seems to be somewhat related to the Wuhan lab conspiracy. One tweet by Republican Party official Solomon Yue, who has more than 100,000 followers, said: “#coronavirus is stolen from Canada by espionage & sent to Wuhan to be weaponized to kill foreign enemies.”
  — Article from Vox

  The problem of containment gets worse when power users such as politicians give this false information a boost. In US, Trump helped amplify tweets from the support of QAnon, the conspiracy group active in spreading Corona virus rumors. Republican party official Solomon Yue tweeted to more than 100,000 followers that the virus was stolen from Canada for use of a Bio weapon
  — Article from Rising Kashmir

  I’ve struck the label about him as a conspiracy theorist above, but the main point still stands about the article being based on his tweet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  The points a good one, I agree that Apple isnt generally reliable but we have a very high standard for calling someone a conspiracy theorist. Tweeting or re-tweeting conspiracy theories doesn’t count, we need a WP:RS to say in black and white “X is a conspiracy theorist” or “X is the originator of the Y conspiracy theory." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, and thanks for removing the statement from his article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  @MarkH21: Also just noticed that you’re mischaracterizing the The Japan Times article, neither the quote or the article supports the assertion that they’re "producing false news,” at most you can say “shared a misleading image.” Please correct yourself. I also note that since Solomon Yue is not a conspiracy theorist but is in fact the highest ranking member of the RNC born in China what they say and do is definitely newsworthy and reporting on it doesn't make them unreliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Also Multimedia Stardom in Hong Kong: Image, Performance and Identity doesnt make that statement, its a direct quote from Lo 2005 (and thus a little dated for our purposes, we are discussing Apple News’s reliability today not in the late 1990s). Representing a quote as coming from the source which used the quote is dangerous academically. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Actually now that I look at it a few more are too dated for our purposes: that WSJ piece is 1999 and the FEER piece is 2001. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  The Berskshire book has been weirdly fashioned to remove both the beginning and end of the statement which changes the meaning entirely, the full statement is “Yet, its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred, but Lai insisted that journalism should feel the market’s pulse and reader’s feelings. Criticism of the government and the powers that be, including Lai’s good friends, was the rule and without exceptions.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  The title of that EJI piece (which I believe is our most recent) is “Jimmy Lai's newspaper up in credibility, survey finds” btw, looks like you cherrypicked pretty hard to get these. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  The original Apple Daily article said that Lam was using her phone during the ceremony, as opposed to before the ceremony: 但她被當地電視台拍到在觀禮期間玩手機，對場合有欠尊重. Roughly: but she was filmed by a local TV station playing on her mobile phone during the ceremony, showing no respect for the occasion.

  Of course reporting that Solomon Yue says XYZ isn’t unreliable. However, publishing an article saying that six people are on the US sanctions list on the basis of his tweet that says Gang of Six: [six names] is very different.

  This is about the general reliability of Apple Daily. Editors can cite Apple Daily articles from 1999 or 2020 on Wikipedia. This is a whole body of literature being assessed.

  I don’t see how the part of the sentence about what the Apple Daily founder insists is relevant to assessing the reliability of the Apple Daily, or how it’s essential to the prior assertion in the quote.

  The EJI article isn’t asserting that Apple Daily is the third most credible news outlet; it says that the Apple Daily was third out of eleven paid local newspapers in a public opinion survey, while asserting in EJI's voice that the Apple Daily never claimed to be objective or unbiased. The survey barely means anything, and I hope that Wikipedia never has to rely on public opinion polls to determine reliability (even the deprecated Breitbart is distrusted by only 9% of US Republicans and 36% of US Democrats in a public opinion study by the Pew Research Center). — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC); minor typo fix/clarification 03:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Your current argument is that Apple News made an error, you still have a long way to go to support “producing false news“ as that appears to be 100% your opinion rather than the opinion of the WP:RS.

  I don’t see how reporting on his tweet is journalistic misconduct as you’re claiming, plenty of people report on tweets these days and the tweet was by a notable person who is an expert in the field.

  We actually base general reliability on recent rather than historical reporting, if that were the case the we would have WaPo banned as a white supremacist conspiracy outlet. Thats why its wikipedia policy that the most recent WP:RS is the queen bee in any dispute.

  A public opinion survey in their home market has a bit more standing than your OR about false news. The way you pull that quote from the piece is highly misleading, in context it doesnt mean what you’re trying to force it to mean. Also again, even if it meant what you think it means bias and objectivity aren’t an issue for us WP:RS wise, lots of biased yet reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  False news isn't the same thing as fake news; fake news must be deliberately false. At least this is the most common definition and is the one used at the WP article, and seems to be the one you're using; I'm using "false news" to literally mean news that is factually incorrect. Apple Daily frequently reports information that is false, i.e. erroneous, but not demonstrably intentionally so. They have a habit of frequently making erroneous reports (here's another blatant front page error from 2013).

  The article isn't just reporting on the tweet, it just says that Regina Ip, for instance, is on the sanctions list. It credits the reporting of these people being on the list to Solomon Yue, without disclosing that it was based on the tweet Gang of Six: Commissar Carrie Lam, [...] Regina Ip are on a leaked 🇺🇸 sanction list.

  You're going pretty far back with that WaPo comparison. I don't think we're far enough into the 21st century that the recency consideration should exclude 1995-2005.

  It's not OR; RSes have reported several times about high-profile mistakes in Apple Daily reporting. I'm not trying to force anything, the quote means exactly what it means. But public opinion surveys don't have any standing on what makes a source reliable. This survey also appears to be the sole reason for your !vote that Apple Daily is Generally reliable. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is getting off topic so I’l just address the main point and then you can edit your original comment. False news is not different from fake news or sham news, they’re different names for the same thing. What you are doing is calling errors/mistakes false news and that needs to stop now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Again, I've clarified several times that what I mean by "false news" is "factually incorrect news without a demonstrated intent to misinform", so there's no further need to explain what I meant. There are several differing definitions of the terms discussed at fake news, as covered in its "Definitions" and "Types" sections. I've explained the definition that I am using and clarified the exact statement that I am making. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I’ve searched high and low for a definition of false news like what you’re describing here (the fake news page makes it abundantly clear that they are generally used interchangeably), I cant find one. Can you link your preferred definition? We generally don’t let editors define words however they like when wikilinking those words would indicate something completely different (as it does here if we wikilink false news in your statement). By your definition of false news every single WP:RS has “produced false news” which is an odd statement that I think would be objected to by almost everyone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  An MIT study published in Science defines "false news" in the exact same way that I have:

  We have therefore explicitly avoided the term fake news throughout this paper and instead use the more objectively verifiable terms “true” or “false” news. Although the terms fake news and misinformation also imply a willful distortion of the truth, we do not make any claims about the intent of the purveyors of the information in our analyses. We instead focus our attention on veracity and stories that have been verified as true or false.

  The rest of the paper then uses "false news" in exactly that way. Is that enough? Plenty of other reliable sources use "false news" to literally mean news that is incorrect, rather than the narrower requirement of being deliberately incorrect. There's a case to redirect false news to misinformation instead of fake news, but I don't intend on wasting any more time on this off-topic matter. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Using that definition publishing false news does not effect reliability as it relates to wikipedia so I’m confused by your argument. We require that it be deliberate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  The point was that they have had several high-profile incidents of erroneous reporting and sloppy journalism, and have been criticized for doing so. It’s more frequent and severe (relative to the body of independent coverage about their journalism, and relative to the age of the newspaper) than one would typically find for “Generally reliable” sources in WP:RSNP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who is is not familiar with the reliability of Apple Daily or Hong Kong news in general, I have to agree with Horse Eye Jack here that sources that are over a decade old are not appropriate to determine reliability. For instance Buzzfeed built an award winning news operation after initially being a publisher of listicles, if you were to judge Buzzfeed by article discussing the publication in the early years, you'd get inaccurate impression. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If it were "fake news" (deliberate false reporting), which I don't think Apple Daily has done, then it would go to Option 5. Reliability is not just about whether the newspaper reports news falsely and deliberately. Reliability is about whether the newspaper reports news falsely at times (even if not deliberate). This is related to the reputation for fact-checking, which according to arguments above have appeared multiple times. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is PoliticusUSA a reliable source?

I've seen this website referenced in a bunch of places in Wikipedia. It seems to be that it is rather opinionated but is it reliable in general? [105] dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No - This looks like the sort of partisan angle-shooting "news" site we should explicitly avoid, not least because there are undoubtedly far better and more mainstream sources for anything this might publish. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Interview with subject

Hello, My apologies if this is not the correct place to ask this. But I am currently writing an article about a media company owner, I haven't begun writing the article yet, so I can't really give you the article (sorry). I have noticed that he has done several interviews where he has spoken about him starting his company, and it's early years (pertaining to himself and his family and the company itself). Would this be classed as reliable as he's said it or not? Thanks in advance. --Choicom (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It really depends on where. If it was an interview hosted (say) on the BBC website yes (taking into account wp:primary). If however it is linked to (say) "BobsYoutubeChannel", no as we have no way of knowing of the interview has been altered or edited to change what the subject said.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There are hardly any formal guidelines on this, but the essay Wikipedia:Interviews provides some good guidance. If the interview was published by a reputable media outlet (one that can be trusted to accurately represent what the man actually said), I would say it is fine to use under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Glades12 (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes to all said so far. Note that most interviews won't be useful for establishing notability, (due to primary and independence problems), a fact which may help you decide whether or not to write your article.Jlevi (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If the interview were published by a reliable source, we don't even have to invoke WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:SELFSOURCE because the interview would simply be considered reliable. However, the portions of the interview that consist of the businessman's responses would not be considered independent, and would need to be attributed in-text if used for anything beyond basic uncontroversial claims. — Newslinger talk 07:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Apple Daily/Next Magazine/Next Media/Apple Daily (Taiwan)

Apple Daily, Next Magazine (Hong Kong and Taiwan), Next Media, and Apple Daily (Taiwan). I feel at a minimum Generally unreliable, however, some may warrant depreciation and blacklisting as they are heavily mandated and edited by the government. They are also biased towards certain groups. I have a 3rd opinion I am offering and a user is using these to supplement their argument as being truthful. I am seeking RFc on these (they are all part of the same company). Thanks, Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 15:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: There is already an open RfC about Apple Daily (HK), just a few sections above. Feel free to open an RfC on the other Next Digital publications. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As they have separate editorial staffs and varying degrees of quality we need a separate discussion for each of those. Can you clarify what you mean by "some may warrant depreciation and blacklisting as they are heavily mandated and edited by the government. They are also biased towards certain groups.” IMO Next Magazine (just FYI the Taiwanese one is no longer published) may warrant deprecation for being a scummy tabloid but not for the reasons you name. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @MarkH21:! I have striken that out. For @Horse Eye Jack:: If you look at our articles you will see that they are all stated as being biased and have had fines imposed and/or articles blocked from publication for violating respective laws. I can see the bias as they can only publish certain stories and if they publish stories they are not allowed to they could face fines and in my opinion, if they want to survive, they wouldn't do that, therefore, we cannot get the stories, let alone unbiased. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 16:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Is your argument about the larger media environment in Hong Kong or these publications specifically? The Apple Daily (Taiwan) article has neither reports of bias or government interference, are you sure about what you said? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: you’ve made some rather extraordinary statements here, you’re going to need either back those statements up or retract them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: I think you misinterpreted what I was writing. I am going to follow the advice and make these all individuals and I will be sure to provide clarity. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have stricken out my comments and opened an RFC for the remaining pieces of media. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hrvc.net

Is Hrvc.net (Human Rights Violations Chechnya) a reliable source? Note that its website is defunct, but is still sometimes quoted through webarchive [106].--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It's a self-published source with no listed authors and no use by reliable sources. The site also contains full copies of newspaper articles, which are copyright violations that should not be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. — Newslinger talk 11:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sentence check (Snopes)

• Page: Piers Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Perennial sources entry for Snopes

---

Here is the source: [107]

The sentence is the following:

Piers Robinson was part of what snopes.com called, "a panel of conspiracy theorists".

You tell me whether this adheres to WP:V.

I am not interested in debating whether snopes.com is reliable or not, nor will I take any consensus (or lack thereof) here as a license to add/subtract this particular sentence from any article. I merely want to know whether this is a verifiable sentence and as there is not "verifiability noticeboard", this is the best I can do. The user, User:PackMecEng, who thinks that this is not verifiable, in my estimation, is being extremely tendentious in the discussion. She claims that headlines are not reliable, but cannot cite any WP:PAG to that effect.

jps (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• For clarification they are trying to use the headline to label someone as a conspiracy theorist. There is debate if the headline can be used and if the body of the article supports it. See discussion here. Additionally here are some discussions and mentions at RSN about the use of headlines as a source from the talk page.[108][109][110][111] PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be best to let fresh face have a go.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering I haven't seen any PAG that says headlines are reliable we can't go by just what's in the PAG's. Next would be past discussions, from those listed so far headlines are considered not reliable. To me this would put the baseline for headlines as not reliable, and would require those who want to rely on a headline for sourcing to demonstrate acceptance of reliability. So per WP: ONUS it currently fails WP: V. I would also note that since this is material about a living person the minimum sourcing requirement is not just verifiable, but verifiable from high quality sources. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Verifiable and reliable. Snopes (RSP entry) is a high-quality reliable source. It's one of the oldest and most well-established fact-checkers on the Internet, and it was certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry) when the article in question was published.

