Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256

Archive 250

←

Archive 254

Archive 255

Archive 256

Archive 257

Archive 258

→

Archive 260

Lawrence O'Donnell $4 million salary

The following google search discusses Mr. O'Donnell's salary and net worth. Mr. O'Donnell's wikipedia entry does not include this important information.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lawrence+o%27donnell+salary&oq=lawrence+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i65l2j69i57j69i60l2.9473j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The source is articlebio.com whose goal is to create accurate bios.

If this information was inaccurate, I am sure Mr. O'Donnell would insist on it being removed. I am sure he is proud of his success.

I hope you accept this as an acceptable source.

Mr. O'Donnell calls himself a European socialist. A socialist with a $4 million salary is a bit ironic, so it is important to understand the total picture of his political beliefs but also his career.

Will you accept this citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackBloom1234 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable. The source, ArticleBio, has been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226 § articlebio.com for BLP information. There is no information on the author, who provides only their first name ("Bartley"), and there is no indication that the content is reviewed, proofread, or fact-checked. The site doesn't disclose the existence of an editorial team, or offer details on how its content is sourced. I do see a couple of mentions of ArticleBio in the Daily Express tabloid, but nothing from prominent reliable sources.

In conclusion, ArticleBio doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and it definitely doesn't meet Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

Many people don't regularly check their Wikipedia biographies or know how to remove inaccurate information. WP:BLP makes it clear that editors should make every effort to prevent inaccurate information from being introduced into these biographies in the first place. — Newslinger talk 04:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Articlebio.com doesn't look like a particularly reliable source to me—particularly for a biographical article about a living person, as such articles are subject to particularly strict sourcing guidelines. As best I can tell, articlebio.com doesn't have a documented track record of accuracy and reliability, and I don't see it referenced or cited by more established reliable sources. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). And the idea that "if it weren't true, O'Donnell would have had it removed from The Internet" is impressively naive. (By this standard, everything that we read on the Internet about other people must be true, or else they'd have had it removed). If you're intent on using Wikipedia to embarrass the article subject (a goal which, incidentally, seems highly questionable), you'll have to find better sources. MastCell ^Talk 04:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Last I looked at articlebio.com, I had concerns about it appearing to contain user-submitted information, possibly scraped information, and the publisher had a disclaimer about taking nor responsibility for the accuracy of their content. --Ronz (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable, possibly user-generated content. I'd agree with the above. The articles simply credit user names. There is no evidence of an editor, editorial board, or fact-checking. No sources are cited. Total mix-ups are apparent (see [https://articlebio.com/john-baumgartner] to see a article with a title and info box about one person, an article about a different person, and a photo of yet a third person). There are indications that it is user or bot-generated content. Chris vLS (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Completely unreliable My favourite is their biography (also by "Bartley") on basketballer Stan Love [https://articlebio.com/stan-love here]. Again, the picture appears to be of someone else (someone from NASA?). It has the strange statement "There’s just no excuse for antics of parents like Stan Love...The senior Love has run more than a little afoul of what most people would view as acceptable behavior", without explanation, then shortly afterwards seagues off into the bizarrely off topic "They both love their kid a lot... She stopped playing basketball in the fifth grade. And she gets teased about her famous brother sometimes at school. There were haters who told her that Kevin would never make it as a pro. But if you ask her about Kevin, she tells us how he used to text messages to her every day, asking about school, and her teachers." His wealth is listed vaguely as "approximately $millions, according to some sources". Curdle (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The photo of the astronaut in the biography of basketballer Stan Love is actually astronaut Stanley G. Love. I agree that the biographies on articlebio.com are very poorly written. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed all links to ArticleBio (articlebio.com) from articles, and proposed (here) that it be added to the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The domain has been added to the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 07:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Digital dependencies and their correlates

Hello. I would like to add this to the digital dependencies and global mental health page, under a new section called psychiatry under psychology, and have RfCd it for linguistics and sociology due to the linguistics and sociological components of both the statements and the research. I have left open for discussion around WP:MEDRS under the social media addiction page, which is a proposed merger. WP:SYNTH needs discussion.

Psychiatry Psychiatric experts have called for further studies to explore psychiatric correlates with digital media use in childhood and adolescence. "Over the past 10 years, the introduction of mobile and interactive technologies has occurred at such a rapid pace that researchers have had difficulty publishing evidence within relevant time frames." An "important contribution" of "a large, well-designed longitudinal study taking into account multiple sociodemographic confounders" was published in 2018, relating to Angry Birds and Pokemon Go, a game and a social media application that "reached adoption by an estimated 50 million global users within 35 and 19 days, respectively, of their release." It was "a longitudinal cohort of 2587 15- and 16-year-olds who did not have self-reported symptoms of ADHD at baseline, self-reported higher-frequency digital media use was associated with self-reported ADHD symptoms over two years of follow-up. The frequent distraction and rapid feedback of digital media may disrupt normal development of sustained attention, impulse control, and ability to delay gratification. In addition, digital media may displace other activities that build attention span and executive function. It remains to be determined whether symptoms that develop in response to media use require or respond to typical ADHD treatments." The National Insitute of Health stated that "study represents a starting point, and there are some potential caveats to the findings," commenting that it only shows association, but not causality. "Nevertheless, the findings suggest that the recent rise in popularity of digital technologies could play a role in ADHD. The findings also serve as an important warning for teens, parents, teachers, and others as increasingly stimulating forms of digital media become ever more prevalent in our daily lives."

Thanks what do we think? E.3 (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Regarding the reliability of the sources cited in the paragraph:

• JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association is generally reliable, as established in WP:RSMED § Biomedical journals and WP:RSP § JAMA. The source appears to be reliable in this context.
• UpToDate is usually acceptable, according to WP:RSMED § Other sources. The source appears to be reliable in this context.
• The National Institutes of Health director's blog post appears to be usable as a writing from a subject-matter expert, but it should be attributed to Francis Collins himself: ("Francis Collins, director of the National Institute of Health, stated that...")

As for the suitability of the content in the paragraph, you'll need to discuss this at your currently active RfC. I see that you've already posted on the neutral point of view noticeboard, where editors will comment on the neutrality of the proposed addition.​ — Newslinger talk 08:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Perfect thank you very much :) E.3 (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

​One more thing: I do note that WP:RSMED § Other sources states that direct citations to the actual studies should be preferred to summaries from UpToDate. It would probably be better to cite the original studies for "a longitudinal cohort of [...] years of follow-up." and "The frequent distraction [...] and executive function.", and to summarize the studies in your own words. The last sentence, "It remains to be determined whether symptoms that develop in response to media use require or respond to typical ADHD treatments.", can be cited to UpToDate. — Newslinger talk 09:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on sciencebasedmedicine.org

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.

---

The use of sciencebasedmedicine.org (hereafter referred to as SBM) as a source has been discussed in various contexts[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] but if/when it may be used as a source is still debated, a particular point of contention is whether SBM is a self published source. Note that under wikipedia policy self published sources (SPS) and reliable sources (RS) are not mutually exclusive, SPS may be considered reliable if published by an expert in the field being discussed, but regardless of expertise SPS may never be used as a source for statements about living persons (other than the author of the SPS), see WP:BLPSPS.

So the questions are: Is SBM reliable as a source? And are articles on SBM never, sometimes or always self published sources? Note that this RfC is NOT about whether to change any policies, only about when(if ever), under current policy, SBM can be used as a source. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Plese keep focused on content, unsupported personal criticisms will be replaced with (Personal attack removed). Tornado chaser (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

!Votes

• I do not think this can be answered in the abstract. They generally appear to be experts (Doctors of Medicine and have reputations in their fields), also the publication is edited by experts, and the site and each one involved in the publication is publically subject to libel laws and subject to reputational damage for being wrong, so assuming we use them for discussing ideas, even attributed (eg, 'this theory is unsupported in the literature' not 'Fred is a criminal'), than they can be RS, including under BLPSPS. (see, WP:FRINGE). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, it's clearly a reliable source; and No, it's not a self-published source - it has an extremely well qualified editorial board and an established editorial policy for submissions. --tronvillain (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes and No per tronvillain. I couldn't have said it better. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes self-published source. Whether it is ever RS is context-dependent. The important thing is that Science-Based Medicine is a blog according to Science-Based Medicine. And I looked at the ten posts featured on their front page today and saw that 7 were by SBM's editors (Steven Novella: 3, Harriet Hall: 2, David Gorski: 2) so the existence of a "submission guidelines" page is irrelevant -- if most posts are by the editors, then "editorial control" is merely "self-control". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (RS) and No (SPS). Per WP:USEBYOTHERS: reliable sources often cite it when dealing with quackery (New York Times, WaPo, and NPR, and The New Yorker) - I would say this places it on par with sites like Snopes.com. Gorski's posts might be considered "self-published" in the narrowest and most legalistic sense of that term, but it clearly isn't a personal blog or vanity press. It does allow user submissions that it puts through an informal review process, so it might be worth considering the author of a specific post rather than treating everyone on the blog as reliable and notable. Nblund ^talk 18:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (RS) (depending on context) and Yes (SPS). SBM is published by experts and is generally a reliable source for medical and uncontroversial scientific facts, but it is a blog and even describes itself as such. Policy is quite clear: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. And group blogs are still SPS, so it is pretty clear that (barring some sort of policy change that is beyond the scope of this RfC) SBM must not be used as a source BLP content (other than the SBM authors opinions on stuff, where appropriate). However, any SBM article that is unquestionably under editorial control should not count as a SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

SBM articles on controversial/political/legislative issues constitute opinion pieces and should be attributed. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes SPS. It is clearly a blog and says so itself. So it shouldn't be used for BLP ever. Whether it is a reliable source depends on exactly what it is being used to cite and each case should be considered on its merits, with the biases noted. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm astonished that you would think this, given that pretty close to 100% of your edits are fringe advocacy. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks JzG. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

it is not a personal attack to make an accurate assessment of an editors editing pattern where it is relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a reliable source; and No, it's not a self-published source. I think that some here are under the mistaken impression that all blogs are self published sources, but in reality group blogs with editorial oversight do exist. Most blogs are self published but not all blogs are self published. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes and of course No why are we wasting our time on this? Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, it's a well-known reliable source; and No, it's not a self-published source, no matter how much some interested parties would like to bend the meaning of the term to make it fit. --Calton | Talk 16:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (generally) - a reliable source and particularly useful for WP:PARITY purposes; *No not self-published in the sense of WP:SPS. Alexbrn (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• SPS depends on whether editorial oversight extends to ALL posts including those by editors and regular contributors. SBM is not clear on this: while submissions by non-regulars are oversighted [8], it apparently says nothing about posts by occasional or regular contributers [9] and/or editors [10]. Posts that get no oversight are (duh) SPS by definition. Either way, Yes it's RS for expert opinion, as it always has been. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes SBM is a reliable source. No it is not a SPS. Each author has their own separate private blog where they self-publish, and the difference in tone is quite marked, the content shows clear evidence of editorial input consistent with the site's claims of editorial review. SBM fulfils an especially valuable role for Wikipedia in critiquing stuff that is so obviously bullshit that no reputable journal would bother with a rebuttal. It also has expert commentary on poorly conducted scientific papers that make it into the increasingly lax world of the academic medical press nowadays (thinking here of Exley's antivax bullshit, for example, where they note the fact that Exley's "research" is funded by rabid antivaxers, as acknowledged in the paper but not as a conflict of interest). Guy (Help!) 00:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes it's reliable, No it's not a SPS. Blogs /= SPS. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• RS? Affirmative. SPS? Negative. -- This would seem to put any question under the normal RS/SPS tests respectively to bed pretty quickly. I've not looked through those previous discussions in detail, but I can only presume there were circumstances complicated the call in those instances, because this is one of the easiest calls I've had to make in an RfC in a while and I'm not seeing where the argument could come from. Now obviously some content clearly marked as being a blog may qualify as an SPS, just as some editorials might count as primary, and certain other article content on the site as secondary, but in general it looks like those ought to be able to be kept straight pretty easily in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• RS? Yes. SPS? Probably not, but unclear. SBM has an editorial board [11], a process for fact-checking external contributions [12], and a good reputation for reliable expert content (see Nblund's cites above). I think Nblund's conclusions are spot on. My paraphrase: If SBM says "Dr. X is a quack" that claim should have in-text attribution. If multiple sources say "Dr. X says flu shots contain anti-freeze" and SBM says "Dr. X is wrong", it seems reasonable to cite without in-text attribution. The most important thing for the quality of the encyclopedia -- also mentioned by Nblund -- is the need for editors defending articles from WP:FRINGE to have high-quality secondary sources to avoid WP:OR issues when faced with stuff so far outside the mainstream it's hard to combat. Chris vLS (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe and No - whether it is RS depends on the context of for what; and it should not be labelled SPS because that is definitely something that is not absolute and final character a site is locked into but can vary by individual article. Really a website only carries the reputation and editorial process, anything else should be judged case by case. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes reliable, not self published. SBM has a good reputation, and there is an editorial board. Natureium (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes and caution. This site has the expertise to provide cogent debunking of things that more conventional scientific literature wouldn't bother with, so it fills a gap for Wikipedia. That said, the frequency of contributions by major editors should raise some red flags that perhaps not everything is really being reviewed, and some of this content could be considered highly contentious. Statements about what people said and how they act and what they think and what that means are not necessarily things that one person's scientific proficiency is going to make 100% reliable. Note that self-published material turning up in good RSes is not as rare as people think -- PNAS has run many articles submitted directly by academy members with optional peer review, for example, but it is also a top-level journal. If there is a problem of this kind, it should announce itself pretty readily -- it will be a contentious debatable statement about a person, probably a generalization about a person, possibly an ongoing dispute with personal aspects like a lawsuit, and the connection with the journal editors should be clear. If you want to go somewhere like that, be careful; otherwise just cite what you run into freely. Wnt (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes (generally, of course -- always wary of any blanket "yes") and No to SPS (i.e. piling on) - I feel like the reasons have been pretty well established at the top of this discussion and in many past threads on the same subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes but Notably NOT Peer Reviewed. This site publishes articles by the editors and contributors, but they are not peer reviewed. Lack of peer review indicates that these articles should not be considered of equal quality to literature reviews published in peer reviewed medical journals. See WP:MEDRS for more discussion. That said, their articles, though not-peer reviewed, are written by knowledgeable and qualified doctors and scientists and should not be dismissed out of hand, though article editors should generally prefer, and certainly give due weight, to peer reviewed sources.--Saranoon (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (SBM)

So... each vote should be two votes? As in "Yes, it's a reliable source; and No, it's not a self-published source" or "Yes, it's a reliable source; and Yes, it's a self-published source"? --tronvillain (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tronvillain: Yes, it's a little confusing, but I thought it would be more confusing to do 2 RfCs on SBM. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: What about "Fred is a proponent of pseudoscientific propaganda"? Also, what does being subject to libel laws and reputation damage have to do with this? Any random blogger is still subject to these things, it doesn't mean that the source isn't self published.

I also am wondering what FRINGE has to do with the usability of SBM as a source, given that the RfC that proposed allowing an exemption to BLPSPS in order to debunk FRINGE claims was so strongly opposed that it was withdrawn by the OP[13]. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

First and Third question: as I said, it is a matter of particularized consensus discussion at the article, context is key, and, yes, sometimes we do have to discuss fringe in our articles. Second question, as a matter of reality, it is just not the case that the anonymous, or low profile, or broke, hack on the internet is subject the same way, and that point was primarily addressing reliability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: That makes more sense, but I think it is pretty clear that FRINGE does not justify any exceptions to BLPSPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

By that standard, it seems like Snopes.com and the SPLC would be prohibited in BLPs as well. Both are considered generally reliable and both are used frequently in BLPs. To my mind, the WP:SPS is just meant to prohibit sources where there is no meaningful independent fact-checking, and so no one could stop a rogue blogger from libeling at will. In practice, I don't think anyone intended to have a general prohibition on certain kinds of web design formats or organizational structures. Nblund ^talk 19:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that snopes is an SPS? As for the SPLC, being an activist group, aren't their claims usually attributed rather than stated in wikipedia's voice? SBM is very different from snopes, and I don't usually deal with SPLC sources in the areas I tend to edit, but I don't see much similarity between SBM and the SPLC iether.

SBM appears to be a group blog, and an expert blog. However, policy is quite clear[14] that group and expert blogs are still blogs that may not be used in BLPs (unless as a source for the blog authors' opinion). Tornado chaser (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think Snopes or the SPLC are really self-published, but I'm not seeing how you're drawing a distinction: Snopes started as the project of two private individuals and it is not a subsidiary of some established media group. SBS has a "blog" format, but it's not a "blog" in the sense that a bunch of random people write whatever they want without being subjected to fact-checking.

The SPLC does usually get in-text attribution. I think in-text attribution might also be warranted for SBS as well. Nblund ^talk 21:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How do you know that SBM posts are subject to fact checking? Even if SBM is a blog, it can still be used with in-text attribution as a source for the authors opinion, just not for facts about other people. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it your position the 'Fred is a proponent of pseudoscientific propaganda' is fine to say in Fred's article as long as it is in say the Kokomo Tribune? Up above, you ask about the statement, 'Fred is a proponent of pseudoscientific propaganda' which almost certainly is not a fact, it is an opinion. That is, 'Doctor Expert opines, Fred is a proponent of pseudoscientific propaganda'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Theories such as creationism are called pseudoscience in WP's voice, for example in the lead of Stephen C. Meyer, and when I tried to argue that it is an opinion to call something propaganda, everyone else said that if RS call something propaganda it is fact not opinion and would be misleading NOT to state in WP's voice![15] Here are other example of calling something propaganda and claiming it as fact not opinion [16][17]. So I do think it is possible that someone will try to use SBM as a source for the claim, in WP voice, that someone is a propagandist or a pseudoscientist. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That seems a different issue about how wide-spread in sources the sentiment, 'Fred is a proponent of pseudoscientific propaganda' is expressed. That is a different issue than looking at one source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado Chaser - I think it's reasonable to assume given that they have an editorial board, an 'informal peer review process' and a good reputation for accuracy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I read WP:BLPSPS as suggesting that true self-published sources just plain shouldn't be cited in relation to a BLP. I would certainly see a problem if we were citing facebook posts for BLP claims, even if we attributed those claims in text. Here's where I stand:

• If SBM says "Dr. X is a quack", or "Dr. X is bilking consumers" that claim should have in-text attribution unless there are lots of additional sources saying the same thing.
• If multiple sources say "Dr. X says flu shots contain anti-freeze" and SBM says "Dr. X is wrong", that seems like it could be reasonable to cite without in-text attribution, especially if we can also cite additional sources that support this claim - because it isn't necessarily a claim about Dr. X and because SBM has a decent enough rep for fact-checking to make non-medical claims.

In practice, I think there are probably very few cases where SBM is the only source calling someone out for unscientific claims. The main advantage of using it is that it helps editors avoid WP:OR issues when they connect a specific claim (this homeopathic medicine cures athlete's foot) with WP:PRIMARY established research (homeopathy doesn't work). Nblund ^talk 22:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that policy specifically states that even expert blogs are not ok for BLPs, I have a hard time seeing how SBM being generally accurate makes it an ok source for BLPs, and I think just assuming editorial oversite is a bad idea, at least Gorski's posts are SPS. As I understand it, BLPSPS distinguishes sources that are reliable for everything but BLPs and sources that are reliable for everything period. facebook is reliable for nothing, so that is not an SPS issue, it's just not RS at all.

I have encountered cases were it is hard to find any sources besides SBM calling someone out for unscientific claims, in these cases I believe including the content at all is UNDUE, but others would insist on including the content so we can expose and debunk pseudoscientists, to me this feels like a bit of a RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: Please don't imply that anyone who thinks this is an SPS is acting in bad faith. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Tornado chaser:: Please don't insult my intelligence, please stop screwing around with other peoples's comments, and please stop assuming that Jimbo Wales has died and left you in charge policing comments. --Calton | Talk 11:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC) P.S.: STOP SCREWING AROUND WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS. --Calton | Talk 23:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: I never meant to insult your intelligence, I see how my comment on your talk page could have been interpreted that way, but I meant it as "look, you appear to be making a mistake", not as an insult. I am not claiming to be in charge of policing comments, but if I start an RfC can't I maintain basic organization by keeping discussion out of the vote section? I have seen this done before, and I didn't think there was a problem with it. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I see how my comment on your talk page could have been interpreted that way...

I was responding directly to your comment here, as should have been bloody obvious, by location and especially by the use of parallel construction.

I am not claiming to be in charge of policing comments...

I didn't say you were "claiming" a damned thing, I was talking about your ACTIONS, where you -- multiple times, here and elsewhere -- followed JzG and tried to redact his comments about you.

...if I start an RfC can't I maintain basic organization by keeping discussion out of the vote section?

Speaking of thinking that Jimbo Wales has died and left you in charge: NO. YOU don't get to control the debate.

I didn't think there was a problem with it

You mean, besides the people telling there was a problem with it? I'm having a difficult time believing you. --Calton | Talk 16:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how my comments on this page were insulting. You say you -- multiple times, here and elsewhere -- followed JzG and tried to redact his comments about you. this is false, JzG and I have been involved in some content disputes recently and he followed me to the nazi image discussion to cast aspersions on that page after I had commented there, I did try to redact these blatant aspersions, but in no way did I follow him.

Also, JzG's comment here was not about me, and I did remove it at first, but all I am trying to do now is move it into the appropriate section for discussion, a purely organizational matter, not "trying to control the debate".

You say You mean, besides the people telling there was a problem with it? I'm having a difficult time believing you you are the only person that had had a problem with my attempt to keep the discussion and vote sections separate. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how my comments on this page were insulting.

The smarmy bit of tone policing would be a start.

You say you -- multiple times, here and elsewhere -- followed JzG and tried to redact his comments about you. this is false

Weird form of denial: to say something is false then immediately confirm it. For the record: [18]

..you are the only person that had had a problem with my attempt to keep the discussion and vote sections separate

Really. Your memory seems quite selective -- especially given that this was on your User Talk page. How did you miss that? --Calton | Talk 01:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You say Example text. I never denied redacting JzG's PAs against me, I admitted doing that. What I said was false was your allegation that I followed JzG, this I did not do, he followed me to an ANI thread that I had commented on for no other purpose than to assume bad faith and misrepresent my editing.

As for your claim that my "memory seems quite selective" I did not forget that JzG had commented on my talk page criticizing me for redacting his PAs, I took this as telling me not to redact comments, not that I can't move comments for organizational purposes on an RfC that I started. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

no other purpose than to assume bad faith...

The short form of your responses to everything I've said so far comes down to, "It's true, BUT...", with selective misreadings. We're past the "assume" part now. --Calton | Talk 02:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No, your accusation that I followed JzG was completely and utterly false. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

What? This isn't your edit? It's by a different user named Tornado chaser? This needs to be investigated! --Calton | Talk 02:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is my edit, no it does not show me following JzG, I commented on an ANI thread that JzG had not commented on, and was not involved in, then commented there for no other purpose than to make personal attacks against me, meaning he followed me and I redacted his PAs, while I probably shouldn't have redacted his comments, I did not follow him, please stop misrepresenting my edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So does anybody know whether editorial oversight extends to regular contributors and editors? (cf. !vote here) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Related: is it MEDRS? WP:MEDRS says nothing about expert blogs &c., but being a guideline is a bit flexible. So I'd say it could be MEDRS for expert opinion, and moreso if there's editorial oversight, though obviously it's not as good as those with formal peer review (WP:MEDASSESS). (As for what kind of opinion it's MEDRS, WP:PARITY applies.) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC) | edited 22:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC); 23:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC))

@ Guy Marked differences in tone between SBM and authors' own blogs could as easily be "self-control" (cf. User:Peter Gulutzan's !vote). It shouldn't be that hard to determine which posts at SBM get editorial oversight (not counting from the poster) and which, if any, don't. @MastCell:? (edit: oops add signature) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC) | edited for sp., fmt 11:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This has been considered to be a reliable source as a result of discussions in the past. Is there a reason we need to discuss that again? Natureium (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: The reliability is not the main issue, but whether SBM is self published or not, this is something that has been debated considerably. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If the reliability is not in question, fog about whether it's "self-published" is just FUD. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: An expert SPS may be an RS for scientific facts, but still self published and therefor not acceptable for BLP[19]. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• For those of you interested in the history of psuedoscience this might interest you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Determining importance of Forbes contributors and their opinions

Per WP:RSP, Forbes contributors' "sites" are to be treated as self-published sources.

Hugh McIntyre's Forbes blog is used in 337 articles about music. For example, the blog is used for his opinion in Thank U, Next (song)#Critical reception, and as a secondary source for facts in Post Malone's lead.

His biography at Forbes states: "I am a freelance music journalist based in New York City. My byline has appeared in The Huffington Post, Billboard, Mashable, Noisey, The Hollywood Reporter, MTV, Fuse, and dozens of other magazines and blogs around the world." The statement appears to be factual. Presumably, it's inappropriate regardless to use his blog for music data and the like.

Is it appropriate to use his opinion where it is published in Forbes? Jc86035 (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Forbes contributors can be used for their opinions under RSOPINION but one must ask how much of an expert or recognized person they are in that field. If editors determine he is a well-recognized music critic, then yes, he can be used. If it comes to facts, then there needs to be strong assertion that the writing is considered a reliable expert to use their articles for facts, of which I'm not sure I've seen any Forbes blog make that metric. --Masem (t) 22:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Being a nasty suspicious bastard, I usually try to track down who added the cites. It is not unheard of to find a single account or IP address added all or most of them. In which case it's Operation WP:REFSPAM. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. McIntyre's blog article is a self-published source (not written by a subject-matter expert), and should also be removed as undue weight. Note that McIntyre is also a "contributor" on HuffPost (The Huffington Post) and Billboard. His Forbes.com contributor pieces are linked from these pages:

  forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre  

On a similar note, I've recently removed a citation to a review written by a Forbes.com "Senior Contributor" (Erik Kain) from the article on The Orville. Kain's biography on Forbes.com is just one sentence: "I write about video games, TV and movies." All uses of Kain's Forbes.com contributor pieces:

forbes.com/sites/erikkain  

Since Forbes.com now hosts all content (including content from staff writers) at "forbes.com/sites", it's no longer possible to tell whether an article is a staff article or a contributor article by looking at its URL. However, once a contributor is identified, all of their articles can be found under "forbes.com/sites/username", and targeted for removal where the source is used inappropriately. — Newslinger talk 09:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed McIntyre's review from the Thank U, Next (song) article. — Newslinger talk 10:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Added both contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability#Open tasks. If you identify any other non-staff non-expert contributor on Forbes.com (or any other site with a contributor platform), please add it to the list. — Newslinger talk 21:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not usable for BLPs, but otherwise there is no pressing need to remove citations to Hugh McIntyre articles if it's used for uncontroversial facts or opinion. I'd prefer tagging these citations with {{unreliable source}} and slowly replacing them than removing content that is useful to readers. feminist (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I'm much more concerned about opinions than uncontroversial facts. When Forbes.com contributor reviews of music and film are included in Wikipedia articles, editors usually introduce the review with something like "Erik Kain of Forbes". This kind of presentation makes the opinion look much more authoritative than it actually is. Since opinions can't be objectively refuted, including a contributor's review can significantly change the tone of a "Critical reception" section, especially if the piece makes statements that are very different from the opinions of more established reviewers. In these cases, removal would be done under the undue weight policy. — Newslinger talk 03:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not express it clearly, but when I said "uncontroversial facts or opinion" I meant the opinion must be uncontroversial as well. feminist (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

SPS and blogs are not an issue, as long as the person is a recognized (by people other then themselves) as an expert. At this time I am going to lean with not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have strange case. Article by Forbes contributors had also appeared in the magazine Forbes Asia, then should the article qualify as a citaion or not? Matthew hk (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Matthew hk, do you have a link to the article? — Newslinger talk 09:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well i need to look back from my edit history. Using public computer, which i need to do the search of my edit history at home few hours later. Matthew hk (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well this article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesasia/2017/07/26/hong-kong-homecoming-sonia-cheng-opens-new-world-hotels-for-the-family-empire/#3c058ec864a1 Matthew hk (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I consider contributor articles from any physical edition of Forbes generally reliable. The Forbes Asia "contributor group" contains a mix of articles written by staff writers and non-staff contributors. All of the articles from this group appear to be published in a physical issue of Forbes Asia, as indicated in the message right under the byline ("This story appears in the [month] [year] issue of Forbes Asia.")

• Some articles (like this one) were written by staff writers. These articles are generally reliable, as established in WP:RSP § Forbes.
• Articles like the one you're asking about, "Next Tycoon: Hong Kong's Sonia Cheng Opens New World Hotels For The Family Empire", were written by contributors, but also published in the physical copy of Forbes Asia. I also consider these articles generally reliable, since contributions to printed publications are subject to higher editorial standards than contributions to online publications, as there is a physical limit on the amount of content in each issue.

​— Newslinger talk 10:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It still odd actually for the disclaimer of Forbes is not responsible to the contributior article and opinion, but at the same time their magazine had many of these articles. Matthew hk (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Is Consequence Of Sound a reliable source?

Hi, I created the page Astroworld: Wish You Were Here Tour and I put up the setlist for the tour, and another user and I have gone back and forth about it not being a reliable source. If not thanks. Albany6

• Reliable. Consequence of Sound is listed as reliable on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and is cited as a source in over 5000 articles. It is fully appropriate as a source for an article involving popular music. feminist (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. As Feminist mentioned, Consequence of Sound is designated as a reliable source at WP:RSMUSIC. Metacritic also uses CoS reviews for their weighted averages, as described here. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  Rotten Tomatoes uses CoS reviews in their score as well, listed here. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Software review sources

Admittedly I am not as knowledgeable in this area however I've come across a handful of widely used sources throughout current mainspace articles that appear to me to violate several guidelines and policies. This was actually prompted by a spam report for toptenreviews.com which historically has been a bit contentious but never had an RFC, which also brought me to at least two other sources: androidguys.com and ioshacker.com.

• Generally toptenreviews.com has been considered inappropriate for a number of reasons, the first of which is that they (the website) are compensated for their reviews. Second, any source that has to claim they are super unbiased so many times makes me question their integrity and third, they largely appear to be fluff sources. [0} TTR appears more than 100 times.
• Androidguys appears to be a hobby blog as well and not the type of editorial oversight and control that we have come to expect in reliable sources. [0] Appears 44 times in mainspace
• IOShacker is a hobby blog and while it identifies editorial staff, it doesn't leave me confident that it's anything more than a hobby blog. IOShacker as far as I can tell, appears 8 times in mainspace and only once elsewhere.
• AppAdvice is basically some SEO nonsense, per their contact us page (and the total lack of a page that identifies editorial staff). See this, specifically the section detailing PR firms. AA appears [0}] over 100 times in mainspace.

Anyhow, I think that's it (for now!) Praxidicae (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Being compensated for reviews is not an automatic disqualifier, as long as they are compensated uniformly (i.e. no product compensates them more than any other). TopTenReviews is under Future plc which operates a number of known reliable sources. It's true that TopTenReviews earns money from affiliate links - which means they earn money whenever a visitor buys a product from links on their reviews - but that doesn't incentivise them from promoting one product over any other, as long as any purchase is made. Any website has to make money to survive. I consider TopTenReviews to be a situational source, which means a review from them probably won't count towards significant coverage, and I do consider their content to be lower quality than other publications under Future such as T3 or AnandTech. feminist (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Audio Assemble (audioassemble.com) for mumble rap designation in Cardi B article

In the Cardi B article, a page from Audio Assemble (audioassemble.com), "The Top “Mumble” Rappers in 2018", is currently being used to support the claim that Cardi B is a mumble rap artist in the infobox. Is Audio Assemble a reliable source for this information?

On its about page, Audio Assemble describes itself as "a web site that was created so that people can easily and qucikly learn how to use Pro Tools recording software, and everything that comes a long with it". It also lists four "main goals":

There are four main goals for Audio Assemble.

1. Help all levels of protools users to understand their software better.
2. Help educate musicans and producers on the best types of equipment to use
3. Help musicians and producers have the edge in their career by providing a free avenue of information directly relevant to their career and passion
4. Have Fun

Pinging LilliamPumpernickl134, who added this content to the article's infobox. — Newslinger talk 01:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging Cornerstonepicker, who removed it. — Newslinger talk 04:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable considering that genre warring is a common issue on music biographies, a high-quality source (or sources) would be necessary to establish that a musical artist is part of a specific genre. Add to the fact that the term "mumble rap" is considered derogatory, and I would prefer a much higher quality source than "Audio Assemble" (cited in only 1 article) for a music BLP like Cardi B. feminist (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with your assessment. Audio Assemble is clearly a low-quality source, and their field of expertise (if you could even call it that) does not include commentary on musicians. With frequent spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors across many pages, Audio Assemble's editorial process is not very robust, if they even have one at all. — Newslinger talk 07:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

genealogy site - FindMyPast

Hello. I haven't come across Find My Past before, nor this noticeboard, so I hope I'm asking in the right place. It came up on a talk page re genealogy. Is there a view on using FMP? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The content there is based on official records of births, marriages, and deaths, and the like, so I don't see a reliability issue. The only potential problem really is potential misinterpretation of information found there, e.g. finding someone with the same name as someone else someone is searching for and assuming them to be the same person. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. I found four previous discussions of Findmypast and compiled a perennial sources entry. Public records such as birth and death certificates are usually allowed under WP:BLPPRIMARY as long as they're used to support a secondary source instead of interpreted on their own. (For deceased individuals, the policy on primary sources applies.) But in this case, editors raised two concerns that are specific to Findmypast:
  1. The records of birth and death certificates include the date the birth/death was recorded, not the date the birth/death actually occurred.
  2. The document records on Findmypast are transcribed, and the transcription process may introduce errors. More recent documents are transcribed digitally, which reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the rate of error.

Also, as with other genealogy sites, such as Ancestry.com (RSP entry), FamilySearch (RSP entry), and Geni.com (RSP entry), Findmypast should not be interpreted with original research. Different individuals can share the same name, and it takes a secondary source to confirm which individual a particular document refers to.

The proposed use case for Findmypast on Talk:Cunt § Cunt as a surname is not acceptable, since supporting the sentence "Although never common, Cunt has also been a surname in both Great Britain and the United States, dying out in the early twentieth century." with a list of 8 people with the surname "Cunt" would be original research, as explained by Galobtter. A reliable secondary source needs to interpret the source before it would be due in the article. — Newslinger talk 14:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, and for adding FMP to the list of dubious sources. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Blogger and Tumblr, etc.

Is this a reliable source for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Blogger and Tumblr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana19208 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Banana19208, I don't quite understand what the word "this" means in your question. Are you asking about a particular article or source? — Newslinger talk 07:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wholly depends on context, Bert Terribles (confirmed) facebook (for example) page would be an RS for what he says, not for it being true, nor for the purposes of establishing his notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is the (very widespread) use of "$SUBJECT tweeted $THING, source, Tweet where $SUBJECT said $THING". It's a primary self-published source, obviously $SUBJECT think it's significant but unless it's commented on by other sources it probably isn't. We could fill entire articles with bullshit that emanates from some verified accounts, none of which is true, none of which is commented on or rebutted by reality-based sources because it is self-evident bullshit. So as with any other self-published source we should only use it for something we would normally include anyway (birthday, for example) and not for anything that amounts to a contentious or promotional claim. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I would only cite facebook as an agency of publishing the primary source, but those sites themselves are not reliable by themselves. But it is a rare case to cite primary source, such as football transfer, citing the secondary source that reporting the tweet of transfer and the original tweet as primary source. Matthew hk (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• i have removed rfc from the title as the thread was not tagged with {{rfc}}. Matthew hk (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Just an opinion: I am not a fan of "spreading" Twitter drama on an encyclopedia. We could close Wikipedia and turn it into a Trump (Twitter finger King) or other movie star tweet site that could last forever. As not being a dictionary or repository for news and drama I will use my new favorite quote of the month/year: "We could fill entire articles with bullshit that emanates from some verified accounts, none of which is true, none of which is commented on or rebutted by reality-based sources because it is self-evident bullshit." (by User:Guy). Otr500 (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the Britannica a reliable source for this text at Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine?

The text is "c 1050 BC – Due to the defeat of the Israelites in a battle, the Philistines capture the Ark of the Covenant. After about seven months the Philistine city leaders decide to return the Ark of the Covenant to the Israelites" which is sourced by https://www.britannica.com/place/Shiloh-ancient-city-Palestine this]. Which indeed backs the text. My issue is that this is stated as a fact. Probably not as bad as the line above which claims the conquering of Canaan as an undisputed fact though. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly presenting the Biblical narrative (as opposed to actual finds) - won't be the first source to do so on locations mainly known from the Bible and whose identification is uncertain. I would say Britannica is genetally reliable (even though they are missing an "according to the bible" here)Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but feel free to add more sourced info (or even replace with better), Britannica is just saying that when one considers "Shiloh", this is what the story is, not unlike, say, Tell el-Amarna -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally it is RS (I myself am not sure it is all that reliable (Murry et all), but RSN has declared it so), so yes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz, Alanscottwalker, and Slatersteven: maybe I wasn't clear. The timeline article is presenting this as historical fact, no caveat, as does the Britannica which is the source, and that's ok? I can't agree. Doug Weller talk 22:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, change the Wikipedia article, or remove under NPOV, or put better source needed tag. Our articles are suppose to summarize multiple sources, not hang on one source, eg. Shiloh (biblical city) uses multiple sources. There are ancient stories about places, you and I know that no-one today knows if those things happened - we do know that people in the past wrote them down. The EB article is not a timeline, of course, it's just an entry on Shiloh, but fit for purpose is more an NPOV thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This shows the problem with using tertiary sources for articles. We don't know what sources EB is using hence we do not know if they are referring to the biblical narrative or known history. TFD (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

? Many WP:RS do not identify their sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I just ran into this article on the Philistines.[20] The first sentence of the entry states as fact that "Philistine, one of a people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Palestine in the 12th century bce, about the time of the arrival of the Israelites." This is a typical problem with encyclopedias, there's a tendency to take one pov and state that as fact. We'd never get away with a sentence like that. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's an inherent problems with the Philistines (and other groups) - which are primarily known from their contact with other people (who documented them) - as opposed to self-documentation - nothing much they have written on themselves survived. There's a bit of archaeology - lots of theories - and not much definitive that isn't from the bible. They are far from the only group of people known primarily via out group attestation (e.g. Huns for instance). The writing of some nations enters the copying canon (e.g. Roman Latin records, or the Hebrew Bible), others survive by dint of writing on stone faces or clay tablets, and others fade from history with close to nothing of their own language preserved in writing. Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Using historical sources to establish notability

Sightings of various unidentified creatures, monsters or "cryptids" were often presented as factual accounts by respectable publications in the early 20th century, but have been virtually ignored by modern reliable sources. A prime example is the Dingonek: The Journal of the East Africa and Uganda Natural History Society (1912) and Maclean's (1918) published credulous accounts using language such as "His evidence on the score of the latter, the dingonek, is very positive and believable", "Thnt (sic) this monster does exist, however, there can be no particle of doubt, as the testimony of authoritative eye-witnesses cannot be reasonably discredited" and "It would appear as if there was another zoological prize of a startling character awaiting collection". Are these publications considered reliable for factual statements or to establish notability per relevant guidelines such as WP:NFRINGE and WP:RS AGE? What if newer RS coverage does not exist or is limited to fringe sources? If these do indeed establish notability, how would one write a balanced article using only outdated or fringe sources? Please note that editors have presented these sources to establish notability at AfD and Deletion review, and Dingonek is currently sourced entirely to period pieces due to the unavailability of acceptable newer sources. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I would think they are reliable for the assessment of notability, that at the time, people thought those creatures were real, but obviously today we see those as fringy, so we should not treat their accounts as fact. --Masem (t) 19:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly... historical sources demonstrate notability, but not factuality of the topics. See our article on Prester John for an example of how to deal with ideas that people once thought were true, but now are now considered nothing but legend. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that Prester John, and even other creatures/monsters/cryptids such as Bigfoot, are treated with a critical eye by recent sources. We're able to include modern expert views in those articles. On the other hand, there don't seem to be any sources that present a current mainstream view of the Dingonek. –dlthewave ☎ 21:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

There is not statute of limitations that says that before a certain date we cannot use a source. As to why recent sources do not cover them, well contact them and ask why. We should not judge notability on whether or not it is regarded as notable to day. Also whilst there maybe no "mainstream" sources there are modern sources, "mainstream" does not mean "notable", something can be "fringe" and still be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NFRINGE is applicable in these cases only to supposed scientific claims that the animal exists. It does not apply to folklore or mythology, which this topic appears to have its roots in. Nor does it apply to people writing about what other people claimed to have seen, which is the focus of additional sources (still old) that I identified on the article's talk page. We can't go around deleting articles on creatures of folklore and mythology just because some modern pseudoscientists make claims that they actually exist, or because some old sources make dubious claims. The crux of notability of such supposed creatures is not whether there is evidence that they exist in nature, but whether there is sufficient coverage of the folklore, mythology, and/or popular culture aspects of the subject to make them of encyclopedic interest. I'm not suggesting this particular topic is notable or otherwise, but it appears to be the local version of 'river monster' folklore, of which variants exist among many cultures. --Michig (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Which sources describe the folklore and mythology of the Dingonek? –dlthewave ☎ 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't claim there were any, in this case it falls more into the popular culture field due to the wide and repeated reporting of Jordan's tales over a long period, but if you read all the sources available you'll find that after claiming to have shot it, Jordan stated that the Wanderobo people told him that it was a Dingonek, and that the Kavirondo people believed in a creature in their area that he believed to be the same thing (the Lukwata - a mythical river/lake monster) so there is a basis in folklore that is not covered by WP:NFRINGE. --Michig (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a virtual statute of limitations in older sources which slowly transforms them from reliable secondary sources to less reliable primary sources. Because knowledge changes over time and what was once considered true may no longer be so. We no longer accept theories about race, sexual identity, etc. that were orthodoxy of years ago and those books are only relevant for what people believed at the time.

In practical terms, if you had a lot of books about hobgoblins from the 17th century but no modern historians have used these texts, then you could not write an accurate article. You would not for example be able to determine what witnesses actually saw if the authors claimed people had seen hobgoblins. TFD (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

As sources to verify facts about hobgoblins, absolutely, but for a discussion of 17th century beliefs in, and claims about, hobgoblins, those sources would be fine. --Michig (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

They would be primary sources of 17th century beliefs, while notability is determined in secondary sources. Any use of them would therefore be original research. Certainly historians could make use of them and we could use their reports as reliable secondary sources. Note too that not everyone in the 17th century shared the same belief system. TFD (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

If something was reported credulously 100 years ago in a very reliable source and then drops out of anything resembling a WP:RS for the next century I'd say it fails WP:LASTING so it cannot independently establish notability. However it could still be used as a reliable source for information on the topic if lasting significant coverage is shown through a variety of sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect", we have sources for this covering a period of around 5 years.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Five years between 1913 and 1918. Then nothing. That doesn't look like WP:LASTING to me. Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Excerpts of the book were published in the Liverpool Echo ("Go to Sleep When the Lions Roar", 7 February 1958, p. 10). [[21]], 1932 (also 1932 *[[22]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Minhocão (legendary creature) is another example. Since newer sources are sparse, the article is written entirely from a 19th-century perspective. –dlthewave ☎ 18:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

National Public Radio

Is National Public Radio a reliable source to use in this context?

SCD is officially an impartial humanitarian NGO, with no affiliation to any political or military actor and a commitment to render services to anyone in need. Like all NGOs operating in opposition-controlled areas, SCD negotiates humanitarian access with organisations such as local councils, provincial councils, and armed groups, with relationships varying widely from governorate to governorate. It is nonetheless regarded as pro-opposition by National Public Radio and Andolu Agency.

This concerns a discussion on the on the Syrian Civil Defense page, and the input of uninvolved editors is needed.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question... the issue isn’t reliability, but Due weight... yes, the citation reliably supports the statement - the NPR article is being cited as a primary source to verify that NPR does indeed hold the opinion that SCD is aligned with the opposition. The question you need to ask is whether NPR’s opinion is relevant or important enough to mention. Why should the reader care what NPR thinks? Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I would think that readers would care because it's one of the five most trusted news sources in America. GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This seems like cherry-picking. Neither of the sources explain what they mean by pro-opposition or why they use the description. Since the SCD receives most of its funding from the same Western governments that support the opposition, while it is considered a terrorist group by the Syrian government and its Russian allies, it probably could be described as pro-opposition. However, we would need a source that provides an analysis. Incidentally, attributions should be made to the authors of the articles not to the publishers. And use of the term "nonetheless" violates no original research. TFD (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GPRamirez5 that NPR is a reliable source in this context and also that is a highly respected source. That makes it an especially useful source when citing controversial content. As for "cherrypicking", that would be the case only if several other reliable sources reject the assertion that it is a pro-opposition group, and those sources were being excluded from the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen, who puts it well. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Cullen. This is the best way of looking at this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

References

The source is probably reliable, but the summary is misleading. A single publication by NPR noticed SCD in passing. This not an official position by NPR, as citation implies ("It is nonetheless regarded as pro-opposition by National Public Radio"). My very best wishes (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a passing mention: Many of the dead are reportedly women and children. Death tolls vary, with the Syrian Civil Defense, a pro-opposition group also known as the White Helmets, reporting at least 42 fatalities. The rest of the article does not mention the group at all. The Banner talk 08:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I think the issue we should be discussing is the question of Undue Weight rather than the question of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

"This is not an official position by NPR, as citation implies." I'm not sure how one would determine the official position of NPR, other than by what they report. I suppose I could email NPR for an official statement, but that would be Original Research.

Also could commenters avoid using bullets and honor the format that's been established here? It's a little disruptive. Thanks.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding issues of cherrypicking, the Associated Press also considers WH/SCD pro-opposition, or to be precise, "opposition-run."

"The opposition-run Syrian Civil Defense, first responders also known as the White Helmets, said the blast occurred in the village of Sarmada..." GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Well, as you are not sure, do not misrepresent - you seem to assume NPR has an official position. That is an assumption, and should not be written that way. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, but I didn't raise the issue of "official position." That was My very best wishes. I simply wrote "regarded as." If you'd like to change "regarded as" to "reported as," I'm sure we could accomodate you.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

"NPR" is incorrect attribution. This should be attributed to Alexis Diao, an editor of NPR whose name appears in the publication. Is she a reliable source? I have no idea. Maybe the "pro-government organization" is her personal opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not an opinion article. It's a news article in one of the most trusted news institutions in the country.GPRamirez5 (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed not an opinion article, and this is NPR - not the specific reported. And yes - it is a WP:RS. Furthermore, I will state that finding additional mainstream sources calling the White Helmets pro-opposition (or opposition affiliated) is easy - it is close to being a WP:BLUE situation (the white helmets were/are a well organized outfit running in opposition controlled areas - the did/does not allow them to operate in areas they controlled - and white helmets and personnel were fearful for their lives after the regime conquered turf. e.g. this well publicized event in 2018). Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You should credit the reporters, and you can say they reported for NPR or AP or some other outlet if those matter, but it is bizarre misrepresentation and incorrect to eg., write NPR "regards", because that phrase turns it into NPR opinion, not news. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Again, the problem here is DUE WEIGHT, not reliability. Why is NPR’s view of this group being singled out and highlighted? Is NPR’s view representative of a widely held view? Is it a minority view? Is it a view that is unique to NPR? We need to discuss why the article is mentioning NPR in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. NPR (National Public Radio) is a generally reliable source, with a similar reputation as BBC Radio (RSP entry for BBC). This particular case, as others have mentioned, concerns due weight, and is better discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 15:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  Actually no, the issue in part is corporate misrepresentation, so it is for this board. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

But if NPR’s view does not pass UNDUE, then we no longer need to worry about the question of misrepresentation. We would simply remove any mention of NPR and its view from the article. So, my recommendation is to first resolve the UNDUE issue, and come back to this question only if necessary. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Even though the NPR article is a news report instead of an opinion piece, I would attribute the "pro-opposition" designation to "Alexis Diao of NPR" rather than NPR itself. — Newslinger talk 15:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Newslinger- why? GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

​I've struck my previous comment after further consideration. If Mohamad Misto, Adham Kako, and Selen Temizer do not need to be attributed for the Anadolu Agency news report, then Alexis Diao should not need to be attributed for the NPR news report. Since this is contentious, something like 'However, SCD has been described as "pro-opposition" in NPR and Anadolu Agency news reports.' might be better, since this is a more specific claim that is clearly supported by the sources. Whether to include this sentence is still an issue of due weight, and is better suited for the neutral point of view noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

If we consider that the AP has used this description (indeed, an even firmer description) along with Anadolu Agency and NPR, I don't see how it's an issue of WP:UNDUE. NPR hasn't expressed a fringe position.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, in this paragraph and elsewhere in Syrian Civil Defense, the contradictory source is the White Helmets' own website, raising issues of WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SELFPUBLISH.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not an issue of reliable sourcing but an issue of due weight and synthesis. The two pertinent questions are: Does a passing mention warrant a statement on the page, and if so does the way in which that is mentioned violate the rules against synthesis. The proposed phrasing ("SCD is officially an impartial.... It is nonetheless regarded as pro-opposition...") uses the passing description "pro-opposition" as a rebuttal to the official position, when no such rebuttal is explicitly stated by the sources. This is, in my view, a pretty clear violation of WP:SYNTH which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Regardless, this issue should be worked out on the talk page of the article in question (Where discussion was ongoing until the issue was raised here and editors stopped participating there). UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this: the passing mention of "pro-opposition", which is clearly a contentious statement, should not be taken out of place and imply NPR supports it. This is unfortunately a trend with sources to throw labels to assume they stick if they speak of the label in a factual tone (as NPR does), and we should not be applying it ourselves without question or presume a one-mention passing in NPR presumes NPR supports that position. --Masem (t) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, most uses of "nonetheless" by Wikipedia editors demonstrates synthesis. But the idea that something is only one policy or another is stilted -- all three core policies work together and yes something can be improperly representing a source and undue and synthesis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of the NPR reference is to acknowledge the contentiousness, not to mask it. Undue weight occurs when the statements in the first half of the paragraph, which are sourced to the White Helmets' website itself, stand in isolation, presented in Wikipedia's voice. Notation of the opposing view, present in mainstream sources, is an advancement of NPOV, not a diminishment of it at all.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem. The source does not mention any such contentiousness, so using it to prove contentiousness is a clear violation of synth. It is also important to note two things about the beginning half of the paragraph. One is that self published sources are generally considered reliable as sources of information about themselves. Secondly, it is in fact not presenting the material directly from the source in Wikipedia's voice, as it adds the conditional "officially", attributing the statement to the group and not to Wikipedia. It is a small but important distinction. It would be an entirely different matter if the first sentence read "SCD is an impartial...", which would be stating the information from the source strictly in Wikipedia's voice, but that is not the case. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, there is no problem there. If credible sources are contradictory and contending, then the article must reflect that in order to be NPOV.GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not nonsense, it's a core Wikipedia policy and your proposed edit violates it for the reasons I stated. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

There isn't any argument about the policy, of which we are in agreement. Those who want to challenge me on interpretation can take it up on the NPOV noticeboard. In the meantime, can we get some consensus on the reliability of National Public Radio?GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Usually, NPR can be considered reliable. However (like all news media sources) it will, on occasion, report something that turns out to be an error, or cross the line and report opinion as fact. Thus, a specific report may be be deemed unreliable for supporting a specific fact or statement in Wikipedia. Context and specifics matter. We can never say that a news source is 100% always reliable (nor 100% always unreliable). We have to look at the specifics, and at what other sources say. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Tab and Bristol24-7 on Milo Yiannopoulos

Is Bristol24-7 a reliable source for BLPs? Context: I replaced a citation to The Tab with a citation to Bristol24-7, because The Tab is a student publication with negligible editorial oversight, and thus use of this article would fall under WP:BLPSPS. A Google search revealed this this Bristol 24/7 article and this Independent "opinion" piece (unusable per BLPSPS). The question is, is Bristol 24/7 a reliable source for the statement "After protesters attempted to have him banned from the university, the event became a debate between Yiannopoulos and The Daily Telegraph blogger and feminist Rebecca Reid."? feminist (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Side note: The Tab is currently cited to 139 articles and would probably need pruning. feminist (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If it helps evaluating, the About page for Bristol 24-7 appears to show adherence to journalistic standards (https://www.bristol247.com/about-us/), including being externally monitored/accredited by IMPRESS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMPRESS). So I would initially assume it to be reliable journalistically? 73.76.213.67 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

thegamer.com

Hello everyone. I am working on a potential project for the Rugrats episode "A Rugrats Kwanzaa", and I was wondering if the following source is reliable enough for use on Wikipedia (here). I would use it to cite how the episode was intended as a pilot for a potential spinoff that was never produced. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

My research indicates the spin-off was to be called "The Carmichaels" and was to be about the family of Suzie Carmichael. Here is an article from what looks like a reliable source from 2001 announcing the spin-off. This article in Variety mentions it briefly, and is scrupulously reliable as well. However, neither draws a connection to the Kwanzaa episode as specifically designed to be the branching point for the spinoff. As far as I can tell, the series never got past the speculation stage. --Jayron32 13:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the links. It is useful information to add to the Rugrats article itself. The source that I have linked above is the only one that I can find that links the episode with the spinoff, though I do remember coming across a more reliable source in the past but I cannot find it again for some reason. It is probably best to leave it out of a potential "A Rugrats Kwanzaa" article until further sources are found to prove whether it is true or not (I am leaning more toward no if more credible sources did not cover this connection). Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you really sure that you want to use a clickbait listicle site? You would probably be better off finding the sources that they plagiarized their content from. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Good point. I will do further research on it. I am aware that is not the ideal source, so that is why I asked on here. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Starsunfolded.com

Not sure if this is the best place for this but I'd like to start a formal discussion on blacklisting starsunfolded.com as it is patently unreliable and has no encyclopedic use on this project but is far too prevalent in mainspace, particularly BLPs. Starsunfolded is more or less a blog and is basically an aggregate site which appears to takes largely from other unreliable sources or Wikipedia itself. Example. Praxidicae (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep reads blogish to me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

https://starsunfolded.com/about-us/ "Movie buffs" seems to be the problem. Celebrity gossip sites are not reliable sources as a general rule. I am amused by the inclusion of "caste" for each Indian star. It does not state nor imply that it uses Wikipedia, though. Collect (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't however I've come across several uses of this on WP where the only time the information occurs on the internet is WP and then there. Praxidicae (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This is actually an "informal discussion" but the site does appear unreliable. Otr500 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's a blog that should be treated as unreliable and inappropriate for external links. I briefly looked at it a few years ago and didn't see any blatant spamming.

Currently, there are less than 50 instances of it as a ref. Unless there's been a spamming campaign, with someone cleaning up most of it, I don't see this as something to blacklist or even XLinkBot. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have been cleaning up these links often - there is no SBL yet because I wanted to discuss it before requesting it, hence my post here. There isn't a COIBot report because it goes far beyond the max link limit: 1280 records; Top 10 wikis where starsunfolded.com has been added: w:en (844), w:hi (49), www.wikidata (40), w:id (34), w:bn (27), commons (26), w:ur (22), w:kn (20), w:mai (19), w:pa (16). 844 times on enwiki alone.Praxidicae (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Then some help from a bot would be a good idea. I don't have a good feel for the threshold for XLinkBot let alone blacklisting. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be blacklisted because of wide spread and significant abuse and the fact that it's widely used in BLPs...Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

For More Reliable Sources

Hello everybody,

There is an urgent need to discuss this with you.

We all felt sorry for what happened to the German magazine “Der Spiegel”. Years of lies and misinformation by a famous and trusted reporter. What do we need to do to trust all the sources that Wikipedia is based on??? Alex-h (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a specific concearn?Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing they mean Der Spiegel#2018 fabrication scandal. The answer is, we will continue to be taken as much as the rest of the world is. We don't do our own research, we only use what reliable sources publish, wo when reliable sources are fooled, we will be too.--GRuban (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• No need to panic. We have WP:EXTRAORDINARY. wumbolo ^^^ 09:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Both replies are excellent advice! Otr500 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Why are more right wing sources considered unreliable than left-wing sources?

From Mike Godwin's Facebook:

“When observing right-wing conspiracy theories, we saw positive feedback loops between the core of that network—composed of Fox News, leading Republican pundits, and Breitbart—and the remainder of the online right-wing network. In those cases we saw repetition, amplification, and circling of the wagons to criticize other media outlets when these exposed the errors and failures of the story. By contrast, the mainstream media ecosystem exhibited intensive competition to hold each other to high journalistic standards, and a repeated pattern of rapid removal of content, correction, and in several cases disciplining of the reporters involved. Moreover, in none of these cases did we find more than a smattering of repetition and amplification of the claims once retracted.” NETWORK PROPAGANDA, page 220.

This is a very succinct explanation of why the right wing media are much more likely to be considered unreliable for Wikipedia. Their agenda is tribal, mainstream media may lean left but it is committed, for the most part, much more to truth than to tribe. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It can't be helped if reality appears to lean left. Jackhammer111 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what the Nazis would have said. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this ... Is it because the right wing is more unreliable than the left? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well shit, I guess we are both Nazis huh? Curses you foiled our evil plan etc... PackMecEng (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy was making an ironic reference to Godwin's Law rather than a personal attack. Fences&Windows 23:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Apologies, I was joking as well. Does not come through well on the internet huh? PackMecEng (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

No, sarcasm is always perfectly clear on the internet and only an idiot fails to spot it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh I was joking too. Hence the deliberate Godwin. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I will say that it's not really a question that left-leaning sources are more reliable when it comes to factual/objective content, as per the above. Where the problem that I believe underpins a lot of the issues on WP presently the over-reliance on the opinions of left-leaning sources, given them more weight not simply because of numbers (as per WEIGHT) nor because the person is an established expert whose opinion does carry weight, but because they are opinions from reliable sources. An opinion from any source is an opinion , reliable or not, barring the exceptional case of something like Daily Mail caught actually altering opinions. Unfortunately, editors are far too dismissive of opinions because they come from an unreliable source, rather than question if the opinion should belong per WEIGHT. (Of course, there's the whole NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM aspects at play as well). --Masem (t) 01:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• A guess based only upon my observations. There exist a massive number of far right wing radio stations and other sources with enormous viewership. There exist few far left venues with tiny viewership. Fewer folks on the left appear to gain enjoyment from this sort of self-gratification (not to say many don’t). That is, on the right, there is massive competition for audience. On the left, most outlets fail and disappear, leaving little competition. The result is that right-wing outlets become more extreme to “out-right” their competition. Then again, there is the question of what is right and left, and this varies by country and time. Let me put it another way. There is no question that there exist an enormous number of actual conspiracies. But, we’ll likely never know about most of the ones that actually worked. That is, most conspiracy theories are sans evidence and ridiculous. And, far right and far left orgs push them anyhow. Only, there are so many more popular far right sources. So, they lose credibility in the minds of folks that edit an encyclopedia. I’m not trying to evaluate the “truth” underlying any philosophy. I’m just throwing out random thoughts. Delving more deeply would require looking into the nature of the sociology behinds various belief systems – which is not our job. O3000 (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed it is a more interesting and in depth topic than one that could be covered by quoting a Facebook post. PackMecEng (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Godwin is quoting from a full book, which does have rather indepth analysis of this (from google books preview). He just pulled a short section from it for Facebook. --Masem (t) 21:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Does it matter though? A certain controversy (it became the subject of an ArbCom case) would tell you that left-wing media promote groupthink and censor journalists who question a general narrative. Shouldn't our goal be to review the reliability of sources regardless of political leanings? If this results in sources on a particular side of a spectrum being over-represented, so be it. Re: Masem's concern: as long as there are enough reliable right-wing sources to use in a particular article, it should still be possible to write a good-quality article that gives equal weight to both sides of the spectrum where relevant. For US politics maybe cite both the NYT and WSJ for opinions, or both Politico and The Hill. For UK politics cite both the Guardian and the Telegraph. feminist (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category error: The Times is not "left-wing" and the Journal (in its reporting, not necessarily its editorials) is not "right-wing". Both are centrist newspapers, one with a slightly liberal editorial stance, and the other with a somewhat more conservative editorial stance, but neither generally allow their editorial positions to effect their reporting, and neither deviates very far from a moderate position. What's being discussed here are actual "right-wing" and "left-wing" sources, not vaguely liberal and somewhat conservative ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Which of coarse neatly brings us to why this is an invalid (the OP, not the above post) is invalid. What am American might consider "left wing" a European might well consider "slightly right of center". So we need to know what we mean by "left wing" and "right wing". If we mean extremists on both sides, is there an imbalance?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"The liberal bias of facts"

Main page: User:BullRangifer/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here

Liberals and RS are a natural mix, as liberals are more adverse to fake news than conservatives. Unlike right-wing sources, left-wing sources can be fairly partisan and yet rate well for accuracy. Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman has noted why this applies mostly to liberal sources:

• "On the Liberal Bias of Facts"
• "The Facts Have A Well-Known Center-Left Bias"
• "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias"

There are several reasons for this: liberals tend to get their information from a much wider variety of sources than conservatives; Democrats are generally better educated than Republicans; and liberals tend to follow the evidence and change opinions more easily than conservatives, as their labels imply.

The consequence is that left-wingers/liberals and their sources will tend to be closer to the truth and facts than right-wingers/conservatives and their sources. In a sense, it's reassuring that the truth and facts are more favored by the common people than by the aristocracy, a connection which harkens back to the origins of the terms used for the left–right political spectrum in the French parliament, and the supporters of the American Revolution, who were left-wing liberals. The left-wingers/liberals sided with the oppressed common people, republicanism, democracy, revolution against the status quo, and human rights for everyone, while the right-wingers/conservatives sided with the aristocratic and wealthy ruling class, monarchies, autocracy, preservation of the status quo, and full rights only granted to the ruling and propertied class. And so it is today; some things never change.

The two sides are not two sides of the same coin, but are radically different in several ways. Scholarly data analysis, published in the Oxford University Press book Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, shows that "liberals want facts; conservatives want their biases reinforced. Liberals embrace journalism; conservatives believe propaganda.... The right-wing media ecosystem differs categorically from the rest of the media environment." The authors have documented that the right-wing media ecosystem is more susceptible to "disinformation, lies and half-truths", results documented by numerous other researchers and authors.

Another difference of special relevance to Wikipedia, especially under (and because of) Trump, is that Democrats tend to favor RS and real news, whereas Republicans tend to favor unreliable sources and fake news, as demonstrated very clearly during the 2016 presidential campaign and Trump administration. Fake news and false stories helped elect Trump. It was generally rejected by Democrats, and therefore directed mostly at Republicans, who swallowed it, with Fox News and right-wing media amplifying it. A deliberately disinformed base voted for Trump. The Russians have a long history as experts at spreading disinformation, and the Trump-Russia alliance and its production of fake news to aid Trump and fool his supporters is being investigated.

Note that the name of the political party favored by the ruling class can change, as evidenced by the fact that the Republican and Democratic parties have changed their views and support base throughout history, with a nearly 100% exchange of positions since the days of the civil war. (See Southern strategy for more information.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Although I do appreciate the post above; I agree with many points; and I have made a copy for friends who think Fox News and right-wing talk shows are of equal quality to the so-called "liberal" media (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, PBS), I see an absence of mention of some serious reliability issues with major media in general as noted in our articles Media bias, Media bias in the United States, especially the concerns raised by Noam Chomsky and others of corporate and power bias. Our article on U.S. media bias mentions both claims of general liberal U.S. media bias and conservative U.S. media bias. I suggest anyone interested in learning more about the topic of media bias take a look at these articles and their sources for more information. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• We happen to be in the middle (or perhaps near the end) of a great renaissance of right-wing populism in the U.S. and the world at large, which has resulted in there being a good deal more right-wing sources than left-wing sources (especially so since the costs of publication are now entirely negligible due to the existence of the Internet). In fact, the vast majority of what people -- primarily people of the right -- call "left-wing" sources are, in actuality, centrist mainstream sources with a slightly liberal editorial point of view, and are not in any meaningful sense "left-wing" at all.
  On the other hand, the "right-wing" sources are, for the most part, truly on the right, and many of them on the far right. What the far-right and the far-left (what there is of it) have in common is that neither is particularly happy with the status quo, and they wish to make great and significant changes to it. To this end, they have a tendency to propagandize and to distort the facts to support their view of the world. True left-wing sources are as guilty of this as true right-wing sources are, but since there are so many more far-right-wing sources than there are far-left-wing sources, it simply looks, in general, that right-wing sources are less reliable than left-wing sources. When adjusted for their actual position on the political spectrum, and for their number, I suggest that sources equally far from the center are as equally unreliable on both sides of the spectrum.
  This fact might have been more obvious at a time when there were more actual "left-wing" sources, say in "the Sixties", that politically turbulent time from around 1963 to 1975ish, when publishing your ideas was a great deal more difficult, time consuming and expensive. If the Internet had existed then, it's likely that the,re would have been websites for the Weatherman, the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army and its ilk, the many groups of the New Left, and other extremely fringe organizations, and they would have been just as unreliable then as right-wing sources are now. Combine this temporal disparity with the pronounced "liberal bias to reality" as explained above by BullRangifer, and you have a relatively clear explanation for our current state of affairs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• There is another complicating factor, which is the right-ward drift of the Republican Party in the past decades. In the post-World War II world, both parties were essentially centrist, with different centers of gravity. The Republicans were a moderate-conservative party with a liberal wing, and its center of gravity was slightly right of center. Similarly, the Democrats were a moderate-liberal party with a conservative wing, and its center of gravity was slightly left of center. Liberal Republicans were less liberal than liberal Democrats, and Conservative Democrats were less conservative than Conservative Republicans.
  The first indication of change came with the Goldwater presidential nomination, but the spectacular failure of that bid put a hold on the party moving to the right -- for the Nixon era, it remained pretty much where it had been (and Nixon's domestic policies were liberal). The big drift began with Reagan and to a lesser extent with the elder Bush, continued during the Clinton years, and picked up speed during the Bush (actually Cheney) administration. The influence of the Tea Party played a major part as well. By the Obama administration, the Republican party had pretty much landed where it is now, and was essentially a conservative-ultra conservative party with a small moderate wing and significant outliers into the far-right.
  Meanwhile, the Democratic Party had not shifted that much at all, but the radical change in the Republican Party has moved the apparent political center point to the right so much that it appeared to be much more liberal than it had been previously, especially to people on the other side of the line. It is only now, since the candidacy of Bernie Sanders and with the current attention being paid to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that we may be seeing a Democratic drift to the left. Whether that survives or continues remains to be seen.
  The reason this is all important in terms of the question at hand, is that the shift of the Republican Party to the right, and its numerous outliers to and connections with the far-right, gives the current far-right political "cover" in a way that, for instance, the John Birch Society never did. This then requires that the media pay attention to the far-right's tropes and memes, no matter how distorted and unfactual they may be. Because this stuff is "out there" in the public, and because the major players are not seen as part of the political fringe, but have connections to and relationships with mainstream Republicans, they have an apparent gravitas that requires the mainstream media -- which believes above all in fairness, but doesn't hesitate to ignore fringe ideas -- to talk about those concepts, and they don't just go away. People then try to cite them, only to come up against the bare fact that much of what the far-right puts out is not simply political opinion or commentary, it's plain, downright false information, which becomes abundantly clear when checked against non-ideologically driven sources. So, in that respect, right-wing sources -- or, at least, far right-wing sources -- are generally unreliable.
  Now if someone would find me a far left-wing source that the media pays any attention to at all, we could compare them, but I don't think such a beast exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• In other words, it's the very success of the far-right in injecting itself into mainstream political discourse which has led to its reputation for unreliability. If no one was talking about those sites, no one would be citing them, and their unreliability would not be well known. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Breitbart is a very notable example of this. In 2014, according to Pew Research, "Just 3% of respondents get news from Breitbart in a typical week, and its audience is decidedly conservative: 79% have political values that are right-of-center (by comparison, 26% of all panelists are right-of-center)." I wish we had statistics for the reach Breitbart now has because of Trump, but its reach must have grown exponentially, even though it's still just as, or more, fringe and outlandishly unreliable.

Trump has elevated the profile of disinformation sources by huge margins. He gets his news from extremely unreliable sources, especially Fox & Friends. In 2016, Trump's favorite sites included "Breitbart, Daily Caller, Newsmax, the Gateway Pundit, and the Conservative Treehouse". Now such sources are literally writing our foreign policy and causing Trump to listen to them and make decisions with international consequences.

He's doing all he can to elevate falsehoods and Russian propaganda to the same level as truth, a very dangerous situation. Many RS discuss how he's attacking the very concept and existence of truth. We have gotten "fake news (Trump)" (meaning something entirely different than real fake news) and "alternative facts" from the Trump administration. Giuliani even came up with the ideas that truth isn't always truth, and Comey's 'truth' is different from Trump's 'truth'. Once the populace no longer trusts the media, and gives up on figuring out what's true, then they just accept what the loudest speakers tell them, and that is always the authoritarian leader, a status which is Trump's wet dream. This is NOT normal in America, but it's normal in lands whose leaders are Trump's best friends: Russia's Putin, the Philippines' Duterte, Turkey's Erdogan, Hungary's Orban, Egypt's el-Sisi, China's Xi Jinping, North Korean's Kim Jong Un, and Syria's al-Assad. It is not accidental that he has praised all of them and sees them as model leaders. This isn't a small bit of writing on the wall. It's a huge sign he's painting, telling us where's he's going.

So Trump has elevated the status of the worst sources to unheard of levels. Wikipedia must firmly resist the attempts of his editors here who try to do this here, and they really are doing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Protecting the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia is important all the time, no matter where the disinformation is sourced from, but there is no disputing that we are currently in the middle of a huge shitstorm of disinformation, almost all of it originating from the far-right, and there is a concerted -- if most probably not actually organized or coordinated -- effort to skew Wikipedia in that direction. Anyone who deals with articles that concern those people can see it happening on a daily basis. Beyond My Ken (talk)

True, but tangential to the thesis of the book, which argues, with what seems to be pretty solid data, that there is a substantive difference between the right wing media bubble and the rest of the media, including left-wing media. There used to be a normal distribution of cross--citation and social sharing, so WaPo cites WSJ and WSJ cites WaPo, and both cite HuffPo to a lesser degree, and HuffPo cites WaPo more than WSJ, and so on. But there is now a near-total disconnect between the right wing media and the rest. The distribution is now bimodal, and it's asymmetric. WaPo and WSJ might both debunk a conspiracy theory on InfoWars, but Fox doesn't - and in fact Fox may well amplify it. And this changed during 2016. Breitbart was taking market share from Fox, so Fox appears to have consciously separated itself from the mainstream. The GOP base do not like being told that right wing figures are lying, and they will punish such disloyalty. And this is exactly what happens as democracies head into dictatorship, which is why so many people are losing their shit over it. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Among low-quality sources, the most popular websites are right-wing sources

The "Discussion report" column of the current issue of The Signpost covered the recent deprecation RfCs. I'm reposting my response to the column here, as it's pertinent to this discussion:

---

This caught my attention: "apparent left-wing bias in deprecating mostly right-wing sources (out of the 5 deprecated/banned sources on WP:RSP, only Occupy Democrats is listed on adfontesmedia.com as left-wing)". I've previously avoided discussing Ad Fontes Media's "Media Bias Chart: Version 4.0", since it's a self-published source. However, assuming the chart is accurate, a close look at the low-quality publications in the chart reveals why most of the currently deprecated sources have a right-wing bias.

The following is a list of the sources in the Red Rectangle ("Nonsense damaging to public discourse"), which includes sources that fit these classifications: "Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info", "Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info", and the lower half of "Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion". All sources with an "Overall Quality" score of 19 or lower are included in the chart. (The raw data is available at adfontesmedia.com.)

Source	Status at WP:RSP	Overall Quality		Political Bias		Alexa Rank	Uses
Daily Mail (MailOnline)		19	Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion	13	Skews Right	197	1
Breitbart News		8	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	34	Most Extreme Right	259	1
The Daily Caller		12	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	24	Hyper-Partisan Right	743	1
The Daily Wire	N/A	16	Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion	28	Hyper-Partisan Right	2,700	1
InfoWars		1	Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info	44	Most Extreme Right	3,412	1   2   3
WorldNetDaily (WND)		4	Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info	36	Most Extreme Right	4,897	1   2
The Gateway Pundit	N/A	12	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	35	Most Extreme Right	5,797	1
TheBlaze (Blaze Media)		8	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	27	Hyper-Partisan Right	6,642	1
AlterNet		18	Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion	-23	Hyper-Partisan Left	14,007	1
Twitchy	N/A	14	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	29	Hyper-Partisan Right	15,499	1
Palmer Report	N/A	8	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	-34	Most Extreme Left	17,879	1
RedState	N/A	11	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	29	Hyper-Partisan Right	25,295	1
Guacamoley	N/A	17	Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion	-20	Hyper-Partisan Left	28,289	1
Wonkette	N/A	12	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	-34	Most Extreme Left	44,023	1
National Enquirer		6	Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info	10	Skews Right	95,781	1
Bipartisan Report	N/A	13	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	-27	Hyper-Partisan Left	132,478	1
David Wolfe	N/A	2	Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info	-32	Most Extreme Left	156,314	1
WorldTruth.TV	N/A	1	Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info	20	Hyper-Partisan Right	199,437	1
Patribotics	N/A	1	Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info	-40	Most Extreme Left	375,449	1   2
Occupy Democrats		9	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	-30	Hyper-Partisan Left	1,102,908	1
Forward Progressives	N/A	15	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	-25	Hyper-Partisan Left	5,147,500	1
Conservative Tribune	N/A	12	Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info	35	Most Extreme Right	N/A	1   2

Note: There is a discrepancy with Ad Fontes Media's data table and chart. PJ Media had an "Overall Quality" score ("Vertical Rank") of 17 ("Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion") in the table, but its position in the chart is around 27 ("Opinion; Fair Persuasion"). I excluded PJ Media from the above list.

When the list is sorted by "Alexa Rank", it's clear that among low-quality sources, the websites with the highest traffic are right-wing sources. Assuming that Ad Fontes Media analyzed all of the most popular publications, it's reasonable to conclude that, due to their popularity, low-quality far-right sources are more likely to be discussed and deprecated on WP:RSN than low-quality far-left sources. — Newslinger talk 14:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

As someone who is prolific at editing American Politics, I have never encountered most of the hyper-partisan left sites that are cited there (on Wikipedia or elsewhere). The most common ones are AlterNet, Wonkette and the Palmer Report, but for the latter two, it's extremely rare that I've seen them. I of course delete all of them when I encounter them. Hyper-partisan conservative non-RS such as DC, the Blaze, DW, DM, WND and Breitbart come up ALL the time on American Politics articles. It makes sense that sites of dubious quality that are frequently used on Wikipedia come up on the RS noticeboard. Why should anyone bring up a site that's never cited on Wikipedia to the RS noticeboard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

One reason right-wing news webaites are more popular than left-wing ones is that the Right is, at least in the U.S., that the Right is far larger. Another is that left-wing sources generally differ from mainstream sources by the stories they provide, while right-wing sources tend to use alternative facts. So while a left-wing site might have attacked Obama's Middle East policies by documenting the suffering of people living there, right-wing sources published stories claiming he was a Muslim. TFD (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This table seems unfair to me, in that most of the sources like WND and Infowars are online backwaters obviously "foaming at the mouth" in a way that needs no expert with divining rod to confirm. National Enquirer is the closest thing to Daily Mail in terms of reputation and size, and even so, we're talking about the difference between a British tabloid and an American tabloid, which is a whole other level of sensationalism. I mean, the Enquirer routinely runs lurid headlines with preposterous claims to amuse people leaving a supermarket, and nobody expects them to be true. The whole stop-and-go notation for whole newspapers regardless of year or author let alone topic is antithetical to the idea of a user edited site where individuals make decisions. Wnt (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

​Please note that the table wasn't constructed to make an argument for or against the Daily Mail. It just tries to explain why most of the currently deprecated sources are right-wing sources. Although Ad Fontes Media puts the Daily Mail in the "Nonsense damaging to public discourse" classification (0-19 reliability score), the Daily Mail (19) is still rated much more highly than WorldNetDaily (4) and InfoWars (1). In the Daily Mail RfC, editors are expressing their opinions on where to draw the line (if any) for deprecation. — Newslinger talk 02:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

As others have suggested it may simply be they are just used more often, and so action needs to be taken more often. Also (as others have pointed out) left wing "doddgey" sources tend to be taken less seriously by their readership (as they often make it clear they are satirical, or at least humourous)) then right wing ones.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Providing such Table as list of sources to avoid (at the level of an essay, rather than a policy) could be helpful. However, based on the reasoning in this Table, Daily Mail is actually better than a lot of other sources, some of which are used in Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  We already have a table that summarizes community consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (WP:RSP). We don't have a table for all of Ad Fontes Media's ratings, but it shouldn't be too difficult to make one if editors would find it useful. — Newslinger talk 10:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! This is good to know. However, creating such lists of bad sources actually goes against our manin policy that overrides WP:consensus. Something published by reputable author in Daily Mail can be treated as a reliable source. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. It's important to recognize that WP:RSP uses the phrase "generally unreliable" instead of just "unreliable" or "always unreliable". There are exceptions to any generalization, and editors can defend the use of generally unreliable and deprecated sources by invoking the verifiability policy, which takes precedence over the reliable sources guideline. These exceptions are rare, per existing consensus. — Newslinger talk 00:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Re: Something published by reputable author in Daily Mail can be treated as a reliable source -- yes it can, but why? There are multitudes of reliable authors who publish in reliable publications. Why go to DM in the first place? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Because when you write something about a relatively low-notability subject (or a person), you frequently can find references only in sources like Daily Mail or something similar. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

So maybe that might be an indicator they are not in fact notable if only slightly iffy sources give a damn?Slatersteven (talk)

• I think the point has been made elsewhere that we don't have Palmer Report etc. on this list because people know better than to cite them. A lot of people try to add far-right sources to articles, but most leftists who come here seem to be content to go with sorces generally considered reliable. Which is, of course, the point of the book. The continuum from centre right to far left is just that: a continuum. Most facts are covered across a variety of media. ut right-wing "facts" that are not true, are not covered in the reality-based press other than as the lies they are, and far-left lies get fact checked, debunked and dropped.

I found that links to Occupy were outnumbered easily ten to one y links to InfoWars, when I was purging them. Despite the leftish skew of Wikipedia's editor base, addition of hyper partisan leftist sites was never as widespread as abuse of hyper-partisan right wing sites. It's possible that false balance and both-sides-ism may be a cause here. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

General comments: Greetings!: Content with sources are generally considered reliable unless contested or blacklisted. This is sometimes settled locally with current policies and guidelines but sometimes help or some dispute resolution is needed on source reliability. Getting into micromanaging if a supposed generally accepted site leans one way or the other or leans "too far" (do we have a measurement) one way or the other needs to be watched. Looking at the many "wing" titles, as trying to determine a political stance with all the branches such as conservative, liberal, and many "in between" (newer ones attempted to be created all the time) left wing, right wing, center wing, including the "extremes" offered (extreme left, left of left, so far left, radical left (and the same with the others), does not necessarily render a source questionable. If a source leans extremely "too far" one way or the other to be a political or biased opinion it will likely have other red flags to question reliability and certainly appear here. This is when a discussion should follow.

I can understand keeping a check on sources to make sure some addition is not purely a political agenda (satirical, humourous), or blacklisted. I went to provide a source to a questioned sentence (tagged as "citation needed") to discover that it was blacklisted. I looked and it was "Oh crap, that is bad", so I am glad eyes are looking out. The "false balance and both-sides-ism"('s) will likely be an issue for the duration. The chart is just for comparison but it is now "out there".

My point is that a site that has editorial over-site and one million subscribers should not be discounted as a source because it may be considered leaning one way or the other. I see references (Google book links) to "a" book that may have very limited readership (maybe specialized) and horrible over site being used daily. If a view is presented on Wikipedia that has two different angles of looking at it we cover both for neutrality. The same can be said for some sources. That would be a good reason to have two sources on one sentence or paragraph. I just ran across a paragraph in an article with three sentences and sixteen references. That is extreme. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with your argument that a source should not be considered unreliable solely because it is biased or opinionated. This subject has come up many times on the perennial sources list, and can be confusing. Two key points:

1. There is an inverse correlation between a source's bias and its reliability. This is illustrated in the graph, where the most reliable sources tend to be the least biased, the least reliable sources tend to be the most biased, and the rest of the graph is shaped in an upside-down "V".
2. Despite this, WP:BIASED and WP:IS § Biased sources advise editors to evaluate a source's reliability independently from its bias. Unreliable sources should be discouraged for use, while biased sources can be used with attribution.

​— Newslinger talk 07:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I just had run across that Fox was brought up for consideration as not being reliable and I REALLY don't want the remote possibility of censorship either way. I have not dug into individual sites being on a "list" but sometimes a "warning" alerts me. I would think there would be a shortcut or easier linking for someone to find "depreciated" sites. I didn't even know about Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources until I received a warning on a source "again" and looked around. Someone wanting this info would have to go to RSN and see "Before posting" (but what if I just want info?) so many might not see it. Typing in "Depreciated" or other search terms does not suffice. It is amazing considering I add references regularly. I guess I just didn't like DM as a source so avoided using it. Anyway, "connectivity" would be a good reason why links should be more easily found to sites blacklisted or depreciated so an editor can either avoid them from the start or dig deeper. Just a thought! Otr500 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Otr500, there is an explanatory essay with a list of deprecated sources at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources (WP:DEPS). Please note that the word used is deprecated, not depreciated. I've created redirects from Wikipedia:Depreciated sources, WP:DEPRECIATE, and WP:DEPRECIATED to make this essay easier to find. — Newslinger talk 22:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• WOW! Thanks so much. I corrected the spell check thing (need a "silly me" emoticon). It actually "corrected" the spelling to the wrong word meaning I have been using the wrong term ---a lot. So for unaware idiots like me thanks for the redirects. Now I wish I knew how to find all the "wrong words" I used to correct them. Otr500 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

New Noise Magazine

I'm positive this must have been queried before, since it makes masses of reviews. However I wasn't able to find it in the searches, so apologies for any duplication.

Is New Noise Magazine reliable - it's hard to tell any/the degree of editorial control. Feels quite professional but then there's a bunch of reviews that let this side down, so I'm reticent to try and extrapolate from content quality. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Seems usable for reviews. Their About page indicates that they are a professional print publication, and it's currently cited in around 500 articles. feminist (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Marginally reliable. New Noise Magazine has an editorial team. They claim to be distributed in Barnes & Noble's physical stores, but I'm unable to verify this online. Their website's copyright footer of 2018 is a little concerning. I agree that this publication may be usable for reviews, but it should probably be evaluated case-by-case depending on the quality of the individual review and the availability of reviews from more reputable sources. — Newslinger talk 23:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Influencewatch and onenewsnow.com

ModerateMike729 has recently added content to American Immigration Council sourced to the conservative websites influencewatch.org and onenewsnow.com (see diff). I question whether these partisan sources are sufficiently reliable for claiming that the organization is "funded by George Soros", especially considering the OneNewsNow article being cited is based on a WorldNetDaily story. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dubious as I cannot find any kind of editorial control. But might be I+OK if attributed "according to...".Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can make that addition. I thought ONN was sufficiently reliable, but if I'm wrong I could also certainly self-revert. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they have something of a reputation for publishing poorly researched material and not checking sources.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, I think editors should be extremely skeptical of any article that characterizes George Soros as some kind of an international puppetmaster - it's an anti-semitic trope that has been debunked repeatedly. Neither source appears reliable. If this is covered by more noteworthy mainstream media outlets, it might be worth considering, but not based on this stuff. Nblund ^talk 19:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I should note that InfluenceWatch wasn't specifically listing Soros, or pushing any kind of anti-semitic trope. Rather, it simply included the Open Society Foundation among the list of all institutional contributors, which I noticed ONN picked up on. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Biased or opinionated. Influence Watch and OneNewsNow are owned and operated by the Capital Research Center and American Family Association, respectively, both of which are conservative advocacy groups. Any claims they publish, especially controversial ones regarding living persons (including George Soros), should not be included in articles without attribution of the parent organizations. Whether to include the claims is also a question of due weight, which is typically discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 22:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Dubious at best Per Newslinger Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Is Cosmopolitan a reliable source?

Is the women's magazine Cosmopolitan generally a reliable source? I'm asking because I noticed it was missing from the useful guide WP:RS/Perennial.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It might help to know why you're asking, is it for a specific edit as sourcing? 73.76.213.67 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There is one previous discussion of Cosmopolitan on this noticeboard from 2017 that only garnered one response: "Usage of "serious" articles from Buzzfeed, Teen Vogue, and Cosmopolitan". I'm not familiar enough with the magazine to offer an opinion. — Newslinger talk 22:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan (magazine) might be good sources for articles on women's fashion, but you wouldn't cite them for articles on astronomy as much more reliable sources are available at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91#Philippi. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

But maybe pop culture, so again we need to know what.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan (magazine) might be good sources for articles on women's fashion, but you wouldn't cite them for articles on astronomy as much more reliable sources are available You could say the same thing about most any other magazine, like GQ or Esquire but Cosmopolitan isn't just "women's fashion" and is generally considered a reliable source. Why is this even being asked? Only a troll would be attempting to use a magazine of this nature for something totally unrelated, as in the example above. Praxidicae (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting how the two examples of "any other magazine" you compared Cosmo to are both men's magazines. feminist (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am going to ask all users to get off their horses before this escalates quickly.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

All of those magazines contain some serious articles of high quality on various subjects, just as Playboy always had at least one top quality article. The high quality articles can be used. Teen Vogue has had an excellent political series by Lauren Duca. It's worth checking them. As Slatersteven mentions, it always comes back to what the article or quote is used for. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is obviously a case-by-case situation, and cannot be adequately answered in the absence of further information about the situation (articles and information) involved. Softlavender (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with all of the above. Cosmopolitan's value as a source can only be judged by asking "What text in Wikipedia is being cited to what article in Cosmopolitan". Without knowing that, we can't know if the source is reliable for the purpose it is being used. --Jayron32 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• OK for non-contentious facts but higher-quality sources are preferred where available. Cosmo is not a serious publication and does not pretend to be one. For women's fashion, something like WWD or any serious fashion magazine/publication (Vogue et al.) would be much better than Cosmo, and for celeb news, well, we'll have to consider whether it's worth including in an article. It's just like how Variety or The Hollywood Reporter are preferred sources for film articles over, say, Empire or New York. But I'd say Cosmo is OK for WP:N and usable for product reviews. feminist (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Added to RSP per OP's request. feminist (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Cosmpolitan is politically biased and a bit of a partisan source in recent years. Per our article on it: "In September 2014, Cosmopolitan began endorsing political candidates. The endorsements are based on "established criteria" agreed upon by the magazine's editors. Specifically, Cosmopolitan will only endorse candidates that support equal pay laws, legal abortion, free contraceptives, gun control, and oppose voter identification laws. Amy Odell, editor of Cosmopolitan.com, has stated that under no circumstances will the magazine endorse a political candidate that is pro-life: "We're not going to endorse someone who is pro-life because that's not in our readers' best interest." " Dimadick (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Refusing to say "I support this candidate" is not the same as not telling the truth.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Am I allowed to have a good belly laugh at the irony? Here we have someone who appears to argue that Cosmopolitan be deemed unreliable because their editors openly created a clear criteria by which the magazine would or not, on its editorial page, endorse political candidates. Compare that stance with their comments in the Fox News discussion above... 73.76.213.67 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Dimadick's comment did not make a statement on whether Cosmo is reliable or not. It simply suggests that Cosmo is a WP:BIASED source, which is fine. feminist (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• This just means that we should be careful with the political sections. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  We don't cite political opinion anyways. Just because the editorial board at a publication decides to endorse certain political stances doesn't mean the journalism of that source can't be trusted. "Don't cite opinion pieces" is a near universal principle regardless of the source. Bias is a universal condition of humanity. Having a bias is like facing a direction; you literally can't face no direction, you're either looking N, S, E, W, Up, Down, etc. Well, bias is the same thing. It's just the direction of the bias that changes, not its presence or absence. The point-of-view of opinion pieces published by a journal has no bearing on the reliability of the factual reporting done by that publication. --Jayron32 20:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Membership number from the organization

Is an organization's self-reporting on a its number of members reliable? In other words, if the organization says it has 1,000 members on it website can we source that in our article? It seems to me any secondary source would generally rely on self-reports from the organization. The only other source I can think of that might be more reliable is public tax forms, SEC filings, 501(c)(3) filings, etc., that are submitted under penalty of perjury.

1. Sons of the Revolution
2. membership = ~5,000 (in 2015)
3. source = Bush, R. Mitchell. "President's Message | Sons of the Revolution". www.sr1776.org. Retrieved 14 December 2015.
4. Previous discussion:

• Talk:Sons_of_the_Revolution#Number_of_members
• Talk:Sons_of_the_Revolution#Source/Site_out-of-date

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As long as it is attributed I see no reason why not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd add that it should not be in Wikipedia's voice, and that any reliable refs that dispute the numbers might deserve more weight than their self-report. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought "not be in Wikipedia's voice" was covered by must be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like it's being used in an infobox. What's the solution? Move it from the infobox to the article body so it can be properly attributed with both the source and date? --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That would be my suggestion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The infobox is supposed to be a summary anyways. There should never be information in ANY infobox which is not already discussed, explained, and referenced in the text. If there is a "membership" parameter in the infobox filled out, I would expect the text would discuss it, and would say something like "According to XXXX, the organization claims a membership of YYYY" or something like that. That would justify an infobox entry. If that text is not in the body of the article, it should not be in the infobox. That should be true of ALL infobox information always. --Jayron32 18:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless there has been any contestable debate in the sources about the number of employees that put doubt into the number stated by the company, it is perfectly fine to present, with citation to the company's website, to present the company size as fact in WP's voice. Primary sourcing is not an evil, and as long as the company's reputation is not of concern, there is no reason for WP to place doubt on basic operating facts like this, and use it in the infobx.

I would only be worried about treating it as fact if we have a case where a company has claimed its has 1000s of employees, but independent parties assert the company only has dozens with the rest as independent contractors, or something like that. Then that's a case to treat neither value as reliable and talk about that in the body. --Masem (t) 19:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That's true, but my point was mainly that the infobox is a summary of article text, and should not be the only place information appears. Anything in the infobox should be in the text somewhere. --Jayron32 14:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

While policy-correct, it is not standard practice, and some information doesn't always fit appropriately into the body. The infobox on many publicly traded companies with required SEC filings have infobox rows for the last annual revenue, etc. nearly always sourced to the annual report, but seemingly never is mentioned in the body. I'm not saying that's right, but that's just what practice ends up being. That's probably a discussion for elsewhere. --Masem (t) 15:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a proper resolution Ronz, the most reasonable suggestion is to move "membership" out of the infobox and into the body of the page. In addition, Jayron32 is correct in saying that the "membership" count in the infobox needed to be included in the body first before placing it in the infobox. David Tornheim Adding "membership" content to the body retroactively to support the information in the infobox does not appear to be a compromise based on these suggestions. Regards.72.218.185.31 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the information in the infobox (but not the WP:BODY), based on this and the below comment by DBigXray. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Infobox is suitable for undisputed factual evidence. These numbers should be added in the infobox only if they are vetted by secondary independent reliable sources. If the numbers are only available from the primary source or SPS, then it must be taken out of infobox and mentioned in the body as "self reported". --DBigXrayᗙ 14:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Even though I am not convinced this is the standard way to do this, because of the mixed messages, I have taken this approach.[23] --David Tornheim (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

David Tornheim, That is a good move. The justification is simple, organisations often try to inflate their membership numbers due to WP:COI, so unless vetted, they should not be taken as facts. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

And if it is a caste-affiliated/representative organisation (which the present example is not), ignore their claims anyway. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please discus the matter in hand.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I do agree that orgs might inflate numbers. (For the record, I have no connection or particular interest in that org, and I don't have the impression the original editor who put it in does either). One of the questions I raised above is how it is really possible to vet the data independently. For example, with the ACLU, the membership number is given by this Washington Post article, but my guess is that Washington Post writer just got that number from the ACLU rep. they were talking with. It's possible that the Washington Post did some further fact checking before publishing, but it's not clear to me what else they could do, since membership lists are private. I did suggest that various public tax filings might be a more reliable source since they are submitted under penalty of perjury, but those are WP:PRIMARY too.

If I am correct that the Washington Post simply got the number from the ACLU without any further verification, do you still feel that it is more reliable simply because Washington Post is secondary? I have had discussions with editors at WP:AfD where we felt that material that could easily traced to a press release was not much better than WP:PRIMARY and self-reported. In this example, there were a number of articles on the subject but we concluded they were all based on the same press release(s). I changed my mind to delete the article after this discussion with DGG. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure it is easy to say, as we cannot know where they got the information from. But one reason why a secondary source is more reliable is because it has no reason to lie about it. And as long as it has a reputation for fact checking we have to assume it does check its facts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I feel being a secondary source has its own checks and balances. The WaPost journalist would have raised eyebrows or might have entirely denied printing the numbers if he would have felt it was highly inflated or unreasonable. We might not know, but the subject might also have shared some sort of evidence on the numbers to convince WaPost that WaPost did not publicly release. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind how a third-party independent source is going to get membership information from a private company or organization. It is completely unreasonable to expect that employee/membership count can be determined from any private entity by a source not associated with it. More often than not, if a third-party source publishes such a number, it is going to be based on information they got directly from the entity or from the entity's own published materials. Of course, if this is being done by the NYTimes or similar high quality RS, that generally means that source presumes the number is correct, which is good, but still doesn't address the potential issue of over-inflation. This is where we can only really go off what the entity claims and add the necessary sourcing so that if it is wrong, we have our citation to show that it was not WP OR making this a problem. --Masem (t) 16:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"Material based on press releases is not reliable for notability because the very appearance of the material is instigated by the PR agent. Whether what is said in the press release can be trusted can vary. Any reasonably reliable newspaper knows that, and knows it much more thoroughly than we do. A news reporter knows that they are always dealing with potentially unreliable sources, and their reputation depends on how well they judge that. If a reporter is dealing with an organization representative reporting membership figures, or unverified financial figures, or claims to have accomplished something, the reporter must know that what they are being told may or may not be accurate. My understanding is that If they report it as being told to them, they're not making a judgment--they're saying that the reader should know what the organization says about itself. If they report it as a fact, it means they think its accurate--normally based on comparing other sources and their professional judgment. The analogy is with the size of the crowd at Trump's inauguration. All news sources report what the president said. All of them I think, even Fox, gave other figures also. (I'm talking about the content of the stories, not the headlines. Reporters do not write the headlines, which represent a blend of editorializing and hooks to get readers to read the story. (one of the things I dislike about our citation style is that it emphasises the headlines by linking to them--I think this can be very seriously misleading.) No news source is truly neutral; no source of any kind is truly neutral; you cannot write about something without forming a judgment and deciding how to express it. (Our idea of NPOV is a total oversimplification, and this applies also to the best news and academic sources.) There is an exception: sometimes there are truly objectively documented numbers, like the circulation figures for a publication that is mailed, or for web standings, or for audited financial reports. (And even here there are limitations that the source or the auditor might be cheating. There are also limitations about whether the method is truly scientific.) My own attitude is of skepticism; it's not enough to avoid saying anything in WPs voice, but the sources and quotations we choose, and the way we write our sentences and organize our paragraphs are affected by what we want to say. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments from everyone. This was a far more interesting and valuable discussion than I had expected! --David Tornheim (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul K. Longmore's The Invention of George Washington

Past discussion: Talk:George_Washington#Washington's_ambition_and_reputation

Source: The Invention of George Washington, by Paul K. Longmore, published in 1999 by the University of Virginia Press.

Article: George Washington

Content:

Longmore argues that the "myth of Washington as reluctant politician" began at the time of Washington's appointment as commander of the Virginia Regiment in 1755.

Sourced to p. 67.

According to Longmore, Washington had learnt to be careful of his reputation, avoid soliciting the job and instead make the job offer come to him. This was, Longmore asserts, a tactic Washington would employ in his subsequent military and political appointments.

Sourced to p. 32.

Background

There has been extended discussion about whether George Washington was genuinely reluctant to become involved in politics after the Revolutionary War, or whether he adopted an image of reluctance as a political tactic. On the TP I have suggested a narrative, of which the above is an extract, which attempts to discuss both these points of view in a neutral and balanced way, per WP:NPOV. One editor has consistently opposed the use of Longmore's book as a source, claiming repeatedly that it does not cite facts, (example - the book actually has some 75 pages of citations at the end) and is opinion and speculation (example). In 2001 Don Higginbotham included Longmore's book in a list of three that he describes as "[arguably] the best Washington scholarship of the last fifteen years or so" (pp. 3-4) in the introduction of George Washington Reconsidered (pp. 3-4). Factotem (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I realise that statements beginning "Longmore argues..." and "According to Longmore..." can obviously be sourced to Longmore, and that context is an important factor in determining the reliability of a source. The issue I'm hoping to clarify here is a wider issue of whether there are reasonable grounds to exclude the statements above specifically, or this source generally, on the unsupported assertion of a WP editor that the work is a historian's "speculation" or "opinion" and therefore carries no weight. Factotem (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

My take is that as long as any controversial or unique vow is attributed an opinion by a notable historian is worthy of inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Longmore's "The Invention of George Washington" has been cited in the Presidential Studies Quarterly, The William and Mary Quarterly, and numerous other leading journals and books on American History. It certainly is a reliable source. Most things written about Washington's state of mind is an opinion. I agree with Slatersteven point that "an opinion by a notable historian is worthy of inclusion" CBS527^Talk 17:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of models.com, just as a source for images of magazine covers

I want to ask a limited question concerning photographs of magazine covers posted at models.com, such as for example this one showing model Kätlin Aas on the cover of Vogue Netherlands December 2018. Would it be reasonable or unreasonable to conclude, based on this page in models.com, which they say is sourced to vogue.nl, that Kätlin Aas was the model shown on the cover of Vogue Netherlands in December 2018? HouseOfChange (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a wink-wink-nudge-nudge situation. For purposes if we argue models.com is unreliable but otherwise is just a clearing house of cover images and they are not faking those, then you can cite the magazine itself as the source for this without mentioning models.com. We assume you are accurately reporting the source (the magazine) but we don't ask questions about how you got the source, if that makes sense.

Of course why not just source to the magazine's website itself? [24] That eliminates those questions. --Masem (t) 01:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to be able to cite models.com in cases where the original source is not so easily found. It seems to me it would be hard for someone to post a fake magazine cover publicly at models.com without being very likely to be discovered by whatever model or agency or photographer etc. had done the real cover. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:V does not require a source to be "easily found", just that it can be found. --Masem (t) 03:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Per Masem, the source is the original magazine. Models.com just reproduces the magazine cover faithfully. It is not the source. The source is the magazine itself; you don't need to bring models.com into it. If you had found the magazine cover in a google images search, you wouldn't cite "google images search" either. Cite the original magazine and be done with it. You don't even need to link to Models.com at all. People don't need to be able to read your sources directly from links in the Wikipedia article, you just need to give them enough information to find the source somewhere, like a well-stocked library. --Jayron32 20:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(Thanks for bringing up models.com. I've been running into it far too much in questionable situations for my liking during the past year.) Generally, I think models.com should be treated as an in-world, promotional, primary source, that contains mostly user-submitted content. Concerning magazine cover photos: Why would we care? Mention of magazine covers without independent sources (and models.com is not independent) would in most cases be a BLP/POV/SOAP violation. --Ronz (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering that, why is a magazine cover worthy of inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: I agree that models.com is user-submitted content, but it's a public professional site whose content isn't anonymously submitted. Therefore a model or agency submitting a fake image of a magazine cover to models.com looks very unlikely. @Slatersteven: Because NMODEL is specified only vaguely by NENTERTAINER, evidence of notability can be supported by notable shows, notable campaigns, notable cover appearances, etc. IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, no it would not be usable (to my mind) for establishing notability, as appearing on a magazine cover is not (as far as I know) a pass for notability anyway. Does the site forbid "mock ups" for example, are "fake" magazine covers prohibited?Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Appearing on a few top-notch magazine covers would generally create a presumption of notability for a model (as generally cover appearances have textual coverage as well in the body of the magazine itself and elsewhere). I would think that an image hosted on models.com is a fairly strong indication that the cover existed - probably a bit better than archive.com or a newspaper clipping image hosted on some random location.Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Appearing on a few top-notch magazine covers would generally create a presumption of notability for a model That seems a rather dangerous assumption to make, unless there's general consensus somewhere? Sounds similar to what is in WP:NMODEL, but given the problems we already have with articles about models, I think something much more specific is needed so it wouldn't be exploited. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As above I am not sure that is a valid notability criteria. For example it might be an advert , or a list of...all kinds of things. If they have coverage in the mag would that not be the go to source?Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If a model has been on the cover of Elle, Cosmopolitan, and Vogue - then I'm fairly certain she's notable. Are the covers sufficient to establish SIGCOV? Probably not. But they are a 99%+ indication that SIGCOV is out there. Icewhiz (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is we can source those covers. The question is not if they are RS, but if this site is. Given no one can answer the simple question "do they allow edited covers to be uploaded?" then I do not think we can say they are an RS. I also note even you seem to accept that being on a magazine cover is only an indicator they might be notable, not that they are. Thus we go back to the old one of "why use a second rate source when a first rate one will do the same job". Thus it is not the cover, but what is inside that should matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am considered about the idea that a model appearing on a cover of a magazine like Vogue etc. is a sign of notability. If the cover clearly shows that part of that issue is an in-depth story with that model, then use that story as the sign of notability. But if the cover only shows the photographed model but otherwise does not allude to any further coverage of the model, that's not really a concrete sign for presumed notability. However, that I think it getting off track from this question. I really don't think you should use models.com if it is user contributed, but you can certainly bounce off that to find and cite the actual work instead. --Masem (t) 18:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth reading [25]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That link goes to site policy, including penalties for posting fake credits, which sound severe: "In order to protect the integrity and accuracy of credits on the site it is Models.com’s policy that any repeated abuse of the credit system, including claiming fake or inaccurate credits may result in a temporary or permanent ban from the MDC Community. A banned member will no longer be able to claim credits or control their own credits on their Models.com page themselves, and in some cases might have their Models.com page completely removed." So although the site allows users to post content, they are registered users, posting under real/professional names, with penalties for posting false information. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

YouTube official music video as a reference for that video

1. YouTube
2. Sarah Silverman
3. Here: Sarah_Silverman#Music_videos (permalink)

Discussion that preceded this: Talk:Sarah_Silverman#YouTube_videos

I searched archives and there are so many (190) I don't know where to start. [26]. YouTube is also mentioned at these places: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, WP:YOUTUBE, WP:VIDEOLINK.

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Usable as primary source, and also protected under WP:ABOUTSELF for uncontroversial claims about Silverman herself, such as the existence of Silverman's own music video. Whether content supported solely by a YouTube video should be included in an article is a question of due weight, which should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)