Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eperoton (talk | contribs) at 03:24, 26 July 2019 (→Muslim scholars' published books to represent Muslim opinion: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 5 years ago by Eperoton in topic Muslim scholars' published books to represent Muslim opinion
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

    List of archives
    , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
    460, 461, 462

    Additional notes:

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

    RfC - CoinDesk as a source

    Latest comment: 5 years ago31 comments16 people in discussion

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

    Survey (CoinDesk)

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

    RSP Entry: CoinDesk RSP Entry

    Please note: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies

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

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

    So the question is,

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

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

    Remove it - speaking as the editor in question, here's what my thinking was:
    • In general: cryptocurrency/blockchain articles are magnets for spam and advocacy. And crypto news sites are bad sources, per the previous discussion on this topic - they appear to be specialist press, but function as advocacy. You will see every possible thing being spun as good news for cryptos. We don't need crypto sites - there's plenty of mainstream coverage and peer-reviewed academic coverage to establish notability. Using crypto sites as sources in your article is a bad sign at AFD, and using mainstream RSes and peer-reviewed academic RSes is a good sign at AFD - so the observed working consensus of Wikipedia editors in practice is strongly in this direction.
    • In particular: Coindesk has a terrible habit of running articles on things that don't exist yet, barely-reskinned press releases and so on. There are plenty of refs that are entirely factual content! But you can say the same about blogs, wikis and other sources that aren't trustworthy in any practical sense. And this is even though Coindesk has an editor, I know a pile of the journalists and they're honestly trying to do a good job, etc. Quite a lot of the Coindesk refs I removed were to puffed-up nonsense articles, or in support of blatantly promotional article content. So the argument that editors will check the context doesn't work in practice - using the Coindesk articles that happen to be properly-made news coverage only encourages the use of their bad stuff, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is the most frequent AFD argument from crypto spammers.
    • I urge those thinking about this to reread WP:GS/Crypto. Just think what sort of editing would cause that harsh a community sanction to be put into place. Those conditions haven't changed. Letting just a waffer-thin crypto site in the door will invite the spammers back.
    • I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here - I make some money as a crypto journalist, often publishing in these very sites. I know my stuff is good and my editors are good! But I also know there's excellent reason it's not good for Wikipedia - when we have mainstream sources. If some subject or fact isn't notable enough to make it into mainstream or peer-reviewed sources, perhaps it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.
    • For a recent example that did make the crypto press, check this out. (I spoke to them with my Wikipedia editor hat on for once, not my crypto journalist hat.) That's about spammy interests trying to weasel their stuff into just one page. Repeat for a large swathe of the crypto articles on Wikipedia, 'cos that sort of thing is entirely usual. Mainstream-only is good in practice. (cc Retimuko and Ladislav Mecir, who are also mentioned in that piece.)
    • And, really - you think crypto sites should be used for BLPs? We have super-stringent BLP rules also for excellent reasons. I can't see how a crypto site would ever be acceptable as a source for a BLP, except maybe as an accepted subject-published link or similar - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    @David Gerard: I'm skeptical of your claim "I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here", considering that you published Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, a book that is highly critical of cryptocurrencies. How would your !vote to remove all references to CoinDesk go against your own interests? Since you "make some money as a crypto journalist", wouldn't removing all references to CoinDesk effectively eliminate your biggest competitor and/or adversary from being mentioned on Wikipedia? — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I mean that my own work in the ones I write for (which include Coindesk) wouldn't be citable. If you think you have a substantiable claim of COI on my part, you know where WP:COIN is, else I'll file that with all the other unsubstantiated claims that not being an advocate means I should stop editing in the area - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for clarifying. Your statement makes more sense alongside the fact that you have contributed to CoinDesk. Ironically, the fact that CoinDesk published your opinion piece "2017: The ‘Butt’ of Bitcoin’s Joke" makes them less biased than I had previously assumed. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Unreliable source - beyond the issues that David Gerrard lays out above, crypto news sites also have had issues with content being gneerated for pay but not noted as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • to be fair, Coindesk has never been credibly accused of pay-for-play, and there's no good reason to think they'd do that. However, their editorial line has long been basically boosterism for cryptos (IMO) - David Gerard (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
        That is fair. However, beyond that for all the reasons you've mentioned, which I didn't bother to repeat since you'd laid them out in depth, I continue to believe it is an unreliable source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Keep (do not remove all references to CoinDesk - here's my thinking and take on the matter:
    • The previous RfC did a good job of getting consensus on how to treat CoinDesk articles. It clearly stated that CoinDesk shouldn't be used to establish notability but otherwise isn't barred from being used as a source. Why the sudden change in this policy by one editor deciding unilaterally that they no longer wish to adhere to this consensus?
    • Yes, we all know the usual criticisms of crypto press. That's already debated and known to editors. If there are individual instances to consider incorrect usage of CoinDesk, e.g. to establish notability, by all means they should be deleted. But as long as it isn't the policy, I don't support a blanket removal of all the material from literally hundreds of articles affected.
    • A lot of the material that's been removed is actually criticism of the projects. The bias is easy to understand - a lot of the overly promotional puffery has been removed by diligent editors already. This means removing all the CoinDesk references has made the problem of crypto-puffery much worse.
    • Several instances of purely encyclopedic content was removed for using CoinDesk as a purely descriptive secondary source (e.g. discussion on popular standards). This hurts the quality of the articles from an encyclopedic perspective.
    • This blanket removal of CoinDesk references already goes against the general consensus previously reached. There are literally hundreds (probably thousands?) of edits to go through, and I don't think it's feasible to go through them all to determine if the removal was justified. In many cases I've reviewed, I think the removal was unjustified, and in several other cases, it was totally justified. It's very hard to review now after these edits.
    • In conclusion, yes, there is a problem with crypto puff material entering the articles, but the solution isn't to ban crypto press. Crypto press both has the puffiest pieces and the most critical pieces on crypto projects. As editors, we want to see a balanced article, but that balance gets lost of we cannot cite the criticisms. One editor shouldn't decide to remove criticism and encyclopedic content especially going against previous consensus

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

    • Keep as a source per Molochmeditates. CoinDesk's role in promoting the use of cryptocurrencies is no different from PinkNews's role in promoting acceptance of LGBT communities worldwide. Recognise their bias, and use discretion when citing the source; but do not systemically reject an entire topic area from Wikipedia just because it is in some way problematic or difficult to write about. feminist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Most of them should be removed. But it should be done more carefully. A lot of them can be replaced by mainstream sources. Examples:
    Andreessen Horowitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761
    Wall Street Journal "blog" about the same thing.
    Initial coin offering - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173
    "The SEC ruled that celebrity ICO endorsements must disclose the amount of any compensation paid for the endorsement." Covered by Reuters.
    BitLicense - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899
    "In July 2016, San Francisco-based Ripple was awarded the second BitLicense." Covered by Reuters.
    There should be zero coin news references used in an article if possible. Like do you really need to use CoinDesk to write a good article about blockchain?
    So if it's an important detail, look for a mainstream source. If it's only on a coin news site you should explain why it's needed on the talk page or edit summary. Blumpf (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Delete all references from Coindesk and other cryptopropaganda I'd thought that this was already a settled matter. There are reliable references to cryptomatters, e.g. Bloomberg, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Financial Times, BBC, CBC and sometimes in Fortune and some of the cable news networks. There's no reason not to just use these sources. The cryptopropaganda network is all shills all the time as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Do not delete all references. There is not enough evidence to indict CoinDesk as a source that publishes false or fabricated information. While CoinDesk is a biased and non-independent source due to the cryptocurrency holdings of its parent company (Digital Currency Group), I don't consider the content in CoinDesk to be sponsored content, and I don't think a removal of "all references" to CoinDesk is justified. In my opinion, a source only crosses the line when it publishes calls to action that support its interests. CoinDesk's articles do not contain that type of promotional language. CoinDesk is much closer to TorrentFreak (RSP entry), which is another specialist publication that assumes the role of an advocacy organization, than The Points Guy's sponsored content (RSP entry), which contains actual sales pitches. However, CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability (per existing consensus), and editors should consider whether content from CoinDesk constitutes undue weight before including it into an article. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
      To "delete all references" to a source "irrespective of context" is a very serious action that is only taken when a source is listed on the spam blacklist. The "Yes" position in this RfC goes further than deprecation, because deprecation respects WP:CONTEXTMATTERS while the "Yes" position here does not. If CoinDesk is not eligible for the spam blacklist, then there is no valid reason to "delete all references" to it "irrespective of context". — Newslinger talk 01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Remove all, but try to replace with mainstream sources when at all possible, per Blumpf and others. The FRS/Legobot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Remove all. Mainstream sources are fine. Coindesk is biased, and most editors don't have context to identify the cases where they might be able to be a neutral source. – SJ + 03:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes - Remove all, unreliable is unreliable, context doesn't magically make dishonest reporting honest. They have form. Bacondrum (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes - Remove all, for the reason stated by SJ. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes - Remove all - Coindesk and publications like it are effectively WP:PROFRINGE sources advocating a worldview about cryptocurrencies that is not reality-based. We should be blacklisting it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Keep as source per feminist. Mainstream sources are preferable, and coindesk should not be relied as a central source, but it's reasonably WP:THIRDPARTY, and often contains details that can't be found elsewhere. Forbes72 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Remove all. It's kind of like using the Discotute as a source for the validity of creationism. Coindesk writers have drunk deep of the kool-aid and assiduously maintain the kayfabe of crypto. Promotional or uncritical commentary on cryptobollocks is pretty much the last thing we need here. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Discussion (CoinDesk)

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

    "sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concern" - but that's literally all the crypto news sites, though. Every single one. Is there an exception you had in mind? - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know, I have not had any good chance to review them in any depth, their connections, and how others see those sources. For example, if we have non-crypto-based RSes routinely quoting facts from a crypto source, even if that source is not truly independent, that still suggests that that source would be seen as authorative. All the concerns related to WP:NORG obviously should be applied to any crypto-related article, but it still doesn't mean throwing the entire work out if others see part of it as reliable. But I have spent literally only like 10 minutes looking into this, nothing I would consider suitable to say such exist.
    I do worry that this rush of mass removals without a clear consensus is into WP:FAIT territory, even though I suspect 95% of them removals would be proper, at the end of the day. --Masem (t) 14:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I think your point about RS quoting something like CoinDesk is a fair point and I would hope that David Gerrard has stopped removing CoinDesk as a reference while this RfC is being conducted. However, because Crypto/blockchain is a substantial field we have non-industry sources covering notable organizations/developments regularly. We can rely on them without having to figure "Is CoinDesk acting as a booster of the industry here or is it reporting news of significance?" Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

    • I see one very rarely indeed. A recent worked example of Coindesk being a sloppy and misleading source: [1] It's particularly egregious because literally nothing they claim is new - including the precise technical claim, which was detailed in InfoQ (which is a specialist RS) two years ago and its application to blockchains the same year (though that's a primary source, not an RS, it's the counterexample that Coindesk has repeated a marketing lie unexamined). Will Coindesk correct it? Still waiting ... Coindesk has a long history of repeating any press release nonsense that sounds like good news for blockchain. This means that a Coindesk reference cannot be safely used unless the editor has separately verified that this time they're not just repeating boosterism - at which point you're doing original research and should either find a RS or just not do that - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a source. — Newslinger talk 19:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

    RfC: The American Conservative

    Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments12 people in discussion

