Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Partisan group self published source Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia

The article [1] has a lot of citations from a single partisan self published source which reflects only a fringe standpoint of history. Many of the names of the graves mentioned are not even verified , here is the source:

http://www.al-islam.org/history-shrines/history-cemetery-jannat-al-baqi

It looks more like a blog presenting personal opinions on a matter and that too by a fringe group which accuses a Jewish conspiracy in the destruction.

Hence proof of the graves from reliable independent, non sectarian sources should be added. Relevant tag: WP:BIASED,WP:FTN (fringe theory).

partisan base self published source

in article Mufaddal Saifuddin

However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras Himself.[10] Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.[11] After the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin he claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100, that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1] Khuzaima Qutbuddin explains that he never claimed to be the rightfull successor, as per Mohammed Burhanuddin's instruction to keep it secret.[12][13] It is further claimed that former CJI upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.

Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children

Sheb Wooleys Wikipedia says that he had two daughters ; when in fact he had ONE LEGALLY ADOPTED daughter Christi Lynn Wooley who was his ONLY CHILD and a step daughter ( never legally adopted) Shauna Dotson . Wikipedia states that Sheb had two daughters ; when in fact he had one legal daughter and one step daughter

Kekoolani

I remember Wikipedia's judgement about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Genealogies on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley which seems to conclude that it is a unreliable source. I wonder what the Wikipedia community consider about The Kekoolani site. It is written by the descendants of a chief Solomon Peleioholani. It is used extensively on articles about Hawaiian history. And many things asserted in it are not found in any other academic sources at all which I have noted on Talk:Kamehameha I#Parentage. Is it a reliable source according to Wikipedia:HISTRS or other policies? Please help. Thank you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable. In the same category as thousands of other genealogy sites: great for amateur genealogical research but no good for an encyclopaedia. It specifically says "no doubt there are many errors". Genealogy is generally a work-in-progress. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things. This seems to be asking about a reference I used for the only dating the birth of Kānekapōlei.

First, the website itself, is the official site of the Kekoolani Famiy and is administered by a professional genealogist and family member. The data is collected not written and notations exists for every person listed to the location of the originating data. In this case to the LDS Genealogy official webpage. Some of the information is also from SLK Peleioholani, who was the genealogists for the ali'i and worked for the Bishop museum until his death in the late 50s. The site itself is not a simply genealogy website. Its a database of the Hawaiian Royal family and the ruling chiefs. Its an actual official site of a notable ali'i family. I have used it way within limits and only when a date of a historic figure had no other source such as Fornander or S. M. Kamakau. SLK Peleioholani is a published genealogist as well. An official site can be used to site some information when it is about the subject. In this case this line of ruling chiefs.

But the I should mention that the first discussion linked above was that sources about historic figures should be notable and referenced. Not whether an official site of a family existing today can be used as a reference for a date on someone from about 1753. This is not an unreferenced piece of material. It a reference that states where the information comes from. The JDS listing have been used extensively. I don't know the status of that. The second discsussion concluded that the source being discussed was a god collection of primary sources. Primary sources are not banned but should be limited in use. These types of sources will be used. It was felt that we have no preference for using the more established authors.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Genealogy by SLK Peleioholani, a noted Hawaiian genealogist, can and should be used if it can be cited properly but the other stuff in this site, the amateur opinions and interpretations of the site's master should not. Many thing stated as fact such as hypothesize birth years are independent of the source it uses. It's hard for me to prove that since I don't have access to the LDS genealogical data bases in order to cross check everything asserted prior to a citation mark. We find this all the time on Wikipedia with editors writing a paragraph of facts follow by a citation which validates everything before and then we have another edits later that is added onto it, could be just one sentence of untruth/amateur speculation in a mountain of reliable words.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also to continue what I mean by the site master's amateur opinions and interpretations, the site contains a paragraph being used to cite the parentage of Kamehameha I, an interpretation made in c, 2010 "THE IDENTITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS OF KAMEHAMEHA THE GREAT". It asserts one truth: that Kamehameha's father is disputed, reliable sources stated that it could be Keoua or Kahekili, but his paragraph also asserts things which are not found in any other reliable source. 1. That Kamehameha was adopted or hanaied by Keoua and Kekuiapoiwa, 2. That Kekuiapoiwa II was not his mother, sources never dispute his mother's identity, this one does in order to explain his niau pio rank (reliable source also contradict and said Kamehameha was a chief of the wohi rank) 3. That his mother is instead Ku, the sister of Kahekili. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the disputed words from the paragraph: "Kamehameha was not the natural biological son of Keoua Kalani-kupu'uapai-kalani-nui Ahilapalapa and Kekupoiwa Nui but rather given as a gift to them by his true biological parents from Maui. These biological parents were Kahekili (Ruling Chief of Maui) and his sister Ku, the son and daughter of Kekaulike (Ruling Chief of Maui). This Maui genealogy would make Kamehameha a full NINAU PI'O chief (the mother and father are full blooded brother and sister and children of ruling chief)." I keep saying source but not stating them only because I want to save time and I haven't read them in while but I will find them for you if you disbelieve.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also the names located in the parentheses in some of the entries indicates that the site draws heavily from whatever is on the Internet including stuff like ancestry.com, royalark, and geni.com or even Wikipedia. One example is the alternative spelling Keawepoipoi in the site's entry for Keawepoepoe. Searching Keawepoipoi -Wikipedia, we see that the site draws a significant portion of its work from unreliable sources such as the royal ark. You can do cross check this with some other of its entries. The site is riddle with mistake. Another is the assertion that Queen Kalama's mother was I-Kape'ekukai. (Also editors using it could mistaken that Kalama's mother died in 1825 at Chile, when in fact it was her father) This is only found in royalark and geni.com. Most sources indicate it was Inaina. I can find more discrepancies too. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am attacking a source which I have relied heavily on and used in the past when writing articles, as lazy way to get sources. But it's unreliability outweighs the benefit.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To those currently uninvole, please help square this out and add in your opinions as editors and users of reliable source. I don't want this to be archived again without discussion. Thank you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR please calm down and take a breath, Yes, I am almost certain I did add the Kekoolani reference. But you are very much leaping to conclusions about using anything of Mr. Kekoolani himself as he only adds notes and I have never used the notes to reference anything. There are other sources that have Kamehameha's parentage and the controversy. It is not new and the article was already discussing the fact before any change I made. It appears you have an issue with Mr. Kekoolani's opinions. This is not the place for that but be aware there are no "right" answers to much of this content. Genealogies differ depending. The two major genealogists of the day, Fornander and Kamakau differ greatly. The royal family even kept their own records and Kanaina was one of the main researchers. I should ask however, for you to please be a little more sensitive about living persons you are discussing here. Much of what you take issue with seems to be Mr. Kekoolani's opinion. That is fine, but this isn't a platform for you to vent at the author of a source. You have already been told he is a professional researcher.

Sorry it is my style as a history major to call out questionable things and point out blatant contradictions when I see it. You said it yourself that its his opinion. Does the professionalness a person or occupation of a person indicate anything he say is reliable? My problem is the site's inconsistencies and habit of compiling whatever is on the Internet and use of unreliable sources such as royalark, geni.com, and ancestry.com. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No one genealogy is wrong, it is one version of the events and people. If you are attempting certainty where there is none, I have no access issues with the LDS genealogy website.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's debatable. I certainly can claimed that I descend from the first emperor of China when reliable sources say the entire Qin imperial clan was eradicated by Xiang Yu after he deposed Ziying. My stance is still that Kekoolani site is an unreliable source for Wikipedia and should not used at all here, which is the key issue we should be discussing here. I presented my take on it. I will wait to here what other have to say. I hope there will others. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Itsmejudith what do you think?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also User:Mark Miller would you mind if I ask editors who've made comments in the past discussion on this same topic (the use of genealogy sites on wikipedia) about their opinions. I don't think it will violate Wikipedia:Canvassing since they fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Also to not influence the result I will merely word it: "Hi, can you give your opinion here?" and contact all editors involve not just a select few. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything special about the LDS research in relation to Hawaii? Because I'm familiar with their familysearch website works in relation to Britain and Ireland and there is no way it is a reliable source for WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Hi User:Itsmejudith. Not to my knowledge. It (the LDS record) would probably the last place any serious researcher in Hawaiian history would look to for reliable source (for whatever my opinion is worth). Maybe they would have more reliable ancestry on people who've live closer to the present or are Americans or Europeans. It heavily focused on the West, for example you can't find much Chinese genealogy on the LDS records either. What is you view on the other points I've brought up? Also do you think I should unbiasedly ask the view points of other users in the past discussions? Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what else you're asking about. If any other RSN regulars want to chip in, they can do so now. The main point is that genealogical sites are rarely RS for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Yes which is what I agree with. I have also presented other points for reasoning that Kekoolani is an unreliable source. But now it is only me, Mark Miller and you discussing. I was wanting to contact other users who have discussed similiar discussions in the past to put in their views.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Alert them to this discussion but you may not find that they have anything to add. If Mark Miller wishes to put forward the argument that the source is reliable, it will be read here. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: I will alert them. But by what avenue can I get the Kekoolani be recognized as an unreliable source like Cawley has been and have each occurrence on Wikipedia labeled "better source needed" as in Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter#References? This is my ultimate goal. I ultimately plan to replace them with better sources. I need support for such a bold move since Mark Miller believes it to be reliable and I don't. Or does the board have no such power? If so where can I seek such a move. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I only alerted the editors in the Cawley discussion since I believe this is the more similar (on online genealogical database) while the other discussion didn't really deal with a source. Thanks..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another example why I believe this site to be an unreliable source is the text which follow this entry, a exact copy of the Wikipedia article Abigail Maheha.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is another entry where the site combine two different people into one, click on the two different marriages of this "Hinau (Hinai)." In reality, Hinau was the son of Bennett Nāmākēhā while Hinai was a late 18th century chief of Waimea who assisted Kamehameha I in his unification of the Big Island and was the father of Nuhi, grandfather of a wife of Namakeha and a stepmother of the much younger Hinau, whose father Namakeha wasn't born. The two, Hinau and Hinai, lived more than two generations apart but because of the similar sounding name the Kekoolani site combines them into one person.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the previous discussions about Charles Cawley's medieval lands website. My own summary about that case would be that what could be most easily agreed is that there was no need to argue, because Cawley's website mainly simply collects and collates from other sources and does not add much secondary/tertiary interpretation. Therefore we could get around the need for further debate by simply going to those sources and citing them if they were appropriate. If there had been debate about a particular issue where Cawley had been a bit more original then the procedure next would have been to research whether Cawley's website, or Cawley as a researcher, are treated by experts in that field as a citeable reliable source. We did not need to have such a discussion. I am not sure if this summary helps in the current case being discussed here, but it sounds like there is more originality involved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Like Andrew Lancaster I came here because I was invited by KAVEBEAR. I disagree with Andrew. I think there is a difference between Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page, Charles Cawley's medieval lands website, and Darral Lundy's The Peerage (There are templates for the first two: Template:Rayment and Template:MLCC). It was agreed that Rayment page while generally accurate was not reliable because he does not cite his sources. Charles Cawley is not a qualified professional historian, and although he usually cites his sources, they are often primary sources, his site is not in my opinion a Wikipedia reliable source. If a Wikipedia reliable source cites Cawley then of course that is different, but only those facts of his that are cited in Wikipedia reliable sources can be treated as reliable. As many of Cawley's sources are primary sources, even if a Wikipedia editor was to check the primary sources Cawley uses this would be useless because primary sources can not be used this way (because in many case such a use of these primary sources would be OR/SYN). Both these sites contrast with Ludy's site, because Lundy tends to cite Wikipedia reliable sources which means that his site only needs citing under WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT (and once his source is checked by a Wikipedia editor his cite can be dispensed with). However sometime you see on Lundy's website information (often the children of a otherwise reliably sourced subject) where Lundy cites an email from another genealogist which is not a reliable source and so such information should not be included in a Wikipedia article. I have not looked at the source that is a subject of this thread but I hope this the comparison of these three sites will help others deciding if it is a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we are way off topic, because also I am just talking about the old examples, and not sure if relevant. However just to clarify, I agree that Cawley mainly uses primary sources. Primary sources are however not forbidden and in certain types of case can be quite useful, for example simply listing out dates or documents (which can be quite appropriate to some types of history article). We should in other words always be careful not to treat all usage of primary sources as bad, and the critical point is whether something non-obvious and original is being synthesized from them (which Cawley does not often do). Furthermore, I just point again to what I said about the fact that I do not think I recall ever seeing anyone here make an effort to check whether Cawley is ever cited by respected publications. I mention this partly because I recently noticed him being cited in an article in Foundations (the journal associated with the Foundation of Medieval Genealogy, fmg.ac, which also hosts Cawley), but as this publication is itself not a super strong one, I only point out that there might be more to be investigated if this subject is still really still causing any big disputes. My main point was that I doubt that it needs to anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a question of using the official site of a family to show some facts, such as dates of historic family members where they themselves have references. The notes section the OP refers to is not an interpretation it just sets up a quote from the author. I cannot locate those sources at this time but if i do i will switch references. The OP is trying to state the site has errors because some genealogy content differs from his/her understanding of the limited number of genealogies that they know of. Many of them differ.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't about me imposing my interpretations or showing the genealogy I want from my "limited sources." I have accepted conflictory genealogical interpretations when it comes from reliable sources. The problem is that I don't see Kekoolani as reliable source (my opinion is useless in such a divided argument but my examples of mistakes drawn from the site should be considered). Miller seems to believe that this is my petty retaliation against him for our disagreements on Talk:Kānekapōlei (even after I've stated before that I have regrets about using this source in the past and have since seen to the unreliability of it all) and believe that I think Hawaiian genealogy is totally one sided with only one correct viewpoint (and I'm trying to assert something) and that I actually don't think the claim of Kahekili as Kamehameha's father is a valid claim. But I do because I have seen reliable sources written as far back as the 1860s arguing this claim. The site's reliability is my main problem.

The unreliability of the site is my main issue here not because there is a difference to my interpretation (I have none, I should have none, it should be what reliable source state. Period). I have shown cases of many unreliable entries where the site copies or draws directly from unreliable sources such as royal ark and even Wikipedia. Cases where the site misread reliable sources (many of then "the limited number of genealogies that [I] know of") and combine two distinct individual who lived two generations apart with similiar spelling names into one person, as I have shown with the Hinai and Hinau example. One laughable mistake that I helped proliferate which I can thank the Kekoolani site for is the parentage of George Naea and Bennett Namakeha as sons of Keliimaikai and Kalikoʻokalani[2]. Kekoolani copied this mistake from Royal Ark and ancestry websites online. I thought back then because it could br found in the Kekoolani site and Royal ark site that it was supported by two what I then in my naivety considered reliable sources and thus proliferated the mistake when I edited on pages related to this such as Queen Emma of Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The website is not rs, per the previous discussion on RSN. TFD (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hope these comments help. If the website is that of a well-known family then in theory maybe it can be used if we need a source for stating the opinions of that family. But I understood this was a question about whether the website could be seen as an expert source for what is essentially history (genealogy of someone important being effectively part of the study of history). What I have not seen in the discussion so far is any discussion of some of the main indicators of expertise: Do published experts cite the website? Are any of the authors well-known in the field for some other reason? And so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My contribution was explicitly solicited, based on my involvement in past discussions on similar topics. Neither Dean P. Kekoolani nor Solomon L.K. Peleioholani are acknowledged as scholarly historians, nor do they possess the capacity to act as such. Its not reliable for historical articles. The editors of the work acknowledge that it is traditional and genealogical knowledge, "Nonetheless, we do ask that you request permission from us before browsing these pages. This is a private family family website and this information is presented for the specific benefit of Native Hawaiian people, preferably related to us by blood, who are conducting research into their own personal genealogies. This is not an academic, scholarly or general information resource for the general public." As such I believe the genealogical standard it meets may be traditional in nature and not compatible with wikipedia's standards in terms of genealogical or biographical articles regarding the deceased. Additionally I would suggest that explicit permission is requested prior to reading the work, that licensing restrictions may additionally prevent the use of this work: something for another noticeboard. Not good for historical articles, per HISTRS and the arguments underlying that essay, not good for genealogy given that the genealogical purpose of this text is not congruent with genealogy or biography as practiced in reliable sources. (Yes, I am aware of the first world bias issues wrt traditional knowledge systems, but the document makes clear that the relevant traditional knowledge system collapsed in a way that means that SLK Peleioholani's traditional knowledge was not subject to expected traditional review structures.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, not sure if this is even relevant, but do you think the website is potentially useful for expressing the opinion of the family? (For example with attribution, and in the event that it was clear that the family's opinion had separable notability.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, "There can be no doubt that there are many errors. We warmly welcome and will sincerely appreciate any corrections—whether of facts or typography—from our readers. We will continue to amend, correct and clarify the data as we develop this website in the future. We apologize in advance for any mistakes you may discover in the meantime and thank you for your understanding." Editorial responsibility for correctness has not been exercised. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, without requesting permission as it was for a fit scholarly purpose, I consulted the database regarding the Editor's immediate siblings, and viewed the Editor and a deceased person's entry. Neither entry was sourced. Given that neither was sourced in a highly sourceable context, and that the editor has refused responsibility for errors, I do not believe that the Editor can be trusted regarding the Kekoolani family's opinion. There is no evidence the editor embodies modern or traditional authorisation to speak for the Kekoolani family. At best, the source would be viable for Dean Kekoolani's opinion, if it was ever of encyclopaedic notability or weight. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Russia Today

Is Russia Today considered a RS? Sayerslle (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Fyi, Russia Today have changed name to RT. And yes, as a well-established news organisation they are considered to be a reliable source for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends a lot on what the claim is. They have "opinion content" as well as fact reportage, and without stating what it is to be used for, there is no single answer. Collect (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

'as a well-established news organisation they are considered to be a reliable source' - that's just you saying that though erlbaeko, - RT is a joke . the stalin regime was 'well established' by 1950 - tells one nothing about its reliability for truthfulness - where does it say RT is a reliable source for wp. - not just your (biased)opinion erlabaeko Sayerslle (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me saying that? Have you even read the link I provided you with? Citation from Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations: well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You will notice that the given examples are based from "free". None of the (well known) news agencies based in totalitarian or semi-totalitarian is listed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed... Based on the rest of this discussion I may suggest a change to that part. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It's as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinion.

One would assume, however, that the OP has read the WP article, RT.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, this has been discussed previously. For it to be considered a reliable source it needs to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). It has no such reputation as it is widely regarded as a propaganda outlet.

It can be used for certain claims, for example those of Russian officials, with proper attribution, as well as for statements for its opinion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, show me a WP community consensus saying RT (TV network) (or ITAR-TASS for that matter) is not a WP:RS for statements of fact. They are both major news agencies with bureaus around the world. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

volunteer marek has said its been discussed before and community consensus was RT doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. you saying they have bureaux all over the place I don't see why that equates to reputation for fact checking and accuracy. clueless putin and assad lovers are kind of power worshippers really- oh, putin has a lot of power and money , so that means he is truth teller and RT reliable. no. Sayerslle (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess he can speak for himself, and I still like to see that consensus, if it exists. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

'if it exists' - so cynical all of a sudden! - but , so trusting when it comes to putinist shit. ah, well - takes all sorts - just kind of annoying you will trash wp articles with RT shit. Sayerslle (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a very useful search box at the top of this page that you can use to find previous discussions. Here are a few: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Russia_Today_verus_CNN; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Russia_Today; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#Enquiry_concerning_the_RT_Network; ... There are others. Consensus seems to be that RT is a biased source, reliable for simple, non-controversial facts, but should be avoided for anything controversial. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll echo that. Of course, there may be instances where they print things that can be verified independently through reference to other sources. At which point a case-by-case determination can be made. But in general it's probably best to be wary. TheBlueCanoe 17:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be surprised if someone can give some examples of RT reporting something in a story that turned out to be false. In contrast, the NY Times has printed stories with major implications that it later had to retract. Notable examples are that Iraq had WMDs, that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, and that there is photographic evidence that Russian special ops forces are operating in the Ukraine. All this leads me to conclude that RT is actually a more reliable source than the NY Times. The only significant way in which RT is biased is that it is not going to publish stories that put the government of Russia in a bad light. Otherwise, it is more objective and professional than major Western news outlets like the NY Times, the Guardian, the BBC, CNN, and MSNBC. There is currently a civil war going on in the Ukraine, but there is essentially a Western news blackout about it. That should tell you how "unbiased" major Western news sources are compared to RT.

As far as I am aware, previous Wikipedia discussions about the reliability of Russian media gave no evidence of how Russian media have published false information. The "consensus" that is claimed that RT does not have a "reputation" for "fact checking" derives from the fact that RT paints a very different picture of events in the Ukraine, for example, than Western media do. But how does one know that Western media are the ones who are not biased, as opposed to RT? No evidence for that is ever given. This is merely an ethnocentric, highly political assumption. That the Western media have essentially instituted a news blackout about the fighting going on in southeastern Ukraine shows that when it comes to events in the Ukraine, Russian sources, including RT, are more reliable than Western sources. Just do a Google News search for Slavyansk. Nothing comes up from the past few days other than Russian sources. This is despite civilian buildings getting regularly shelled, and the residents of Slavyansk being without electricity and water. Kiev's offensive on the separatists has made Slavyansk look much more like something out of Iraq than out of Europe, yet the Western media are not reporting this. And it is ridiculous to claim that the Russian media are exaggerating the situation in Slavyansk, since the web is deluged with videos of what is happening. – Herzen (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually Russian media in general has published a lot factually wrong material in connection with Ukraine/Crimea conflict and was not the occasional error, but systematic and to a larger degree. There have been various reports concerning that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh RT has published plenty of bullshit. It's just that when they do it, unlike NY Times or other responsible news outlets, they don't publish retractions or acknowledge their mistakes. They just keep quiet about it or they keep repeating the lie until it appears to be truth. Some illustrative cases involve the notion that it was Maidan leaders who hired the snipers who killed the protesters, or the nonsense that the US paid 5 billion $ to the Maidan protesters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention obsequious adulation of Putin which are just frankly embarrassing to read.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of RT came well before the Ukraine incident, their coverage of which prompted one of their own anchors to call out the network's reporting as bull. And per WP:DUE, if RT is saying it's sunshine and rainbows over there, they're biased as far as Wikipedia is concerned (Wikipedia is not an extension of RT and never will be). RT is only as reliable as Fox News -- that is, only slightly more reliable than a tabloid, acceptable as an additional source for something that is first put forth by a more reliable one. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So what if one of the anchors came out against the network? She is not a reliable source. As for the WP RT article you link to, I can find nothing in it that would suggest that RT is not a reliable source for current events in the Ukraine (and the Ukraine is why the issue of Russian media keeps on coming up). Everything quoted in that article is just opinion. The article provides absolutely no examples of RT making stuff up, which is what is relevant, when it comes to coverage of actual events. That RT is pro-Kremilin, something that nobody denies, gives one absolutely no grounds for concluding that when it says that such-and-such happened in the Ukraine, it is not a reliable source, and that an additional source is required. The style of RT reporting is pretty sober and old fashioned. CNN resembles Fox News much more than RT does.