  The subheadline in question, "A panel of conspiracy theorists plan to gather to discuss whether war reporters should be considered terrorists", is consistent with the content in the article body. According to the article, the panel included a writer for the conspiracy theory website InfoWars (RSP entry), editors of a Holocaust denial website, conspiracy theorist David Icke, conspiracy theory promoter Vanessa Beeley, and someone who claimed that the chemical attack depicted in BBC (RSP entry) documentary Saving Syria's Children was staged. People in the panel have also advanced 9/11 conspiracy theories, moon landing conspiracy theories, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, a reptilian flavor of the New World Order conspiracy theory, and more. The phrase "panel of conspiracy theorists" is appropriate here. — Newslinger talk 18:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that the sentence can be considered reliable, but if included should also include people who he was on the panel with, Piers is only mentioned once in the article and isn't singled out for any criticsm individually. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion. — Newslinger talk 19:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, it's getting pretty uncomfortable on the articles talk page, as Piers himself has turned up to defend himself against claims by an article in The Times that he spread coronavirus conspiracy theories., suggesting that the article was payback by a millitary officer after questioning Syrian chemical weapons attacks (I think specifically Douma, which Piers is well known for questioning, alongside the Skripal poisionings). As somebody who hasn't followed the Syrian Civil War particularly closely, is there any reason to take claims denying chemical weapon attacks by Assad and/or a coverup by the OPCW at all seriously? There's also uncontroversial evidence that he is at the least very sympathetic with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Giving a positive review to 9/11 Unmasked by David Ray Griffin Given that he's a relatively minor figure in comparison to someone like Alex Jones or Icke, meaning that fewer sources exist on him and that many arguments on the talk page regarding inclusion of these are based on differing opinions on the reliability of sources. As someone who is obviously familiar with much of the disinformation surrounding these topics, your input would be appreciated. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that a subject disagrees with a source does not make the source less reliable. Journalism includes positive and negative coverage, and it is unsurprising when subjects of negative coverage take issue with that coverage. The Times (RSP entry) is considered generally reliable, and in Talk:Piers Robinson § COVID-19, it looks like Robinson's main argument against The Times is that he dislikes their coverage of him. That's not strong enough of an argument to discredit The Times. HuffPost (RSP entry) staff articles can be used to augment other articles, including those of The Times.

You might want to ask WikiProject Military History for clarification on the Syrian Civil War. The most prominent international media backer of the Syrian government's false flag allegations regarding the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War is the Russian propaganda outlet RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), which was fined £200,000 by Ofcom for partisan coverage of events including "the Syrian conflict", and received a negative ruling from Ofcom for its unsubstantiated allegations against the documentary mentioned in the Snopes article. RT is also widely panned on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

As shown with past discussions, regardless of source, we do not use headlines as sources and this is why. In this situation it is misleading on who is getting the conspiracy theorist label given they do not actually address it in the body of the article. It comes down to, in wiki terms, the lead is not supported by the body. PackMecEng (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Another problem with headlines is that many publications that recycle a story from, say, the NYT or AP will add a new headline. I remember a while back seeing the exact same word-for-word identical story in two news sources, credited to AP. One had a headline "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal would allow hunting of endangered wolves". The other headline was "Success story: rising wolf populations lead to calls to remove them from the endangered species list".

In addition to the headline problem saying someone was part of a panel of conspiracy theorists does not establish that they are a conspiracy theorist. Many times you will see a panel with a bunch of liberals and a token conservative, a bunch of alt-med advocates and a token skeptic, a bunch of death penalty opponents and one advocate, etc. No matter which side I agree with, it is always sad sad to see one side of an issue shouted down. To imply that someone is a conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia, you need sources that say that specifically. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Can being described as a 9/11 truther (as Piers has been described as, see above ref) be sufficient? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Re the general question "does 9/11 truther equal conspiracy theorist?" the answer is yes. Re the specific question "does the Huffington post (outside of the headline, which we don't use as a source) describe him as a 9/11 truther?"[112] Pretty much, yes. Re: "is the huffington post a reliable source for this WP:BLPRS claim? Per WP:RSP the answer is no. Can you find a better source? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Simple solution - headlines are typically clickbait - don't use them. If a passage in the article itself is verifiable and can be corroborated, use in-text attribution to a couple of RS. I'm hard-pressed to believe the BBC could be considered conspiracy theorists unless there is substantial evidence that points to a conspiracy that is plausible, notable and verifiable, aka PNV. Again - intext attribution - but consider whether or not it is compliant with DUE, RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, NEWSORG and REDFLAG. If it is, follow procedures and avoid saying it in Wikivoice - happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, "conspiracy theorist" is a serious charge, as it's used to denigrate a person as having fringe viewpoints and possible mental issues. That said, Snopes is very much WP:V, and the text explicitly credited the claim to Snopes, so I have to support it. I think opponents of the inclusion of this text would be better pressed to go for a 'noteworthiness' or excessive focus argument instead. I'm not sure they'd fly, but they make more sense than this argument. Rei (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rei: Would you say that the sentence from the headline is supported in the body of the source for calling Piers Robinson a conspiracy theorist? PackMecEng (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not acceptable, though not necessarily due to WP:V. Headlines should not be used as sources because it is unclear who wrote them. They are often written by different authors than the associated articles. Furthermore, it is not unusual for a reputable publication to have clickbait or misleading headlines. Thus, I do not regard reliable sources to have reliable headlines. If it is notable and reliable, it will be in the article body. I know of no policy for this, but I would support one.
  In this case, there is a secondary question, which is about guilt by association. It's inappropriate to say about any person that they participated in a panel with conspiracy theorists. It would be appropriate to say they participated in a panel of conspiracy theorists if we have a reliable source specifying that was the criteria by which the panel was selected. The proposed statement above implies Piers Robinson has some relationship with the category "conspiracy theorists" without actually having a reliable source provide a claim about such a relationship. Daask (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, As long as Snopes.com is deemed a reliable source, which in my opinion it is, it should be fine to mention this as the opinion of Snopes.com. We don't need to say that it's an undisputed fact, but it's clear that Snopes.com describes it as a fact. Saying that Snopes.com holds this viewpoint is clearly acceptable here.Naomi.piquette (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Is Catholic News Service a reliable source?

The Catholic News Service was established in 1920 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It remains sponsored by the bishops. However, they are "editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining" department of the bishops' conference (link is to their website but Google seems to think this is true). Their mission is to be "a leading agency for religious news. Our mission is to report fully, fairly and freely on the involvement of the church in the world today. CNS staff members and stringers are professional journalists who adhere to ethical practices and standards of the trade." They are "used by about 240 newspapers, broadcasters and other news outlets in over 35 countries."

They are established, editorially independent, financially self-sustaining, and trusted around the world. They are also an arm of the United States bishops. So, is CNS a reliable source on Catholic/religious topics? On other topics? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

PS-As a corollary, is a CNS article reliable when published in another publication (assuming it has a reputation for fact checking, etc) as opposed to when it is published on its own website? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page say that you should provide:

"Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: Article name.

Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example:

text

. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"."

The reliability of any source depends on context. Which article? Which statement? Almost every source, even the worst, is reliable for the name of its senior editor or the address of its office. But neither the Wall Street Journal nor the New York Times are reliable for medical claims (See WP:MEDRS) or the details of advanced nuclear physics research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. I deliberately left it vague to try and get thoughts along the lines of what Hippeus and Johnbod provided. I didn't want to have to come back each time I wanted to use it as a source. By way of background, though, my question was prompted by AF's removal of content related to the Vatican's efforts to improve HIV and AIDS care in the developing world. So, to pick out the first claim sourced to a CNS source, would they be reliable as a source to say Church officials lobbied privately for years in an effort to get drug makers and governments to increase provision of antiretroviral medicines to children in poor nations infected with HIV.? I can see it being, as Hippeus said, PR for the church. I could also make an argument, as Johnbod said, as it being the official position of the church. I'm conflicted. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple points to make when judging the source. First, the quotes that Slugger has added have all been from catholic news itself and not from independent sources. Second, The Conference of Catholics Bishops still own the trademark on CNS articles which can be seen at the bottom of the pages. Third the editor-in-chief moved from "Our Sunday Vistor", which is exactly what you think it is :) , to the CNS after working on a Vatican plan to revamp catholic media communications. And finally 240 newspapers sounds like a lot until you realize catholic diosece can have their own "newspapers". As far as I can tell CNS is reliable for whatever the views of Catholic bishops are and for direct quotes. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for the views of the church, clergy appointments, and similar. In my view this is close to PR or media relations for a company.--Hippeus (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for the official position of the CC on church-related matters. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• yes per Johnbod, generally reliable. LoosingIt (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

LoosingIt, so I understand you (and Johnbod) clearly, what would you think about the example above? Would it be a reliable source to report that the church lobbied pharmaceutical companies and governments to increase their efforts in the global south in the area of HIV treatment? --12:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Without regard for the specifics in this case, I think we need to be very careful in deciding on reliability by looking at things like "who's name is in the copyright field" and "who owns it" or "how is it funded" or things like that. We have numerous, scrupulously reliable sources that share similar categories with other scrupulously reliable sources, and the categorical connections are not a good judge of whether or not some body is or is not a reliable source of information. The fundamental difference between the BBC and Russia Today is not that one is privately owned and the other state owned, it's that the BBC has established a reputation for and a clear desire for, truthfulness and independence, whereas RT has not. Similarly, being connected to a religious organization is not, of its own accord, a sign of reliability or unreliability. The Christian Science Monitor is a highly respected journalism source, frequently cited by other sources, and has won numerous national and international awards for its reporting. Again, these should be our measures of whether or not a source is reliable. The fact that it appears many people are judging whether or not the source is reliable or not because it has "Catholic" in the title is missing the point. It may very well be unreliable, but that isn't because of any connection to the Catholic church, that would be for the same reasons why we would judge any source reliable or not: journalistic integrity, acclaim, and reputation by other reliable sources. That sort of thing. --Jayron32 13:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

An excellent point, Jayron32. That all being said, would you care to opine on the specifics of this source? Do you think it has met the criteria you laid out, or not? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I did a few minutes of research, and I would say the source is generally reliable. Other reliable sources cite their reporting: Politico, WaPo, New York Times, Poynter, etc. --Jayron32 12:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Echoing Hippeus, I am satisfied that this would generally be a reliable source on matters related to the church, its views, and activities. On other matters, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of its reporting, though one would assume that alternative sources are also available to use as corroboration.

With respect to private lobbying efforts for the provision of antiretroviral, this is the sort of privileged information that probably would not be reported by the BBC—not because it is unreliable or cannot be verified, but simply because it is rather arcane. So use it, I say, and note the source in line if you want.

As a further aside, whether or not something is good PR for the church is irrelevant to determining whether it is true. Facts can be stated simply, and there's no need for spin.TheBlueCanoe

Americans United for Separation of Church and State - uses of court/IRS documents & a statement that the AP has politically labelled it

Here[113] USer:Ihaveadreamagain has stated that Fox News and the Associated Press have labelled the organisation as conservative and liberal politically. These articles don't seem to be statements from the media organisations themselves.

Also added was a paragraph sources entirely to an IRS document and a court of appeals decision. I've always understood that we need secondary sources for this sort of thing. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first issue: https://www.foxnews.com/story/pols-sharpen-rhetoric-over-schiavo-case.amp is an AP article, that states: "DeLay's remarks were made public by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a liberal group." This is a statement from AP, not from anyone else. It is placed by the writer as a description of the group and is in between a quote from DeLay and a statement by Dan Allen, but it is not from either of them. It is definitely from the AP.

This link https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-judicial-nominee-may-survive-senate-panel-vote contains the same description, linking AU to other abortion rights groups and liberal activists. It is a description by Fox News, not by anyone else and cannot be read otherwise. "But a coalition of abortion rights groups and liberal activists, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, are aligned against the McConnell because of his writings on church-state issues and Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that allowed women to choose to abort their pregnancies."

Regarding the second issue about sources: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."

Thank you for bringing this to talk instead of just reverting like many do! --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?

I'm not saying History.com is not reliable... but it's not reliable—ජපස (talk • contribs) 21:00, May 4, 2020‎ (UTC)

Is the website for History generally reliable? I'm not talking about ancient aliens stuff, but information posted on their website such as this? Back in 2009 it looks like it was deemed reliable per how reliable sources are determined, but that was 11 years ago.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable Articles like this one are just fine to cite for historical articles, especially those that are not well studied or super controversial. However, university press books and peer-reviewed academic journal articles are preferred. Certain topics, such as Antisemitism in Poland, may have higher sourcing requirements. buidhe 02:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, that article exudes the whiff of bullshit. And in fact areas that are not well studies are precisely the areas where we should avoid History Channel, due to its long association with cranks. Guy (help!) 18:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Highly unreliable — They produce popular pap, not serious history. Zero^talk 03:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Use with caution - a lot of those articles look like Buzzfeed-style and using the example you asked about I can't find any information on the background of the author "Evan Andrews" to tell if he's a credible historian. I'd be very careful of WP:CIRCULAR issues as well with articles like this. Use of programs as citations might work if the credits show contributions from reliable historians, but of course then there is the problem of availability for verification, and the danger of "artistic license" and dramatizations. I'm almost tempted to say that if History is the only source available for some inclusion, then perhaps its not really worth inclusion. -- Netoholic @ 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Even when the History Channel shows a genuine expert saying something, it doesn't mean it is reliable. What is not shown is often more important than what is shown. I have unfortunate personal experience of this (two shows that I appeared in which egregiously misrepresented experts). They are an entertainment outlet, not an academic institution. Track down what the expert wrote independently and use that. Zero^talk 03:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Use with caution - I agree with Netoholic's concerns. I wouldn't object to using it as a source for a basic fact but if anouther source contradics or if the claim is controversial I would be cautious. Springee (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Use academic sources instead, treat press releases with caution, and avoid entertainment outlets entirely. If it's significant enough to include in an article, it will be found in much higher quality sources. If the only available source is the History Channel, then it's most likely not significant enough to include or undue. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Probably not, no. It depends on exactly what fact(s) you want to ref, but... Ghengis Khan has been very thoroughly studied for many centuries, there's tons of good academic material I'm sure. If you've got a fact to want to use, and this is your only source for that fact... that's a big red flag, plus also an indication that the fact may not be very important. For obscure subjects it'd possibly be different. I don't have a good vibe about how thoroughly the article was checked by an independent fact checker, altho that's just a guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable (yes because of the ancient alien stuff), When they were not the "UFO channel" they were "the Nazi channel" or "the conspiracy channel". Basically the TV equivalent of one of those "fact or fiction" magazines that peddle sensationalism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable I can't imagine any reason to use the History Channel as a reference; the few articles I paged through consisted of superficial factoids and are almost certainly based on higher-quality sources that we should find and cite instead. –dlthewave ☎ 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable It's a legitimate news channel with professional writers. The issue here why anyone would chose to use as a source an article called "10 Things You May Not Know About Genghis Khan," no matter who wrote it, especially when it does not provide sources? If the top scientist at NASA wrote an illustrated book called "Wonders of our Universe for Children," it would not be a useful source, whoever the publisher was. TFD (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

