Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239

Edit filter for the Daily Mail[edit]

(Formerly: Cross-post of WP:EFN discussion) A year ago, this noticeboard resolved that links to the Daily Mail would generally be banned on this project. The ban has never been technically implemented, however. A discussion was started at EFN last month to finally set the Mail filter to warn, but it fell off of the noticeboard due to lack of participation. I just rescued the discussion from the archives, and I thought that this time around I'd cross-post here, since the discussion is arguably more relevant to this board than to that one. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Make it so. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No reason to not have this in my view. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This would be help a lot. We should also do this for Breitbart, and possibly others.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
what picard said. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecesary vanity tags that just waste volunteer time. --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Eh? This does the exact opposite, warning users of inappropriate citations before they commit, saving reversions. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
He doesn't WANT them warned: he's using his comments at WP:EFN to relitigate the RFC. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm reviving this discussion with the hope of coming to a conclusion. I just had to revert WP:BDP content cited to the Daily Mail. It would be nice if this filter were implemented.- MrX 🖋 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: Surprisingly, there still are over 27,000 articles in Wikipedia that cite the Daily Mail. Would it be necessary to replace these references if this filter were implemented? Jarble (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
That's a good question Jarble. I don't know, but I doubt it. Perhaps PinkAmpersand knows.- MrX 🖋 22:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
On a technical level, no, nothing would need to be done. The filter would only catch edits adding references to the Mail; it wouldn't do anything to edits to articles with preexisting references. Also, while the support/oppose !votes here aren't unhelpful, they're just relitigating a settled issue. What needs to be decided is how to implement the RfC consensus, and I would encourage editors to comment on that matter at EFN (rather than here, since EFN has the ultimate say on this). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Technically wouldnt it flag up if someone edited a section/article with an existing DM reference? That would at least prompt people to replace it. (oh and support filter etc etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
PinkAmpersand, has blacklisting been considered? I see that The Daily Mailer is blacklisted, but not the Daily Mail. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: I'm not sure. That would be a good question to ask at EFN. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
PinkAmpersand, if I understand things rightly, this is probably the best place to seek a consensus on whether to move forward (not the final decision) with blacklisting a source. With a consensus in hand, then a "nomination" at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would likely result in a blacklisting. Does that make sense? Should we start a new thread seeking an actual blacklisting, since that's different than the subject of this thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: Ah, I see your point. I thought you were asking more of a technical question. Anyways, personally I'd be against outright blacklisting, since there's a decent number of cases where Mail links are permitted. A filter that warns but does not block seems more flexible than a spam blacklist that outright blocks. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Then I'll settle for a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Only in death: No, that's not how the filter works. If you look at the source code, you'll see that it only checks whether the added text (added_lines) has a Mail link, not whether the article itself (new_wikitext) does. You can see for yourself: Go make a copy-edit to an article with a Mail link, and then check your own filter log. You shouldn't see an entry for the edit. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support its about time we do this.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I see no valid reason that we should not warn users not to add cites to the Daily Myth.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Steven, did you mean to write "warn users to not add cites"? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • LOL, yes, a not in the wrong place, how DM of me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Censorship is not the answer. Likewise the discussion resolved that DM is acceptable in certain circumstances. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The C of E, you do realize this isn't a ban, but just a warning to be cautious? No one is asking for censorship. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
We "censor" things all the time. The blacklist has thousands of websites, many titles and word are blacklisted. The Daily Mail is not, by community consensus, a reliable source, so this should change nothing at all, other than saving people the annoyance of having to revert crappy sources. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want to revisit the decision, C of E, just start a new RFC instead of trying to hobble it by the back door. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be a no-brainer. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As long as this is limited to a warning, and limited to the Daily Mail, then it makes perfect sense as a logical extension of the previous decision. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. A warning seems like it will save us trouble down the road without much risk of causing problems. Anyone adding a new reference to the Mail ought to be made aware of the decision regarding it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Aquillion's comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs)
  • Support. It's time we implemented a decision we have already made. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC).
  • Support I think this is like the third time -- we already have the consensus. [1]Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Edit filters should be used against sites that have been blacklisted. While DM is not to be used for factual aspects, it is not blacklisted - it can and should be used if the newspaper is the center of a controversy. I see a slippery slope where a source we've claimed non-reliable is on a filter, we would start including more, and that will make the situation worse. --Masem (t) 01:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support so long as this is a warning and not a 'blacklisting', per logic of Aquillion above. Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, and hopefully the 1st step to a blacklisting, the Daily Fail is an unacceptable source for any content. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary but I am open to convincing. I think XLinkBot would handle this just as well. That bot kicks in to revert the addition of blogspot links, and it works well (last I checked). ~Anachronist (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have to agree. Daily Mail is not reliable as a source. Same story with Daily Express. Both are fake news websites who posts nonsense fear mongering, such as a non existent rogue planet called Nibiru or doomsday predictions. I do think both should be banned from the project. --LovelyGirl7 talk 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While some of the more modern editions may be "unreliable", what about the historic editions and context for certain subjects? Indeed we do have a number of GAs that are heavily reliant on DM so I fail to see how we should have a blind bot just go sweeping around. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm? This'll just warn editors who try to add the link, not remove all instances Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blacklisting is separate, same with a bot that removes the links, this just is an warningand informs the editor with this template, and still allows them to add the link Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support so long as this is a warning and not a 'blacklisting'. Wikipedia isn't censored. At this point The Mail's unreliability places it roughly in the same place as Breitbart, use with extreme caution and not for WP:BLP. loupgarous (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Daily Mail is not blacklisted. I think it is unnecessary. Daily mail is not an ideal source and is problematic, but it is not that bad.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Galobtter as long as it would not absolutely prevent the edits - this would be less confusing to new editors who will not understand why their edits are being reverted - the community consensus about this is so broad that Daily Mail is almost always removed when it is seen by experienced editors anyway.Seraphim System (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I'll go one step further and say editors should be banned from adding DM links - In short various editors here have gone on a mass-DM-removal spree and I feel allowing editors to add DM is just wasting their time in the end - Instead of being allowed to add a source that will be removed in a week-5 months they should be forced to find another source instead ...... But back on point I support a warning notice - About time something was done. –Davey2010Talk 16:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to declare the Daily Mail an unreliable source (and I think we should) we should do the same to the Daily Express[edit]

It may be a Fleet Street paper, but its website has become a mecca for conspiracy craziness:

See here.