Again, this claim that RT is not a reliable source is completely circular. The claim comes down to "everybody knows that RT just provides Putin's fantasy vision of the world". But no evidence for that is ever given. Or when it is given, it is easily debunked. This has actually happened when the US State Department comes out with "fact sheets" about "Russian disinformation". To repeat, I have given three examples of how the NY Times has had to retract stories with major international implications, but I have never seen any case where RT reported something that turned out to be false. If RT is so unreliable, why can't anyone provide any evidence of its unreliability, instead of just saying "everybody knows it is"??? – Herzen (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Did as you requested. Yes, RT sources make up half the recent results. But there are also recent western ones. Slovyansk burns as new Ukrainian President yearns for peace By Tim Lister, CNN June 9, 2014 ... Kiev anti-terror operation takes toll on Slavyansk residents Financial Times June 10, 2014 11:25 pm ... --GRuban (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's very nice of you to do that. Those didn't come up for me. That could be because Google knows I like Russian sources, so it weighs those more heavily for my searches. In any case, I didn't say that there was a total news blackout. Slavyansk, and Donetsk more so, are basically turning into Beirut during the civil war there. You would think that would make Western media devote more coverage to the Ukraine than it was devoting, say a month ago, but the coverage in contrary seems to have been reduced significantly. If you go to the front page of Google News, there are stories about the fighting in Iraq and about Ukraine-Russia gas talks, but nothing about the fighting in Ukraine. Sorry, but I find that strange. Why pay more attention to Iraq than the Ukraine, when Ukraine was such a big deal just last weekend, with the D-Day commemoration and the new president being inaugurated? So I think that to say that there is a news blackout is not an exaggeration. It's just not total. – Herzen (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Echo that. ;) Is there a way to establish a consensus on this issue? I am slightly fed up of users undoing revisions with a short "RT is not an RS." comment. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source. Per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Zambelo; talk 10:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point, we need to go to the top of this page where it says that a source can be reliable for some things but not others. RT is probably fine for reporting the official Russian Govt stand on an issue (today, Putin said X), or for reporting uncontroversial facts (the population of Nizhny-Verkhnyi province is Y, and its governor is Z). It is not fine for reporting controversial facts (for example, that the US is going to fall apart into separate countries soon, that global warming is a conspiracy, that 9/11 was an inside job, or death tolls in conflicts in which the Russian govt has a stake, all of which it has done). --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the following statement on the top of this page, I agree that we at this point need to see the exact statement in content. "The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y". Erlbaeko (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

is that something consensus could form around? its ok for reporting the views of the Russian regime, or for 'the governor of X is Y' type content , but is non-RS for 'facts' only it reveals and conveys, and most especially in areas like Syrian civil war and Ukraine where it is openly part of a propaganda war Sayerslle (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I took that to mean that it is reliable for attributed statements of Russian officials, and needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis for other matters.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It means this page is for posting questions regarding whether a particular source are reliable in context. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

well I think its proved itself unreliable often enough and flagrantly enough for it to be more conclusively stopped from being used at all at English wp except for where it says what the regime is saying, because it will parrot the putin regime views reliably enough - I don't agree with ubikwit when he says 'It's as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting,' - its been off the charts for inaccuracies for example just recently over Crimea and Ukraine, hasn't it? its infamous ubikwit - how can you not be aware of this. and heres a report on how monstrously and fatuously RT sought to misrepresent what Brown Moses said about an issue regarding chemical weapons use - [3]- RT has very very basic problems with integrity and truthfulnessSayerslle (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, arbitrary opinions are not the basis upon which we decide whether sources are reliable or not here, we do that on the basis of policies such as those cited above, i.e., WP:RS. Your attempt to discount the source would also appear to ignore the basic consensus here.

Did you and Erlbaeko read the posts by User:Zambelo and GRuban

RT is probably fine for reporting the official Russian Govt stand on an issue (today, Putin said X), or for reporting uncontroversial facts (the population of Nizhny-Verkhnyi province is Y, and its governor is Z). It is not fine for reporting controversial facts

or are you just pretending that you didn't hear that?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I read it. I fully agree with Zambelo and the post where you say "It's as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinion." I also agree with GRuban when he says it is not fine for reporting controversial "facts" like that "the US is going to fall apart into separate countries soon" statement. In my opinion that is speculations not facts.

I also agree with Herzen when he says the "consensus" that is claimed that RT does not have a "reputation" for "fact checking" derives from the fact that RT paints a very different picture of events than Western media do.

Regarding THEINTERPRETER article Sayerslle refer to. I see it is written by James Miller. I do not know his reputation for fact checking, but I have checked one of his articles before. See:Talk:Khan_al-Assal_chemical_attack#The_referenced_NOW_article. Cheers. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with RT is probably fine for reporting the official Russian Govt stand on an issue (today, Putin said X), or for reporting uncontroversial facts (the population of Nizhny-Verkhnyi province is Y, and its governor is Z). It is not fine for reporting controversial facts - that is a good enough formula - so is there consensus for that then? Sayerslle (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Close, but not quite. I don't find the word "uncontroversial" in neither the guideline nor the policy, and what you find to be controversial may be uncontroversial for others. I believe Ubikwit said it best: RT is "as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinions." Erlbaeko (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:QUESTIONABLE is the paragraph you're looking for. "...websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties..." --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That section of the guideline clarly talks about questionable and self-published sources, and I recon; It has noting to do with well-established news organizations. And since WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I guess we all agree that RT is "as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinions." Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't agree at all. Imho RT is not a reliable source. Yes reliable sources don't need to be neutral, but they need to reliable in the sense of accuracy, that is they should avoid intentionally inaccurate or misleading descriptions. I don't really see how the current RT fits that description. Having saif´d that this doesn't exclude RT from being used as a source at all, because that also depends on what's being sourced and which program or statement is used. Generally speaking however RT is a source I'd stay away from for political content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we may not all agree. But we need to find a compromise, and that compromise should be based on the guideline and the policy, not personal opinions about their reputation. Keep in mind that even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors (ref WP:NEWSORG). Based on that can you agree with the statement Ubikwit wrote, that they are reliable for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinions? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware that any news source may contain (unintentional) errors. That was not the reason for my disagreement. The problem is that with a case RT is not a lack of neutrality as such, but that their strong bias leads to an (intentional) lack of accuracy (moving towards propaganda). RT in that regard is similar to Press TV (Iran) or Xinhua (China) and imho even parts of Fox. You may use them as a source for non-contentious content and where they have little reason to tinker with accuracy but otherwise they are only usable in the sense of "primary source" (quoting a Russian government official, sourcing the self described government policy,...). For an experienced editor I'd recommend as a rule of thumb to stay away from it doubt and simply stick to less problematic new sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when there is a question or the RT statements conflict factually with those of other sources, the situation needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Other than that, I see consensus that RT is generally "as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinions.", and contentious claims about third parties obviously need to be attributed, if deemed to meet WP:DUE. Since RT is closely connected to the state, it is a matter of course in international politics that there will often be statements made by government officials of one country about officials from other countries that might be considered contentious.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I can't really say that I fully agree with that. If we really treat sources of RT type just as any other news source, I think WP has a big problem. I can see that there is big grey area and is not possible to come up with simple rule to separate "reliable" from "unreliable", but I don't think the recommendation can simply be treat it as any other news source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You are just stating your opinion without providing any sort of argument. I think Ubikwit has expressed the consensus nicely. – Herzen (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's the same reactionaries praising Fox News one minute and deriding RT the next. We decide the reliability of each source on a case by case basis. RT's relationship to government is indistinguishable from NPR, CNN, or MSNBC. Case in point, Cenk Uygur had to leave MSNBC because he was told, in no uncertain terms, that there were limits to his journalistic freedom, and that he couldn't continue to criticize the Obama administration. And yet, Abby Martin is allowed the journalistic freedom to criticize anyone and anything she wants...on RT. So we have an American journalist exercising her rights with more freedom on RT than any other media outlet. Can you name one single journalist who has the freedom to report on any subject like this? And what about RT's comprehensive coverage of the Occupy movement, with correspondents covering the story in depth from the streets. Where was the rest of the media on this? Nowhere to be found, of course. It's a sad state of affairs when Americans can learn more about their country from foreign sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, quit it with the personal attacks and the attempts to poison the well. Also get off your high-horse. You're insinuating hypocrisy on the part of anyone who disagrees with you with exactly ZERO evidence. In fact there's evidence to the contrary, since several commentators who consider RT to be non-RS, also explicitly voice their opinion that Fox News is not much of a reliable source either. So you're basically making a bullshit accusation against people who don't deserve it. That's the quintessential personal attack as well as the standard ad hominem fallacy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks here. I've shown, using a simple example, that RT offered an American journalist more freedom to report and offer critical commentary than MSNBC offered their journalists. MSNBC also fired Phil Donahue for criticizing the Iraq policy of the Bush administration. NBC and National Geographic also fired Peter Arnett for questioning US policy in Iraq.[4] And you're criticizing RT? There seems to be a double standard here. Viriditas (talk)

No personal attacks here. - Yeah right. Then what the hey is this: "It's the same reactionaries praising Fox News one minute and deriding RT the next". You just 1) called anyone who disagrees with you a "reactionary" and 2) insinuated that anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite (because supposedly they praise Fox News, which is a total lie, per comments above, it's just a figment of your imagination). Those are personal attacks. And your examples - even allowing for your peculiar interpretation - don't show anything except the fact that media outlets set their own editorial policy. It's one thing if a newspaper chooses to publish an editorial in support of a particular government policy. It's a completely different ball game if a newspaper is forced or pressured or directed to publish stories in support of a government policy. Especially in a country where independent media is not allowed to exist, and those journalists who try to report independent stories are imprisoned, persecuted, beaten and tortured and even murdered. Again, please just bother *think* for a second.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Since English isn't your first language, I can understand how you might confuse the abstract statement, "It's the same reactionaries praising Fox News one minute and deriding RT the next" as a personal attack. In any case, your replies seem intent on distracting from the main point. There is no "peculiar" interpretation here at all. US journalists either toe the line with corporate and government oversight, or they are fired. It's that simple. If you believe that journalists in the US have the freedom to report and write about whatever they want in the mainstream media, then you don't know anything about how the media works in the US. There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles about the "most censored" stories in the US media, many of which are suppressed because of close corporate and government ties. I shouldn't have to be one to educate you on this matter, but I won't let you use your ignorance as a weapon. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My English is just fine, thank you very much (and you shouldn't make assumptions about it anyway). You are continuing to insult other editors except this time you think you're being cute by getting underhanded and slimy about it. If it was an abstract statement who did you direct it at? Why did you make it? Where you just letting off some steam and soapboxing? Like I said, there are other venues on the internet for that. This isn't one of them.

And the translation of the cop-out "I shouldn't have to be one to educate you on this matter" from Bullshitese to English is "I got no proof, just take my word for it". That translation is provided gratis, since apparently English is not your first language either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. I questioned your English because you thought a personal attack had been made when it was not. What was provided was more of a simile without the use of the word "like". But enough of your obsession with rhetoric. I really should not have to educate you on how media bias works. Here is a basic, elementary introduction to the subject for a neophyte like yourself. Please read it slow for comprehension. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Jeez christ, you're a piece of work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that's an improvement from the last time you personally attacked me in an offline forum as "insane". Yet, here you are making hypocritical comments about personal attacks. You've got something in your eye... Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The offline forum, Wikipediocracy, is not Wikipedia, and it's Wikipedia which has WP:NPA. You're free to register and account there and call me anything you like (I think).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Unlike you, I'm not interested in making personal attacks or distracting from the overwhelming consensus for using RT as a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The last post of Ubikwit seems to me to be well founded in the guideline and the policy. As a consensus it works for me too. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How is it well founded in the guideline and the policy? Where in the world do you see consensus on this? He's simply expressing his own idiosyncratic opinion, unbacked by anything except "I assert it so!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed my view, that "as a well-established news organisation they are considered to be a reliable source for statements of fact", in my first post, based on WP:NEWSORG in the identifying reliable sources guideline. I understand that you don't like them to be used as a reference, but I believe Ubikwit, Zambelo and Herzen has explained very good that they are "as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting". I also agree with Viriditas, Darouet and user Mjroots posts below. Adios. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Everybody here is stating an "opinion" and it was not without an argument, the argument was explained further up. The problem is the grey area and that simple formalization simply does not work. However a general idea is that we need to look at reputation of a news source. What do external reviews say about it? Have (structural) problem of that news source been reported, that are likely to impair a reasonable reliability? Etc.Though it is difficult in individual cases I don't believe that we can essentially treat any news media as the same. There are differences between the serious press and the yellow press and there are differences between the "free" press and the press in totalitarian states or a press known to be under strong direct influence of governments. I don't think we should come up with recommendation or assessment that seems to ignore or negate those differences. Imho that would be a recipe for disaster. This is simply something where there can be no simple rules covering all news sources or press products, in fact from my view this is exactly one reason why we have this noticeboard to provide assessment in complex cases where simple rules don't work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Also rereading the rest of the discussion now (due to joining it late) I don't quite see the consensus Ubikwit, Herzen and Earlbako are claiming.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Newcomers Sairp and Kmhkmh, along with Volunteer Marek appear to have an anti-Russia agenda in relation to the crisis in Ukraine, with the aim of censoring RS material from RT. The relevant policies have been pointed out, yet you continue to argue along lines that have no basis in policy.

For the record, the Freedom house has been criticized by American political scientist for its biased treatment of Russia.

Daniel Treisman, a UCLA political scientist, has criticised Freedom House's assessment of Russia. Treisman has pointed out that Freedom House ranks Russia's political rights on the same level as the United Arab Emirates, which, according to Freedom House, is a federation of absolute monarchies with no hint of democracy anywhere in the system. Freedom House also ranks Russia's civil liberties on the same scale as those of Yemen. In Yemen, according to the constitution, Sharia law is the only source of legislation, and allows assaults and killings of women for alleged immoral behaviour. Criticising the president is illegal in Yemen. Treisman contrasts Freedom House's ranking with the Polity IV scale used by academics and in which Russia has a much better score. In the Polity IV scale, Saudi Arabia is a consolidated autocracy (-10), while the United States is a consolidated democracy (+10); Russia has a score of +4, while United Arab Emirates has a score of -8.

If you don't see the consensus, perhaps you should look again, because it is beginning to sound like you simply didn't hear it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an entirely bad faithed comment there Ubikwit. As you well know, I am neither a "newcomer" nor do I have an "anti-Russian" agenda. I would really really appreciate it if you stopped engaging in such personal attacks and pathetic attempts at [[poisoning the well]. Basically, you're full of shit. Again. I realize that you are getting desperate here since consensus is going against you, but such gross misrepresentation of other editors and engaging in blatant slander of others' motives, is simply uncalled for. I have no freakin' idea as to what Yemen has anything to do with any of this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the relevant policies and previous discussion have been pointed out, but I get the impression largely ignored by you however. There is no issue with policies but how you read them. Moreover you Herzen and Erlbaeko on agreeing on something does not imply a consensus of the discussion. As far as the criticism of Freedom House's ranking is concerned, this is a bit of distraction. The at hand in connection is the (severely restricted/unfree) state of the media in Russia and whether it worse or better than the media of Yemen. The issue with current Russian Russian media have been widely reported to be aware of that one hardly needs to rely on Freedom House to be aware of it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-American news sources report the news from an Anglo-American POV. RT reports the news from a Russian POV. There's nothing more that needs to be said. Not treating RT as a reliable source while the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, CNN, AP, Reuters, etc. are treated as reliable sources is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. It is as simple as that. Nobody in this discussion have given any examples of how RT is unreliable, but I have given several examples of how the flagship US newspaper, the NY Times, is unreliable. RT is a foreign news service that operates in a hostile environment: it is not directed at Russians. This means that it will take great care in ensuring the accuracy of its stories. This is to be contrasted with outlets like the NY Times, which have such a high reputation in the West that they can basically make things up out of thin air, without any "important" people questioning what they say.

Bottom line: English language news sources report news from a US government point of view. RT reports news from a Russian government point of view. Thus, to treat RT as an unreliable source while treating mainstream English language news outlets as reliable sources is a clear violation of one of Wikipedia's foundational principles, WP:NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I realize that you want to have it "as simple as that", but that is exactly what not is, neither is it violation of WP:NPOV. You simply phrase the problem into a one dimensional "Russian versus (Anglo)-American" context, where we supposedly need to give either side equal treatment. However this is not the only dimension we need to look at, in fact I would argue not even the most important. It completely ignores reputation and structural differences (independence, conflicts of interests, degree government influence, censoship) between various publications. It also completely ignores the world outside the Anglo-American-Russian "bubble", there's Latin American, Indian, African, German, French, Scandinavian, Japanese, South Korean, Taiwanese, Hongkong, etc. press publications.

As far as the NYT example is concerned, nobody argued the NYT is without failure, it is however not simply reporting the view of the US government. It isn't really that hard to see, for an experiment just survey NYT publications being critical of Bush (or Obama policies) and survey the RT publications being critical of Putin (also pay attention to scope and depth). --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Where in Wikipedia policy does it tell you to examine "structural differences", or the even more subjective "reputation"?

Did you read the policy WP:IDHT? We are not here to waste time discussing your arbitrary opinions, which do nothing but distract from the focus of the discussion. Please also read WP:NOTSOAPBOX. In other words, we understand that you don't care for RT and would like Wikipedia to ban its use from the website, but that is against the several policies that have been discussed in detail above.

@Saip: Right, I've just noted that you are a new editor, yet you have already found your way to this notice board, which is quite impressive. I gather that you're a quick learner. Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and then go through this entire thread from the beginning. You are interacting with experienced editors that know far more than you do about Wikipedia sourcing policy, and policy is what guides consensus here. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit

Nowhere (that i'm aware of) tells a WP policy me explicitly that I look at structural differences. However nowhere it tells you that you can/should use RT either.More to the point is the policy states: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

Now, looking at "structural differences" is one of many aspect one can or rather should look at to assess the reliability demanded in the policy line. As far as the "even more subjective" reputation is concerned, this one is mentioned even literally in that policy line.

As far as WP:IDHT is concerned, I suggest you reread that policy carefully yourself and reread the discussion so far.

Lastly as far as "we understand that you don't care for RT and would like Wikipedia to ban its use from the website". I stated nowhere that I don't care for RT (it is quite interesting to watch for various, but not exactly for reasons of reliable reporting to be used in WP) nor did I suggest to ban its use in Wikipedia. I opposed the claim with regard to the alleged consensus that RT is to be treated as any other arbitrary (serious) news agency or press outlet. Or the notion that it simply reports "the other side" (compared to the NYT). Whether RT can be used or not depends on the specific context and it definitely a source the use of which requires extra care.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most editors above: We should avoid citing RT, and there is clearly no consensus to treat it as a reliable source. In the past, I've noticed that some editors want to cite RT because it diverges from what mainstream sources say on certain controversial topics, but that's exactly why we shouldn't cite it. We have enough NPOV trouble already; we don't need crap like this. bobrayner (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Well put.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That article are at least quoting Putin. Per WP:BIASED editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "the Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if you press the spring too hard, it will snap back." Ref RT Erlbaeko (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That comment is a blatant statement of your own opinion about the annexation of Crimea, not an NPOV statement suitable for appearing in a Wikipedia article on the topic. Is there something about that which is difficult to comprehend? Wikipedia is not interested in the fact that you disagree with the Russian governments POV about the annexation of Crimea, which you dismiss as "crap". Wikipedia is interested in presenting an NPOV article encompassing all relevant POVs in accordance with WP:DUE.

Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the US government. RT may be a mouthpiece for the Russian government (even conceding the worse case scenario for the sake of argument), but that makes them RS for the POV of the Russian government. Is there something about that which is difficult to comprehend?

Next, you posit a "most editors above", in an apparent attempt to assert a consensus that is the opposite of what appears to be the consensus that RT is RS, but has to be used with caution and in many cases its statements attributed. Here is a list of editors and/or statement thereby NOT completely dismissing RT.

1. Zambelo
2. GRuban
3. Herzen
4. Erlbaeko
5. TheBlueCanoe
6. Sayerslle I agree with RT is probably fine for reporting the official Russian Govt stand on an issue (today, Putin said X), or for reporting uncontroversial facts (the population of Nizhny-Verkhnyi province is Y, and its governor is Z). It is not fine for reporting controversial facts - that is a good enough formula
7. Collect It depends a lot on what the claim is. They have "opinion content" as well as fact reportage, and without stating what it is to be used for, there is no single answer.
8. Volunteer Marek It can be used for certain claims, for example those of Russian officials, with proper attribution, as well as for statements for its opinion. (albeit apparently contradicting himself with respect to an earlier discussion here on same topic)
9. Ian.thomson RT is only as reliable as Fox News...
   

Am I missing something with respect to consensus?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have become incoherent again, and it's very hard to understand what it is you're raving about. Ummm... let me try. Yes, Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of the US government. Hmmm, yes, RT is a mouthpiece of the Russian government, more or less. And... how in the hey does your conclusion that RT is a reliable source follow? Because, since we're not a mouthpiece of the US government, we must become the mouthpiece of the Russian government? That. Does. Not. Make. Sense. And then the rest of your comment is just confusing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a simple NPOV issue, as Herzen pointed out above. Wikipedia presents both the US and the Russian POVs in a non-biased manner according to WP:WEIGHT. Presenting only one side of an issue with respect to which the governments of any two countries have opposing views would not be NPOV.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(Just for the record, some post were delited.) See this revision. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Sairp seems to have deleted their posts here. Should they be restored?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you like, but I don't care. If you restore them, and strike them out you can remove this and my previous post. Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a cryptic statement, which you have repeated. What is it that you mean by "contradicts", "conflicting view", and "compromise"?

Those all appear to be loaded terms that mask an implicit assertion that when RT expresses a POV that is opposite ("contradictory", "conflicting"?) to a given preferred POV that it should be dismissed as RS. That would be a violation of NPOV.

NPOV is not a "compromise", it is a balanced representation WP:WEIGHT of the relevant statements on a given topic found in RS. It is tendentious to attempt to dismiss a source because it represents a "contradictory" or "conflicting" POV. The only reason to dismiss a source of the stature of RT in a given case is based the discovery of a misrepresentation of fact, not for a representation of a POV that a given editor finds disagreeable.