But from what I have seen this is the level of most (well all I have seen) of their content. Its all "ancient Aliens" and "Hitlers 10 worst underpants".Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, in the current climate, I might even watch that. Guy (help!) 20:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. The publisher publishes information on aliens in ancient history as well as conspiracy theories about Hitler's demise (see: TV Review: ‘Hunting Hitler’). The History channel does air (and write) some reputable documentaries, however separating the wheat from the chaff is impossible on a publisher basis here.--Hippeus (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Avoid. Anything accurate can be better cited to sources that are far MORE reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable: As the popular media descend into a frenzy of clickbait, it's rather sad that history.com has joined them — popular pablum may be nice for the public, but we need reliable, well-sourced, preferably academic sources, especially for history. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, with caution though (as with all sources). As mediabiasfactcheck reports They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. Disqualifying them entirely is extreme. As others have said in most cases a better source exists probably though. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Media Bias/Fact Check is unreliable as it is self published and has questionable methodology per WP:MBFC Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: wasn't aware it was in the list thanks. I've checked real quick the discussions. Am I correct in saying it has been considered to have questionable methodology in relation to the "left/right" bias but not the "factual" score? Seems that way from a quick look at the linked discussions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: While much of the discussion was about orientation, much of the other discussion was about that it apparently changes the result based on users, and the that it uses wikipedia as a source. I would avoid using it. The main issue is that is a self published source by a single person who appearently works as a healthcare professional, Wikipedia usually avoids self published sources for a reason and if they are to be used they should be subject matter experts, which he is clearly not. What makes him any different to some person with a blog on Medium? I don't see any good reason to cite it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: That's a bit of an exaggeration. The "publisher" is apparently one person but he does use a panel of evaluators to make an assessment according to a published methodology https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ We have relied on stuff like https://beallslist.net for years on wiki and some people still do.

In any case your point is valid and I agree it's not the be-all end-all of media reliability (nothing is) but in this case I agree with their assessment. You can read their assessment as mine except for the "to favor liberal causes" which I have no clue about. The political spectrum in the US is very different from the European one. Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto Yes, but quoting assessments because you agree with them is called (not to be rude) confirmation bias. We don't take self-published sources (like blogs) at face value as RS unless they are "Established experts" per WP:SELFPUB. Jeffrey Beall is a professional librarian, and therefore an established expert on the topic of academic journals. As far as I am aware, nobody involved with MBFC has any sort of established expertise in politics or media, and therefore it should hold the same due weight as a random medium post, i.e. none. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Think about it, if only experts could provide something useful, Wikipedia would not exist. It all depends on the methodology you employ and obviously all methodologies have their flaws. Interesting read citing MBFC: [114]. In any case, as I have said I was unaware of the finer points of MBFC when I cited them. However, confirmation bias notwithstanding, I stand by my assessment. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Think about it, if only experts could provide something useful

I'd say that, no, you haven't thought about, ESPECIALLY since you're positing this misinterpretation in the very place that disproves it: what, exactly, do you think the function of a "reliable source noticeboard" is? It's to figure out who really ARE the experts who can provide "something useful" and not some amateurs who are simply saying what you want to hear. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hemiauchenia and Gtoffoletto, Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is indeed a self-published source authored by someone who is not considered a subject-matter expert under the definition in WP:SPS. This means that MBFC should not be used in article space. For discussions in project and talk space, it's okay to link to MBFC if you agree with its analysis, but linking to MBFC does not make your argument any stronger than if you asserted it without referencing MBFC. When editors cite MBFC on this noticeboard, I point out the fact that MBFC is self-published – not because its evaluations are necessarily wrong, but because MBFC's evaluations carry no weight compared to statements in reliable sources. MBFC is still a good starting point for research: MBFC's entries frequently include links to reliable sources (such as reliable fact-checkers). However, in past discussions, editors consider MBFC's evaluations to be generally unreliable. I hope this clarifies the use of MBFC on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 10:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100%. In any case. This discussion is not about MBFC. We are way off topic. Thanks for illuminating me on MBFC as I was not aware of the problems with that source. I still agree with their assessment of this source. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable I'm not sure why any article like "Top 10 facts about Genghis Khan" should be cited in any article, we should preferrably be using academic papers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that article is not a reliable source and much better sources are surely available. I would hesitate to disqualify the entire publisher though. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, honestly, I wouldn't be at all reluctant. Guy (help!) 18:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Guy, haven't you stated the opposite in your vote below? I completely agree with what you said below: "case-by-case" and certainly not the only source (I would apply this to everything though) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, what I am saying is that based on this report I would be at least very cautious, but I leave the door wide open with a Welcome mat to evidence supporting deprecation. I would never cite History Channel. Guy (help!) 18:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy I see what you mean and agree. But I wouldn't disqualify them completely as they do also publish interviews with sources that would not be usable if we disqualify the whole publisher. I would advise caution with this source and always prefer alternatives but blanket bans are quite extreme and can have unanticipated repercussions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly not blanket reliable, given their history of publishing complete bollocks, so I think this would need to be case-by-case. That said, if History Channel is the only source for something? I would exclude it anyway. Guy (help!) 18:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable, having done some more reading. Here's an example: [115]. HC broadcast a conspiracy theorist documentary. It was knocked down trivially easily by a blogger, *but* we can't cite bloggers. So if we allow HC to be considered reliable, given their long record of producing, frankly, bollocks, we introduce a situation where a source that is known for producing bollocks might stand as fact until a reliable source decides the bollocks is notable enough to publish the debunking. I repeat also my earlier assertion:L anything that is only on HC should not be included. Which leaves a situation where the only legitimate use of HC is as an additional source for something that is already covered by a better one - and by linking the redundant source we risk drawing people down a rabbit hole because we don't know what else is in the programme and we can't trust them to stick to tiresome reality. Guy (help!) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Trade off - There is an old Wikipedia trade-off that is useful for us and our readers (see generally wp:preserve). We want our articles to say something, and we want our articles verifiable (but note verifiable does not mean always cited). Basically, there is noting wrong with telling a reader here is something true (if it is true and relevant) and history channel says so too. But if it's something not true or there is a controversy about it history channel is going to lose out to better documentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, and who judges? Say, for example, History Channel produces a documentary that claims Amelia Earhart ended up in Japanese custody on the Marshall Islands, and the US Government knew but covered it up? Who says whether this is true or not? Should we "preserve" that content because it has truthiness? Guy (help!) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipdians judge. As for my judgement, I would not host a new theory or claim or speculation from the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - Most of what it pushes these days is of little substance. If the fact you want to add to an article is of any importance it can be found elsewhere. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Marginally reliable, but basically useless as anything they publish factually should be sourced to better sources anyways. For anything which is reliable (i.e. not the Aliens crap, etc.) it serves as a very shallow tertiary source with so little depth as to be basically useless. Not the "burn with fire" sort of stuff we would seek out to remove immediately, but it should be replaced when convenient and avoided when better, more scholarly sources exist, which they usually do. --Jayron32 19:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable I don't watch much TV and certainly I am no expert here, but in the few shows that I've watched they TV-ized the facts to make them more interesting and sensational. I vaguely remember one show where they presented information as though it was mind-blowing new information when as a matter of fact it was widely accepted stuff. IMO it is worth watching but not worthy of using as a reliable source. Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Something in the back of my mind is going "oi mate look over here", I seem to recall just such a usage of some history channel tosh in just this way. Some old and not at all new theory being presented as if it was some new and shocking revelation. AS I said above sensationalist rubbish that gores the intellect for click bait cheap shocks.Slatersteven (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - not everything on the site is crap, but too much is. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• I just wanted to say I really enjoy Forged in Fire (TV series) myself as light entertainment combined with technical wonkery. But yeah, I wouldn't say history.com is reliable for history.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable. It is, at very best, far too shallow to be actually useful. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• History Channel? Even though the OP is "not talking about ancient aliens stuff", nevertheless that is the outlet with the credulous UFO programs. Absolutely not reliable. If there's what looks like a reasonable documentary with academic sources, why wouldn't we instead look for those sources? Though apparently one of History.com's sources is Wikipedia,[116] — you know about Wikipedia? It's a user-generated site that anybody can edit! Bishonen | tålk 10:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Note: The diff you linked isn't about history.com. We were talking about something else -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable and we shouldn't be basing our encyclopedia upon listicles anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable - offers far too much obvious rubbish. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Multiple editors have already mentioned Ancient Aliens and UFO Files/UFO Hunters, but I think History's most egregious violation of journalistic expectations is their handling of their discredited 2017 documentary, Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence. The documentary presented a photograph that was claimed to be of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan being captured alive by Japanese forces after they disappeared in 1937; however, two days after the documentary aired, the photo was confirmed to have been published in 1935. History stopped airing the documentary and withdrew it from streaming services, but never retracted the claims that were made in the documentary despite promising an investigation, with this page on the conspiracy theory still online. This incident illustrates History's lack of fact-checking, and their unwillingness to retract discredited claims. With the unretracted Earhart documentary, pseudoscientific programs like Ancient Aliens, and other conspiracy theory shows such as Hunting Hitler (discussed by Hippeus above), History as a publisher makes enough false and unsubstantiated claims to be considered a questionable source. — Newslinger talk 12:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable/Attribution only - we should avoid History as a source , with the only possible exception being an in-text attribution if, say, a notable historian were interviewed in a History program/article. The issue with citing History as a source is that they often try to cover WP:FRINGE perspectives, a viewpoint which fundamentally conflicts with Wikipedia's encyclopedic prerogative to reflect what is covered in WP:RS. History is presumably right some of the time - something-something blind squirrels and stopped clocks - but we can also presume that any important historical detail they write into their programming will be covered in more traditional, reliable sources better suited to be cited by Wikipedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and on a personal note I think their programming is swill. When I was younger I used to love watching their military history programming, but when I grew older, began reading actual literature, and started working in some of the industries covered I realized what garbage the programming I watched was. AND keep in mind this was stuff that was on before History became infamous for covering sensationalist, fringe topics... I can only imagine what the channel airs now. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be black listed...... an embarrassment to the academic community. People who thinks it's reliable should not be editing history articles at all.--Moxy 🍁 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this discussion is being used to remove article content covering interviews and documents published by History and regarding the article subject [117]. I don't think this was the point of this discussion (which is also not over yet). I don't think the consensus is to ban or black list the source (although some have proposed it). If anything I think this is an example of why we should not COMPLETELY ban this source. It may report interviews with witnesses/sources/historians (like SamHolt6 pointed out) and we should be able to use History's coverage if useful. I think most agree there may be sensationalist language and wild/fringe speculation but the reporting is usually attempting to be factual. Mistakes happen but as the Earhart documentary mentioned above proves when information published is disproven or not verified it is usually removed from programming. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying History.com is not about UFO's... but it's being used about UFO's.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because you see an expert saying something on HC, it doesn't mean that the expert's opinion has been fairly represented. It is dirt easy to convert a critic into a supporter, or vice versa, by selecting what to show. I know from personal experience with "documentaries" shown several times on HC that this is something they are willing to do. From this I know that they are not reliable even for attributed opinion. Zero^talk 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable, would support blacklist. This morning I reverted an entry to the infobox of Cyrus the Great stating that he was a Zoroastrian using history.com as a source. It's not surprising that a lot of new and some more experienced editors will use this website. I'll note that this was by history.com editors and not a named source, but I'm not sure that that doesn't make it even worse. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, any fact from them should be easily checkable and attributable to a better source... If not it probably shouldn’t be there in the first place. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: a clear pusher of conspiracy theories, with no convincing evidence in the discussion so far that there are situations where it useful to cite History.com. — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: this was different about a decade or two ago, but they’ve produced a lot of content that is against scientific/historical consensus (at least this hypothesis about Srinivasa Ramanujan communicating with aliens is relegated to Ancient Aliens). Examples where they do present consensus material can be cited elsewhere. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely unreliable: Per Newslinger and others. Someone should add this to the notes of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources when it is archived. Trying to water down that there "maybe" something good somewhere, is espousing we should allow unreliably sourced content to exist until one day, possibly 10 years down the road, someone actually looks at it and sees factual errors because the site is more entertaining than factual. Facts may sometimes be seen as boring and may not be a better selling point (for ratings) than "juicing it up". If something is considered "basically useless" we can call it "Generally unreliable" but the bottom line is that it is still "unreliable". Policy states: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Thousands of articles sourced only with IMDb is evidence that, if we are not at least somewhat vigilant, sites that are "generally considered unreliable" will just keep being used. Please note: Deprecation is not a ban. I wish one of our Wikipedia wizards would start a RFC to add a yellow warning sign (caution) to the far longer list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources like the "stop sign" at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. My bad! That might be too logical as an editorial help for new and more established editors but some may likely consider it censorship. I do like to think we are still attempting to build a reliable encyclopedia though. Otr500 (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. I love the History Channel. Their documentaries are well-produced and at times fascinating. However, they have promoted conspiracy theories in the past and haven't retracted them, which IMO is an instant disqualification. Additionally, virtually anything on History that's accurate can be backed up by another, higher-quality source. We won't lose anything if we declare History unreliable. JOEBRO64 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable and Deprecate based on description by Newslinger and Zero0000. I strongly disagree with Gtoffoletto; this conversation is precisely about whether it is acceptable to cite History.com content. Any source in which "the reporting is usually attempting to be factual" but lets unreliable fringe authors make these factual claims is useless as a source. The problem isn't that there isn't any factual content from History.com. The problem is there is no differentiation between factual content and absurd content. Daask (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we consider author ethnicity ?