Also here; simply typing the name of a pseudoscience conspiracy theory into Google gets three results from the Express. Serendipodous 08:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No opinion one way or the other, yet, but your links only provide that the Express talks about conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories and is well trafficked. I was unaware that the Express was being treated anywhere as a reliable source to begin with. Has this been an issue? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They don't just talk about it; the leading headlines feed into the paranoia surrounding the supposed theories. Serendipodous 10:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree that we should not use any of the UK tabloids as RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Trinity Mirror has just purchased the DE so it might be best to see how the buyout impacts on the content. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've said before: The unusual step of taking a formal RFC to produce a concrete finding that the Daily Mail is essentially always unreliable outside of being cited for opinion was unique to its particular case. The Daily Mail is definitely not the worst thing people have tried to cite in Wikipedia (not by a long shot); in fact, the reason it required an RFC and a formal decision was because it was exactly on the border where some people would constantly remove it on sight, while others thought it was usable. If a source is obviously unusable to virtually everyone, there's usually no need for an RFC - you can just remove it, go to WP:RSN if there's objections, and direct people to previous WP:RSN discussions if it comes up a lot. Going through the whole giant RFC process is only necessary when a source is both so bad that it can essentially never be used for facts, and has enough defenders or popularity that we need to a big centralized RFC like that to settle the question and avoid constantly wasting time and energy on it. I don't think the Daily Express requires that right now. Which isn't to say it's usable - I'm all for removing it on sight - but I think for now we can just go with "remove on sight, go to talk or WP:RSN if people object." --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
And Daily Express is also known for their nonsense fear mongering as well. I don’t really think it’s reliable honestly if you ask me. —LovelyGirl7 talk 21:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Mail, Express, News ... Anybody wanting to source stuff to these tabloids is either up to no good or utterly WP:CLUEless. If something's worth's including it will be covered in a decent source. So find it! Alexbrn (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ditto the Sun and the Mirror. Unreliable tabloids. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with much of the above, particularly comments from Aquillion. We should lean against its inclusion as a RS with the understanding that there may be an exception from time to time depending on the situation. Betty's comments surrounding a recent change of ownership also has the potential – even if it is a remote possibility – that the publisher's content quality could improve over time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a misunderstanding of the situation. The reason for the Daily Mail issue is that over an extended period a lot of time and effort went into explaining why the Daily Mail was a terrible source for almost all its modern (rather than historic) uses. It was far and away the worst of tabloid journalism - and went beyond tabloid journalism into outright fabrication of interviews etc. That is why the Daily Mail was singled out. The Express, mirror and other tabloids etc are examples of variable reliability tabloid journalism, but they are not close to approaching the level the Daily Mail was at, both in terms of unreliability and time wasted here on ENWP. As Aquillion points out, if a source is unusable to virtually everyone - standard editorial consensus will usually mean its not allowed. If you want to cut down on the use of tabloid journalism in articles and biographies, hold an RFC to alter the various policies and guidelines to prohibit it (WP:RS, WP:BLP etc would be a good start). Personally I would get right behind any amendment to BLP that disallowed material based solely on tabloid journalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[edit]


The issue is whether is a reliable source? It's moot. Several definitely reliable sources will also provide similar definitions. Here is Oxford Dictionaries: faith healing; American Heritage Dictionary faith healing. These dictionaries do not say "especially Christian" or specifically refer to laying on hands. Are they necessary to your purposes? In my search, I also found an article that appeared in Science, which is the second-most prestigious science journal in the anglosphere: "The Science of Faith Healing" Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is not if the definition is apt; it's whether the source is good (for the purposes of adhering to WP:V). Alexbrn (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To anyone who might be interested, there is an open request for comments which relates to reliable sources and categorising faith healing as a pseudoscience that people might like to visit. This follows a previous request for comments on the same issue that was held some time ago.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"" is simply the website of the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). They are an online information source, collecting data about American and international religion. "The archive now includes both American and international collections as well as features for educators, journalists, religious congregations, and researchers." It is not an independent organization. It is currently co-funded and effectively owned by:

  • Lilly Endowment. A "private philanthropic foundation" with headquarters in Indianapolis. They support and fund studies in Christianity and theology, though they do not seem to be affiliated to any particular version of Christianity.
  • The John Templeton Foundation. A "philanthropic organization" with headquarters in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. They fund research in religious studies, various sciences, and (recently) genetics. Officially they are non-denominational in questions of religion. Unofficially, the founder supported Christian fundamentalism, the Foundation is politically conservative, with long-running ties to the Cato Institute, and has been repeatedly accused of the biased nature of the research it funds ("research toward religion-friendly conclusions"). Interestingly, it is also a vocal critic and opponent of the intelligent design movement, as a representative stated that "intelligent design and creationism were "blasphemous" to both Christians and scientists".
  • The Pennsylvania State University. A university associated with the Commonwealth System of Higher Education and headquarters in State College, Pennsylvania. Formerly an agricultural science, it has expanded to a Public Ivy university: "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor... attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races." "The 2016 Academic Ranking of World Universities ranks the university 77th among universities worldwide and 41st nationally." No outstanding religious affiliation. The University is otherwise known for various discrimination cases (mostly against African-Americans) and the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.
  • Chapman University. A private, non-profit university with headquarters in Orange, California. Formerly known as the "California Christian College", it offers secular education on multiple subjects. However, their motto is "ὀ Χριστòς καì ἡ Ἐκκλησíα" (Greek for "Christ and Church") and they have a long-standing affiliation to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (Protestants). Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz for Jewish-Polish relations and WWII in general[edit]

Partly a NPOV issue, this has RS implications as well. At present we use Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's writings as a source in over 100 articles (and we might have attributed views (sourced via other sources) beyond that) - source search. In particular I would like to point out the following illustrative examples:

  1. 1951 Mokotów Prison execution - used to source The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968. (beyond the lack of context of 1968, most other sources say Piotr Śmietański died the same year, in 1951 died of tuberculosis in the prior year, on 23 Feb 1950) - it seems this is also the source for him being a "Polish Jew" (in the cats of Piotr Śmietański) which does seems to appear elsewhere (including the Polish Wikipedia or this Polish article and based on his name (Piotr (Peter) is not a name Jews of the period would used (Saint Peter not being a Jewish favorite)... Nor does Śmietański seem Jewish or his father's name Władysław, his mother Anna could be) and WWII bio outside of the ghetto do not seem likely (nor sourced beyond the 1968 Israel blurb).
  2. West Polesian microlanguage - Its composition is said to be 40 percent Ukrainian, 5 percent Belarusian, 5 percent Polish, and 50 percent Polesian. I'll note that the Russian Wikipedia (and sourcing there) disagrees with this (the existence of Polesian itself seems to be contested by some).
  3. Polish Operation of the NKVD - framing the communist action as an ethnic genocide. e.g. The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish, It is also the largest killing of ethnic Poles in history, outside any armed conflict. in the lede. He is also used attributed to refer to this as a genocide.
  4. The Holocaust in Russia (also in Jewish partisans) - sourcing In October 1943, 600 Jewish and Russian prisoners attempted an escape at the Sobibór extermination camp. About 60 survived and joined the Belarusian partisans. In Eastern Europe, many Jews joined the ranks of the Soviet partisans: throughout the war, they faced antisemitism and discrimination from the Soviets and some Jewish partisans were killed, but over time, many of the Jewish partisan groups were absorbed into the command structure of the much larger Soviet partisan movement.
  5. Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 - attributed (but without a proper description of who Chodakiewicz is) statements that Historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz estimates that in the first years after the war, the Jewish denunciations and direct involvement in the pro-Soviet wave of terror, resulted in the killing of approximately 3,500 to 6,500 non-Jewish Poles including members of the Home Army and National Armed Forces. in contrast to In "After the Holocaust," Chodakiewicz states: "In sum, probably a minimum of 400 and a maximum of 700 Jews and persons of Jewish origin perished in Poland from July 1944 to January 1947.".... unattributed use: Many Jews did not wish to remain where their previously large communities in Poland had been decimated by the German occupation; many fled the imposition of the Soviet backed political regime which persecuted the bourgeoisie and religion, including Judaism; many aimed to pursue the Zionist objectives in Palestine..
  6. Przytyk pogrom - in which our account is quite different from the account in some other Wikipedias as well as in This Day in Jewish History 1936: Pogrom Erupts in Przytyk, for Which Jews Would Be Blamed or Encyclopedia Judaica: Przytyk, Poland (in which the subsequent Polish judicial actions are framed as a travesty of justice, in which the victims were persecuted for defending themselves). Significant portions of the article are sourced to Chodakiewicz, and a significant portion of the text is attributed to him (without context beyond "historian"). He is also used unattributed - Peasants who broke the boycott were beaten; Jews offering their services in the surrounding villages were also physically attacked. and a few others.

