Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:38, 7 August 2019

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of 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
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC - CoinDesk as a source

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Should CoinDesk be removed as a source from all articles on Wikipedia? --Molochmeditates (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (CoinDesk)

Previous Discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk

RSP Entry: CoinDesk RSP Entry

Please note: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies

There is currently no consensus on whether CoinDesk should be considered a [[questionable source. Therefore I do not support the blanket removal of CoinDesk references especially in cases where it leaves statements unsourced and articles incomplete (including several criticisms). Instead, editors should refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

An experienced editor is removing all CoinDesk references from cryptocurrency related articles on Wikipedia. My question is simply whether there should there be a blanket removal of all CoinDesk references from Wikipedia, even in cases where it is not used to establish notability, irrespective of context? Here is a small sample of 10 affected articles, in no particular order (there are too many to sort through):

So the question is,

Yes all references to CoinDesk should be removed from Wikipedia irrespective of context
No do not remove all references to CoinDesk per previous RfC, and instead use the context to determine whether to use the reference or not (e.g. do not use CoinDesk sources to establish notability).

Note: This is not an RfC for individual article cleanup. I am sure we can all agree that many of the cryptocurrency related articles can be improved. --Molochmeditates (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it - speaking as the editor in question, here's what my thinking was:

In general: cryptocurrency/blockchain articles are magnets for spam and advocacy. And crypto news sites are bad sources, per the previous discussion on this topic - they appear to be specialist press, but function as advocacy. You will see every possible thing being spun as good news for cryptos. We don't need crypto sites - there's plenty of mainstream coverage and peer-reviewed academic coverage to establish notability. Using crypto sites as sources in your article is a bad sign at AFD, and using mainstream RSes and peer-reviewed academic RSes is a good sign at AFD - so the observed working consensus of Wikipedia editors in practice is strongly in this direction.
In particular: Coindesk has a terrible habit of running articles on things that don't exist yet, barely-reskinned press releases and so on. There are plenty of refs that are entirely factual content! But you can say the same about blogs, wikis and other sources that aren't trustworthy in any practical sense. And this is even though Coindesk has an editor, I know a pile of the journalists and they're honestly trying to do a good job, etc. Quite a lot of the Coindesk refs I removed were to puffed-up nonsense articles, or in support of blatantly promotional article content. So the argument that editors will check the context doesn't work in practice - using the Coindesk articles that happen to be properly-made news coverage only encourages the use of their bad stuff, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is the most frequent AFD argument from crypto spammers.
I urge those thinking about this to reread WP:GS/Crypto. Just think what sort of editing would cause that harsh a community sanction to be put into place. Those conditions haven't changed. Letting just a waffer-thin crypto site in the door will invite the spammers back.
I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here - I make some money as a crypto journalist, often publishing in these very sites. I know my stuff is good and my editors are good! But I also know there's excellent reason it's not good for Wikipedia - when we have mainstream sources. If some subject or fact isn't notable enough to make it into mainstream or peer-reviewed sources, perhaps it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.
For a recent example that did make the crypto press, check this out. (I spoke to them with my Wikipedia editor hat on for once, not my crypto journalist hat.) That's about spammy interests trying to weasel their stuff into just one page. Repeat for a large swathe of the crypto articles on Wikipedia, 'cos that sort of thing is entirely usual. Mainstream-only is good in practice. (cc Retimuko and Ladislav Mecir, who are also mentioned in that piece.)
And, really - you think crypto sites should be used for BLPs? We have super-stringent BLP rules also for excellent reasons. I can't see how a crypto site would ever be acceptable as a source for a BLP, except maybe as an accepted subject-published link or similar - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: I'm skeptical of your claim "I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here", considering that you published Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, a book that is highly critical of cryptocurrencies. How would your !vote to remove all references to CoinDesk go against your own interests? Since you "make some money as a crypto journalist", wouldn't removing all references to CoinDesk effectively eliminate your biggest competitor and/or adversary from being mentioned on Wikipedia? — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that my own work in the ones I write for (which include Coindesk) wouldn't be citable. If you think you have a substantiable claim of COI on my part, you know where WP:COIN is, else I'll file that with all the other unsubstantiated claims that not being an advocate means I should stop editing in the area - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Your statement makes more sense alongside the fact that you have contributed to CoinDesk. Ironically, the fact that CoinDesk published your opinion piece "2017: The ‘Butt’ of Bitcoin’s Joke" makes them less biased than I had previously assumed. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source - beyond the issues that David Gerrard lays out above, crypto news sites also have had issues with content being gneerated for pay but not noted as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- to be fair, Coindesk has never been credibly accused of pay-for-play, and there's no good reason to think they'd do that. However, their editorial line has long been basically boosterism for cryptos (IMO) - David Gerard (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  That is fair. However, beyond that for all the reasons you've mentioned, which I didn't bother to repeat since you'd laid them out in depth, I continue to believe it is an unreliable source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (do not remove all references to CoinDesk - here's my thinking and take on the matter:

The previous RfC did a good job of getting consensus on how to treat CoinDesk articles. It clearly stated that CoinDesk shouldn't be used to establish notability but otherwise isn't barred from being used as a source. Why the sudden change in this policy by one editor deciding unilaterally that they no longer wish to adhere to this consensus?
Yes, we all know the usual criticisms of crypto press. That's already debated and known to editors. If there are individual instances to consider incorrect usage of CoinDesk, e.g. to establish notability, by all means they should be deleted. But as long as it isn't the policy, I don't support a blanket removal of all the material from literally hundreds of articles affected.
A lot of the material that's been removed is actually criticism of the projects. The bias is easy to understand - a lot of the overly promotional puffery has been removed by diligent editors already. This means removing all the CoinDesk references has made the problem of crypto-puffery much worse.
Several instances of purely encyclopedic content was removed for using CoinDesk as a purely descriptive secondary source (e.g. discussion on popular standards). This hurts the quality of the articles from an encyclopedic perspective.
This blanket removal of CoinDesk references already goes against the general consensus previously reached. There are literally hundreds (probably thousands?) of edits to go through, and I don't think it's feasible to go through them all to determine if the removal was justified. In many cases I've reviewed, I think the removal was unjustified, and in several other cases, it was totally justified. It's very hard to review now after these edits.
In conclusion, yes, there is a problem with crypto puff material entering the articles, but the solution isn't to ban crypto press. Crypto press both has the puffiest pieces and the most critical pieces on crypto projects. As editors, we want to see a balanced article, but that balance gets lost of we cannot cite the criticisms. One editor shouldn't decide to remove criticism and encyclopedic content especially going against previous consensus

I am of course happy to comply with a consensus view that CoinDesk should never be used as a reference on Wikipedia, if that's what comes out of this RfC. In that case, we should edit the RSP entry to reflect this consensus. Also, a lot of articles now have material that are unreferenced. There is a good amount of work to be done to go through these and remove the unsourced material or find other sources. --Molochmeditates (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a source per Molochmeditates. CoinDesk's role in promoting the use of cryptocurrencies is no different from PinkNews's role in promoting acceptance of LGBT communities worldwide. Recognise their bias, and use discretion when citing the source; but do not systemically reject an entire topic area from Wikipedia just because it is in some way problematic or difficult to write about. feminist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them should be removed. But it should be done more carefully. A lot of them can be replaced by mainstream sources. Examples:

Andreessen Horowitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761

Wall Street Journal "blog" about the same thing.

Initial coin offering - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173

"The SEC ruled that celebrity ICO endorsements must disclose the amount of any compensation paid for the endorsement." Covered by Reuters.

BitLicense - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899

"In July 2016, San Francisco-based Ripple was awarded the second BitLicense." Covered by Reuters.

There should be zero coin news references used in an article if possible. Like do you really need to use CoinDesk to write a good article about blockchain?

So if it's an important detail, look for a mainstream source. If it's only on a coin news site you should explain why it's needed on the talk page or edit summary. Blumpf (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all references from Coindesk and other cryptopropaganda I'd thought that this was already a settled matter. There are reliable references to cryptomatters, e.g. Bloomberg, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Financial Times, BBC, CBC and sometimes in Fortune and some of the cable news networks. There's no reason not to just use these sources. The cryptopropaganda network is all shills all the time as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete all references. There is not enough evidence to indict CoinDesk as a source that publishes false or fabricated information. While CoinDesk is a biased and non-independent source due to the cryptocurrency holdings of its parent company (Digital Currency Group), I don't consider the content in CoinDesk to be sponsored content, and I don't think a removal of "all references" to CoinDesk is justified. In my opinion, a source only crosses the line when it publishes calls to action that support its interests. CoinDesk's articles do not contain that type of promotional language. CoinDesk is much closer to TorrentFreak (RSP entry), which is another specialist publication that assumes the role of an advocacy organization, than The Points Guy's sponsored content (RSP entry), which contains actual sales pitches. However, CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability (per existing consensus), and editors should consider whether content from CoinDesk constitutes undue weight before including it into an article. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To "delete all references" to a source "irrespective of context" is a very serious action that is only taken when a source is listed on the spam blacklist. The "Yes" position in this RfC goes further than deprecation, because deprecation respects WP:CONTEXTMATTERS while the "Yes" position here does not. If CoinDesk is not eligible for the spam blacklist, then there is no valid reason to "delete all references" to it "irrespective of context". — Newslinger talk 01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all, but try to replace with mainstream sources when at all possible, per Blumpf and others. The FRS/Legobot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all. Mainstream sources are fine. Coindesk is biased, and most editors don't have context to identify the cases where they might be able to be a neutral source. – SJ + 03:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Remove all, unreliable is unreliable, context doesn't magically make dishonest reporting honest. They have form. Bacondrum (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Remove all, for the reason stated by SJ. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Remove all - Coindesk and publications like it are effectively WP:PROFRINGE sources advocating a worldview about cryptocurrencies that is not reality-based. We should be blacklisting it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROFRINGE is precisely what the problem with crypto sites is, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as source per feminist. Mainstream sources are preferable, and coindesk should not be relied as a central source, but it's reasonably WP:THIRDPARTY, and often contains details that can't be found elsewhere. Forbes72 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all. It's kind of like using the Discotute as a source for the validity of creationism. Coindesk writers have drunk deep of the kool-aid and assiduously maintain the kayfabe of crypto. Promotional or uncritical commentary on cryptobollocks is pretty much the last thing we need here. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (CoinDesk)

I think we need to be cautious here. Crypto/blockchain is a rather large field, but awash with people fighting over virtual dollars so sources are going to be iffy. But in other fields - for example, video games, we also know there is a lot of specialized media and a LOT of "blogs" trying to be big news sites that we at the VG project reject. That said, reviewing lists of crypto news site lists, a lot are owned by companies directly involved in the crypto game so yes, COI/self-promotion has to be a factor here. Coinbank seems to fall into that but its also the first major site after you get past CNBC and Forbes (which includes their contributors) in this list (which of course may also be suspect). I think we need some strong guidance to white/black-list sites and make it clear that sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concerns. --Masem (t) 23:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concern" - but that's literally all the crypto news sites, though. Every single one. Is there an exception you had in mind? - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I have not had any good chance to review them in any depth, their connections, and how others see those sources. For example, if we have non-crypto-based RSes routinely quoting facts from a crypto source, even if that source is not truly independent, that still suggests that that source would be seen as authorative. All the concerns related to WP:NORG obviously should be applied to any crypto-related article, but it still doesn't mean throwing the entire work out if others see part of it as reliable. But I have spent literally only like 10 minutes looking into this, nothing I would consider suitable to say such exist.

I do worry that this rush of mass removals without a clear consensus is into WP:FAIT territory, even though I suspect 95% of them removals would be proper, at the end of the day. --Masem (t) 14:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point about RS quoting something like CoinDesk is a fair point and I would hope that David Gerrard has stopped removing CoinDesk as a reference while this RfC is being conducted. However, because Crypto/blockchain is a substantial field we have non-industry sources covering notable organizations/developments regularly. We can rely on them without having to figure "Is CoinDesk acting as a booster of the industry here or is it reporting news of significance?" Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not remove all references to CoinDesk. As always, reliability is determined in context. Per Obsidi, "They have an editorial staff and an editorial policy. They do issue corrections". Benjamin (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see one very rarely indeed. A recent worked example of Coindesk being a sloppy and misleading source: [1] It's particularly egregious because literally nothing they claim is new - including the precise technical claim, which was detailed in InfoQ (which is a specialist RS) two years ago and its application to blockchains the same year (though that's a primary source, not an RS, it's the counterexample that Coindesk has repeated a marketing lie unexamined). Will Coindesk correct it? Still waiting ... Coindesk has a long history of repeating any press release nonsense that sounds like good news for blockchain. This means that a Coindesk reference cannot be safely used unless the editor has separately verified that this time they're not just repeating boosterism - at which point you're doing original research and should either find a RS or just not do that - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a source. — Newslinger talk 19:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: The American Conservative

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

There is very little comment on this publication. It is self-evidently somewhat to the right, but that is not an impediment to being accepted as a reliable source (given that all non-scientific publications will always carry some degree of bias). It has variously been described herein as a "major site", "reliable source", and "reputable yet biased". It includes much comment from academics and current and former (mostly the latter) intergovernmental agency and government staff members. Seeking comment as it is a significant site. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oops. ta-da! https://www.theamericanconservative.com

Most if not all of the magazine is opinion articles, which are generally not considered reliable sources. Note for example the first article in your link, by Robert W. Merry, which says, "The Democratic contenders want open borders and free healthcare and to pay for it by hiking taxes." In fact none of them call for open borders and most of them oppose free health care. TFD (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Most if not all" is based on your reading the strap line of one article then, by this veteran former WSJ reporter. I noted that it takes a right-view above. So option 2 additional considerations is reasonable. But it includes much serious reporting e.g. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-quietly-promises-billions-in-new-nuke-contracts/ Cambial Yellowing(❧) 12:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish people would stop knee-jerk repeating "opinion pieces are bad" as if they were repeating policy. See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. GMG ^talk 14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The American Conservative is the largest outlet in the heterodox paleoconservative movement, a small right-wing movement in the US, and a very valuable source for paleoconservative ideas. However it is still mainly an opinion outlet and has faced criticism on issues of race. I would say it is useful for opinion but should be used with caution on general reporting due to its inherent paleoconservative bias. Toa Nidhiki05 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear or additional considerations apply (a.k.a. "option 2"). The American Conservative is a magazine published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organization that describes the publication in this way:

The American Conservative exists to promote a “Main Street” conservatism that opposes unchecked power in government and business; promotes the flourishing of families and communities through vibrant markets and free people; and embraces realism and restraint in foreign affairs based on America’s vital national interests.