While discussing a ways to determine WP:COMMONNAME selfstudier suggested that we should discount[118],[119] Jewish authors because they may use Hebrew name(which is btw is name of our article(Naharayim) about the place which apparently WP:COMMONNAME).I think such comment goes against our policy but I like to hear community input on this.Thank you --Shrike (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should, but in the IP area, people routinely throw out any Jewish/Israeli sources, such as any Israeli NGO's while simultaneously keeping pro-Palestinian NGO's (such as ARIJ or B'Tselem) so I do think it's an issue that needs to be discussed since there is a double standard. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That looks like a content dispute not something that should be here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, please be aware that B'Tselem is a Jewish/Israeli NGO. Yes, it criticizes human rights abuses of Palestinians, as all people of good will ought to do, but its founders and leaders are overwhelmingly Israeli Jews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that may be true, if that were the only point of the organization, but it's not. It's an agenda driven organization that is also against all settlements that has nothing to do with abuses but a political issue. It has been caught many times making up stories. Just this past month it made up a story about Israel and coronavirus, when even the UN praised Israel and the PA for its cooperation. The point is that when another NGO is used in articles, people are told that it's a "pro-Israel viewpoint" and a different source is needed. There is a double standard with regards to sourcing. Ma'an News is allowed, when they make up stories and has zero independence, but the claim is that we have to let it, or so we were told in a past RS thread. Meanwhile, a week or so ago, they tried to get rid of a RS solely because it was Jewish albeit religious. I'd ask you to visit the IP articles so you can see how much of a bias exists in Wikipedia. But it's not for this thread. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

However I will answer, no.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No... We should not discount authors on account of religious-ethnic background. We use whatever names will be most recognizable to our English speaking readers (which will be whatever is most commonly used in English language sources). Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

An author's ethnicity does not affect their reliability. The linked discussion doesn't appear to mention reliability, so I don't think this matter is within the scope of this noticeboard. The neutral point of view noticeboard might be a better fit. — Newslinger talk 17:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(comment moved to section below) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say that this just falls in the general case-by-case situation. At a major reliable source like the New York Times, in the area of factual/non-editorial coverage, it is extremely unlikely that the ethnicity of the writer is going to have any influence on the product. At a less reliable (but one we'd still consider) source, on their op-ed pages, that ethnicity may come into play - someone of Jewish heritage may not give the most fair descriptions relating to the situation in the Israeli/Pakistan war. A Chinese national writing for an English paper make have their own specific take on the Hong Kong situation, etc. But as I noted, this likely only becomes a problem with works that are closer to op-eds and less likely to have editor scrutiny for fact-checking, and for less reliable sources. eg: even for an op-ed written by a Jewish author from the NYtimes I would expect that any claims made in a factual tone to be valid (checked by the Times' editorial staff) or otherwise held in check so that the op-eds aren't going off on a bed of lies that you might find in something like Brietbart. --Masem (t) 13:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding naming, there are lots of examples of different groups/organizations/nations calling things by different names. There are huge fights over "Taiwan". Some people says that there is no such place as Israel. Others says that there is no such place as Palestine. And don't get me started on Danzig vs. Gdansk!

My advice: don't attempt to create a general rule about naming. It won't be followed anyway. Just deal with the disputes on a case-by-case basis. If discussion does not result in agreement, post a neutrally-worded RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Even in the case-by-case example, we shouldn't be looking at ethnicity, we should be looking at their claim to expertise on the subject at hand. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I do think it's appropriate to consider what other languages an author speaks when determining what the WP:COMMONNAME is in English. I can imagine a situation where Chinese writers use a Chinese loanword even when writing in English, but Indian and Australian writers use a different one. In this case, I would prefer the Indian and Australian term, because it is unambiguously English, whereas the Chinese term is not. The process of a foreign term becoming accepted as a part of another language is a process, and its status at any time is on a spectrum or gradient, not an absolute. This can be seen in the fading use of italics as a term becomes accepted. There is no easy way to determine when a writer is using a term where they regard the term on the spectrum. I'm offering guidance in general terms as I think is appropriate for this forum; I would rather not explore the details of your particular discussion and debate.

we aren't talking about language. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Too many RfCs?

(Separated out from section above) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Limit RfCs when rating entire sources

subheading added 13:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC) by ^Atsme _Talk 📧

Newslinger, there needs to be a change in how we approach the reliability of entire sources because some of the activity I've been seeing on this noticeboard with regards to rating, deprecating and blacklisting raises some valid questions, and that includes this discussion and this one that rightfully attracted the attention of Drmies. You are already aware of my concerns dating back to November 2019 when JzG first began the discussions that led to the creation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Guidelines need to be established here because if we continue on this same path, the results may very well contribute to creating a homogenized encyclopedia that threatens the very foundation our great project was built on. My first thoughts are that we stop using prior RSN discussions in the general sense and use only the diffs from those discussions that support the position of unreliable, reliable, propaganda, fake news, etc. My concerns are that sources are being determined unreliable for publishing opinion journalism or conspiracy theories - the latter of which we should not dismiss entirely because all conspiracies begin with a theory. I also believe that we should limit whole source discussions to not more than 3 sources/week to allow more editors to participate, but continue allowing editors to seek consensus regarding the question of Is source A a good source for [describe material in question], or is source A good for [this material] but not [this material], and basically the questions that this noticeboard was designed to answer. RSN is a limited venue, and I'm thinking that we need to notify the projects that are involved in articles where the material was included/excluded so they too can participate in reviewing the diffs that support the claims. Does that make sense? I am of the mind that it is inappropriate for the same group of editors to be involved in making what sometimes appears to be POV decisions based on generalizations that may inadvertently negatively affect the encyclopedia with such far-reaching scope. Masem, Rosguill, Vanamonde93 - I would very much appreciate your thoughts on what I'm proposing. Perhaps my proposal should go to VP, and if not, we should at least notify the relevant projects involved in the respective articles where the sources have been cited to assure diversity. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC) ^{add underlined text 21:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)}

I'm not sure how this relates to ethnicity. We've just completed a 2.5-month RfC at WP:RSNRFC that closed with consensus to increase the number of RfCs on this noticeboard while decreasing their duration. Limiting discussions and requiring the tracking of diffs would increase the maintenance burden of the perennial sources list by an order of magnitude and introduce a large amount of bureaucracy, and I am not seeing the benefits that would result from the extra requirements. I don't think the publication of conspiracy theories would get much sympathy anywhere on Wikipedia. The Notifier script can speed up the process of notifying related WikiProjects about discussions and RfCs on this page, but the notifications are usually only helpful for regional or specialized sources. — Newslinger talk 13:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I move this to a new section, please? I did not intend for this one topic to consume my proposal. It is much bigger than that, and needs serious review. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsmse: I'd support an effort to publicize these RfCs more, but with respect to the rest, I disagree, actually. We have, over the years, used an enormous number of crap sources on Wikipedia. I find myself purging them on a regular basis. Many of them are obvious enough that we don't need discussions here, but many are not. We need these RfCs, and we need them to happen at a rate that is commensurate with the number of bad sources, and we need their outcomes to be clear cut, because a "can be used for X content but not Y content" generally does not solve the issue of unnecessarily tying up editor time and effort. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I think that the discussion about RfCs and discussions about sources is a separate topic from the original question and would suggest that we move this discussion to another section, or at least a subsection. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

New section created. You are reading it now. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We just did this. The consensus is reflected in the instructions above. Sources proposed for deprecation or classification as "generally unreliable" require a project RfC, held here. Guy (help!) 20:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx, Guy - I understand but I would very much appreciate wider community input because it does affect NPP, AfC, GA/FA and getting articles right, so I'm of the mind that before we continue rating entire sources, deprecating and blacklisting, we involve more than just this noticeboard in our RfCs. If relevant projects and reviewers are being advised of these discussions, then that's wonderful, but if not they need to be because of the scope of what's being done and the articles affected, especially on a historic level. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh? No it doesn't. WP:RS has been there as long as I have. The RfC that just closed increases the bar to declaring future sources unreliable. If you don't think it goes far enough, start another RfC. Guy (help!) 22:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this is interesting because I was just thinking "some of the activity I've been seeing on this noticeboard with regards to rating, deprecating and blacklisting raises some valid questions” but it was about Atsme voting Option 1 or 2 on the Media Research Center RfC and then going on a rant about left leaning sources... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you would stop personalizing me in your comments and trying to paint me with a political brush. It doesn't exist. My concerns are strictly RS, and our access to quotes and verifiable material. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you dont want your comments to be taken as political statement perhaps avoid making statements that don’t appear directly related to the topic at hand like "Our job is to maintain neutrality, and we cannot accomplish that if we discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them.” I’m sorry if you’re offended but statements like that are going to undermine other editor's estimation of your reasonableness. You’re questioning "how we approach the reliability of entire sources” but I genuinely dont think that you and I have the same understanding of what reliability means if you consider MRC to be generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

HEJ, your comment was inappropriate. You might disagree with the concern but that doesn't mean you should belittle the concerns of another editor. Atsme isn't the only editor to raise similar concerns and contrary to what you have said, her comments were relevant. The way you have addressed may undermine other editor's estimation of your reasonableness. Springee (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this overlap somewhat with the July 2019 thread RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point, Peter Gulutzan but my concerns are focused on RfC's that are called for the purpose of rating, deprecating, blacklisting an entire source that is based primarily on opinions or what one might determine to be WP:OR that contains insufficient evidence and personal judgment about a conspiracy "theory" that may be tainted with one's own political bias when involving news sources. I think we need to approach this issue with more caution, and take it a bit slower. I do not want to limit RfCs in general - we need to continue having RfCs and discussions to determine whether or not material for inclusion/deletion in an article is sourced properly to source X or if source X is reliable for a certain type of material but not for other types. Hope that clarifies it somewhat. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

WatchMojo

WatchMojo is a pop culture publisher that is most famous for its youtube channel, with over 22 million subscribers which is well known for its 5 daily uploaded top 10 videos on a variety of topics. including such highlights as: "Top 10 Booty Songs", Top 10 Cartoon MILFs" "Top 10 Video Game Ninjas", "Top 10 Animated Kids Shows With Surprisingly Sexy Women" "Top 10 anime deaths" (which has become an internet meme) and tasteful true crime ones like "Top 10 Most Evil Kids in History" (which was actually cited in Freeman family murders until I removed it). It has apparently been cited on Wikipedia 223 times   (Note: that count has gone down significantly as I have systematically removed a lot of them). In my own opinion WatchMojo is a terrible source, it is a low effort, lowest common denominator content farm designed to appease algorithms with a massive volume of content, with no evidence of fact-checking or editorial oversight. It has no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's an interesting account by a former freelance writer for WatchMojo, stating that while the rankings done by the writers were researched, (i.e. rankings were drawn from at least 3 other existing rankings on the topic), these were often arbitrarily changed by the editors based on their whims without any justification for doing so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Not Reliable. I think it would be appropriate to nuke most of those 223 citations. You would have to take a bit of time, though, and determine on a case-by-case basis whether to remove the claim, keep it wit a Citation Needed added, or find a reliable source for the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, I have left only the interviews or ones that qualify as ABOUTSELF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not Reliable for same reasons as WhatCulture above. Tends to be the source of listicles of useless "top 10" works. --Masem (t) 13:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:, I assume you also think the same about Ranker? As all three websites have the same format. I think it might be worth opening a RfC on all three sites to try and get them depreciated, as they all fall far below the standards of reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, their primary content is just these types of lists without real discussion of "why". They're definitely meant as clickbait. --Masem (t) 16:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Question Please be more specific. Reliability depends on context. Per the directions above, what are the a) source, b) article and c) content that you are concerned about? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

a. watchmojo.com and citations to watchmojo's youtube channel (which is already considered unreliable anyway) b. every article it is used in c. The entire website https://watchmojo.com/ just take a look at it and see for yourself, it almost entirely consists of low quality listicles, which are not appropriate to cite on an encyclopedia. Many citations are not to articles, but to self-published videos or even direct youtube links Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Having gone and removed some of them, most use cases seem to be in the reception section of media stating something like "Watchmojo.com ranks X as number Y on the top 10 Z of all time", but as Watchmojo is primarily a listicle publisher, with no real expertise or authority in any media it covers, I don't see how its lists can be considered authoritative in comparison to something like Sight & Sound for instance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have found one ref on the Breaking Benjamin article which I think is usuable because it is a direct interview with the band, rather than being a listicle. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: has undone some of my edits removing WatchMojo from articles, would you like to explain here why you think Watchmojo is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oknazevad, I see you have also undone one of my removals, can you explain why you think WatchMojo is a reliable and authoritative source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable - WatchMojo is nothing but a content farm. They have no editorial oversight, no staff with actual experience in journalism, and certainly no history of fact-checking. With a catalog of videos including classics like "Top 10 Running Out Of Oxygen Scenes In Movies" or "Top 10 TV Grandmothers", I see no reason why this should be used as a source for Wikipedia. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - that seems reasonable and fairly clear-cut, but I'll just comment that's it's poor form of Hemiauchenia to have reverted my edit prior to seeking clarification or justification of his own. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: sorry about that, the issue is I am systematically removing all references, aside from a few old interviews and ones that otherwise sufficient (ABOUTSELF etc), and I appreciate that I could have been more considerate in retrospect, apologies Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mainly unreliable though the interviews should be acceptable as primary sources regarding the interviewee baring evidence that they have produced fake interviews.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed,. I didn't remove any of the interviews Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable It's a content farm which, for the top 10, their criteria it's a little bit odd (even for serious rankings) I think we should delete Watchmojo rankings in the reception section. Of course, if there is any interview, it should be included (the interviewed it's reliable). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable and borderline spam. Guy (help!) 16:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry to beat this drum again, but the question is not one of reliability, it is one of WP:UNDUE. When a WatchMojo listicle is cited, why is it being cited? It is being cited to quote or paraphrase what the review states. A subjective review like a ranking listicle is not, of itself, subject to concepts like "reliability", which is about the veracity of the thing which is written. If Watch Mojo has ranked Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls as "the #1 comedy movie of all time", let's say, and we cite a sentence which says "If Watch Mojo has ranked "Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls" as the #1 comedy movie of all time", then that citation is scrupulously reliable because Watch Mojo really did say that, and the citation really does confirm that fact. The question is not "is the citation believable and does it correctly verify the fact being cited", because in this case it does. Reliability is not the question. The question is more "Is Watch Mojo's opinion one that has widespread acceptance for it's expertise and experience in the field of movie criticism". That is, would I put the opinion as on par with that of, say, the American Film Institute, or Leonard Maltin. If not, then we don't include them not because their opinion is unreliable; ranking things based on subjective feelings like this is not reliable or unreliable. Their opinion is merely WP:UNDUE because it isn't a widely respected expert on the subject matter. We need to stop trying to say that reliability is the issue here; we're essentially asking about the reliability of direct quotes being cited to the original source itself. It usually always is. The question is why are we including the quote in the first place. The opinion of non-experts is not relevant, that's why we omit it. --Jayron32 13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: This is the noticeboard to discuss the nature of sources, where do you suggest discussion around the use of these sorts of sources should take place instead? Watchmojo wasn't just being used for rankings, it was also being used to justify facts, See: [120] [121] [122] which makes it applicable to this noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In those uses, it is clearly unreliable. That's why we need to establish why we are using the source. For statements of fact, it is unreliable. For statements of opinion, it is non-expert. --Jayron32 13:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable, with the exception that being a top-something listing in WatchMojo might be of some very minor note to those listed.--Hippeus (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Common Sense Media