As to why such use might be troubling, particularly without context - Marek Jan Chodakiewicz has been called out by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2009 and in 2017, as well by Never Again Poland and Hope not Hate 2017 Hope Not Hate on Chodakiewicz. Chodakiewicz's activities have been criticized on two separate fronts:

  1. Political activities (mainly in Polish) - Chodakiewicz is a frequent media commentator and writes in a number of (understatement) right-wing Polish media outlets, as well as appearing in political rallies. For instance at a National Movement (Poland) rally (a party well to the right of Law and Justice) he said "We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!"[3][4]. In 2008 he wrote that Barack Obama was once a Muslim, a radical, and associate of communists.[5][6]. In 2017 he wrote about genocide against whites and South Africa.[7][8]. You may view a collection of recent writings in Do Rzeczy [9] on subjects such as restitution of Jewish property, George Soros, gays, Polish complicity in the Holocaust and the wrong dominant narrative. This is all mainly in Polish, but has received coverage in English when he helped organized Trump's visit in 2017 Newsweek, and has spoken at a The Social Contract Press event.[10][11].
  2. Writing on history and geopolitics (mainly in English). His work has been sharply criticized by a large number of scholars, who note that he "represent the "most extreme spectrum" in "contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of historical writing".[1] Some reviewers have said that "intellectually and morally unacceptable interpretations", being part of a "ethno-nationalist historiography" trend that promotes "an image of Poland as only heroic, suffering, noble, and innocent".[2] He has been criticized for rejection Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom.[3] Laurence Weinbaum has compared this to pseudo-scholarly screeds.[4] Historian Jan T. Gross said that "The guy is an ideologist of the radical right, I don't have any doubts that he's anti-Semitic."[5][6][7] While Polish-Canadian historian Piotr Wróbel said that "he would never use a phrase or adjective that would clearly identify him as an anti-Semite", but "There is no doubt whatsoever that he doesn't like the Jews.".[5] While he does receive some praise - it is for the most part limited to certain Polish circles.


  1. ^ Michlic, J. B., & Melchior, M. Holocaust in post-1989 Poland. in Himka, John-Paul, and Joanna Beata Michlic, eds. Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe. U of Nebraska Press, 2013. p432-433
  2. ^ Inversion of the Historical Truth about Jedwabne, Joanna Beata Michlic, American Association for Polish-Jewish Studies
  3. ^ Kaminski, L. Żaryn, J. (2006). Reflections on the Kielce pogrom. Inst. of nat. remembrance-Commiss. for the prosecution of crimes against the Polish nation. p129-131
  4. ^ Weinbaum, Laurence. Amnesia and Antisemitism in the “Second Jagiellonian Age” in Wistrich, Robert S., ed. Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and Delegitimizing Israel. U of Nebraska Press, 2016. p222-223
  7. ^ Anti-Semitism Book Could Land Historian in Jail, Spiegel, 18 Jan 2018

While mentioned briefly in previous RSN discussions (e.g. here in the context of whether citing an unreliable source would make it reliable), Chodakiewicz has not been discussed as a source previously here to the best of my knowledge. What would be the appropriate use of Chodakiewicz on the English Wikipedia?Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Corrected Smietanski's date of death.(per [12], [13], [14]).Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Chodakiewicz appears to be taking a strong position. So do many historians. Throwing out a historian because he has a strong position would set the wrong precedent for Wikipedia. Compare say the famous British historian E.H. Carr, who was an avowed Marxist, and is not thrown out because of that stance, on the contrary he is generally accepted to be one of the most highly respected historians ever. There are plenty of other, more extreme examples of positional bias. The Wikipedia solution is to clearly and carefully flag that position and balance that with other sources when using the source. Refer to WP:V (section on neutrality linked to WP:NPOV): "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y". I can see that a complication with this solution then might arise because Chodakiewicz passes the test of verifiability but takes a position on obscure topics without any available balancing sources. In those cases the solutions are to (i) clearly flag his positional bias in the articles on obscure topics - if that observation of a bias can itself be referenced to reliable sources - and (ii) take up the articles about obscure topics at the notability noticeboard. Lastly, and I have touched on this before, Wikipedia would see his ethnic or national identity per se as irrelevant to our assessment of his reliability: us making that an issue runs the risk of WP:KETTLE. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    I did not make his national identity an issue (for the avoidance of doubt - it is not an issue in my mind). I did present the issues raised by a few organizations (SPLC, HopeNotHate, NeverAgain) and notable historians in relation to his Political activity (which happens to be in Poland and mainly in Polish - and I don't think the SPLC (et al.) picked up on this because this was in Polish - this probably would've been a red flag for them in any language) and historical research (in English).Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that the above claims are largely falsified. For example the claim that "in 2017 he wrote about genocide against whites and South Africa.[14][15]" is absolutely false, in fact Chodakiewicz writes "there isn't a genocide against whites in South Africa""Ludobójstwo jeszcze to nie jest". So this claim is absolutely false.Icewhiz was informed about this already[15], therefore I am quite surprise he repeats this falsification. Other claims are also largely false or misleading. For example he doesn't write that Obama is a muslim, or communist. He does write he was born to muslim father, and he associated with radical left in his youth.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • For the record, I am citing the SPLC: That seemed particularly obvious in July 2008, when he wrote in Najwyzszy Czas! about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who he claimed was at one time a Muslim, a radical, and a friend and protégé of communists whose mother was a "feminist, social-liberal, hippie and a fan of F.D. Roosevelt." [16], In January of 2017, he penned a piece lamenting what he called the “ongoing genocide against Whites” in South Africa. The term “white genocide” is a common white nationalist trope, with many pointing to South Africa and falsely claiming that white people are systematically massacred by people of color.[17].Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You were already informed that Chodkiewicz states there is no genocide in South Africa. His article states clearly that there is no genocide. Why are you repeating a false claim that can be easily confirmed to be false by quoting what he writes? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment

As to the beginning of the statement by Icewhiz, it seems that a large part of it is strange opposition to describing Soviet crimes and atrocities, I am afraid that seems to indicate a very strong POV. It is widely known that Soviets engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide against Polish population. Sourcing information about this is not something controversial as Icewhiz alledged.Is Icewhiz disputing that NKVD and Soviets conducted ethnic genocide against Poles?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Icewhiz thank you for the clarification. My rationale above remains unchanged. For the record, I'm not here to defend Chodakiewicz and he happens to be one of the several historians who I would be rather cautious about. If the SPLC has a view on Chodakiewicz, it's reasonable to accurately include that view when he is mentioned as an authority in our articles. In principle I would support you adding such balancing content, and I would need to see how it's phrased on a case-by-case basis.
  • It has been alleged by sources that Chodakiewicz has a problem with certain ethnic groups. You have been very gracious in apologizing for inadvertently appearing on one occasion to have made a sweeping statement about an ethnicity yourself [18] . There was no need to apologize to me personally as my comment was purely a signpost about community standards.
  • To provide what I hope you will take as helpful feedback, I did perceive something in the phrasing of this filing that seemed to indicate that part of your problem with Chodakiewicz is in his ethnicity, as if that had any bearing on his reliability as a source. At least one other editor, Volunteer Marek, has noticed you doing this elsewhere. So my perception may be because this filing appears to be part of a wider disagreement that you are in, which is reminiscent of the early stages of various ARBEE conflicts of the past, several of which I'm a veteran of, some of which ended up with permanent user bans. If administrators eventually have to get involved in the wider disagreement, everyone's conduct is on the record. So now is a time to take stock.
  • Don't take the WP:BAIT. No matter the conduct of our Wikipedia equals, we need to ease up on using phrases such as "this [insert country of origin] ethno-nationalist has crept..." [19]. All countries, including yours and mine, have their ethno-nationalists. People don't like being called an ethno-nationalist, or someone who creeps. Sanctioning administrators reviewing conduct like it even less, and could define it as personal attack. You might be on a noble mission, and it might be the right time to have a think about whether the way in which that mission is being pursued could eventually get you into trouble.
  • Finally, I am grateful for your kind mention of my work at Jedwabne Pogrom [20] - which in the first place is thanks to you very rightly raising the issue of bias in that article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Any historian who writes about historical times such as these yet never raises anyone else's hackles must be a very boring and lazy historian. It can be said that Chodkiewicz's writing upsets quite a few people, but that is not by itself a reason to exclude him. The opinion of organizations like SPLC that are not historical experts is especially irrelevant (but with due care could be mentioned in the historian's own article). Where Chodkiewicz disagrees with other experts about a historical event, we can give both opinions in conformity with NPOV. Zerotalk 23:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally Piotr Skrzynecki is an example of a halakhicly-Jewish Pole called Piotr. Such usage in mixed or secularized families was not unusual. Also, the surname Śmietański is indeed Jewish; see it and several slight variations in this list. I have no information about this particular Śmietański, just that the argument against him being Jewish is very weak. Zerotalk 00:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Point taken on Jewishness and mixed families - his alleged immigration in 1968 is contradicted by most sources stating he died in 1951. I have not located a source (beyond Chodakiewicz's 1968 Israel claim) that he was Jewish - though it is possible there is one out there.Icewhiz (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Did a bit more digging. Seems he died of tuberculosis in the prior year, on 23 Feb 1950.IPN, Polish Journal article, Polish newspaper, making his participation in a 1 March 1950 execution unlikely. The Polish Wikipedia (did not assess beyond this) lists Aleksander Drej as the executioner in this 1951 execution. Chodakiewicz's The claim of a 1968 emigration were made in are source on-wiki to his blog on Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC) modified per re-reading of the source and MyMoloboaccount's comments.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Another falsification I am afraid.Chodkiewicz doesn't write that he emigrated in 1968.In his blog post he states that he doesn't know what Śmietański fate was" Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?""Interesting for example what was the fate of people like executioner of Mokotow Piotr Smietanski". Rest of the blog post btw describes the persecution Jews suffered from Soviets/Communists. I am worried that each time I check your source it turns out to say something else that you claim, and your statements turn out to be false or misleading.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I did not make the claim originally. It was made, but some other editor(s), on 1951 Mokotów Prison execution The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968.. And also on: Piotr Śmietański According to Chodakiewicz, he emigrated from Poland in 1968 to Israel, but other historians disagree.. That the text presently main-space on enwiki - which is currently supported by this inline citation. I'll note that the "Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?" question appears in a new paragraph immediately after Około 20 tysięcy osób pochodzenia żydowskiego zdecydowało się na wyjazd za granicę. Nie ma jeszcze szczegółowych badań profilu tej grupy, ale wydaje się, że wielu z nich to zwykli ludzie. Mała część marcowej emigracji to SB-becy: kilkaset osób związanych było z aparatem terroru. (20,000 people of Jewish origin decided to go abroad ... Most ordinary, a few hundred associated with SB's terror apparatus). The question would seem to be tied to the immediately preceding passage - however I agree this is inappropriate use of the source.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as WP:RS?[edit]

On its masthead WikiTRIBUNE self-identifies as WikiTRIBUNEPILOT

On its subscriptions page, founder Jimmy Wales writes, "We are launching … We are a tiny operation today with big ambitions for the future. Your support will help us to improve the technology and hire more journalists."

At its Help & FAQs page, the introduction begins, "Since we launched the pilot site…."

Clearly, WikiTRIBUNE remains a tiny pilot site still in launch phase, with an admitted deficit in technology and journalists.

My question therefore is: Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as a WP:RELIABLE source?

WP:QUESTIONABLE cautions us, "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."

In my opinion, given its startup nature, limited resources, and unproven track record, WikiTRIBUNE should not be cited by editors within Wikipedia articles. We could proactively avoid disputed references by expressing a consensus to that effect. KalHolmann (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See the instructions at the top. Source, article, material the source is being used to support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Only in death does duty end, here is the information formatted as you request.
Thanks for your guidance. KalHolmann (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
In this specific case, I dont have a problem with the source. The main problem is the entire sentence is really one of synth - the first two sources dont say EST is the 2nd (mainly because at the time they were being research and written I dont think the Petro had been released) and the wikitribune source does not say the Petro was the first. Its source a + source b = conclusion c. Which we try to avoid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the "article" is written by one named and six unnamed contributors (that is, unnamed at the top of the story, and whose "names" do not indicate reportorial or journalistic expertise), and is constantly changeable. A source which can be changed at any moment, by unnamed persons, is clearly never a "reliable source" any more than Wikipedia is. The "comments" page has an interesting comment by a person who asks "I think an interesting story would be whether a US citizen would be breaking the law by buying this. ..." This clearly suggests that a person in some presumed control of the source used is specifically asking that his point of view or question be treated in the article. Sorry, but I fear I consider WT to not yet meet WP:RS rules. Collect (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Obviously not a reliable source for any assertions about anything. Alexbrn (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Estcoin appears also to have major copyvio problems, alas. Collect (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like it falls under WP:USERGENERATED because it is a user-generated website. Wikitribune may be as reliable as Wikipedia. We don't use Wikipedia articles as sources either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes and no. Its a bit more complicated than that. Stories are generally written by staff writers then updated (I gather in a way akin to our pending changes) by contributors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:USERG, as currently written, allows the use of content from user-generated websites if it was written by credentialled members of the website's staff and not by anonymous contributors, so I guess the pre-updated version, if available, would be okay. If Wikitribune takes off, we might have to put together something specifically addressing whether and how to use it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Given its Jimbo's baby, it might be worth asking him to lay out the exact editorial process for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Like Wikipedia, WT contains a history tab for article which shows all revisions (e.g. [21]). Since all changes need to be approved by the editorial staff, it's less Wikipedia and more Citizendium. Imho, it should not be treated any differently than a regular newspaper that corrects itself when readers point out mistakes. Regards SoWhy 14:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Are the people on the editorial staff credentialled? We do the same thing on Wikinews, and everyone there is an anonymous volunteer, as here.
If Wikitribune publishes first drafts with the expectation that there will be mistakes to be corrected, then yes it is different from a professionally published paper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
As I understood it the idea was to include relevant updates, not publish riddled with mistakes to be corrected. eg a news item on a current event might be updated more quickly with new information, pictures etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. The staff consists of credentialed journalists, like Peter Bale and Holly Brockwell and there is an editorial process. So basically a normal newspaper, with the added benefit of quicker updates and eventual corrections. Regards SoWhy 15:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ratings from a twitter account[edit]

I would like to know if it can be reliable to use a Twitter account as a source for daily ratings. For example here was previously discussed about this, they did not give me an exact answer. An article where the source is used is Por amar sin ley among others. The Twitter account is Produ. It's from a company that publishes content about series and more. In fact, the account is official. It is verified. Your website is this, but there are always problems to be able to navigate in it.--Philip J Fry / talk 00:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm, that's a tough one. My first instinct is to say that Twitter is not a WP:RS. But I see that the Tweets you're referring to are Nielsen ratings. Do they exist somewhere on a website? It would be better to be able to link them to a website rather than Twitter, but I'm not seeing a huge issue with using the Tweets in the way you are doing. Marquardtika (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
If they are just Nielsen ratings then we can just cite them from a third party website. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
If its nielson ratings from a nielson verified account then its a primary source and can be used accordingly. But if its nielson ratings there should be sources available other than twitter (do nielson not publish them elsewhere?). Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There are no more websites that publish ratings daily, only Produ does, I've got forums and blogspot where they publish the content, but I do not know if it's safe to use them as sources.--Philip J Fry / talk 20:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
If no other source publishes them daily, then does another source publish them at some larger interval? The main complaint about Twitter in this case is that the Tweets aren't always available long-term. Why not update the article using Twitter at first and then come back in a week or a month and add the slower source then? Then it won't matter if the Tweet is deleted later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Tweet as an RS[edit]

Sorry for bringing this here. Text has been removed from articles Spectre_(security_vulnerability) and Advanced Micro Devices which is widely covered by RS, such as Forbes, CNBC, CNN, and numerous tech sites. At Talk:Spectre_(security_vulnerability)#Reversion_of_AMD_text_on_Spectre, editor @Dbsseven: is insisting that another source disputes the text. That source is a tweet from someone the editor claims is an expert. My question, is this tweet [22] a reliable source? Apologies if I left anything pertinent out. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