I would use The American Conservative with caution, which is how we currently treat media from most advocacy organizations, including the Cato Institute (RSP entry), Media Matters for America (RSP entry), and the Media Research Center (RSP entry). As the publication is biased or opinionated, in-text attribution is recommended. — Newslinger talk 20:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it is quite similar to Cato, even more so because it is the only major paleoconservative outlet. It’s basically the flagship publication of that movement and was even founded by Pat Buchanan himself. It’s not really a “straight news” or even news-opinion publication imo. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. I would treat both similarly. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cambial Yellowing, what you call serious reporting is actually an opinion piece. The author is commenting on a story that appeared in the New York Times about Trump's plans to increase the nuclear stockpile. There is absolutely no reason why we would use this as a source instead of the New York Times article that reported the story. GMG, it's not that opinion pieces are bad, but that policy says they are rarely reliable sources. Mostly they repeat facts already reported in reliable sources. When they report original information, they are not subject to the same editorial control as news reporting. So one writer may say Trump is a Russian agent while another says he did not collude with Russia. One may say climate change will destroy the world in 10 years while another will say there is no climate change. TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says is Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. But I have also seen this argument used to delete at AfD, and used to argue against using attributed statement of opinion from independently notable authors, writing opinion pieces in iron clad reliable publications. GMG ^talk 01:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's from Biased or opinionated sources. I was referring to News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The two points are consistent: opinion pieces and biased sources are reliable for what their authors say. Some biased sources may also be reliable for facts as well, if the publishers made sufficient steps to ensure accuracy. Academic papers and books for example are almost always biased, which is why they are written. TFD (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, usable with attribution especially if the author has a particular reputation (for weight). Some independent analysis report it as "unfair interpretation of the news", "hyper partisan right", so unreliable for statements of fact. —Paleo Neonate – 02:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The American Conservative is fine for accurately reporting the opinions of its writers and we can presume its stories are honestly the writing of those to whom they're bylined; it has a legal personality in a jurisdiction in which it can be held liable for libel and it has a stable and consistent history of publication. However it does not have, nor does it claim to have, newsgathering capability and is essentially an opinion publication. One of the standards we should use to evaluate reliability is whether unambiguously RS cite its reporting. When I do a Google News search for "according to the American Conservative" or "the American Conservative reported" I don't get any meaningful results. So I would say it's reliable for attributing statements to its own writers but I would not use it for Who/What/Why facts like the size of a brush fire in Montana. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear or additional considerations apply At a cursory glance it seems factual, but obviously strongly biased. They've had some very nefarious, partisan and dishonest contributors, including white supremacists/neo-Nazi types. Bacondrum (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bacondrum, don't forget about WP:BIASEDSOURCES. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) Use with caution and treat similarly to other advocacy organizations per Newslinger and Toa Nidhiki05. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems professional, center-right publication. Mostly seems to be a venue for collected articles rather than in-house reporting, so editors should focus on individual author reputation and specific articles. Quality if biased contributors seem the rule, so would expect that it is informed and well-written but is not balanced or comprehensive. Editors should refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and be aware this is an advocacy like SPLC and others used as RS -- and like those, typically attribution should be used per WP:BIASED. CHeers Markbassett (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RFC - what is the reason for raising this RFC? What is the actual concrete issue that we are supposed to be addressing? These general RFC on reliability of sources are swerving into WP:FORUM territory. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The American Conservative. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Taki's Magazine

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I've seen Taki's Magazine listed as a source a number of times recently and I'm worried by its use, it appears to be something similar to Breitbart. Before I go removing it and related claims from articles I'd like some feedback regarding its reliability. Which of the following best describes the reliability of Taki's Magazine?

Generally reliable for factual reporting
Unclear or additional considerations apply
Generally unreliable for factual reporting
Publishes false or fabricated information

Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pure opinion, not reporting--and not particularly good at it. It's not as reckless as Breitbart, but that isn't saying much. Opinion is never a reliable source for anything other than the view of the author, and I don't think their authors are notable enough to have views worth including. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unreliable - it's well-known for publishing racist garbage. Its managing editor was once noted neo-Nazi and white supremacist Richard Spencer, and it counts among its contributors a number of fringe extremist racists such as Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire (fired from National Review once his white supremacist work at Taki's Mag became publicly known) [2] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 or 4. Taki's Magazine (a.k.a. Taki's Mag or Takimag) occupies a similar niche as VDARE (RSP entry), which was deprecated in December 2018. The site is biased or opinionated, and its published opinions are very likely to constitute undue weight. Taki's Magazine's reputation has been panned by a number of reliable sources:

Quotes about Taki's Magazine from reliable sources

Besides his podcast, Goad’s main platform is Taki’s Magazine, an extreme right-wing publication with an irreverent tone that promises its “only ideology is to be against the junk culture foisted upon us by Hollywood and the mainstream media.” Along with Goad and McInnes, it publishes authors like John Derbyshire, who was fired from the conservative National Review (RSP entry) after he wrote an article for Taki’s about advising his teenage children to “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” It described black people as “ferociously hostile to whites” and is now listed in the “greatest hits” section on Taki’s website.
Taki’s contributors overlap with those at the hate site VDARE, including Steve Sailer — cited four times by TRS users — whose writing is largely dedicated to opposing immigration and drawing a false link between race and intelligence.

"McInnes, Molyneux, and 4chan: Investigating pathways to the alt-right", Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry)

The article that got him fired wasn't actually posted at National Review but at Taki's Magazine, an outlet run by millionaire paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos that was formerly edited by outspoken white supremacist Richard B. Spencer and has run articles by Theodoracopulos in support of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn.
This has been the trend for paleoconservative writing in the past decade or two. It's largely turned from mainstream conservative outfits to openly racist venues like VDARE, Taki's, American Renaissance, and the Occidental Observer. Admirably, the American Conservative has held the line and resisted crossing over into open white nationalism, but they're basically alone in that.

"Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained", Dylan Matthews, Vox (RSP entry)

After being fired, Spencer moved on to a new job as the sole editor of Taki’s Magazine, the online vanity publication of Taki Theodoracopulos, the scion of a Greek shipping magnate who was notorious for his racist remarks.
In Spencer’s telling, he steadily evolved Taki’s into a magazine aimed at white nationalists. By 2009 he’d published essays by Jared Taylor and was regularly using the term “alternative right” in its pages to describe his youthful brand of anti-war, anti-immigration, pro-white conservatism.

"Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power", Mother Jones (RSP entry)

Unfortunately, Taki morphed from a harmless snob into a nasty purveyor of alt-right venom. His Taki’s Magazine is regarded as the leading alt-right outlet after Breitbart News (RSP entry). Quite recently he praised the ultra-hard-right party Golden Dawn as mostly “good old-fashioned patriotic Greeks”.

"How Alexander Chancellor’s magazine became the home of the British alt-right", Harry Eyres, New Statesman

Peter “Taki” Theodoracopulos
The proto–Gavin McInnes.
An elderly Greek playboy who named one of his dogs “Benito,” once spent three months in jail for cocaine possession, and runs the leading publication for hepcat paleoconservatives and cosmopolitan racists: Takimag, which prides itself on telling hard truths about the superiority of whites without being “boring” about it.

"Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right", New York (RSP entry)

— Newslinger talk 09:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, WP:ABOUTSELF allows us to use questionable sources, including this site, as a primary source equivalent for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that the claims are due and covered by reliable sources. Outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, there is little to no reason to use Taki's Magazine. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be using this. I am loathe to option-4 this without clear indication of fabrication - however it is fairly obvious we should not be using a far-right publication - mostly UNDUE for opinion, and lacking a reputation for fact checking.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC. The claim is it was "isted as a source a number of times recently" but not a shred of a hint of where or how. No evidence that there is a dispute requiring an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not claiming anything, I'm asking about the general reliability of a source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed claim to have seen it used, or you wouldn't have been considering this post. But here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims. A research study on the efficacy of aspirin is not "generally reliable" for the miracles of Jesus; the Gospel of Luke is not "generally reliable" for the efficacy of aspirin to treat headaches (despite Luke being a physician.) So this gives rise to the perennial objection to these generalized and context-free RFCs about "general reliability" of sources - yes, some sources like the Daily Mail are "generally unreliable" but we can't claim the converse: we need context about what type of claims are being made, in order to correlate them with the purview of the source in question. Only then can we evaluate reliability. So I hope you will understand the necessity of you producing some context, such as where this source was cited, and for what types of facts it is being invoked. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what if I never saw it used, what difference would it make? I want to know if other editors think it's reliable, it's called seeking consensus...What on Earth could possibly be wrong with that? Bacondrum (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it makes any difference - if the source is unreliable, then that's what it is, but here's the version of the page that I first saw it on. I removed it as it was obviously not even close to good enough. Upon reading the source I was shocked at the quality of the publication (or lack thereof), I then noticed the same crappy source used on related pages (all of which appeared to have suffered from extensive tendentious editing), so I made the request, to see what other editors thought of the thing. Bacondrum (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims" Obviously false, as demonstrated here and here. Yes, context absolutely matters, but we do have standards for general reliability, claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. Bacondrum (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to respond here, but my response is better suited for the RfC below (RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs), which focuses on this matter. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse RfC. The domain takimag.com is currently used in 69 articles. A number of these citations should be removed because the referenced articles are used for factual information, for which Taki's Magazine is generally unreliable, e.g. the citations in Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, 2010s in fashion, and Tropicana Casino & Resort Atlantic City. Some of these citations should be removed because they constitute undue weight, e.g. the citations in God Is Not Great, Death Wish (1974 film), and The New Art Gallery Walsall. This RfC addresses all of these uses, including the six citations I mentioned. — Newslinger talk 02:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A week ago I removed takimag.com cites for "Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23" and "2010s in fashion" and Tropicana Casino & Resort Atlantic City" and nobody complained, indicating that there is nothing controversial there requiring an RfC. The cites for "God Is Not Great" and "The New Art Gallery Walsall" are of a book review and an architecture review, i.e. opinion pieces, so this is an attempt to prevent cites of opinions not cites of facts. Read WP:NOTCENSORED. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the citations. Opinions published in questionable sources (including Taki's Magazine) written by non-notable people are almost always removed as undue weight when they do not qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF. Taki's Magazine's opinions in God Is Not Great should be removed if consensus in this RfC determines that Taki's Magazine is generally unreliable, questionable, or worse. — Newslinger talk 22:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible source that shouldn't be used for anything, except limited primary source use, e.g. the article in Takimag that got John Derbyshire fired from National Review - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use only for attributed statements of opinion, with in text attribution per David Gerrard. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there any evidence they have A reputation for poor fact checking?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, not that I have seen. It looks like the reasons that this source is being considered unreliable is due to some editors not liking the views of some of the sources contributors, it occupying a similar niche to sources widely considered unreliable, and due to being "far-right". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the articles, mostly opinion, much of it is overtly racist. It's clearly a highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. If this is the standard for a reliable source then anything and everything should be considered a reliable source, including editors personal opinion, YouTube and Facebook. It was edited by out and out Nazi Richard Spencer. You'd be setting your standards very low to callthis anything but completely unreliable, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So no then apart form its POV (and no the reason we do not allow YouTube and Facebook is because they are full of out and out falsehoods, So then at worst its RS for its own opinions, and at best it in fact does not have a reputation for poor fact checking. So I have to go with Unclear or additional considerations apply.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being "highly-partisan" is not evidence that a source has a reputation for poor checking. If you are claiming it ignores general journalistic principles then please provide evidence, otherwise it will come across as you trying to say this source is unreliable because you disagree ideologically with it. YouTube and Facebook are completely different. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have that backwards? WP:RS requires that a source have reputation for fact-checking an accuracy, not that nobody can prove they're inaccurate. If you want to defend the use of a source, you are the one who has to present proof that they have the fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires - eg. descriptions in other sources, or use in high-quality sources in a way that clearly reflects a trust in their content. I'm not seeing that here; if the best people can say in its defense is "you can't prove it's unreliable!", it probably doesn't pass WP:RS. I think that partially this discussion might be confused because we usually discuss sources that might otherwise pass WP:RS if it weren't for evidence they were intentionally publishing falsehoods (eg. Breitbart, the Daily Mail, etc.) - but this source is different. It doesn't pass even the baseline. A source with no reputation for factual reporting at all fails WP:RS completely, so you have to prove it has some sort of reputation before you can demand that others find evidence it's screwed up. --Aquillion (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to prove anything, I just am not sure that "its biased" is a valid justification (and in fact " However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."). That was my pointSlatersteven (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the quotes again regarding Taki's as provided by Newsliinger if you need more:

Quotes about Taki's Magazine from reliable sources

Besides his podcast, Goad’s main platform is Taki’s Magazine, an extreme right-wing publication with an irreverent tone that promises its “only ideology is to be against the junk culture foisted upon us by Hollywood and the mainstream media.” Along with Goad and McInnes, it publishes authors like John Derbyshire, who was fired from the conservative National Review (RSP entry) after he wrote an article for Taki’s about advising his teenage children to “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” It described black people as “ferociously hostile to whites” and is now listed in the “greatest hits” section on Taki’s website.
Taki’s contributors overlap with those at the hate site VDARE, including Steve Sailer — cited four times by TRS users — whose writing is largely dedicated to opposing immigration and drawing a false link between race and intelligence.

"McInnes, Molyneux, and 4chan: Investigating pathways to the alt-right", Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry)

The article that got him fired wasn't actually posted at National Review but at Taki's Magazine, an outlet run by millionaire paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos that was formerly edited by outspoken white supremacist Richard B. Spencer and has run articles by Theodoracopulos in support of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn.
This has been the trend for paleoconservative writing in the past decade or two. It's largely turned from mainstream conservative outfits to openly racist venues like VDARE, Taki's, American Renaissance, and the Occidental Observer. Admirably, the American Conservative has held the line and resisted crossing over into open white nationalism, but they're basically alone in that.

"Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained", Dylan Matthews, Vox (RSP entry)

After being fired, Spencer moved on to a new job as the sole editor of Taki’s Magazine, the online vanity publication of Taki Theodoracopulos, the scion of a Greek shipping magnate who was notorious for his racist remarks.
In Spencer’s telling, he steadily evolved Taki’s into a magazine aimed at white nationalists. By 2009 he’d published essays by Jared Taylor and was regularly using the term “alternative right” in its pages to describe his youthful brand of anti-war, anti-immigration, pro-white conservatism.

"Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power", Mother Jones (RSP entry)

Unfortunately, Taki morphed from a harmless snob into a nasty purveyor of alt-right venom. His Taki’s Magazine is regarded as the leading alt-right outlet after Breitbart News (RSP entry). Quite recently he praised the ultra-hard-right party Golden Dawn as mostly “good old-fashioned patriotic Greeks”.

"How Alexander Chancellor’s magazine became the home of the British alt-right", Harry Eyres, New Statesman

Peter “Taki” Theodoracopulos
The proto–Gavin McInnes.
An elderly Greek playboy who named one of his dogs “Benito,” once spent three months in jail for cocaine possession, and runs the leading publication for hepcat paleoconservatives and cosmopolitan racists: Takimag, which prides itself on telling hard truths about the superiority of whites without being “boring” about it.

"Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right", New York (RSP entry)

Avoid. Only as limited primary source may be of some help. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC as per Peter Gulutzan. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible source - unreliable Autarch (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unusable for statements of fact (3) and not generally great as an opinion source, either. There's no evidence (as far as I'm aware) that it engages in outright fabrication, but that alone is not enough to get a source past WP:RS, which requires an actual reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this source lacks. It's clearly a WP:FRINGE outlet that posts entirely opinions; there's no evidence they do any investigation or fact-checking at all. It also lacks the reputation that would make opinions posted there automatically notable (it was difficult to find sources for its article, and the ones that came up were often critical or only mentioned it in passing), so it doesn't have much use as an opinion-piece outside of places where the author is directly the subject of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unusable for statements of fact (3) - only because even a broken clock can be right every once in a while. It's putrid garbage, and should probably be blacklisted from Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RFC - No concrete instances of this source actually being at-issue with relation to article content have been raised. This is simply a WP:FORUM discussion. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

@Elizium23: Could you provide a couple of examples of the types of RfCs you think should be halted? 01:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs) [reply]
Sure: WP:RSN#RfC: Quadrant Magazine, WP:RSN#RfC: Daily Graphic and wgraphic.com.gh, WP:RSN#RfC: The Herald (Glasgow). I didn't even have to visit our archives for them. I am not sure where this template originated, but it has rapidly become the de facto method for opening discussions here on RSN, and I do not like it, no sir, not one bit. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This RfC is related to the RfC at WT:RSN § RfC: Header text, which affects the header text of this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose halting RfCs. By generally reliable, we're referring to sources that have a strong reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. They usually have a reputable editorial team, and tend to be endorsed or used by other reliable sources for factual information. Context always matters, and the consensus shown in some discussions on this noticeboard restrict the scope of what a source is generally reliable for (e.g. The Verge RfC).
Note that the word generally means "usually" in this context, not "always". The general classification of a source is only the starting point for evaluating reliability, and specific uses of a source can always be brought to this noticeboard for a more targeted review. If a source frequently publishes articles outside of its circle of competence, like in your example about science and religion, then the source should not be considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps the question we should be asking is: Is there evidence that [source] have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight? If a source meets these criteria, and independence from the topic, etc., then per WP:NEWSORG we may deem it to be generally reliable for statements of fact. But I do not think it is useful to whip up boiler-plate RFCs directly asking whether [source] is 'generally reliable' (and it's interesting that the qualification for statements of fact is, here on RSN, often missing from this question. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~For what it's worth,~~ The 3 RfCs you have linked (Quadrant, Daily Graphic, The Herald) do include the "for factual reporting" qualifier after "Generally reliable". If this is not descriptive enough, then I agree that it would be helpful to provide more detailed definitions of each option in RfCs of this type. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth? Zilch. Newslinger opposed directly quoting or pointing to the RfCs, successfully. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference and link to a discussion on edit filters have nothing to do with generally reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: If "generally reliable" is supposed to mean "usually" it should be worded differently, because "generally" sounds like it means in the broadest sense. "In general" is not equivalent to saying "in the cases where this source is applicable as a potential RS". If Scientific American is "generally reliable" then it would be reliable for politics too. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up. I've started a discussion at WT:RSP § "Generally" in search of a less ambiguous word than generally. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the above discussion, "Generally reliable" has been changed to "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" in WP:RSP § Legend. — Newslinger talk 14:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on the restriction ("include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact") suggested in the sub-question. While we should encourage editors to provide examples of how a source is being used, a question on the general reliability of a source shouldn't be unduly focused on one specific use of that source. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose halting RfCs. What's wrong with seeking a consensus as to the reliability of a source? I thought we were aiming to have high quality reliable sources? If an outlet is unreliable, it is unreliable WP:SPADE. I personally think it's a very useful means to ensure quality citations and avoid myriad edit wars and content disputes before they happen. Bacondrum (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't the whole purpose of this noticeboard to ask questions regarding reliable sources? Bacondrum (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this discussion be held somewhere else? This is the reliable source noticeboard, isn't it? Perhaps the talk page would be more appropriate? Bacondrum (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose halting RfCs. It's appropriate to have one big discussion about a source's reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction since this doesn't usually change from article to article. This doesn't prevent us from discussing its appropriateness in a specific instance where things like attributed quotes or scientific/medical claims come into play. –dlthewave ☎ 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though there are a tad too many of these lately. Generally a RfC here on the general use should be preceded by a discussion on a particular use (here), and also demonstrating that we have a general problem (e.g. We use source X in 100 articles, despite source X being described as Y....). Lately - there have been some RfCs here that jumped the gun on proper pre-RfC discussions. However, we definitely shouldn't have a moratorium on RfCs of these type generally - as discussions sources is exactly what this board is for. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Be more careful Don't reach straight for the RfC unless other options have proved fruitless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RfCs should only be used in order to cleanly remove/"deprecate" currently in-use sources. For sources where no formal action is envisaged, start with a standard discussion. feminist (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as there ahave been far too many in a short period so that the discussion is often truncated, undetailed, lacking participation and depth of investigation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The four-way question is deceptive and not consistent with WP:RS. It misleads by claiming to be a "deprecation" so people who know this dictionary definition will think it's about "disapproval" but in fact the intent (not necessarily implemented) is that an edit filter will result in a message that references are generally prohibited. It misleads by claiming to be "as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail" but in fact the Daily Mail closers didn't say "deprecating", said the prohibition is of use as a reference, and said opinion pieces are okay. It misleads by causing links to essay-status pages as if they have some sort of authority, when the real authority is WP:RS policy (the one that says to always take context into account). The Herald (Glasgow) RfC is an example of misuse -- an editor included the question about treating like The Daily Mail, not with evidence that serious people might think that but it's in the four-way question. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hahaha! My thoughts exactly, thanks for the chuckle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(UTC)

Just a quick count of votes to date: 19 OPPOSE and 11 SUPPORT Bacondrum (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moratorium, while supporting the inclusion of several specific examples whenever raising a general question about a particular source. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop

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

Emir of Wikipedia's proposal

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

Alsee's proposal

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

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

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

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

GreenMeansGo's proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong oppose for the following reasons:

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

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

Support It's the closest thing that approaches the purposes of WP:V judging in context, and it would tend to avoid the WP:NOTAFORUM stuff these open ended queries get. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to not only be about RFCs; too bureaucratic for a noticeboard. —Paleo Neonate – 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The note at the top of this noticeboard clearly says that discussions should be about whether sources are reliable for specific purposes. Also, WP:V and other sourcing policies clearly state that reliability can only be judged in context. I don't think these general RFC should be completely banned, but people are opening them on sources that have never been discussed on the noticeboard, or for sources that are essentially never used in articles anyways. That just clutters up the noticeboard with useless junk. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Prefer Alsee's proposal, which applies the same treatment to the entire reliability spectrum. — Newslinger talk 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "preponderance" - some level of prior consideration might be worthwhile, but the phrasing indicates that a more significant number is needed, perhaps unnecessarily restrictive Nosebagbear (talk)

Aquillion's proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I am uncomfortable with the fact that these RfCs appear to be replacing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. One should actually read the source to see if it supports its point.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatehouse Gazetteer

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

This site is "http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/contact.html a personal project by Philip Davis]", who says "I am not a professional historian and have no academic qualifications in the field so please take my site as the work of an amateur enthusiast." I do not think this meets WP:RS. I intend to remove these links unless anyone objects. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objection as not supported by any policy. See discussion below. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supported by policy: WP:RS. Next? Guy (Help!) 12:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Davis (who sadly recently passed away in 2017) was one of the leading castle studies specialists in the UK; he was a key member of the Castle Studies Group, and published through their journal, as well as compiling government, local authority data etc. into his own website, which was then taken over and maintained by the UK academic community after his death. As his colleagues commented, "his whole life was bound up in the study of castles and medieval buildings and the Gatehouse website developed over many years to become a vital tool in helping amateurs and academics alike in researching and studying castle sites, their history, archaeology and architecture." He was, however, extremely modest, and self-deprecated himself and his expertise in a classic English academic style. User:Richard Nevell could explain more. Hchc2009 (talk)

I did read about him, he sounds like a delightful man and a real enthusiast, and I completely take your point about the modesty of the true scholar. Did he publish books of his research? If there's a book from a proper publisher I would love to cite that instead. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a google search on the Castle Studies Journal and his name, you'll find various links to his published work. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself is a personal website and such should not be used as an RS, but I'd support JzG here that an alternate, appropriate, citation to the same person would be helpful. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence it has a reputation for fact checking, or is well regraded?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, apologies for the delay in replying. It's been a Long Day. The point here is about the Gatehouse Gazetteer website and whether it's a reliable source, but I'll be giving some additional information which isn't directly about the site but is intended to show that he is more than a hobbyist.

Like Hchc2009 says, Philip was a modest man who would never describe himself as an expert, but his peers would happily do that for him. He published at least nine research articles in the Castle Studies Group Journal. They have been cited by Prof Robert Higham and Dr Colin Platt amongst others who have written various journal articles and books on castles. If you're not familiar with archaeology, medieval history, or castle studies then these people are influential authors. Also, treat yourself and read about some castles, they're great fun. Academics have consulted Davis' work and found it good enough to reference. As well as having an almost encyclopedic knowledge about castles, he was an authority on licences to crenellate.

As useful as his research papers have been, the Gatehouse Gazetteer is an invaluable source for bringing together information on castles and linking to resources when they're available online. For all his considerable knowledge, I hope he wouldn't mind me saying that when it comes to website design he wasn't an expert. It does its job, but does look like something made around 2000. When I first came across the site around ten years ago I was sceptical because we're used to slick looking websites. Its appearance doesn't detract from its value of course and the Gatehouse Gazetteer has been acknowledged by Prof Oliver Creighton and Dr Duncan Wright in their 2017 book on 'the Anarchy' as 'invaluable'; referenced by Dr Michael Shapland in his 2017 work titled 'Anglo-Saxon Towers of Lordship and the Origins of the Castle in England'; Michael John Key's 2019 book Edward the Elder: King of the Anglo-Saxons, Forgotten Son of Alfred; and Dr Rachel Swallow's 2013 paper 'Two for One: The Archaeological Survey of Shocklach Castle, Cheshire. There are others too. It also helps that numerous castle experts have helped enhance the information on the site such as Dr John Kenyon and Dr David Mercer. It's linked to from the Castle Studies Group and the Castle Studies Trust websites as a useful resource for castle studies; I'm involved with both organisations but had nothing to do with the decision to include links. And it's mentioned in at least one Historic England publication. The website is self-published but by someone who is an authority on castles and has had input from numerous other experts.

The Gatehouse Gazetteer is used in two ways in Wikipedia articles: (1) as a reference and (2) as an external link to provide more information. The main focus of this noticeboard is of course the former, but since we're here I might as well comment on the latter too. Since it contains a comprehensive list of publications on each site as well as links to various other resources such as historic environment records and historic maps it is a valuable addition to any Wikipedia article as an external link.

For full disclosure, I should perhaps note that I met Philip once and we exchanged emails a few times about small tweaks to the website but hopefully that doesn't amount to an unmanageable conflict of interest. Andy Dingley asks an interesting point on whether sources that fall in the grey area between clear-cut reliable sources and dross should be removed altogether. I've not addressed that here, but hopefully I've made the point that academics consider the Gatehouse Gazetteer to be reliable and that it's fine for Wikipedia's purposes. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC) @JzG: Separate from the EL issue mentioned below, I've addressed the initial issue of whether the Gatehouse Gazetteer is a reliable source in the above paragraphs. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to say in Wikipedia's guidelines that we can't use non-RS, personal websites/projects, blogs. or primary sources for that matter. Evidently if an expert reliable source can be found to replace the source, that's mush more preferable. But in my view it's better to have a source rather than no source at all, particularly for things that are non-controversial and not open to challenge. Sionk (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. It's right there in WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thetruthaboutguns.com

thetruthaboutguns.com - insource / all links

I can't help feeling that thjis site is dubious. Apart from the obvious - any site with "truth" in the name generally isn't - it is written by NRA or ex-NRA authors and is full of anti-Obama screeds in reviews of submachine guns and the like. It seems more like a WP:FANSITE than anything else. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Write for Us looks like they just get contributors to write. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not close. And echo Guy's comment about any site that uses the word "truth". O3000 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play devil’s advocate here... It does have an actual editorial staff (See their “About Us” page). This may be yet another of those “Context is important” situations where we need to examine the source on a case by case basis.

Also, I am concerned that we not dismiss this source based on our own political prejudices. Remember that sources are allowed to have a bias... WE (the editors of WP) are the ones who are supposed to be neutral. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on contex: This was discussed extensively just a few months back. [[3]] The writers are generally knowledgeable in the subject but also have a clear POV. Much of the content is opinion but this is an area where the gun rights opinions are often not will covered by larger media outlets. Basically it should be used carefully and not treated as universal "truth". Springee (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source, regardless of "context". Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Consider some examples that might be cited here. The weight/length of a rifle based on measurements they took for a review. This would be a basic statement of fact with little possibility for controversy. What saying the muzzle velocity of X was greater than Y? I don't see any reason why we would generally question the site when it comes to basic review of a firearm type information. I would say that such basic facts could be cited to them in wikipedia voice. I mean do we have any evidence that they would lie about the barrel length of a ____ rifle? OK, what about opinions on a proposed law? This is a harder one but I would still say we could use their opinion as notable (not WP:NOTE) in the field. What about a case where "gun rights supporters disagree with the NRA" cited to an editorial at TTAG? I would never suggest using their opinions in wiki-voice but certainly they could be a source for views on a gun related topic. Springee (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any site that puts itself out there as an advocacy site like this, unless it clearly has the blessing of other RSes (eg something like SPLC) should be considered unreliable. --Masem (t) 13:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy started a near identical discussion earlier this year so I'm not sure why the same topic would be posted again. Why start a new discussion without mentioning the previous discussion? Springee (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no other publications that perform gun reviews and features? I know little about guns but just as an example, Future plc seems to have several publications focusing on gun news and reviews. Is there a specific use case where an article from The Truth About Guns is superior to what is available from non-advocacy sources? I have a hard time imagining that. feminist (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier topics: reliability of machine-generated sources

I see that a few articles are referencing www.sciencedirect.com/topics/, for instance special:diff/896997058 at Mediated transport. Elsevier announced in 2017 what these are, but I suspect some people are not reading the fine print.

Is it fine to cite as secondary source an article which is actually a machine-generated text? As far as I know, we have no idea what the editing process or quality assurance is on such texts. Machines might be better than humans at summarising large amounts of primary text (especially when the full text of the source articles is paywalled and very technical), but editors might be advised of making sure that at least an abstract of an upstream source confirms whatever claim they're borrowing from the machine-generated summary, no?