The aforementioned organisation reviews kids’ stuff (movies, TV shows, books etc.) based on how suitable they are for children. From what I understand, they have separate ratings for feedback from kids and parents. The organisation itself also rates media on different stuff like violence, language, positive messages, quality etc. So, is the rating and description by the organisation (I’m not referring to the public feedback) appropriate for the Reception section of kids’ TV show articles? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Courtesy links to pages where CSM is a source: Talking Tom and Friends (TV series)#Reception and Accolades and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (TV series)#Critical response RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

They'd be reliable... but on that side, nearly all of our projects involving contemporary media rarely get into the issues of ratings and content issues related to films and televisions (eg we don't include things like MPAA ratings unless they are a matter of controversy). So unless there's a common thread of discussing how appropriate a show is for children already from sources, I don't know if we'd need to include Common Sense Media here for that reason. --Masem (t) 13:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the suitability for children section they also give a review of the film on its own merits which is in the same style and content as any other professional film critic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. It's a review site run by a nonprofit with content by in-house paid editors. I can't find anything about their policies or processes, but I see no reason to question their reliability. Daask (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable this was discussed here last August when the majority view was that it is a reliable source for reviews such as film reviews. Its reviews are used by Rotten Tomatoes as a top critic and there is no identification of any unreliable content, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for entertainment reviews only. Outside of these reviews, Common Sense Media is an advocacy organization, and I would consider it a situational source. As a biased or opinionated source, Common Sense Media's statements on all subjects should generally be attributed. — Newslinger talk 05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone who responded to this discussion. I was aware that this organisation was rather well-known, but my concern was whether special interest groups’ reviews are acceptable (I have attributed their statements, so there should be no issues), which is why I asked this. Considering that Rotten Tomatoes uses CSM’s reviews, I am convinced that CSM is an acceptable source. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Headlines

Should the list of perennial sources contain an entry on headlines? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We should have something on headlines, as well as book, chapter and section titles. I have come across many cases where an editor tries to support a claim based on an article title, even when the article itself does not support the claim. Titles are not statements, are often not even written by the journalist, and cannot be used to support anything. TFD (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think this fits the format of WP:RSP, but I recommend an RfC at either WT:RS or WP:VPP to have any proposed guidance on headlines written into the reliable sources guideline. — Newslinger talk 11:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unsure as the real issue is users who insist on "you can only use a source that has that exact phrase", so you are forced to look, for that phrase. Thus it has to say "It is a..." not "...including it" or "it is studied by...".Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am pretty sure we had something somewhere that headlines are never reliable, and I don't know if we need an RFC for it because I know this has been subject of consensus discussion before. --Masem (t) 13:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... I too was sure that WP:RS already had language that said that headlines are not considered reliable... but having checked, I can not find it (perhaps the guideline used to talk about it, but the provision was inadvertently removed during a rewrite?) In any case, I would support making such guidance explicit. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems pretty straight forward. I cannot see a case where you would want to use something that is only supported by the headline and not the body of the article. I was also fairly sure that it was written somewhere but I cannot find it either. PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

My view is unless the headline itself becomes notable (as was the case for Dewey Defeats Truman) I don’t see a reason they should even be mentioned in the first place.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would agree that newspaper headlines are generally unreliable, especially for claims that a certain terms like "China virus", are widely used, as the wording in newspaper headlines can be misleading or not convey intended meaning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes ^{12:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)} - Perhaps we need a brief paragraph about headlines in WP:RS? Let's say the article includes mention of a headline in so-and-so news publication, then yes, it should be cited to that publication, but if the headline is being used as a means to include controversial material, or to satisfy WP:V, then no. It would be noncompliant. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Headlines of newspaper articles are commonly written by sub-editors, not by the journalist who wrote the article. In addition to that problem, the sub-editor is very constrained by space and has motives in addition to accuracy, such as the need for the headline to be eye-catching (and sometimes cute, depending on the topic). So headlines can't be taken as reliable even if the journalist who wrote the body of the article is reliable. Zero^talk 01:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I just wish that WP:HEADLINE brought up a policy section saying exactly that. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW, the section on this page below #100 most powerful drag queens... is exactly where headline guidance is needed. --Masem (t) 05:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• In 2014 in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources the discussion Add something about never using headlines as sources? was closed after there was no agreement for specific wording. A later RfC failed. This 15 May 2020 post by PackMecEng points to some past WP:RSN discussions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• It's time we made it clear that they shouldn't be used. If it's not discussed in the body of the newspaper article there's no excuse for us using it. Hell, I used to write headlines for the Miami Herald and I was never a journalist. I was only about 20 and PA for the city desk editor, answering his calls and telling the state governor he was busy but I could talk to him. :-) Doug Weller talk 09:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Just piling on. Couple months back I was arguing against using text in a headline as a source and looked in vain for a guideline to refer to. As per Guy, we really do need a WP:HEADLINE. O3000 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Local papers

Generally speaking, are local newspapers reliable? A comment by Dflaw4 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Tunnicliffe made me wonder. Effectively, are the following three sources reliable:

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18447167.keith-lemon-show-goes-ethos-crafting-says-contestant/ – The Bradford Telegraph and Argus

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/soap-stars-street-art-987997 – Manchester Evening News

https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/8235391.former-corrie-star-turns-skiptons-sheep-into-pop-art/ – Craven Herald and Pioneer

The first and third are Newsquest publications, the Manchester Evening News seems to be independent.--Launchballer 17:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Why would they not be? Guy (help!) 20:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Local papers are fine and see no reason why they shouldn't be. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• It depends on the specific paper... some local papers are very reliable, others are garbage. The hard part is determining which is which. To be deemed reliable, we require that a source have “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. But many local papers don’t have any reputation at all (neither good nor bad). Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(added) I note that this question is being raised due to an AFD nomination. There is a consensus that coverage in local papers (even reliable ones) does not properly establish notability. There is a bit of a grey zone when it comes to DEFINING “local” (for example, there is some debate as to whether the NY Post should be deemed a local or a regional paper), but agreement that the more “local” you get, the less it establishes notability. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the “what is local” argument can get a bit frayed in the areas around major cities, I’ve has the NYT rejected as appropriate for establishing the notability of a CT politician because it was considered by two others to be “local coverage.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Many local papers are more reliable than national papers, winning Pullitzer Prizes, less sensationalism and less political bias, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with JzG and others regarding local papers - one example, the Times-Picayune, New Orleans winning a Pulitzer for its comprehensive coverage of the "Dead Zone" and the threat to the world's supply of fish, and another Pulitzer for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. If the source is being cited for material about local events and WP:V needs to be satisfied, then yes. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Local paper can become less reliable the smaller the number of people they serve, which is generally going to reflect in the number of people in the editorial chain. I would not call a 2-man paper doing the reporting for a 500-person town to be necessarily reliable out the game, though if they have shown that historically then that's okay. There is a key facet that as the paper gets more "local" it loses its independence which is importance for considering notability and UNDUE facets related to a topic, and this starts much sooner than issues with reliability - eg a paper covering the news for a 50,000 person town is going to have some independence problems but likely will be reliable. --Masem (t) 00:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

True. Guy (help!) 16:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, and as many know by now, my position on the news sources of today has always been to exercise caution, particularly internet news and breaking news. We also need to keep the scope of the local paper in mind, and not conflate a community paper with a local newspaper, the latter of which is still by far considered generally reliable. Unless I see actual evidence of unreliability in any source, I am hard-pressed to deprecate and downgrade sources based only on the opinions/analysis of users which I see as WP:OR, some of which may be based on a small few incidents, or unknowing political bias. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Mais Qandell

I don’t know under what reading of WP:RS (certainly not WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which it passes with flying colours), the excision of the following book was made.

Mais Qandeel, Enforcing Human Rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory,] Carl Grossmann Verlag, 2018 ISBN 978-3-941-15931-0

Though published very recently it has already been cited in four academic works. Scroll back from the link and the high quality of documentation, sourcing etc. is self-evident. She is a resident research fellow at the Center for United Nations Constitutional Research and and senior lecturer at Örebro University in Sweden.

This is the publication of a Phd thesis supervised by Prof Eva Maria Belser,Chair for Constitutional and Administrative Law and UNESCO Chair in Human Rights and Democracy and completed at the Faculty of Law of the University of Fribourg. It was published as Vol.4 in the series Sui Generis edited by two cademics Daniel Hürlimann, professor of law at theUniversity of St. Gallen and Marc André Thommen (professor of criminal law at the University of Zürich)

The fact that a book was originally a Phd doctoral thesis does not invalidate its status as an academic publication. A huge number of our high bar RS books started out as doctoral theses. The firm is a noted publisher of academic monographs. The only objection I can think of that might warrant suspicion is that the author is a Palestinian.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think approval here just be a formality, but nonetheless I would appreciate input from neutral RS hands.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to comment on all aspects of that book, but Carl Grossmann Verlag (Q94659996) is a pay-to-publish open access publisher. At a glance, it doesn't seem much better than self-published. Daask (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The publisher offers an optional peer review process.[123]. It's not clear to me how to determine if a paper went through this process. Daask (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP is fairly clear on this point.

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

This being a completed doctoral dissertation that has been cited in other scholarly works makes it a reliable source. Agree the publisher doesn't add to that at all as being open-access (but for the record the author did not have it published here, rather the Swiss National Science Foundation did), but a completed thesis is reliable, especially given that it has been cited elsewhere. nableezy - 23:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• PhD theses are generally treated as reliable even if they are not published at all. It doesn't make sense for a reliable source to suddenly become unreliable when it is published, based on the nature of the publisher. This is an important observation because it is very common in Europe for PhD students to publish their theses in this manner and that must not be used as an excuse to consider them more harshly than other PhD theses. The fact that this one was selected by an editorial board to appear in an established book series is an additional point in its favor, but it isn't necessary. Zero^talk 01:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The source use the same Btzelem apparently used in the article so I don't understand why this source is needed at all. I also agree with Daask additionally WP:SCHOLARSHIP quite clearly says that theses is a primary source so WP:PRIMARY should apply --Shrike (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it says that parts of a thesis may be primary. nableezy - 15:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Shrike you have been round here long enough to know that that type of work is not a primary, so much as a secondary source, which in case you didn't read further than primary, runs in the contrastive paragraph beneath it.