O3000's objection to edits based on the tweet source is "incomplete" (and potentially disingenuous), as multiple other RS also support that the same position as the tweet. I am trying to find consensus for language which includes the two perspectives each supported by multiple RS. (As for the tweet itself: it is from a expert in the field and well within WP:SPS, as previously discussed in the talk page). Dbsseven (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If a tweet is by an expert then yes it is RS. So the only question then becomes is he an expert?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The expertise of the Tweet author has already been discussed on the talk page [23][24] Dbsseven (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me but this is you just saying he is an expert, not what makes him a notable expert, what does his Wikipedia entry say?Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think that is "me saying" anything. However, to be clear, I can find multiple sources who have published this same author, some the same publishers Objective3000 cites. [25][26][27] (And while their own WP article is a standard for the notability of expertise, I do not believe it is the standard for expertise.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The claim is: Ryan Shrout is the founder and lead analyst at Shrout Researchand the owner of PC Perspective.. But, Ryan Shrout, Shrout Research, and PC Perspective all appear to be missing from WP. If he's an RS, you'd think there would be something. O3000 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
And there are no WP articles for the authors of sources you cite Jordan Novet, joseph f kovar, ERIC DAVID, BRAD MOON, and wallace witkowski. Let's try to apply the same standard here. Dbsseven (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I don’t use primary sources. I refed secondary sources that are in WP. O3000 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Is your argument then that these authors are experts when writing for these publications, but lose expertise when not? Either they are experts or they are not, IMO. (And I believe this is exactly what WP:SPS states.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:IRS. The sources I used are RS. They have reputations for fact checking. This is why we use secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I have read WP:IRS, and WP:SPS is a subset of that policy. Dbsseven (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I have seen no other sources posted that agree with this tweet, and as for disingenuous, please let's keep this civil. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
RS stating AMD shares the position of the tweet [28][29]. Another source stating that other RS were interpreting [30]. If you disagree, that's fine. But I have brought these up before, so to say there are "no other sources" is to misrepresent the discussion. Dbsseven (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I misrepresented nothing. Your refs all agree with the original text that was removed. O3000 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Only if read selectively. Yes some cites say there was a change. But not all. And some reiterate AMD position of no change also. To state only half the story is an incomplete synthesis WP:SYN. Again, I think we need to be clear what AMD said and what was said about AMD. Dbsseven (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
All the RS say the position changed. But, you are going off topic. Is this two sentence tweet starting with "It seems" and suggesting other media are unfair to AMD, RS? O3000 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
No, not all do. The tweet and [31] (and AMD itself). And according to WP:PST 'analysis' is exactly what secondary source are expected to do. But on the issue at had the same source (tweet) is unequivocal about AMD's position. Dbsseven (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Your source says in its first sentence: Advanced Micro Devices Inc said on Thursday its microprocessors are susceptible to both variants of the Spectre security flaw, days after saying its risk for one of them was “near zero”. How can you think that means there was no change in position? The same type of wording can be found in source after source. It’s why the markets were in turmoil. The two sentence tweet you want to use alludes to all the sources being wrong. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Because if you read the second sentence it says In a subsequent statement Thursday, AMD said there was “no change”... and the forth sentence But investors believed... (And markets have nothing to do with WP or the discussion here.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This appears to have gotten off topic. My point to include a statement saying "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y" can be well supported by multiple RS for both points. I believe this to be fair prose to build consensus around. 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would avoid using a Tweet by itself for a controversial statement, but RSes noticing a tweet would then be reasonable to point to and/or quote the tweet if it is considered relevant. This is even the case if the tweet is from a verified Twitter user and a known expert in said field; it's better to have RSes tell us why something is important when it comes off social media then make that judgement ourselves. Something uncontroversial, that's less a problem. --Masem (t) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Masem and Slatersteven for your input. Would you mind chiming in on the bigger picture, related question? I suggested the prose: "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y", and believe the cites clearly support both X and Y were stated. (In this case the tweet and other sources reiterate "AMD said Y".) Is this fair consensus language to maintain NPOV? Dbsseven (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
That's my read of the RSes quoting the tweet, agreeing with him. Seems properly neutral to give attribution ,etc. --Masem (t) 20:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Basically, all of the sources say that AMD changed their position (since they did). They use different words: changed, reversed, admitted, backtracked, etc. Yes, it's fine to add that AMD denied this. O3000 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay Objective3000 (and Masem if you like). How about this for firm consensus language "Some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2." Dbsseven (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Totally unacceptable. But, this is the wrong venue. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Why unacceptable? You had no objection a moment ago. I literally replaced X with "this was a change in AMD's position" and Y with a quote from [32] Please explain. Dbsseven (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
AMD changed their position. That's what the RS say. You want to add a denial, fine. Use the original text that was edit-warred out of the articles against WP guidelines, and add a denial. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Objective3000 I have not edited the Spectre article since January, and only a single edit. Your frustration of edit-warring is with someone else.
Combining the original text and new prose: "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. When AMD later released an optional firmware mitigation, some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2." More agreeable to you? Dbsseven (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
That's not what happened. The timeline is wrong and some is weasely and misleading. "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD denied that there was any change in their position." O3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with this, as to state "However..." is to suggest a contradiction. (Disputed by AMD and some sources.) Can you clearly state what was weasely? IMO, better to keep it factual and state what each source says, rather than interpret ourselves. How about: "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. When AMD later announced an optional firmware mitigation would be released, some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2."@Masem: (or anybody else following), outside opinion? Dbsseven (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It was a contradiction. A dramatic contradiction that caused billions in movement in the markets, making it notable. RS even stated that AMD would take advantage of the fact their chips weren't vulnerable to gain market share against Intel. A "fact" that turned out to be wrong. This was a very large event. AMD found they were vulnerable. They came out with an "updated" post and erased their original claim. Every respected source I've seen says it was a change. Maybe a few percent of RS that reported didn't report that there was a change. But, "some" is highly misleading. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It was only a contradiction if you read "near zero" as "absolute zero", which those in the know would tell you that is not true; anyone that says "absolutely zero vunerabilities" in computer-related terms is lying or speaking to marketing. That did scare investors hitting 4% of their stock price, but from a technical standpoint, AMD's not changed anything.--Masem (t) 21:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it's important to add that there was a period of time for about half a day on Jan 11 when news reports published about AMD being affected by Specter 2, and AMD's clarification that "their position hadn't changed". Most good RSes talking about it either are reporting both sides, or mention "after this story was published, AMD issued this statement...", that I can find. I am 100% sure there are sources "stuck in amber" in that half-day window that do not include AMD's updated statement and thus make it appear AMD switched positions, but we should be looking at the larger picture of RSes, which do make it clear that AMD maintained they were at still "near zero risk", rather than take those fixed RSes that suggest otherwise. --Masem (t) 21:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Reading the story from sources, here's how I see it: Specter is reported, AMD around Jan 3 makes a public statement that says there's a "near zero risk" that AMD chips are affected from Specter 2. Then around Jan 10 it is shown that Specter 2 can affect AMD chips. AMD's investors get wary and its stock drops. By Jan 11 AMD gave a statement that they are aware some AMD chips are vunerable to Specter 2, but then make sure after these press stories come out that they haven't changed their position on the "near zero risk". Which, from a technology standpoint, seems perfectly true- a statement of "near zero risk" is not a promise of 100% free, and they're still standing by the fact that AMD chips are still near zero risk of Specter 2, but they are working and making tools available to help protect users to try to move "near zero" to "zero". This is standard practice in the industry, and that's where the aforementioned Tweet is coming from. This makes the word "denied" a bit of a problem, because I'm not seeing AMD necessarily being challenged that they changed their view from RSes, just that the way stories on Jan 11-12 published about this made them issue the statement that they still maintained their position they were are near-zero risk. Likely published in regards to articles like this [33] (The "backtrack"). Eg [34] clearly shows AMD issued a statement after the first bunch of press stories went out.
To that end, I would take Objective's phrasing and rework it as: "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'". --Masem (t) 21:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Masem That seems accurate and clearly spells out the details. I suppose walking through the nuances is the best way to keep NPOV. Works for me. Thank you. Dbsseven (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Here’s the problem. There is no reason to believe the risk is any less with AMD than Intel or ARM chips. This is a difficult flaw to hack. But, it would have eventually been hacked and near-zero was misleading. Keep in mind that near-zero is infinitely higher than zero. When they made the original statement, AMD stock shot up and Intel sank as the statement was clearly made to suggest AMD chips were safer. Then AMD had to “update” their statement to say they were, in fact, vulnerable, which the markets had been led to believe was not true. RS quickly published new stories using various words to show a change in AMD’s position, with the resulting corrections in the market. Yes, AMD tried to say well, we didn’t say zero. But, they clearly suggested they were nearly invulnerable. And, this was false. This is why it was so heavily covered in the financial sources, as well as the tech sources. But, your text is closer. O3000 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
AMD knew marketing and legalese speak. "Near zero" protected them from any liabilities should someone have tried to sue them "But you said...!" Were they manipulative given the position Intel was in? Probably. However, we as editors can't read too far into that. I'm trying to see sources that talk about the stock prices around this period, and it's clear Intel too a huge hit on Jan 3 and thereafter, while AMD had a small drop on the Jan 11 bit, but I see nothing at the current time suggesting that AMD's "near zero statement" was meant to cash in on Intel's probably on Jan 3. I'm not saying those exist, but without those, we can't presume AMD was doing anything malicious, even though anyone tech-savvy probably could see something along those lines here. --Masem (t) 22:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Correct. And, I've never suggested adding much of what I said above. I think we should just report what RS reported. RS overwhelming stated that there was a change in AMD's position. I've never had a problem with adding a denial. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm spot checking sources, but I'm not seeing an overwhelming number of sources saying it was a change, except for those that failed to add in what AMD said later, which I would never call a denial, but a maintain or clarification of what the said. --Masem (t) 22:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, obviously a source that didn't update isn't relevant. Any source that actually followed the story would have updated. Not sure what you're looking at. The top financial and tech sites all used words that meant change, usually in more stronger terms. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this sources in a search, can you provide some links? I am not seeing any normally reliable site immediately that has the late Jan 11 statement from AMD and still maintains that AMD "changed" (or any variation of that) their stance on their "near zero risk" statement, but this is also not something very easy to search on. --Masem (t) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
[35], [36], [37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43] I can find more if you wish, but have to get some work done. The reversal was a huge story. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The first CNet one does not include the restatement from AMD that there was "no change", nor the ZDnet one, nor the CNR one, and the only one that really uses a "change" language seems to be the CNR one that calls it a backtracking. The CNBC one I don't see anything suggesting a change, nor the Fortune/Reuters story (those two I've seen). At best, this is why I think one can say something like "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. In response to media reports that felt AMD had reversed its previous statement, AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'". (emphasis is new from above). And to tie it back to what started this, it does appear other tech experts agree with AMD that they never changed position with respect to "near zero". The problem sorta becomes we had this burst of coverage around early Jan, but nothing else much about AMDs part in this (Intel, on the other hand, has class action lawsuits lined up the door), and so we can't read too much farther into what we reported them, which I feel my sentence above is about the most neutral, non-OR, accurate summary of the events. --Masem (t) 00:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct that all sources don’t include the AMD claim about no change. I never asked for that claim to be included as it’s ridiculous. But, I’m OK with inclusion, although it’s embarrassing to AMD. Class action lawsuits are extremely common against deep pocket companies. They can be mentioned, but mean little and would mean a very long list over time. AMD did NOT have any fixes when they made their correcting statement. They weren’t close. Indeed, they stumbled badly in attempting rollouts of fixes (as did Intel and Microsoft). I don’t see any particular value in including these stumbles in the AMD and Intel articles. Maybe in the Spectre article. This is March and most PCs affected by all manufacturers are still not fixed. I don’t see where you come up with most tech experts agree with no change in position. Nearly every source says there was a change (well, because there was). O3000 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that when I read all the stories, from Jan 11 onward, the stance in the long run seems to be taking AMD at their word - they did not change their statement about "near zero risk" they issues Jan 3. Only sources on Jan 11 make something that suggests AMD changed or backtracked, but that's why AMD released the statement on Jan 11 to be clear. Since we're not a newspaper, we summarize from the longer-term view. I agree we should recognize that some initially saw that as a change, but that AMD clarified it was not. --Masem (t) 02:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Can we please settle on a consensus? It seems like we're going 'round in circles. Objective300, has noted they're "OK with inclusion". I believe Masem's proposed language covers all bases, perhaps adding something like "some commented that this was a change in AMD's position..." if necessary. I think this would address all issues. Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I am adamantly opposed to the word “some” as it is just plain wrong. All of the sources say AMD changed their position, using various verbs. This was an important event. Of course later stories weren’t talking about the changed position, because that part of the story was over and they were then talking about efforts to fix the problem. A problem that AMD originally suggested was Intel’s problem; not a problem of all manufactures using speculative execution techniques. O3000 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking through the sources you're providing, but it's definitely not "all" or "most" of them that suggest AMD changed position. Some did, no question, but it's hard to verify it was "many" or "all" sources from what you've provided as links. --Masem (t) 16:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
If we're seriously being hung up by a single adjective, lets find another. "several" or "particular" both appear suitable as-well. Dbsseven (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I provided nine refs. One was before the AMD change, so it can’t have known AMD was going to change their statement. Of the other eight, seven indicate a change in AMD’s position, and the other uses fuzzier language which still indicates a change in how readers perceived the two statements. Of course the reason for this is that AMD admitted on the 11th to something they did not admit on the 3rd. Which was why the markets flailed. AMD changed their position as reported by the vast majority of RS. We should not be using weasely language. O3000 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I really don't see it that AMD was being accused of changing their stance. Instead, nearly all these stories revolve around the issue of the tech meaning of "near zero risk" (conservatively allowing for error) and the layman's take of "near zero risk" (that there should be no issues). The press took AMD's statement on the 3rd as the latter, and so reacted that way. But AMD and others reporting on the tech side are clear that the new Specter 2 vulnerability announcement wasn't conflicting with their previous "near zero" statement. Yes, the markets still reacted to the reporting, so ignoring how the media reported it is not appropriate, but we shouldn't take the tone that some used that AMD lied or changed position (at least factually). I'm find with saying "several sources claimed AMD changed their position on this Jan 11 announcement", as long as that is attributed. --Masem (t) 18:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
So there is no ambiguity, the current proposed prose (as I understand it) is: "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. Several sources claimed AMD changed their position on this Jan 11 announcement. AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'" That works for me. Dbsseven (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The sources clearly show a change in AMD’s position. WP does not sweep news under the rug:

  • AMD processors: Not as safe as you might have thought…. The real change in AMD's position is with GPZ Variant 2 (Branch Target Injection or Spectre). ZDNet
  • AMD: Yes, Spectre does affect our processors. The chipmaker first said there would be "near zero" impact on its chips from one variant of a flaw that makes sensitive information vulnerable. Is it or isn't it? There was some confusion when news first hit last week that researchers had found serious flaws, called Spectre and Meltdown, in many of the chips that power computers and phones. Yes, chips from Intel and Arm were affected, but what about chips from AMD? AMD on Thursday put out a new statement that left no room for doubt. Each of the two variants of the design flaw called Spectre "is applicable to AMD processors," CNET
  • On January 3, the chipmaker said AMD chips had a near-zero risk of being affected by one variant of the Spectre vulnerability. But on Thursday the statement said the variant "is applicable" to AMD chips.CNBC
  • AMD Backtracks On 'Near Zero Risk' Processor Claims, Now Must Issue Updates To Combat Spectre. CRN
  • AMD issues Spectre security patch despite initially claiming ‘near zero risk’ siliconANGLE
  • AMD on Jan. 3 also said that its chips were vulnerable to one variant of the Spectre bug, but there was “near zero risk” from the second Spectre variant and vulnerability to the second variant “has not been demonstrated on AMD processors to date.” In Thursday’s statement, however, AMD said the second Spectre variant “is applicable to AMD” processors and that it would issue patches for its Ryzen and EPYC processors starting this week and older chips in the coming weeks. Fortune
  • AMD posted a statement on Thursday admitting its CPUs are vulnerable to both Spectre variant 1 and Spectre variant 2. …AMD, on the other hand, played up the architectural differences between its CPUs and Intel’s. The company used wording like “near zero risk” that gave the impression all was clear. So while, Intel stock dropped as much as 9%, AMD stock enjoyed gains of up to 12% since the crisis first began. The Meltdown and Spectre effect may begin to level out now that AMD has come clean about Spectre Variant 2. InvestorPlace
  • AMD shares slide as chip maker admits greater Spectre vulnerability. MarketWatch O3000 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • "The company used wording like “near zero risk” that gave the impression all was clear." this quote here is exactly the problem I'm trying to talk about. No one in tech would take "near zero" to mean "all was clear", but investors did. But it was treated that way by the press at the time, so it should be noted that is what was claimed, but it would be bias to try to argue they changed their stance. We write it as a "He said, she said" situation to stay neutral. --Masem (t) 19:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
That some number of sources described a "change" is not in dispute. This is stated in the currently proposed prose. "Several" makes it clear the number is greater than two but less than infinity. That "all" or "most" sources say this appears to go beyond the sources provided and needs additional sourcing. @Objective300: I thought you were "OK with inclusion" I don't see how quoting sources already cited is productive. How specifically is the current prose unsatisfactory? Dbsseven (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It’s not some. It’s most of the RS writing specific stories about the change. And it wasn’t just investors. There were stories that major tech companies were looking at alternatives to Intel. We are talking about a 12% increase in AMD stock and 9% decrease in Intel in the week between the first and corrected statements. Again, I’m not saying we should include the financial stuff, and I’m OK with adding AMD’s denial (although it’s embarrassing to AMD). And I’m not insisting on the words used by RS, like admitted, reversal, backtracking. But, this was a major story. AMD changed their position. That's a polite way to put it given the impact. There are easily enough RS to state this in Wikivoice, along with a denial. Otherwise, this is a whitewash of a major event. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no source to support that AMD's clarification on Jan 11 was a "denial". Even if one accepts that the sources state "AMD changed their position" (I don't think we can state that factually, we can say that was claimed by the media), none support the statement "AMD denied they changed position". "Maintained" or "Clarified", yes, but not "denied". --Masem (t) 20:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't look at me. I'm not the one that suggested a denial be added. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Objective3000 you did in-fact, suggest adding "denial". I agree with "Maintained" or "Clarified" also. Dbsseven (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
That was an attempt at a compromise. I don't care if it's added. In any case, it wasn't a denial in their second statement. It was a denial that they had changed their position after so many sources called their change a change. O3000 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Well "denial" is clearly a controversial word here, so "maintained" or "clarified" might be better. And we still need to settle on an adjective for the number of sources suggesting "change". "All" or "most" are clearly disagreeable to consensus, what else might work? (It seems if we can settle on these two words, consensus might be achieved.) Dbsseven (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, at least one of the sources used the word denial. But again, I don't care. I was just throwing out a compromise. The word "some" is a non starter. It's nearly all. None of the words should be used. It should be stated in Wikivoice. O3000 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
In place of "some"/"all"/"nearly all"/"most" which are all clearly controversial what about "several" or "particular"? To describe AMD's response what about "maintained", "clarified", or "stated" (avoiding the controversial "denial")? (Or do you have other suggestions?) As for Wikivoice, the proposed language is built around "He said, she said" in order to stay neutral. Dbsseven (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but you misunderstand what happened in an event that caused, literally, billions of dollars of losses and gains based on a false statement. Seriously, if one “tech expert” consulting to a company says there is a “near zero” chance of a hack, that means they believe the chance will not occur and no action is required. If a major corporation states that there is a “near zero” chance of a security vulnerability for its hundreds of millions of chips, that means it won’t happen. If it does, they will be drowned in lawsuits. In this case, their “near zero” meant “it will absolutely happen”. Because, if you totally deny that a hack is possible, while other people are explaining exactly how to exploit the flaw, it will happen to the fools that believed the false claim. Look at the massive hacks against huge, trusted corporations, exposing hundreds of millions of folks whose personal information that have occurred over the last decade. It is wonderful that AMD eventually reversed this false claim and admitted that there was a flaw. Otherwise, so many folks would have been vulnerable to hacks, a major problem in today’s world. Seriously, this is a major embarrassment for AMD that they used to rocket their stock and sales. And, I’m not surprised that their new CEO (whom I respect and wish well) stumbled.
Now, everything I just said is OR – but that is allowed on TP. I am trying to explain why this is such a huge issue – and why so many RS have jumped on it and called it a change/reversal/backtrack/etc. I really am trying to be compromising. But, it appears that you want this swept under the rug. And, I’ll say again, RS/N is the wrong venue. O3000 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I am glad you are trying to be compromising. Can you please either provide a specific objection to the proposed language (exactly what words/phrases are objectionable and why), and/or propose language of your own incorporating the feedback of other editors? I hope this might allow us to move forward. Currently, the proposed text clearly includes "changed" and will cite RSs accordingly. (Acknowledging that a personal view of the situation is OR, but still believing this to be a valid basis for editorial decisions, is not in keeping with WP policies as I understand them.) Dbsseven (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Personally, please avoid you. I understand what happened just fine, including the financial implications, and I disagree with your synthesis. Masem also explained the differences in technical versus layman's definitions of "near-zero". Also, please do not state I "want this swept under the rug", as this is incorrect. Dbsseven (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I can’t be any more clear. The original text should be restored. And, in no way, shape, or form have I suggested inclusion of any SYNTH. Inn no way, shape or form have I gone against WP policies. The change in AMD’s position is well documented by RS and should be included as per WP:WEIGHT. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Dbsseven that there is a bit of synth here. Lets presume that we take the stance that everyone and their brother called AMD out on changing their view and their clarification on Jan 11 was really a denial. (I don't think this is proper, but just setting this up). So now you seem to be arguing that AMD manipulated the financial markets with this duplicity. That is original research. I do agree that AMD's statements were all worded as carefully as possible as to appear to minimize any financial impact on them, make Intel's position look back, and future-proof themselves from any legal challenges. That's standard business practices in a competitive market space - it can seem sleazy and manipulative. However, to make anything like that connection, that AMD did this purposely, requires a source, and we simply do not seem to have a source for that, that I can find. Well after Jan 11, no one seems to be up in arms about how AMD's statements came out. That's why its necessary to understand that what happened on one specific day is not as important as the long-term stance, which is basically what Dbsseven has been suggesting. --Masem (t) 16:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don’t know what you are referring to. First, I NEVER said that the Jan. 11 statement was a denial. After RS called the AMD a change in position on the 11th, AMD denied this. Second, I NEVER suggested anything about markets be included. Please concentrate on what I actually suggest. The original text, which I believe should be restored, does not say the Jan 11 statement was a denial or mention markets. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Objective3000 I understand you prefer the old language, but consensus can change. Given the edit history, it is clear other editors object to the previous language. Accordingly, it is appropriate to find new consensus language. Dbsseven (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
What you want does not follow WP:WEIGHT. We follow the majority of RS. O3000 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It has been suggested is to include "AMD maintained that it still..." That AMD said this is in some of the same RSs you cite. Therefore, I do not see this as a problem of WP:WEIGHT, and exactly in keeping with WP:BALANCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. (In fact, a description of "many" or "all" RSs are exactly the type of language cited as weasel words in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.) Dbsseven (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Once again, I have no problem with adding that AMD maintained this was not a change in position, even though it's false. Making any suggestion that there is near zero risk is absolutely not something that WP should include as the risk is real. And, once again, I said the original text should be restored. It does not use the words some or all. It was well written text that follows the guidelines and was edit-warred out against guidelines.O3000 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It is very clear you'd like the original text, but other editors object so a new consensus need to be found. I don't believe the suggested prose suggests anything. It simply states verifiable facts that "on Jan 11 AMD stated... sources said "changed"... AMD maintained..." To write "someone said X" is verifiable and does not endorse their viewpoint, keeping a NPOV. To state "X is true, though AMD maintained..." is not in keeping with NPOV or verifiable. Dbsseven (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
AMD maintained WHAT? And stop claiming i am trying to introduce MY POV. That is nonsense. The original text is NPOV. It is straight out of the preponderance of RS. 19:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