Note that this is not specific to Elsevier: Springer machine-generated books are coming as well. Nemo 21:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only with archiving/snapshots. My main concern is less with reliability as each /topics/ page specifies the original source of the content presented. Rather the main problem is that because these are machine-generated pages (with no timestamp as far as I can see), these can be updated on-the-fly and the information on the page can be radically different between when it was cited and when a reader assesses the page. So, these can probably be used (and are arguably better than paywalled/technical full text), but only if an archived version of the page (e.g. an archive.is snapshot) is provided as part of the citation. feminist (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Elsevier is an academic publisher and their articles are reliable for scientific topics. I looked at one example [4] and it is properly sourced with peer reviewed articles. I see no issues here.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alig interview of Desmond is Amazing

In the criticism section of Desmond is Amazing there is interest in connecting Desmond, a drag kid, to Michael Alig, a murderer, and former leader of the Club Kids, whom Desmond cites among his drag inspirations. Are any of these sources reliable for this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/desmond-napoles-gender-identity-ideology/

2. https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/the-exploitation-of-drag-kid-desmond-is-amazing/

3. https://spectator.us/desmond-amazing-child-drag-queens/

The spectator is a reliable source. The other sources I dont know enough about. scope_creep^Talk 18:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilant Citizen is a definite "NOOOOO". This is the top story on their main page right now. I wouldn't cite them for anything. The National Review and Spectator sources aren't complete garbage, but they both appear to be opinion pieces. Per WP:NEWSORG: they may be useful for statements of opinion attributed to their authors, but they are probably not reliable for statements of fact. If this is the extent of the coverage, then it probably doesn't really warrant a mention in the article - it's possible to convey the general idea that some social conservatives think this kid is surrounded by bad influences without necessarily transcribing accusation they make . Nblund^talk 19:00, 29tor July 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere on the Spectator article does it say it is an opinion piece, apart from the question mark, which may give the impression that is an opinion. It is in the life section, but it is still fact checked. It does have an opinion page for the editor. scope_creep^Talk 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Can you take a look at this when you have a chance. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 19:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't always stamped as "opinion pieces", but Ben Sixsmith is not a journalist, and I don't really know how you could dispute that he's sharing opinions when he says things like "I take a dim view of the concept of ‘child stars.’". The Spectator also doesn't label opinion columns from far right figures like Taki Theodoracopulos as "opinion" either - though they clearly are, and I don't really know if The Spectator's straight news coverage is even all that great: this is the paper that hired Boris Johnson as an editor after he had been caught fabricating quotes at The Times of LondonNblund^talk 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to see the Spectator or nationalreview as anything but opinion pieces. I’m not even sure how to squarely summarize their opinion or put anything in addition to the article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In her confirmed social media accounts the child's mother cites Michael Alig as an influence on the kid's look and performance style. She has gone on about it quite extensively. Attributing "an interest in connecting Desmond, a drag kid, to Michael Alig, a murderer," to the Wikipedia community, is not an accurate portrayal of the situation, Gleenanon. The kid and his mother's confirmed social media accounts, and interviews with them, are full of references to Alig, including photos they have posted themselves of the kid posing for photos with Alig, and posing as Alig. Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now on several threads and board-shopping, actively trying to suppress controversial material like this and blaming Wikipedians for including it. While I am not interested in writing about this child at the moment, I've seen the photos that have been posted. If Wikipedians want to document the parent-approved connection to Alig, a subject that is considered a public figure's official social media posts can be used as sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest before commenting that editors do a search on: Michael Alig and Desmond is Amazing. Maybe use a few different search engines if you habitually use one that alters results based on preferences or political leanings. There is also YouTube footage. (I'm not proposing any particular sourcing here, just a reality check.) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that isn’t a primary source for this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:CorbieVreccan: WP:BLPSELFPUB allows us to use social media sources for very basic non-controversial facts about a person, but using Facebook pages to make contentious link between two people seems like it would go far beyond a permissible use of that kind of source. I'm sure it's not your intention, but this kind of sourcing would give the appearance that we're digging for dirt in a child's social media history. Nblund^talk

I've never seen the child's Facebook and would not feel comfortable using that. So much about this child being a public figure is inappropriate, period. Obviously, only official, public sites like those linked from the official website on his article would be appropriate (if any of this is appropriate, and I question that). I don't recall which site the photos I saw were on (IIRC, it was the child's mother's social media, where she was going on about Alig, so, not usable). It certainly wasn't a right wing one. The criticism section of the article right now is definitely POV and inaccurate, as there are members of the LGBTQ community that are concerned for this child. Concern and criticism is not only coming from "the right wing." It's not anti-LGBT to be concerned for this kid. I'll look some more, but so far most of that concern from the community is not being expressed in RS formats. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, as I just did on talk: I just checked the BLP and the article already uses the child's social media, run by the mother (the Instagram account I discuss above) for sourcing. I really don't want to edit the thing, but just letting others know, this BLP needs the sourcing overhauled if you have concerns about this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question to uninvolved editors: Would you consider this usable? Is This Just Amazing or Is it Pedophilia?. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not serious? I certainly hope you’re kidding. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^Seconded: a random-ass letter to the editor where a "Santa Clarita resident" engages in wild speculation about whether or not a pedophile organization might be interested in recruiting this child is not suitable for a WP:BLP. It's probably not suitable anywhere on Wikipedia. It's probably not even suitable for a noticeboard. No. Not even close. Not in a million years. WP:TROUT for even asking. Nblund^talk 02:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^:Thirded, I agree. Its very rough, speculative and trying to associate a pedophile organisation with Desmond in the mind of the reader. As is an opinion piece is not suitable. There is also lot of anger in the letter. I came across an article on Ben Sixsmith. Seems he is not journalist and produces light pieces, e.g. life sections article. So @Nblund your right. scope_creep^Talk 08:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed - Sorry if I wasn't clear; it was a bit late for me to be editing. I'm not actually suggesting we use it as a source in the BLP. I wanted to see what people thought, because the BLP currently uses other "sources" that are also opinion pieces, just at the other extreme. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Quebec newspapers as reported by CBC

Hello. I've come across two CBC articles that talk about fake newspaper sites claiming to be hosted in Quebec but were actually hosted in Russia or Ukraine. In the examples listed in these articles, there are Wikipedia articles that are using these websites.

Quebec Telegram - List of sex symbols
Stopru - Nicaragua Canal, Purpose World Tour, possibly Survival Game (has a .com domain instead of .org as linked in the cbc article)
Quebec Post - Alexandrium ostenfeldii, Anti-Russian sentiment
Quebec Times - Laurence Auzière-Jourdan
The Sherbrooke Times - Graham Verchere, Blaise Matuidi
The Gal Post - Olga Vyalikova, Kazaky
The Koz Times - Lindemann (band), Speed limits in France, Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate, Leonila Guz, Charmed (2018 TV series)

These ones might be the same as linked above in the CBC articles:

Siver Times - redirects to Sherbrooke Times but I think the link is sivtimes.com (specifically says quebec) not sivertimes.com ("headquarters in New York, and in bureaus in Germany, France, Italy and China.") - both have wikipedia search results
Silver Telegram - CBC links it to a .com domain, but Wikipedia search results finds sivtelegram.media which does look similar to the above sites.

Also on the list but thankfully not used is Vtabloid.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not RS and should all be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Including the Siver Times and Silver Telegram ones? Do you believe those ones are the correct links? I don't want to accidentally remove the wrong ones. The other seven I'm sure. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So remove those 7.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enoguh. I'd def. would like discussion on the other two before I remove them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it is not clear leave them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should be removed. Editors should consider the sites before using them. However, check to see if these are articles copied in from reliable sources and find the original sources if possible. In the meantime, remove the links and the content, if it appropriate. TFD (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove on sight as these appear to be actual fake news websites (as opposed to strongly biased or partisan sources that promote a certain viewpoint though without deception). Though of course it's best to restore the content that can be cited to the original French-language articles if as CBC suggests some are poor machine-translated versions of legitimate articles from French-language outlets. feminist (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg

Can/should Bloomberg reports about China be taken seriously? Such as this: White House Eyeing Chinese Forces Gathered on Hong Kong Border, which, for some reason, has not been mentioned by RS, AFAICT (just a couple of minor sources, news.com.au and Nz Herald, both citing Bloomberg). And for background, Bloomberg_News#China_coverage and Bloomberg_Businessweek#"The_Big_Hack". zzz (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Yes. Bloomberg is a top-tier NEWSORG - for business/finance as well as geopolitical issues, in particular when they intersect with finance. Unlike non-business outlets (or lite-business outlets) - Bloomberg does not engage in gossip or partisan spin to the extent current news media does (CNN/FOX being extreme, but this has infected the likes of NYT/WaPo as well). It actually is not surprising this hasn't been covered in depth by the more newsy American/British outlets who mainly cater to local audiences (and obviously coverage from within Hong Kong and China has... its own issues (freedom of press) on this topic) - besides Bloomberg catering to an international audience, in the world of financial markets a possible crackdown in Hong Kong is a major risk event (potentially directly impacting HKEX (with shock waves through Asian markets) as well as world trade). Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously. Why is this in question? Bloomberg often breaks serious and reliable news which is then picked up and/or used by other outlets. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Did you read the China coverage and "The Big Hack" links? The Columbia Journalism Review said Bloomberg's handling of the episode "has tainted its corporate identity and journalism brand to a degree that could last for years" etc. zzz (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't; it says Bloomberg's cancelling of an investigative story tainted its identity. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In a stroke, Bloomberg was becoming an important player in international news—and now, just as suddenly, it has tainted its corporate identity and journalism brand to a degree that could last for years. All because of its China coverage." zzz (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. It's solely referring to the spiking of the investigative piece, not its China coverage as a whole. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg is on average perfectly acceptable as a reliable source. Every source is going to make errors, and that's why we rely on exactly the type of piece published by the Columbia Journalism Review in order to know where errors are made. That other major outlets are republishing the story rather than refuting it is an endorsement. We should also keep in mind that on the subject of bilateral relations, we should generally prefer sources that are from neither partisan country, expecially where they disagree on things like particular wording.

But I'm not sure any of that matters here anyway, because I'm not sure why we care that the US government is "monitoring" the situation, or why that should have any lasting encyclopedic value. Do we really think that the governments of India, Russia and the UK are also not "monitoring"? Isn't that what the governments of major world powers do? Isn't that the entire point of major powers having an intelligence gather apparatus in the first place? GMG ^talk 12:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbia piece is not about an error. The story is about a supposed troop build-up on China's border. zzz (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same 2014 article? The one about corruption? GMG ^talk 12:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signedzzz: Here is the Columbia Journalism Review piece. It is not about "errors" or "an error". It is not about "corruption". It is not about "a supposed troop build-up on China's border". It is specifically about Bloomberg's cancellation of an investigative article, which cancellation was leaked to other outlets and reported by them. Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to split hairs, but whether you call it an "error" or not, the Columbia piece is explicitly calling Bloomberg out for what they see as a lapse in their journalistic integrity. GMG ^talk 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions no errors. Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About as much as any other media news source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes But learn to read the article beyond the headlines, which are not themselves considered rs. The article begins, "The White House is monitoring what a senior administration official called a congregation of Chinese forces on Hong Kong’s border." Did a senior administration official say that? Probably. Is what he said true? Who knows. But based on the wording of the article we cannot present the official's statement as fact but can only present it as an opinion. TFD (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note FTR that concerns have not been addressed here. Now, I'm off to learn to read... zzz (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right Wing Watch

How should this site be treated as a source? I'm thinking WP:BIASED, as it reports from a left-wing point of view. Swil999 (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable with attribution There's no such thing as an unbiased media source, though people seem to think that only sources with a leftist POV have one for some strange reason. As with any media source, we must be especially careful to avoid treating statements of opinion as statements of fact. Beyond that I'd need to see specific usage to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to be very skeptical of ANY source with the word “watch” in its title. The key is whether they issue corrections when they get something wrong (few do). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a "biased source" and a partisan political advocacy group. The Washington Examiner and MSNBC are biased sources, as they consistently publish from a right-of-center and left-of-center viewpoint respectively. But a partisan political advocacy group is not on par with these sources. Instead, Right Wing Watch should be treated on par with sources like Turning Point USA. They don't exist for the purpose of journalism. They exist explicitly for the purpose of pushing a political agenda. They are only reliable for statements of their own opinion, probably shouldn't be used as statements of their own opinion unless that's been covered by other secondary sources, and they are mostly useless for the purposes of determining WP:WEIGHT. GMG ^talk 12:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TPUSA is considered a reliable source for puppetry and golf, I believe... Guy (Help!) 14:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is, if we allow partisan think tanks as sources, then you can start with first what you want the article to say, and then reliably find a source for it. That's not how this is supposed to work. You're supposed to first find what the sources say, and then reflect that in our writing. Your or my personal opinion on anything other than the relative reliability of sources should not affect that calculation.

With the issue of DUE, on any political wedge issue, the partisan think tanks are just going to line up behind the predicable partisan talking points according to their allegiance. So you're not really measuring anything but a head count of how many think tanks are on either side. That's not that the type of WEIGHT that has any meaning for our purposes. That's not the WEIGHT of professional journalists, academics, and authors weighing all sides of an issue, evaluating all the information available, and presenting what they feel is a fair shake to all involved. Where we then take the average of all the fair shakes, and give the fair shakes a fair shake. That's the business we're in. GMG ^talk 22:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This right here. Unless a think tank or punditry group is routinely described in sources as an appropriate expert in that political area (eg like SPLC for hate groups), we should completely avoid using them as reliable sources, since they are a dime a dozen and can be used to craft any approach you want for an article. --Masem (t) 22:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo I couldn't agree more. I have devoted a lot of effort to removing think tanks as purported sources of fact, my view in general is that we shouldn't even use them as statements of opinion unless reliable independent third party sources establish that the opinion is considered significant, per WP:UNDUE. Virtually every think tank presents its opinion as if it is immutable truth, even when they are in violent disagreement. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too I think we should have some RFC on this --Shrike (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGoYour use of partisan is a misnomer. A partisan outlet, person or group is loyal to a party or organisation. Everything and everyone is somewhere on the spectrum of left to right, that doesn't make them partisan - the Guardian is obviously left, but it is not partisan, it is not connected financially or organisationally to the British Labor party. TPUSA is partisan, they have campaigned for the Republican party, unless you can direct us to a campaign RWW ran for a particular party then you should stop throwing the word "partisan" around, it is incorrect usage. Bacondrum (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence RS consider them reliable?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any context for the question? (ETA: The original question, not Slatersteven's) Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable with attribution. People for the American Way#Right Wing Watch is a watchdog group, used as a source by several reliable outlets. What piece and what wiki article and what context? Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is left-wing is neither here nor there: the facts have a well-known liberal bias, and Ronald Reagan would be considered a radical socialist in the current US climate. However, it is also an opinion site with no evidence of peer-review, so I never cite it myself and would only support its use case by case with attribution. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Caution required but I think no more than the criticism we would normally apply to all news sources. RWW is a political advocacy blog and so any statements about political positions should be couched against other reliable sources, but they're generally reliable for basic statements of fact. For example, their article titled "Pizzagater Jack Posobiec Granted Fellowship By Increasingly White Nationalist Think Tank" is not stating anything about Posobiec's fellowship which is not accurate, but they are certainly reporting it from a particular political point of view. This discussion is likely of interest to this determination, and like several others have already said, context matters. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you'd be hard pressed to find something in policy that supports using content from a partisan think tank's website for an unattributed claim of fact, whether you consider it biased, a self-published, a questionable, or a non-independent source. GMG ^talk 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GMG above. There is a significant and important difference between news sources, with editorial control, fact checking and corrections, and think-tanks / activists. Right Wing Watch takes more care over facts than Judicial Watch but they both have the same problem: information is judged through a filter of advancing a POV. That is antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable with attribution. It's really that simple. Expert opinion is always welcome, but it should be attributed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GMG is persuasive here. Partisan think tanks are not generally reliable sources. Haukur (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not reliable as Per GMG. There is a difference between biased and propaganda source --Shrike (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If their opinion is WP:DUE on a subject, then they can be used as a source with attribution. Even very established, highly respected, and widely cited advocacy groups like the SPLC generally can only be used as sources for their own opinion (ie claims with attribution). This group is certainly not as well-respected as the SPLC, but they appear to have some citations in reliable sources, so there might well be times when their opinion on a subject is relevant and should be included. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Right Wing Watch is a project of People for the American Way, which was founded in 1981 by the producer Norman Lear, Time Inc. chair and CEO Andrew Heiskell and Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Certainly it has a viewpoint, but that is separate from reliability. It only becomes an issue if a source is willing to falsify information in order to discredit people with whom its writers disagree. That's why mainstream liberal and conservative media are acceptable, while the website some unknown person sets up to discredit their congressman isn't. Note that it gets support from George Soros' Open Society Foundation and many other mainstream liberal sources. It has professional writers. The only caveat is how it is used. It's there to publicize news that may be ignored by the mainstream, so there may be a weight issue. I think the value of this type of source is for topics that are less covered. In an article about Donald Trump for example, I would stick to what mainstream media reports. But in an article about a little covered topic, this source could be helpful. TFD (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Treat it the same way as other partisan think tanks. Certainly not a nonpartisan source, and certainly not unbiased, but there might be some value to their viewpoint on some things. Use with caution. Toa Nidhiki05 03:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time imagining anything we should include that is only mentioned in Right Wing Watch and no other sources. To the OP: if you have a concern with any specific use case for Right Wing Watch, please specify it here as it makes evaluation more effective. feminist (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable with attribution As for claims that it is partisan "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means" A partisan outlet, person or group is loyal to a party or organisation. Everything and everyone is somewhere on the spectrum of left to right, that doesn't make them partisan - the Guardian is obviously left, but it is not partisan, it is not connected financially or organisationally to the British Labor party. These claims of partisanship are obviously incorrect, a misnomer. However this is a lobby group and despite its use by reliable sources and a reputation for accurate representations of figures etc, it should be used carefully. That being said, it is definitely not partisan as defined in common English language usage. Bacondrum (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partisan Is there any evidence that RWW or PFAW have campaigned for, are funded by or have any direct connection to any political party? If not, they are not a partisan group.
Comment is there any evidence they've regularly gotten the facts wrong or refused to acknowledge when they have gotten it wrong? 08:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Bacondrum (talk)