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[e] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[f] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review

The work is question, like all scholarly books in that genre, is a technical evaluation in terms of international law of the issues of Israel's occupation, drawing on a large number of primary sources.Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Supercars.net

I'm starting this again after the previous discussion ended with no discussion at all. This website seems more like a personal blog run by someone named Nick D. It doesn't have any editorial control, just a one man show running things. One also doesn't know where the info on this website comes from with majority of the content posted by a person named Richard Owen. The reliability of this website has been questioned a few times ago on some of the automotive articles where this is used as a source. A decision should be made in this regard as we can't have a website circulating around on here which goes against the WP:RS rules.U¹ _quattro TALK 23:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro I do agree that it's not 100% reliable. Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but would you say somewhere like Pistonheads or other automotive news sites are more "reliable"? Redstoneprime (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I...ummmm... was sort of asked to come here, Personally I'm in agreement with U1Quattro that this is a blog and shouldn't be used here unless you really have too (IE there's nothing better on the web) but even then I'd prefer not to use it still. –Davey2010^Talk 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ybsone: seems to be canvasing about this discussion, the talkpage postings seem very non neutral. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the canvassing, and left a neutral notice at WT:CARS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thinking back to when i've used them, i've had some mixed results with the accuracy of their information, and I would say if a more reliable source exists it should override them, however, I would definitely be against an outright ban on supercars.net as they have an enormous backlog of articles providing, in my experience, mostly accurate information on a range of cars that other online sources don't cover. Whether they fall under the good or bad graces of WP:RS, I don't know, but I would much rather have them cited than the litany of other smaller websites providing information on these more obscure cars. TKOIII (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Disclaimer, I was also asked to participate in this discussion by Ybsone in a now-reverted message on my talkpage. Please note this is my first time participating in a Reliable Source discussion so I am not overly familiar with the details of this consensus process. I view supercars.net as a self-published tertiary source that is often quite sloppy in not citing the secondary sources it is based on. For example, compare [124] and [125]. I choose these examples because I am familiar with the topic and many secondary sources about it from editing Ferrari 250 GTO. The first page ("Ferrari 250 GTO") cites a few secondary sources. I can vouch for the reliability of those sources (I have three of them on my shelf and have cited them in wikipedia). However there's not enough inline citations to clearly cover the many statements made in the article text so it's difficult to verify the supercars.net article's reliability as a tertiary source. I would say that this article could have limited use in accordance with wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources, but I would never cite it unless i had no access to the secondary sources it cites and even then would be careful to only cite those statements that in turn have citations to those secondary sources. In contrast, the second link ("1964 Ferrari 250 GTO ’64") has no sources and nothing to indicate whether this is article is primary, secondary or tertiary research. This latter example seems to be the norm on supercars.net. Also, during some quick and casual clicking around, I also found a page here [126] that seems to just crib text from a Lamborghini press release without citing it (see press release text reproduced here: [127]). A wikipedia editor could find this page and cite it without knowing they are citing a plagiarized press release (primary source) posing as a secondary source. Finally, in my own experience I have edited quite a few wikipedia articles that have cited supercars.net and have frequently found more reliable (IMO) sources that can be cited in lieu of supercars.net, albeit often in print sources or otherwise difficult to find online. Its tempting to use supercars.net as especially with older cars there's not a lot of material online outside of large compendiums like supercars.net, but ultimately I believe it is too sloppy to employ except as a tertiary source in certain cases (maybe only when they cite their sources?). Prova MO (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think they are great, the submit a car thing seems odd. I don't think they are generally unreliable though, they are not my first choice but I can see times where they can be used. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm with TKOIII and Prova et al: no strong reason to block this site. Not a fantastic source, but if this is blocked then so should two thirds of the internet as a whole. As a side note, the cited entry doesn't even state that there ever was a Maserati Tipo 154 (at least not the version I read).  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that supercars.net is a very reliable source; it should be avoided, if possible. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The reliability of this source has been questioned many times in the past so I'd say its not reliable. A one man show with no editorial control and content submitted only by someone named Richard Owen seems enough for me to avoid this source. Redstoneprime piston heads seems more reliable as it has multiple editors and atleast gives us an idea where they are getting their info from. I have made improvements to articles on classic Maserati racing cars and there were many instances that I found sources better than this one. This source is used extensively on Maserati Tipo 61 while describing the Tipo 64 and 65. It got me confused as to where this site was getting the info from, obviously Richard Owen alone cannot get this info published from top of his head.U¹ _quattro TALK 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at it, it does have multiple of authors publishing blogs on there and seem a nice website run by passionate writers. I'm looking at the Tipo references and the blogs do have references themselves leading to sources such as publications of books done by known authors specialising in Maserati race cars [128]. If the sources in the blog are from physical publication, including what seem to be reputable books dating decades back, I don't see why this can't be used as a reliable source. However, the Tipo 164 article is one of bad parts of this website as it has no source at all and even looking up the car on the serach engine, will lead to nothing relevant, in other words, the car doesn't exist or simply a miscaptioned Tipo 161. --Vauxford (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Vauxford can you be clear about these multiple authors? The only two people I see on the site are Richard Owen along with Nick D who describes himself as a "self diagnosed car nut" which strengthens the view point that this is a fan run blog rather than a reliable source. That being said, I did find the books they used to make the article and keeping that into consideration, we should cite those books as sources rather than the website.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro I can only find 5 active authors. Simon Bertram, Wade Thiel, Nick D, Terence W and Scott Kolecki. Also I'm looking deeper in the blogs they wrote [129], one was about the "greatest rally cars" and spot the use of weasel words like "According to some sources, the Mini Cooper brought home no less than 153 racing wins in 1962 alone." and not provide the source stating that fact. --Vauxford (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed. The use of such self made promotional content makes the reliability of this site questionable. There maybe four authors but the site is run and maintained by Nick D, making this site a one man show.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at the About us section: "Supercars.net was started by Richard Owen and Daniel Guillamot in 1996. Together they put one of the first automotive pages on what was, at the time, a very spacious world wide web. In late 2015, a small team of dedicated “car nuts” took over and will hopefully continue to grow the community.

Since its inception, Supercars.net has offered complete coverage of international sports cars, from classic cars, unique car concepts that wowed us, hypercars that made us dream and to everything in between. The mission is to deliver this automotive information in a concise, organized and engaging manner at no cost to users.

Supercars.net is built for the automotive enthusiast and sports car fan in mind. Obsessively covering the auto industry with the latest news, new car reviews, videos, high-quality photography and all other amazing things car-related. Supercars.net is your source for all things automotive." It strengthens the belief that this is a fan run site which can contain biased and inaccurate information as pointed out by Vauxford.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Atlanta Black Star

Is Atlanta Black Star a reliable source? For my next project, I am thinking about writing an article for the current "Hate Me Now" (Joseline Hernandez song) redirect. I have stumbled across a few Atlanta Black Star articles about the song (1, 2, 3), but I would greatly appreciate further insight on the source. Here is the about us page for the site. Although that part of the site does not explicitly talk about editorial oversight, they do have a job posting for an assistant news editor here which may suggest something. I am honestly uncertain about this site so thank you in advance for any help! Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable but should be attributed in most cases, their coverage can at times border on advocacy. For something not directly related to American politics like an article about a song you probably don’t even need to attribute. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Eclipse of the Assassins

A editor on the Kiki Camarena article insists on using the book Eclipse of the Assassins as a source. I think the book is conspiracy theory garbage but can anybody here confirm if the book can be used as a reliable source. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It should probably be attributed but anything that comes out of the University of Wisconsin Press or similar is presumed to be reliable. With all due respect if it were conspiracy theory garbage it wouldn’t have survived peer review. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree -- the opinion of an editor ("conspiracy theory garbage") doesn't weigh much at all against a book published by a university press. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see this post when I made a duplicate. I've included my own post here so discussions can be combined. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources used at Kiki Camarena

When the DEA investigated the killing of its agent Kiki Camarena in Mexico City in 1985, agent Hector Berrellez led their work. The DEA ruled that Mexican drug lords were responsible for the death, but the US Justice Department has recently reopened an investigation into the possibility of CIA involvement in the killing.[130] Berrellez "has long alleged a CIA connection to Camarena’s death."[131]

Russell and Sylvia Bartley, described as a professor and a historian respectively by U Wisconsin Press [132], wrote a book that discusses Camarena's killing. They conclude,

The preponderance of evidence... persuades us beyond any reasonable doubt that [journalist] Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Camarena was... killed for the same reason.

An academic review that summarizes other academic and journalistic writings on the topic, titled "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico’s Cold War", written by professor Wil Pansters, head of the Department of Social Sciences of University College Utrecht, comes to the same conclusion:

In May 1984, the influential journalist and columnist Manuel Buendía was brutally shot in the back in the centre of Mexico City... In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico's one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country's most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA's task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugsDFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network. They knew too much and were eliminated on the orders of the U.S. with Mexican complicity. Later official investigations attempted to limit criminal responsibility to the dirty connections between drug traffickers, secret agents and corrupt police, leaving out the (geo)political ramifications.

Another academic review also treats the book favorably. Now the US Justice Department is investigating and there are many mainstream newspaper articles on the topic.

However, every addition I make is reverted by Jaydoggmarco, who cites no sources but states that "the [Bartley] book is unknown... the people interviewed and cited in the book are known kooks and liars... I don't have the book..." Jaydogg also maintains that three DEA/CIA witnesses, of the dozens interviewed in these academic and media works, are "friends" and unreliable: "The two DEA agents are friends with [former CIA contractor] Tosh Plumlee, Eclipse doesn't even have any reviews on amazon."

I earlier posted at WP:BLPN, where the only comment [133] (by Nomoskedasticity) suggested I add the material in.

Are these unreliable sources? -Darouet (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jaydoggmarco: This is a side note but that “known kooks and liars” bit is a WP:BLP violation, don’t do it again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Weather Underground

Is this FBI source[134] which does not use the word "classified" or any form it is sufficient to say "The FBI classified the WUO as a domestic terrorist group" rather than "The FBI described the WUO as a domestic terrorist group". The same wording change was made to a BLP article on Bill Ayers, but as that's a BLP and there's a wider problem I've to to WP:BLPN to discuss his article. I'll notify the IP making the change. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It isn't solely a question of that one FBI source. There is a second article at FBI.gov on the Weatherman group also using "domestic terrorist group"; 13 of the Weathermen were indicted for "conspiracy to commit terrorism" according to Days of Rage, a principal source cited at the Weather Underground page; the FBI has a "domestic terrorism" category for investigations; the FBI has a "domestic terrorism" section of its Most Wanted list, which still includes some members of Weatherman splinter groups.

It was absolutely routine for authorities and media reports to refer to Weatherman as "terrorist" in the 1970's, the FBI treated (i.e., classified and investigated) them as such, and they were a domestic group. European-style Armed Struggle domestic terrorism, with bombings, kidnappings and murders was relatively new to the United States at the time so that the term "domestic terrorism" (as opposed to undisputed terrorist groups who happened to be domestic) did not become common until the early 1980's. So the FBI.gov pages are retrospectively using the more current term to categorize their approach to the Weathermen back in the day. But there is no functional difference between FBI classifying Weatherman Underground as a "terrorist" group in 1970's and what we now call "domestic terrorists"; it is semantic whitewashing to insist on a distinction. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the edit to Bill Ayers was made for consistency with the Weathermen article. However the FBI's position is ultimately worded in Weather Underground, the same wording should be used in the articles on Ayers, Dohrn and the other Weathermen with biography pages. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

An FBI article written for the public refers to the Weather Underground as a "domestic terrorist group." I don't see any significance in that and it is misleading to say that the FBI described or classified them that way. "Classified as" is misleading because the U.S. government uses formal classifications for terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, although they have no classification for domestic terrorists. "Described as" is problematic because they probably did not use the description at the time. Since the FBI article is not a formal document, we can't read any significance into its wording. They are trying to explain history using terms that are familiar to a modern reader, not making an official pronouncement. TFD (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This FBI article is more enlightening about the FBI's history of counter-terrorism activities. The sub-sections of "Countering Domestic Terror (1908-1982)" titled "Legislative Action" and "FBI Initiatives" are perhaps of most interest, in particular sentences such as In the decades leading up to the 1980s, the FBI had not yet begun to structure its resources in terrorism-specific terms. FDW777 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The term terrorism was not used in 1908. In any case, the source is not an official FBI statement, merely an article written for the general public. TFD (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You've missed my point. I was agreeing with you, and providing evidence to support your assertion that the FBI probably weren't using the description at the time. FDW777 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would use direct, deliberate, attribution, such as "More recent articles written by the FBI have described them as..." to make it clear what the sources are, and what they say. Don't lead the reader down the garden path towards a conclusion that isn't evident in the sources (that the FBI, when the group was active, placed them on some sort of domestic terrorism list, let's say), but instead exactly explains what the source means in this case, so the reader understands the perspective of it. --Jayron32 14:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The garden-path conclusion is the correct one, though some more sources can be added to pin that down unequivocally. Authorities and media at the time routinely described the Weatherman organization as terrorists and their acts as terrorism. The counterterrorism departments and task forces of the FBI were created as a direct outgrowth of the Weatherman case, which was the Bureau's first nationwide counterterrorism investigation, and by the time some of the Weathermen were captured in the late 1970's, the investigation was assigned to an anti-terrorism task force (now known as the Joint Terrorism Task Force). This is "classification", not mere description, of Weathermen as terrorists by the FBI. The only thing that changed over time is that the numerous prefixes like "revolutionary", "radical", "political", "leftist" and "urban" terrorism converged to "domestic" terrorism as that became a common term. But this is a linguistic difference, that does not pertain to the more substantial issue of investigative and administrative classification (with legal consequences including greater surveillance and law enforcement power compared to a regular criminal investigation) as "terrorist" by the FBI. The FBI has classified the Weathermen as terrorists from the beginning, and in later years began using the term "domestic terrorist group" to summarize this classification which predated the term. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You can make as many unreferenced assertions as you like, they are likely to be completely ignored. FDW777 (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Assuming for purposes of discussion that the references (which I have) exist, are reliable, and can be added to the article, would that satisfy you regarding "classified"? There is no point providing more sources if the goalposts keep moving so as to keep that word out of the article. e.g., if as of 1978 or so the Weathermen were being tracked by a counterterrorism office at the FBI does that count, and if not, why not? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I will not, and I doubt anyone else will either, provide any comment on any references until details about the references and what they actually say has been provided. Insisting on any pre-conditions before even supplying the information necessary is absurd. FDW777 (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That's nice. I did not ask for any comment on provided or unprovided references. The question is about the definition of the word "classified" for purposes of editing the article. I am also informing you, in connection with that question, that there happen to exist references to document the assertions made above about the history of FBI and Weathermen. Certainly you can believe that or not until the references are actually posted, but given the amount of time and effort involved in transcribing and uploading that material here and in the many articles potentially affected by it (Weatherman, Ayers, Dohrn, etc), and the likely talk page eruptions and edit warring, I think it's a fair question to try and understand what would satisfy the OP or others on this point. Doug Weller's position seems to be that anything other than the exact word "classified" next to "Weathermen" and "domestic terrorist group" will not do, which is a recipe for falsifying the record, and others in the discussion are determined to remove such information even if it were to appear in the exact words in an FBI source. So this seems like an essential question to resolve. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of Norway Heritage

This is the second time I've posted this. The first was archived with no replies. So, doing some research for new wiki pages, I came across a website that I've seen several times, but wondered if it was reliable. It is www.norwayheritage.com. I haven't started it yet, but the article I am going to use it for is S S Graf Waldersee, a ship owned by the Hamburg-America line. The website has all kinds of ships from the 19th and 20th centuries. It looks a little iffy, but has a lot of great information, pictures and articles on genealogy. For example, it has the weight and years of service of the ships. I have seen it used as a reference a few times on other ships. Thanks for the help, Ghinga7 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that is is a http site, not https. Nothing wrong with that, but https gives you an error.