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

    oops. ta-da! https://www.theamericanconservative.com
    Most if not all of the magazine is opinion articles, which are generally not considered reliable sources. Note for example the first article in your link, by Robert W. Merry, which says, "The Democratic contenders want open borders and free healthcare and to pay for it by hiking taxes." In fact none of them call for open borders and most of them oppose free health care. TFD (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    "Most if not all" is based on your reading the strap line of one article then, by this veteran former WSJ reporter. I noted that it takes a right-view above. So option 2 additional considerations is reasonable. But it includes much serious reporting e.g. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-quietly-promises-billions-in-new-nuke-contracts/ Cambial Yellowing(❧) 12:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I really wish people would stop knee-jerk repeating "opinion pieces are bad" as if they were repeating policy. See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. GMGtalk 14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The American Conservative is the largest outlet in the heterodox paleoconservative movement, a small right-wing movement in the US, and a very valuable source for paleoconservative ideas. However it is still mainly an opinion outlet and has faced criticism on issues of race. I would say it is useful for opinion but should be used with caution on general reporting due to its inherent paleoconservative bias. Toa Nidhiki05 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

    I would use The American Conservative with caution, which is how we currently treat media from most advocacy organizations, including the Cato Institute (RSP entry), Media Matters for America (RSP entry), and the Media Research Center (RSP entry). As the publication is biased or opinionated, in-text attribution is recommended. — Newslinger talk 20:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • I would argue it is quite similar to Cato, even more so because it is the only major paleoconservative outlet. It’s basically the flagship publication of that movement and was even founded by Pat Buchanan himself. It’s not really a “straight news” or even news-opinion publication imo. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    User:Cambial Yellowing, what you call serious reporting is actually an opinion piece. The author is commenting on a story that appeared in the New York Times about Trump's plans to increase the nuclear stockpile. There is absolutely no reason why we would use this as a source instead of the New York Times article that reported the story. GMG, it's not that opinion pieces are bad, but that policy says they are rarely reliable sources. Mostly they repeat facts already reported in reliable sources. When they report original information, they are not subject to the same editorial control as news reporting. So one writer may say Trump is a Russian agent while another says he did not collude with Russia. One may say climate change will destroy the world in 10 years while another will say there is no climate change. TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    What policy says is Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. But I have also seen this argument used to delete at AfD, and used to argue against using attributed statement of opinion from independently notable authors, writing opinion pieces in iron clad reliable publications. GMGtalk 01:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    That's from Biased or opinionated sources. I was referring to News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The two points are consistent: opinion pieces and biased sources are reliable for what their authors say. Some biased sources may also be reliable for facts as well, if the publishers made sufficient steps to ensure accuracy. Academic papers and books for example are almost always biased, which is why they are written. TFD (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Indeed, usable with attribution especially if the author has a particular reputation (for weight). Some independent analysis report it as "unfair interpretation of the news", "hyper partisan right", so unreliable for statements of fact. —PaleoNeonate – 02:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • The American Conservative is fine for accurately reporting the opinions of its writers and we can presume its stories are honestly the writing of those to whom they're bylined; it has a legal personality in a jurisdiction in which it can be held liable for libel and it has a stable and consistent history of publication. However it does not have, nor does it claim to have, newsgathering capability and is essentially an opinion publication. One of the standards we should use to evaluate reliability is whether unambiguously RS cite its reporting. When I do a Google News search for "according to the American Conservative" or "the American Conservative reported" I don't get any meaningful results. So I would say it's reliable for attributing statements to its own writers but I would not use it for Who/What/Why facts like the size of a brush fire in Montana. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Seems professional, center-right publication. Mostly seems to be a venue for collected articles rather than in-house reporting, so editors should focus on individual author reputation and specific articles. Quality if biased contributors seem the rule, so would expect that it is informed and well-written but is not balanced or comprehensive. Editors should refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and be aware this is an advocacy like SPLC and others used as RS -- and like those, typically attribution should be used per WP:BIASED. CHeers Markbassett (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Bad RFC - what is the reason for raising this RFC? What is the actual concrete issue that we are supposed to be addressing? These general RFC on reliability of sources are swerving into WP:FORUM territory. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    RfC: The Herald (Glasgow)

    Latest comment: 5 years ago29 comments18 people in discussion
    The Herald is the oldest established regional newspaper in the world. It is unclear on what basis its reliability is being challenged. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

    What is the best way to describe the reliability of The Herald (Glasgow)? I have searched the archives and although there are plenty of discussions on other sources with Herald in the name, I did not find one on this Scottish newspaper which is the longest running national newspaper in the World. If we have consensus, can we please add it to WP:RSP? Thanks, --SVTCobra 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

    Survey (The Herald)

    So what? People can ask questions on a noticeboard without filling an official RFC as well. Asking at a noticeboard is an alternative to the RfC process. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    That is the point. Ask at the noticeboard or do an RfC, no need in such an ordinary case to do both. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Added RfC tag. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 I presume this is some sort of hilarious joke that I don't understand. The fucking Glasgow Herald? Really? But anyway, per what Atlantic306 said above. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 Actually I though it was already an approved source as old as it is ~ you know ~ the last time I was there laddie ~ I picked up a four leaf clover ~ who would have thought several years later, I would have had to remember that day ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment I see many of you are having a laugh, but why wasn't The Herald on WP:RSP from all those years ago? Maybe, I am missing the point of that list. But I thought, it was supposed to be a quick resource to avoid this type of discussion. Also, I still don't know what technical mistakes I made in the nomination. Something about {{ RFC }}. Peter and Redrose confused me. I am sorry if I have wasted people's time. --SVTCobra 03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
      @SVTCobra: It was Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) who made the first technical mistake, in this post (causing effect 1 and effect 2). You didn't make a technical mistake in the nomination - but you did with this post (causing effect 3 and effect 4). I will say this once again: Legobot (talk · contribs), which is the bot that searches for and publicises RfCs, cannot tell the difference between a real RfC and a demonstration that relies on <nowiki>...</nowiki> to indicate to humans that it is a demo and not real. Legobot looks for the three letters "rfc" (case-insensitive) preceded by two opening braces. If it finds those five characters in that sequence, perhaps with spaces between the "{" and the "r", it assumes that it is a live RfC, even if nowiki is being used. So, as advised at WP:RFC#Duration, you should use one of the template-linking templates such as {{tlx}}. Hence why I made this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
      ​The perennial sources list has inclusion criteria defined at WP:RSP § How to improve this list (one RfC or two significant discussions). Once the criteria are met, any editor can summarize the past discussions into a new entry on the list. If a source is not on the list, it generally means that the source is less popular, less controversial, or more specialized than the ones on the list. RfCs work best on controversial topics and topics that would benefit from community-wide discussion. To start an RfC, you'll need to add the RfC tag, which was overlooked here. Don't worry, just refer to WP:RFC, and you'll get it next time. — Newslinger talk 04:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    OK, understood. It just seems to me the list would be more useful if certain sources were 'green listed' ahead of them being challenged. Maybe it is to keep the list short, but a long list is preferable to searching the rfc archives, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explaination. Thanks, --SVTCobra 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Reply
    SVTCobra, you may want to take a look at WP:NPPSG, which is a work in progress. The idea for that page is to primarily meet the needs of new page patrollers who are evaluating articles about topics they are unfamiliar with, so it requires a weaker level of consensus necessary for inclusion (and consequently carries less weight and should be used with more caution).signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I don't regard my mistake as a "laugh". Sorry, and thanks Redrose64. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    No, they are laughing at my bringing this here in the first place. The Herald shouldn't have been debated it appears. --SVTCobra 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    @SVTCobra: I'm not laughing at you, I think your bringing up the herald is a good thing ~ if you notice in my summary WP:Humor ~ by far it is not to degrade anyone in their edits ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Good for general topics, like any other quality newspaper. As with other general interest publications, WP:MEDPOP and the like apply: defer to specialist publications for specialist topics. RSP is for sources which are controversial enough to merit discussion here at RSN. Those that are obviously reliable (such as this) and those that are not (such as InfoWars) don't really need much debate. feminist (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 All the caveats that would go along with any news organisation apply, it's a well-established broadsheet newspaper with a reputation for fact checking etc. For factual reporting, I'd put it in the same brackets as the Guardian or Telegraph. GirthSummit (blether) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Bad RfC - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify the Herald here, no reason why help is needed to do this. Just apply WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC: Taki's Magazine

    Latest comment: 5 years ago29 comments16 people in discussion

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

    1. Generally reliable for factual reporting
    2. Unclear or additional considerations apply
    3. Generally unreliable for factual reporting
    4. Publishes false or fabricated information

    Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

    Besides his podcast, Goad’s main platform is Taki’s Magazine, an extreme right-wing publication with an irreverent tone that promises its “only ideology is to be against the junk culture foisted upon us by Hollywood and the mainstream media.” Along with Goad and McInnes, it publishes authors like John Derbyshire, who was fired from the conservative National Review (RSP entry) after he wrote an article for Taki’s about advising his teenage children to “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” It described black people as “ferociously hostile to whites” and is now listed in the “greatest hits” section on Taki’s website.

    Taki’s contributors overlap with those at the hate site VDARE, including Steve Sailer — cited four times by TRS users — whose writing is largely dedicated to opposing immigration and drawing a false link between race and intelligence.

    The article that got him fired wasn't actually posted at National Review but at Taki's Magazine, an outlet run by millionaire paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos that was formerly edited by outspoken white supremacist Richard B. Spencer and has run articles by Theodoracopulos in support of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn.

    This has been the trend for paleoconservative writing in the past decade or two. It's largely turned from mainstream conservative outfits to openly racist venues like VDARE, Taki's, American Renaissance, and the Occidental Observer. Admirably, the American Conservative has held the line and resisted crossing over into open white nationalism, but they're basically alone in that.

    After being fired, Spencer moved on to a new job as the sole editor of Taki’s Magazine, the online vanity publication of Taki Theodoracopulos, the scion of a Greek shipping magnate who was notorious for his racist remarks.

    In Spencer’s telling, he steadily evolved Taki’s into a magazine aimed at white nationalists. By 2009 he’d published essays by Jared Taylor and was regularly using the term “alternative right” in its pages to describe his youthful brand of anti-war, anti-immigration, pro-white conservatism.

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

    Peter “Taki” Theodoracopulos
    The proto–Gavin McInnes.

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

    — Newslinger talk 09:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Of course, WP:ABOUTSELF allows us to use questionable sources, including this site, as a primary source equivalent for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that the claims are due and covered by reliable sources. Outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, there is little to no reason to use Taki's Magazine. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • We should not be using this. I am loathe to option-4 this without clear indication of fabrication - however it is fairly obvious we should not be using a far-right publication - mostly UNDUE for opinion, and lacking a reputation for fact checking.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Bad RfC. The claim is it was "isted as a source a number of times recently" but not a shred of a hint of where or how. No evidence that there is a dispute requiring an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Not claiming anything, I'm asking about the general reliability of a source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    You did indeed claim to have seen it used, or you wouldn't have been considering this post. But here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims. A research study on the efficacy of aspirin is not "generally reliable" for the miracles of Jesus; the Gospel of Luke is not "generally reliable" for the efficacy of aspirin to treat headaches (despite Luke being a physician.) So this gives rise to the perennial objection to these generalized and context-free RFCs about "general reliability" of sources - yes, some sources like the Daily Mail are "generally unreliable" but we can't claim the converse: we need context about what type of claims are being made, in order to correlate them with the purview of the source in question. Only then can we evaluate reliability. So I hope you will understand the necessity of you producing some context, such as where this source was cited, and for what types of facts it is being invoked. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, so what if I never saw it used, what difference would it make? I want to know if other editors think it's reliable, it's called seeking consensus...What on Earth could possibly be wrong with that? Bacondrum (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I can't see how it makes any difference - if the source is unreliable, then that's what it is, but here's the version of the page that I first saw it on. I removed it as it was obviously not even close to good enough. Upon reading the source I was shocked at the quality of the publication (or lack thereof), I then noticed the same crappy source used on related pages (all of which appeared to have suffered from extensive tendentious editing), so I made the request, to see what other editors thought of the thing. Bacondrum (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    "here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims" Obviously false, as demonstrated here and here. Yes, context absolutely matters, but we do have standards for general reliability, claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. Bacondrum (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I was going to respond here, but my response is better suited for the RfC below (RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs), which focuses on this matter. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Have a look at the articles, mostly opinion, much of it is overtly racist. It's clearly a highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. If this is the standard for a reliable source then anything and everything should be considered a reliable source, including editors personal opinion, YouTube and Facebook. It was edited by out and out Nazi Richard Spencer. You'd be setting your standards very low to callthis anything but completely unreliable, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    So no then apart form its POV (and no the reason we do not allow YouTube and Facebook is because they are full of out and out falsehoods, So then at worst its RS for its own opinions, and at best it in fact does not have a reputation for poor fact checking. So I have to go with Unclear or additional considerations apply.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Being "highly-partisan" is not evidence that a source has a reputation for poor checking. If you are claiming it ignores general journalistic principles then please provide evidence, otherwise it will come across as you trying to say this source is unreliable because you disagree ideologically with it. YouTube and Facebook are completely different. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Don't you have that backwards? WP:RS requires that a source have reputation for fact-checking an accuracy, not that nobody can prove they're inaccurate. If you want to defend the use of a source, you are the one who has to present proof that they have the fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires - eg. descriptions in other sources, or use in high-quality sources in a way that clearly reflects a trust in their content. I'm not seeing that here; if the best people can say in its defense is "you can't prove it's unreliable!", it probably doesn't pass WP:RS. I think that partially this discussion might be confused because we usually discuss sources that might otherwise pass WP:RS if it weren't for evidence they were intentionally publishing falsehoods (eg. Breitbart, the Daily Mail, etc.) - but this source is different. It doesn't pass even the baseline. A source with no reputation for factual reporting at all fails WP:RS completely, so you have to prove it has some sort of reputation before you can demand that others find evidence it's screwed up. --Aquillion (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I am not trying to prove anything, I just am not sure that "its biased" is a valid justification (and in fact " However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."). That was my pointSlatersteven (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

    Quotes about Taki's Magazine from reliable sources

    Besides his podcast, Goad’s main platform is Taki’s Magazine, an extreme right-wing publication with an irreverent tone that promises its “only ideology is to be against the junk culture foisted upon us by Hollywood and the mainstream media.” Along with Goad and McInnes, it publishes authors like John Derbyshire, who was fired from the conservative National Review (RSP entry) after he wrote an article for Taki’s about advising his teenage children to “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” It described black people as “ferociously hostile to whites” and is now listed in the “greatest hits” section on Taki’s website.

    Taki’s contributors overlap with those at the hate site VDARE, including Steve Sailer — cited four times by TRS users — whose writing is largely dedicated to opposing immigration and drawing a false link between race and intelligence.

    The article that got him fired wasn't actually posted at National Review but at Taki's Magazine, an outlet run by millionaire paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos that was formerly edited by outspoken white supremacist Richard B. Spencer and has run articles by Theodoracopulos in support of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn.

    This has been the trend for paleoconservative writing in the past decade or two. It's largely turned from mainstream conservative outfits to openly racist venues like VDARE, Taki's, American Renaissance, and the Occidental Observer. Admirably, the American Conservative has held the line and resisted crossing over into open white nationalism, but they're basically alone in that.

    After being fired, Spencer moved on to a new job as the sole editor of Taki’s Magazine, the online vanity publication of Taki Theodoracopulos, the scion of a Greek shipping magnate who was notorious for his racist remarks.

    In Spencer’s telling, he steadily evolved Taki’s into a magazine aimed at white nationalists. By 2009 he’d published essays by Jared Taylor and was regularly using the term “alternative right” in its pages to describe his youthful brand of anti-war, anti-immigration, pro-white conservatism.

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

    Peter “Taki” Theodoracopulos
    The proto–Gavin McInnes.

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

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

    RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs

    Latest comment: 5 years ago116 comments44 people in discussion

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

    Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Excuse me, sir, but "misuse"? I felt The Herald belongs on WP:RSP. What is the process if not posting here and getting consensus? It was my first time at this noticeboard. I saw the "four option" query being used here as if it was a template or standard format, so I followed suit. Other contributors even thanked me for the submission or said they thought The Herald was already on the list of perennial sources. And since this is policy currently being voted on, I don't think I was wrong, so I thank you not to characterize my submission as misuse or abuse of the noticeboard. --SVTCobra 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    SVTCobra Indeed, all this talk of misuse and dishonesty is way out of line, what happened to the assumption of good faith? I too saw that NEWSLINGER had used that format and I thought it was a clear and efficiant way to get feedback, I never asked for anything to be depreciated. Isn't this notice board precisely for asking about the reliability of sources? I've seen very little reasoning used here, just claims that too many people are asking questions or that those who ask are being dishonest. Should probably get rid of this noticeboard then, why have it if you aren't allowed to ask too much or your going to be accused of dishonesty. Bacondrum (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Neither of the Daily Mail (RSP entry) RfCs (2017 nor 2019) concluded that "opinion pieces are okay". See Wikipedia:Citing sources for what reference means.

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

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

    I said "misuse" correctly but should have emphasized it was innocent misuse, which is obvious. I said "and [Daily Mail RfC closers] said opinion pieces are okay" because despite Newslinger's irrelevancies it is a fact, see the NPOVN archive of a May 2017 discussion and look for the words "Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here." Nobody said anything against "we should be able to say that it is questionable" because that's not the topic. Consensus is not a policy that allows overriding WP:RS because WP:CONLEVEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65 § Daily Mail, the full statement from Tazerdadog (one of the 2017 Daily Mail RfC closers) was:

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

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

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

    WP:ABOUTSELF is "about self", an honest title that has nothing whatever to do with Newslinger's assertion. But that doesn't matter since now there's no dispute that the closers said attributed opinions are okay, which is one of the reasons the question is misleading. I said nothing in this thread about overturning WP:DAILYMAIL, perhaps Newslinger mixes that up with my remarks that one shouldn't say something is like The Daily Mail and its RfC when it's not. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Please re-read WP:ABOUTSELF. Using the example from the NPOVN discussion, the article that Katie Hopkins published in the Daily Mail qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF as an uncontroversial representation of what Hopkins's own opinions are. However, this is only due in the article on Katie Hopkins (and if it were more prominent, it would be due in the Daily Mail article). It is not due anywhere else. Claiming that "the closers said attributed opinions are okay" is extremely misleading, since it conflates WP:RSOPINION (which the Daily Mail does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with WP:ABOUTSELF (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all questionable sources and self-published sources). — Newslinger talk 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The closer remarks that I pointed to made no mention of WP:ABOUTSELF, Newslinger while claiming to quote "the full statement from Tazerdadog" quoted only one full statement, another was "However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close.", the point at issue wasn't secretly WP:ABOUTSELF unless one believes that when Katie Hopkins wrote "Britain is faced with some hard questions ..." the word Britain was a synonym for Katie Hopkins. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    That is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, because the claim is that Hopkins wrote the statement in the Daily Mail, not that the statement is true. It is used in the Katie Hopkins article as a primary source equivalent, but is not due anywhere else. Since WP:ABOUTSELF covers this situation entirely, no additional exceptions were made for the Daily Mail beyond what is normally allotted for questionable sources. The 2017 Daily Mail RfC does not support the use of the Daily Mail for all "opinion pieces", but the ones eligible for WP:ABOUTSELF "were not considered in the RFC". — Newslinger talk 00:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I asked a closer, Primefac. The reply is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for clarifying with Primefac. The Katie Hopkins case was not the ideal example, since it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF in the Katie Hopkins article. I will defer to Primefac's explanation for attributed opinions of Daily Mail authors in articles other than the article of the author, although due weight still applies. — Newslinger talk 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    If the term deprecation is an issue, anyone can submit a requested move from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to Wikipedia:Highly questionable sources or some other name. The name makes no difference to me. However, I get the impression that you're not objecting to the name, but to the adoption of edit filters and other mechanisms that discourage the use of highly questionable sources. There is consensus that RfCs are the preferred process for determining whether these mechanisms should be implemented. You can verify this through the 18 successful RfCs that deprecated 17 different sources, and you can also read this paragraph from the closing statement of the 2019 Daily Mail RfC:

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

    — Newslinger talk 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    There was absolutely zero "lingering concern" that something like The Herald (Glasgow) is a tabloid meriting removal, but there is concern here about the misuse of a misleading 4-way question that was never suggested in WP:DAILYMAIL closing remarks. As for "identifying questionable sources" -- great idea, because it's normal behaviour following instructions at the top of this WP:RSN page, i.e. it's not an RfC with four fixed questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    As of right now, nobody in the RfC for The Herald has claimed that it is a "tabloid meriting removal". WP:RFC lists a number of accepted uses for an RfC: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content." The type of RfC under debate solicits input on whether a source generally meets the requirements of WP:V (a policy) and WP:RS (a guideline). Outside of the instructions in WP:RFCST, declaring whether an RfC format is or isn't "normal behaviour" for other editors is excessively bureaucratic, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    You brought up "lingering concerns about tabloids", I observed there was no lingering concern, so the excuse that you brought up doesn't hold. You brought up how good identifying questionable sources was, I said that's normal and in keeping with WP:RSN, I don't think I need to excuse that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    These 18 RfCs, some of which you participated in, show ample "lingering concerns" regarding a wide variety of sources, including tabloids. One of the goals of these RfCs are to identify low-quality sources like InfoWars (RfC), Breitbart News (RfC) (which you defended), and Occupy Democrats (RfC) as sources that should be discouraged from use. — Newslinger talk 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I assume the closer of this RfC will be capable of noticing that Newslinger changed the subject instead of addressing the point. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    You're ignoring the 18 RfCs that showed consensus for deprecating the source (including two tabloids, The Sun (RfC) and the National Enquirer (RfC)) and cherry-picking one RfC that doesn't. I've addressed your point. — Newslinger talk 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Hahaha! My thoughts exactly, thanks for the chuckle.
    • Oppose but I agree with Icewhiz about the need to first establish that a source has specific reliability issues before going for a general RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per my comment above: These RFCs are useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated. Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare, and generally invoked as a last resort), I don't think any outcome is taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. Additionally, while it's accurate to say that we should judge each case individually, the reality is that we can't reliably get enough people to weigh in on each of them to ensure consistent assessment of sources; going entirely case-by-case with no broader RFCs would result in inconsistent and sometimes random responses based on who happened to weigh in. In particular, one of the requirements of WP:RS is that a source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", often the most difficult thing to assess - and one that usually doesn't vary much from use to use (or, if it does, it does so in a consistent expected way that can be noted during the RFC.) These RFCs can't predict or account for all possible uses of a source, but they're absolutely useful in terms of giving us a consistent, reasonably well-grounded definition of "does this source, on the whole, have the baseline reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires?" --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The problem is that a source may have a “baseline reputation for fact checking and accuracy” in one area, and not have one in another area. This was pointed out in the several Daily Mail RFCs... the DM is accurate when reporting on sports... not when reporting on politics and celebrities. This is why I am not a fan of these RFCs. They don’t examine context. Blueboar (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    So, several things. First, and most importantly, the Daily Mail RFC was one of those "last resort" things I mentioned - it's different from most of the RFCs we use here. Because a few people kept trying to use the Daily Mail as if it were a top-tier New York Times-quality source despite a very clear informal consensus that it was generally not reliable (and even though it kept coming back to WP:RSN and getting basically laughed off the page), we took the unusual step of formalizing that consensus into a general banned-by-default RFC. Those are and should be extremely rare, reserved only for when people keep insisting on trying to use a source in clearly unworkable ways over and over (ie. when a source both rarely passes WP:RS and is extremely popular for controversial topics where it clearly fails WP:RS.) It wasn't a gauge-the-general-room-temperature-for-the-Daily-Mail RFC, it was a we're-at-wits-end-and-need-this-to-stop RFC. Those are a separate thing, but I think they're justifiable occasionally; even in sports, I don't feel there much we would want in Wikipedia uniquely sourceable to the Daily Mail that can't be found elsewhere. But for the more common sorts of "what does the community think of X?" RFCs, things like this can be noted in the RFC, if it's true. We're not limited to binary yes / no options - the purpose of those RFCs is to collect a general measure of the community's consensus on a source in one place; if you look at the RFCs above, they're generally cautiously worded and lead to fairly cautiously worded entries in WP:RSP to provide guidance to editors, not strict bans or the like. Also, you are more likely to have someone contribute who knows those details in a large month-long RFC with a lot of people contributing than to have it come up in a tiny brief discussion with only a few people - what makes you think that if you come here saying "I want to use the Daily Mail as a source for Joe Sportsman", you'll get anything but "hahaha the Daily Mail? No." from the vast majority of responses? In this sense the RFCs are useful because they're more likely to turn up someone who says "wait, source X is actually usable in situation Y!", which (if they convince people in the RFC) can then be noted down on WP:RSP as something that came up and will then be available to editors who wouldn't otherwise have known it (and may not have discovered it, if they just poked WP:RSN and got a response from a handful of random people for their exact issue, which seems to be what the support voters here want us to go back to.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose It is what is says on the box: an RfC about general reliability. ANY website is reliable for the material it says about itself, but we try not to use / should be very careful with the use of those (primary) sources in the first place. It is a good thing that we establish as a community that a certain source is generally reliable, sometimes/often reliable or generally unreliable. The ones that the community decides that they are generally unreliable should be removed for non-primary sources, and the use as primary source should be scrutinized and may need removal. The use of such unreliable sources should be strongly discouraged and sometimes plainly be made 'impossible' (i.e. only be possible after a consensus discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:
      • A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the list of perennial sources.
      • A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time.
      • The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that. Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • At least in as much as it applies, I have long said that we should not be having RfCs or even dedicated threads purely for the purpose of listing a source (one way or the other) on WP:RSPS. See also Goodhart's law. GMGtalk 14:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support strongly. If someone cares about looking into a sources reliability and answering questions about it they can go here. RfCs for sources which have not been brought here before just bludgeon the process and waste everybody involved's times. Sources should only be brought to RfC if there was no consensus or the consensus was not wide enough. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support While some publications are more reliable than others, it's not as if some sources are gospel truth while others are heretical. Above, we are spending time on the American Conservative which publishes conservative opinion. Policy is however clear. Opinion pieces are rarely reliable unless written by experts. What point is there in having an argument about what people think about these opinions? TFD (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support The whole idea of a broad brush for a source is badly flawed. First every source varies in reliability. Second, reliability varies with respect to the text which supports it. Britney Spear's sister's book might be reliable as a cite for a "Britney's favorite color is.." statement, but not for a statement on particle physics. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support Honestly all the RFCs without having discussion first is disruptive and not very helpful in general. A RFC should be a last resort and not a first try. It also ignores the general ideas of what we consider a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support per PackMecEng. The number of frivolous RfCs on this noticeboard discourages widespread participation, which undermines the possibility of them being authoritative answers, and encourages users to start an RfC every time they have a question about a source, or a gripe with one. Further, the wording of "generally reliable" which I take to mean "in general" conflicts with the primary meanings of "general" and may be misleading. Only an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source anyway, would be "generally reliable". The RfCs are stamping a "general" seal of approval on sources that may have only narrow applicability. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify every single potential source here, and by doing so we store up potential problems for the future (bad decisions made without any context, which when applied to an actual case are clearly wrong in the context of that case). Just apply WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    PS - I also think a good argument can be made that these general discussions of source-reliability are against WP:FORUM. Unless there is a concrete issue related to article content being discussed, then ultimately these are just forum-type discussions about media in general. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    These discussions don't violate WP:NOTFORUM, since they affect article content. They also affect how editor conduct is evaluated in areas subject to discretionary sanctions. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Only in the sense that a contextless discussion on what countries, politicians, or political parties are "bad" might do - and I'd hope that we would be able to identify that as as a WP:FORUM discussion. FOARP (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The context is all of the articles the source is cited in, which can be found through an insource query or Special:LinkSearch. And this entire noticeboard focuses on evaluating whether sources have adequate reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. We're not determining whether various entities are "bad", but whether sources meet Wikipedia's standards. If these discussions were just forum discussions that didn't impact article content, there would be no incentive for you to post "Bad RfC" in all of the other RfCs on this page. — Newslinger talk 08:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, folks, stating that something is a Bad RFC means it must be a good RFC. My incentive cannot possibly be to point out that they are bad RFCs - I must be doing it because they are good ones!
    Similarly, discursive, context-free discussions about sources that frequently reference the imagined political bias of the source and rarely cite meaningful evidence of general unreliability are not actually a determination of the source being "bad" in any sense - other than having the potential effect that they cannot be used. FOARP (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose - Some sources are plainly unreliable for any factual information, and we shouldn't have to make a request for each and every article in which they are used. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose if prior discussion - I don't see why a full-blown RfC is needed if there hasn't been a prior general RSN discussion on it. However, if there has, why not seek out consensus? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose halting RfCs: such discussions and WP:RSP heuristics (which marks many sources as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise") are exceptionally helpful to newer users and those less experienced in determining if a source is reliable. Saying "reliability is always assessed based on the nature of the claims being made" tells a new user nothing. It's a rule for experienced users to bear in mind in edge cases, but not helpful to someone who wants to know whether they should go to The Register (yes) or Forbes (yes unless it's /sites/) or Breitbart (no) when they need a reliable source for something. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support as a general concept. Actually, I wonder whether we should stop declaring sources to be generally unreliable, and instead start pointing out the specific ways in which certain common sources fail the guideline. The Daily Mail, for example, is generally unreliable because it's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is poor, not because we don't like it. Declaring sources to be generally unreliable (beyond saying things like "DM doesn't meet the WP:RS guideline's definition of a reliable source – specifically, it fails point #1 in WP:NOTGOODSOURCE") overlooks the importance of WP:RSCONTEXT and usually is more of a question about WP:DUE weight anyway. (Yes, that website/fringe news site/politician actually did say that [which means the source is "reliable" under the WP:RS definition for narrow statements like "This source said that"]. But so what? There's no need to put any of that in this article in the first place.) In several cases, I think that these "GUNREL" declarations have actually been "tiny minority" declarations, and muddling the two concepts is a bad idea for anyone who wants to be able to think clearly and logically about content policies.
      Specifically, while I think we should stop having these RFCs, I am willing to perhaps consider the occasional RFC in contentious cases that have repeatedly appeared here at RSN and where RSN has had difficulty in resolving those discussions. (RSN regulars are perfectly capable of repeating "No, you can't use that anonymous HIV denial website to support a claim that HIV doesn't exist" as many times as necessary, without anyone starting an RFC.) As a practical matter, I also think we should stop having these "banned sources" RFCs on this page (use a subpage if you need to). Any of the alternatives that sound approximately like "Stop the RFCs unless you genuinely can't get resolve your content dispute any other way" would work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose this proposal as too rigid, but favor some minimal threshold. I would favor, as a general rule, that an editor starting a "general reliability" RfC would need to provide diffs showing (1) that the source was cited at least 5-10 times in article space (either presently, or in the recent past) and that there has been some of sort actual dispute about the reliability of the source. (I would not, as some suggest, require 3 different noticeboard discussions or anything like that—but I would require some sort of actual evidence, via reversion, talk page discussion, or noticeboard discussion, that the reliability of a source has actually been disputed.). Neutralitytalk 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support – sources should be evaluated in connection with a specific claim in a specific article, and not generally. – Levivich 01:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. There is obvious utility in maintaining the list of generally unreliable sources. Obviously some people do not like the fact that some sources are generally unreliable. That is largely the point. Case by case review of Breitbart would be a titanic waste of time, and we'd need a {{still no}} template as well. Equally, a source that is a legitimate review case by case, is probably not right for deprecation. There should not be many deprecated sources but there absolutely should be deprecated sources, and managing this through RFC is the only obviously practical way of doing it. Not every new user can be expected to be familiar with our arcana, so the edit filters minimise bite, and again, we have to have some way of managing that. You could make a case for triaging, and putting those which meet the threshold for a proper debate at WP:CENT, but we have to have the RFCs. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose- Although I can see the arguments for dialing back the RfCs a little, I worry that forbidding all discussion is just going to make every mendacious propaganda site decreed reliable by default while preventing anyone from doing anything about it. Reyk YO! 10:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose the main question. I do agree that they're mainly for unreliable sources, though, rather than setting rules for what is reliable [in general]. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Workshop

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

    Emir of Wikipedia's proposal

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

    Alsee's proposal

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

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

    Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

    GreenMeansGo's proposal

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

    ^^^^ !!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Yes - though I'd loosen this somewhat. I think it is OK to discuss a widely used source prior to article level discussions (however that shouldn't be a RfC - but a request for input - and should have specific examples - e.g. source W is used for X, Y, and Z. I have concerns because of A, B, C. In any case not universal). A blanket deprecation RfC should only be opened if there is an indication of a problem on Wikipedia (e.g. Daily Mail - was widely used). Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I disagree with the exception for quotes and opinion statements that is often trotted out. If a quote hasn't been repeated by reliable sources, it fails W:WEIGHT; if it has, why not just cite the reliable source? –dlthewave ☎ 17:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    If we're at a point where we're discussing whether a source is "always unreliable" or just "mostly unreliable", then we shouldn't use that source. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Strong oppose for the following reasons:
    1. There's value in discussing the general reliability of a source - be it a writer, a publisher, or a specific creation - which may or may not have a reputation for reliability among experts. Do musicologists often cite Peter Schickele? No (though not for lack of talent), and the current rules allow me to reflect that with an RfC if the question arises.
    2. The proposal assumes general RfCs are wasteful in terms of editors' time and effort, but the fact of the matter is that one general RfC is much less wasteful than a whole bunch of specific ones. If one is only allowed to bring fourth a general RfC after a "preponderance" of specific threads have been opened, then how much time would we have we wasted on those threads? And this is assuming good faith.
      1. BTW, how much is "a preponderance"? Is five a preponderance? Ten? Do you really want an editor to be "legally" able to open five threads on a bogus source in five different articles before someone is able to bring them here?
    3. The purpose of RfCs is to resolve disputes, but by requiring that previous threads "have decided the source is unreliable" we'd be preventing disputes from ever reaching the RfC stage. After all, what's the point of an RfC if we already have a consensus? Just ban RfCs altogether.
    Bottom line: if you really believe there's a problem with too many general RfCs being brought in, then there's a much better proposal on the table by Alsee. François Robere (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support It's the closest thing that approaches the purposes of WP:V judging in context, and it would tend to avoid the WP:NOTAFORUM stuff these open ended queries get. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose Seems to not only be about RFCs; too bureaucratic for a noticeboard. —PaleoNeonate – 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support The note at the top of this noticeboard clearly says that discussions should be about whether sources are reliable for specific purposes. Also, WP:V and other sourcing policies clearly state that reliability can only be judged in context. I don't think these general RFC should be completely banned, but people are opening them on sources that have never been discussed on the noticeboard, or for sources that are essentially never used in articles anyways. That just clutters up the noticeboard with useless junk. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. Prefer Alsee's proposal, which applies the same treatment to the entire reliability spectrum. — Newslinger talk 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose "preponderance" - some level of prior consideration might be worthwhile, but the phrasing indicates that a more significant number is needed, perhaps unnecessarily restrictive Nosebagbear (talk)

    Aquillion's proposal

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

    • Support as proposer. The whole point of this centralized discussion is to settle this in a clean fashion so it doesn't constantly spill out and disrupt other discussions with meta-arguments. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Support. The constant obstruction caused by these objections, written into multiple unrelated discussions without consideration of the sources being discussed, is indeed disruptive. The results of this RfC should settle this matter definitively. — Newslinger talk 01:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Bad question. You refer to use of the words "bad RfC" (in this case by FOARP but I have done it more often). You are alleging that saying that is "disruptive" and that someone has tried to "shout down" others. These are conduct accusations. Replying "oppose" to a conduct accusation is (I believe) an error, since it implies acceptance that the proposal is legitimate in this context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Bad Proposal If the outcome of this RfC is that we shouldn't have those types of RfCs, then that objection is the correct objection to make. It doesn't matter if you're objecting to 1 bad RfC or 10 - they would all be bad RfCs. If the outcome of that RfC is that we should have those types of RfCs, then that objection shouldn't be made even once. Galestar (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Right, but what happens if (as seems extremely likely at this point) this RFC is closed with no consensus? Those discussions keep happening, and the same few people keep posting the same few identical objections on all of them? I don't think that that's a reasonable way to proceed. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Your proposal starts with Regardless of the outcome of this RFC. This proposal is only even possible if 1 of the 3 outcomes is arrived at... Galestar (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    And ends with ...that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here. Most of the proposals above would allow them under certain circumstances, so I worded it broadly in the sense of ie. obviously comments reminding people of a clear outcome here would be fine. (And, obviously, you are incorrect about 1 of the 3; there's also the situation where none of the options reach a clear consensus.) Nonetheless, I'll remove the first bit to avoid confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Okay I guess I didn't quite understand some of the nuance at first. I still think that this proposal should only be considered once its decided what kind of objections are allowed/disallowed/undecided. Maybe I just think too linearly and don't want to jump ahead to the part where we decide how many objections at a time are okay when we haven't yet decided (or failed-to-decide?) which objections are okay. Galestar (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Bad proposal - WP:NOTAFORUM is a pretty basic rule on Wikipedia, and if people on this page want to repeatedly flout it by engaging in context-free, discursive "Which media sources do you feel are bad?" style discussions, then you betcha I'm going to point that out. It also clearly states what should and should not be RFC'd on this page right at the top, pointing out that an RFC flouts this can be no more wrong than pointing out that an AFD nomination fails WP:BEFORE, or that an RFC is wrongly factored (both of which are very common). FOARP (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    bozhdynsky.com

    Latest comment: 5 years ago54 comments15 people in discussion
    There is consensus that bozhdynsky.com is a self-published, non-expert source, and as such cannot be considered reliable for factual claims. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

    http://www.bozhdynsky.com/ Has been used at a number of article about cars [[3]], but appears to be just another website by someone who does not appear to be a noted expert in the field. So is this an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Agree with the assessment that this may be someone's website with any lack of credentials for fact checking. My opinion is that this is not a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Seems to me we can close this as unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    • Unreliable. While I'm sure there's a lot of correct content on that site, the site is the self-published work of a random hobbyist on the internet. We do not and cannot accept that kind of site as a source on any topic. Citing random forum posts as evidence is worse than worthless, it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia-Reliable source means. Any existing cites to bozhdynsky.com should be eliminated. Any content cited to this source should either be cited to whatever source bozhdynsky.com used to get the information (assuming it is WP:RS), or cited to some other appropriate source, or tagged {{Citation needed}}, or the content should be removed as unsourced. Alsee (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Newsweek

    Latest comment: 5 years ago31 comments18 people in discussion

    Should Newsweek be moved to questionable? Newsweek hasn’t used fact checkers since 1998 and has published numeral articles that after fact checking have been proven false, over exaggerated or only half factual. Here is a couple sources for you guys to check out. I don’t believe it should be moved to unreliable but I do believe it should be questioned.

    https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2012/the-story-of-when-newsweek-ditched-its-fact-checkers-then-made-a-major-error/

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/08/from-expensing-a-yacht-to-chasing-the-onion-i-watched-newsweek-die-from-the-inside-216948

    https://checkyourfact.com/2018/01/18/fact-check-national-review-nukes-will-only-kill-democrats-and-minorities-joy-reid-newsweek/

    https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/02/19/bots-force-al-franken-resign/

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/polish-first-lady-trump-handshake/

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marlboro-cigarettes-production/

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/newsweek-fact-check-denies-russian-payments-to-clintons-even-though-payments-happened

    Hurledhandbook (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Well, let's go through these one by one.
    1. "No fact checkers" does not imply "no fact checking". The position disappeared, but the duties were subsumed by other positions. There is an allegation this had an effect, so let's look deeper... oh, I see. They're complaining about an opinion piece that was explicitly framed as an argument to not vote for Obama in 2012. If anyone was using that as a source for... really, anything other than Niall Ferguson's opinion, they have a problem no matter which outlet it was published in. Oh, also the thing about babies eating carrots, but I note, "a correction was issued..." That's the sort of thing we hope for.
    2. This one definitely presents a much more substantive concern, though it is absent any information on how long it took for the errors to be corrected or articles to be pulled. Retractions are an ordinary thing, and again, a hallmark of a reliable source - they not only try to avoid errors, but are willing to admit them after the fact. I also honestly cannot get a sense from this story how common these errors are.
    3. It's about this newsweek story, which accurately describes French's article, and proposes by implication a motivation/hidden-message of the story. French says the alleged motivation is bullshit. Whatever, this is not a reliability issue, but using Newsweek's characterization could potentially be a due weight issue.
    4. This one is a substantial and concerning goof on Newsweek's part.
    5. Another embarrassing goof, later corrected, but I honestly think they would have been better off just 404ing the whole page than keeping the entire article that now just seems obnoxious considering the central event didn't happen.
    6. Another embarrassing goof.
    7. Oh you've gotta be kidding me. There are actually no factual disagreements at play in this one - the Examiner is just whining that Newsweek didn't fit enough nuance into the headline. Ignore it.
    Okay, so what does this all mean? I guess it means that opinion pieces are stupid and shouldn't be cited for facts, which we already knew, and that Newsweek seems to suck at getting breaking news accurate... like essentially every other outlet. But they also correct themselves when they actually make mistakes, so that's good. Yeah, I'm not overly concerned about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Hi Hurledhandbook, I've removed "RFC" from the section heading because this discussion was not designated as a request for comment. If you think an RfC is necessary, please see WP:RFCST for instructions. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 05:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Unreliable I mean, of course I said that; I've questioned Wikipedia's dependence on American and British newsmedia outlets for a long time. The truth is that journalists aren't particularly good at providing verifiable, dispassionate accounts of historical and current events at the best of times. It's not really what they're trained for. When a journalistic outlet shows signs that it doesn't exert significant editorial oversight and regularly fails fact checking, we should definitely be considering not using that source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Generally Reliable per Someguy1221, especially post-independence from IBT. Has anything changed since Newsweek was last discussed, in April in the larger context of IBT? --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2019‎ (UTC)Reply
    • Probably no worse than most small-scale newspapers which have experienced staffing cuts following declining readership. feminist (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Generally reliable for news topics. Newsweek has robust editorial guidelines, and maintains a list of corrections they have made to their articles. Issues with accuracy can be minimized by not including information on current events into Wikipedia articles immediately after it is published, and this line of advice applies for all news sources. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
      Newsweek is still heavily used by other reliable sources for factual information, including CBS News, Forbes (RSP entry), New York (RSP entry), The Hill (RSP entry), Quartz, The Washington Post (RSP entry), Vox (RSP entry), USA Today, and many others. — Newslinger talk 08:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Generally reliable as per Newslinger, it has a good reputation, is used by other reliable sources, not a tabloid in content. Also agree that care should be taken with using breaking news, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Generally reliable. Has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy, fairly non-partisan, and is used by others.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Mu, a loud Mu against "general reliability" threads. Quoth the wise words above: You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable. Unless there is a specific content dispute involving the use of Newsweek as a source, this (and the other threads like it) should be closed. – Levivich 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • This isn't a helpful comment, and it underlines why the proposed rule would be too WP:CREEPy. The discussion above seems reasonable and helpful to me, while "close this thread, violation of rule 376c!" seems absurd. Also, discussions of Newsweek have been extensive, so this particular discussion was badly-needed - the need for this particular RFC is so clear-cut that any rule that would justify trying to shut it down is obviously a terrible suggestion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
        WP:NOTAFORUM is a pretty strong Wiki rule, and this amounts to a forum discussion of Newsweek, completely divorced from any specific dispute related to article content. FOARP (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
        I agree with User:Levivich and User:FOARP. This noticeboard has some instructions at the top, and "please feel free to debate the general reliability of any source that someone might (or might not) want to use in some unspecified article" isn't what they say. If you can't name a specific article and a specific article in a magazine, then please don't clutter up this noticeboard. General chatter about hypothetical uses of hypothetical sources in hypothetical articles belongs elsewhere (e.g., a WikiProject in a relevant subject area). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Generally reliable per Newslinger, though use with some caveats. I definitely agree that its reliability has declined to the point where we should use some caution, avoid citing it for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, and so on (and particular care should be taken to never cite opinion pieces there for facts, which is something to avoid in general but seems like a particular problem here). I wouldn't consider it a top-quality source at all... but WP:UBO still applies - a reputation doesn't vanish overnight. It's still a major mainstream magazine which is treated as a decent source by other reliable sources, and I don't think there's the evidence of intentionally misleading readers or flagrant disregard for the truth that we'd need in the face of that. Whether they should or they shouldn't, other sources still treat it as credible, which indicates it hasn't completely lost its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Off-topic discussion; we have an RFC open on the topic of general RFCs if people want to weigh in there.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    It amounts to a RFC, since the author is clearly requesting comments from other editors. That it was posted without using the template matters neither here nor there. WP:NOTAFORUM applies. FOARP (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Other editors participating in the discussion find it useful. If you're not interested in the discussion, you don't have to participate. — Newslinger talk 10:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    But I will have to live with the outcome of the context-less discussion if it concludes "Source X committed wrongthink and should be banned". PS - funny how it's the rules people don't like that become "bureaucracy" FOARP (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    No sources are "banned", with the exception of the ones on the spam blacklist. You're always welcome to start a new discussion on this noticeboard regarding any source for your specific use case. — Newslinger talk 10:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Any of things that get "Option 4" (or whatever people want to call it) are clearly banned by any meaningful sense of the term per WP:DUCK. I mean, here we are discussing the general, context-less, badness of Newsweek. FOARP (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    "Option 4" is not available in normal discussions like this one, but only in RfCs that are properly tagged with {{rfc}}. And a discussion on the specific use of any source (including deprecated ones) on this noticeboard always takes precedence over a discussion on the general reliability of that source. If the community has shown consensus that a source is generally unreliable, then a specific use of the source is probably not going to be well-received. But you're always welcome to ask, and if your reasoning is convincing, then other editors will defend your use of the source regardless of how it was evaluated in general. — Newslinger talk 11:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I see. WP:NOTAFORUM doesn't matter because it's purely a bureaucratic thing that no-one cares about, but the absence of particular tags in something clearly written as a request for comments is deadly important. Again, a discussion on here that is simply a WP:FORUM-type discussion of the general merits of a source, completely divorced from anything to do with article content or any other meaningful context for this encyclopedia, should be given no weight at all. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Let me remind everyone of the note placed at the top of this page. RSN is for discussing the reliability (or perhaps a better word would be “appropriateness”) of sources in CONTEXT. Please praise questions in the form of: “is source X reliable in situation Y?” Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    • Generally reliable. Newsweek is clearly a reputable national mainstream reporting establishment, and clearly more reputable and reliable than the countless local newspapers and other sites that we use regularly as reliable sources. If the imitator of this topic has an issue with a particular content being cited to Newsweek, at a particular article, then I suggest they follow the instructions at the top of the page. Alsee (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Unreliable They have a poor record for factual reporting and should not be used. Galestar (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Generally reliable as per Newslinger. "Reliability" is a range, and most outlets are assumed to lie somewhere between its two poles. As long as outlets don't make a habit of screwing up (think Fox News, Breitbart and tabloids) they should be usable for our purposes. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Fox News is considered by many as generally reliable and not on the level of Breitbart or tabloids. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not responsible for other people's mistakes. François Robere (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • This doesn't need to be listed as anything on the perennial list - Newsweek is a perfectly normal news magazine whose use should follow perfectly normal Wikipedia practice distinguishing factual from opinion journalism. In the absence of large numbers of debates about its utility, we can treat it as we do virtually every other mainstream source. Bonus irony points for citing the Washington Examiner as a source to undermine the credibility of Newsweek. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Question about Quora

    Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

    Can Quora be considered a reliable source? Is Quora considered WP:UGS? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Having answered some questions, no its not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    • Dependent on author If the author is a recognised expert in a particular field, then yes. But that will apply regardless of platform. feminist (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Not a reliable source per se because it is answered by random people on line. It is an online forum. However, I know that some people there cite good sources so maybe you can use those if they meet reliable source criteria here on wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Is Gizmodo considered a reliable source?

    Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

    I have a feeling that the following article is not considered an reliable source, just wanted to make sure. [5] Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Gizmodo is generally a reliable source for tech news. But that's not even what it's being used for in this case. Right now that source is just being used to support the claim that Vsauce has been featured in Gizmodo. Well, that is true. It's not like we really need an even more reliable source to confirm what is before our eyes. Whether that is relevant/significant to the article, that's another matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    (EC) Gizmodo is a generally okay RS for things related to pop culture, current entertainment, etc. But this specific question (What's the hottest temperature) is a scientific one , and there I would suspect we need a WP:SCIRS-meeting publication - something like Wired, Scientific American, or even a good NYTimes article. Gizmodo is too "bloggy" for stating something like that as a fact. --Masem (t) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I would agree if the source was being used in that capacity but it is currently being used on the Vsauce article solely to support that his videos have been featured on Gizmodo. This would be more of a WP:WEIGHT issue.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • I would remove it under my general rule that "X has appeared on Y, source, X appearing on Y" fails the Wikipedia test of reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I'd concur the main problem is citing Vsauce rather than it being on Gizmodo. They're a news source focusing on tech. But they're still a news source and as such are not any more or less inherently reliable than the New York Times. But Vsauce is some random vlogger, so... Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    National Post: Accusations of Plagriarism made in an opinion column

    Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    Two guest writers for the National Post make severe accusations of plagiarism against Thomas Rosica in an opinion column cited in this DIFF. Here is a direct link to the opinion column: link. The writers do not provide any information to substantiate the claim that there were eight retractions of articles written by Rosica, and I cannot find any other source that makes this claim. While both writers have reputable positions as professors at academic institutions, it is clear that both writers harbor significant personal animosity toward Father Rosica. The first writer seems to be on a crusade against Rosica, personally writing to various publications to request that articles written by Rosica be retracted (see here: https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Request_for_Retraction_Worship_Liturgical_Press.pdf). The first writer's integrity for reporting plagiarism accusations has been called into question by the University of Lugano here: https://www.tio.ch/ticino/attualita/1236159/il-docente-dell-usi-ha-copiato-anche-il-papa. The second writer has been writing in multiple publications to rant against Father Rosica (see here: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/02/fr-rosica-fraud, wherein the writer launches into a rant about Dante's Inferno and tries to connect plagiarism to the Catholic Church sexual abuse crisis: "The church crisis is about pedophiles, harassers, and abusers, but it is also about panderers and seducers, false counselors and flatterers, hypocrites and impostors.") Sources can be biased, but in a biography of a living person, articles need to be written conservatively, and the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Moreover, it appears that these writers are basing their accusations on their own personal investigation into Rosica's articles. No reliable secondary source has reviewed their accusations and deemed them credible.

    Note that this is an opinion column and the ideological bias of the National Post has been acknowledged in prior discussions: here, here and here. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Okay, he's admitted to the plagiarism and the CCCB themselves have said they're retracting several of his works, so this seems kind of moot. 199.247.43.74 (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The dispute is over the specific claim that there have been eight retractions. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I'd say that the national post alone is dubious for specific claims like this in an opinion column. That's not to say we shouldn't mention plagiarism and retractions in general, or even that we can't use this source in conjunction with another independent source that makes the same claim. Just that for a very specific claim of fact, I'd want more than just the say-so of this one article to meet WP:RS criteria for WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Teen Vogue for political or crime news?

    Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

    I'm really not familiar with the current status of Teen Vogue but it struck me as an unusual source for the serious article 2019 Tacoma attack. I could not find any determination about its reliability despite several mentions in the archives here, and a couple cases of editors dismissing it. Is this article reliable for the statement Van Spronsen was also a member of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club and active in the Occupy Wall Street protests.? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    It's probably reliable, yes. However, much better sources exist for the topic - if others sources aren't reporting this - it may be an error or UNDUE. If it is correct other sources should be reporting this - e.g. WaPo is reporting on the gun club and saying he was a self-proclaimed anti-fascist. Teen Vogue could be a good source for popular culture, but should be seen as marginal in the context of geopolitics.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Their news coverage is solid - surprising for a fashion magazine, but it's like the surprise when Buzzfeed News turned out to be a good solid RS too - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    It may be solid (at the moment... How the news desk might evolve....) - however I hazard a guess we won't be seeing the Guardian/BBC/WaPo/NYT running a news piece in which they write "In a expose by Teen Vogue, X was revealed to be Y") - at least in anything not related to teen fashion/culture. I'd guess that TV mostly runs off of wires/other reporting. So - I don't think they would score high on the WP:USEBYOTHERS metric for this content. Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    PER WP:SOURCE its publisher Conde Nast would generally go in the RS column, is there any information on the news desk reporter? But I would agree at any rate, it probably is an editorially good move to switch to others sources.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • I'd be hard pressed to look back and find the particular places I've used it, but to my memory, I have been pleasantly surprised more than once by the quality of Teen Vogue. I know I know, you would expect it to be a source primarily for emojis and what kind of eye liner Justin Beiber is wearing, but somebody there seems to actually get up in the morning and do work. GMGtalk 13:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Actually not that hard pressed at all. Looking through my talk page, it seems that this was one of the last run-ins I've had with TV. This particular article was by Ruth Hopkins (who should probably have an article of her own), who is a lawyer, former judge, and Clarion Award winner, who also writes for HuffPo and The Guardian among others. So long as TV is pulling people of that caliber to write actual educational content, then they may be quite a bit more reliable than a lot of other mainstream sources, whose name we don't intuitively cringe at. GMGtalk 13:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Teen Vogue made a pivot to including a lot more political coverage a few years ago, and it appears to have been a successful gambit for increasing their readership. I think that the comparisons to Buzzfeed News are apt. I would consider their coverage since the appointment of Phillip Picardi and Elaine Welteroth to be reliable (so, ~2015-2016, although both have since left the publication, they seem to be holding their course). signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • As reliable as most other popular media sources It comes as no surprise I'm always a bit dubious on media sources considering my general concern over the over-use of WP:RAPID to circumvent WP:NOTNEWS - as I mentioned at length in the AfD on this topic. However if we must consider popular media sources to be reliable, there's nothing about Teen Vogue in specific to treat it as less reliable than any other source. Particularly with regard to North American political issues, it should be treated as reliable until the happy day we don't have a host of articles that exist only because the Washington Post had column inches to fill. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    a host of articles that exist only because the Washington Post had column inches to fill Would you care to give any examples of this? For all its flaws I don't think that the Washington Post has resulted in any articles being created due to them filling columns.
    • Teen Vogue has had a lot more political coverage recently ([6][7][8][9][10][11]), and that coverage has been noted, cited, or referenced by clearly-reliable outlets (eg. [12][13][14][15]). So I'd say they're generally usable in that context. As many of these sources make clear, they have a clear political perspective, but that doesn't disqualify them as a source as long as their reporting is accurate (and most sources seem to treat it that way.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    William Lane Craig sourcing - The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America

    Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    Hi all, I'd appreciate if a few could chime in here. I need a bit of a sanity check.

    I'm mediating a dispute on William Lane Craig (located at Talk:William Lane Craig/Mediation) and some questions have come up across the use of a certain source, "The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America" - which has information below.

    • Link to about info of book on Google Books
    • Link to start of section on subject in Google Books - bibliography cannot be seen in the preview. The introduction section of the book may give some further context to the book overall here

    I've recommended that this source not be used, and be replaced with other sources, for a few reasons. While this book is titled as an encyclopaedia (normally a tertiary reference) editors involved who have a hard copy of the book have asserted that the bibliography section for the entry on Craig has cited sources, these do not actually support the content in the entry, so we cannot determine where the two authors of that entry obtained their information from. I would think this would possibly bring the "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" requirement of books as reliable sources possibly into question for this entry. Some of the editors have asserted that because the book was published by Bloomsbury Academics, this makes the source automatically reliable, I have considered other factors in my assessment that the source may not be.

    Secondly, statements in the article referenced to this encyclopaedia entry are sometimes superfluous to other secondary sources in the article. The two people who wrote the entry do hold PhD's in philosophy, however their works or research from what I've been able to see haven't been published in mainstream books or research publications (there has been some publication in some books, and I may be incorrect here in my assessment, hence me bringing this here). I would appreciate another editors views here (more information on my rationales I've posted in the above mediation page, so that should probably be reviewed for background if possible). Thanks in advance, Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 17:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    • Consider WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". This says that if the material comes from a book that is published by a "well-regarded academic press" then the book is RS. As with any policy or rule, it could be overcome in special circumstances. But in this case we have three PhDs signing off on the work, and we are wishing to use the source for biographical facts about the subject. Seems clearly RS, especially for these sorts of facts. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • For a little context "The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present" seems to be part of a larger project that includes other printed reference works and an online database. Information about the project's editors is here. This page describes their content as: "[m]ore than 8,000 peer-reviewed entries on figures from [various places]." Their about page says they "feature thousands of critical biographical entries on individuals who have contributed to the history of thought and philosophy" and they seek to include people "neglected from traditional narratives" and help readers "explore a more diverse and richer history of philosophical thought." - GretLomborg (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • It is from a peer reviewed academic publisher so it is considered a reliable source so it can be cited on wikipedia. If there is any issue with the content of the source then attribution to the source would resolve the issue as it puts weight on the source instead of wikipedia's voice. But in terms of reliable sources, this clearly is a reliable source since it is a peer reviewed publication.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Doctoral thesis being used as a main source in the article

    Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

    There is currently a discussion over at Template:Did you know nominations/String Quartet in A major (Bliss) regarding the fact that much of the article is cited to a doctoral thesis. The reviewer notes that part of the main hook fact (that the quartet in question) was composed in 1913, which is cited to the thesis, and they note that in one of their previous DYK nominations, there were concerns about using such kinds of sources as main references. The thesis in question, submitted by a certain Sam Ellis, was submitted at Bangor University. Under the circumstances, would the thesis be considered a reliable source? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    WP:SCHOLARSHIP may have something helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    As Nizolan said in the discussion about a senior thesis (ie honours undergraduate) here [16], "Citing PhD dissertations is pretty common, masters work is unusual but I've seen it, a BA thesis pretty much never since it's not generally expected that people make original contributions to a field until graduate level". The thesis in question in this DYK nomination is a PhD thesis, which would have been reviewed by the student's supervisors, then by external examiners, and then any changes by those external examiners made before the thesis was finally accepted and made available online. So I would consider the PhD thesis reliable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    In a PhD thesis, if it is good, it will be published elsewhere as well. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    That depends very much on the time of publication, and on the subject of study. Different fields have different publication cultures. What's more: a conference or journal publication will usually mostly cover the new results, while much of what we use sources for might be the "boring" introduction and background sections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    A PhD thesis is usable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the topic is fairly obscure - as String Quartet in A major (Bliss) seems to be at first blush - the publication cycle is slower and availability of sources can be quite sparse. A PhD thesis in String theory or Requiem (Mozart) could be challenged as UNDUE (on the basis of much better sourcing being available) - but for an obscure topic better in-depth sources covering some details may not be available. Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    “Usable” is short of can be the main source. Something sourced only from a PhD thesis is very weak. I think it depends what is being sourced, is it contentious? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    @SmokeyJoe: In this case the part that uses it as a source is the actual fact that's planned to be used for DYK, and DYK rules require hooks to be cited to reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I think a PhD thesis can be a weak source, useful for elaboration, but it is not a reliable source. A PhD thesis alone could never be sufficient for sourcing contentious information. I would say the thesis is not good enough for DYK. I would never pick up a thesis, read a page from it, and assume that I "know" what it says is reliable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The strongest source: Craggs, Stewart R., ed. (2018). Arthur Bliss: Music and Literature. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-71850-0., is listed in "sources" but never actually cited. If the creator had that, one would think that much of text could (also) be cited to that. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Agree. This should be the rule: If you find something in a thesis, look further to find the real source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not at all sure what you mean by "the real source". Theses often involve original research, so finding the same sources would be repeating the same original research in primary sources. Anyway, as I have commented at the DYK nomination, the second part of the hook - the fact that the work was not played again for about 80 years - is sourced in the article to a review of a concert that quotes the concert program notes. That, it seems to me, is less reliable than the PhD thesis! RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Seeking some general input on a unique inquiry from a new user with access to a lot of primary, unpublished sources in an official archive

    Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

    I'm writing on behalf of Leea25, who came to WT:DANCE with an inquiry on how to get started working on expanding an article (David Bintley), ideally using a trove of primary materials she has on the topic. As I understand it, Leea works in some capacity for the Birmingham Royal Ballet, and in a capacity that gives her access to it's archives. It was on the occasion of Mr. Bintley's retirement from that company that she put together a collection of primary materials covering his career, and now would like to share some of the information she put together to augment the article. She's quickly become aware of the fact that these materials do not conform to typical WP:PUBLISHED requirement and may not be usable as consequence. She is considering writing a piece covering Mr. Bintley's life for the Birmingham Royal Ballet's website, since this would probably suffice to meet WP:RS standards, and then other editors would assist her in adding content to the article (since she has an indirect COI on the matter) using the website piece as a secondary source. However, before that approach is considered, I wanted to bring the matter here for further perspectives on whether there is precedent for working with the kinds of primary materials implicit here: perhaps I am unaware of some narrow policy provision for these circumstances. I went at it from every angle I could think of without being able to find a way to justify them as WP:PUBLISHED, but being unable to be certain that consensus hadn't formulated a work-around previously. Thanks in advance for any insights. Snow let's rap 21:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    If said primary material were to appear on some website, the ballet's website, it would be published. The ballet, if acting as a publisher, would not be a SPS (though it we not be an independent source) - and could be used in a Wikipedia article.Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, that's my take as well. The BRB publishing a biographical entry on one of its staff/more prominent figures would be a properly published source: it would be a self-interested source, so could not be considered "independent" for the purposes of establishing WP:weight with regard to certain contentious facts, but as a general matter, it would qualify as WP:RS. Indeed, we use biographical articles from the webpages of arts organizations all the time on BLPs. It wouldn't be a four star source, but probably sufficient to source whatever Leea would care to add to that article. However, I continue to wonder if there aren't primaries in the archives that don't satisfy as acceptably "published" in their own right, under some principle of sourcing I am unfamiliar with. But Leaa will have to give an accounting of the materials were talking about before we can even begin to tackle that possibility, I suppose. Snow let's rap 21:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Archive material that is accessible to the public is generally considered to be "published". The way we use the term "published" is actually shorthand for "complies with our WP:VERIFIABILITY policy".  Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I wonder, though, if the BRB's archives are publicly accessible. What exactly is the definition under our policies for the threshold test. Presumably, in keeping with out general RS standard, it need not be easily accessible to the public at large, but should generally be accessible to anyone with enough work and patience (and maybe some cost)--or else should be accessible at a minimum to those with credentials in the field. I've wondered about this in the past, but have never been put in the position of needing to resolve that question as to the particularities of the access requires by the public. Is there a policy on point that I have missed? Hopefully its a purely academic point: with any luck, BRB's archives are reasonably open to review at request, which would make this matter a little simpler than I was expecting: I should have thought to ask that question as a preliminary matter: thank you for bringing the standard up, Roger. Snow let's rap 22:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    One would think public access is at the least, a program for granting access to basically anyone of the public with a research interest like most public research archives. But if she does write the article and hyperlinks the primary documents in footnotes than those primary documents are public. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you very much to everyone for their input, particularly Snow Rise! I wouldn't have understood enough to make the enquiry in the way that you did. I thought it might be useful for me to sumarise the sources used in the creation of the book so that people can make comments on their usefulness as sources. As there is also my potential confilct of interest to take into account, I think I would only want to add facts and figures (lists, basically) to David's page, as the "story" of his life, although very interesting, came mostly from his and his wife's diaries, and his wife's and former colleague's memories, which are the only sources that are in no way publically available (and certainly not impartial). The BRB archive is not advertised as being available to the public, but when people make enquiries we either investigate and answer for them or, although it has not yet happened, a request to come and view the materials made by a serious researcher would definitely not be turned down.
    I have been thinking a lot about how to approach this over the last week or so and I would like to try to cover two aspects of his work. The first of these is the roles he performed as a dancer (1976-1987). The details would include, what he danced and in which ballets, whether they were roles he was selected to create by the choreographer, and whether he won any awards for those roles. Which roles he danced in which ballets are recorded in two places. A full cast is recorded on the nightly cast slip. All of these are available in our archive and/or in the archive of the Royal Opera House in London (formerly publically accessible, but not currently so due to staff shortages. I also would like to point out that the ROH Collections website - their online archive - is very incomplete and currently in effect abandoned due to those same staff shortages). These slips were given away free to audience members, but were considered "throw-aways" so were generally only kept by a very few hard-core fans. Secondly, the Stage Manager responsible for each performance wrote a show report once the curtain had come down. These are in our archive and detail who danced (major roles only) and make note of any debuts, alongside details like substitutions, injuries, incidents etc. The cast slips were printed in advance so the show reports are the most accurate source of information. It is possible to ascertain whether someone "created" a role from the cast slips, as the first cast would always, without exception, be on on first night. However, again, a better source is the show reports, which on the premiere performance of each ballet list the full cast as debuts (as it was a prmiere!). These "created" roles are also often mentioned in dancers' biographies in programmes of the time, but that can't be relied on so they should be considered a less useful source.
    As for awards... David won, for example, an Olivier for his performance as Petrushka in 1984 and my source, at his wife's prompting was, if I remember correctly, a list of Olivier award winners from Wikipedia! The second aspect of his work I'd like to cover is the ballets he has created. As well as adding a list to his page, I would like to create stubs or articles for those that don't already exist (i.e. most of them). The details to be covered would be the premiere date, the company the ballet was made for, the synopsis (if it has one), the composer, designer and original lighting designer, any awards the ballet won and the original cast (if available). I'd also like to include mention of when each of those ballets was taken into the repertory of other companies around the world and whether it survived in anyone's repertory or not. Luckily, there is one published source available that covers all his ballets danced by Birmingham Royal Ballet between 1990 and 2010, published by Oberon Books in 2010. This, of course, doesn't include performances by other companies. However, for those works created between 1976 and 1989, there are two reliable sources. The source I used was, again, the show reports, as every single show the company danced between (as it happens) 1957 and 2019 is recorded in those. However, the only truly public and published source for this information would be the programmes created for the performances. It is very rare to find information available about these online - usually only an occasional, and temporary, listing on eBay or similar. Although published and sold to the public in a limited run, these are really only now available in private collections, in the Royal Opera House archive and in our archive. From 2010 to 2019, I imagine it will not be too difficult to find evidence online (fingers crossed!), though of course, programmes for those also exist.
    That covers everything else danced here in the UK by major companies... however, for those ballets danced abroad and by schools, I was able to find very little evidence online (as most are from about 1981 to 2010). I was in touch with Hong Kong Ballet, San Francisco Ballet, Bayerische Staatsballet, Les Grands Ballets Canadiens de Montreal, the National Ballet of Japan, Stuttgart Ballet, Houston Ballet, English National Ballet School, Elmhurst Ballet School and the Royal Ballet School, and all I have from them is (as I would generally provide for an enquiry to our archive) an e-mail reponse giving the information I requested. One company sent me a programme scan, and David's wife was able to bring in another couple of programmes, so sometimes I have detailed information. Other than the words of the representative of the appropriate comapany in an e-mail, I have very little evidence for the rest, though, and it is not detailed. For San Francisco, for example, they were easily able to look up in a database the year performances happened, but unfortuantely weren't able to take the time to give me exact dates as that would have meant trawling through a great many pieces of paper. For this reason, the information I included David's book was years only for all performances, rather than an incomplete and questionably accurate list of days, months and years. Composers, designers etc should be fairly easy as these things are detailed on music publishers' websites or on the designers own pages (most of whom are still living), as well as being in the programmes. Awards for the ballets I mostly found online, so can probably find again. One further source is The Royal Ballet's 50th anniversary book (1981). It is a little sparse on detail, and only covers 1976-spring 1981, but proved useful. So, all in all, this leaves a big gap from 1981-1990, where the only sources of information are programmes "published", but not really publically available anymore, and the show reports I mentioned, which have never been published. These are also, incidentally, definately the most reliable sources of information which is why I chose to use them for the book. What I didn't do, however, was to note down which programme, cast slip, book, website or show report each piece of information came from. All the recent stuff I can easily find again, but for everything from 1976 to 1990, trawling back through all those programmes and cast sheets would probably take me 2 to 3 weeks full time.
    I understand the need to reference correctly, but the chances of me being able to do that for a second time (I created the book on work time) are very small and would be the work of many months outside work. Sorry for the long ramble - any advice would be appreciated! Thanks a lot Leea25 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    P.S. I am a guy! :) Sorry I didn't correct you before Snow Rise. If you want to check my "story", you'll find me as the Company's designer listed on the BRB website - Lee Armstrong
    My mistake! I usually use gender-neutral "they" for exactly that reason, until I have express indication as to another pronoun being preferred--but you'll have to forgive me: I've a Leah in my life, so I guess I was just conditioned to see an atypical spelling of that name. :) Snow let's rap 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    @Leea25: thank you very much for providing this helpful clarification. I'll just start over rather than build off what other people have said, if that's alright. For Wikipedia's purpose, "publish" should be taken to mean "copies were made available for public consumption". That does not mean that the copies were online, digital, free, unlimited, or still being made today. It doesn't have to be possible for everyone to get a copy, but it should be possible for almost anyone to get a copy. If you have to travel somewhere to get it, fine. If you have to pay to get it, fine. If you have to be a member of a club, but anyone can just pay to be a member, fine. If the only copy is in a private archive, and the curator is picky about who gets to look, that is not publicly available. If copies were made available for the public in the past, but all surviving copies are now in that hypothetical archive, then it was at least published. If the copies exist and someone can see them, it scrapes by the verifiability policy, though something more accessible would be preferred.
    I'm also going to partially contradict those above me and say that I don't think "not self published, but also not independently published" is a particularly meaningful distinction. We are discussing documents that were created for some private, internal purpose, by the people they are about. Whether they made those documents available to the public themselves, or someone else came along and did it later, should not matter if it was not accompanied by some kind of editing or commentary. Anyway, I would add that there is a difficulty with building articles entirely or almost entirely from primary sources, in that it is technically impossible to know what the neutral point of view is, including the due weight accorded to different aspects of a subject. If nothing controversial is being written, it's unlikely to cause a huge problem, it's just less-than-ideal. Finally, I'd ask you, Leea25, did anyone maintain a catalog of press mentions? Certainly a lot of David's work would have been reviewed or otherwise mentioned in newspapers and trade magazines while it was ongoing. Did he or the Ballet Company itself have a habit of cutting these out and keeping them? I ask because I know people who do exactly this, and have a folder in a filing cabinet somewhere with every article anyone ever wrote about them. Those would almost certainly be considered published, and independent to boot. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    No worries, Snow Rise - it's not the first time! Thanks a lot Someguy1221. Dare I say... it sounds like I'll be fairly safe with most of the information I'd like to include, except performances overseas, using programmes as references and, if necessary, other documents from the archives. For foreign performances, I could cite a reference as, for example "San Francisco Ballet play bill, War Memorial Opera House, June 1988" as I know that document will have existed, even though I haven't seen it... that seems like a step too far, though. Am I right? Another very slightly tenuous option for any information that a better source can't be cited for, is "the" book itself. From reading what you said above, if I explain how it came to exist, you might be able to tell me whether I could use it as a reference if absolutely necessary, perhaps pending my discovry of a better or confirmatory source. Four books were printed. David has one, I have one - they are no use. However, one copy was auctioned in a 3-week silent auction open to everyone so, technically (yes, I'm grasping at straws!), was available for anyone to buy... the last copy is in the BRB archive, which is available to view with an appointment. I would, of course, endeavour to use other sources instead, if at all possible, but do you think that might pass, even if only temporarily?
    I have a few questions about citations too. I did keep a spread sheet of exact premiere dates for all his ballets, lifted from the show reports and programmes, so I am able to cite the programmes(I think!). Would such a citation be ok as "Birmingham Royal Ballet programme, June 2012", for example? Or, would it need to be more like, "Birmingham Royal Ballet programme for triple bill: ballet name A / ballet name B / ballet name C, Theatre Royal Plymouth, 27 June 2012, page 6". The latter is do-able, but hugely time consuming...
    I also have a question about any stubs I might write. I haven't read any of the articles in these old programmes, so I only have a vague idea what a lot of his earlier ballets are about - basically all those I haven't seen. Would it be acceptable, for the moment, to write something along the lines of, "Ballet Name is a ballet choreographed for Sadler's Wells Royal Ballet by David Bintley in 1987 to music by xxxx and with designs by xxxx. It had it's premier at Sadler's Wells Theatre on 13 May 1987 and the original cast were xxxx, xxxx and xxxx. The ballet was performed by Sadler's Wells Royal Ballet in 1987, 1988, 1990 and 1994, by The Royal Ballet in 1997 and by Elmhurst Ballet School in 2000". I'm making that up but, pending me finding the time to read up on his earlier works, would that suffice? I don't think I have written anything contentious or possibly biased there...
    Press archives - yes, we do indeed, crates and crates and crates of ring binders of the things! They do only cover from 1990 to the presetn day, however. These are all in the Library of Birmingham archive and can be viewed with 3 days notice. However, the reasons I haven't mentioned them as useful sources include, the biased nature of the writing (local papers and blogs are almost universally glowing with praise, whilst national papers and well-respected dance blogs are more reserved. The well-established writers for the big papers like the Guardian and The Times, in my opinion carry a lot of "ballet baggage"... not to say that I take offense at a negative review - even I don't much care for a few of David's works - but those particular critics, in my opinion, tend to review quite a lot of new choreography, by just about anyone, badly. Take, for example, David's 2003 ballet of Beauty and the Beast. After its premiere, it was, by and large, panned by the national critics - at best given luke-warn reviews... 16 years and several revivals later, the reviews are usually very good, yet it is the same ballet. Another reason not to reference them for facts is that they often don't include them all. It's not that unusual for a review to neglect to mention the designer, or the premiere date, of the names of the dancers the reviewer saw or, indeed, to get some of the facts wrong. It's fairly rare, but I have seen reviews crediting the wrong dancers because they have seen two shows and refeenced the wrong cast slip. Perhaps such things are for a later date!
    I have one last query. One the Wikipedia page, List of Compositions by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, none of the compositions or the accompanying notes have citations attached, just a list of references and a bibliography at the bottom. Would this be a suitable way of listing David's ballets? If not, can I ask why the difference in approach? Also, can I ask the difference between a list of references, a list of sources (as used on the same composer's main page) and a bibliography? Do these have very specific uses and rules on Wikipedia? There is probably a page for this - please point me in that direction!!
    Pending any further advice or comments, can I ask if I can make a few small changes in line with those I'd like to make, then come back to this forum for feedback? We could proceed like that if you guys are willing to give me that time. I'm aware that is quite a big ask for one page amongst thousands, or millions, so do let me know if you can think of a better plan. Of course, since "the" book was, very briefly "on sale" to the public, and is now available to view by appointment in the archive, you could always allow me to use that for all my references! :) I'm joking, of course... sort of. Thanks again for all your help and time Leea25 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Order-order.com on a BLP (Laura Smith)

    Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Gunnersaurus43 and I are in a dispute over whether the below text is suitable for inclusion in the article on Laura Smith.

    In July 2019, Smith was accused of hypocrisy[1] for supporting a Labour Against Private Schools motion and campaign against public schools [2] despite having founded private tutoring company One To One Tutoring which provides tuition to children entered into private school entrance exams.

    (Note the Guardian citation only briefly notes her support for the motion and doesn't mention any hypocrisy allegations).

    There are three factors which, in my opinion, should prevent this sentence's inclusion in the article:

    1. The source is heavily biased to the extent the editorial team "see themselves as campaigning journalists. Campaigning against political sleaze, corruption and hypocrisy" and outright declare "we don't believe in objective impartiality nor pretend to it". NewsGuard concurs, noting in its entry on the site (worth reading in full, if you have the extension) – "... Guido Fawkes is upfront about its opinionated nature and does not purport to be a straight news site ..."
    2. There is a lack of other sources picking up the story, meaning including the sentence would likely give undue weight to the allegation.
    3. The article is a biography of a living person, meaning sources must be extremely high quality.

    At an absolute bare minimum, as an opinionated source order-order.com should be attributed in the text itself, but I am inclined to leave the sentence out altogether. I would like other editors' opinions. – Teratix ₵ 12:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    References

    1. ^ "Anti Private School Labour MP Founded Private School Tutoring Company". OrderOrder.com. 12 July 2017.
    2. ^ "Abolish Eton: Labour groups aim to strip elite schools of privileges". the Guardian. 9 July 2017.
    Guido Fawkes (blog) (order-order) is not a RS - it is a blog (though it does sometimes break stories, it's still a blog). At best it can be used attributed - and even that's questionable. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Muslim scholars' published books to represent Muslim opinion

    Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    This is regarding a long-running dispute on the article Alexander the Great in the Quran. I support this lede however, this is being repeatedly reverted for this. The reverters while completely ignoring WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT concerns, only argue against using Muslim scholars as reliable sources for the representation of Muslim opinion.

    Can people here kindly weigh-in on whether famous and respected Muslim scholars such as Syed Abul Ala Maududi and Mufti Muhammad Shafi with widely read and accepted published works should be considered reliable enough for their understanding of the views of their own demography? I also draw attention to WP:RSE#Religious sources.

    Sources:

    If required, I can cite about a dozen additional major Muslim scholars too.

    Article: Alexander the Great in the Quran

    Content:

    ...some early Muslim scholars believed [Dhul-Qarnayn] to be a reference to a pre-Islamic monarch from Persia or south Arabia, with modern Muslim scholarship also leaning in favour of identifying him with Cyrus the Great.

    References

    1. ^ Maududi, Syed Abul Ala. Tafhim al-Qur'an. The identification ... has been a controversial matter from the earliest times. In general the commentators have been of the opinion that he was Alexander the Great but the characteristics of Zul-Qarnain described in the Qur'an are not applicable to him. However, now the commentators are inclined to believe that Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus ... We are also of the opinion that probably Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus...
    2. ^ Shafi, Muhammad. Ma'ariful Qur'an. pp. 651–652.
    3. ^ Shirazi, Naser Makarem. Tafseer-e-Namoona.

    -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Assuming they're notable scholars (and that does seem to be the case), their own writings can clearly be used, with in-line citations, to describe their position; that said, if the goal is to establish "Muslim scholars say X", it would be better to find secondary sources summarizing them, since that would avoid the risk of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR and would make it more clear that whatever aspect you're covering passes WP:DUE. (For an example of why this is preferable - consider what would happen if I took an obscure Muslim scholar, or an obscure viewpoint of an otherwise noteworthy Muslim scholar, and presented that as the mainstream Muslim view. The easiest way to avoid that is to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources when possible.) That said, I'd say that you can use them as a primary source for their own opinions here if no better sources can be found. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks. One thing I want to make clear is that one of these notable scholars writes: ... In general the commentators have been of the opinion that he was Alexander the Great ... However, now the commentators are inclined to believe that Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus ... We are also of the opinion that probably Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus...
    Along with being a primary source for his own opinion, isn't this text a secondary source for the overall commentators' opinion too? -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I think Mawdudi's comment falls under WP:BIASED. It's reliable inasmuch his reputation for religious scholarship is high among fellow religious scholars. It's biased in that his views, including the generalizations he makes about the body of religious scholarship, represent a particular religious ideology. It's acceptable with an attribution, though it would be better to find an academic source for this generalization. Citing the other two sources is not appropriate in this sentence, unless they also make a similar generalization. Eperoton (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The other two sources were meant to support the idea that what Maududi was saying is accurate. I have read about a dozen major modern scholars' commentaries which also support the Cyrus theory. Given that about a dozen independent citations are supporting Maududi's generalisation, should he still be viewed as potentially biased and, more importantly, require attribution? -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Regarding the other sources, if we are making a generalization about Muslim scholarship, the only appropriate citations for it are sources that make this generalization. If Mawdudi citation wasn't there, and we cited only views of individual scholars, the generalization would violate WP:SYNTH. Since the Mawdudi citation is there, the other citations are simply inappropriate. We could use them elsewhere in the article to source statements about the views of the individual scholars being cited.
    Regarding WP:BIASED, it is not a question of us evaluating whether specific religious scholars are biased or not. Opinions expressed by by religious authorities in general fall under that category and should be used with attribution. Eperoton (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    bioexposed.com as a source in a BLP

    Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    I've come across www.bioexposed.com used as a reference in several biography articles:

    I haven't been able to locate an editorial policy. There is a 'by' name listed but no information about the writer. I suspect it's not a reliable source. I'd like to hear from other editors here before taking any action. Gab4gab (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Looks like it's just an anonymous blog? I don't think we could use it for anything. --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Unreliable. Spam. It's being removed on sight as unreliable by other editors.
    Looks like just another one of the many biography sites out there trying to capture views.
    I've removed the rest and notified the spammer. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, information on BLPs requires MORE reliable sources. This is a gossip blog. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Gatehouse Gazetteer

    Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

    sfreviews.net by Thomas M. Wagner

    Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    I'm wondering about the site sfreviews.net by Thomas M. Wagner.[17] On one hand it's basically just a guy with a self-published website, which isn't promising. On the other hand this is a veteran reviewer who started out writing for fanzines back in the day and then moved to the web, founding his own site. He has written hundreds of reviews, appears as a panelist at conventions and has a bit of a presence in the scene.[18] He writes competently and is often very critical, this is no promotional fluff. We have lots of links to this site but I couldn't find any prior discussion here. So, uh, what do you think? Haukur (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

    I've looked into this a bit more and I now think it's fine to cite Wagner. It's easy to find books and academic literature citing his reviews.[19] And on the gripping hand we're citing him for opinions, not facts. Haukur (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=907908908"