David Irving -- The Mare's Nest

I recently cited David Irving's book The Mare's Nest on Ebensee concentration camp. I used it as a source for this information: "The main purpose of Ebensee was to provide slave labor for the construction of enormous underground tunnels in which armament works were to be housed, safe from bombing. These tunnels were planned for the evacuated Peenemünde V-2 rocket development but, on July 6, 1944, Hitler ordered the complex converted to a tank-gear factory." Another editor believes that Irving should not be cited at all, since he is a Holocaust denier. The Mare's Nest could be a reliable source on German intelligence in the last two years of WWII. I haven't been able to find all of the information about Ebensee from any other source. Is there consensus about whether or not The Mare's Nest qualifies as a reliable source? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think (as this is an early work) it seems to be more highly regarded then what came latter. But my gut reaction is still to not wholly trust anything by Irving.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any recent reviews of this book (after Irving's exposure as a Holocaust denier)? I would not label his entire body of work as unreliable only because his later reputation is so bad, but caution is certainly justified. Pavlor (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other historians (even ones that don't deny the holocaust) continue to cite The Mare's Nest to this day, though I can't find anyone who really "reviewed" the book recently. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call anyone denying the Holocaust as a historian. Dumb and foolish would be much better description. Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but I do know that at one time his work about the bombing of Dresden held a similar status, until it was revealed how shody some of his research had been.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At a bare minimum I'd think anything cited to him needs to be caveated with "according to David Irving" rather than in Wikipedia's voice. Slatersteven is correct in that it's now come to light that The Destruction of Dresden, written at about the same time, was subsequently demonstrated to be seriously problematic. With the exception of Apollo, Peenemünde is probably the best-known rocketry program in history; I find it extremely hard to believe that no actually reliable source is available for the information in question. ‑ Iridescent 08:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say that if Irving is the sole source for something then it should be excluded, and if there is any other source, it should be used instead. Remember the burden in Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. Lipstadt and Penguin were assessed as claiming the following:

that Irving is an apologist for and partisan of Hitler, who has resorted to the distortion of evidence; the manipulation and skewing of documents; the misrepresentation of data and the application of double standards to the evidence, in order to serve his own purpose of exonerating Hitler and portraying him as sympathetic towards the Jews;
that Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial, who has on numerous occasions denied that the Nazis embarked upon the deliberate planned extermination of Jews and has alleged that it is a Jewish deception that gas chambers were used by the Nazis at Auschwitz as a means of carrying out such extermination;
that Irving, in denying that the Holocaust happened, has misstated evidence; misquoted sources; falsified statistics; misconstrued information and bent historical evidence so that it conforms to his neo-fascist political agenda and ideological beliefs;
that Irving has allied himself with representatives of a variety of extremist and anti-Semitic groups and individuals and on one occasion agreed to participate in a conference at which representatives of terrorist organisations were due to speak;
that Irving, in breach of an agreement which he had made and without permission, removed and transported abroad certain microfiches of Goebbels's diaries, thereby exposing them to a real risk of damage;
that Irving is discredited as an historian

They prevailed. Under the old English libel law, which essentially had a reversed burden of proof.

Irving's work is systematically biased and should not be cited. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be working in the subject area of the various Nazi camps, I strongly suggest getting the first two volumes of the USHMM's Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos - which can be acquired for free here. Ebensee is covered in Volume 1: Part B on pages 911-914. I'll note that Irving's work is NOT listed as a source for the entries for Ebensee and Ebensee/Wels II. For information on Irving's trial and much background on his discrediting as a historian - see Richard J. Evans' Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not reliable. While the book was published by a reputable publisher, it was not an academic publisher and therefore we need to look at the reputation of the author. Irving is not a trained historian and problems have been found in his writing, such as his overstatement of civilian deaths during the Dresden bombing. His notability came from finding original sources, which is why historians continue to cite his research. But historians are able to apply judgment when using books by flawed researchers. Furthermore, since historians continue to research Nazi Germany, subsequent research can make even the best sources out of date more than half a century after they were written. Current historians are aware of what is still considered valid and what isn't when using these sources. Wikipedia editors cannot do this. TFD (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable, as Irving is notorious for not having a reputation for fact checking and reliability. Mare's Nest might be Ok on some stuff, it might not, however the red flags with Irving are such we should avoid using his early publications directly.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably RS for a detail like that, - no reason to think that Irving would invent that kind of stuff, as opposed to using solid documents, regardless of his later (public) obscene turn. Even in that early period what he can be charged with is underplaying or ignoring part of the documentary record he is familiar with. At the time of publication, it was hailed as an important work, and even later historians like Michael J. Neufeld, as The Mare's Nest page notes, writing in 2009, evaluated as such. By the way Neufeld's paper should be linked on that page, thus

Neufeld, Michael J, 'Creating a Memory of the German Rocket Program for the Cold War.' in Dick, Steven J (ed.). Remembering the Space Age, Government Printing Office. Washington, DC: NASA, pp.71-87. On p.81 we read:-

David Irving’s The Mare’s Nest (1965). Irving, who was already noticeably pro-German but not yet infamous as a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier, provided the most complete account on both Allied and German sides of the V-weapons campaign in the last two years of the war, but it is noteworthy that, although he did much more original research than the others, he minimized the Mittelwerk/Nordhausen story about which he certainly knew more.

As to Ebensee, some similar material can be found in Nikolaus Wachsmann, KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps, Hachette UK 2015 ISBN 978-1-408-70556-8. I.e.

In Ebensee a huge fuel refinery was set up in the tunnels originally intended for V2 development works. p.451

In addition to Dora, more than five hundred prisoners were held in the Mauthausen satellite camp Ebensee (code-named Kalk, later Zement) The prisoners slept inside a former factory building, before moving to a barrack camp, and had to dig two huge underground tunnels for the Peenemünde rocket development works.p.446 Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: If one has to ask whether the world's most notorious Holocaust denier is an authority on World War II history, then one should probably steer clear of either subject. François Robere (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That order of question is beside the point. A lot of historians with brilliant promise run wildly off the rails. Norman Stone's The Eastern Front, 1914-1917, (1975) still remains important, though he soon starting churning out junk. One evaluates works not people: otherwise a very large bag of public intellectuals would become suspect for everything they write simply because on one big question they deny the obvious. This is no exception.Nishidani (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Irving is unreliable is that there is compelling evidence that he falsified evidence in order to support his pro-Nazi agenda. His reputation as an historian is destroyed, along with his reputation as a human. We know he lied in print, and we're not supposed to be the ones who decide whether a specific thing he wrote is one of his lies or not. Guy (Help!) 07:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sources are meant to be reputable. Irving obviously ain't. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are all mechanical answers to a position no one defends. Sources must be reputable, not the people who wrote them. If that were so, we would never cite Caesar's Gallic Wars, because they fail to mention he was engaged in genocide.Heath W. Lowry got a chair at Princeton, though he was a known denialist of the Armenian genocide. I don't think Turkologists consider this disgrace as imperiling the value of his early studies on defterlogy. I don't believe Irving is reliable for anything printed after 1965. Paul Foelsche's vocabulary lists from survivors of the 'tribes' he massacred are still thought indispensable for linguistics Evans's demonstration that even in the Dresden book Irving's later egregiously regular habit of wriggling around data he dislikes, when not outright lying, is present, proves its case by focusing exclusively on Irving's casualty estimate, nothing else. As for remarks to the effect his reputation 'as a human' is destroyed because he denied the Holocaust, this is stupid, and eerily so in this context. Being evil or complicit with evil does not translate into being an unmensch. Were that so, an uncomfortable proportion of mankind would be dismanned of their humanity. Cognitively, man has stronger emotional reasons for denying the obvious than for pursuing the truth regardless. Scholars are trained to wean themselves from the survival value in our biopsychological prejudices, something, after a promising start. Irving radically failed to take on board. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is that (as far as I am aware) Irvings work has been widely discredited, not just some of it, all of it (bar this one book). It is not the person who is discredited it is practically every work of history he has ever written, due to falsification, obscuration and use of questionable sources (even work that had one time be highly regarded, until people actually checked it or asked about its sourcing). Simply put there is good reason to be suspicious of any book he has written. If a man tell 100 lies and one truth do we regard him as reliable for something that has not been shown to be a lie, or ask for a more reliable source for it?15:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup. "Sources must be reputable, not the people who wrote them" <- in the case of a monograph like this, that's not a meaningful distinction. Since Irving has been shown to falsify evidence, nothing he wrote can be taken as reliable. If something needs to be added to Wikipedia, we need to find another source that won't make readers go WTF!? Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If this is true and significant, someone less thoroughly disreputable will have noted it. If no-one else has noted it, I'd be suspicious on that score - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are three other judgments here that try to reason, more than I would have expected. I've no brief for Irving, to the contrary. I happen simply to be loyal to what I learnt from one of the great historians of all time, who was never unnerved by tabus. Raul Hilberg recognized Irving had some impressive scholarship at his fingertips, but developed outlandish views, in part because he was self-taught and in good part a foolish controversialist. If there is a (hermeneutic) minefield, learn to walk through it. Don't just shy away.

A word of advice to lockstep naysayers, the majority. Irving's well-deserved repute as either a liar or deep-dyed abuser of historical methodologty postdates the book in question, which was roundly hailed by all contemporary reviewers, several of them, like Duncan Sandys (‘an authoritative account of the V-weapon offensive’) insiders to the actual events. Writing in hindsight of that reception, Clarence G. Lasby (University of Texas, specialist on US use of Nazi scientists) (review) The Mare's Nest by David Irving, Technology and Culture, Vol. 8, No. 3 (July 1967), pp. 429-431, gives no sign that specialists found its presentation flawed for the reasons that, in his later work, Irving became notorious. He wrote that,'This is one of the most impressive single volumes dealing with the history of World War 11 p.429) It is still cited, esp. by historians of rocketry, because of its mastery of the relevant archival documents ((1) Jeremy Stocker,Britain and Ballistic Missile Defence, 1942-2002, Routledge 2004 cites it 17 times, while (2) Michael J. Neufeld's The Rocket and the Reich: Peenemuende and the Coming of the Ballistic Missile Era, The Free Press, (1995) in his 2013 reprint avails himself of it several times for details). The answer therefore to Rachel's request would be that (a) it could be used with attribution for a detail (b) if alternative works don't cover the precise point at issue, something one would have to gauge by reading more modern research (c) but for the fact that the aaarbitrasry wiki consensus is, don't use it, whatever historians may think of specifically that early book. Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irving should not be used as a source, following Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. If another source is available, it can be used instead. If it isn't, it would mean our sole source was someone Mr Justice Gray ruled had "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". SarahSV ^(talk) 22:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah. As far as I can see that judgment never mentions the work in question, whose utility is still recognized by mainstream historians. A judge's ruling trumps historians' judgment.

The principle you are advancing is that any legal judgment about a writer or body's persistent manipulation of facts automatically translates on Wikipedia to categorical Not-RS? I imagine you can see where this would lead. Courts have made similar judgments on state institutions, but material thereafter produced by those institutions is widely used all over Wikipedia. That is the puzzle my chancing on this thread created. I couldn't give a flying eff either way about Irving.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you literally find no other source for the claims than Irving? You're trying way too hard to rescue him as a source - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't time to look into this. I just reread Vonnegut's Irving influenced novel on Dresden Slaughterhouse Five by coincidence after a half century, a week ago, and then noticed Icewhiz's comment, ergo I made what seems to me an obvious point, indifferent to suspicions that, the reputed 'antisemite' might be trying to get leverage for that silly bastard. Icewhiz thinks Manfred Gerstenfeld is a reliable source giving that the most tolerantly flexible reading imaginable (here, here and here) while making the usual blind austere reflex nyet with one specific work by Irving. Gerstenfeld is widely reputed, as the later Irving has proven to be, a nutter (1,5 million Norwegians are 'anti-Semitic ideological criminals' is the conclusion he made after a few days' visiting that country). I argue always that coherence must regulate editors' calls over multiple pages. Unlike his Dresden book, I haven't read The Mare's Nest, so I examined the scholarly use of it after Gray's verdict and found serious historians still cite it. I expect from the reviews that it is perhaps the one book where Irving's later obsessive and anti-Semitic mania is absent, because it deals not with the Holocaust, but with the intricate history of two elites, scientific and political, in planning for, or defending their country from, rocketry. If you take as Sarah does, a law court's judgment as invalidating a source, then neither anything coming from Shin Bet nor the IDF, whose output is astroturfed into a huge amount of mainstream news sources, is reliable, since numerous Israeli commissions (Landau Commission etc) and the High Court have often caught them out lying, the Shin Bet committing perjury consistently over a 16 year period. No one acts on the principle Sarah implicitly enunciated, except with this Irving idiot. Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I´m far from the majority opinion here (all his work forever ever not suitable for Wikipedia), I agree Irving´s reputation as a historian is so tainted (well rather utterly self-destroyed) one can´t use his work without strong precaution. It is obvious even from your list mainstream historians rather ignore this book (we would need far more than a few citations for author such controversial as Irving). Myself, I would probably just look for another source. Irving was allways outside of mainstream academia anyway (no formal education in history or similar discipline, or work for institution of higher learning). Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Reliable for anything Do you really need to ask? He has been shown repeatedly to be a bald faced liar. His words cannot be trusted on anything, couldn't be trusted to tell you his name. Bacondrum (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is randomstory.org an unreliable source?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

– GermanJoe (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is a link from randomstory.com bad? JaneciaTaylor (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently. ——SerialNumber54129 12:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Randomstory.org appears to be a content farm; it's impossible for me to even trace back the original source at a glance. Randomstory.com is a parked domain so you're unlikely to find much content on it. feminist (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hay lead

In the WP:lead of Harry Hay we have:

Controversially, Hay was an active supporter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pedophile advocacy organization.