This has been repeated several times now, but it appears that some editors still aren't getting it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Er - no offense, but you seem to be listing me and a quote of mine as supporting your cause there, while neither I nor my quote support treating RT as "any other news source". RT seems to be a news source with a specific, acknowledged, and intentional, point of view, that of supporting the Russian government. That makes it different from most other news sources, which may have an unacknowledged bias, but at least do not specifically try to support a government. (For example, the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers.) Yes, RT is sometimes usable, but that is not the same thing as always usable.--GRuban (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I've acknowledge the connection to the Russian government, but that is obvious from the WP article on RT.

The statement "any other new source" may be overstating their case, but CNN, the NYT and other RS news sources not infrequently make factual errors.

At any rate, the primary objective I see as necessary here is to refute the blanket dismissal of RT as a reliable source, with respect to which I take it you are in agreement, and which is why i included your statement in my assessment of the consensus. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You keep on referring to "the consensus that RT is RS" which simply does not exist; it is fiction. The list of editors you presented as though they actually supported your position includes a number of editors who have strongly disagreed with you. In the course of pretending that the widespread opposition is actually bias and sockpuppetry, you have lied said untrue things about me and about other editors. Stop this tendentious editing now. There is no consensus to treat RT as a reliable source. bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC) I struck out "lied"; that was a poor choice of words. Although some of this commentary on other editors is untrue, I'm open to the possibility that Ubikwit actually believes that stuff. AGF has to start somewhere. Whether or nor statements about other editors are deliberately false is not the problem; it's the falsehood and misrepresentation that's the problem.

Where did he presented the list of editors as they supported his position, as you claim? Don't you see the difference between "NOT completely dismissing RT" and RT is generally "as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinions."? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Rather than tiptoeing around the issue in question, the questioning of RT (and other Russian government aligned sources) as an RS (or reliable sources, in the plural) surrounds the use of 'facts' and 'opinion pieces' regarding the reportage on events that have been taking place in Ukraine, Crimea +++. We're not discussing whether a news outlet has been considered an RS on particular issues in the past, but the fact that these outlets are reporting on issues directly associated with the Russian Federation's immediate interests. Everything has to be weighed up in context. The context here would suggest that reportage from any of these sources be backed up by other sources. Too bad if you don't get a day by day, blow by blow article. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS means that you don't get to run ahead and behave as if Wikipedia is a current affairs outlet. The number of articles here surrounding current affairs in Ukraine and behaving as if they were the news is growing at an extraordinary rate. I'd suggest that those who have illusions about being journalists find another venue. The agenda behind these 'questions' surrounding RS is that of being able to dangle "But it's as much an RS as other identified RS's, therefore it is always an RS (and we have established a consensus on the matter: just take a look at this RS/N)!" in areas of Wikipedia where they are questionable at best. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Russia Today", now known as "RT", is considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines, in the same way that we consider CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS reliable sources, even though all of those sources have agendas, close ties to governments and corporations, and have had their reputation for fact checking questioned in the past. RT has established that they have a reputation for fact checking[5] even if their reputation has been questioned like all other reliable sources Wikipedia uses on a daily basis. Al Jazeera is funded by the House of Thani, the ruling family of Qatar; NPR, which was once solely funded by the US government, now gets the majority of its funding from individuals and corporations; Fox News and The Wall Street Journal are both connected to News Corp, which does not have a reputation for fact checking. MSNBC is another corporate owned news channel that claims to promote progressivism, but like The New York Times, has been accused of cultivating a close relationship with the US government and cracking down on journalists who criticize the administration. All of these sources have serious and ongoing problems with journalistic objectivity, corporate bias, and connections to government. To isolate RT from this collective cesspool of propaganda and disinformation and to pick on it alone as "unreliable" is the height of absurdity and hypocrisy. Good arguments can be made showing that RT has provided excellent reporting in certain areas, while other sources listed above have failed in the same areas. Let's talk about the journalists who criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or criticized the Bush and Obama administration that were fired or let go, or the journalists who were taken to court or ended up in prison. These are the media outlets you claim have a reputation for fact checking? Let's talk about the journalists who reported lies about the weapons of mass destruction, and promoted war and militarism without question or analysis. Let's talk about the history of fact checking from media outlets that reported over and over again that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Is that the grand tradition of reliability? Don't believe me, read it for yourself. No, I'm sorry, RT is just as reliable, and those who claim it's not are conveniently forgetting the last 13 years devoid of fact checking. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Viriditas for their excellent discussion here. Major papers in the United States and Britain have close relationships to their respective governments and to government officials, to the extent that all "national security" stories are now vetted by officials before publication. RT is, correspondingly, a paper of Russian officialdom. Fundamentally this is a political issue, in which medias and governments have interests and perspectives that follow from them. It's not simply a question of "western media being reliable" while "Russian media is not." -Darouet (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Major papers in the US and Britain do NOT have a "close relationship to their respective governments". This is a basic fallacy of equivocation. Just because there might be "some" relationship does not mean that is in the same league as the relationship between RT and the Russian government, where RT is really just the propaganda outlet for the Kremlin (and there's plenty of sources to back that up). Even government funded news outlets in US and Britain like BBC, NPR, or PBS do not have the same kind of "relationship" like RT does with Russian government. They have editorial independence and in fact you can often find the most critical stories in those outlets. Apples and oranges. Both fruit, but different.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not nonsense at all. It is a given fact that major papers in the US and Britain have a "close relationship to their respective governments", as that is how they get access.[6] You appear to be completely ignorant of how the relationship between government and the media works. Please try to do some research before commenting here again. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's bunk. Yes, obviously major papers in US and Britain have contacts with their respective governments (and other governments too). So freakin' what? That's completely different than being a state controlled, state directed, propaganda outlet like RT. Please try and actually *think* for half a second before you comment here again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not bunk at all. The US media is corporate and state controlled, but the government influence is more subtle, as in, don't criticize us or you won't be getting an interview with so and so, and your press credentials will be revoked and you won't be invited to this meeting, etc. Please do the most basic homework on this issue before spouting off here again. You clearly don't know the topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And how about you check in that smug patronizing attitude before you start ranting nonsensically again.

And let's take your claim at face value. In the case of one media-government relationship, if the government don't like you, you get your press pass revoked. In the case of the other media-government relationship, if the government don't like you, you get murdered. But hey, it's really the same thing, right? For someone so full of himself that even my laptop is blushing, you're not particularly sharp.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A big round of applause for pointing out what has been discussed over and over again in this venue, as well as a multitude of talk pages, as if it were a revelation. I don't put any faith in any major news services (seriously, who isn't well grounded in Chomsky?), and everyone is failing to address the fact that WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS should apply when it comes to behaving as if articles about current affairs should be legitimised before they're even established as meeting WP:GNG, i.e., they're still happening, folks. We now proudly feature a number of articles which are being questioned with regards to meeting WP:PERSISTENCE such as Federal State of Novorossiya, Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down, etc. I don't care how contributors are justifying flying under the radar, but these are areas for WikiNews, not WikiPEDIA. Political advocacy, crystal balls and anything speculative being surmised and improvised on the basis of news services violate the spirit of Wikipedia. If the name of the game is to attract more contributors to compensate for the dwindling numbers, it's certainly bringing SPA's in in droves. I'd rather wait until the paperbacks written by various and serious researchers have had a chance to sift through the rubble and publish (peer reviewed) their expert views come out, thanks. If the name of the game is to actually be credible, pandering to current affairs analysis should be curtailed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. Look, whatever your personal feelings about NPR, or NY Times or WSJ or ABC or CBS, those outlets DO have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Of course no news outlets has 100% score in that regard but so what? NYTimes is in a completely different league then RT. I'm sorry but it so happens that your views here are borderline (or over the border line) WP:FRINGE. This is a mainstream encyclopedia, and we follow mainstream sources and opinion. The last portion of your comment is really just one big rant about your own political views and honestly, who cares. See WP:SOAPBOX, there are other outlets out there on the internet for you to vent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing fringe about what I've said. RT gives more journalistic freedom to a reporter like Abby Martin, than MSNBC gave to Cenk Uygur (more found at MSNBC controversies). CNN's bias, close relationship to the government and lack of fact checking can be found at CNN controversies. And we see the same thing at Fox News Channel controversies. Edward Snowden didn't trust The New York Times because of their relationship to the US government.[7] None of this is "fringe", but to a reactionary, I suspect they would appear fringe. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RT gives more journalistic freedom to a reporter - according to some anonymous guy on the internet going under the pseudonym "Viriditas". That's not even a appeal to authority fallacy, it's just a baseless assertion of your own idiosyncratic opinion, unsupported by any sources or anything else. Unfortunately, reliable sources disagree with you widely. RT has been extensively described as a propaganda outlet of the Russian government. The other sources have not (sure, by some WP:FRINGE sources, and by Mr. Snowden, but so what?). You seem to completely lack the ability to differentiate matters of degree. Just because one source is not 100% perfect, that doesn't mean that it's automatically as bad as a source which is notorious for its bias, lack of accuracy, obsequiousness and idolatry towards Putin, etc. etc. etc. A gallon of milk that's one day past it's expiration day is a different thing than a gallon of milk that's four months old.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, more red hearrings and nonsensical statements intended to distract. A cursory look at the scholarly literature on media bias contradicts every claim you've made above: " US coverage of the Iraq War was an example of extreme patriotism where the media functioned as fine-tuned government propaganda machines"[8] "Overall, of the more than 600 sources categorized, official sources accounted for 33% of the news while military sources accounted for 26% of the news stories. It has been argued that the media often take sides of the institutionalized sources when it comes to issue of covering conflicts. This is because the media rely on the convenience provided by traditional sources of official informants. Invariably, those who are likely to provide alternative definitions through their critical views will not just have minimal access but may also be attacked if their commentaries are considered as unpatriotic. (Avraham, 2000). The hegemonic role of the elite media and their sources becomes fiercer when there is a perceived threat to the agenda set forth by the dominant power brokers."[9] Clearly, you do not know what you are talking about. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. It's impossible to have a intelligent conversation with someone who is convinced that they are in possession of the one, sole, truth and their only response to disagreement is badgering and insults. If you don't get it, you won't get it. The project you're looking for is something like Conservatopedia, just tailored to your particular biases and prejudices, where you can rant and rave all about the evils of the "Mainstream Media (TM)" to your hearts content. Or get a blog. This isn't it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@viriditas

You are right and wrong at the same time. Yes many other if not all news outlets may have issues and agendas and yes it is hypocritical to single out RT. So far you are right. However the (implicit) conclusion you seem to suggest that all news outlets therefore are the same (hence should be treated the same) is unfortunately equally if not more hypocritical.

Polemically speaking (or tongue in cheek) we could use your line of arguing to skip any distinction between yellow press and serious press, after all as you rightly pointed out we all know about misbehaviour that serious media like the NYT did commit, so why singling out issues of the yellow press. Since were are at it why having a distinction between scholarly literature and news outlets? After all we all know very well of various scholarly scandals even in the natural sciences. So let's just treat all types of published sources the same way.

Obviously that is hardly the way to go. To get more concrete equating or likening the US government-NYT relation with that of RT and the Russian government is utterly ridiculous (does RT have a history of criticism of the Russian government and legal battles with it?). Reducing Al Jazeera to be funded by Thani, without actually having a look how it has or has not influenced its reporting and without distinguishing between Al Jazeera Arabic, Al Jazeera Americas and Al Jazeera English is equally ridiculous. For Fox news on the other hand personally I'd agree they are overall indeed as bad or as unreliable RT as far as quality reporting and agendas are concerned, however even they are currently rather critical of their own government contrary to RT. As far as the questionable behaviour and reporting of various US news outlets in aftermath of 9/11 are concerned, I'd recommend to be less US fixated. Leading reputable newspapers in other parts in the world were pointing all those issues at the time already. All those members of congress claiming to have been deceived by the the US intel agencies and press had to do was reading a few European newspapers. The day Powell was giving his infamous speech at the UN for instance major news outlets/newspapers in Europe already carried detailed stories why the evidence was wrong.

The "inconvenient truth" here imho is that we should do neither, that is neither singling out RT as the only bad one nor treating them all the same. There is no way to judge the reliability without a specific context and there is no simple rule that works across any context. There are criteria you can look at for a rule of thumb to crudely assess the overall reliability of a news outlet (based in democratic state versus a non democratic one, ownership and funding, local press laws, local press and opinion diversity, overall reputation for reporting (rather than individual cases), structural and legal set up (not all types of state funded are the same). However all of that might mean nothing in a particular context. So if in a given context you have good reasons to mistrust the accuracy of a news outlet, check other independent news outlets (ideally with an overall reputation for reliability) - at best several of them. If you are worried about news outlets in particular country, pick reputable news outlets from other countries (preferably with a free press and it a not too closely aligned country). Stay away from binary categorizations and often misleading simplifications a la US versus Russia or East versus West and be aware that reliability is not a binary thing is but rather a grey scale. It matters where on that grey scale a news outlet is placed in a given context and they are not all the same!--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RT does not seem to fall under yellow journalism, nor is it a criteria in WP:RS that a news outlet be critical of its own government. Fox News is only critical of the present administration because it is on the opposite side of the partisan divide, so those qualifications are somewhat spurious.

This is not about WP:RECENTISM, it's about the continual attempts by ideological foes to dismiss RT as a reliable source because it represents the POV of the Russian government. I think it reaches WP:NOTBATTLE at points, and is highly counterproductive.

As for a concrete example, here is a link to a thread from a month ago relating to the use of an attributed statement by the Russian PM sourced to an RT article.

Is this article Nuland's cookies as illustration of West's 'policy of non-interference' in Ukraine reliable for the following statement?

In December 2013, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev criticised her(Nuland's) support for Ukraine's Euromaidan anti-government protests as interference in the affairs of a sovereign state.

Maybe we should put that to a vote.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How many times now have you been told to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse? How many times have you been reprimanded for your continous and non-ceasing WP:FORUMSHOPPING? How many times has it been pointed out that you have a destructive WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude? As soon as you don't get your way in one discussion you run to a different board and restart the same discussion with the same crap. And when that don't work either, a week or two later you try and reopen that old discussion yet again. With the same same same. Quit. Wasting. People's. Time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a representative case of a specific instance that this more all-encompassing thread is about. It is not forum shopping, as the thread is from this board a month ago, as stated above. You have yet to make a single policy-based argument to justify the attempt to dismiss RT as a reliable source. Why is it that you are trying to impede discussion?

Here, it has been brought to my attention that the piece referenced above is not directly from RT, but from an affiliated agency Rossiya Segodnya, which is directed by the same person Margarita Simonyan. For all intents and purposes, they appear to be in the same bracket, with Rossiya Segodnya being

...the official Russian government owned international news agency founded by presidential decree on 9 December 2013

That being the case, I'm going to strike through that, leaving the link to the relevant thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

Folks, we're getting all heated up when there isn't a specific issue under discussion. Please, what is the specific text in what specific article that you want to use a statement from Russia Today/RT to back? If we can have that, we can discuss it. But just arguing over generalities like this yields more heat than light. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban: Did you see my comment above where I struck a portion of it. Please check the following linked-to thread

As for a concrete example, here is a link to a thread from a month ago relating to the use of an attributed statement by the Russian PM

That is from a Rossiya Segodnya piece, which seems to be about in about the same category. I would be very interested to hear your evaluation of the RS status of that attributed comment.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you say it's Rossiya Segodnya? It seems to be Voice of Russia. Are you talking about this? Anyway, an official government news agency is certainly reliable for statements from officials of that government. --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply.

Yes, the name is confusing, but here is a quote from the Voice of Russia article you linked to

On 9 December 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a presidential decree liquidating Voice of Russia as an agency and merging it with RIA Novosti to form the Rossiya Segodnya (Russia Today) international news agency.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Kmhkmh makes an important point -'There are differences between the serious press and the yellow press and there are differences between the "free" press and the press in totalitarian states or a press known to be under strong direct influence of governments - imo a question I could frame like - 'what first made you wary of Kremlin-funded RT ' is a question of the same order caroline Aherne asked Debbie McGee - 'what first attracted you to the millionaire paul Daniels[10]' - to pretend any news organistaion is as reliable as any other for independent reportage is either disingenuous or just plain nihilistic Sayerslle (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)-

Those "differences" seem to be based on a selective memory. For example, see the shoddy reporting, close relationship to government, and overt bias documented at CNN controversies, MSNBC controversies, Fox News Channel controversies, NPR controversies, CBS News controversies and criticism, and other articles. When The New York Times isn't too busy attacking dead journalists like Michael Hastings, they are working hard at suppressing stories like warrantless domestic eavesdropping, which they refused to print back in 2004. All of these so-called "reliable sources" have a proven conflict of interest when it comes to covering stories involving their corporate sponsors or the government. RT is no different. But, according to this discussion, the standards of journalism should only apply to RT, not to anyone else. Yet, we see time and time again, that the accusations made against RT apply equally to other reliable sources. Media bias in the United States covers this topic in full. When you review the evidence, we see that RT is in fact not so different than other reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Complaining about a selective bias by representing one yourself is hardly making your case. If you are so concerned about bias in US mainstream media, then consider alternative reliable US news sources like democracy now or even better skip US media completely and use Canadian, Australian, Irish, Indian, Japanese, British, Brazilian, French, German, Spanish, Scandinavian media, Al Jazeera English, etc. instead. And by the way the standards for journalism apply to any journalistic source, you are simply pursuing a "all crimes are the same"-strategy, which intentionally (?) ignores degree and frequency.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Complaining about RT and isolating them as an example of an unreliable source while ignoring the inherent bias in every mainstream reliable source we use daily on Wikipedia, while at the same pretending they are more reliable is the selective bias at work here. You're merely trying to reverse the claims. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't isolate RT nor do ignore the issue or bias with other media outlets, I do however strongly oppose to treat them all the same just because most/all of them made mistakes or had some issue at some point. Treating them all the same is imho wilfull ignorance due to binary classification (media with issues and media without issue). As I pointed out earlier it rather gray scale rather than a binary black and white issue. There is a difference between following a government line on a very few occasions or specific issues or following it more or less all the time. Not to mention that there is bunch of other differences as well (I discussed them in earlier postings already). And yes though both have issues or a bias I consider overall the NYT as more reliable than RT, because they placed at different location on that gray scale. Which one might be more reliable on particular issue depends on the specific context. More importantly if I suspect a strong bias of the NYT on particular issue, I'm not going to use it but resort to other media (as described above). For the same reason I'd almost never would use RT as source for political issue (other than for sourcing the Russian government line/view), but resort to other media. I would however use RT on non-political, non-contentious issues if i have no ther sources available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Who was more reliable when it came to covering the Occupy Wall Street protests, NYT or RT? More to the point, "It is now widely acknowledged that the Bush administration used faulty and false information to justify the 2003 war on Iraq, and that the mainstream media, by not adequately investigating the case for war, assisted with the project."[11] The NYT played a major role in that assistance, especially in regards to the work of Judith Miller. Yet they are more reliable in your eyes? How are you able to selectively blinder yourself? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an obvious fallacy. Selective rhetoric about other sources is not going to help us reach a new agreement on whether or not RT is a reliable source. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

this is quite an interesting read from buzzfeed how the truth is made at Russia today - and heres a report where the russians admit they lied about white phosphorous use in Ukraine, and it got reported slavishly by Kremlin RT , 'The false report was promoted by Kremlin propaganda arm RT.com then all the predictable pro-Kremlin echo chambers and discussed avidly on forums.' [12] -Sayerslle (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The buzzfeed article you present was written by Rosie Gray, who seems to be working closely with the Foreign Policy Initiative to attack RT and present FPI talking points as "news".[13][14] Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek uncovered this attack on RT and revealed it back in March.[15] Your "interesting read" is pure propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theories about United States sources aside, I don't see why we should use RT for anything given what we know about its history and press freedom in Russia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Media bias in the United States is not a "conspiracy theory" -- that's just a thought-terminating cliché you use to stifle discussion. Given what we know about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times, and other problematic sources (see above), we therefore know that RT is no different. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • No, we do know that there are different and I'm a bit astonished of your inability to recognize that. By the way if you have issues with "CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times" use democracynow.org instead or Al Jazeera English/Americas, but there is no need to resort to RT.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "Given what we know about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times, and other problematic sources (see above), we therefore know that RT is no different." ... says an anonymous guy on the internet. Credibility = zero, or negative given the personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND smug tone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Another ad hominem? I've already added sources up above demonstrating the problem with CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times and others, and they are the same problems faced by RT.[16] According to Ayeni 2004, "The skewed proportion of those who had close affiliations with the power brokers, namely official and military sources, could be indicative of a covert propaganda on the part of the establishment to ensure that the position of the government receives media attention as much as possible. Hiebert, 2003 made a reference to a commitment on the part of the US government to win the war in the mass media as much as the war at the battle front in Iraq."[17] So the very same things you accuse RT of have been condoned by ABC, CNN, CBS, FOX, NBC, and others. Does the name Judith Miller ring a bell? According to Foer, " Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war."[18] This is all common knowledge. The media corporatocracy works with the government to promote propaganda. And you are accusing RT of doing what the American media has been doing from day one. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
        • What ad hominem? You are an anonymous guy on the internet, are you not? And for ffs. Do any of the links you provide say that "ABC, CNN, FOX, NBS, and others" are on the same level as RT? No. Do any of these even mention RT? No? Then what's your point? If you want to start a new thread and argue that ABC or CNN or whatever are not reliable sources then please do so, and link to these to your heart's content. You seem to have a very hard time understanding matters of degree. One more time. It's not that hard. Just think about it for a second. If you make an effort I'm sure you can understand. Just because it's possible to criticize US or British media, does not mean that it's "just like RT". This is fairly elementary. In the literal sense, in that usually by the time they get to elementary school, even kids can understand the difference.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • United States media bias is an issue of ideology, not of government tinkering like we get with RT. The idea that Phil Donahue, for example, was fired for IRaq and not, say, his terrible ratings, is a conspiracy theory. It's irrelevant to this discussion anyway, as RT's lack of reliability is independent of any issues that might be cropping up with independent US sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • That's a popular misconception. Any discussion over left-right paradigm issues are mostly a distraction from the real, underlying issues. People who go on and on about "liberal" or "conservative" bias are missing the point and are just creating noise. I just finished providing multiple sources indicating major government tinkering like we get with RT.[19][20] This is not any different than RT. Furthermore, the issue is not independent of any other issues with American sources, the issue is endemic in all sources. RT meets the bar for reliability on a case by case basis, just like any other mainstream source that has problems with journalistic bias, corporate ties, or government sources. According to reliable scholarly sources about the media, MSNBC cancelled the Phil Donahue Show because they believed Donahue "seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." That's straight from the internal memo leaked out of MSNBC. The network was worried that Donahue would become "a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." Far from a conspiracy theory that you make it out to be, this is widely reported fact supported by evidence, published in multiple academic sources. Please correct yourself. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• I see WP:FRINGE. RGloucester — ☎ 02:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What is that hollow comment supposed to mean? To what are you obliquely asserting that WP:FRINGE applies in relation to the sources under discussion?—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

All intelligent people are skeptical of the news media. Everyone knows where the stuff comes from. However, that doesn't mean that usually reliable sources that are known to be largely independent and acclaimed by the vast majority of people can suddenly be equated with a state-run sensationalist outlet that is widely questioned in reliable sources across the English-speaking world. RGloucester — ☎ 02:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Stephan Zweig, in his wonderful memoir The World of Yesterday, describes the role of free Austrian, German, and international media in the days leading to to the First World War, in fascinating and I believe pertinent terms. Though he did know writers who sought a perspective independent of their governments, Zweig writes that:

…it was supposed to be the intellectuals - the writers and the authors, the journalists - who did their country the service of whipping up feeling in this way, with a good or a guilty conscience, either honestly or as a matter of routine… Almost everyone in Germany, France, Italy, Russia and Belgium obediently served this war propaganda, and thereby served the mass delusion and mob hatred of war instead of resisting it. The consequences were devastating…"

The reasons that national medias tend, not universally but as a body, to support national governments and perceived national interests are, no doubt, complicated and perhaps even intangible. This phenomenon is far older than WWI and is, if you pay attention to the landscape of today's world's political conflicts and journalism, a continuing problem. Glenn Greenwald, the principle journalist who worked with Edward Snowden, has a lot to say about the American media and its integration (socially, ideologically, politically) with the American government. Some of his details are fascinating, so I hope you won't mind my quoting his applicable passages here. In his book No Place to Hide he writes that

there’s nothing extraordinary about this kind of media collaboration with Washington. It is routine, for example, for reporters to adopt the official US position in disputes with foreign adversaries and to make editorial decisions based on what best promotes “US interests” as defined by the government. Bush DOJ lawyer Jack Goldsmith hailed what he called “an underappreciated phenomenon: the patriotism of the American press,” meaning that the domestic media tend to show loyalty to their government’s agenda. He quoted Bush CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, who noted that American journalists display “a willingness to work with us,” but with the foreign press, he added, “it’s very, very difficult.”

Greenwald continues,

Many of the influential journalists in the United States are now multimillionaires. They live in the same neighborhoods as the political figures and financial elites over which they ostensibly serve as watchdogs. They attend the same functions, they have the same circles of friends and associates, their children go to the same elite private schools.

This is one reason why journalists and government officials can switch jobs so seamlessly. The revolving door moves the media figures into high-level Washington jobs, just as government officials often leave office to the reward of a lucrative media contract. Time magazine’s Jay Carney and Richard Stengel are now in government while Obama aides David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs are commentators on MSNBC. These are lateral transfers far more than career changes: the switch is so streamlined precisely because the personnel still serve the same interests.

He sums up as follows:

US establishment journalism is anything but an outsider force. It is wholly integrated into the nation’s dominant political power. Culturally, emotionally, and socioeconomically, they are one and the same. Rich, famous, insider journalists do not want to subvert the status quo that so lavishly rewards them. Like all courtiers, they are eager to defend the system that vests them with their privileges and contemptuous of anyone who challenges that system.

This understanding, which is political, is wholly lacking in the arguments above that seek to place American media institutions on a pedestal above RT. I don't know how many Wikipedia editors here are American, but we have a serious problem if we want to objectively represent the world to the world's readers, but fall victim to fundamentally national perspectives or prejudices. I really don't have the energy or time to contribute sufficiently to this discussion, but Viriditas and Ubikwit have been spot on. You need to be critical, and thoughtful, when you read any article at all, be it from The New York Times, Die Welt, RT, or anywhere. But the contention that RT is fundamentally worse is a partisan one. -Darouet (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Folks, the original question posed was "Is Russia Today considered a RS?" To which the answer is yes (as are RIA-Novosti, ITAR-TASS and other mainstream Russian sources). Russia Today may be biased towards the Russian Government's point of view, but that doesn't mean it can't be used. If bias is found, then the solution is to counter that bias by finding other sources which counter that bias. We at Wikipedia are required to have a NPOV, the media are not. This makes our job here that bit harder, but not impossible. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes. Again. It is true that all media outlets make mistakes or engage in biased reporting. And it is true that often, especially in times of war or international conflict, media outlets tend to support the positions of their respective governments. But there's a whole world of difference between a media outlet that for whatever reason chooses to pursue a particular editorial line, and a media outlet that is set-up, directed, operated, and solely dedicated to furthering an agenda of a particular government. RT is fundamentally worse from the perspective of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. It was set up that way.

Like it or not, this is a mainstream encyclopedia. If you want to fight the power, stick it to the man, overthrow the system, complain about the "MSM", that's fine (and I may even say, more power to you), but this. isn't. the. place. for. it.

I'd say exactly the same thing to anyone who tried to argue that some far-right newspaper is a reliable source, just because the "libtard media is full of lies" and systematically biased against creationism or whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've started an RfC relating to the reliability of state owned/operated news media outlets at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#RfC_-_Do_we_need_a_new_section_on_state_owned_and.2For_operated_news_agencies.3F_Are_they_excluded_from_RS.3F.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Russia Today goes beyond just mere bias, they actually fabricate stories to push their agenda, and have be caught out doing so here and here. This article[21] discusses the way RT fabricates stories, which has led to high staff turnover by journalists who are confronted with the way RT operates. At the very least, the above discussion shows there is no consensus on the reliability of RT, therefore RT must be treated with caution. --Nug (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, the same claims you've made about Russia Today can be made about every mainstream reliable source you hold holy and above reproach. In 1990, U.S. News & World Report claimed that there were "shocking acts of brutality inflicted by the Iraqis against innocent citizens at Kuwaiti hospitals" and that Iraqi soldiers "entered the Adan Hospital in Fahaheel looking for hospital equipment to steal" and that "they unplugged the oxygen to the incubators supporting 22 premature babies and made off with the incubators" killing 22 babies. Then US president George H. W. Bush used those claims as a pretext to attack Iraq. The only problem, of course, is that it never happened. The claims were a sophisticated PR propaganda campaign run by a public relations committee set up by the Kuwaiti embassy.[22] Yet US media outlets reported it as Holy Gospel from God himself, and any journalist who questioned it was accused of being unpatriotic or in danger of losing their job. This is the US, not Russia I'm talking about! Where's the difference? And of course, the same thing happened after 9/11, when The New York Times ratcheted up the rhetoric about "weapons of mass destruction"—which led then US president George W. Bush to invade Iraq again.[23] The only problem? There never were any weapons of mass destruction, just like there were never any babies being removed from their incubator. I can go on and on like this, with example after example of the mainstream US media making up stories, disseminating propaganda and disinformation, and firing any investigative reporter who challenges the veracity of their talking points. Remember Jessica Lynch and the Pentagon propaganda that every US media outlet reported as holy gospel?[24] How about Pat Tillman's heroic death in the line of enemy fire that the media reported? [25] Do I need to go on? It's hard to tell if RT is any different than mainstream reliable sources. The problem is that the people in this discussion have a short attention span, an even shorter memory, and don't question what the media spoonfeeds you. Guess what, you're being fed the same lies as RT. And for the second time, the Buzzfeed article is a work of propaganda itself, written by Rosie Gray, who seems to be working closely with the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) to attack RT and present FPI talking points as "news".[26][27] Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek uncovered this attack on RT and revealed it back in March.[28] According to The Nation, the FPI was launched by "Kagan, Edelman, Senor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol [as] a neocon successor to PNAC. FPI’s mission has been to keep the Bush doctrine alive in the Obama era—supporting a troop increase in Afghanistan and opposing a 2014 withdrawal; advocating a 20,000-troop residual force in Iraq; backing a military strike and/or regime change in Iran; promoting military intervention in Syria; urging a more confrontational posture toward Russia; and opposing cuts in military spending."[29] Viriditas (talk)
    • Well no, these wacky conspiracy theories of neocons lurking under beds you linked don't actually show that the mainstream US media makes up stories, their journalists may have been fed misinformation by their sources and reported them in good faith as in the incubator case, they weren't ordered by their management to make stuff up like RT apparently does. --Nug (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. You seem to favor plausible deniability as a modus operandi for the corrupt Western news media, yet you continue to level unsubstantiated allegations against RT citing sensationalistic social networking borderline "yellow journalism" sources to support your POV.

I would also point to CIA influence on public opinion, particular the section on gray propaganda. Before the exposures by Philip Agee, the CIA bragged about how many media outlets it had (editorial) control over.

At least RT acknowledges that it is a state-controlled news outlet.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would failed agents like Philip Agee, forced to resign from the CIA due to his drinking, womanising and profligate spending be more truthful than your allegedly "corrupt Western news media"? After all, people like Agee had a direct financial interest in propagating their sensationalist tales, book sales and happy Cuban paymasters. --Nug (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

He refuted those allegations.

More to the point would be why was the Intelligence Identities Protection Act enacted due to his disclosures? And moreover, why wasn't it applied in the case of Valerie Plame?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, he had a million reasons to refute those allegations, all denominated in US dollars. Intelligence Identities Protection Act was enacted to protect Intelligence identities from those who would profit from their exposure. Agee has the blood of several people on his hands, executed after he had betrayed them. --Nug (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to treat Russia Today as a reliable source. There is evidence of repeatedly fabricated & distorted reports - on controversial topics where editors seem most keen to cite RT. I recognise that some editors may really want to cite a Kremlin propaganda outlet if hundreds of other reliable sources fail to support the Truth that they want to put into an article, but that's exactly why we shouldn't cite RT. bobrayner (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, "Russia Today", now known as "RT", is considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. We use RT in the same way that we use other government funded sources, such as the BBC, NPR, and Al Jazeera. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the majority of mainstream reliable sources have documented and ongoing media bias issues that bear little difference to the problems associated with RT. Finally, it is noted that the opposition to using RT on Wikipedia comes from partisan POV pushers who have been using Wikipedia as a proxy to "fight" Russia. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have the power to manufacture consensus. There isn't any. If there was, this debate would not be happening. Accusations about "partisan POV pushers" are not helping your "cause". RGloucester — ☎ 20:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You're a day late and a dollar short. Consensus showing that RT is considered a reliabe source has already been recognized by at least one uninvolved admin.[30] This consensus has been recognized by a wide sample of the community from Viriditas, Erlbaeko, Ubikwit, GRuban, TheBlueCanoe, Herzen, Ian.thomson, Zambelo, Darouet, and Iryna Harpy. The caveat that editors are cautioned to use RT carefully in controversial areas holds true for most other news sources, such as Fox News. Therefore, "Russia Today", now known as "RT", is considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. There is a large consensus for this opinion, and the objections to this consensus seem to come from involved editors with a history of disruption in the Eastern European topic area and from culture warriors who are fighting a "cold war" against Russian sources. This consensus is clear and obvious. Now, put the stick down and stop beating this horse, it's already dead. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Appeal to authority by citing the opinion of some admin won't work here. It is also somewhat tendentious to continue list people as supporting your cause when they previously stated they actually don't[31]. Equally a wide sample of the community from bobrayner, RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, Thargor Orlando, Nug, Kmhkmh, Sayerslle, GRuban, and Collect do not support your position. In other words, there is no consensus wrt RT's reliability. Notion that some editors are fighting a "cold war" against Russian sources is just plain wacky, the Russian government run news agency RIAN (prior to Putin ordering its liquidation) was an order of magnitude more reliable than RT, as they don't blatantly fabricate stories like RT does. --Nug (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia best practices involves uninvolved editors or admins closing discussions. Admins are expected to be familiar with our policies and guidelines unlike unvetted editors. When a group of editors involved in a particular topic area, like Eastern Europe articles, attempts to override our guideline on WP:RS by creating a separate, local consensus to eliminate the reliability of a source they don't like (RS), then often times an uninvolved admin is needed to set them straight. The consensus on this matter is clear and unambiguous and has been reviewed by multiple, uninvovled editors, including myself. Your contribution history shows that you have a POV in this discussion. It seems to me that your POV is interfering with your judgment in this matter. Any uninvolved editor or admin can review this entire discussion and see quite clearly that "Russia Today", now known as "RT", is considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines but should be used carefully in controversial areas, just like any disputed source, like Fox News, for example. In other words, this discussion is now over. Please do not continue to claim that there is no consensus when such a consensus is overwhelmingly clear and easy to see. Any opposition to this consensus appears to consist of POV local consensus making in contravention of our sitewide policy and guidelines. Furthermore, the bulk of the opposition to this consensus is composed of red herrings, personal attacks, and threats and intimidation. You've claimed that bobrayner, RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, Thargor Orlando, Nug, Kmhkmh, Sayerslle, GRuban and Collect don't support the use of RT as a reliable source, however, your claim is false, as many of these users have admitted that it can be used as a reliable source in this discussion. Collect, for example, said that the use of RT "depends a lot on what the claim is" and that "They have 'opinion content' as well as fact reportage, and without stating what it is to be used for, there is no single answer", which defaults to RT is a reliable source in some places just like any other source, which is exactly what the consensus currently holds. Sayerslle and Gruban both agree with this. Therefore, that leaves 12 editors for the use of RT as a reliable source (Viriditas, Erlbaeko, Ubikwit, GRuban, TheBlueCanoe, Herzen, Ian.thomson, Zambelo, Darouet, Iryna Harpy, Collect, and Sayerslle) and 5 editors against (including yourself, bobrayner, RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, and Thargor Orlando). Consensus for the use of RT as a reliable source is clear and unambiguous. As with all reliable sources, they must be used carefully in controversial areas and with great care. Please find something else to do with your time or remove yourself from the Eastern Europe topic area if you can't edit without disruption. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT won't work either. Every request I have ever seen here on RSN requires some kind of context of the source usage in determining reliability, editors like Collect, GRuban and others all rightly point out that it depends on the context. Your proposition that "RT is a reliable source. Full stop." is simply not supported, there is no "clear and unambiguous" consensus in that regard. RT is of course a reliable source for reporting the Kremlin's current propaganda line, but as for reliably reporting facts (like mis-reporting Ukraine using UN badged helicopters against pro-Russian insurgents), it simply isn't. —Nug (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There is consensus in this discussion that RT is a reliable source by 12-5. I'm sorry that you don't like it. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of the RS guideline and applies to all sources. Perhaps you should actually read it. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is "clear and unambiguous". Russia Today is reliable in certain contexts, such as reporting the position of the Russian government. However, outlandish claims that often appear in its headlines that are not able to be verified anywhere in mainstream western media are clearly not reliable. This is just common sense, and you seem to want to privilege your own bizarre view on everyone else with your "full stop". Anyway, nothing here is a vote, as I'm sure you're aware. Tallying "participants" means nought, and isn't helpful in this discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear and unambiguous consensus that RT is considered a reliable source regardless of how many times 5 involved editors complain. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The claim of consensus is simply false. If anything, once you stop misrepresenting other people's statements, there's more of a consensus that RT is not a reliable source, except in certain narrow circumstances. Stop making stuff up. Full stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The claim of consensus is simply true and demonstrable. Please stop attacking other editors and changing the subject and then claiming there is no consensus. There's a consensus of editors by 12-5 that RT is acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Thanks for participating in this discussion, but it's time for you to move on. If you like, you are welcome to refrain from posting in the Eastern Europe topic area to avoid further disruption. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeating over and over again that there's a consensus, as a way of fending off the hordes who disagree with you, is tendentious editing. Consensus doesn't work that way, and you know it. You don't achieve consensus by simply declaring that whatever you want is the Right Way, and that all dissent is due to other people being "involved" or "biased" or, even, secretly supporting your cause even though they insist otherwise. For instance, listing GRuban as a supporter of some blanket approval for this source, when GRuban's edits here have said the opposite. bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have already demonstrated a consensus that RT is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Repeating over and over again that you and a minority of other editors refuse to recognize this consensus is your problem. RT can and is used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. No amount of personal attacks will change this fact. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break 3

Proclamations that consensus says "Russia Today is a reliable source" misstate what the actual "consensus" is. My own position, that "reliability" depends on what the source is being used to support is clearly what the "consensus" here is, and has always been. Bold faced claims otherwise do not alter that fundamental position of the vast majority of editors here. And ad hom attacks on folks being "biased" in any way do not help the cause of those assertions. Right now, we have "War and Peace" texts above, and I fear that some extreme cases of deafness are apparent. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are three or four main viewpoints on this topic (the two first may overlap):

• RT is not an RS. It should be banned from WP.
• RT is not an RS, but can, if no other source writes the same, be used as a source in the simplest way (“the government said blablabla".)
• RT is a biased source, reliable for simple, non-controversial facts, but should be avoided for anything controversial. I guess the position “it depends on what the source is being used to support” falls into this category?
• RT is as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinions.

After reading the discussion, I still fall in the last category, but I agree it has to be used with caution (all news sources should). Remember the statement on the five pillars page. Per WP:5: "We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone."

Anyway, according to WP:WIARM, if a statement conflict factually with other sources (regardless if it is RT or another source), the situation needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. That means; reverting a statement with a comment like: “See talk page” is OK, if a reasonable reason is described on the talk page. To just undo a revision with a short comment like, “RT is not an RS”, in the revision summary is never OK. Nor is it a valid argument on talk pages. Cheers. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Imho the first and the last category currently have the least consent so far. As I understood you (and in particular Viriditas and Ubikwit as well) you argue for the last category, whereas I'd argue for the third. The question of a proper or optimal procedure for a revert is another problem, that's beyond our scope here. A lot of people perform edits or reverts with insufficient commenting (from none to abbreviated stuff being unclear to the editors). In any case a disagreement about an edit (including the associated edit comment or lack thereof) needs to be discussed on the talk page of the affected article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I share the views with Ubikwit and Viriditas. I also believe you safely can add Zambelo, Herzen, Darouet and Mjroots to that category. But this is not a vote, and I am getting pretty tired of arguments which is not founded in the guideline or the policy. As clarly stated on the top of the page; "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy." anyway. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that RT is as reliable a source as most for simple statements of fact, and that its opinions, which should be attributed, are almost always notable enough to deserve inclusion if at least some body of editors argue so. RT is a source that has predictable bias, much like other sources that we consider reliable: in RT's case this bias means that RT's political perspective tends to support that of Moscow. Our response should be to treat RT's political perspective according to that understanding, just as we know that The New York Times or the BBC have their own national orientation.

Such an attitude neither excludes RT as a source, nor demands that we reprint every opinion they publish. -Darouet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well put.

On this board, a number of editors commenting on this thread attempted to dismiss, in an earlier thread, the use of VoR for an attributed statement by the Russian PM because it was critical of an American diplomat, in relation to an article that has 2-3 other quotes from national-level leaders criticizing the same American diplomat. The real problem is not the national orientation of sources, which are allowed to be biased, but the national orientation of Wikipedia editors that attempt to dismiss sources to win content disputes.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Not so well put.

• a)The "national orientation" of RT is hardly comparable with that of the NYT or the BBC (not BBC world).
• b)Yes, the "national orientation" of WP editors can be problem, but that works both ways, not just with the dismissal of presumably proper sources to win content disputes but also with the inclusion of questionable sources to win content disputes. RT imho even fits both sides. The real problem is that for those editors ideology or personal bias trumps the goals of WP in doubt, i.e. POV pushing is more important to them

--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion has run so long that several arbitrary breaks have had to be inserted while descending into Appeals to authority, walls of text, Ad hominen attacks over alleged "national orientation", misrepresenting what other editors say, treating the discussion as a WP:VOTE, and claiming over an over again like a mantra that "clear and unambiguous" consensus exists when it obviously doesn't, is a red flag that indicates the apparent tendentiousness of some editors in attempting to push their strident POV that RT is an entirely reliable source no worse than say, the BBC. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree with any of the four main viewpoints above? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nuggy, the article on BBC controversies pretty much refutes your claim. And the tendentiousness here is coming from the editors who refuse to recognize the overwhelming consensus that RT is considered a reliable source. If you don't like that, then don't edit articles where RT is used. It's as simple as that. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Viriditi, are you blind or being daft? I really can't see how someone can sit there and claim that a "overwhelming consensus" exist with a straight face, in light of this whole discussion. That's more than simple "chutzpah", it's simply delusional. Or insanely bad faithed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I've said before, in the face of overwhelming consensus that Wikipedia considers RT a reliable source, your only response to this overwhelming consensus that considers RT a reliable source, is to make personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Pragmatism is key. Outlandish claims that don't appear in reliable sources, that is, can't be verified, should be kept out of articles unless discussion on talk pages says otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Most would agree with that statement, I do. I don't see where anyone arguing that RT is a RS in the 3rd or 4th group of the schema presented by Erlbaeko above has argued that "outlandish claims" from any source belong in articles.

One could add that no such examples of RT's "outlandish claims" have been presented, while the outlandish claims such as those made by A gay girl in Damascus, for example, have been cited as one counter (among many others that have been described by Viriditas) of such claims being made in non-state controlled media outlets.—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this article[32]. It is laden with outlandish claims and sensationalism, such as mentioning a "coup-imposed authorities in Kiev" and a "massacre". I find it hard to accept such an article that doesn't even try to hide its sensationalist bent. Tabloid journalism is tabloid journalism, and this encyclopaedia should not be based on the yellowness of tabloids. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say that this is a case where WP:NOTNEWS might apply, and that the article, attributing much of the content to facebook posts, should not be considered accurate or reliable for that content. It does, however, describe the report released by Kiev.

Two other points seems more subjective.

The first relating to the definition of a "massacre". This Telegraph piece makes mention of the label with respect to the incident.

The second relates to the use of "coup". That would be WP:UNDUE in this context, but the unconstitutional removal of the head of state as a result of the Kiev protests meets the criteria of a coup d'etat per Wikipedia

Politically, a coup d'état is a usually violent method of political engineering, which affects who rules in the government, without radical changes in the form of the government, the political system. Tactically, a coup d'état involves control, by an active minority of usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) defenders of the state's possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country's key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure.

and is certainly noteworthy as such as well as in the context of the POV of the Russian government both Putin and Lavrov characterized it as such, e.g., in this BBC piece. That is something that should be discussed on the respective Wikipedia articles relevant to that topic, not on the article on the tragedy in Odessa.