The blue-check means its a verified account, so the person is 100% who they claim to be. The question is - Is Ryan Sprout himself a reliable primary source? DarkKnight2149 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe he is in a subject area that caused billions of financial moves in a couple weeks. But, even if he is, it’s a silly tweet saying that it “seems” that those he likely considers competitors have some ulterior motives. It really explains nothing, provides zero evidence of anything, provides no sources or rationale. Looks like just an offhand tweet. It pales in comparison to top financial and tech articles. WP:WEIGHT O3000 (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The financial consequences are irrelevant to WP editorial decisions, at issue is "AMD said X". A discussion financial consequences could be included in a separate part of the Spectre article but are off topic here. (And yet the author is also published on the same financial publishers Objective3000 cites, CNBC and Marketwatch. [44][45] So expertise in the intersection of technology and finance can certainly be discussed.) Nevertheless, the tweet is unequivocal of AMD's technological position, which is the relevant topic here. And not the only cite of this, also. Dbsseven (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the source R?[edit]

Hi, I need your advices about the following source:
Can I use the source to add some info to such sections as "early life" and "career" to George Conrades article?
Thanks beforehand, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Is a reliable source? I recently noticed an editor whose behavior appears to be that of a spammer (Jody 99) adding links to this website. This raised my suspicions. Although Jody 99 has been reverted, there are multiple other uses of as a reference (not as a result of any obvious spamming, as far as I can tell). I'm not familiar enough with this subject area to know if this is an acceptable source to use as a reference of automobile news or not. Deli nk (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliability/quality of various websites[edit]

Are any of these websites not considered usable as reliable sources? Crystalstar2007 recently added a number of citations to various articles and I can't tell if they're reliable. Some of them might be considered self-published. I've seen PopCrush removed for being unreliable before, but this could have been because it's not considered reliable for musical genres.

Jc86035 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)