Weir, John (23 August 1994). "Mad About the Boys". The Advocate. p. 37. ISSN 0001-8996.
Simon LeVay; Elisabeth Nonas (1997). City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America. MIT Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0262621137. Although some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, the link between NAMBLA and the mainstream gay rights movement has always been tenuous.
Bronski, Michael (2002-11-07). "The real Harry Hay". The Phoenix. Archived from the original on 2012-03-02. Retrieved 2008-11-16. He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Vern L. Bullough (2002). Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Psychology Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-1560231936. Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign [supporting NAMBLA] rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate.

I ask that others take any appropriate action on the article as every effort I’ve done to address this content has been reverted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "as every effort I’ve done to address this content has been reverted"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I’m having connectivity issues. See June 21-26. I’ve opened a, now lengthy thread, at WP:NPOVN to deal with the article content itself. This is specifically to address the lead’s sourcing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any issue here, the sources seem to support inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In each source cited, we’re using the sum total of what they have to say about the connection of Hay to NAMBLA, sometimes not even a whole sentence. I think this violates Wikipedia policy on Lead if nothing else.

These are all examples that “prove” he must be an “active supporter”, they actually prove he protested them from being banned from *TWO* parades, eight years apart, and was an invited speaker at a conference. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve looked at every source available to see what content is possible and there remains no reliable sources to support that Hay was much of an advocate for them, or pedophilia at all. When Hay spoke about anything related to this he talked about his own positive experience as a 14-year old with a man he sought out. But that’s hardly what our article makes clear. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continuing to forum shop. I think he's posted this in about a dozen places now. The issue has already been talked to death at the NPOV Noticeboard, where Gleeanon409 took it when he didn't like consensus at article talk. He didn't like consensus at NPOV, either. He's been told he should stop with the WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:DROPTHESTICK, and he's had forum shopping explained to him and been warned about it, but he has a history of not taking anyone's advice on these matters. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been consistently waived off, and told to drop the issue by, I believe, only one person. I think anyone willing to vet all available—non-primary—reliable sources will come to similar conclusions that I found: the sourcing in no way supports the “pedophile advocacy” category; doubtful if anything arises to lead content; is presently poorly sourced; and written from a POV that disguises reality. Your recollections of what must be true are not on par with reliable sourcing and reporting of those sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hay supported NAMBLA" is true and verifiable, but in my opinion needlessly vague. It's certainly true that Hay was an advocate for a certain variety of pederasty only, and I don't think any reliable source accused him of supporting pedophilia. That statement as written makes one suspect Hay supported pedophilia. For all we know that's true, and it's certainly something a lot of people do believe or imply, but there are no statements from Hay or reliable secondary sources to say that he did. But it's still important to leave pedophilia in there, as that is precisely why his support of NAMBLA was so controversial. I think that could be accomplished simply by rewriting the paragraph a tad to have the lead sentence be something like "Harry Hay controversially supported the free speech and association rights of NAMBLA, a pro-pedophilia advocacy group, as well as speaking out in favor of pederasty based on his own adolescent experiences." I do not consider it whitewashing because it doesn't actually make Hay look any better to anyone who disagrees with him. But it's more accurate by virtue of being more precise. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221:, I appreciate the suggestions. Actually Hay nor any reliable sources say he supported sex with children at all. Even the cherry-picked, by right-wing bloggers from NAMBLA itself, quote is misinterpreted.

The reliable sourcing on this says he 1. Talked about his own experiences “to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” 2. Did so “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ and 3. Treasured the mentorship of “how ‘people like us’ should conduct themselves”.

It’s fine to say why people get his support for their free speech and assembly mixed up with support for their cause. It all still was not at a level that supports *any* mention in the lead. At all. It took a lot of digging to find what little exists.

BTW, as far as I can tell, this all came about in discrediting Jennings, the Education czar of Obama, who was an openly gay man citing Hay as an inspiration, thus the urgency by some to link a gay man to pedophilia, a favorite trope of the right wing. Now Wikipedia is being used to do so. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glee. "Actually Hay nor any reliable sources say he supported sex with children at all." I certainly didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Pederasty != pedophilia. He was of course very specific about the type of relationship he had in mind, but that can't be crammed into a one-sentence summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221:, I appreciate that. The content on the article is distorted from the sources both on the article and the better ones found since. How on earth is it going to be fixed? BTW here’s the article that points out the Obama connection:

"Defend Harry Hay's Reputation at the National Equality March". Retrieved 2019-06-25.

I’m lost on the path forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the reliability of MeriStation

Hello! This post is to inform y'all that there is currently a discussion on the reliability of MeriStation here. Thanks, TheAwesome Hwyh 20:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is https://edzardernst.com/ a reliable source?

https://edzardernst.com/ This is the private page of a rather outspoken researcher who often uses this to vent his frustration with alternative medicine. In my opinion, as it is effectively a blog presenting the personal and professional opinions of a single researcher, it should not be considered a reliable source and is best avoided to be used..... KFvdL (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's not just "a rather outspoken researcher"; he's an authority: Edzard Ernst. Now, what by him is it that should or should not be cited, to support what assertion? -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PARITY, even Ernst's self-published work is generally reliable in articles about fringe medical topics. Though for a "ruling", as it were, you would need to be specific. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter". Ernst is such an expert, but it depends what claim is being supported. Instructions are given at the top of this page how to post here, and since they haven't been followed it impossible to answer specifically. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject matter expert. This is about sourcing on Talk:Craniosacral therapy, which the editor has now admitted a financial interest in - David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post article on LGBT rights

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/?utm_term=.0a9256d8a055 Yes yes I know that the Wshington Post is seen as "generally reliable" according to the reliable sources page. However, there is questionable content in this particular article, particually for the UAE. The passage claims "Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law prescribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts. All sexual acts outside of marriage are banned." They do not specify which lawyers or experts, how these experts are qualified to make such a legal judgement or how current their claims have been made. Also it's worth noting that all sources claiming the same "legal experts" quote or reference this source so I can't find anything confirming them. Could be WP:UNRELIABLE or WP:REDFLAG.Care to give your insight? Moneyspender (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources with a reputation for reliability frequently use anonymous sources or otherwise do not name every single expert cited in their work. Source confidentiality is a rather widely employed practice. Given the absence of any sources disagreeing with the claim that "lawyers and experts disagree" on the issue at hand, I don't see any problems with using WaPo here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The real source is this. That other link is just an announcement of an update to it. They list their own sources as this report from ILGA, and vaguely the Pew Research Center, Amnesty International, and "news reports". It's not the best, and if reliable sources that give more specific details are available, those should be used instead. But nonetheless, it's reliable enough for this purpose, unless there is some reason to believe it is making controversial claims. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable. WP:NEWSORGs are not required to cite their sources, nor do they generally cite sources. An academic source on the subject would be preferred, but WaPo is generally as good as it gets for NEWORG coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable. WaPo has robust fact checking and is willing to clarify or withdraw incorrect statements. We don't need to see behind the curtain every time. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable established outlet with reputation for fact checking etc. Bacondrum (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Pop - IP insisting that " You need to cite these easy to find references to clarify the page in the book." - best way to do this? I thought it was

See [5] I found the source earlier but didn't link the url. It's here. What's odd is when I looked first I found the page numbers. I have no idea why this particular use of the source is being challenged as it's used quite a bit, but if someone could help me with this I'd appreciate it. Given the IP's post to my talk page I think they'll keep reverting me. Thanks. --Doug Weller talk 14:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that you have to cite an online source is obviously wrong, and the IP just seems to be oblivious to that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, sources do not need to be online.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat (August 2019)

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Maths, science, and technology
History and geography

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

Reliable outlets overwhelmingly describe Bellingcat as an investigative journalism website (or synonym) and cover its stories favorably: NPR (Bellingcat “ has meticulously investigated conflicts around the world”)[6], Guardian (“Bellingcat has been responsible for revealing key aspects of some of the world’s biggest stories”[7] + “in its short life has broken scoop after scoop”[8]), Wired (“ just the latest in an ongoing series of reve¬lations the Insider and Bellingcat have made”[9]), CBS News[10], New Yorker (“Bellingcat’s news-making investigations”[11]), Australian Broadcasting Corporation[12], AP[13], NYT[14], Reuters[15], DW[16], AFP[17], and BBC[18][19].
In an article for the NY Review of Books, University of Stirling journalism scholar Muhammad Idrees Ahmad said in June 2019, Bellingcat “ has chalked up an impressive record of breakthroughs… Its alums either lead, participate in, or support every notable open-source journalistic enterprise currently in operation. ”[20] According to Ahmad, Bellingcat is not only notable for its methodological sophistication but for the transparency of the process involved in uncovering stories. He notes that this has influenced legacy outlets to add greater transparency to their own reporting. INews writes, “Although most investigative journalism is shrouded in mystery, the [Bellingcat] platform shows their workings, detailing how they found out the story and which techniques they used”[21]
Favorable coverage by reliable outlets such as CJR[22], Poynter[23], the Tow Center for Digital Journalism[24], Nieman Lab [25][26], Foreign Policy magazine[27], and Human Rights Watch[28]. Poynter: "In the verification business, Bellingcat is a website on a hill... for fact-checkers and other journalists, Bellingcat has an open-source list of tools that are essential for any online investigation."[29] Bellingcat research has been cited in the International Court of Justice[30]. The Guardian described Bellingcat’s Skripal scoops as “a series of blockbuster investigations”.[31]
Major scoops and reports which were covered by establishment news outlets: Evidence that Russia was behind the MH17 downing[32][33], “broke the Skripal story”[34][35], "a comprehensive and contextualized report on the motives and movements of the Christchurch killer"[36], uses of chemical weapons in Syria[37], locating The Netherlands’ most-wanted criminal using Instagram,[38], a Russian troll factory website[39], a project to track military vehicle movements in Ukraine[40][41], . The International Criminal Court used information uncovered by Bellingcat in the arrest warrant for [[Mahmoud al-Werfalli].[42] and Bellingcat was “praised for the groundbreaking investigation” into a mass-killing in Cameroon.[43]
Bellingcat staff are frequently cited as experts[44][45]. The Tow Center for Digital Journalism recommends that journalists and journalism students see Bellingcat for how to report on user-generated content.[46][47] Poynter recommends a Bellingcat guide for using LinkedIn data.[48] This study recommends a Bellingcat guide to open-source investigations.[49] The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network published "A 5-point guide to Bellingcat's digital forensics tool list"[50].
Bellingcat staff have collaborated with the BBC[51][52]. Peer-reviewed books on digital journalism have chapters authored by Bellingcat journalists on how to conduct digital forensics.[53] Outlets such as the New York Times have hired Bellingcat staff as reporters.[54] Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins sits on an advisory board for the International Criminal Court on the use of technology in ICC cases.[55]
According to Ahmad, Bellingcat has had an influence on journalsm: “Bellingcat’s successes have encouraged investment in open-source research capability by much larger and long-established media institutions (such as The New York Times Visual Investigations), human rights organizations (Amnesty’s Digital Verification Corps; Human Rights Watch’s soon-to-be-launched OSINT unit), think tanks (the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab), and academic institutions (Berkeley’s Human Rights Investigations Lab).”[56]
Per Bellingcat, it has won the following awards: “Bellingcat has won The Hanns Joachim Friedrichs Prize in 2015, the European Press Prize for Innovation in 2017, the Ars Electronica Prize for Digital Communities in 2018, the European Press Prize for Investigation in 2019, and the London Press Club award for Digital Journalism in 2019. Bellingcat has also been involved with award winning collaborative projects, most recently the BBC Africa Eye investigation, Anatomy of a Killing, which has won multiple major journalism awards, including a Royal Television Society Award and Peabody Award.”[57]
Bellingcat has corrected news stories by legacy outlets such as the AP and NYT[58].

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

Survey: Is Bellingcat a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are referring to propaganda outlets like RT, Sputnik and TeleSur, the difference is that none of those outlets have a reputation for reliability and fact-checking whereas NPR, PRI, PBS, Journal of Democracy and Bellingcat do have reputations for reliability and fact-checking (as well as state-funded news outlets such as BBC, DR, SVT, NRK, CBC, ARD, YLE, RÚV, Sveriges Radio, Radio France etc. - [59]). That they are government-funded is not the reason per se why they are unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A politician’s tweet of their political position

Is such considered RS? Which WP policies apply? Example: https://mobile.twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1149670242236264448. In that instance, the tweet also appears on VoteSmart. So, I am asking generally for both cases — without or with a citing source.