It looks like a one-person blog that accepts user submissions. See [ http://www.norwayheritage.com/ships/address.htm ], which says

"The Norway Heritage web site and Project was started in 1997 by Sue and Gery Swiggum, Trond Austheim, and me. Since 2011 I have been runing[sic] the site alone.,,, If you have pictures, voyage accounts, or other material to share, and you would like to submit it to the site, please find my contact information below:"

He also runs the Norway Heritage Forum. at [ http://www.norwayheritage.com/snitz/ ].

In my opinion, it should be treated like IMDB. (See WP:RSP entry). Sometimes there is a thread in the forum which will point you to a source you didn't know about before (Example: [135]), but that source needs to be evaluated in the usual way. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy!

On a slightly unrelated note, do you think it would be okay for me to upload ship images from the website onto commons? They are under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, meaning that we just have to attribute it, but they have watermarks of the website on them.

Also, any other comments on this are welcome. Ghinga7 (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about commons policies to give you a good answer. Anyone? Anyone? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If Gerry Swiggum was involved, then it is likely the information is reliable. He was a notable historian in the field of shipping. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Content published by Bandcamp as WP:RS

What is the current view on citing genre based material published by Bandcamp, personally I think WP:COISOURCE applies, it's not a WP:IS because of its commercial nature; what Bandcamp publishes is essentially promotional content (PR) for the music it hosts. Views on this? Acousmana (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's an online record shop, and all genre labels are applied by the bands when they're uploading stuff - so fail as UGC as well.

Their editorial articles (Daily Bandcamp) are also marketing content, even as I'm also confident they're music fans.

I concur with you - I wouldn't use it as a source for any such claim, no - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It depends entirely what is being sourced. If it's something uncontroversial, such as the "reissue" of an album, that would be acceptable. If it's attempting to support notability, no. There is a lot of latitude between those two poles. And it's not a COI source, it's a WP:PRIMARY one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

in terms of COISOURCE v PRIMARY, Bandcamp is clearly "not independent" of musical topics the "organization has an interest in promoting." You will see a list of music they suggest you should listen to (purchase) at the bottom of these editorial articles they publish, they profit from the sale of said music. I personally would not be in a hurry to cite such content. Acousmana (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Is B'Tselem a RS?

There have been several posts here in the past about B'Tselem that I've found, and from what I can tell about the consensus is that it can be used but at the very least it needs to have inline attribution. B'Tselem is an advocacy organization, not merely an NGO, as such it has a POV and we should not attribute something to it in Wikipedia's voice. I found discussions here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B'Tselem , Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78#CAMERA_/_Alex_Safian and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_170#POICA_&_Israel. In the IP conflict area, any pro-Israel NGO is often dismissed automatically, yet ARIJ and B'Tselem is allowed because it's pro-Palestinian, even though they play loose with the facts (as was shown with B'Tselem a few weeks ago with Coronavirus and the UN). Regardless, I think there should finally be a decision that this NGO doesn't speak for Wikipedia and is not a RS that can be used for a neutral ref-tag without an "according to B'Tselem..." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internatinoally. NGOs that do not have a a good reputation may be (example CAMERA as you note), but B'tselem does have such a reputation. Other reliable sources (eg NYTimes^{[136][137][138][139]} BBC^{[140][141][142]} the Guardian^{[143][144][145]}) regularly cite B'tselem. nableezy - 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Up above you claimed Virtual Jewish Library isn't a RS, even though it's cited by the NYTimes many times. And what is wrong with CAMERA? They report on media inaccuracies. The fact that they are pro-Israel means that you don't like it. There's also NGO Monitor, which is pro-Israel, that gets tossed out often, and Ad-Kan. Please let's not pretend that there's an even playing field here. (You say there are pro-Israel NGO's that are allowed, can you name some?)Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A source isnt reliable or unreliable by virtue of its stance on Israel or Palestine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is reliable or unreliable by virtue of its reputation for fact checking among other sources. JVL does not have a good reputation. B'tselem does. Therein lies the difference. nableezy - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, a pro-Israel NGO that is used? Hmmm, the ADL? ITIC? Some of the worse ones that are still used include the Hudson Institute. Being pro-Israel or any other position isnt what determines if a source is usable. nableezy - 04:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• As to the matter, they are a political advocacy group. They aren't just for human rights. They are against settlements which is a political issue. They also routinely ignore human rights when it's perpetrated from the Palestinians, or worse, see Ezra Nawi for just one example. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability and bias are two separate things. B'Tselem has a reputation for accuracy. Maybe the Virtual Jewish Library does as well, but that's another conversation. TFD (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the thing, it doesn't have a reputation for reliability, it has been found repeatedly to make things up. This was in March when even the UN praised Israel and the PA's cooperation, [146]. If they are biased, their sourcing should not be in Wiki's voice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The Israeli military is not the source of truth in this world, sorry. That they accuse B'tselem of something does not make their well-earned reputation for fact-checking and accuracy not true. nableezy - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, so B'Tselem makes up fake news, and Israel corrects it and it's published in multiple RS, but according to you, only the B'tselem source is usable. Does that make sense? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Im sorry, I stopped reading at "fake news". nableezy - 04:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• for more information on B'Tselem from a RS (as Nableezy would say) another NGO who documents funding please look here, to say that it is just a human rights org is not true. [147] (please read the Political Activities section) and then from another RS, B’Tselem Spreads Anti-Israel Lies at the UN Security Council and this was a political event, not about human rights issues. Here's an opinion piece about how B'Tselem lost its way and isn't a HRO anymore and is a political organization, B’Tselem Must Take Responsibility for the Consequences of Its Actions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Youre bringing the chief of staff of NGO Monitor writing and saying that trumps the NYT or the BBC or the Guardian who all regularly cite B'tselem. Thats not how reliability is determined.And, oh by the way, note what said chief of staff of NGO Monitor wrote: the European Union, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland continue to fund B’Tselem. Thats because of their oh so sterling reputation. nableezy - 04:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a side note here, when you say regularly cite them I am just not seeing it. Most of the sources you list are over a decade old. PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

NYT: [148][149] [150]

BBC: [151][152][[153]

Reuters: [154][155][156]

Those recent enough for you? nableezy - 04:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup! Thank you, though it is kind of funny, the last two Reuters articles copy paste the paragraph cited to B'Tselem. PackMecEng (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just as with good news sources, the distinction between facts and opinion can usually be identified in Btselem's output. In the case of opinion, "according to" is appropriate. In the case of facts, its reputation for accuracy is very strong. Zero^talk 05:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

On what you base you claim that they are trustworthy?They are even don't pretend to be some neutral observer.They have clear agenda so everything they present should be taken with their agenda in mind --Shrike (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute even when they are used by media they tend to be attributed, so we should follow that as well. Especially the accuracy of their casualty stats have been called into question. buidhe 08:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Camera.org is not reliable itself. According to camera.org, the NYT is biased,[157] the Washington Post is biased[158] and they even put editors in Wikipedia to promote pro-Israel POV. I dont think you should rely on such source.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Btzelem is bisaed too what is difference? --Shrike (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You cannot assert that the 'facts' themselves are biased. Camera's mission is to spin the facts, not document the realities. One has a forensic approach to a 'crime scene', the other gives a tabloid account in which the assailant was compelled to defend themselves against the 'victim'.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that your neutral unbiased opinion? Perhaps this is reason enough why Wikipedia is biased. Terribly shocking. Camera just reports on the media's inaccuracy. I hope people don't presume to say that the media is accurate all the time, but of course it's yet another pro-Israel RS that is labeled as not-RS by people here, just like NGO Monitor, and others.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Nableezy. It has been cited by multiple reliable sources like the BBC, Reuters, New York Times, etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable B'tselem is an NGO with positions based on international human rights law and has gained international awards for this work. The executive director, Hagai El-Ad has twice been invited to address (in 2014 and 2018) the UN Security Council. It receives funding from the EU and other governments. Their reports and statistics are widely cited. Does this sound unreliable?.Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unusually Reliable and Zero's point on the distinction between its reportage on facts versus comments that may be construed as B'tselem opinions, should be followed with regard to whether to attribute or not when citing this source.

Additional Comment. There is a lot of verbal confusion here, such as calling B'tselem an 'advocacy group', and unfamiliarity with what it does. An NGO whose remit is basically to document empirically (and this involves extensive field work interviewing people involved in incidents in order to sift out the facts from witness bias, as well as constructing vast databases, with statistical analyses) human rights abuses measures these in terms of two systems of law: Israeli and International. This is not 'advocacy' in the usual negative sense of the term, as biased lobbying for some cause. As one book puts it.

'Information on Israeli human rights violations is highly politicized. B'tselem, the Israeli Information center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories is perhaps the best neutral source.' Jack Donnelly, 'International human rights: unintended consequences of the war on terrorism,' in Margaret Crahan, John Goering, Thomas G. Weiss (eds.), The Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: Human Rights, Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy, Routledge, 2004 ISBN 978-1-135-99507-2 pp.98-111, p.110 n.10

We use mainstream newspapers whose reportage is basically breaking news written rapidly as every incident unfolds, without attribution all over these I/P articles. B'tselem instead exhaustively sends out interviewers to ascertain from all eyewitnesses (and from Israeli army reports and legal judgements) what actually appears to have happened, and is infinitely more objective. The fact that what it reports is often upsetting to espousers or spinners of the official government or military line doesn't make it an advocacy organization and indeed even the IDF has long admitted that it is dependable, as witness the following statement by the Israeli historian and senior IDF figure, Mordechai Bar-On

In one case the IDF chief of staff publicly challenged the numbers B'tselem reported on Palestinian casualties, and subsequently apologized when he learned that his figures were wrong and B'tselem's report was correct. In later years the military authorities often asked B'tselem to confirm their own information.' Mordechai Bar-On, In Pursuit of Peace: A History of the Israeli Peace Movement, US Institute of Peace Press ISBN 978-1-878-37953-5 1996 p.401 n.119

In short, recourse to RSN re B'tselem should stop until there emerges, not from notorious activist NGOs touting an official viewpoint, but from serious sources analyzing its actual performance, any evidence it systematically indulges in spinning the facts it reports so abundantly. It is more reliable than most of our unquestioned mainstream newspapers.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you not get the irony and hypocrisy here? So B'Tselem is OK, but another NGO is a "activist NGO?" NGO Monitor showed when B'Tselem made stuff up, just in March it made up a story about the coronavirus, yet it was dismissed because it was NGO Monitor, and IDF was dismissed because it was IDF, so the bias is clear for all to see. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand that NGO Monitor is not reliable and they havent shown anything. What Btselem reported was that Israel confiscated tents the Palestinians designated for a clinic. That has also been reported by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and as a result of those complaints the IDF has said they will stop demolitions in the West Bank. Not quite the silly spin you would like to put on this. You cant take crap sources complaining about ones that actually have a solid reputation and use that as evidence against said solid reputation. That has nothing to do with hypocrisy, and you would do well to stop making such personal attacks that have literally no basis in fact. nableezy - 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't NGO Monitor not reliable? And what B'tselem report was not that the IDF will stop demolishing stuff, but that the IDF confiscated supplies and demolished tents, yet they did no such thing. You are posting a news article that has nothing to do with what I posted. Bottom line is B'Tselem has ceased to be a neutral and human rights org and is now an advocacy org. It is not a RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Youve made your position on that clear. Unfortunately nobody else seems to agree with it, nor do the many sources that cite B'tselem as the widely respected human rights organization that it is. Why isnt NGO Monitor reliable? Thats like asking why isnt Electronic Intifida reliable. But its because serious sources dont treat it as a serious source for reliable information, but rather as essentially a propganda outfit known to lie and distort in order to advance its agenda. Youre comparing the equivalents of Electronic Intifida and If Americans Knew and demanding that they be treated like B'tselem. Thats just silly. nableezy - 04:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

SJ. Don't assert that I am being hypocritical.It is an WP:AGF violation. You are making a simple categorical error, which I guess I'll have to explain to you.

There is a category NGO.

Both B'tselem and NGO Monitor are subsumed within that category.

Therefore anything that is said of one, applies to the other. If B'tselem is OK as a source, so it any other NGO commenting on, or active, in that area.

Is it really necessary to explain to you that subsets of a category are not, by virtue of belonging to the same category, interchangeable? Or that because Jews, Christians and Muslims are subsets of the broad category Abrahamic religions, what is said of any one of the three applies automatically to the other two? Jeezus! (sorry, tetragrammaton, for the life of the prophet!).Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute, like media does. They are an advocacy group, though a respected advocacy group.--Hippeus (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

100 most powerful drag queens...

This has been inserted into many—nearly 100 I’m guessing—articles lead sections: “New York named ____ one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens in June 2019”. The problem is that the source article only ranks RuPaul Drag Race contestants ignoring all other drag queens worldwide and throughout history, including leaving out RuPaul herself. As this is a notable bit to add, it’s likely it will stay but what is the NPOV way to include? The source article states, “we rank America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars”.

Some options:

• New York magazine named Oddly one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens in June 2019.
• New York magazine named Oddly one of the top 100 most powerful RuPaul Drag Race drag queens in June 2019.

References

Something else? Any help appreciated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Thanks for linking this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#Top 100 most powerful drag queens. I would like to comment that I don't think this is an entirely accurate summary of the discussion we've had so far (it's only a summary of your view). I would like to add a few points.

Here are a few issues with the summary as stated:

• The sentence quoted above is not quoted as actually stated in our articles. The actual sentence reads: "New York magazine named ____ one of the 100 Most Powerful Drag Queens in America in June 2019." Here is the critical difference: in our articles, the phrase "Most Powerful Drag Queens in America" is capitalized, because it is a title granted by New York magazine (the name of the list in the source article is "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America"). It is not written in lower case in our articles (as has been erroneously presented above). Being in lower case would change things and would be wrong, as that would imply the phrasing is Wiki editors' own description—but it's not. It's a proper noun phrase reproduced from the source.
• Furthermore, the sentence as it presently appears in articles is factually true: New York magazine called the person one of the 100 Most Powerful Drag Queens in America. Changing the sentence leads to a statement that is not true or supported by any RS: New York magazine did not call the person "one of the top 100 most powerful RuPaul Drag Race drag queens" (not even grammatically correct) or "one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens."

New York magazine called each of these queens what they called them, and the sentence on Wikipedia objectively presents that fact. Changing the wording is WP:OR and violates WP:V. Armadillopteryx^talk 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let's allow for outside views now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is exactly what the discussion on this page higher up, under #Headlines, cautions against: The article headline says "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America" but the body (the actual reliable material we use) says "Here,... we rank America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars." The list is clearly the RPDR contestants, no more no less, and any attempt to frame it as the first bullet point fails RS policy as headlines are not reliable sources or content as part of a reliable source. Article headlines are rarely written by the author of the article, they are there to grab your eye and thus cannot be taken as reliable or used as statements of fact. --Masem (t) 05:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To add, do not try to bring in any part of the headline into the claim. Do not call them "Most Powerful Drag Queens". Leave the headline completely out of it, unless the body repeats. The best you can stated is "The top RPDR superstars" which reasonably can be taken as "The top drag queens that participated on RPDR." But you can't use the word "powerful" here. --Masem (t) 05:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and after reading #Headlines above, it seems it would be helpful for policy/the MOS to address this explicitly. That said, I still see a meaningful difference between "[Source] called X [quote from headline]" vs. simply "X is [quote from headline]" (sourced by [source]). Our sentence doesn't even claim that [quote] is true/objective/anything; it just notes that [source] said [quote] about X. That's true regardless of what [quote] even is, no? Armadillopteryx^talk 06:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you can say, legitimately from the linked article, "New York magazine named ___ as one of the top 100 drag queens on RPDR." as everything in the body of the article should be taken to be part of the reliable source and author's opionion. But the headline that uses the word "powerful"? We do not presume that was written by the author (it might have been , but there's no proof) and while the intent is there from being a top contestant to being a powerful drag queen (I'm a reality junkie so I know what's implied here) it would be original research and misuse of the source by our policy to include the headline in that form. Just basically, any time you see an article, blank the headline from your mind , its only purpose is to fill out the citation template. --Masem (t) 06:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It may boil down to semantics, but whether it was the author, an editor or someone else, someone from New York magazine said X, and "[name of the publication] said X" is all that Wiki articles state w/r/t this very specific issue—no more, no less. Unlike some of what is discussed in #Headlines, we haven't presented the capitalized list name as a fact that is sourced to NY mag; we only state that "NY mag said this" (which is objective).

That aside, perhaps the more important question I have is: could you link the sections of policy that you mention? I am not sure which ones you are referencing, but I would like to read them in case I have not seen them. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Awards and accolades for a work in progress guide on this. The simple answer is that these "100 best" lists are not encyclopaedic. Certainly not to go in the lead, and probably not in the article at all. Guy (help!) 18:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Once again, people are framing a dispute as a reliability issue when it is really a DUE WEIGHT issue. Why do we care what New York magazine says? Is it considered an expert publication on drag queens? Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, there may be reason to keep something like this. If the person notability has been tied to their appearance on RuPaul's show in relation to how well they performed on the show, and they are high on the ranking on this list, this would be a reasonable source to include about that. However, I would not use this list as to demonstrate notability, as the only statement to support their performance on the show, or as a lede statement. To also note, this is NYMag's "Vulture" property which is about pop and counterculture, and so maybe not THE authority on drag queens, but a fair authority on the the discussion of drag queens from a reality TV show. Mass spamming it across articles is inappropriate, but cautious and selective use is appropriate. --Masem (t) 19:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • FWIW, it seems the editors leaned on reporters and a judging panel so it’s reasonable to think this is more than just a run of the mill list. At the RPDR Wikipedia project a rough consensus is emerging to only use it on the Top Twenty queens, which is how the article also breaks it down.
    • Also worth noting is that all of the top twenty queens articles undoubtedly meets GNG already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Per Guy and Blueboar, I think that removing the sentence altogether is the best solution. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

worldofwonder.net - reliable for anything?

I see that we are using it,[159] but I'm not convinced we should. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Powered by Wordpress. No 'About us' page. No information about their authors. That's a no for any assertion at all, as far as I can see - and given that they seem to be all about celebrity gossip, I'm guessing this is being used on BLPs, which would be disappointing. Where are we using it? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

They produce a tremendous amount of live events and television so are certainly reliable sourcing for their own events as a primary source until a RS secondary one can replace. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: sorry, meant to include a search link.[160] World of Wonder (company) is the company, but I'm not at all sure about using it for BLPs and of course we need to be careful it isn't use to promote their own productions. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DougWeller Weird - for what appears to be a professional entertainment company, that's an exceedingly dodgy-looking website - never having heard of the company, I just assumed it was some sort of auto-generated celeb-gossip sham site. I agree that it's likely to be promotional, and I'd definitely be concerned about using anything there on a BLP. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the website of the drag-focused entertainment company World of Wonder (company). I agree that their celebrity gossip content ("The WOW Report") should be avoided; I'd consider them marginally acceptable as a primary source for interviews and as a non-independent, promotional source for information about the company's own projects. Cheers, gnu57 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. World of Wonder is the production company that makes television shows like RuPaul's Drag Race, and it's a reliable primary source on its own work. Armadillopteryx^talk 14:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Video Vs review

An interesting question has cropped up at Planet of the Humans‎, WP:CITEVIDEO (not a policy to be sure) says videos can be sued as a source for "plot". But what happens when RS reviews or commentary say X yet the (as in [[161]]) contradicts these. My take is that an editors opinion of what a film contains does not trump RS. But thought I would seek second opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A' Design Award

I came across an award in an article currently at AfD. Called the A' Design Award, it is administered at this site, where you can see the entry regulations. Two questions: a) is this RS? I am thinking no, and b) can reference to this award safely be deleted from existing articles? The award is used in too many WP articles to list here.

They do appear to have a jury. But they are also promising certain awards based on a preliminary rating, which you get from submitting your work for free. You get a preliminary score, then they tell you how much to pay. I clicked through the award site and discovered that with a preliminary rating of "8", for 825 Euro I would likely be guaranteed an award.

Here are some fee schedules for different scored, with expected awards: 825 Euro for "expected Silver or Bronze award status: If nominated, your design is highly likely to win a Silver or Bronze A' Design Award." Change the URL a bit and I am in the digital category, which for 413 Euro means that "If nominated, your design is highly likely to win a Silver or Bronze A' Design Award." Fiddling with the URL gives all kind of fees up to 2500 Euro. The award is cited by many articles on Wikipedia as a notability-generating item. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeated scrubbing, sanitizing, and censorship of Falun Gong

Any reader familiar with Falun Gong extensions The Epoch Times and Shen Yun will be aware of the new religious movement's aggressive internet campaigns (if you're not, certainly read this, this, or this). These tactics certainly appear to extend to the editorial presence at English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article. It appears that adherents closely police what makes it into this article, removing anything that doesn't parrot the new religious movement's narrative about itself—the thousands of academics and experts who write about these topics be damned.

Here's an example. What do you know, all academic sources gone referring to the group as a new religious movement gone. Note that this editor (@Clara Branch:), who has cheerleaded The Epoch Times and related propaganda outlets throughout their brief history on the site, popped up after another editor who focuses almost on entirely related topics—including hot topics for The Epoch Times—hit the three revert mark on the article (@TheBlueCanoe:).

This seems like a straightforward attempt at sanitizing the article. So far it's working. And this is despite overwhelming academic consensus, as the numerous first-rate sources I've provide illustrated. The talk page for the article is also full of extensive lawyering to maintain this sanitized, free-of-those-pesky-academics-describing-us-as-a-new-religious-movement-version of the article, often with creative angles that just so happen to align with the new religious group's talking points: Discuss organ harvesting, do not discuss unpalatable aspects of the movement to the general public, mention that we're just too complicated for people to understand for this or that reason. And certainly provide nothing but glowing mentions of The Epoch Times, if you mention them at all.

So, frankly: Should (apparent) adherents be able to remove dozens of high-quality, academic articles from the article—and when challenged, say, call in yet more (apparent) adherents to continue the sanitizing and censoring? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Answering the question as it’s literally worded: of course not. But the real question is whether that’s the actual motivation, and what the actual underlying content dispute is. I’ve asked at the talk page discussion for the reasons underlying the content dispute (since the initial reason seemed to just be discussion is required before major new edits). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out. Like many new religious movements, adherents object to their belief system being referred to as a new religious movement. It happens that this a particularly online organization, with quite a digital presence, and so maintaining a narrative of 'we're an ancient belief system'—among other aspects—seems to be the driving force here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, don’t call other editors adherents, as that seems unfounded here (and veers towards being an ad hominem anyways). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to interpret edit histories such as these as anything other than an indicator of that, but I understand where you're coming from. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PanAm Post

Hello! Another source that has raised questions: PanAm Post. I noticed that PanAm Post was describing a member of their staff as having a Harvard University "degree". They say that Emmanuel Rincón, a self-published author (WP:QUESTIONABLE/WP:RSSELF) who writes for the site, has "a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University". That "degree" is a free edX course provided by Harvard (see here, where 40,000 people are already enrolled!). This raises concerns about their reliability and if the site exaggerates the credentials of their staff (or their reporting).

So I am asking the community to decide the following evaluations about PanAm Post:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Not sure if these type of RSN RfCs are still permitted since changes were proposed when I was last active, but a few opinions on this source would be appreciated!----ZiaLater (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• An embellished author profile is concerning, but these profiles are often embellished though normally not as above. Are there any other red flags? Looking at their website, much of the content appears to be opinions.--Hippeus (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: PanAm Post has been listed in WP:VENRS, an essay dedicated to list and analyze reliable sources for Venezuela related topics, where it has been described as: Miami-based newspaper, described as "libertarian". Generally reliable, but news articles should be differentiated from opinion pieces and original invetigations, which should be attributed.

It appears that PanAm Post is generally considered as reliable to report news.

PanAm Post was the outlet that published an investigation denouncing the embezzlement of payments for the housing of Venezuelan military defectors by representatives of opposition leader Juan Guaidó in Colombia, which led to the audit and investigation of the situation afterwards. However, there have also been concerns about its neutrality and reliability after Orlando Avendaño assumed the position of chief editor, along with Vanessa Vallejo. Care should be taken with opiniated articles.

I don't know if there are different authors or important differences between the English and Spanish versions, but this should also be taen into account.

I stand with the original description, that if used, PanAm Post articles should be attributed. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 I guess, it is to me unclear how reliable this newspaper is. As said by Jamez42, it has been cited by other reliable sources before so it is notable [162][163][164][165] but no information on how reliable is their reporting per se.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3, much of their reporting has a strong right wing bias which often manifests itself as omitted information, poor sourcing, entertaining questionable scientific views, and sloppy reporting. Ownership is also secret which makes it impossible for us to determine whether this source is independent of the subjects it reports on. The irony here is that the topic for which they’d be the most useful, Venezuela, is also the topic they are entirely unreliable on reporting. Their opinion pieces are batshit crazy, but its not like anyone was going to try to use an opinion piece anyway. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Notion Press publications

Is the following book considered a reliable source: Harjani, Dayal N. (2018). Sindhi Roots & Rituals. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-64249-289-7

It comes from a self-publishing service, Notion Press, but I can't tell if its an exception to the "self-published sources arent RS" rule.

It was recently inserted onto the following pages: Soomro, Soomro dynasty in the following context:

"The name of the dynasty derives from Soomro and Vegho, two Parmar Rajput Hindu brothers who were appointed to rule the region; while Vegho remained Hindu, Soomro converted to Islam.[5]" (where [5] is the source in question)

The source in question also pops up at Thul Hairo Khan (Buddhist Stupa), Lohana, and Sirnikot.

Thanks!

Definitely not. Self-published by "a businessman that goes by the pseudonym – Daduzen. He is a poet, philosopher, philanthropist and writer of several spiritual articles and author of self-help books."[166]. Remove it and maybe the text. If you leave the text, cn tag it. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we be using this Falun Gong media outfit as a source for BLPs, politics, China, etc?

New Tang Dynasty Television is founded by Falun Gong members. We use it quite a bit[167] on articles where we shouldn't. This came to my attention as there's been an upsurge of Falun Gong adherents editing articles here, possibly taking advantage of Covid-19 to push anti-Chinese government attempts as well as their own articles. Discretionary sanctions apply to all pages related to FG, broadly interpreted. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

HuffPost for quotations

There is currently a dispute at the Piers Robinson article about the reliability of an article in the HuffPost, which describes him as a 9/11 truther, based on a positive book review he gave to 9/11 Unmasked by well known 9/11 truther David Ray Griffin. He is not currently described as a 9/11 truther in the article. While I think that the HuffPost is not reliable enough to be used to describe him as a 9/11 truther in the article, a contentious claim in a BLP, I am wondering about how reliable it can considered to be for direct quotations in the article that he gave in an email to the outlet to defend himself. These are

My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect.

It is no longer tenable for academics and journalists to avoid asking probing questions about the possible involvement of state actors in the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 requires further analysis and investigation and this is a position I share with many other academics.

As far as I am aware HuffPost does not have a reputation for fabricating quotes. While the HuffPost cannot be considered reliable for contentious BLP claims, can it be considered reliable as a source of direct quotations? Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's no reason to believe HuffPost is altering or fabricating quotes like the Daily Mail, nor have I seen claimed to that extent. So I would agree that it is reliable for attributed quotes to named third-parties. --Masem (t) 17:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)