Western news organizations also reported that the transition of power was not unconstitutional as it did not follow the constitutionally defined procedures for impeachment. That is factual reporting, with the coup d'etat characterization being noteworthy POV of the Russian government that should be presented along with the interpretation of event presented by Western news organizations in accordance with DUE and WEIGHT. —Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have a tendency not to trust sources that are willing to print stories based on Facebook posts, or to use subjective and inflammatory terms like "massacre" in instances that don't line up with reality. That doesn't sound like a "reputation for fact-checking" to me. Whether the action was "unconstitutional" is clearly a matter of point-of-view. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of Ukrainian constitutional law, but I do know that many different people have many different opinions as to whether that action was "constitutional" or not. The difference, of course, is that Russia Today unabashedly makes these claims about "massacres" and "coups", but doesn't even acknowledge that there are other points of view, or that there is some nuance in the situation. In the reports of Russia Today, there is no nuance. There is no room for error on the part of Russia Today. There is merely what Russia Today says, and nothing else. I do not consider this to be a hallmark of a "reliable source", and I'd apply the same logic to other tabloids, irrespective of where their offices are located. RGloucester — ☎ 05:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Facebook posts are questionable, but the quotes are attributed, and the individual is described as being "the head of Odessa's emergency service department, Vladimir Bodelan".

So while I think that the characterization of RT as a "tabloid" is exaggerated and wrong, I would agree that the article you cited would not be a reliable source for the Wikipedia article on the tragedy in Odessa.

Regarding "massacre", the Wikipedia article reads

A massacre is a specific incident in which a military force, mob, or other group kill many people—and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent. No clear-cut criteria defines when a mass killing is a massacre.

—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to claim that we should use facebook posts, or sources which rely on facebook quotes as sources? Because, apparently, "they're attributed"? This discussion has reached a new level of absurdity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. The point was that RT stated that the commentary it was referring to was derived from Facebook quotes, and not from that individual by way of an interview or statement to the media. RT presented the Facebook quotes in context, it didn't misrepresent the context. The individual was noteworthy, he made the Facebook posts, RT reported it. I don't think that from a journalistic standpoint there is technically any problems with that. To the extent that facts were available were they checked? It would appear so, assuming that the Facebook posts were verified. Should RT have reported the Facebook posts? That another question relating to editorial discretion.

Obviously Facebook quotes are of extremely limited use on Wikipedia, and always questionable. As I said above, such social media buzz probably should generally be considered to fall under WP:NOTNEWS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"No clear-cut criteria" demonstrates exactly why the word shouldn't be used. Regardless of that, another matter of point of view is whether the fire was intended to kill those inside, or whether the fire was set purposely. In fact, it is even point of view as to whether the fire killed the people, and not other outlandish things like "chloroform". There is a lot of nonsense all over the place with regard to this incident, but Russia Today doesn't get the nuance. RGloucester — ☎ 05:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester makes some good points about RT's unreliability; I agree. bobrayner (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have consensus that RT is a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. It may be, however, unreliable on a case by case basis, just like any other source. Please stop trying to pretend that RT is treated any differently. It isn't. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing against civil discourse. I do take issue, however, with flogging dead horses. Like has been said above, just repeating "we have consensus" does not demonstrate consensus. Consensus is formed through discussion, as we are doing now. If there was "consensus", there would not be a significant group of people opposing the notion that you say is "fact". There is no consensus one which way or the other. RGloucester — ☎ 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion several times. I've provided names and numbers, other editors have quoted positions. There is a significant consensus supporting the use of RT as a reliable source. Of the small minority opposition, they are made up of involved editors in the Eastern Europe topic area or editors who hold RT to a different standard than other sources. You don't like it, I get it, but life goes on. For every objection to RT you or others present, we can present dozens of the same fabrications and erroneous reporting from the BBC, Fox News, etc. Remember when the BBC attacked charity organizations by making the unsubstantiated claim that the Ethiopian government used money raised by Bob Geldof to pay for weapons?[33] Or how about the fact that the Union of Concerned Scientists found that 93% of global warming coverage by Fox News was misleading?[34] Or how CBS News funded a planned invasion of Haiti to overthrow its leader to make a documentary?[35] Or the creation of hoax articles by The New York Times in 2003?[36] Again, RT is considered reliable for our purposes, and just like any source, it must be carefully used. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Where on earth is your consensus, Viriditas? All I can see is you consistently bolding 'we have overwhelming consensus that RT is reliable' throughout every break while consensus is calling your position horse puckey. How many more angles do you want to flog it from? Make them count because there's not enough flesh left on the bones. At best, in situ, it needs to be treated as a propagandist mouthpiece for the RF, therefore only direct quotes from spokespeople for involved organisations are about as far as it can be relied on for. Any other claims need independent RS media outlets to support their reportage. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

My consensus? My consensus? It's amazing how the minority opponents have consistently relied on ignoring the consensus in this discussion, and consistently attacking anyone who agrees that RT is considered reliable on Wikipedia just like any other source in its class. That's the consensus in this discussion, and it's the majority opinion. It is not my consensus, and I have nothing to do with it. It's telling how the minority opinion against RT goes out of their way to smear, distort, attack, and mislead every editor who recognizes this consensus. It's stupendous how involved editors in the Eastern Europe topic area are trying to create their own personal local consensus by ignoring this consensus. It doesn't matter how many times these opponents say "I don't like it" or "you're crazy" or "you love Russian propaganda", those are not valid arguments. Insert predicted personal attack from Volunteer Marek here. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone. Instead, I'm the victim of your attack about "editors involved in the Eastern Europe topic area". Just because I am "involved" in Ukrainian unrest-related articles doesn't mean I'm not qualified to comment on the reliability of Russia Today. On the contrary, in order to contribute to these articles, as I have done since February, I must read through a lot of Russia Today, Voice of Russia, and other Russian-sourced articles. I'm very familiar with how their written, the "rigour" of their fact-checking, and everything else. I have no inherent bias for or against Russian sources, or Ukrainian sources, for that matter. I'm well aware of the nature of the western media as well, and don't need to be lectured about the "media machine". In all my time dealing with articles from every part of the world with regard to Ukraine, Russia Today articles, along with some Russian and Ukrainian tabloid sources, have stood as outliers in their sensationalism, bombasticity, and willingness to unabashedly embrace the most yellow headlines they could possibly print. They hold no regrets for printing factual errors or outliers that cannot be verified elsewhere, and never report if it is later determined that what they said was false. They take no issue with using loaded terminology such as "coup", "Junta", "Kiev-authorities", and what have you, regardless of how these words don't align with the reality on the ground. Their coverage of the Odessa events was particularly insightful into the way they exist purely to stir up trouble, perhaps like this very discussion we are having now. So, that's that. Like I said, I'm fine with civil discussion. However, I will not eat WP:HORSEMEAT, nor will I tolerate attacks about "involved editors" that have no basis in reality. Please cease and desist banging pots and pans about "consensus" when it is clear that there is none. Please cease and desist personal attacks against editors who have done nothing but speak in a way you dislike. RGloucester — ☎ 06:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas:, please point to these personal attacks (verbatim, not your reinterpretation of them); list those who are in agreement with you (according to policy and guideline arguments) and those against (according to policy and guideline arguments). Let's try a little rational quantification of your 'consensus'. Making assertions about those who disagree with your position as being 'involved editors' and invoking WP:DONTLIKEIT as your method of discrediting those villainous 'they' editors sounds remarkably casting WP:ASPERSIONS because you're the one who is emotionally attached and stuck in an WP:JDL rut. I've just re-entered the arena after my computer died, only to find that this is being dragged out by you in a painfully WP:POINTy manner. I'm not seeing the consensus for RT as an RS you're so adamant exists. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have little to no role to play in this discussion, so you seem to be way off. I responded to this discussion as an uninvolved editor who is familiar with RT. In due course, I have noticed that the consensus for using RT as a reliable source is clear and unambiguous. Unfortunately, however, the minority opponents are attacking every user who supports the consensus and pretending there is no such consensus when this consensus is clear. Your claims about my emotional attachment are exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You keep distracting from the consensus with ridiculous personal attacks. We've already tallied up the editors and arguments and the opponents are clearly in the minority. I'm sorry that you don't accept this, but it's the way it is. Please find something else to do with your time. I know I will. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead horse

Is Russia Today (RT) a reliable source?

This question has been kept alive for a long time by the same involved parties, with the same answer provided for many years in multiple discussions. This is a very small sample:

• 14 July 2009; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 23 August 2009; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 27 July 2010; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 9 January 2013; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 10 January 2013; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 17 November 2013; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 13 April 2014; yes, provided it is used carefully.

Notice how the same users editing in the same topic area keep raising this issue. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers to that. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers to what, exactly? I don't know what the two of you are reading, but every one of those demonstrates a conspicuous absence of "the same users editing in the same topic area". There's only one - notably merely a couple of months ago - where a couple of the users/editors who've shown up here have voiced an opinion in that instance. Hardly surprising, considering that the same editors are following the events in Ukraine and it happens to be one of a number of their areas of expertise. Who would you expect to be working on the recent spate of articles as further issues arise? Medical experts? Phenomenologists?

Notable, also, is the question of who is bringing it to the metaphorical table. Perhaps you'd do better to question the motivation behind the issue being raised yet again after such a recent debate. Check on who's doing the asking and whether they display serious leanings towards POV editing. It isn't difficult to follow article edits and talk page discussions. Incidentally, Erlbaeko, don't push your luck with that reference to the Hillbilly Bone (song). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop lying?

• First discussion: " I don't think this is a neutral source." (and note the discussion was originated by a indef banned user, on the pro-RT is RS side)
• Second discussion: Same guy who happened to say it was reliable in the first discussion claims it's reliable in the second. And this is actually an editor who thinks/though that pretty much *anything* is a reliable source.
• Third discussion: "The authoritative Economist calls RT "propaganda" and gives some examples that support the thesis that RT is not a reliable source. ". Or this "The people that perpetrated 9/11 are not fundamentalists at all". By RT's own account, they are "an alternative to mainstream media" and thrive on controversy. That doesn't mean they are necessarily routinely unreliable, but it does mean they are closer to tabloid than to authoritative.". Or this "No. There are serious, credible claims of state interference in the reporting of RT, which makes it different from BBC, F24 or Al Jazeera"
• Fourth discussion: "Russia Today is not reliable for the article". And this: "The Russia today articles you put have no fact checking, and when they do they are just quotations from the Russian foreign minister Larov"
• Fifth discussion: "RT is a propaganda arm of Russian authoritarian government It can't be used as WP:RS in Wikipedia" And this "But ultimately, a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does Russia Today have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I did a little research myself and found some troubling reports:". And this "RT does seem to have a poor reputation, and should be considered questionable, except for explicitly attributed statements as to RT's viewpoint" And this "The site is not even respected as a reliable source by reporters without borders" And this "While we're at it, let's throw in some WorldNetDaily and Alex Jones—oh, but we already get a good dose of the latter from RT" And this "Russia Today is known to always toe the line of the Russian Government, and therefore should be used with caution, especially for anything remotely controversial. This is not the case for CNN or BBC (even though the latter is State owned)."

Sixth discussion: ... ... ... aw hell, I'm bored now, people should do it themselves. It's trivially easy to check that you're full of it. All that one needs to do is click the links and actually read the discussions.

All you've done, is decided that it's RS based on the fact that there might exist one or two positive comments about RT in each of these discussion, but completely ignored all the negative ones. The ones I just highlighted above. Getting a "yes, provided it is used carefully" is out of that is simply deceitful. By that standard, my grandma's blog is a RS "provided it is used carefully".

The only positive thing that can be said about RT as a source based on those discussion is that there *might* exist some circumstances where it can be considered RS (that's the "it's not totally banned from Wikipedia" line that some of the commentators take).

The level of bad faith in your commentary and posts is just astounding. I have trouble understanding how anyone with a modicum of self respect can just show up and lie so blatantly, and somehow believe that they're claims are not going to be fact-checked by a simple click on the links provided. You must really have a very low estimate of the average Wikipedian's intelligence to try and pull off stunts like these. Which might not be so far off after all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And this statement of yours: "Notice how the same users editing in the same topic area keep raising this issue. ". What is that supposed to mean? You're suggesting some kind of conspiracy, or at very least some forum-shopping by the same individuals on the anti-RT side. That too is completely and utterly false. There is a wide diversity of users (in fact I don't see many repeats at all) commenting in those discussion. You're trying to fool people hear that there's some dedicated minority which is trying to push their view through against consensus. That couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, you're flipping the whole thing upside down. What same users? (And of course it's the same topic area. For fuck's sake, it's Russia Today. Not "World Today") This is even more dishonest attempts at poisoning the well, trying to manipulate the discussion by presenting figments of your own imagination as reality, and a blatant endeavor to swindle the readers of this thread.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazon.com

According to WP:RS, basic requirements for a source to be considered reliable are:

[A] reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

Given this, can Amazon.com be considered a reliable source for the listing of the future publication of a book?

In my opinion, Amazon does not have a requisite "reputation for fact checking." My assumption is that when they receive a listing from a publisher of future books publications, they slap it on their website without doing any checking whatsoever. Their purpose, after all, is to sell things, not to do research.

Now, I also assume that the publisher's listing of that future publication exists online somewhere, and if that can be found, although it would be a primary source, it would certainly speak to that publisher's intention to publish the book, and could therefore probably be used for listing the book as a future publication in a Wikipedia article.

This inquiry stems from a dispute on Jonathan Lethem; please see Talk:Jonathan Lethem#WP relies on Reliable Sources, not non-commercial sources. BMK (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

At the video games project, we specifically exclude any storefront as a reliable source for a future release date because they are going to put in any placeholder they can as to get you to pre-order, and as such the date could be fake. I would apply that across any media source. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you read through the instructions above, please, and provide the exact source and wording in the article? Amazon can be a reliable source for some things. As for future works, Amazon is going to be as reliable a source as the publisher, surely? --Pete (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an entry of a future publication of a book in a author's list of works, that's about all there is to it. BMK (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would note that different fields tend to have different standards of honesty and trustworthiness with regard to release dates. While vaporware and badly-slipping release dates are part and parcel of the software world – and particularly the video game world – the same is much less true for conventionally-published books from established publishing houses. Book publishers generally have the actual manuscript in hand many, many months before the title appears on shelves. Cover art is commissioned; text is edited; advertising campaigns are planned. Sometimes it can take more than a year for a publisher to have a slot open in their publishing schedule. If Doubleday says that the hardcover is coming out in February 2015, I would be rather surprised if it did not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I think using a publisher's announcement would be fine, despite being a primary source -- but are we really satisfied to rely on Amazon's non-existent "reputation for fact checking and accuracy"? Amazon has an excellent reputation for service, at least as far as my dealings with the company have gone, but that's not the same thing at all.

BTW, there are many, many examples of books not making their scheduled publication dates. The production gears start turning well before all the necessary adjustments to the manuscript are completed, if not, they would never be ready on time, risking the book being stale upon pblication. They may have an author's final version of the manuscript in hand, but it still has to be edited, copyedited (several passes, generally), vetted by lawyers, referenced, pictures researched and selected, intros written, blurbs collected etc. etc. Given the current "just in time" ethos prevalent in business, the idea is that this all gets done at the right time to put it into production, start promotion, and then ship it to the stores, so an announcement of future publication is certainly proof that the publisher believes everything will come together on a certain date, but it's no guarantee of it. BMK (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So what if we say the author's next book is to be published in June and it doesn't hit the shelves till August? We source the information as best we can, and when June comes and the book doesn't, we update our article. We can't be 100% accurate on the future - nobody can. In this case, I say that Amazon is a good source for future publication dates, but the publisher is an even better one. --Pete (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We're really not asking if Amazon is a good enough source to base one's future purchasing plans on, I'm sure it is. We have a somewhat different concern: How do you get around the policy requirement for "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" with Amazon? BMK (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking back to the first post in this discussion, I'm seeing phrases such as "In my opinion", "My assumption is", and "I also assume". I don't think we can base Amazon's business reputation on your assumptions. Do we have anything more concrete?

Do we have any examples of Amazon pulling future titles out of thin air, or getting things wildly wrong in their notices of future books? And if they are getting their information on upcoming titles from the publishers, just how are they supposed to fact check? "Ah, we just want to check on this list you sent us. Is it complete bullshit?" Maybe they could wring up individual authors. "Your publisher tells us that your next book 'True Confessions of a Merchant Banker' is going to be published in July. What's the strength of this?"

I'm finding this whole discussion rather bizarre, to be honest. A reasonable person would accept that if Amazon says a book is going to be available on a certain date, they got that date from their suppliers, they didn't just think of some random date so they could ship books that hadn't been written. --Pete (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the publication/release dates accurate? Since the information comes directly from the publisher, there is not doubt to their accuracy. But what you are getting hung up on is the "fact checking" bit. How does one fact check a future publication/release date? Here is a hint. You can't. Either Amazon, or any other source, trusts the accuracy of those dates they get from the publishers or they don't publish it themselves. And in cases where the publication/release date does change, Amazon updates it to the new date.

I also see a bit of rules layering going on here. No where does WP:RS require that the source undergoes fact checking of its information. WP:RS explicitly states that we can include opinions from reputable authors and there is no way to fact check those. What WP:RS does is set guidelines on how to identify a reliable source. That doesn't mean that those are the only standards that apply. What we are more concern with is the accuracy of the information. And since there is no doubt that the publication/release on Amazon is accurate at the time, Amazon is a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of source - amazon, publisher, author, etc - doesn't WP:CRYSTAL apply to all future events, including book publishing? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:CRYSTAL is dealing with speculation of a future event. However a release date given by a publisher is not speculation. That doesn't always mean that the publisher will hit that release date (delays are always possible), but unless there is good reason to believe that a delay will happen, it shouldn't be left out based on WP:CRYSTAL. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, WP:CRYSTAL point #5 explicitly mentions product announcements normally do not lead to separate articles, but are perfectly acceptable within a related article (product creator, product series, and the like), so long as we stick to the bare facts of the announcement. As a more extreme example, Jasper Fforde lists several vaporware titles, some of them have been there for years. I see nothing wrong with this: information about JF should include the titles he's been parading around for years, and absolutely no one reading the article thinks of it as anything but that. And if someone wants to commit wikicide, why, try removing the several paragraphs from J. K. Rowling about planned work, including ohhhmyyyygossssh, three more Harry Potter universe movies!!!! (Sourced to NYT, by the way.) Choor monster (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarifcation. But, yes, wikicide never looked more inviting. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I quote from Wikipedia:Book sources#Online text (the source text for ISBN invocations). These are the first external links on the page, before all the world's national libraries and so on. (I leave out the actual links):

For verifying citations in Wikipedia articles, and finding more info.
These sites can search within some books, and show some or all pages
of some books. See digital libraries also.

    Find this book at the Open Library
    Find this book at Google Book Search online database
    Find this book on Amazon.com (or .ca, .cn, .de, .fr, .it, .jp, .uk)

Amazon is considered good enough to verify that a book cited in a WP article actually exists. Does anyone at Amazon actually call the publisher every time some WP user hits an ISBN link? No. Choor monster (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The key is to phrase any mention of a future release date as being an "estimated" or "expected" release date. Amazon is certainly reliable as a primary source for such estimates... since they are the ones stating the estimation. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• • I don't get this. First, the publisher is the primary source for the estimate (not all sources are published). Second, I assume we write in ordinary English for readers to interpret as ordinary English. And ordinary English allows for uncertainty of the future to be understood without being stated. When you tell someone you have to get to bed early because you have a 10 o'clock flight tomorrow morning, no one is fooled even though you didn't mention it was only the estimated time.

Close to publication, with actual books available, Amazon firms up with a more-or-less guaranteed shipping date for pre-publication orders. That, of course, is a date they know. Choor monster (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monster is trying to include the book as if it already exists. That's not what WP:CRYSTAL advises. If it's a speculative or predicted date, it has to be framed and written up as a speculative and predicted date. It can't be used as a reliable source that the book actually exists as a confirmed and ready product.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree here - if Amazon has a future release date for a book and it cannot be corroborated with the publisher or another reliable source, we should consider that suspect, even if Amazon does have a known track record for being right on those dates. Using such a date from Amazon does violate CRYSTAL, while using the same date provided by the publisher directly is not. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if the publisher makes an announcement, that can only be written up as an intention to publish, not a magical guarantee that it will happen for sure. We don't list industrial or consumer products as guaranteed to be available in a certain time frame even when announced. We shouldn't list a book that doesn't even have a cover designed as if it's predestined. No publisher is immune to delays or cancellations, and no editor can guarantee they'll watch their addition to fix it if it turns out a book didn't actually happen. This is an encyclopedia regarding things that have actually happened, not a fansite.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is remarkably silly. As I said above, I am writing in ordinary English for the sake of readers who understand ordinary English. No such reader is interpreting a "(2015)" date as a guarantee or destiny foretold or fannish obsessiveness. It's simply the date being passed on from Amazon. It comes with an explicit external link. As I said on the article's talk page, I prefer leaving the link in all its ugliness right there next to the title, the better to encourage its removal once the book is published. I also prefer leaving out the month this far ahead, and closer to the date I would always leave out the day.

I once came across an article that listed a forthcoming book with an estimated date of publication about two years in the past. You know what I did? I looked up for more information. I edited the article! And fixed it! Yay, Wikipedia. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That proves why we shouldn't put announcements in as fact! If you're putting something unverifiable into an article, it runs the risk of being in there for years if it doesn't happen. As an example of one of the many reasons to not trust a bare announcement, look at what happened here. Book announced, Amazon took pre-orders, "publication date" announced, the book never happened. We can't treat announcements as finished or guaranteed products.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. So the publisher changed its mind. What of it? No one is treating any announcement as a finished or guaranteed product. As we get better information, we edit the article accordingly. For whatever reason, Deen does not have a list of her books. I would be happy if the list were there, the 2014 book remains listed as cancelled, with references of course. The book absolutely does exist, it's just not in a form for sale to customers. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The book exists somehow? What are you talking about? They pre-announced it before it was actually published. Like this one. You have a strange idea of what a published book is, if you don't actually require it to be published. BMK was correct in removing this, as it's not adequately sourced currently. Your plan to massage the date as the possible release time approaches is not encyclopedic. If you forget or miss an announcement delaying the book, then we'll have an unverifiable vapor-book for who-knows-how-long when that situation is easily avoided by waiting until publication is verified. WP:V is not silly.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Deen's book and probably Lethem's book already exist. In a very tiny handful of copies, for internal use only, as part of the normal publishing process. As I said, "not in a form for sale to customers". That you keep harping on blatant misreadings of what I've said with ridiculous claims is simply a waste of time. Updating data as new information arrives is standard WP, so complaining about it and coming up with insulting descriptions of it is simply a waste of time. And relying on more users than just myself is also standard WP, so envisioning the fate of the article without me as something hopelessly irredeemable is simply a waste of time. Choor monster (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference between updating a fact when new information is found, and putting in something we know from the start isn't a fact. Future events are unverifiable. You seem to be okay with all of the instances of stale announcements such as "This book will be published in 2008", but they make the encyclopedia look bad. (Saying that Deen's book exists is an extraordinary claim, by the way. Do you have a source that a single person has ever read it anywhere? No source means you believe it must be true based on yourself alone. You are certainly not a reliable source that a book must exist. This is fairly conclusive proof that the "Publication Date" on an Amazon page cannot be assumed to be correct.) Now you may think it's okay to add unverifiable things to articles because it will probably be updated when we know for sure, but that's a guaranteed way to include junk in articles.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Most simply, Wikipedia can say that someone has invited people to a wedding in a year, if we have multiple sources, but we can't frame it as if we believe a wedding will take place. Individual books get delayed or cancelled more often than weddings. It doesn't matter how much you personally believe it will probably happen.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems the issue relates to a list of book titles by the author which take the form of:

• Book title (date) <cite amazon>

I would suggest that for upcoming books not yet released this be amended to:

• Book title (expected 2015) <cite amazon>

A very simple change like that would be perfectly reasonable... accurate... and amazon would be a reliable source for the statement. Nothing more to argue about. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. This is a reasonable and effective solution. Neuraxis (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggested this on the talk page, and encouraged him to make the change. Listing the date "(2015)" does not constitute an assertion of existence or guarantee, and I have no idea where Elaqueate gets the idea that it does. And no, it is not an extraordinary claim on my part to believe that mainstream publishers get ready for forthcoming printings as they have been doing for the past several years. As it is, this is in regards to one title.

I should point out I've been following a few dozen authors on WP, and editing in regards to a few, and this is the first time in two years I've seen anyone raise a concern that such listings of forthcoming works could possibly be a problem. In every single case, it has been absolutely clear that the book does not exist yet. Really, I absolutely do not get it. Choor monster (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree on this, if Amazon (or any other storefront) is the source. I have no problem with the "expected" language if we have a statement from the publisher, the author, or some third-party source with reasonable author that have made the claim the work will be out in some year; we can source that and the "expected" part removes any issue with CRYSTAL. But when it is Amazon or others, you have to beg the question: where did they get that date? With the former case, I can have reasonable expectation of tracking who told whom when to expect the book, but with Amazon, which is knows to assign release dates to populate their database as to allow for pre-orders, there's simply no authority confirmed there. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with using Amazon as a source on the expected release date. Especially if the publisher of the book is an established and respected one. Presumably Amazon is getting their info from the publisher, so no reason to require additional corroboration from publisher. TheBlueCanoe 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree... with the proviso that there is no such thing as a 100% reliable source... any source can be challenged when it comes to a specific fact... for example if the publisher listed some other date, I think there would be a good argument for saying that the publisher was a more reliable source than amazon... and legitimately call amazon's date into question. But barring any such contradicting source, I see no reason challenge amazon. Their "expected" release dates are usually fairly accurate (ie I think they have a reputation for accuracy on such things). Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So here is an example of the problem with Amazon: it lists A Different Kind of Tension (the forthcoming book we're talking about here) as being published by Doubleday, but, in fact it is being published by Random House. (The page for it is here) Yes, Doubleday has been (one of) Lethem's publishers, so maybe some intern just assumed, but obviously no one checked, because there information is just flat-out wrong (although they did get the date right). Or maybe Lethem switched it from Doubleday to Random House for some reason, I don't know -- but that's the point, we depend on reliable sources to check these things, and Amazon didn't, which is wny Amazon is not a reliabel source.

I'm off to the Lethem article to replace the reference from a non-reliable source (Amazon) with the publisher's page. I trust that meets with everyone's approval? BMK (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Doubleday is one of Random House's many imprints. I wouldn't find it all that surprising that the main Random House database list all books published by its divisions and imprints. To confirm this, I checked to see if Attack on Titan, which is published by Kodansha Comics USA and distributed by Random House, was also listed on Random House database and sure it was there.[37] Same is true of manga that was published under the Del Rey Manga imprint.[38] So you can't use the main Random House database as proof that Amazon isn't reliable. —Farix (t | c) 22:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering why BMK has such a downer on Amazon. I fully support using the publisher rather than Amazon for expected publications, but without we have some clear evidence that Amazon is somehow manipulating the information they get from the publisher, then I see no problem with using Amazon as a reliable source for expected publications. Using language that makes it clear that the publication is in the future is what we should be doing as a matter of course. In the end, listing upcoming works from an author is a useful part of a biographical article (or one on a series of books) and we have to source the information from somewhere. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pete - I love Amazon. I buy a lot of stuff from there, and I've never been unhappy withe either the products or the service. Depending on what I buy it often gets to me the very next morning. It's pretty amazing.

But irrelevant. For a site to be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source, it has to fulfill certain criteria, and Amazon just doesn't, nor does any other store website. It's not what they're about, their function is to sell stuff, not to maintain a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They're not, by our policy, a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference. BMK (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And just to make it clear that we are all discussing what we believe regarding WP-vis-a-vis-Amazon, I absolutely loathe Amazon. I purchase dozens of books a year. The last time I purchased something from them was because someone gave me a gift card. The two times before that were for extremely rare books that I found at Amazon affiliates. I absolutely cannot remember any earlier purchases, although I know I must have made them. But the consensus is that for a very narrow range of items, Amazon is WP:RS, and I absolutely cannot understand how someone can't see this. Choor monster (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no such consensus in this discussion as you state. BMK (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is definitely here. It is not defined as unanimous opinion or even majority opinion, but simply reflects the weight of the arguments. You and others have given zero arguments against treating Amazon as WP:RS for a limited range of product announcements/details. Each time you bring up commercialism, you in fact are saying nothing, since commercialism is completely irrelevant to WP:RS. That you keep beating this dead horse shows you simply are unwilling to actually discuss the issue. Your latest folly, where you trumpeted and crowed over Amazon, guessing that they're a bunch of morons who are too lazy to get it right, when in fact Amazon was absolutely correct and you were totally unaware of the concept of imprint and subsidiary (sort of like how you didn't know BookFinder was owned by AbeBooks, which has been owned by Amazon for quite some time) is pretty much proof that you are not bringing anything to this discussion.

As it is, I carefully did not say "this discussion". Unlike you, I knew what I what I was doing. See, for example, [39], and I have quoted above the WP ISBN page. Choor monster (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You have cited the existence of Amazon on the ISBN page numerous times as if it has some relevance here - it does not. There is nothing on WP:RS which refers to the ISBN page, and that's because that page is simply a convenience to our readers, and nothing else. You seem highly reluctant to accept the fact that Wikipedia policy requires that reliable sources fulfill the requirements given on the reliable sources page. That fact that Amazon is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, or that it exists on a page with a couple of dozen other sites, and that page comes up when you click an ISBN, has absolutely nothing to do with whether its reliable or not. That you continue to repeat it as if it does concerns me greatly. BMK (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I cite it because it does have relevance. WP:RS is explaining how to recognize RS's, not listing them. The ISBN page does many things as a convenience. In this instance, it explicitly goes beyond mere mention for convenience, but explicitly elevates Amazon as a reliable source of certain information for WP citation purposes. That you summarize the ISBN page here without mentioning this significant detail simply says you are just flinging words for the sake of flinging. That you continue to ignore this concerns me not at all. Choor monster (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monster, your interpretation is bizarre in the extreme, really. BMK (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This from the person who thought that WorldCat was 100% reliable, even though its sole data point was Amazon? Or has repeatedly argued that commercial sites are inherent unreliable, even after you've been shown that's now WP policy? Or who can't even admit that he blundered incredibly when he claimed hardcore proof Amazon is unreliable because you were too incompetent to distinguish between an owner and an imprint? You have no arguments, and we all know it. Choor monster (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not true; we don't all know it. Again, you being unconstructively heated and personal. Amazon's "sole data point" are publishers, whose reliability you rubbish further down the page. Amazon's reliability for checking an ISBN of an already published book has nothing to do with its reliability that a book will appear in a certain month a year from now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not rubbish publishers' reliability below. I simply agree that they are not 100% accurate. We do not have a 100% accuracy requirement. For someone who is complaining about me being "unconstructively heated and personal", you have an incredibly poor track record. You repeatedly falsify statements, saying I've included a "guarantee" by including a future date, that if I update information on Wikipedia I'm "massaging" the data, that when I mention completely routine facts like publishers have physical copies of a book long before the rest of the world does, I'm making things up, your claiming that I'm insisting that we treat highly obscure, highly non-notable books on the same level as the big boys, and so on.

The problem is that we're talking about an announcement of a future event. For other media and products, we don't "announce" something in Wikipedia's voice unless one of two things has happened, 1. We have independent sources that say that the producer has made significant investment and concrete physical steps to finish the project (this is the case for films, for instance, which generally need to have started actual shooting) or 2. We have multiple third-party sources that say anticipation for the product is somehow notable in itself. We seem to be throwing all of this out in this case. For books, if we say Amazon (or even a thin publisher entry) is good enough by itself, then we are saying we should add material based on filling in an Amazon form where the publisher can withdraw or significantly delay the title with almost no notice. The book we're discussing hasn't even been the subject of a press release. It's arguably less of an issue for those books from bigger names like this one, but it's still not appropriate to consider Amazon a good enough reliable source for a book that hasn't happened yet. Amazon announces books that don't happen. Amazon announces books that have no notability with any reliable source.[40] Those facts put Amazon reliability at the same level as IMDB. Fine for checking possibilities, but not for certainties. Stale announcements make otherwise good articles look like garbage. When Alice Munro won the Nobel Prize, people around the world saw an article explaining when her next book would come out, two books behind reality. The only argument I've heard for putting in future announcements with no third-party sourcing is that they'll probably be verifiable for some percentage of the times we do it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is rambling irrelevant nonsense. You invent policy regarding product announcements contrary to what I've quoted at you before from WP:CRYSTAL #5. Instead, you cite (rather inaccurately and very misleadingly) from WP:THIRDPARTY, which is, first off, an essay, not policy, and second, it is about articles, not individual items of information in an article. In fact, if you bother to read the essay, you would see that had someone created an article on the forthcoming Lethem book based on the Amazon citation, the recommendation would be to delate the article and keep the information with its single citation in some other article. In other words, we're respecting WP:THIRDPARTY by including the one-source item in the Lethem article. And you cite an example of a totally non-notable forthcoming book as if—I give up, I have no idea. How, exactly, has Amazon harmed its reliability regarding mainstream publishers? And your description of the Munro article is blatant falsehood. Her two most recent reprint collections were red-links at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement, nothing of concern whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing false about the fact that Alice Munro had mention in the article of her "future writing plans" from the perspective of 2009, that managed to wheeze into 2013. My point was that these announcements become stale very easily, it happens across many articles, and that any editor who puts in too much material primarily based on a speculation, is creating avoidable work that often remains unencyclopedically for years. I never cited WP:THIRDPARTY so I can't be citing it inaccurately; it's strange that you insist I did. (You really should take back or strike all of your personal attacks about "falsehood" and "misleading" anyway, it's disruptive.) The intent of Crystal is to minimize rumour and speculation. It doesn't mean we are encouraged to have any amount of unverifiable material as long as we keep it in articles. Better to not have it, or as Blueboar suggests make it clear that it is an attribution regarding an event that may not even happen.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

But quoting Munro's plans in 2009 is nothing of concern in 2013. Quoting her plans from 1989 would be fine too. We have been talking about listing forthcoming books, so if you secretly changed the issue, you are engaged in blatant falsehood just the same: you mentioned "two books" behind. What books were they?

You most certainly did quote from WP:THIRDPARTY, the bit about multiple third party sources, but you did not cite it.

Product announcements OK, Rumor and Speculation not OK. CRYSTAL#5 says so explicitly. In the contexts of books, it means we leave out party talk that makes it into print, as often happened with Pynchon. Choor monster (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks and bad faith assumption. I never quoted from or cited the essay WP:THIRDPARTY (an absolutely bizarre thing to be insistent about). At the time of Alice Munro's win, we had material talking about how she was planning to work on a book we also reported was finished. This was in addition to two other compilations of her work coming out in that period. Speculation gets stale, and that's an example among many. Now, your replies are taking on pretty aggressive wording and you're becoming self-contradictory in your accusations ("You cited THIRDPARTY" "You didn't cite THIRDPARTY"). I think you're making this more personal than it has to be.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You said "multiple third-party sources" as if it were policy, and as if it were a requirement for WP:RS, the topic of discussion. I did say "cite", I struck it out. Feel free to obsess about that. Meanwhile, "multiple third-party sources" is a recommended requirement according to WP:THIRDPARTY. Where ever it came from, hazy memory or peculiar coincidence, it is not relevant to WP:RS discussions. Meanwhile, the fact that your argument was based on something that is already dealt with in WP:THIRDPARTY, and runs contrary to your claims, still stands.

And I repeat, there is absolutely nothing bizarre, untoward or wrong about quoting someone about future plans. That the article poorly correlated what Munro said in 2009 with what Munro actually did means nothing whatsoever, other than, somewhere on WP, an article needed cleanup. To mention it in this discussion about citing forthcoming books implied there were in fact two books listed as forthcoming long after they had been published. And there weren't. There were two books red-linked. Sean Connery once said "never again" regarding Bond films, and boy, was he wrong. Choor monster (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another point to consider in this issue is the current mess between Amazon and Hachette. While removing pre-order links or manipulating the claims of available copies due to contract disputes is far different from publication dates, it does show that we shouldn't trust Amazon for uncorroborated information. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I also feel that people have been relying on their gut feelings about Amazon's reliability and not giving much thought to all the times it does stuff like this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Again... so much depends on how you phrase things... Amazon is not reliable for saying that a book will be released in January of 2016... it is reliable for saying that a book is expected to be released in January of 2016. It may not be the most reliable source (and I have no problem with favoring a more reliable source, if one is available)... but it is a reliable source for the expected release date. It qualifies as a reliable primary source for the expected release date. If necessary, we can even attribute the information ("Amazon has announced an expected released date of January, 2016"). The point is... if amazon announces a release date of X, then it is a reliable primary source for the fact that amazon has announced a release date of X. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When Amazon adds the "Jan 2016" date to a book, that is only say "This is when we want to take your money and ship you a book". Reasonably, this should be when they expect they will get the book from the publisher and 90% of the time I expect they are right. But Amazon has enough questionable business practices that if the date cannot be corroborated with a sourced directly related to the book, we have to question if that date is legit. It is better to be absent of information as to include potentially wrong information. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A great big "so what?" to Elaqueate's link. I've watched numerous forthcoming books on Amazon for almost two decades now, and I have seen some cancelled or their dates pushed back, sometimes for several years. 10% of the Olympics have been cancelled, yet we've got 2016 Summer Olympics. You have done a remarkable job of proving that Amazon.com is not perfect. But we all agree with this. Now, keep the discussion relevant, OK? So long as Amazon has a better track record than the Olympics, I see no problem. You as might as well argue we should eliminate the NYT as WP:RS because they sometimes get it wrong. Or at least, never ever cite them (or any other newspaper) without explicit attribution every single time.

Amazon's questionable business practices do not seem to impact on the accuracy rate of ship dates, and therefore it is not an issue for discussion. The fact is the taking-money part (which we are not interested in) is very strongly expected to coincide with the book-finally-ready part (which we are interested in), whether or not they are the Embodiment of Evil in their war on publishers, competitors, employees and readers. Choor monster (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

To be completely on point, no one has offered any proof or specific source that Amazon has a source-(not editor)-recognized reputation for accuracy in these dates, or how often they get amended. The New York Times has published corrections, Amazon moves dates around without any history of what they've changed. There has to be an actual source-able reputation for accuracy, not an argument that the absence of that reputation is good enough. Discussions like this make it clear that Amazon's "publication dates" concerning books in the past are not as trustworthy as something like Worldcat. Amazon probably shouldn't be used solely on its own, when there's no independent source corroborating notability or detail.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I prefer "leaving out the month this far ahead, and closer to the date I would always leave out the day" as I said above. The accuracy rate, which we wish to keep high, is improved this way. Meanwhile, the link you cite above is amongst librarians who want the exact date for their records. Your summary is highly inaccurate. It's simply a handful of librarians sharing their experience, not very different than what we are doing here, except we're not librarians. Meanwhile, one stated that WorldCat is more accurate than Amazon for older books only. Older was not defined, perhaps before Amazon's existence? The takeaway message I get from the discussion is that Amazon is more reliable for forthcoming books, and that Amazon has zero motive for getting past publication history correct, and that "publication date" is frankly not well-defined. For what it's worth, WorldCat for forthcoming books will typically link to Amazon and nobody else, as I noticed with the Lethem book. Smaller bookstores typically sell books before the publisher's official date, for example, while Amazon is not allowed to.

I've also noticed publishers sometimes do a lousy job with describing their own inventory. I've seen books listed as ready for immediate shipment on Amazon while still listed by the publisher as forthcoming on a date from two weeks past. What's going on, of course, is the publisher hasn't quite figured out this Internet webpage thingie yet. Or they just do a monthly update, since their bottom line is essentially whatever Amazon and B&N sell, and that's the part that everybody involved gets right. I'd call that fact-checking on Amazon's part.

You said, There has to be an actual source-able reputation for accuracy. Ultimately, that's your own made-up requirement. Choor monster (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Per the requirement "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", either that reputation should be blatently obvious (hence why the NYTimes and the BBC are highly regarded sources) or we have citable evidence that a work is reputable. Amazon does not have word-of-mouth reputation for release dates so we need evidence that positively shows they are reputable --MASEM (t) 18:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazon most certainly does have a reputation that it correctly lists upcoming publications. The mainstream press routinely cites Amazon figures for pre-publication information of forthcoming notable books. Why would they do that if they thought their readers didn't buy into the relevance of Amazon pre-publication information? (Feel free to ignore the Washington Post on this topic.) Choor monster (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have found two NYT articles that mention Amazon getting a forthcoming date wrong. One is [41], the NYT review of American Prometheus (2005). The review begins by mentioning that Amazon "inadvertently listed" a book on Oppenheimer as available "12/31/2025" when in fact the book was due in a few months. (It is entirely unclear if the reviewer meant the book under review or another book.) The other is [42], from a 2002 article on the delay of Harry Potter #5, and how everyone from distraught 11-year-old girls and harassed bookstore clerks to top Stochastic executives were coping. And Amazon stopped taking pre-orders. (The article does not say, but I would speculate that they were predicting the book would be noticeably bigger and thus pricier, so it was time to stop offering too much of a giveaway.)

I find it telling that the writers thought it interesting to highlight Amazon getting it wrong. Why would they think that such a trivial little factoid would pique their readers' reading pleasure? Because, quite simply, the readers could not help but interpret it as the giant was tripping a teensy bit and such trips are unusual enough that pointing them out is worth a smirk. Choor monster (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread isn't really about Amazon. It's about whether we cover future releases of books, films, music etc. Previous consensus is that we don't, and I don't see any argument here why we ought to change that. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous consensus is most certainly that we do cover future releases, the question is how. I believe you are thinking of the standard for WP articles about future releases, which is rather high. As pointed out in WP:CRYSTAL #5, and mentioned above somewhere, reliably sourced information about a forthcoming product is acceptable on WP as part of a more general article, for example, an upcoming title as part of an author's list of works. This particular discussion is about the narrow question of whether Amazon listing a book as forthcoming satisfies WP:RS. Choor monster (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is not exactly encouraging about including future publication. If we can reliably source that a film is in production or if an author says in an interview what the subject-matter of her new book will be, then fine. Otherwise, just wait till the thing has actually appeared. Amazon not reliable for this purpose, no bookshop reliable. They rely of course on publishers' dates and those are liable to change at short notice. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is 100% explicit about permitting it, which means you have no point to make, except you don't like existing policy. You mention that the dates are subject to change at short notice as if this is somehow relevant. It's not. See WP:FLAT. It would be nice if every factoid entered into WP was absolute truth, but that doesn't happen, and arguing against particular factoids because sometimes they end up getting revised is an argument that belongs nowhere on WP. The question is whether Amazon is a reliable source for a particular class of factoid (predicted mainstream publishers' dates) and the answer is yes, they are. The question has never been whether Amazon is a reliable source for what will actually happen in the future. For the record though, the bigger publishers do very well at meeting their target dates. Like movies, the big money is in the initial splash, and that requires advance coordination done right.

As the discussion above pointed out, there are other sources of information about future product releases that have a very poor reputation, like video games, and there exist guidelines that severely restrict what is allowable for that. In contrast, there are future product releases that everyone agrees are likely enough certainties, like movies that have reached a certain expensive threshhold, that not just mention, but separate article creation is encouraged. The Novels WikiProject discourages prepublication article creation except when the prepublication buzz is itself notable (as with the later Harry Potter novels).

I mentioned above an extreme example of future product information can be found in the J. K. Rowling article. Sourced from the NYT itself, the WP article tells us she is working on three more Harry Potter universe movies. I see absolutely nothing improper here. You say we're supposed to keep this factoid out of WP until the movies are actually made? Choor monster (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If something has prepublication buzz, noted in secondary sources, then a mention could be in the article (There's also an important difference between "allowed" and your idea that inclusion of this material is "encouraged"). That's not the case for most films and books. It's not the case here. Amazon is not a reliable source on its own that a book will happen or that it will be a notable publication of a subject, before even a single secondary source has ever commented on its existence. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Prepublication buzz is a requirement for a separate article for a novel before publication, and prerelease buzz and a certain financial threshold is a requirement for a separate article for a movie before release, according to the respective WikiProject's policies. This has not been the question here. We are not advocating violations of WP:N. No one is planning to create an article now about the forthcoming Lethem book. Since it's a short story collection, there's a chance no one will bother to create one after it's published. Like your quoting WP:THIRDPARTY above, you are still not addressing the WP:RS issue. Choor monster (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I never quoted WP:THIRDPARTY. Not once, not ever. This is an idea you invented. Repeating it doesn't make it true. The words "third party sources" are not only found in that one essay, they're found quite often in most policies dealing with RS, including WP:V. The only reason I was talking about buzz is that you were bringing up examples where the presence of buzz as reported by the Washington Post and the NY Times as the reliable sources is the reason for including it in the article. That has nothing to do with whether Amazon is a reliable source all by itself. This future book by Lethem has not been mentioned by a single third-party RS that I can find. I agree with Itsmejudith that Amazon and bookshops shouldn't be considered uninvolved third party sources for some speculative detail about a book they're trying to sell you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, Notability is not really a factor here... we are not talking about using Amazon to establish that the book itself is notable enough for an article... the article in question isn't about the book... it's an article about the author (that makes a difference). So... This is a Verifiability issue, not a Notability issue. Amazon is being used to verify one small statement in the article... a specific bit of information... (that one of the author's upcoming books is currently expected to be released on X date). Amazon is a reliable source for that small statement, for that bit of information. Sure, it may not be the most reliable source possible for the statement... but it is reliable enough that we can use it until a more reliable source is found. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I never meant notability for article creation, just that material included in an article is better with some sense that third party sources take it as interesting or important somehow. Amazon "announces" thousands of yet-unpublished things we wouldn't treat as significant enough to include in articles, based on an Amazon entry alone. I think Amazon can be used to help corroborate another's claim, but it's often unreliable all by itself. I don't think we should treat it any differently than things like film studios, such as List of Warner Bros. films#Upcoming, where we only include material that has third party confirmation of its worth or accuracy, and have nothing from years in the future. If we say Amazon is an RS all by itself we'll be adding mention in articles for "books" that have been promised for 2016 only by Amazon itself. Warner Bros. has lists of movies it says will be available in 2016, but we require more than their word.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There's too much text above for me to be sure someone hasn't already said this. But I have personal knowledge that Amazon will often make up a release date or ask for a rough guess in the absence of a publisher having set one, because their system likes to have a date (who is ever going to pre-order something that has no release date?). I imagine other online stores do the same thing. Formerip (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Which, again, is an indication that while Amazon is not reliable for the un-hedged statement:

• "Book Title (2016)"

it is reliable for the hedged statement:

• "Book Title (estimated 2016)".

We don't expect an estimates to be accurate... we simply expect it to be verifiable. And Amazon is reliable when it comes to verifying its own estimate. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to summarize the numerous very bad arguments made against Amazon as WP:RS. They have simply been a waste of time.

1. We are discussing WP:V, not WP:N. The standards for verifiability are much lower than notability.
2. WP:CRYSTAL#5 explicitly permits product announcements. Any criticism based on the fact that such forward-looking statements might turn out to be wrong is irrelevant, since policy permits them. We typically do not quote a product announcement, we simply relay the particulars that we are interested in. And that includes announced date of availability. As a sub-point, note that pretty much all the facts about anybody or anything are subject to change. People's names and sex. We have reliable sources that say his name is "Jonathan Lethem" and that he is a he. The book itself may change title or publisher on short notice. We don't suppress any of this information because it might change. If it does, we update. But maybe nobody will update, and there will be an error in WP. That is beyond preposterous as a concern. There is no requirement anywhere that only factoids with some kind of guaranteed fix are allowed.
3. Amazon is a commercial enterprise. This is perfectly acceptable, almost almost all our WP:RS are commercial enterprises. Masem mentioned the Hachette dispute. Amazon is certainly willing to throw its weight around, and they have proved willing to lose lots of money as part of their business tactics. So, while it's easy to speculate as to what Amazon has actually done against Hachette, facts are much better. Here's a link to a recent story (last Wed, 6/11/14) [43]. Amazon has stopped taking pre-orders. The article mentions one book (by J K Rowling under a pseudonym!) with a publication date this Thursday, 6/19/14. Amazon lists it with that date also, and no, you can't pre-order it. The article mentions several other big name authors affected. Note that there are negotiations in progress. But not lawsuits. I assume that means no one has broken any contracts. Note too that Amazon's reliability has been found questionable on this noticeboard for particular things, including blurb quotes or reviews. In the case of items that Amazon's bottom-line depends on getting correct, no one questions them. They are presumed to get the author and title correct, for example, not out of noble helpfulness but since their income depends on it. The same presumption favors trusting the publication date as being usually correct: Amazon really really wants to collect their customers' money as soon as possible, and really really does not want to deal with irate customers. (On a personal note, I once, about 10 years ago, pre-ordered with Amazon a multivolume $700 technical handbook, finally ready after 10 years, in order to pay only $600. The publisher delayed and delayed for two years, eventually I gave up, eventually a year later it was available, by then I found it for $500 at some other seller. So yes, I am quite familiar with Amazonsometimes gets it wrong, even way wrong. The question here is whether Amazon is reliably relaying information from the publisher, no more, no less, not whether the publisher has correctly predicted the future.)
4. Amazon fills in a date for some publishers. This is, I believe, their policy with small and self-publishers. I also don't believe this is for the sake of their software, which would be easy to adjust, but really it's essentially marching orders to the little guys. Essentially, Amazon is scheduling somebody's long tail of 50-5000 copies at Amazon's own convenience, since typically the little guy is somewhat incompetent. For the most part, these aren't books we're going to be mentioning in WP. I suspect this is where the 12/31/2025 date came from in an old NYT link I provided above. Somebody, either the publisher or Amazon, put in a date for the sake of software that requires a date. How things were done ten years ago is not really germane, but if the publisher did that and forgot to fix it, then it would be an instance of Amazon reliably passing on publisher's information.
5. Amazon does not meet the WP:RS guidelines involving fact-checking. As pointed out, these are guidelines, and taking them literally regarding every possible fact was dismissed as so much wikilawyering. The idea that Amazon has to have a fact-checking guy call up and personally verify trivial information that computers handle so much better is for Luddites, not the 21st century. The guideless specifically mention "common sense".
6. Amazon's dates aren't always correct. Irrelevant, since WP:RS does not require perfection.

• In summary, I have not seen one argument here against Amazon's reliability regarding release information of mainstream publishers' books. Masem came close by raising the Hachette (also Time-Warner, btw) dispute, but that's it. Choor monster (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy rehash of everything in your own words. Number five is the best. It's where we admit that Amazon doesn't fit the guidelines, but that we could sometimes allow it under WP:IAR. That's a better argument than saying it's an actual RS. I still think it generally should only be put in when it's corroborated by another source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't really like the idea that people would use an unreliable source just because it's convenient (and they think reliability is "just a guideline"). If nobody but Amazon.com has the information, then maybe it's undue to include that information. If there's a corroborating source, then why do we even need Amazon.com? Maybe I'm a hardliner, but I'd personally put Amazon.com on the blacklist. There's never any reason to link to online stores. You wouldn't link to Newegg.com in the article on Microsoft, would you? Well, why would you link to Amazon.com for a Stephen King article? I agree with BMK. Avoid Amazon.com; they are here to sell things, not to publish reliable information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have an argument against reliability. That's it. You are against using a commercial source, but there is no restriction against using commercial sources per se. For the record, BMK actually does not have an argument against the reliability of Amazon. He edit-warred for a week on Jonathan Lethem, his sole unwavering objection to Amazon was that it was "commercial". He supported BookFinder, even after having it explained to him that they too were commercial (owned by AbeBooks), and only gave it up after I informed him that AbeBooks was owned by Amazon. He then accepted WorldCat, despite the fact that it was relying solely on AbeBooks (and not on any library catalog, the book not yet in any library). And he point-blank refused to discuss the issue on the Talk page. Until finally he came up with "clever" idea that under some definitions of "fact-checking" (pre-computer), Amazon does not "fact-check". Thanks for bringing up the real issue, the one BMK has not had the honesty to admit here: people don't like using store catalogs whatsoever, but they are not prohibited. And in the specific case of Amazon and books, as quoted above, WP has a special page that provides links to Amazon for the express purpose of verifying information.

Elaqueate: as usual, you simply exaggerate into utter ridiculosity. Try something intelligenter, OK?

As a side point, the question of whether we cite forward-looking statements bluntly or with equivocation is entirely independent of reliability. That is a question of style. We don't put in spoiler or NSFW tags. Why should we put "this article contains forward-looking statements, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance" warnings in? What else is a statement about the future? Choor monster (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monsater, perhaps you should realize that on a consensus-based project, when you are basically the only one supporting your argument, you can use all the rhetorical tricks and devices you want, but you cannot prevail. You can rephrase the arguments of your opponents to make them seem absurd, you can argue against the editor rather then their arguments, you can even utilize the Big Lie and say that there is a consensus here to support the use of Amazon.com as a reliable source, but the fact of the matter is that there is no such consensus and no amount of rhetorical slight of hand is going to make one exist. For this reason, the next time I come across an editor -- any editor, including yourself -- using Amazon.com as a reference, I will delete it and cite this discussion, comfortable with the expectation that any reasonable editor who follows up and reads what is here will see the clear consensus against using Amazon -- and other solely commercial sites -- as reliable sources.

Now, all that there is to say having been said (and, at times, re-said ad infinitum), I think a neutral party could close this discussion, lest we continue going around in the same unproductive circle. BMK (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

BMK... consensus?... where do you see consensus against using Amazon. Looking at the discussion, we have two very vocal editors (Choor monster and Elaqueate) who have dominated the discussion (Choor arguing that Amazon is reliable, Elaqueate arguing it isn't)... and a handfull of others who agree that Amazon is reliable for some statements, but not for others. If there is a consensus here, it's in favor of the hedged "sometimes it is, but not always" viewpoint... and I would call it a very week consensus. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to mention me, we should be clear I'm not against all uses of Amazon. I think Amazon can be useful as a way to quickly corroborate another citation for things like the spelling of an author's name or an ISBN. That's how it is mentioned in Wikipedia:Book sources and that's a fairly non-controversial use, as it doesn't then recommend citing Amazon itself. But the arguments presented by others here make it clear that Amazon is either passing along a broad guess dressed up as a specific day that they've extracted from every type of publisher, reliable or not, or they've made it up themselves. If you look at their policies, Amazon doesn't guarantee that any of the product information is accurate, current, ever updated, etc. That's not really surprising if it's sometimes random-partner-supplied, sometimes fabricated. Regarding BMK's original question, I still haven't seen an argument that Amazon has any reputation for reliability in this specific area, across some majority of the books it lists, just that some editors assume they do. Absence of a reputation shouldn't be treated the same as a good reputation.
I see many misgivings from multiple editors in the above conversation about using Amazon as a source all by itself without any other source involved. It wouldn't surprise me if they get the scheduled publication date for a Harry Potter book mostly correct, but most of the people who would want to cite book announcements based on an Amazon citation alone are not going to be for that level of book. There's been a suggestion to only cite Amazon for bigger books, but I think the only way to know if it's a bigger book is if you show that it has some mention in the world beyond a single lonely "Coming soon" Amazon reference. I don't see a consensus to use Amazon when the only available source for the information is Amazon.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we know that is your opinion on the issue. You have expressed your opinion repeatedly. Others, however, disagree with you. They think Amazon is an acceptable source... or at least reliable for a hedged statement of "expected release date" or "estimated release date". Perhaps it would be best to end the discussion with a "No Consensus". We have gotten to the point of (repeatedly) reiterating our various opinions, and it is not likely that anyone involved so far will change their stated opinion. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And others disagree with you as well, so yes, a No Consensus is probably justified. I also found the "doesn't meet guidelines, in some cases IAR" argument not awful.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never claimed more than a limited reliability for Amazon, in this context, a sometimes reliable conduit for WP:CRYSTAL #5 information. I will also claim that we should not be over-interpreting product announcements: if they say "estimated", then we should pass that information along, but if they do not say so, we should not. Elaqueate has been arguing against WP:CRYSTAL #5, and as such, has simply not been contributing one iota to this discussion.

A publisher may well have their own reasons for delaying a webpage announcement. They're waiting on cover art, or book tour information, or tie-in deals, or the like. Since they do not normally handle sales, the webpage serves as part of an advertizing campaign more than as a catalog. A half-finished page may strike the publisher as worse than none. Amazon, meanwhile, is happy to treat a forthcoming book like any other book on its pages. Choor monster (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• And how does No Consensus translate into actual practice? Something other than edit wars, right? Choor monster (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Subterranea Britannica

The website http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/ is extensively used in I think British railway station articles (see Template:Subbrit. The parent site, Subterranea Britannica looks to be a hobbyist sites for fans and the contributors page makes it clear it's the same. However, while each train station page has extensive original source material (largely copyrighted images, maps, etc.], none is that is being used; it is only being used for small particular facts (such as the station closing dates) which aren't' sourced. For example, the article Marchwood uses it for the sole sentence "The station was closed by the Beeching Axe on 14 February 1966 and has remained closed since" of which the date is provided only and listing a book that could likely be its source. Further, the fact that this was closed by a published government report (Beeching_cuts) makes me think that it's possible to verify this information with another source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As I noted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Template:Disused-stations, the maps included on these pages are Ordnance Survey, which are Crown Copyright (50 years from date of publication), so copyright will have expired on most, if not all, of these old maps. Are there any that date from 1964 or later? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think any does. I'll strike out the copyright allegations completely. My apologies. That's not what I was focused on. Looking at the Marchwood example, it's not being used for any of that, it's being used solely as a source of when the train stations were closed. As you can see here, the images, maps, etc. do nothing to support when the train station was closed. For the dates of the train closures, I am guessing there is either no source or perhaps it is referencing the book in the further reading section. So either: (A) If it has no source, then it's not a source for what it's being used for and I think it could be dropped to an external link but not a reference for those facts. (B) If it from the books, then we should follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and do something like "The Totton, Hythe & Fawley Light Railway by J. A. Fairman: Oakwood Press 2002 ISBN 0853615845, cited in Disused Stations." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - experience similar to OP. In my experience the historical information is generally sourced from the standard or common books on the topics (based on my readings of both). I've never found it (disused-stations) unreliable. In many cases it's a valuable source of modern information, often as yet unpublished. eg redevelopments. It would be preferable in most cases to replace the historical information when possible references with ones 'closer to the source'. I think there are a number of contributors, so the quality may vary. I don't know how consistent editorial oversight is.Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion

There is disagreement at Fallen angel about the reliability of the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion for the sentence: "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that Satan appears in Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially apocalypses, as 'ruler of a demonic host, influencing events throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel', and ascribes the idea of Satan as a fallen angel to a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12". I say that, in Wikipedia terms, this work is a reliable source for the sentence, and that anyone who disagrees is free to add to it a citation of some source that he or she believes outweighs it. User:In ictu oculi removes the sentence on the grounds that what the ODJR states "is a short entry in a tertiary source and shouldn't even be mentioning Is 14:12 when no Jewish source does", and that, "if we want to say something about fallen angels in the pseudepigrapha, we need more competent sources". See Talk:Fallen angel#Reliable source. Is the cited source reliable for the sentence in question? Esoglou (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it is a tertiary source. Is the idea found also in secondary sources? Itsmejudith (talk)

I don't know. I also don't know if any secondary source actually denies the idea, whatever about being synthesized as denying it. It would probably be synthesis also to present as supporting the idea the statement "Heylel (Isa. xiv. 12), the 'day star, fallen from heaven', is interesting as an early instance of what, especially in pseudepigraphic literature, became a dominant conception, that of fallen angels", which is found online here (halfway down the right-hand column of page 400 of the New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia) and elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I presume you are not saying that, even in the absence of secondary sources, no tertiary source is reliable. Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A tertiary source such as this one can generally be considered a reliable summary of the scholarly literature. Is there a reason to dispute this tertiary source aside from the lack of personal familiarity relevant secondary sources? Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi seems to object that the source involves an "anachronistic, mish-mashing Christian myths back into Judaism", which would seem to be at least a justifiable view, from what I've read in the more detailed secondary literature on the topic. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course tertiary sources are acceptable. That's not the real issue though. If the statement is uncontroversial relatively poor sources may be acceptable. If the statement is problematic than they may not be. In this case it's difficult to say. The well known book Satan: A Biography, does not attribute the developments to a misinterpretation of Isaiah, or rather places that later, with Origen. The author of the entry appears to have written and article on the pseudepigraphic Wisdom of Solomon, which may articulate this view. There is the added difficulty of deciding what is meant or included by the concept "Satan", since that name is not used in some of the pseudepigraphic literature. These complexities tend to be compressed in tertiary literature. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not well versed on these matters, but a quick Google book search yields some findings about Satan and Jewish religion, for example Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years: [44] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're necessarily qualified to conclude this tertiary source is inaccurate because we are unable to locate its conclusions in the secondary literature ourselves. Has anyone consulted any of the five scholarly sources cited in this tertiary source? Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul B says complexities tend to be compressed in tertiary literature. Their compressions may surely be reported ("The ODJR says ..."). Then, if someone wants to suggest that a particular compression is misleading, they can simply add a source that they see as suggesting that the compression is misleading. But they can't object, especially but not solely if they cite no such doubt-raising source, to reporting the reliable source's compression. Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is a tertiary source! Just because something is called an encyclopaedia or dictionary doesn't make it tertiary necessarily. This work is a collection of small articles signed by their authors. In this case, the author is "Dennis M. Dreyfus, Lecturer in History, Hunter College, The City University of New York". Assuming this person was qualified to write on the subject, his article is a secondary source. Mind you, I don't believe this makes much difference to the question of its reliability. Can you show it is a fringe opinion? Or contradicted by better sources? I don't have time to study it, so I don't know if I would put it in the article or not. However, I'll note that if you do the search satan "Isaiah 14.12" in Google Scholar you will find quite a few articles. Dr Dreyfus certainly did not invent the idea. Zero^talk 01:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well at least at first glance it is reputable scholarly tertiary source compiled by reputable scholars and published with a reputable scholarly publisher. In addition it is seems to be a rather recent publication (2011) with good reviews. So I see no way to dismiss that as source. You would need larger number of of high quality secondary sources that convincingly demonstrate why the Oxford encyclopedia is wrong in this instance, the chances for that are probably slim to none. So assuming nobody can compile such secondary sources or several clearly negative reviews of the encyclopedia, it cannot be excluded and the article simply has to describe dissenting scholarly views.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Th statement is attributed, rather than stated as fact. Wikipedia is not saying those things, it is saying the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion is saying those things. Does that make a difference? Howunusual (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mike Ozekhome

Please help to review my article on the above-subject matter, particularly the external links.

Thank you.

Gladys Egan

I could use another pair of eyes on the sources for Gladys Egan. Essentially someone on a forum did some convincing original research by contacting and figured out the lifespan of a relatively obscure silent film actress. I removed the information because there have simply be too many issues with old film stars (check out the edit histories of Loni Nest, Pola Illéry, Louise Henry, all of whom had false death information provided in elaborate hoaxes) to accept anything other than indisputably reliable sources, since even reliable sources have proven to be hoaxed and misleading. Now, however, the dates are present on IMDb as well, so I wanted another person to take a look and make certain that I'm not in the wrong here by removing these dates. Canadian Paul 17:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I support your removal. The source is someone who doesn't claim to have any widely acknowledged expertise in the subject claiming to have done some detective work matching names of relatives with death certificates; that may well be correct, but is a bit too involved to be obvious, and requires an expert historian to vouch for. If that same claim were published in a book or magazine, we might go with it, but right now it's just published in a post on a web site. --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All the sources can be traced to reliable publications, including the 1910 U.S. Census, the New York Times archives, the Social Security Death Index, and death certificate 003258 (County of San Diego, 1985). There is only one Gladys Egan listed in the 1910 U.S. Census who was of the correct age (born 1900), a local resident, and had a sister named Pearl (they were co-billed in multiple productions), including a 1909 stage production reviewed by the New York Times). --Divxguy (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately digging through sources like that and making deductions is called Wikipedia: Original research. We need a reliable source that has already done that work for us, and written down the conclusion. Not some guy on a forum. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Judgment Against Imperialism, Fascism and Racism Against Caliphate and Islam: Volume 1: Is this book reliable?

Is this book The Judgment Against Imperialism, Fascism and Racism Against Caliphate and Islam: Volume 1 reliable? Please read about its description in Amazon [45]. There are no reviews there. Read about author description too [46] . Is that reliable book to cite in Islam articles? - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1. The title says it all, really. Its published by "authorhouse", which is a self-publishing outfit [47]. So the answer is no. I'm sure volume 2 will be great, though. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2. The book summary asserts that Ataturk was a "secret Jew", and that when Columbus reached America he discovered mosques there. Doesn't sound very reliable to me! RolandR (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. No it is not reliable. TFD (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Self-published conspiracy theory; not reliable. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Not even remotely reliable for anything other than what the author states. Not backed by an independent publisher. Not held in **any** Worldcat library. Pretty funny though. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Not reliable. The book has content from Wikipedia also - Page 184 for instance. That causes cyclic reference. --Jyoti (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
7. WP:SNOWing not reliable. No independent publisher, and the language alone makes it clear that not even a competent copy-editor has ever handled this book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI - We keep a list of Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies. If anyone finds a self-publishing company not on this list (apparently "authorhouse" isn't), please add it to the list. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Guinness World Records website a valid reference?

Source: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/largest-cut-painite

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painite

Content From: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Painite&oldid=613354583

Sample from editor deleted history: The 25.92-carat (5.18 g) Ophir Painite, owned by the Ophir Collection, has been recognized by Guinness World Records as the largest cut painite in the world[8].

Question on Reliable Sources: An editor said that the Guinness Book of World Records published reference book is a valid reference, but deferred to this forum regarding whether the website is a valid reference. The Source post at the top from the Guinness website was posted to the web in 2014 and the record was issued only 6 months ago (December 20th 2013). After inspecting the HTML code on the website the copyright is dated 2014. So the question remains, why would a dated physical publication be necessary to reference when the website is more timely and just as official? Is the website a valid reference?

If the answer is no, then I believe a VERY LARGE amount of content will necessarily need to disappear from wikipedia and calls into question the entire idea of an internet based encyclopedia if we are going back the Gutenberg Press... — Preceding unsigned comment added by OphirCollection (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Online sources are in no danger of being excluded from Wikipedia. Guinness World Records is a reliable source of some of their award-giving activities but is not a reliable source for whether a particular award is considered significant or accurate. Their website seems like a reliable source as a record of the awards they've given out, as a private company. Guinness World Records should not be treated as a reliable source, without direct inline attribution, that the claims they award for are true. For instance, they don't scientifically measure all hot dogs to find the largest one, they choose between people who self-select and actively apply for the designation. There is also still a question of whether any particular "Guinness World Record" is important enough to include in an article; they include completely trivial records like "Greatest distance travelled with a pool cue balanced on chin" and "Largest screwdriver" and other things that would not substantially improve many articles on related subjects. Your user name suggests you might have a COI with this material and that its inclusion may be sought for a directly self-promotional purpose, so I think it's fair that there should be some indication that this particular designation (among the unknown thousands of designations by GWR) is taken seriously by another RS.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is on value of reference not COI, but I agree that there are many trivial awards given out by Guinness World Records like largest screwdriver. However, awards given out for largest specimen for a category of gemstones seems hardly trivial. Guinness World Records consults with gem labs worldwide in order to verify that no lab in the world has seen a larger specimen before recognizing a given stone as a record. As far as self-selection and perfect knowledge, this is a tall order. Records are made to be broken, and if someone has a larger specimen then they need only apply to receive a larger record. Should wikipedia deny reference to Olympic records because someone somewhere was a faster runner but chose not to compete? This is in fact what happens all the time with recognitions of anything. Ever watched Good Will Hunting? The deleted edit simply states what is an irrefutable fact i.e. that Guinness World Records has "recognized" the painite as the largest cut specimen in the world. GIA certificates were used in the application process, and the edit stated what the current website from Guinness stated.

If the editor in question were only referring to COI issues then there would not have been a post on this page, however, this editor questioned the validity of Guinness website, so that is the question as hand. Since this is not a screwdriver, but something made by God and recognized as unique, does this post merit inclusion as a reference? http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/largest-cut-painite

What I find particularly uneven in this editing process is the reference to guinness, made by another, was left intact. See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzanite wikipedia page. The same editor didn't remove that edit, but removed my edits of it to make it more accurate. The way it reads now it looks like both stones are Guinness recognized whereas only one is. Granted I'm very new to wikipedia but this seems very arbitrary........--OphirCollection (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking into this I've found that I really have no alternative but to issue a promotional username block. It's pretty blatant and there is possibly a lot of money involved. They can of course create a new account without a commercial name. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I was going to raise a discussion about one aspect of the elsewhere, to confirm my own understanding that holding a GWR record does not guarantee notability. I see that is indeed generally accepted, as is the fact that it not even automatically worth being included in an article (though it often will be). The question of whether a record there is evidence for the particular achievement being an actual world record for something we consider important enough to mention seems to be well understood also, that it is one picce of evidence, but not definitive. I'm not sure about the more limited question, whether its particular data points are accurate: if it says A.B. did indeed eat X hotdogs, can it be assumed that A.B. did indeed eart that number (separate from the possibility that someone ate more, ot that it is no encyclopedic interest in any case) . My own view is that in this limited sense, it does authenticate its data. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The GWRs appear to be a key part of the marketing of the collection at the moment e.g.ATLANTA/EWORLDWIRE/June 16, 2014. "Containing the world's largest gemstones, the Ophir Collection (http://www.OphirCollection.com), owned by Ophir Collection LLC, has been awarded nine GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS(R) titles...The Ophir Collection is currently available for sale to qualified buyers." Sean.hoyland - talk 04:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that a GWR listing is any kind of assurance that a record holder is notable, or that a specific record is worthy of mention in the encyclopedia. Notability requires much more than a listing. Mentioning records is a matter of editorial judgment, and at first thought, I see no reason to mention the world's largest screwdriver in our article about that tool. But world's records are often notable and widely discussed elsewhere, and Guiness is a respected source for such records. So, GWR should be considered a reliable source for stating that the Guiness World Record for X is X. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the other information in painite, this appears to be a very rare, and relatively recently-discovered type of mineral. (Just a couple dozen specimens collected before 2005.) It doesn't have anything even approaching the cultural, economic, or historical significance of other, better-known gems or minerals. (To be honest, it doesn't seem to have any cultural, economic, or historical significance.) The question of due weight seems more problematic than the question of reliability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (Ra material)

The Law of One (Ra material) is based on a network of flimsy sources that should be analyzed and removed at the discretion of the largest consensus possible. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I encourage sharing such analysis in the deletion review for the page. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm having way too much trouble locating RSs in there, demonstrating an WP:UNDUE problem if there are indeed any RSs in there. Fringe sources are not RS, even if we allow (academically sourced) articles on fringe topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

www.discogs.com

I have used this site many times to source info on songs and albums. I have been told that it is not a reliable source as it is user generated. Some of it is but a lot of it isn't. Should it be considered an unreliable source. The article in question Shanghai'd in Shanghai has now been redirected to an album page, mostly because this website was removed as unreliable--Egghead06 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See here. User-generated content should never be used as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight. Discogs is mentioned specifically as a source to avoid. Caper454 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That only says this site may be unreliable and does not include it specifically in the list of unreliable sites. There is a lot on this site not user generated, so should there be a carpet ban on this site as at the moment it is not listed as such?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, Discogs is mentioned specifically as a source to avoid. According to this, it seems that as of 2008 all material on discogs.com is user submitted and takes effect immediately, meaning the possibility of zero editorial oversight exists. Entries are checked for "correctness & completeness" later via votes. Even the mods who check accuracy seem to be just users as well. Caper454 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I find discogs accurate (as opposed to wp-reliable), so I wouldn't be alarmed about its limited use on WP. If an article requires discogs for its existence, I think that is a problem, though.

I'd also query whether we really should class it as a site to avoid, because it just consists of scans of and transcriptions from record sleeves, done by volunteers and moderated by other volunteers. There are sites run in that way that we probably would consider reliable (Gutenberg, Internet Archive), and the only difference is probably how noble we consider the volunteers to be.

I'm not arguing for discogs to have some kind of special status, but I think we should generally be relaxed about it.

Anyway, no-one will know if you pretend you got the information from the record sleeve. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, discogs is very often my first port of call, before I look for "wiki-correct" sources. It has a vast amount of useful information. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have used it many times and some very experienced editors have reviewed my articles all with no complaint concerning this site. It is also widely used by others on articles about songs and albums.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

None of this makes the source reliable. Caper454 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't and that's why I came here to get other editors views. Anything I can find on Discogs I can source elsewhere. I only need a view as to further use and opinion seems to be not to use it. --Egghead06 (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No, but I think it provides a good example of where turning a blind eye will most often be the best thing to do. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Turning a blind eye is only effective as long as no one bothers to revert it based upon the fact that it's unreliable. It's by no means a valid argument. Caper454 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you argue that its unreliability is based on the fact that material is added immediately, and reviewed only later, you must accept that its reliability increases as time goes on? I would guess that those who add material at discogs are committed fans/ genre specialists who have no vested interest in deliberately adding spurious information. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that this not a reliable source. You can use it as a starting point for your research, like the IMDb, but do not cite it on Wikipedia. Editors like myself will automatically strip out any citation to Discogs. And, no, there is no exception in WP:RS for sites that are useful but lack any editorial oversight. It's the same as using an open wiki (such as Wikipedia) as a source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job it is not used much on Wiki then!!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

www.rankopedia.com

Is rankopedia.com a reliable source? e.g. [48] Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing how its motto is "vote, create, & debate!" I'd say it's a user-generated source and therefore even less reliable than a public opinion poll. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, what could be less reliable than a public opinion poll! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like some cleanup is needed for its current uses. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have cleaned up a few of the articles which use rankopedia.

It's worth highlighting that there's a WP:CIRCULAR problem in that much content is copied from wikipedia. See, for example, "Greatest French American of all time", a ranking based on our List of French Americans. Interestingly, the top-ranked French American is an obscure "Antoine Bello", who is also - quelle coïncidence! - the founder of Rankopedia. He succeeds in several other rankings too. bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Not RS. Simple. Collect (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The Top Tens

Hot on the heels of Rankopedia, discussed above, what does this noticeboard think of The Top Tens? I'm concerned that it's user-generated, but it is cited in quite a range of articles. bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Also not RS. Nice to have such easy cases here. Collect (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've cleaned up every article that used it. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Gregory Douglas and TBRNews.org

I have found content attributed to Gregory Douglas in four Wikipedia articles:

1. In Carmel Offie, the sentences "Heinrich Müller, a German recruited into the CIA, called Offie 'a screaming fairy' in his diary entry for January 5, 1951" and "Müller's diaries support Offie's contention that he was framed as well" are attributed to Heinrich Müller, The CIA Covenant: Nazis in Washington (Müller Journals), Gregory Douglas, ed.
2. In Georg Betz, the sentence "After the war, a dictated order dated 20 April 1945 by Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller was discovered setting out a flight plan for Hitler's transportation to Barcelona, Spain. Hitler was to have been flown there by Betz in a Ju 290 long-range aircraft" is attributed to Douglas, Gregory (1996). Gestapo Chief: Heinrich Müller. San Jose, CA: R. James Bender Publishing. ISBN 0-912138-62-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help).
3. In Heinrich Müller (Gestapo), the sentence "After the war, a dictated order by Müller dated 20 April 1945 was discovered. It set out Müller's plan for Hitler's transportation to Barcelona, Spain. Hitler was to have been flown there by Georg Betz in a Ju 290 long-range aircraft" is attributed to Douglas, Gregory (1996). Gestapo Chief: Heinrich Müller. San Jose, CA: R. James Bender Publishing. ISBN 0-912138-62-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help).
4. In Georg Konrad Morgen, the sentence "During October–November 1943, Morgen looked into rumors that SS-General Odilo Globocnik, former commandant of Jewish labor camps in the Lublin district of eastern Poland, had assembled an enormous personal trove of valuables confiscated from the inmates" is attributed to Gregory Douglas (1995). Gestapo Chief - The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Mueller, Vol. I, pp. 90-102, 255-57.

The premise of this listing is that the author, whoever it is, makes stuff up. The first of the four sources above note that the author is Heinrich Müller; however, there is nothing to corroborate that Müller even kept a journal.

Hayden B. Peake, curator of the CIA Historical Intelligence Collection, has briefly referred to "Gregory Douglas" in at least two of his "Intelligence Officer’s Bookshelf" columns posted at www.cia.gov. In reviewing a book by R. J. Stove, Peake criticized Stove's sourcing as inadequate and flawed: "The source for this extraordinary assertion [that Heinrich Müller worked for the CIA after WWII] is Gregory Douglas, putative author of Gestapo Chief: The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Müller. Douglas also writes that Müller had dinner at the White House with President Truman and knew Alan Dulles, both patent falsehoods." In the footnote for those comment, Peake wrote: "Douglas has used the pseudonyms Peter Stahl and Walter Storch on the Internet. He claims a former CIA officer is one of his sources, a claim that officer has denied to me. The documentary evidence he purports to have remains his secret. Those facsimile documents he includes in his books are said by experts to be of his own making and cannot be found in the National Archives. Whatever happened to Müller, the one certainty is that he never came to America."[49] In a review of a book by Tennent H. Bagley, Peake referred to "the strange case of Gregory Douglas—an author who claims US intelligence was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy and that the never-captured Nazi Gestapo leader Heinrich Müller had been brought to the United States by the US Army and became a close friend of President Truman".[50]

Even others who make outlandish claims seem to be critical of him, too. Mark Weber, director of the Holocaust denial organization Institute for Historical Review, wrote a lengthy reviewing stating that the series of books are "the product of an inventive mind and much hard work" and "an elaborate hoax". Weber wrote: "The man who crafted this series of books is a known fabricator of documents who has used a variety of names over the years, including Peter Stahl, Samuel Prescot Bush, and Freiherr Von Mollendorf. His real name, apparently, is Peter Norton Birch or Peter Norwood Burch."[51] Conspiracy theorist James Fetzer voiced much skepticism about the material in a Kennedy assassination conspiracy book credited to Douglas: [52] Robin Ramsay (editor) published an article in Fortean Times entitled: "The Conspiracy Fabricator: A look at the dubious scribblings of one Gregory Douglas".[53]

Various sources of questionable reliability (e.g. [54][55][56][57]) also indicate that "Gregory Douglas" is behind the website www.TBRNews.org which currently gets 24 hits in Wikipedia. I did not check out the TBR website link in every article, but I received a "404 Error" for the five that I did. There is no official attribution for TBRNews.org, so I think that should be a slam-dunk.

Those who contributed the above material to the four articles may not have been aware of these issues so I have invited them to this discussion. Location (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Bookbuffet.com

How reliable is the above website for its interviews with reputed authors? I did not see any discussion in the archives on this, so asking. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Promotion of POV-sources in Rape in the Bosnian War

I was referred to here by the courtesy of user:OccultZone who intercepted my request for assistance at the talk page of user:Ohnoitsjamie who had previously fended off vandalism affecting the article. A few days ago an newly created user appeared with the following contribution intending to "question the number" of women raped in the Bosnian War using the following sources:

1. Pamplet written by Sara Flounders of the far-left International Action Center (IAC) at their webpage (url=http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/tragedy.htm). Apparently, the "pamplet is part of the forthcoming book, NATO in the Balkans: Voices in Opposition". [58] The title of the first chapter speaks volumes: "U.S. and NATO plans to divide Yugoslavia". Sara Flounders is a member of the Secretariat of Workers World Party, a revolutionary U.S. Marxist-Leninist party and part of the same family as the IAC [59]. The same text is published to the word on the Workers World Party's webpage under the fitting conspiracist title "NATO IN THE BALKANS: Rape & U.S. war propaganda".[60] Needless to say, their literature is highly politicized and features such conspiracist titles as "Hidden Agenda: U.S./NATO Takeover of Yugoslavia" [61] The organization opposes U.S. military intervention in all circumstances, with the founder of the IAC, Ramsey Clark, having been a supporter of both Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic [62] as well as Saddam Hussein. Sara Flounders has more recently also expressed her support for the regime of Bashar Al-Assad [63] and is part of the same pro-Serb camp as Diana Johnstone who inter alia denies the ruled genocide in Bosnia [64] An article from the news website Salon covering the IAC and Ramsey Clark who had, among other, Slobodan Milosevic as his legal client. [65]
2. The New York Times is simply sourced as "New York Times 1993" but is refering to this article [66] where nothing is mentioned about the claim made that the "Croatian Ministry of Health in Zagreb was the main source used by the Warburton Report to arrive at its figure of 20,000".
3. The final source is yet another conspiracist-activist, Justin Raimondo, also an avid opponent of U.S. military intervention and author of such fringe titles as "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection". [67] His book "Into the Bosnian quagmire: the case against U.S. intervention in the Balkans" from 1996 is quoted on page 22 [68] and is published by himself (I am serious)[69] And here's the best part, guess who Raimondo cites for the quote on page 22: Sara Flounders.

I explained to the concerned user, who also disrupted another war-related article in this way with his "exonerating" POV and whom I suspect of potential sock-puppet ties to blocked user Obozedalteima, the inappropriate and unreliable nature of the sources, after which that user has not yet returned. Today however, and all the more disturbingly, established user:FkpCascais makes this revert and restores the text with the brilliant edit summary "Seems ok. We all know in war numbers are inflated". Apparently, the largely "pro-Serb" POV of the sources appeal to his own personal beliefs about the conflict. Highly disturbing considering the user is an established editor. I try to explain to this user on the talk page the doubtful nature of the sources and that they offer no actual analysis or study of the estimates but simply rant about their POV, which they try to prove by quoting the alleged account of a certain reporter by the name of "Jeremy Bone" whose subjective experience is that the number of women raped in the part of Bosnia where he had been was being exaggerated. Hardly scholastic, and hardly objective. It does not prove or add anything. Point-of-views, opinions and personal experiences are a dime a dozen and largely irrelevant until a reliable source has determined them to be relevant. Now, the "sources" also allege to offer some hard facts that could actually be useful to the article, such as the interview basis for the estimates, however claiming that 4 interviews were used to extrapolate 20.000 rapes(!) is hard to swallow, especially coming from partisan sources that clearly fail the WP:RS criteria as demonstrated. Flounders also emphasizes Simone Veil's alleged "dissenting opinion" as to the estimates, when Veil in fact herself had personally spearheaded the rape incrimination of Bosnian Serbs in what she concludes to have been "not a secondary effect of the conflict but part of the systematic policy of ethnic cleansing", "perpetuated with the conscious intention of demoralizing and terrorizing communities, driving them from their home regions and demonstrating the power of the invading forces".[70]. In fact, searching the net for the purported "dissenting opinion" of Veil only returns hits on various blogs, Srebrenica genocide-denial and "counter-Jihad" sites thouroghly pro-Serb, as do other chunks of Flounder's text.[71][72] Despite being thoroughly explained to the user in question restores the material once again [73] and which brings me here to you with the hope of having these "sources" blacklisted. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I restored the edit because it seems legit. There is nothing missleading, it is not assumed as fact, but rather explicitly says who claims what. I don´t agree with the opposition of Praxis because I beleave it is based in his personal opinion regarding the authors. I know Praxis is an editor very dedicated to the Bosnian issues and I had some good cooperation with him in the past, however I don´t see why wouldn´t we mention criticism on that article. FkpCascais (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Nearly all the contentious material is based on the article by Sara Flounders. I share the OP's concerns about the reliability of this source. If dissenting views are to be aired, then Flounder's claims need to be corroborated with better sources. For instance, Flounders states that Simon Veil was a dissenting member of the investigation team. So find her statements and cite those. Find the Oct 19 New York Times article that she refers to. Find the statement by Tom Post explaining the source of his rape figures. And if substantiation can't be found (a likely possibility, from what I'm reading), then don't include this material. Seem reasonable? TheBlueCanoe 13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is reasonable. The article on NY Times is this one from October 20. FkpCascais (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers like the NYT are the right kind of source for current events, but as time passes, historians begin their analyses and we need gradually to align our articles with the consensus of historical research. Especially in very contentious areas like this one. Has Flounders carried out research in the region? Has she interviewed hundreds of people? I would be very surprised if she were a reliable source for this, but then again I see few sources in the article that look reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

So the New York Times october article is clearly a RS, no question there, although a contemporary scholarly work would be yet better. Sara Flounders has not carried out any research on the subject, what she operates on from her Marxist-Leninist anti-NATO activist perspective is a point-of-view which she tries to prove by qouting other scholarly unsupported POVs, such as the purported experience of television reporter "Jeremy Bone". As I also explained on the talk page, I welcome and encourage reliable sources offering a proper scholarly analysis of the estimates and their basis. I would also love to see RS discussing Simone Veil's alleged dissenting opinion. What I don't understand, however, is the claim "but then again I see few sources in the article that look reliable", generally or just the estimates? The material in the article is based on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, genocide scholar Samuel Totten of the University of Arkansas [74], Dr. OIivera Simic of Griffith University [75], Nicole Dombrowski of Towson University [76], Andrea Parrot and Nina Cummings of Cornell University [77][78], Professor Marguerite Waller of the University of California [79], Professor Jennifer Rycenga of the San Jose State University [80] and Dr Jessica Woodhams of the University of Birmingham [81] to mention but a few. I would prefer that you actually have a close look before making such misguided input. The level of accuracy, quality, relevance and objectivity attained by these sources compared to that of a politicized unscholarly leftist-activist source as Flounder's is of such fundamental difference that "but then again" makes little sense. Focus please. Thanks to TheBlueCanoe for the input, which captures my point exactly. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You continuosly repeat about "Marxist-Leninist anti-NATO activist" to label her just in order to discredit her, but, even if trouth, are leftist people woste then rightist? Are pro-NATO people better then anti-NATO? I still beleave a section about criticism would be good for the article neutrality. IAC and other organisations seem to support her work on this subject. FkpCascais (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2014(UTC)

We don't want pro of this or anti of that, we want NPOV which is something you seem to have problems with. In reality, we should not even be having a discussion as to why left-wing extremists and revolutionists supportive of dictators are uncitable. Could someone please put an end to this? As far as you are concerned, I'd take a look below on the impending discussion. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Those sources fail WP:RS, and their use really ought to be a red flag for NPOV problems. bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Would an AN/I report on user conduct be in place? Judging by FkpCascais's latest adamant comment, I'm increasingly convinced it is. Should there even be a discussion as to why we shouldn't use left-wing extremists and advocates of dictators as sources? What's next, citing Nazis on events in WWII? I'm appalled. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just another average day on our Balkan history articles, alas. AN/I might be helpful, but might not. Good luck! bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And Sara Flounders as an RS? What is this, Comedy Central? Writegeist (talk)

I just noticed that FkpCascais was tag-teaming with the sockpuppet. It's very disappointing that FkpCascais keeps on trying this trick, but it's not something that WP:RSN can deal with. bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to report me, feel free, go ahead. But keep in mind that the edit clearly says who claims what, so it fully respects the WP rules (needs only adding the right NYT article which I linked in my previous comment). The only issue here was weather the authors and the organisations behind the claims are notable enough in order to include them in the article, or not. I will respect the consensus that will be reached here by neutral participants. FkpCascais (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply. No Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Can this source be used only limited?

Hi, I just wanted to ask whether the following source can also be used at Yamna culture >like this<.

• Mario Alinei (2003), "Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Paleolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis", Quaderni di semantica, vol. 26.

Or is it limited only to the arcticle Paleolithic Continuity Theory? Thanks a lot. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is reliable depending on how it is used. If God stepped down here to give us some perfectly reliable source on all information, Wikipedia would still only consider it reliable depending on how it is used. The paper in question is far from that, however. There's the issue of undue weight. A single paper advocating a minority position does not get the same weight as a full book (which would have consulted numerous papers and books) describing the mainstream position. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

So, it is limited only to Paleolithic Continuity Theory then? --Ragdeenorc (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

can anyone help me?

i want to know about khamenei, this & this books write that he was graduated from Patrice Lumumba university in moscow, are reliable or not ?--Mazdak5 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

another question

Ervand Abrahamian and ahmad ashraf claimed that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was paranoid. in 4 books & articles:

1. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. University of California Press, 1993. ISBN 978-0-520-08503-9.
2. The Coup: 1953, The CIA, and The Roots of Modern U.S. -Iranian Relations. New Press, 2013. ISBN 978-1-59558-826-5.
3. CONSPIRACY THEORIES”. In Encyclopædia Iranica. vol. VI. 1993. 138-147. Retrieved 4/23/2014.
4. in persian: «توهم توطئه». گفتگو (تهران) تابستان، ش. 8 (1374): 7 تا 46

my ask is are these books reliable for shah's paranoia?--Mazdak5 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The first yes, the second no idea. But a quick search on GBooks shows that ya. he was paranoid. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Rauf Rashid Abd al-Rahman

Are the sources reporting his death used in this article "reliable sources"? I didn't see any major news sources with this story. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot read the source in Arabic, however, I believe the "Mail Online" would be considered a major, reliable source in this context. The statement also appears to be properly attributed to the primary source. Until the death is confirmed by other sources independent of that primary source, I am not sure how the article should address his date of death in the opening sentence or whether or not Category:2014 deaths should be attached to the article. Location (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dave Emory podcast and associated text

1. Source: https://archive.org/details/For_The_Record_288_Update_on_the_JFK_Assassination

2. Article: Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean

3. Content: "The headquarters of the Anti-Communist League was at one time located at Guy Bannister's New Orleans office."

Not sure what to make of this. The article cites "https://archive.org/details/For_The_Record_288_Update_on_the_JFK_Assassination", but I'm not sure if it is referring to the text or the attached half-hour podcast by Dave Emory. The text is not a transcript of the article and, as far as I could tell, the material above does not appear in the podcast. Location (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)