Thx, Humanengr (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well SPS covers it, but what do you want to use it for?Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a statement of a political position in a ‘Political positions’ section of a politician’s page. Humanengr (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:SPS: WP:ABOUTSELF would seem to allow. Humanengr (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans, As you were the one who removed my use of the above tweet, perhaps you can justify that here? Humanengr (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that, I want to know what position, what do you think it says?Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing this; answered below Humanengr (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple: we use secondary reliable sources to cover the political positions that politicians hold, both to ensure that the full context is provided (politicians may have reasons to lie about their positions or omit relevant info) and ensure that it's WP:DUE (politicians hold a million positions and not all are notable). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That position is notable as the core of Gabbard’s platform and something the supposedly ‘reliable’ media refuses to publish. It satisfies WP:ABOUTSELF. Humanengr (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It passes the RS cliff via ABOUTSELF - however is probably UNDUE as Gabbard has significamt 3rd party coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it even passes ABOUTSELF, since it is clearly unduly self-serving in tone. Without a secondary source to provide interpretation or analysis, quoting or summarizing the tweet would imply using Gabbard's framing, which goes against the WP:ABOUTSELF requirement to not use sources for self-serving statements about themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to begin. That is not only absurd, it’s insulting to a candidate who puts ‘service above self’. “self-serv·ing: /ˈˌself ˈsərviNG/ adjective 1. having concern for one's own welfare and interests before those of others.” She is describing her views, not in abbreviated misinterpretable buzzword fashion, but in concise 48-word text form + a subtitled video of a campaign speech. There is no better authority on her views than that. Humanengr (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Snooganssnoogans. Politiican's actual positions are sometimes more nuanced than their public statements. Kamala Harris for example says she opposes the death penalty and supports medicare for all. Donald Trump says he is anti-war and supports coal miners. If the position is significant then it can be found in a secondary source. TFD (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“sometimes more nuanced” arguably fits your examples for Kamala and Donald — which are 3 words or less each; but not to a 48-word tweet. What ‘nuance’ is missing? Re: “secondary sources”: Can you find any reporting Tulsi’s position that “Foreign policy is inseparable from domestic issues”? Humanengr (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other editors who have stated that this is more of a due weight issue than a reliability issue. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE speaks to the weighting of ‘reliable sources’. Here, the reliable source is the tweet; no MSM has reported this. Ergo, the weighting favors the tweet. Humanengr (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So at this point, it's pretty clear that this is no longer a discussion about reliability but about due weight, which means that the appropriate place for this discussion is Talk:Tulsi Gabbard, not here. But to clarify the policy argument made in the above comment, UNDUE says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (emphasis mine). Which means that even if we take Gabbard's Twitter as being equally reliable as any other source, proportionally it would appear to be a minority position. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No faux-reliable sources have reported it. Gabbard's tweet is not equally reliable as any other source; it's the only reliable source. It's not a minority position; it's the -only- position. Humanengr (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding WP:UNDUE. If the only coverage is her twitter, it has very little prominence in published, reliable sources. Even if this passed WP:RS (I don't think it does), it would unequivocally be WP:UNDUE. Often, the easiest way to see that something is undue is to notice its absence among sources that would be expected to cover it if it were WP:DUE - in this case, every high-profile, high-quality source that covers her without mentioning this counts against inclusion, since they implicitly dismiss it as unworthy of mention. In fact, you seem to be acknowledging that it's undue when you complain that the mainstream media hasn't covered it; Wikipedia is not the place to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by trying to call attention to things you think have been overlooked. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE: “the prominence of each viewpoint“ — that’s on a specific topic, not relative to all topics covered by MSM. Here no viewpoints contradicting Gabbard’s statement of her own position on this have been expressed. 1 (actually multiple expressions thereof) > 0. And RGW is not policy. Humanengr (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say what I said on the BLP/N board - we are an encyclopdia and should not be looking to update a politican's position day by day to their current political views. We should be looking at their views from the long term. As such, unless the tweet was needed to satisfy some type of concern that allows that use per BLPSPS (eg clarification or countering what another RS said), we shouldn't be rushing to include these. More so if no mainstream source has really covered it. --Masem (t) 22:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a ‘day-to-day’ update. It is a position consistently expressed for a long time. There’s no ‘rush’ here; on the contrary, there’s persistent suppression by faux-reliable sources and raising of inapplicable objections here. Humanengr (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having been involved in something like this before, unfortunately, we have to go "verifyability, not truth". If no reliable source at all is covering her positions like this, then the tweet isn't needed. However, if reliable sources are stating her position is one thing, and she's addressing that they are wrong and clarifying that, then the tweet is okay. But using the tweet without any type of attention from RS would be UNDUE. --Masem (t) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re your "no reliable source", what I said was there are no MSM (aka 'faux reliable') sources. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the tweet is a reliable source. As the only RS, there is no dispute for WP:UNDUE to govern other than 1 reliable source > 0 reliable source. Humanengr (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, having been in a case before where I felt the MSM were purposely missing the point, and having to deal with how to get that onto Wikipedia within policy and consensus, I can tell you can that calling the MSM "faux" is not going to win support for your position. To the point at hand, are the MSM otherwise covering other parts of Gabbard's other positions? If they are, may this is the type of type they just felt wasn't needed to add and didn't bother to cover it, so its not our position to make up for that. Similarly, if they are purposely ignoring Gabbard's campaign, it is not our place to make up for that either. --Masem (t) 23:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t address ABOUTSELF. RS ≠ MSM. I.e., RS includes other, e.g., ABOUTSELF. Whether MSM covers a topic or not is not the sole or final determinant. Humanengr (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about a politician who is running for a major office, then a twitter post about their position would immediately fail point #1 : "the material is neither unduly self-serving..." - expressing their political position is clearly self-serving in a case like this. As I mentioned, if it were that the candidate needed to correct mis-information in the press, that would be different, but that's not the case. --Masem (t) 02:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sad state of affairs when citizens of these United States have been acculturated to think all candidates who run for office are self-serving by definition. See here. Humanengr (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we have to rely on WP:ABOUTSELF ... surely there is something better than a Twitter post. Especially if this is a long term stance, and not a day-to-day shift. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find RS that covers this, pls do provide. Humanengr (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's almost never usable. It might technically pass WP:ABOUTSELF, but using Twitter to try and present a politician's positions strikes me as almost always "dangerous" in the spirit of WP:EXCEPTIONAL; if they're relevant, they ought to be sourcable elsewhere, and there's a serious risk that the politician's own description of their politics will be unduly self-serving. Additionally, using a Twitter post to state or even imply "this is a major position the politician has taken" (vs. "here's a random thing they said, possibly without thinking it through") raises potential WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues. I definitely don't think it's acceptable for people to dig through a politician's tweets to try and present them as having outlandish or unusual views (or popular ones, for that matter), which becomes a serious risk if this is allowed. In a few very straightforward cases it might be acceptable - a politician unambiguously saying "I endorse [specific bill]" or "I support / oppose [specific clear-cut political view, like on abortion or gay rights]", but even that potentially raises issues if someone is dredging up an old tweet on views that may have changed, or if (for example) the politician's actual support for that is in question. I'd say that if it's a 100% clear-cut unambiguous statement of position, about a clearly-defined issue widely acknowledged as important, made during the current campaign that it's being cited for, and nothing about the statement is WP:EXCEPTIONAL (ie. it has to be a position people would reasonably expect from a politician of that party or affiliation), and there are absolutely no other sources that might raise questions about the politician's sincerity on that issue, it might be usable, but would still not be an ideal source, and should not be used if secondary ones exist. If it fails any of those points I'd say it shouldn't be cited at all. (In the final case, where sincerity is in question, we'd want to rely on secondary sources that can do interpretation and analysis.) Note that this only applies to tweets being cited directly, of course - when we have a clearly-reliable secondary source covering the tweet, all these issues disappear. --Aquillion (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the tweet? There’s no ‘might ‘technically be’ ABOUTSELF about it. It passes that policy criterion without question. Gabbard has presented it at multiple places, including at the San Francisco Meet & Greet (video available on her Facebook page) that I attended and many other places. It’s some stretch to think this might be self-serving. Her whole campaign theme — derived from her military background — revolves around dedicating her life to service of others.

It’s not SYNTH or OR or random or digged through to find given she has stated the same thing in almost verbatim repeats multiple times and that’s all captured in the tweet. It frames her entire policy set. It’s unambiguous. She’s one of a handful of candidates challenging the existing DNC control, so what she says is expected for someone in that position. There are no sources that have questioned her sincerity. No secondary sources exist. Humanengr (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a video on her Facebook... use THAT instead of the tweet. Problem solved. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Bb — What guides you to distinguish text and video on Twitter from text and video on Facebook? Humanengr (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Aquillion aptly describes why using a tweet to describe a politician's policy position is generally not a good idea. Biographic articles should not be a list of things a person said once, but rather a description of significant aspects of their lives as covered in secondary sources. I'd even go so far as to say that many independent articles that do nothing more than repeat a politician's tweet and comment on it should probably not be used either, since these days many such articles come out each day. By selecting from them one could come up with some arbitrary conclusions about any given person, meaning they have the same problems as the tweets themselves. I think this is related to the issue of reporting legislators' votes on individual bills; there's so much data and so little context that we have to be very careful about choosing what to report so as not to paint them in a false light. Ideally, such sections should be based on in-depth descriptions of their political positions. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She didn’t say it once; she has repeated it nearly verbatim many times. ‘A description of significant aspects of their lives’?? It’s not a biography; it’s a policy statement. It’s not arbitrary; it’s repeated. It’s not about an individual bill; it’s the exact opposite. It’s not painting her in a false light; it’s her repeated statement. As an overview preface to the policy section, it is at an appropriate level of depth. Humanengr (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just use these sources instead and call it a day. Says the exact same as her tweet: NPR, Mt Pleasant News. The lack of coverage may have to do with establishment media throwing their weight behind certain candidates over others. Perhaps if funded by parties who don't want the end to wars, certain media outlets will show favoritism since they are motivated by money. One wonders. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx much. Those can be cited for support: NPR: “… Gabbard says domestic priorities could get more funding if not for expensive foreign entanglements.“ Mt Pleasant News: “Gabbard said that until regime change wars are ended, the U.S. will not have the resources to bring about health care reform, address climate change, invest in education and rebuild crumbling infrastructure.” Also, “Ending regime change wars would free up “trillions” of dollars to be put toward health care, immigration reform agriculture and climate change, Gabbard said.” But, IMO, the point is most effectively made with this phrasing: “Foreign policy is inseparable from domestic issues“. Hence my desire to use the tweet. Re ‘One wonders’: indeed. Humanengr (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For context, Tulsi Gabbard, candidate for President, says in the video embedded in that tweet:

The reality is there are many needs we need to address but we will not have the resources that we need to invest in our people and our communities unless we deal with one central issue. That issue is the cost of war. For too long we have warmongers from both political parties who have been dragging us from one counterproductive regime change war to the next, who are hyping up a new Cold War and nuclear arms race now.
So as President and Commander-in-Chief, I will end our longstanding policy of waging wasteful regime change wars that have taken so many lives, that has cost us trillions of taxpayer dollars and undermined our national security.
I’ll work to end this new Cold War and nuclear arms race and lead us away from the abyss of a nuclear war. I’ll take the trillions of dollars, your hard-earned taxpayer dollars that have been and will continue to be wasted on these programs and instead invest them in serving the needs of the American people — things like quality health-care for all, truly sustainable agriculture, affordable housing, clean water, clean air, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, improving education, and so much more.

The tweet is reliably a statement of her overall policy framing appropriate as an intro to the 'Policy positions' § of the page. Humanengr (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What political position?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her position that ‘foreign policy and domestic policy are inextricably linked’ if you’re asking for a short summary title. Humanengr (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm sympathetic to your concerns about Wikipedia's over-reliance on newsmedia (which I'm almost uniformly critical of) I don't think including more WP:SPS will make things better. WP:RGW will point to why we shouldn't be correcting the systemic bias of American corporate media here. (Though we should perhaps be more careful with what we consider reliable to begin with.) (In case it wasn't clear, I don't think the tweet is WP:DUE at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABOUTSELF is policy; RGW “is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” Humanengr (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could source wiki-text to the first debate: Time provided the transcript. Search for "This insanity must end." to find her remarks (which call for less spending on regime-change so that there's more money for taxpayers' well-being). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx much. This too can be used for support. The section you noted: “… for too long, our leaders have failed us, taking us from one regime change war to the next, leading us into a new cold war and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end. As president, I will take your hard-earned taxpayer dollars and instead invest those dollars into serving your needs, things like health care, a green economy, good-paying jobs, protecting our environment, and so much more.” Also, “We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. We are in a place in Afghanistan where we have lost so many lives. We’ve spent so much money. Money that’s coming out of every one of our pockets, money that should be going into communities here at home, meeting the needs of the people here at home.”

In addition, the MSNBC text describing her interview there: “Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman and 2020 candidate Tulsi Gabbard discusses her debate performance and why she thinks her focus on foreign policy is central to addressing domestic issues ….” The interviewer Katy Tur did not challenge Gabbard’s statement: “There are a whole host of very important issues domestic issues like health care, education, infrastructure, climate change. … You cannot separate these issues. But my focus on foreign policy is central to being able to address every one of these domestic issues.“ Humanengr (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found what should satisfy all: Real Clear Politics citing an MSNBC interview at the South Carolina Democratic Convention as “Representative Tulsi Gabbard talks … about how United States' ‘foreign policy is inseparable from domestic policy’ and ending ‘regime change wars’ is the best way to pay for other things Americans need.” The fuller statement from which that was abstracted: “This really is the message that I’ve been bringing to voters across this country … of understanding how our foreign policy is inseparable from domestic policy; that we have to deal with the cost of war, ending the wasting of our taxpayer dollars on these wasteful wars, and invest those dollars and making it so that we can provide healthcare for all, we can provide a quality education, we can rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.”

Re policy re the tweet: The existence of other supportive statements — thx petrarchan47, SashiRolls, and also Blueboar re the Facebook posting — combined with the lack of any viewpoints in RS negating her expression of her own policy positions would seem to overcome whatever remains of the various objections above regarding citing or inclusion of that or the Facebook posting as well. Humanengr (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability level of Looper.com?

How "reliable" is entertainment news site Looper.com? Specifically for citing in the article Prisoners (1981 film). Muzilon (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not. It's a notorious clickbait website. Also, if you've visited there, consider a malware scan. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Master thesis

Is it OK to use the Master thesis for the following material in the Women's rights in Iran?

Hijab is a veil worn by Muslim women when interacting with males outside of their immediate family. Before the foundation of the Islamic Republic, women were not required to wear a veil. In 1935, Reza Shah mandated that women should no longer be veiled in public or In the time of Mohammad Reza Shah, Iranian lifestyle changed swiftly, being influenced by secularization and westernization, which unintentionally caused bitterness among religious organizations in Iran, which made Mohammad Reza Shah suspend the law banning the veil, making it optional.

In addition, WP:SCHOLARSHIP demands that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". Thanks.Saff V. (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for master thesis in my country are apparently (much) higher than for this one (no statements are directly referenced here). Certainly not useable as a RS. However, some of the works in the bibliography section of this thesis may be useable. Pavlor (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the modern artwork, that thesis does not cite a single primary source. Therefore, everything it contains, if accurate and significant, has a better source that can be used. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: and @Someguy1221: Am I allowed to remove the source from the article and cite ^{[citation needed]} for remaining content. The source has been used 11 times in the article!Saff V. (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not a great fan of removing references, you may start by tagging the source with better source needed template. This will maintain verifitability until better source is found, or there is consensus to remove the content. Pavlor (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you know source has been used for 11 times and I have to cite "better source needed" 11 times. Am I right? Finding sources for this amount of material need to time till that time we have to keep this disputed source. Yes?Saff V. (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I would do (it is similar work as 11 CN tags...). However, other Wikipedia editors may prefer removing source and placing CN tags. Pavlor (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Travel media as reliable sources

I have raised a case on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Calala Island which touches on both NPOV and reliable sourcing. One of the questions being the use of travel magazines or travel media as reliable sources given their often borderline nature to rely on PR. I am also raising here as audiences between the two notice boards may differ. It may make sense to keep the conversation in once place. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jared Taylor a reliable source for his own advocacy of white genocide conspiracy theory?

I withdraw the question. The Lyster and Gedye references both refer to Taylor as a white genocide conspiracy theorist explicitly, so his own 1995 book report is superfluous. EllenCT (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Regarding this revert by Grayfell, is Taylor, Jared (June 1995). "Fairest Things Have Fleetest Endings". American Renaissance. Retrieved 6 August 2019. a reliable source to establish that Jared Taylor is a proponent of the white genocide conspiracy theory, in that article? Please note that Grayfell repeatedly deleted mention of Taylor as a white genocide conspiracist who does not blame the Jews for the alleged plot because the sole source in support of the statement at that time only described his lack of anti-Semitism without reference to his beliefs about white genocide. The context is:

However, the view that Jews are responsible for a white genocide is contested by other white supremacist figures, such as Jared Taylor.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Arnold, Kathleen (2011). Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 508. ISBN 9780313375217. Unlike many other white supremacists, Taylor is not anti-Semitic, and in fact encourages Jews to join his fight ... however many within the white supremacist/anti-immigration movement disagree with Taylor, most notably David Duke, and he has been under tremendous pressure to break ties with the Jewish community. Taylor, at least for now, has refused to submit to this pressure and continues to work with Jews to further his platform.

^ Lyster, Rosa (May 9, 2018). "The creeping spectre of "white genocide"". The Outline. Retrieved 6 August 2019.

^ Gedye, Lloyd (23 Mar 2018). "White genocide: How the big lie spread to the US and beyond". The M&G Online. Retrieved 6 August 2019.

^ Taylor, Jared (June 1995). "Fairest Things Have Fleetest Endings". American Renaissance. Retrieved 6 August 2019.

EllenCT (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does he say "white genocide conspiracy theory"?Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The only mention of the concept is a direct quote from the novel being reviewed. The source also doesn't mention Jewishness, anti-Semitism, or any related concept, making this WP:SYNTH at best. Grayfell (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is untrue, as shown by the excerpt below. EllenCT (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If no independent reliable sources mention this, it's at best insignificant. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I suspected, but thought I would check, then no the source dose not support the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the more pertinent excerpts:

“

The Camp of the Saints puts the white man’s dilemma in the most difficult terms: slaughter hundreds of thousands of women and children or face oblivion. Of course, a nation that had the confidence to shed blood in the name of its own survival would never be put to such a test; no mob of beggars would threaten it.

The story that Mr. Raspail tells — the complete collapse of Western man even when the very survival of his civilization so clearly hangs in the balance — may seem implausible to some. And yet, what whites do in The Camp of the Saints is no different from what they have done every day for the past forty years. The only difference is that the novel moves in fast forward; it covers in months what could take decades.

Whites all around the world suffer from Mr. Raspail’s “monstrous cancer implanted in the Western conscience.” South Africans vote for black rule. Americans import millions of nonwhites and grant them racial preferences. Australians abandon their whites-only immigration policy and become multi-cultural.

Even if he did not actively cooperate in his own destruction, time works against the white man. As Mr. Raspail writes in the afterward, “the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles.” No other race subscribes to these moral principles — if that is really what they are — because they are weapons of self-annihilation.

Mr. Raspail’s powerful, gripping novel is a call to all whites to rekindle their sense of race, love of culture, and pride in history — for he knows that without them we will disappear.

”

The article currently defines the conspiracy theory as a plot to, "promote miscegenation, mass immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence, and eliminationism in supposedly white-founded countries to exterminate white people through forced assimilation and violent genocide."

I would also point out that Grayfell's deletions took place immediately after a content dispute arose regarding the extent of white genocide theorists who do not blame the Jews. EllenCT (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately? Sure, close enough. So is this the place to litigate that?

The statement this was attached to is this: However, the view that Jews are responsible for a white genocide is contested by other white supremacist figures, such as Jared Taylor. What does this source have to do with this? Where are Taylor's views explained in this review of The Camp of the Saints? Where does Taylor discuss his views of "white genocide" in this review, and where does he discuss the role of Jews in it? Further, how does this source support the significance of any of this in the article? Grayfell (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that your deletions were unrelated to the content dispute? The source you were earlier trying to delete states, "Taylor is not anti-Semitic, and in fact encourages Jews to join his fight," and explains that he is at odds with other white supremacists on that point. EllenCT (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So no then he does not say he is, he makes certain statements that can be read as expounding it (but then depending on your interpretation can also be seen as not saying it is a deliberate plot so much as inaction and apathy), that is our definition of OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that claiming e.g. the book's author's call, "to all whites to rekindle their sense of race...for [without it] we will disappear," is a white genocide conspiracy theory, is original research? EllenCT (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as it does not say "its a deliberate plan", which is what the white genocide conspiracy theory is. It is no different form saying that "if we do not get more young people into...it will disappear". Now it may well be it is a god whistle, and that is the point. He does not come out and say it, and thus we cannot say he has.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our definition of the conspiracy theory includes racial integration and low fertility rates in addition to violent extermination. EllenCT (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still have to be deliberate, as that is what the lead says (..."belief that there is a deliberate Jewish plot"...), and this does not say it is deliberate. We cannot say (read wp:blp) someone has said something unless they have explicitly said it, not just implied it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. The previous two references say Taylor is a white genocide conspiracy theorist explicitly, so I have no desire to waste anyone's time further on his 1995 book review. EllenCT (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Borče Sredojević

I created that article a long time ago and recently a user came and removed some content claiming the sources are unreliable. This is the edit in question and the two sources he claims biased and unreliable are:

Средојевић селектор Српске ("SRedojevć iis the new coach of Srpska") at glassrpske.com, 27-6-2008

Republika Srpska pre 21 godinu igrala prvi meč at sportlive.ba, 3-7-2013

The first one is Glas Srpske, translated "Voice of Srpska", one of the most popular dailies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, specially in Republika Srpska. The second is one of the sports dedicated websites in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both articles have their authors identified, and date of publication. I restored the information but he removed it again, meaning he is up to edit-warring despite being him breaking the Wikipedia:BRD. I came here to see if you can help me figure out if the sources are reliable, or not, as I see no reason for them not to be considered reliable, specially in this case where we are dealing with football, not something really controversial but rather trivial. It is just sourcing the players and coach that played that game in 1992, an era when there was no internet still. FkpCascais (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no internet in 1992? Please have a read of the article Internet. It was developed in the 1960s, and became international in the 1970s. Something called the World Wide Web was developed by a Britisher a while after that, but still before 1992. MPS1992 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in general use in Bosnia in 1992... I tought that was clear enough so I didn´t needed to draw every detail for people to undrstand. But thank you anyway for your explanation, is good to know you know the basics about the history of the internet. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I had to go to the articles to check :) But, I should also mention that references need not be webpages. Books or newspapers printed on paper are also acceptable. I am sure that in 1992 some newspaper would mention the names of the players or coach. Of course, this may not be helpful, and a newspaper source might also be challenged -- commonly such an offline source might need a very brief English translation in order to confirm that the source verifies the content, if the source is not in English. And if an editor is edit-warring over internet sources, she might edit-war over offline sources even more so. But I personally view the sources you mention as being reliable for the content you describe. I am an expert neither in sourcing reliability nor in association football in areas previously part of Yugoslavia, so hopefully others will comment with more authority than me. (Just one last thing, WP:BRD is optional.) MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is the thing, that I don´t see a valid reason why wouldn´t those two sources be valid to source the presence in a game in 1992. What I meant with the internet was that obviously I knew internet existed already, but what we are talking here is Bosnia in middle of civil war in 1992, it was a messy situation, major crysis, few people had computers and internet was literally inexistent there for normal people. That is why there are not many websites from the time talking about the game, but I must relly on this two sources for the game in question. The game is not in doubt, there are even books about it, exemple Football in Southeastern Europe: From Ethnic Homogenization to Reconciliation by John Hughson and Fiona Skillen; but what I need is the list of players, and that is what the two sources I bring here to ask for reliability, do provide me. One even provides a copy of a newspapper from that time with the pictures of all selected players. Thank you, I hope more people just confirm it that they are reliable so we can make consensus and close this thread as solved. Best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, @FkpCascais:, this place is Noticeboard for discussion, and discussion you initiated here concerns me a lot - you should have informed me of this discussion, especially if you believe that you would be able to apply any of the conclusions reached here, since it's me who disputed your sources on the ground of WP:PARTISAN and WP:RS in the first place. And that's the reason you are unable to see, which is always huge and extremely problematic (isn't it @MPS1992:). Also, you are continually approaching editors with misleading and false claims. In this thread you already made one such claim, explaining that subject of dispute is trivial thing, which is surprising since you have created two posts on WikiProject Football, in total nearly 10 Megabytes of text, explaining how really controversial and highly political this whole issue is. Now, all of a sudden, it's a trivial?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only false claim here is your claim that these are unreliable sources. Please convince editors why these two sources are unreliable, otherwise, stop obstrcuting addition of sourced information. FkpCascais (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to assume a conflict of interest, just inform me, what was exactly controversial here, so you deleted some sourced material? Republika Srpska is one of the two entities in BIH. There is also football selection which plays its matches, just as Catalonia for an example. There are no official FIFA matches, but also have international exibitions. Sources do not have to be in English, necessarily... --Lotom (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lotom. Also, soruces seems to be secondary and reliable. Both have their authors identified, and date of publication. I see no reason to remove it. Acamicamacaraca (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotom: R.Srpska's existence isn't in question, nor the fact that entity have it's own regional football association. There is nothing contentious about that. However, there is no team that represents R.Srpska, not even at "exhibition level". Here's another interesting source which FkpCascais offered at one point after spending two days digging out, only to shoot himself in the foot as he obviously read only bits of its text:

It's an interview with two R.Srpska FA operatives conducted in August 2010, and from Serbian media outlet, so I am going to translate only relevant bits and operative's responses from Serbo-Croatian, which is still a considerable portion of the text:

Article intro states:

"The Republika Srpska football team will play its first official game in September [2010] in Novi Grad / Bosanski Novi, it is announced from the Republika Srpska Football Federation through Belgrade media.

Text:

"Interestingly, the match between the Republika Srpska and Serbia was recently agreed, but FIFA intervened and threatened to disqualify Serbia if it dared to play that match." (they referred to some celebration from previous year, but this or any other match never took place)

Branko Lazarević reply (FA operative introduced as "director of all FA teams"):

"Even though our team has not played any matches, we have the coat of arms, the jerseys are in sale, and the Republika Srpska Fan Association has been established." (it's a 2010);

'Slobodan Tešić reply (another RS FA operative):

"There is no longer any reason for us not to play matches. It is time for the RS national team to come to life and get the place it belongs to and to start representing Republika Srpska football".

By the way, note that these edits are made on BLP, note that at that very moment when someone claims that Borče Sredojević will be appointed RS national team manager, he is already employed by Bosnian FA as assistant manager on Bosnian national team for three years and will continue in that role for four more years reaching WC 2014 finals in Brazil.

Further, analogy with Catalonia is absurd and inappropriate - Catalonia exists as a polity for hundreds of years, Republika Srpska exsits since 1996, Catalonia played football in various degree in various periods since at least FC Barcelona inception more than hundred years ago, R.Srpska never played a game, and you will not be able to fined one report online (or in any for, print, video, audio) which can confirm that they did.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "if the user's identity is confirmed in some way" part of Twitter as WP:RS

There is currently a dispute involving SpongeBob SquarePants articles (particularly Kamp Koral) and the Twitter accounts of the show's producers Vincent Waller and Paul Tibbitt, both of which do not have the blue tick that says "verified". User @Magitroopa: has constantly removed Twitter citings from either person on the no-blue-tick-that-says-verified ground. User also removed a news article from Heavy just because it cited PT's twitter (for the record WP:RSP's entry for Heavy lists it as "no consensus", and please look at the "serious and contentious" part), and at one point even called PT's twitter "supposed".

On July 15 user @Amaury: reverted an announcement on SB Season 13 that came from VT on the aforementioned NBTTSV ground.

But on July 20, user @SBSPfan: claimed that "[t]hese two Twitter accounts have repeatedly been confirmed to be the actual crew members (posting photos of themselves and of production, interacting with other verified accounts, etc.) In terms of WP:RS, there is no reasonable doubt at all that they're the people they're representing". Of course, someone should look at WP:RSP's Twitter entry and see if anyone agrees with me that it should satisfy the "if the user's identity is confirmed in some way" part. (The identity-confirmed-in-some-way part makes it very clear that just not having blue-tick won't make it non-RS), so we should also keep track of all of these kinds of Twitters on a separate page. Lots of famous people (can't bother to name who) don't even have a blue-tick. Even the director of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse took a long time to get one, and by the time his "not having a blue mark" problem had been brought up on Mashable, he had directed an Oscar-winning animated film that made $375.5 million) If it doesn't work, someone ask VW and PT to apply for the blue tick.

FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On mobile right now so can't do/say much atm. I'll wait to see what others think, but I do think it's worth noting the case is similar to Knight Squad ending. The series stays as "present" as of right now, even though the supposed Twitter of the creator says its ended. It's been reverted multiple times, with a conversation about it on the talk page as well. Magitroopa (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tweets in concern are about a lot of stuff in a TV show, not just its fate. On an unrelated note, the Knight Squad tweet would not be usuable for determining that show's fate even if it met the "in some way" criteria because "[the poster of the tweet, Knight Squad's creator Sean W. Cunningham] doesn't outright say canceled" and "series' fates are controlled by networks, not the producers" FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Daily as a reliable source

Hi, I just wanted to know your opinion about the reliability of this website called Elite Daily. I have cited two articles by this website on In My Head (Ariana Grande song), which is being reviewed for GA. This website is part of a major company, Bustle Digital Group, and the sources mostly compile information from some Ariana's interviews. The GA reviewer, SNUGGUMS says that he has his doubts about this website because he "couldn't find any credentials for authors, an editorial staff, a reputation for fact-checking, or anything of similar nature". I need another opinion on this, and I would be really grateful if anybody could help. Thank you so much. --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Arnold, Kathleen (2011). Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 508. ISBN 9780313375217. Unlike many other white supremacists, Taylor is not anti-Semitic, and in fact encourages Jews to join his fight ... however many within the white supremacist/anti-immigration movement disagree with Taylor, most notably David Duke, and he has been under tremendous pressure to break ties with the Jewish community. Taylor, at least for now, has refused to submit to this pressure and continues to work with Jews to further his platform.

[2] Lyster, Rosa (May 9, 2018). "The creeping spectre of "white genocide"". The Outline. Retrieved 6 August 2019.

[3] Gedye, Lloyd (23 Mar 2018). "White genocide: How the big lie spread to the US and beyond". The M&G Online. Retrieved 6 August 2019.

[4] Taylor, Jared (June 1995). "Fairest Things Have Fleetest Endings". American Renaissance. Retrieved 6 August 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 865: / Line 865: @@
 I agree with Lotom. Also, soruces seems to be secondary and reliable. Both have their authors identified, and date of publication. I see no reason to remove it. [[User:Acamicamacaraca|Acamicamacaraca]] ([[User talk:Acamicamacaraca|talk]]) 06:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
+:{{ping|User:Lotom}} R.Srpska's existence isn't in question, nor the fact that entity have it's own regional football association. There is nothing contentious about that. However, there is no team that represents R.Srpska, not even at "exhibition level". Here's another interesting source which FkpCascais offered at one point after spending two days digging out, only to shoot himself in the foot as he obviously read only bits of its text:
+:It's an interview with two R.Srpska FA operatives conducted in August 2010, and from Serbian media outlet, so I am going to translate only relevant bits and operative's responses from Serbo-Croatian, which is still a considerable portion of the text:
+::'''Article intro states''':
+::*"The Republika Srpska football team will play its first official game in September ''[2010]'' in Novi Grad / Bosanski Novi, it is announced from the Republika Srpska Football Federation through Belgrade media.
+::'''Text''':
+::*"Interestingly, the match between the Republika Srpska and Serbia was recently agreed, but FIFA intervened and threatened to disqualify Serbia if it dared to play that match." ''(they referred to some celebration from previous year, but this or any other match never took place)''
+::'''Branko Lazarević reply''' (FA operative introduced as "director of all FA teams"):
+::*"'''Even though our team has not played any matches''', we have the coat of arms, the jerseys are in sale, and the Republika Srpska Fan Association has been established." ''(it's a 2010)'';
+::'''Slobodan Tešić reply'' (another RS FA operative):
+::*"There is no longer any reason for us not to play matches. '''It is time for the RS national team to come to life''' and get the place it belongs to and to start representing Republika Srpska football".
+:By the way, note that these edits are made on BLP, note that at that very moment when someone claims that [[Borče Sredojević]] will be appointed RS national team manager, he is already employed by Bosnian FA as assistant manager on Bosnian national team for three years and will continue in that role for four more years reaching WC 2014 finals in Brazil.
+:Further, analogy with Catalonia is absurd and inappropriate - Catalonia exists as a polity for hundreds of years, Republika Srpska exsits since 1996, Catalonia played football in various degree in various periods since at least FC Barcelona inception more than hundred years ago, R.Srpska never played a game, and you will not be able to fined one report online (or in any for, print, video, audio) which can confirm that they did.--[[User:Santasa99|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''౪ Santa ౪'''</span>]][[User talk:Santasa99|<span style="color:navy; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><sup>'''''99°'''''</sup></span>]] 11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 == The "if the user's identity is confirmed in some way" part of Twitter as [[WP:RS]] ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards