Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

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

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

To increase transparency and robustness of the process for classification of sources, increase the review requirement for actions that prevent use of a source. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Detail

Proposal 1: Add the following to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions:

A project-level RfC is required for the following:

• Any source that is proposed for deprecation (see also the list of deprecated sources);
• Any source that is widely used in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) that is proposed as generally unreliable (see also the list of perennial sources).

RfCs should be registered at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard using {{rfc|prop}}.

Proposal 2a: Add the following to the instructions for editors at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

You must initiate a project-level RfC when requesting blacklisting of any entry that is widely used as a cited source in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) other than those added by the spammer(s). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with after requesting blacklisting where there is ongoing abuse. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Proposal 2b: Add the following to the instructions for admins at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

A project-level RfC is required when blacklisting any entry that is widely used as a cited source in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) other than those added by the spammer(s). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with after addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse, with the expectation that it will be removed if the RfC decides against blacklisting. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Proposal 3: Add the following to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard:

Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}} and should run for at least 7 days. Contentious RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved administrator and consensus assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument.

This does not affect existing classifications or blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

1. Support 1, 2a, 3 (first preference); 1, 2b, 3 (second preference) as proposer. Discussions on source classification at WP:RSN typically have few participants, but may have substantial impact if problematic sources are widely used. This also applies to spammed sites that are targets for blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support the proposal in principle, but I can't comment on the particulars simply because I don't have much experience of this area. Deprecating and/or blacklisting a widely used source can have long-term effects on the verifiability of content in the relevant topic area and it should be done with a stronger consensus that one achieved by one or two editors. The one case that I've been involved in in the past didn't leave me with the impression that the process was a sane one: a website used in a few hundred articles was blacklisted on the strength of opinion of three editors (with a fourth one disagreeing), where the major issue appeared to be not any demonstrable unreliability, but those editors' dislike for the fact that the website was generating a profit from running ads while using public domain data. If a discussion is more widely advertised (like with an RfC), then the impact of personal whimsy should be less noticeable, and the outcome better defensible. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support per Uanfala, the basic principle that deprecating a source is a sufficiently significant step to take that it needs many more eyes on the discussion to do so. Otherwise a walled garden dictates. Is the occuramce also uncommon enough to warrant a notice at CENT? ——SN54129 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support all: significant steps ought not be taken without discussion. But this is not my area of expertise, and so I am also unable to comment on the particular mechanisms of each proposal. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Like Uanfala I was involved in a case where a website was blacklisted on ideological grounds. In addition to the benefits list above, this proposal will provide us with an audit trail detailing when and why a site was blacklisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose - because I cannot in clear conscience fully support it. I'm also of the mind that such a proposal should go to VP for wider community input. There would have to be clearly defined parameters before blacklisting/deprecating any source in an effort to eliminate potentially harmful ideologically based decisions. --^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose Based upon the village pump suggestion only, such drastic measures need to be more fully discussed with a wider audience.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
8. Support per Uanfala and SN. Deprecating a source and similar actions affect many articles and should follow our usual procedures for establishing consensus for proposals that have such broad effects (i.e., well-advertised RfC, left open for a minimum period of time, etc.). Prefer 2a over 2b. Since this proposal has been advertised on CENT and elsewhere, I don't see a problem with it being here as opposed to VP or another page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
9. Going on a segue here but feel free to count it as "Neutral" or rather, "why is this instruction creep needed?" vote: there are already discussions that take place on RSN and they are handled just fine (not seeing the demonstration of a problem). Similarly, if something is blacklisted by unilateral discretion, it can easily be removed from the blacklist before or after discussion (and again, not a demonstration of a problem). There's no need to add more instruction when we already have WP:ANRFC backlogged and tons of RfCs ending up with no result. The current approach of solving blacklisting with WP:BRD (make an edit, take issue, discuss!) and the fact that RSN handles these with/without "formal" RfCs is just fine. No point drawing a line in the sand, imo. --qedk (t 心 c) 20:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
10. Support for all this. Regulations of websites is serious business over time it can have big impacts across the project. Also RfCs should be broadly advertised not just in RS/N which can become insular. -- GreenC 22:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
11. Support,with the possible modification that sources of general interest require a community-wide AfC, not just one at the project level. We need a more realistic approach to RS: No source is entirely reliable, almost no source is totally unreliable. The best news sources, such as the NYTimes, have on occasion carried invented stories; the worst, like the Daily Mail, have on occasion carried genuine news that they were the first to report. The scientific journals of the highest prestige, such as Nature, have sometimes carried nonsense, such as the discovery of Polywater, or Duesberg's denial of HIV. Thesame goes for book publishers, and television networks, and almost anything else.. We properly take a skeptical approach to priary sources, for they need itnerpretation; the same is true for secondary sources as well. There is no substitute for intelligence and impartial investigation ofindividual cases. DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
12. Support Per above. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
13. I have mixed thoughts on these proposals:
    • Proposal 1: Deprecation already requires an RfC by definition, so proposal 1 would not change how sources are deprecated. Requiring RfCs for designating sources as "generally unreliable" is interesting, and I wonder how this would be implemented. Currently, new entries are created in the perennial sources list after discussions on this noticeboard are archived or formally closed. With this proposal, if a new entry would be classified as "generally unreliable", it would be put on hold until an RfC takes place on this noticeboard. This encourages editors to create RfCs for "generally unreliable" sources that were just discussed, which means that editors who participated in the previous discussion would need to repeat their arguments in a new RfC. While input from more editors is nice to have, I'm concerned that the repetition from back-to-back discussions would cause fatigue among the editors who participate in both the discussion and the RfC – especially for editors who frequent this noticeboard. There are two classes of sources for which I think the RfC requirement is unnecessary: self-published sources (by authors who are not subject-matter experts) and sources with a large proportion of user-generated content.
    • Proposal 2: I support proposal 2a/2b for cases involving reliability, but I don't think RfCs are necessary to blacklist sites that contain a large quantity of copyright violations or sites that dox Wikipedia editors. Also, would these RfCs take place on the spam blacklist noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard?
    • Proposal 3: This proposal reduces the minimum duration of RfCs on this noticeboard from 30 days to 7 days. It serves as a counter against proposal 1 (which increases the number of RfCs here) by making them more manageable. However, closers on the request for closures noticeboard typically put requests of RfC closures on hold until they are 30 days old, so there needs to be some cross-coordination to make this work. If proposals 1 and 3 were both implemented, and RfCs on this noticeboard were not closed promptly, we would end up with a large backlog of stale RfCs here. Despite this, I think RfC closers should be advised to wait until an RfC on this noticeboard is inactive for at least a few days before closing it, if the RfC is between 7 and 30 days old, to prevent the abbreviated RfC period from excluding opinions from editors who don't frequent this noticeboard.

      — Newslinger talk 11:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

14. Support proposal 1 and 2b but oppose proposal 3 as 7 days is too short, keep to 30 days as per RFC common practice, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
15. Support 1. We deprecate way too many sources. Neutral on the other proposals. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
16. Oppose all the proposals about the spam-blacklist. Spammers need to be stopped as soon as possible, and this proposal adds needless bureaucracy to the process without any reason to believe that it will actually change the end results. By the time the RFC closes, the source will have been removed by any article that was edited while it was open. Furthermore, these RFCs will very likely just amount to rubber-stamping the decision made by our anti-spam admins, and if it turns out to be a bad idea (e.g., an overbroad entry), then we'll have a mandatory minimum seven-day waiting period before the RFC can be closed. Process for its own sake, whether in the name of "community participation" or "transparency" (by putting the information on this page in addition to the pages where these decisions have been discussed for years), is not a Wikipedian value. What is a Wikipedian value is saying that we trust Guy, User:Beetstra, User:Kuru, User:GermanJoe, and all the rest to do their best, and to listen to us when/if we think their first choice wasn't the best choice. AFAICT that system has worked pretty well for us, and we should avoid tinkering with it.
    On a separate point, this page is so large that some editors can't participate on it. (Imagine trying to edit this on a smartphone. Or even to read this page.) So if you all really want to continue having endless RFCs to say that bad sources are bad – even in uncontroversial cases or about sources that nobody is actually using, both of which I think are inappropriate uses of the RFC system – then they really ought to be on a separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

    WhatamIdoing, I will blacklist material, reliable or not, where I see it clearly spammed by multiple editors that do not respond to warnings (or where I deem warnings futile like in cases of a handful of IPs with 1 edit each). I will not blacklist if the only reason that is given is ‘it is unreliable’, except if there is community consensus, and I think that this proposal is about that: sites that are not spammed, but should hardly ever be used as they are, generally, grossly unreliable. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

    Dirk, Proposals 2a and 2b don't even mention unreliable sources. It's all about what should happen if a blacklisted link is present in a relatively large number of pages. Proposal 3 applies even when blacklisting for pure spamming behavior is the only thing going on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

    Also: Why here? If the disputed site is used only in medicine-related articles, then any RFC about it probably ought to happen at WT:MED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

17. Support for any material where there is no evidence of spamming, which do not fall under the criteria of WP:ELNEVER, and which do not have a high potential for abuse (redirect sites). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe we should also tighten up the guidance on the conduct of RfCs, e.g. to ensure that they primarily address reliability of a source. This is especially important for politics articles, where there is asymmetric polarization in the media that causes frequent and heated arguments on Wikipedia. There are also credible reports of a repeat of the 2016 Russian social media and disinformation campaigns whose very existence is denied by previously mainstream conservative sources. It's not Wikipedia's problem but it's a problem for Wikipedia, and I think we should be ready for the heightened scrutiny we are likely to receive even when it is from bad-faith actors. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would generally oppose any language that imposes arbitrary cut offs. There is nothing special about "100", but if you include that type of language, people are going to treat it like gospel, as if there is something substantive that separates sources with 99 and 101 citations. GMG^talk 13:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, I thought about that. I don't mind adding an option to strike the numerical example. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• @JzG: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, heaven forfend that a complex issue could not be rendered in a way that pleases the bots. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you this is the effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think proposals 2a and 2b should be restricted in scope to apply only to blacklisting domains for reasons related to reliability. An RfC would be unnecessary to blacklist a domain that was widely spammed in clear violations of the external link spamming guideline (excluding the reliability criterion). — Newslinger talk 03:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  ^This. After having manually removed almost 1000 occurrences of "lepidoptereason ra.eu" from articles before having it blacklisted. It rarely happens, but it does. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  I also agree with this. We should put as much emphasis on verification and reliability as we can as some users can easily be confused with bias vs. reliability.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, so lepidoptera.eu was spammed. So was ZoomInfo (and I nuked all links). Playing devil's advocate, should we not blacklist and then have an RfC, as I propose, to ensure that there is broad support for removal? At least if it's used in pre-existing (clarification added) reference tags (which could have been more explicit, so I fixed that). External links is different. 1,000 articles is a big impact on the project. Even if the source is clearly unreliable, it's going to be better to have solid consensus for any automated removal. And in fact if we do it right we can probably get approval for a bot to remove all references to a site that has been through this process, which will save a massive amount of time. Guy (help!) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Let's not give spammers a target to meet. Being used in reference tags is not particularly relevant, WP:CITESPAM is the default nowadays I believe. MER-C 12:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This sounds backwards to me... I would think we would need an RFC prior to placing a site on the blacklist (whether due to reliability or some other reason) To determine whether the site should be added to the blacklist or not. Once a site is on the blacklist, however, we can automatically remove (and I don’t see a need to have additional RFCs before automatically removing).

Deprecated sources, on the other hand, are a different issue... these are discouraged, but NOT blacklisted (as they often have nuanced exceptions and carve outs attached to the deprecation)... so automatic removal is not the best solution. These need to be examined on a case by case basis, and additional RFCs may be needed. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist has over 8300 entries. Having an RFC "prior to placing a site on the blacklist" in 15 years would have required an RfC more frequently than every 16 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I am confused... How do you determine if something is spam vs legit sourcing without an RFC? Is there some alternative process? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Counter-question: How does one determine if a user needs to be blocked without an RFC? Or if a page needs to be protected? The point of electing administrators is to let some people enforce the community's policies in uncontroversial situations without having an RFC for every single action. The spam blacklist is primarily used to deal with the worst and most obvious cases of spam reported at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, just as WP:RFPP and WP:AIV are used for simple protection and blocking requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, not that it's especially relevant but actually it's analogous to the proposed blacklisting response. Abuse is dealt with expeditiously but is then subject to review either by the user appealing the block (up to ArbCom if necessary) or by the admin posting the block for review on WP:ANI, one of the most watched pages on enWP. Guy (help!) 12:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, the default for a deprecated source is to remove it. My standard approach would be to tag with {{deprecated inline}} and then after some time go back and remove the tagged sources. We should not raise enormous bureaucratic obstacles to removal of a source we have decided is crap. My issue is that the process for deciding it's crap is vulnerable to groupthink. And I say that as one of the group.

The reason for blacklist then RfC when there are significant numbers of references is to control abuse. We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. The blacklist controls abuse, most abuse does not involve substantial numbers of references in mainspace, because it's usually a simple matter of rolling back the edits of the spammers. The example that clarifies this for me is ZoomInfo. This was absolutelt spammed. I then checked the existing references and found a mix of good and likely bad faith additions, including what was almost certainly their people adding their archive url to a lot of references. Those archives are all now defunct, according tot he checks I did, so are worthless. The rest of the information cited to ZoomInfo was generally trivial and likely to be self-provided. I still think, in retrospect, an RfC would have been a good idea. It was discussed here in some detail, but only the usual suspects show up.

Bear in mind that the existing process for deprecation is a short discussion here, often with few participants. The default for blacklisting is even quicker. Turnaround can be close to real time and in some cases the person proposing addition, also actions it (not best practice but necessary to control spamming, same as speedy deletion nominations by an admin are sometimes done in one step rather than being tagged and left for a second pair of eyes).

It seems to me that best practice is to be more deliberative when significant numbers of existing references are affected. And recent experience, for me at least, backs that up. As an aside, I would also like to see a parameter in the {{cite}} templates to link to any discussion showing consensus to include an apparently dubious source (e.g. specific self-published books). A small and discreet checkmark could be displayed to say it's a qualified reference despite appearances to the contrary. Guy (help!) 12:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is confusing two different things - whether a source is reliable and whether a source is being spammed. Sources which pass all the requirements of reliable sources can still be spammed (whether by/on behalf of the owner/creator of the source or by unrelated third parties), and not all unreliable sources are spammed or otherwise added maliciously. The Spam Blacklist should concentrate on sources that are being spammed - the determination of which does not require an RFC as it depends on behaviour here (and on other Wikimedia projects) rather than the quality of the source. If we on en:wiki want to keep a separate blacklist covering sources that are unwanted for reasons other than spamming (such as unreliability or copyvios, then that is a different thing entirely.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  Nigel Ish, no it's not, it's handling two scenarios whereby sources might be rejected: blacklisting (which can happen due to spamming but may affect large numbers of references if the site has been abused, as was the case with ZoomInfo), or deprecation / "Generally Unreliable". Both of these can happen as of today with virtually zero input. I think that's a bad thing if the site has been widely used. Given your decision to reinstate vanity presses and blogs lately, I think you are of the same view: we should not be adding a site to a list which qualifies it for large scale removal from Wikipedia without some more input than we currently get. Guy (help!) 12:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated

Since I am the only one to !vote so far I have updated the proposals per comments above:

• Removed the number of references per WP:BEANS etc.;
• Clarified that links added by the spammer(s) don't count when blacklisting, so only pre-existing links.

Does this help? Guy (help!) 12:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you essentially proposing that we expand the scope of the blacklist to cover deprecated sources as well as spam? If so, I would oppose. While deprecated sources ARE usually removed, there are nuanced exceptions when they should not be... and thus deprecated sources must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, no, I am saying that when a site has been spammed but is widely used as a source, we should follow up with an RfC to decide what o do about the existing uses, part of which will be to assess whether it was, in fact, reliable in the first place. Guy (help!) 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok... my confusion stemmed from the fact that your proposal #3 focused on deprecated sources, and not spammed sources... but if you are now limiting the discussion to just spammed sources I can shift from opposition to neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy's statement We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. In this regard, I think that 2b is a bit better than 2a; I like the sound of The RfC may be initiated concurrent with addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse more than The RfC may be initiated concurrent with requesting blacklisting. But, to me, neither option really seems clear about the chronology that is being envisioned here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  XOR'easter, sure. And I am happy to tweak it, but I think you understand my intent: blacklist then discuss. Controlling abuse comes first. Guy (help!) 20:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• My concerns are that it opens the door to POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and it does so in a big way, particularly in controversial topic areas like AP2, climate change, religion, etc. Perhaps if there was stricter adherence to including only the facts rather than opinions, and we paid closer attention to RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and NEWSORG, we'd be just fine. All of WP should not be run on the same premise as Project Med; i.e., strict adherence to WP:MEDRS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, I think you may have entirely missed the point. Right now, blacklisting and deprecation can happen with minimal oversight, sometimes only one or two people opining, and they are rarely advertised outside a narrow bubble of editors. The intent here is to impose a minimum requirement where noe corrently exists, and to require thorough review for blacklisting where currently there may be no consideration of usage in articles.

  In other words, not doing this makes the thing you say you fear, which is the current practice, continue to be the standard.

  If you think it's not robust enough then feel free to propose alternatives. Guy (help!) 17:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, there are some things on which we agree, others I will study. Thank you for the explanation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The number of RFCs

My main concern is about the number of RFCs we've been holding, and the relatively poor justification for most of those RFCs. I'd like to see rules that focus attention on sources that have both of these qualities:

1. are actually being used (including proposed uses, e.g., on the talk page), and
2. the resulting disputes (please notice my intentional use of the plural) have been difficult to resolve.

That means that we have RFCs on Daily Mail and similar sources, but that we use our long-standing, normal, non-RFC discussion processes for whichever website popped up last week. If that means that they don't end up on the source blacklist, that's okay with me. We do not actually need a list of what editors thought, generally at a single point in time, about hundreds and hundreds of sources.

This RFC doesn't address any of my concerns, and I'm concerned that it will have even greater Tragedy of the commons-like effects on the overall RFC process. Y'all need to use the sitewide RFCs when they're important, not as your first approach to resolving a dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We often spend more time and energy debating a single AfD. I'd rather get it right than worry about a relatively small number of consensus discussions. Regulating entire websites is serious business it can impact thousands of articles and even result in articles being deleted if their sourcing is knocked out. -- GreenC 21:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I very strongly doubt your claim that a single AfD discussion "often" gets more participation than RFCs on this page. It looks like the one below (Poynter) has 15 editors and more than 3,000 words in it. That's not something we experience "often" at AFD. That's three times the length of last week's attempt to delete an article about Wikipedia, which was an unusually popular subject for an AFD nomination.

This page is running an average of about a thousand page views per day. The RFC subject pages get maybe a hundred. If the first thousand page views aren't good enough for you, then the next hundred probably isn't going to make a big difference to you. But they can make a big difference to the RFC process. That's why I want you all to be judicious about this. Not every single discussion needs to start out as an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslaundry on OpIndia

Is Newslaundry (newslaundry.com) a reliable source for the following content in the OpIndia article, removed in Special:Diff/944447105?

A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines targeting the leftists, liberals and Muslims. Mainstream media and the political opposition (esp. Indian National Congress) were oft-criticized; posts published by OpIndia Hindi from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. On February 12, OpIndia had organised an ideological seminar featuring prominent figures from right wing intelligentsia; Newslaundry noted the seminar to have spread communally charged conspiracy theories about the Kathua rape case, equate the Shaheen Bagh protests to formation of mini-Pakistan and engage in other Islamophobic discourse.

References

See related discussion on Talk:OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Do they have an editorial policy? I cannot find it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics, Talk:OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Newslaundry is an unreliable source with a clear bias and no indication of factual reporting. We should not allow Wikipedia becoming a platform to document feuds between the partisan sources in question. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable: According to this, they won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for their "investigative reporting".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable According to their about page they have won a lot of awards recently on the subject of investigation reporting and their work covering gender and human rights. But I couldn't find an editorial hierarchy. According to their hiring page, it looks like their reporters cover a variety of areas rather than having a "beat" and there isn't information about leadership. But I think the awards count for a lot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - No information on leadership or editorial policy. As a new media site much like OpIndia, no certification from IFCN regarding fact-checking (which AltNews, cited in the article under criticism, has).Pectore^talk 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable We have no way of knowing if the editor also writes for it, they appear to have no editorial policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• They do provide some information at this webpage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable No published editorial policy. Clear trait of bias as noted by some wiki editors. No redressal mechanism in case of feedback, I tried approaching them with no success. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable for OpIndia and other Right wing portals atleast. They’re in dirty spat with each others and regularly publish such stories which don’t have much factual accuracies. If we’re going to consider OpIndia (I think we already did) as unreliable then this also falls in same line. — Brihaspati (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable and generally reliable. Newslaundry was awarded the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards in 2015 for their extensive coverage of a political scandal in which members of parliament (in both the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party and the centre-left Indian National Congress) and other well-known people misappropriated US$15 million of taxpayer money through public sector undertakings for their personal or business interests. This five-part series is archived below:
  1. RTI Investigation (part 1): How politicians use PSUs as cash-vending machines
  2. RTI Investigation (part 2): How Vijay Darda used power ministry to further his business interests
  3. RTI Investigation (part 3): How ministers milk PSUs for ads and sponsorships
  4. RTI Investigation (Part 4): Corruption allegations surface against a BJP MP
  5. RTI Investigation (part 5): PSUs are an easy pool of money for politicians to dip into

The extent of the corruption exposed in this report is impressive, and the research involved multiple Right to Information requests. "The Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, the most prestigious annual event in the Indian media calendar, is a recognition of the highest standards of journalism" in India, just as the Pulitzer Prize is the most renowned form of recognition for American journalism. Newslaundry also won two Red Ink Awards, in 2018 for their coverage of the Kaveri River water dispute, and in 2019 for their coverage of a police cover-up of civilian casualties in Sukma.

It's misleading to compare Newslaundry to OpIndia just because neither is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Newslaundry is a news site, not a fact-checking site, and the IFCN only certifies fact-checking sites that are "dedicated solely to checking the discourse of politicians or detecting viral hoaxes in social platforms". Additionally, OpIndia was explicitly rejected by the IFCN in 2019, while Newslaundry never applied for certification.

Finally, Newslaundry puts a byline with an author name on each of the pieces they publish. That's better than The Times of India (RSP entry), and it's sufficient for a generally reliable publication. Newslaundry is like the Indian version of The Intercept (RSP entry), and has even more prestigious awards. — Newslinger talk 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable - per Newslinger. In addition, it also doesn't sum up that they would be factually inaccurate while also winning high prestige awards, I've yet to come across an allegation of misreporting against them which even mainstream media agencies face from time to time. Though there may be a degree of editorialisation in their content so care should be taken regarding that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable has a dedicated staff, uses bylines, has won awards for its journalism, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - No editorial policy available on the website. Concocted click-bait stories based on imagination. Retracted after clarification from the office of President of India. It published fiction instead of fake news. Not trustworthy.
  1. Newslaundry spreads fake news about president's puri visit Shubham2019 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

     Newslaundry was covering an alleged event that was initially covered by The Times of India, News18, and Times Now – other reliable sources. When the press secretary to the President denied the incident, Newslaundry officially retracted the story, demonstrating a strong reputation for error-correction, which is identified in WP:NEWSORG as a hallmark of a reliable source.

     As an aside, you're using "The True Picture" (thetruepicture.org, formerly thetruepicture.in), a site that was thoroughly discredited as a questionable source by a 2018 investigation from The Indian Express and a 2018 report from Boom (a fact checker that is certified by the IFCN). The Quint has additional coverage of the exposés. These analyses show that "The True Picture" is closely affiliated with BlueKraft Digital Foundation, a company that "has been involved in promoting various government initiatives, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s book ‘Exam Warriors.’" From this, it's clear that "The True Picture" is unreliable and has a strong conflict of interest. — Newslinger talk 09:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

     This reply is clearly not satisfactory, Newslaundry concocted a casteist angle in the issue. None of the articles cited give a hint of this angle. This was the reason they had to retract their imaginative story while others did not. It was clearly written to promote enimity between the communities and cater to a certain narrative to attack the government.As a side note, this kind of ideological reinforcement is being done by portals like Newslaundry, Altnews,Wire,Quint,Boom,NDTV. All of which are reinforcing each other's position and being cited in a circular manner to counter/manage the narrative or ideological resistance being provided by the portals of contradictory ideology. OpIndia, Republic,Swarajya, TheTruePicture,MediaBias fact check, Fact Hunt all are being campaigned against in wikipedia. The articles which attack the left wing portals are certainly written in Right Wing Portal and vice versa. Yet only one way citations are allowed i.e. against Right Wing Portal. Therefore there is no WP:NPOV.

Either wikipedia has a policy of not allowing different ideological point of views or we seriously need to re-evaluate why all right wing portals are outright dismissed as unreliable/deprecated/questionable and left wing portals are treated as gospels which can't be wrong and don't need to be questioned. Shubham2019 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not a reason to reject a source. We dismiss sources that can be shown to knowingly and willingly publish falsehoods which they do not retract.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Your argument against Newslaundry depends solely on criticism from a questionable source ("The True Picture") against a properly labeled "opinion" piece from Newslaundry. As the piece from Newslaundry was retracted before it was archived, your claims are unverifiable. The fact that Newslaundry is willing to retract errors is a positive attribute. Compare that to OpIndia, which has yet to retract their coverage of a fake letter falsely attributed to a Muslim body president, for example.

If the right-wing sites you listed were reliable, they would be recognized with awards and favorable coverage from other reliable sources. But, the IFCN – a politically neutral organization – rejected OpIndia in 2018, while it certified Alt News in 2019 and Boom (boomlive.in) in 2019. Newslaundry won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award and two Red Ink Awards, while OpIndia has never won any significant awards. These are some of the reasons Newslaundry, Alt News, and Boom are considered reliable, while OpIndia is not. Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) was discussed three times on this noticeboard, and is considered unreliable because it is self-published, not because it had any discernible overall bias.

The neutral point of view policy requires us to represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis added). — Newslinger talk 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I wrote to the Newslaundry editorial team and this is what I heard back...I don't think there is any problem sharing the relevant portion of the email message:

Thanks for reaching out.

We are currently redesigning our website and we'll have a page explaining our editorial policy on the upgraded site.

Of course, like any credible news organisation, our work goes through a series of editorial filters before it is published. I believe the quality of our work testifies to this. Mr Raman Kirpal, cced in this mail, is our managing editor. He's an award-winning journalist with several decades of experience in the industry and he takes the final call on what appears on Newslaundry.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I inspected the source code of older versions of Newslaundry's home page, and noticed that Newslaundry switched its content management system from a (possibly in-house) platform based on AngularJS as of 16 January 2020 to Quintype as of 22 January 2020. While most of the site has already been migrated to their new platform, there are a few pages that are currently only accessible through archived versions. This includes Newslaundry's About Us page, which includes a list of Newslaundry's staff and a list of Newslaundry's owners (with percentage ownership specified for each owner). This transparency reflects favorably on Newslaundry, and I expect to see the editorial policy when the site finishes migrating to the Quintype platform. — Newslinger talk 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Newslinger and others. I'm impressed by the apparent transparency (website transition confusion not withstanding) and their response to Liz. My only comment is that it might be, perhaps, that we should take any news items towards OpIndia (and similar sites) with a grain of salt per the concerns about an apparent on-going spat. Waggie (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable Do they have any Editorial Policy? Half baked stories with facts missing in most of there reporting, completely biased source. Santoshdts (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable They don't have a well defined editorial policy. The news reporting is mixed with biased opinions. They generally lampoon and criticises other media sources. There is a clear lack of objectivity. They have also published fake news in the past.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have a reliable source to back up the "fake news" claim? — Newslinger talk 06:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  They published a news story on the President of India, which was denied by the President's office. Newslaundry is not important enough to be covered by other reliable media portals. There are a few sites like these which are engaged in trashing each other online based on ideological differences, they publish hit-pieces on each other at random intervals, their editors and reporters fight on twitter. There's a clear lack of objectivity.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Your comment strikes a false balance between Newslaundry and the near-unanimously condemned OpIndia, and excuses OpIndia's unreliability as "ideological differences". Unlike OpIndia, Newslaundry corrects or retracts all of its stories that need doing so. — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Published editorial policy

Per WP:NEWSORG news organizations do not have to have a published editorial policy. Thus, it looks like many of the above comments are irrelevant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

True they may not publish them, it does not say they do not have to have them. Thus any argument based upon "I have no idea what their editorial policies are" are valid, they may not be strong arguments but they are still valid. Our criteria is "has a reputation for fact checking", whilst no publishing editorial policy is not an indicator they fail this, the lack of one is a good indicator they may not have such a reputation. After all if I have no idea how they decide what to publish I cannot know it is fact checked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is Global News generally a reliable source for news and current affairs coverage?

There is a clear consensus that Global News is a generally reliable source including for news and current affairs coverage.

Cunard (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

Is Global News [1] a generally reliable source for news and current affairs coverage? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Current usage:[2]

Generally reliable a well regarded mainstream news source from a country with high press freedom. Reliable for both Canadian and international news. They made a minor error in misattributing three seconds of footage, but nothing to indicate a systematic issue (according to Columbia Journalism Review) since they apologized + issued a correction. buidhe 20:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

---

A normal news site as far as I know. Per instructions at the top of the page "Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source: how did you come to consider it worth questioning? - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi TheSandDoctor, I'm doing noticeboard maintenance and noticed that this discussion is pinned and labeled as an RfC, but does not use the {{rfc}} tag. Would you like to upgrade this discussion into a request for comment, or would you prefer to unpin the discussion so that it could be archived? I note that Global News, as a well-established news organization, is considered generally reliable by default under the WP:NEWSORG guideline unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. — Newslinger talk 03:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Unpinned --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup....second most international awarded news network in Canada.--Moxy 🍁 03:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable It is part of one of Canada's three major broadcast networks. TFD (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Mainstream Canadian broadcaster. Reliability not in dispute. El_C 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable major network, with no flagged issues, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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

RfC: Jewish Virtual Library

Is Jewish Virtual Library[3] a generally reliable source, across all the areas it covers? It is currently used on 985 pages throughout Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The summary at WP:RSPS states that "The Jewish Virtual Library is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and has no warnings about it being run by the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, a lobby group run by a former AIPAC media editor. It is also misrepresentative of the discussions in the WP:RSN archive and at Talk:Jewish Virtual Library, which point out both the propaganda-connections and that many of its articles were sourced originally from Wikipedia.

The entry at WP:RSPS has the "Stale discussions" label, as there has not been a discussion about this topic for a number of years. It was added here, four months ago, without discussion. I have deleted the entry for now subject to this discussion.[4] Pinging @Guarapiranga and ToThAc: who added the entry, for their comments.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Wikiproject notifications: [5],[6],[7],[8] on 16 April. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussions regarding the reliability of JVL at Talk:Jewish Virtual Library feature 2 IP editors with a grand total of 6 edits between them [9], and one pronouncement from a now-blocked sock-puppet[10]. Beyond that, there is a section debating reliability with a 3:3 split. I don't see anything resembling a consensus that it is not a reliable source. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor is the opposite true. There is no overall consensus. And there is consensus that for articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is not reliable. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

So you assert, but have yet to demonstrate such a consensus exists. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The source's organizational affiliations aside, I remember having some concerns about its accuracy when working on articles related to Jewish history a while back due to contradictions between it and more academic sources. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact examples, and I wasn't able to find them in a five minute search of likely parts of my editing history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I was able to find this evaluation of the source in Religious Studies Review written in 2006: Second, the Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org), managed by the American–IsraeliCooperative Enterprise, has an excellent range of articles andsources on Jewish history, Israel, Zionism, the Holocaust, Jewish religion, and a number of other topics. As its sponsor’s nameimplies, the Jewish Virtual Library represents a Zionist viewpoint.However, the vast majority of its secondary sources are reliableand written from a scholarly standpoint. The Jewish VirtualLibrary offers one of the best single sites on the Internet forJewish historical and cultural information. That's older than I'd like for evaluating an online source, but I think that based on this praise I would say generally reliable for Jewish history outside Israel/Palestine, evaluate case-by-case and use with attribution for claims related to Israel/Palestine while still maintaining our preference for secondary sources over tertiary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The "Myths and Facts" section of the Jewish Virtual Library is a list of strawmen and "rebuttals", entirely one-sided in a highly complex and disputed topic area. It reads like a set of AIPAC talking points. Most of the answers link to sections of Mitchell Bard's version of the book "Myths and Facts" (Bard heads the organization which runs the JVL). That book was reviewed in 2002 by Donald Neff as follows:[11]

The Arab-Israeli conflict is littered with propaganda masquerading as information. Both sides are active in this black art, where distorting the facts to one side’s favor is considered success. In general, Israel and its supporters have been more adept in this poisonous pursuit, mainly because of their wide media access in the United States. The latest edition of Myths and Facts, however, is not one of the better efforts by the pro-Israel side, mainly because it is less adroit than usual at twisting the facts to the benefit of Israel... The original Myths and Facts was published as a byproduct of the Near East Report, a pro-Israel newsletter begun in the 1950s by Si Kenen, a tireless propagandist for Israel. Out of Kenen’s propaganda work grew the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), today the most powerful Israeli lobby... The current version of Myths and Facts is curiously without specific mention of its debt to AIPAC, although it acknowledges the pioneering role of the Near East Report. This is hardly encouraging since the latter is a reliable source of myths but hardly of facts. Author Mitchell G. Bard is a former editor of the Near East Report and a coauthor of the 1992 edition of Myths and Facts... Bard is now executive director of yet another pro-Israel group, the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), founded in 1993. Among its seven board members are Bard, Arthur Bard, and Eli E. Hertz. Hertz left the Israel Defense Forces as a captain after seven years and moved to New York to found a technology company. He is listed as sponsor of the latest Myths and Facts and chairman of the board of AICE.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And Donald Neff was a writer for Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, described as "the guidebook to the Arabist lobby in the United States," that "specializes in defaming Israel". We could do this all day. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable they cite Wikipedia and iMDB as sources [12][13][14] and may copy directly from Wikipedia. That said I don't think that pro-Israel slant is a good reason to disqualify a source, accuracy is. buidhe 23:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, changing my assessment. If they're citing us then we can't use them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. If citing Wikipedia was a basis for disqualifying sources, we'd have to eliminate every major newspaper as a reliable source

• The Guardian [15]
• The New York Times [16]
• The Washington Post [17]
• ...you get the idea. This argument is not convincing.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, there's a difference between a one-line claim that says "According to Wikipedia" and listing a source as a reference for a broader article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No, there really isn't, especially when the articles that User:Buidhe pulled up list additional sources, alongside Wikipedia. I hope I don;t need to show you that aside from those sentences that are explicitly described as "according to Wikipedia..." newspapers routinely rely on Wikipedia articles, often copying entire sentences word for word, without attribution. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: This article cites Wikipedia as its only source and is a word for word copy of an old revision of the wikipedia page: [18]. buidhe 00:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And as such, that article is not a reliable source, just like you could say the items attributed to Wikipedia by the New York Times or Washington Post can't be used in articles. But you can't blanket-disqualify the entire project as non-reliable on the basis of that article, or others like it. At most, you could say that articles that list Wikipedia among their sources are not reliable .JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable: I've used the Jewish Virtual Library in the past for sources for topics unrelated (or not directly related) to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it just seems that it isn't a good source. It is not completely accurate and mostly cites other sources that can or should be accessed by Wikipedians who follow Wikipedia's policies. I stopped using it when I realized it cites Wikipedia sometimes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. The only occasion where I'd consider citing this source is when there is an article written by a named author who is an acknowledged expert. Even then I'd be super-careful since JVL is perfectly willing to alter the text. Once there was a discussion about using an article in JVL cited to Encyclopedia Judaica (a reliable source), but some of it I knew to be nonsense. So I consulted the original EJ article and found that JVL had silently inserted some rubbish sentences of their own into EJ's verbatim text. Regarding Myths and Facts, which is part of JVL, a review of an early edition in an academic journal (Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 16, No 3, p165) includes the lovely sentence "The reason this book is undocumented is because one cannot document lies." It is nearly always possible to consult the sources JVL cites directly, so we don't need the unreliable filtering. In the case that triggered this discussion, JVL provided 19th-century demographic figures but when I looked at the source I found that the information came from the Israeli government Press Office and the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. Zero^talk 01:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable given the above comments. And of course if we can't find another source, then WP:UNDUE comes into play. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable for IP area One has to wonder about "pre-state Israel (1517-1948)" which takes it a step further than mere bias, parroting propaganda. Imagine if WP everywhere changed Israel to "post-Palestine".Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable If they use us verbatim for even one article that means (to my mind) they are not an RS, as how does that demonstrate a reputation for fact checking? There are better sources they use, so lets use those.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The last RSN discussion I can remember concluded that, as JVL articles were of variable quality, some unsigned, some written by reputable authors, whether to cite them or not should be decided on a case-by-case basis. That seemed sensible. Contrary to the entry on RSPS, the JVL has no obvious process, such as peer review, for fact-checking. My guess is that there's not much evidence for objectively measuring its reputation for accuracy. The decision to remove the RSPS entry looks reasonable to me. Do we actually need a new RSN discussion on the JVL?     ←   ZScarpia   11:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the JVL articles cited by four Wikipedia articles from among the first returned search results, they all have similar problems: no author is given; the contents don't cite sources; better sources for those articles should have been available. The Wikipedia articles were: Nazi human experimenting (which cites the JVL Nazi Medical Experiments: Freezing Experiments article [also the Documents regarding Nazi medical experiments article, which may be regarded as a collection of copies of primary sources]); Jesus (which cites the JVL Jesus article); Timeline of the Holocause (which cites the JVL Wilhelm Marr and History and overview of Aushwitz-Birkenau articles, among many others); Sweden (which cites the JVL Raoul Wallenberg article).     ←   ZScarpia   17:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• This does look problematic, per the information above. We should move it to a no-consensus statement ASAP, I think, and perhaps review it more thoroughly. Guy (help!) 11:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not Reliable I don't (and won't) edit in the IP area since it is all just politics. I wouldn't (and have not) use JVL in my Jewish history area editing. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Contextual reliability The New York Times used the site in a 2019 discussion on settlements in the West Bank and to source biographical details based on an interview with the site for a 2016 obituary. These are some of the most sensitive areas discussed here (bios and IP), so WP:USEBYOTHERS seems to imply at least some use based on authorship and article quality. Similarly, CNN used JVL to source biographical statements about Israeli officials in a 2002 article, Slate recommends this page as a good source of information on postwar interstate agreements, and Reuters cites it in a 2008 article on a Jewish ambassador to Bahrain. The source seems to be used infrequently, but widely. I agree that lots of its pages are terrible, of course, but it seems like a blanket statement is a step too far based upon its support in other contexts. Jlevi (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. How is WP:USEBYOTHERS measured? I could bring multiple equivalent references from reputable news agencies linking to Breitbart, Daily Mail, and even Wikipedia itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Use by other reliable sources is one factor that is considered when evaluating a source's reliability. This factor carries more weight for less popular sources (e.g. a non-notable publication with a small editorial team), and less weight for major publications (whose articles receive comment from reliable sources due to the publication's popularity). The context of the use is also important: coverage of the publication's content (e.g. this article on InfoWars's media bias chart) does not count as WP:UBO. I consider WP:UBO a minor factor compared to what reliable sources say about the publication's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. However, for smaller or less controversial publications with little to no direct coverage in reliable sources, WP:UBO may be the only data points available, and that would be sufficient to justify the publication's use on Wikipedia. Self-published sources and user-generated content (including Wikipedia) are unacceptable in most cases regardless of WP:UBO.

Looking at the provided links, "A Look at the West Bank Area Netanyahu Vowed to Annex" is a weak case of WP:UBO, since the article frames the statment as something the JVL said: "The Jewish Virtual Library, a website run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, said that...". "Doris Roberts, Mother on ‘Everybody Loves Raymond,’ Dies at 90" does not count as WP:UBO, since the article treats the JVL as a primary source: "She made this plain in a Jewish Virtual Library interview". But, "Sources: Sharon taps new defense minister" and "Bahrain picks Jew as U.S. envoy, local media critical" do count, because they use "according to the Jewish Virtual Library"; "according to [publication]" is the one of the best indicators of WP:UBO if used as an attribution of a straightforward assertion, and not in a context that portrays the publication negatively. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

In the current language of the RfC, I agree that this source is Not reliable in general. I add these uses above in large part because I have not seen this point included yet, and it seems worthwhile to consider. Jlevi (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. JVL is a propaganda tool with a clear agenda to falsify history and reality. It was created by the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise: [19]. JVL has several maps showing the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as being "Israel", see pages 65, 74 and 77:[20] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• One man band: despite our puff-piece articles on the Jewish Virtual Library and the grandly named "American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise", both of which are replete with WP:ABOUTSELF references, I have found no detailed information on this organization from third party sources. So I looked up the AICE tax filings (here for 2018 and 2017). In 2018 they had revenues of $196 thousand dollars (p.1), of which $164 thousand went straight to pay Mitchell Bard (p7) and $23 thousand went to "occupancy" (p.10, which presumably is for the usage of his home-office). The Vice President/Secretary is Mitchell Bard's son, Arthur (last page). The 2017 report also includes a section explaining the Jewish Virtual Library, which states: "THE JVL ALSO INCORPORATES OUR PUBLICATION, MYTHS AND FACTS: A GUIDE TO THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT, AN ESSENTIAL RESOURCE FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THE DISPUTE, KNOWN AS THE PRO-ISRAEL ACTIVIST'S "BIBLE". THE JVL ALSO INCLUDES MATERIAL FROM OUR STOPBDS.COM SITE THAT PROVIDES VITAL INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND, RESPOND AND COMBAT THE CAMPAIGN TO BOYCOTT AND DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A bit of a digression, but looking at WP's article on the JVL, there's a fairly horrible bit of original research in the Reception section, where it's claimed that the JVL is "regularly cited" by various sources. To try to justify the claim, it links to webpages in some of the listed sources. The one for the BBC appears to be from a member of the BBC Club in the Compton Road Library section of that part of the website. The information taken from the JVL is in a 'Facts' sidebox above which is a warning that, "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites." It then goes on to make the same kind of claim for its being "listed as reference" by a number of universities. The "reference" listed by Purdue University is an inclusion of a virtual tour of Prague in an Internet Resources section.

Returning to the main point, there are probably many articles in the JVL whose contents are not touched by the controversies of the the IP conflict. For those that are, there is an underlying problem of how to edit neutrally in Wikipedia when much of the source material is politicised, sectarian and affected by denialism, falsification, omission, misrepresentation and distortion. The problem then is that you're dealing with different narratives of which the JVL is transmitting one.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would be hesitant to delist something that is being used in a content dispute in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area and note that delisting it would add more bias to articles in that area. I would also ask people to note that many people here have no problems with using Applied_Research_Institute–Jerusalem in the same IP area. People are also conflating subjects in the general Jewish area and in the IP area. I think a distinction can be made. We should not remove this resource from the encyclopedia merely because people don't like it in one area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have an image in my head of this one guy behind AICE/JVL sitting at his home-office in his pajamas occasionally updating an entry or writing a new one. It seems to, in practice, be a glorified blog. Sure he occasionally gets credible writers to write attributed articles, but even then who fact-checks them? This guy is an expert in public relations advocacy and nothing else. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Self published in addition to there being no fact-checking process (since it is a one-man website), it turns out that JVL is also an WP:RS/SPS. The book that is incorporated into the JVL, "Myths and Facts", is published by CreateSpace. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is clearly false. - [21] JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also found that impressive at first. But the "Board of Directors" are paid zero (per the tax return) so likely don't do much (that may be ok for a real charity, but given the amount Bard is paying himself it seems unlikely they would do meaningful work pro bono), the "Advisory Board" are wealthy people who donated, and the "Honorary Committee" look like a list of political types that Bard knew from his time at AIPAC. In summary it is clear that none of these people do any work, there is no office or similar – i.e. as mentioned above this is just a glorified blog. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear at all, and non-paid work is the norm for the boards of small non-profit organizations. Do you similarly think that ARIJ, for example, is a "one person" shop, given the list of people they have on their staff, here: [22] ? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Onceinawhile, I see that you've converted this discussion into a request for comment. RfCs are more restrictive than ordinary discussions on how the initial comment should be worded. Could you please add a signed "neutral and brief" statement immediately below the {{rfc}} template to meet WP:RFCBRIEF? — Newslinger talk 12:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger I have done so. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thank you. — Newslinger talk 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I oppose this people when commented didn't now this an RFC.If someone want to start an RFC it should start a new discussion Shrike (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shrike, I don't think this is an issue since an RfC extends the discussion to a minimum of 30 days, and neutrally publicizes it through the feedback request service. In the past, discussions on this noticeboard have been upgraded to RfCs once they turned out to be more controversial than initially expected, to attract participation from a wider section of the community. If there is consensus here to downgrade the RfC back to an ordinary discussion, it can be done. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Sir Joseph.The JVL is valuable source but like any source that may have some slant should be used with care..No one yet proved any proof of unreliablity. And the fact it used by multiple scholarly papers as source [23] and this our sign of reliability as per WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable in large parts, though some things it can be used as a convenience link for when they have copies of hard to find documents. But things like Myths and Facts is straight up propaganda and the articles that cite and or duplicate Wikipedia show the generally low quality of much of the material on the website. nableezy - 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable - Per nableezy's rationale. NickCT (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable: frequently uses Wikipedia as a source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable: If they are (whomever "they" are) citing Wikipedia, there's clearly an issue with the reliability of such a source, regardless of use by others. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly not reliable. Using Wikipedia ss a source is a red flag. Not seeing it cited much n my quick glance at Scholar/Books. I think in some cases it may be used with due care as a PRIMARY source, and I think it may host copies(?) of some possibly, and I stress, poissbly (I need to look into this further) reliable articles ([24]), but those uses would be an exception to the rule. PS. On second thought, I am not sure JVL has permission to even reprint that article, so even its use as a mirror might be problematic due to a possible copyvio angle.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The Indian Express

Given that references to The Indian Express are used in a lot of India-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Reliable, but may require further investigation
• Option 3: Unreliable for certain topics (such as those which may be considered controversial)
• Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 5: Publishes incorrect or fake information and should be deprecated.

Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey (The Indian Express)

• Option 1 More discussion needed/unclear. I am not sure one regional government decrying a source is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Seems that it is only one regional government not being happy about bad publicity, not enough to say this is unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1— Brihaspati (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - A solid, centrist newspaper that runs excellent op-eds by prominent specialists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. To affect our assessment of its reliability, evidence of factual inaccuracies would have to come from independent commentators. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 depending upon particular article, topic area, and the claim being source. I list option 2, not because I am off-hand aware of IE intentionally spreading "fake news", but because even the best Indian newspapers need to be read critically due to their (understandably) greater reliance on unnamed sources; not always clear separation of reported facts and analysis; and, fluffy coverage in the non-hard news sections like entertainment, lifestyle etc (eg, articles such as [25], [26] etc). Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Even though that report[27] still appears fishy to me, I am willing to ignore it on the basis of the fact that it has been quoted in other mainstream media([28],[29]). The Indian Express often gets quoted ([30],[31],[32]) in mainstream international media; therefore, it may be considered to have a "reputation for reliability" that characterizes a reliable source. Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fowler knows what he's talking about. Still, it's a fallible WP:NEWSORG and editors should use common sense before assuming that it's right. buidhe 00:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 It remains one of the independent, reliable publications in India and qualifies as a WP:NEWSORG. Governments accusing media organisations of being "fake news" doesn't make them so especially in India. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 they definitely meet the WP:RS threshold for WP:V,and also WP:NEWSORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 the question of reliability depends not only on the source, but on the context. Even questionable sources may be reliable for statements about the source itself. Conversely, even a top quality newspaper is not a reliable source for a biomedical claim. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (The Indian Express)

I would want to see more than an accusation by a government, such as a NGO. But this is enough to say we should attribute anything they say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vaibhavafro, if you would like to make this discussion a formal request for comment, could you please use a "neutral and brief" statement as explained in WP:RFCBRIEF, and then apply the {{rfc}} tag with at least one RfC category? Wikipedia:Requests for comment has a full description of the process. — Newslinger talk 09:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger for the reminder. I am pasting the non-neutral statement here: The Indian Express has been recently accused([33],[34]) of spreading fake-news([35]) by the Gujarat government, I think it would be appropriate to invite comments on its reliability.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And thank you for reformatting the RfC, Vaibhavafro. I've added the standard survey/discussion sections. Slatersteven, I placed your comment in the discussion section since it didn't specify an option, but feel free to move it to the survey section if it belongs there instead. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 12:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure The claim here is that a newspaper journalist interviewed a representative of a hospital. The hospital representative claimed to have 1) orders from the central government 2) and on those orders provided separate treatment wards for patients based on religion. There is some heavy social conflict here. I recommend no particular action right now but it is fine to record this case, and see if in the future there are more similar instances. We would not typically make a judgement based on one case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Indian Express is one of the (better) mainstream newspapers in India and as such Option 1 or 2 would apply. However, I don't think we even need an RFC yet especially just based on these tweets. A governmental denial does not fake news make. The IE article quoted the hospital's medical superintendent and an (unnamed) patient for its claim, and then solicited and quoted statements from the states's Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, and city Collector who all "denied knowledge" of the segregation. The state's health department later issues a "reports are totally baseless" statement (which is provably incorrect, since the superintendent's statement, at a minimum, provide a basis for the reporting), and we start an RFC questioning the publication's credibility? Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Even though Indian governments aren’t quite press-friendly (press freedom in India is quite low), they don’t usually react to criticism by singling out certain media reports. The claim published by Indian Express has the potential to communally charge the atmosphere in Ahmedabad and has also received coverage in international media([36]). If there was nothing wrong with that claim, I don’t think that the government would have reacted so pointedly. Also note that The Indian Express’s estranged sibling The New Indian Express has already been caught spreading fake news[37]. In view of this, I thought a RfC would be necessary.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 13:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure this is true [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], its rather more than "quite press-friendly". They may not ALWAYS respond to criticism, its clear they are not beyond stifling the news media if it is critical. Thus any claim by any Indian government body must be taken with a bucket full of salt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. I can't speak to the details of the one report mentioned by the nominator, but The Indian Express is a generally reliable Indian newspaper. It belongs, in my view, with The Hindu, which is the best, the Statesman and the Kolkata Telegraph, to the top four Indian newspapers.) It might not be always reliable for the minor reports but its major reports, its independence, are impeccable, of a piece with the world's best. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Indian Express is one of the prominent newspapers in India. I don’t think government denial makes newspaper unreliable. Government has its own claim while reporter did their own duty. These things are not repeating after every interval.— Brihaspati (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

We do not need "votes" in both sections.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Are there previous discussions at WP:RSN about this? What is the WP:CONTEXT of this particular dispute? Are we willing to assess the reliability of this source as a whole based on a single story? --MarioGom (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: The Indian Express was accused of spreading fake-news by a regional government of India. So I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss its reliability (even though most editors already consider it quite reliable). That's the context, nothing much. Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 20:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That dreaded Daily Mail

Is using this Daily Mail article as a source for a quote acceptable? I used this on an article I created, Anthony Joshua vs. Éric Molina. The author of the Daily Mail article, Eddie Hearn (it states above the article "by Eddie Hearn for the Daily Mail"), is Anthony Joshua's promoter/matchmaker. The quote used is Hearn revealing his shortlist of potential opponents for Joshua's 10 December 2016 bout. It's not a random journalist's opinion or a second hand quote, it's the man himself stating who he has in mind for the bout. The 'Background' section in boxing event articles details potential opponents, the decision making process and negotiations leading up to the event itself.

I know the Daily Mail is deemed "generally unreliable", and since finding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I've always checked and based which sources I use off this list. But does the above usage come under the "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." aspect? – ².O.^Boxing 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing, no, because the DM has been known to make up quotes from sources. buidhe 14:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe I understand that, but the article isn't an interview/piece written by a journalist. There are no quotes in the article. There are no possible sources to be misquoted (or fabricated). It's Eddie Hearn himself (the person I was quoting) writing for the Daily Mail, revealing his own decision making process in his own words. He can't exactly misquote (or fabricate) his own words. Or are the Daily Mail known for lying about the authors of the articles they publish? If this isn't a prime example of, "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion.", then would somebody mind explaining what is? – ².O.^Boxing 14:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't know if Hearn actually wrote the article or if it appears as written. And if no reliable sources have found the comments important enough to mention, they lack weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the other things we have caught TDM doing (completely fabricating a story -- including direct quotes -- that never happened, plagiarizing a story from another source, adding a few false details to make it better click-bait, and publishing it under the name of a DM writer who may not exist), we have no particular reason to believe that someone else didn't completely make up the entire thing and say Eddie Hearn wrote it, and we have no reason to believe that if he did write it that they didn't edit it to make it better clickbait. Yes, the DM really is that unreliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing, I advise you to completely stop reading The Daily Mail. Not because Wikipedia forbids reading it -- we don't -- but because your life will be better without it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Have we had a case where an article with the byline of non-staffer be proven out to be changed significantly from what that person actually wrote? I know we have cases of a person quoted by the DM to have had their statement significantly altered (not just taken out of context) as a reason to not trust even a quoted statement in the DM, but here, we're talking the text attributed directly to the byline author. There may be, I may have missed it, and this is justified, but I want to make sure we're clear on that. (That said, with what's already in the article on WP here, I don't think we'd be losing anything if this DM article can't be included). --Masem (t) 17:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

One we have determined that they are willing to fabricate stories for events that never happened and interviews that never happened, we don't need to demonstrate that they are willing to fabricate an article with the byline of a non-staffer. The burden of proof is on whoever claims that they somehow know that The Daily Mail does not lie in a particular situation or under certain conditions. --The Real Donald Trump --(talk) 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC)

(BTW, The "byline" and posting date you just read was a lie. That was me.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If this is the case, then what is the actual point of, "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." It appears that, in the absence of somebody making a public statement declaring they wrote an article that has been published exactly how they wrote it (how often does that happen, if ever?), then it cannot be applied in any instance.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand. – ².O.^Boxing 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is the corresponding policy here. For example, a person's description of their own life or opinions can be used in their own biography (subject to restrictions), even if it is published in an unreliable source, as long as we are reasonably certain that they are the author. Uncontroversial self-descriptions are unlikely to pass the due weight test in articles other than the biography of the author. — Newslinger talk 22:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Emphasis on "as long as we are reasonably certain that they are the author". In the case of The Daily Mail, we are never reasonably certain that they are the author. They have stolen copyrighted works and published them under the name of an author who didn't write them far too many times. Some say "but they wouldn't dare doing that to [famous person]]." Yes. They would dare. Some say "well if the person is a paid DM author the words must be his" Pay a person enough and he will allow you to publish whatever you want under his name.

In the case of The Daily Mail, WP:ABOUTSELF means that we can use it for a source about The Daily Mail. Now that we know that they routinely publish things that were not written by the author they credit we cannot apply ABOUTSELF to the author. Similarly, now that we know that they routinely publish direct quotes that are fabricated, we cannot treat them the way we treat direct quotes in pretty much any other source. It really is that bad. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• In this case, the work in question is a PRIMARY source for Hearn’s opinion. There are limited situations in which it is appropriate to cite primary sources. Add to that the fact that the DM is a less than reliable publisher, and we should probably not include it. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe it is a primary source for Hearn’s opinion. And maybe not. It is possible that the words did not come from Hearn. I have yet to see a shed of evidence supporting the oft-repeated assertion that "we know The Daily Mail regularly lies about A and B but surely they can't be lying about C and D". Even when they get sued, they make more money out of the story than they lose in the lawsuit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I originally removed the quote and cite, and Squared.Circle.Boxing asked if it might be a suitable case for permissible SPS. I doubted it personally, but said to bring it here, 'cos it's a fair question. I think it's not an unreasonable question, though I'm inclined to say not to put it in - I'm not convinced such quotes add enough to add the DM; it strikes me as more just adding a bit of colour and past WP:CRYSTAL than something that would be actually important for the article. (I can see plausibility for the argument it might be a useful addition.) I do wonder, though, if Hearn said this somewhere else we could use - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think that the usage in this case was acceptable in that we don't seem to have any experience where a piece claimed to be by an outside author who is a real and relatively well-known figure was fabricated. In other words, the "about self exception" Squared Circle was referring to does apply. That said, the quote adds nothing useful to the article and is more like tabloid fodder than encyclopedic content. It is also an example of recentism bias in that Hearn's quote will have extremely doubtful relevance in a year, much less ten. The article loses nothing by its removal. This is normal collaborative editing to improve an article and shouldn't be weighed down by DM sourcing issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree that the comments I quoted weren't essential and the article loses nothing from having it removed. I just figured it was a somewhat useful addition into the insight of the opponent picking process. I wasn't necessarily opposed to the removal, just wondered if the self exception aspect applied. After doing more searching for the quote I can only find this instance where it's been used, so it appears the initial shortlist Hearn mentioned didn't receive much attention. No worries. Thanks for the patience and the helpful comments, much appreciated folks. – ².O.^Boxing 19:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

":Re: "The usage in this case was acceptable in that we don't seem to have any experience where a piece claimed to be by an outside author who is a real and relatively well-known figure was fabricated", on what basis are you making that decision? They have been shown to fabricate entire interviews by real and relatively well-known figures. They have been shown to lie about who wrote a story. If I look out my front door and see that it is pouring rain, do I say "better check out the back door"? You don't have to catch a serial liar lying in every conceivable situation. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that known liars are truth-tellers in situations where we haven't caught them lying yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point, it does not matter whether our assessment of the Daily Mail is correct, the result of the RfC was that it should not be used as a source. It's in the same league as an anonymous website. TFD (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Except... in cases like this, Hearn is the source, and the DM is more the PUBLISHER. I don’t think the RFC considered situations like this. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Extremely Weak OK This is not a publication from Joseph Goebbels. Yes they have a dicey track record but the idea that they would fabricate an article and or falsely put someone's name on it who is not the author is risible. No paper would do that because it would be instantly denounced and the paper would lose whatever credibility it had left, as well as face potentially devastating legal repercussions. Some of the comments above seem to be divorced from the plane of reality that most people inhabit. All of which said, the DM is a terrible paper and I really would look for almost anything else in preference for sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• OK per ABOUTSELF. As above, the idea he didn't write it is risible. --GRuban (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Burden of proof for disputed

Where a source has been appropriately tagged in good faith as disputed, e.g. using {{sps}}, {{dubious}}, {{better}}, on whom does the onus fall? Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

1. On those seeking to include the source, to show that it is reliable as used, per WP:ONUS;
2. On those seeking to remove the source, to show it is unreliable, per WP:PRESERVE.

Opinions (burden of proof)

• 1, because anything else is a POV-pusher's charter. Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1, since WP:PRESERVE depends on WP:ONUS. WP:PRESERVE states that:

Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

The words "would belong" link to WP:ONUS, and WP:ONUS is part of the verifiability policy. WP:ONUS takes precedence over WP:PRESERVE regardless of cleanup tags, so the cleanup tags aren't really relevant here. — Newslinger talk 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• 3. Neither, because this is a false dilemma that attempts to misrepresent/strawman the actual issue, as several editors have raised in the discussion section. No one is arguing with JzG about the purported subject of this RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• It depends, as we have had cases of editors in the past that have mass-tagged with these types of labels which have been shown where the tagging is wrong. Where there is consensus that the tag applies, then the onus does fall on those that which to retain the source and/or information to ultimately deal with it, though the process of how that happens depends on numerous factors. So it's not a simply-answered question here. --Masem (t) 13:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1 - this is a rather straightforward application of existing policy, as Newslinger points out. A converse rule also faces the problem of proving a negative. Neutrality^talk 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1 - WP:BURDEN is policy, the countervailing claims aren't. This is straightforward application of fundamental Wikipedia editing policy. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to do the reading - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1: I just took the time to carefully read all of the linked policy/guideline pages (always a good thing to do when one is already pretty sure what they say) and choice 1 is indeed a a rather straightforward application of existing policy. Plus, the person posting it is named "Guy" which I am sure everyone will agree^{[Citation Needed]} is always a big plus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1 per Newslinger and others, and per WP:BURDEN and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Also, it's better for Wikipedia to not say a thing than to say a false thing, which is why we insist on reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (burden of proof)

This is one of two interlinked issues above - they need to be picked apart. This is my attempt to distil the central point The Drover's Wife is making, which seems to me to be a valid question. Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not, in any way, the point I was making. You've got a bad habit of deliberately misrepresenting the explicit points your critics make so you can shoot down your own straw-Wikipedian. As I said below: this is a false dilemma, because sources being tagged as self-published does not mean they're being tagged as "disputed", they're being tagged as self-published, and we have specific guidance as to what to do in those situations in WP:SPS. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding self-published sources, you need to propose an RfC to change those - not to engage in this bizarre attempt at wordplay circumvention where you claim all self-published sources are "disputed", therefore allowing you to ignore existing guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma? If the problem is serious enough, the whole text being referenced should be removed, not just the source. --MarioGom (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a false dilemma for a different reason - the addition of a tag to an article does not necessarily imply a substantive dispute about the article's content. Quite a bit of tag-bombing is gratuitous IMO and represents one editor's ideosyncratic opinion rather than an actual dispute. So I would say that content isn't "disputed" unless there is a Talk page discussion underway, in which case BRD, BLPDELETERESTORE and ONUS would be among the competing principles at play. Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma, as for the others. A source being tagged as self-published means that it has been tagged as self-published, not that it has been tagged as "disputed" or "unreliable", and so Wikipedia has always provided the guidance in WP:SPS as to what to do in those situations. JzG evidently disagrees with WP:SPS, so he's been trying to turn this into a burden of proof issue to allow him to sidestep that guidance. He doesn't have to show that it's unreliable, he just has to follow Wikipedia's existing guidelines regarding what self-published sources are appropriate and when even if he doesn't want to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not rehash this again in a new thread?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with closing this WP:POINT nonsense and sparing the rehash, yes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point you are involved, and that we not be appropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I said I was good with closing it, not that I would do it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know the context this arose from (update: what I get for looking at most recent first -- reading through the other discussion now; in any case, it doesn't affect what I write here), but my thoughts are similar to Newimpartial's here. It's unclear what the implications of this RfC would be. Is a tag considered valid by default? Is the burden on the tagger to present an argument first? Is this about tagging, removal of tags, removal of sources, removal of sourced content, etc.? Why is this based on tagging at all? What difference does that make to a challenged source? Ultimately, WP:PRESERVE is a good idea to keep in mind, but doesn't trump WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN when material/sources are challenged, but I don't think there's any neat way to frame that in an RfC given the amount of gray area there is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this might be better if rather than this we had a discussion (maybe at village pump) about having a clearer definition of when to use SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am OK with that as well. But there are different kinds of SPS. Blogs, vanity presses and predatory journals are all kinds of SPS. Guy (help!) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

True, but the issue is not "is it an SPS" but "can we uses this SPS". So either the tag "SPS" must mean its a dodgy SPS or it just means its an SPS. What we need is clarity on what the tag is for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF between them cover just about any situation in which I'd think it logical to use an SPS, and both of them are plenty specific - I'm not convinced that we'd be even having this discussion if JzG (and anyone else in that boat) just read the damn policies and acknowledged that they understand that they exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

just read the damn policies Your assertion that he literally hasn't is frankly bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, well, to be fair, they do get edited over time, and not always by people looking to retrospectively make their edits compliant. Guy (help!) 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole crux of this dispute (at least the portion of it that I'm involved in) involves JzG removing self-published sources that are compliant with WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. It is impossible to resolve it if neither if you will acknowledge that they exist and engage in any way with why you are not following them. There would be no point having this noticeboard at all if everyone responded in every case "I refuse to engage with the existing written consensus guidance on this source or group of source, I argue that it's unreliable anyway and demand that you prove me wrong", which is what the various responses amount to an attempt to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is saying SPS can never, ever be used. Just that those who want to use it have the burden of demonstrating why it can be and getting consensus for it. Concerns over tag bombing seem irrelevant because the tag is really a side issue - SPS are SPS regardless of tagging. Just because one can tag an SPS instead of removing them does not imply that SPS should be left in place - material can be tagged as unsourced or OR as well, but the same material can also be removed per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. Tag vs. removal is optional based on whether you think the content may be reliably sourceable/due and that someone else may find a source. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have in/out policies in this area: WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, both of which are long-accepted. Refusing to acknowledge that those policies exist and claiming that there's a "burden" of convincing a random editor that they should have to follow said policy is a stance that, if adopted more broadly, would make this entire noticeboard essentially moot: why bother establishing clear guidelines on the usage of sources if they can be ignored on a whim when someone disagrees with them? The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If a self-published source can be shown to be written by a subject-matter expert, or if the use of the self-published source can be shown to qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, then WP:BURDEN is satisfied. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is African Independent a reliable source?

Can we use https://www.africanindy.com/ as a reliable source? Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

According to their about us page, they are also publish as a paper magazine sold in airports and major hotels in a number of African countries. They also have contact information, so I think they should be OK. But they have only been used as reference on four pages, so I would like to know if they can be used as source or not. I'm thinking to use https://www.africanindy.com/culture/taher-jaoui-delves-into-africas-artistic-diaspora-26134293 on the page [[41]]
I'm doing that page as paid editing Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey (African Independent)

• Huh. Specifics please? Articles, content? Any input from the relevant Wikiprojects? Guy (help!) 22:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Seems OK. I looked through their website and didn't see any red flags. It's an actual print magazine published by African News Agency. Their stories seem well-researched and not inflammatory. I don't see anything click-baity or agenda-driven. Looks good to me. Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (African Independent)

• Here's an article from the well established Cape Times on the publication's launch as a magazine in 2018: [42] (both are presently owned by the same media company). Since African topics aren't very well covered here and the publication is so young, it makes sense that there have been so few uses of it so far.-Indy beetle (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:Africa-related regional notice board. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

NYT Tara Reade coverage

Related discussion

The New York Times has admitted to removing facts editing their article about alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the request of his campaign.*, * Are there any limitations on how this piece can be used in his BLP? For instance, would the edited passage be allowed?

Before: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.*

After: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.*

Thank you, petrarchan47คุก 03:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I'm largely ignorant of the topic as a whole. I'll just note that the removal of the sentence itself is now the subject of wide coverage: The New York Times (RSP entry), Fox News (RSP entry), Vanity Fair (RSP entry), The Hill (RSP entry). MarioGom (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom Thank you.

• No one is arguing that the paragraph in question was in fact not a product of independent journalism, and all sources agree it was edited on behalf of the Biden campaign, per Dean Baquet. At the Joe Biden page, we are mirroring the edited version without alerting the readers to the conflict of interest behind it. Today's version of the page has: The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." (links to NYT) petrarchan47คุก 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Given the admission from the NYT that they were influenced to “correct” their text by the Biden campaign, I would say that we should NOT use this particular NYT article as a source in WP (except possibly as a primary source in our New York Times article itself). The admission indicates that they were not independent on this subject. Note: This does not mean we need to deprecate the NYT as a whole... just that we should not use this specific piece. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar The piece is being used in the Lede at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, it turns out. (Actually, I've just skimmed the entire article and it's mainly a summary of the NYT piece.) I think it's worth mentioning with regard to depreciation of the NYT, there is troubling precedent. The Times included an outright lie that both smeared Epstein's most prominent accuser, and cleared Bill Clinton. They said that in court documents, the accuser admits to lying about seeing Clinton on Epstein's island. Newslinger informed the Times of the need for a correction, and they never responded nor made any change to the piece. petrarchan47คุก 05:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Have you read the entire Times article? The words that were removed are not relevant to the vastly larger scope and content of the article. Moreover, since the "other" women described feeling uncomfortable about non-sexual touching, it's hard to see why the removal of those words -- juxtaposed in a way that makes it sound like that other touching constituted "sexual" misconduct -- is problematic. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There are other sources that can be used... no need to use one that has been tainted. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That is circular. We are discussing whether it's been tainted. Please re-read the entire Times article and consider my comment and reply if you believe that I'm mistaken in saying that the minimal factual correction does not disqualify what's by far the most extensive and deep reporting on the allegation. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree.  First we should decide which widely covered information we want to include, and if there is any disagreement over the NYTimes we can use another source.  No need to evaluate whether the NYTs has been tainted, at least for this piece of information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs)

That is not how we work. First we evaluate the sources then we derive information and article content. We do not decide on "information" we like and then find whatever source might onfirm it. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what "widely covered information" means. When RS widely cover information, that is when we decide if that information is appropriate to include. But your response ignores the point of my comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYT article is perfectly fine as a source. They clarified that the "hugs, kisses and touching" are not sexual misconduct. The previous wording was bad, so they fixed it. That's exactly what one would expect from a high-quality source. - MrX 🖋 20:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

MrX hugs, kisses, and touching, that multiple women said made them uncomfortable, typically are considered sexual misconduct. In any case, the NYT saying that they did not find a pattern of misconduct (after they redefine misconduct) has no relevance on how we should address Reade's accusation. As per the Slate article. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Considered by whom? The women who were touched? Biden? I think it's casting a broad net to describe these incidents as "sexual misconduct", and apparently the New York Times agrees. Slate may disagree, but that doesn't make Slate right and the New York Times wrong. Show me an objective definition of "sexual misconduct" that is widely accepted, and then we can discuss the possibility of the New York Times "removing facts". - MrX 🖋 21:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Did any of the women describe their discomfort as "sexual misconduct"? I have seen some say it was not sexual misconduct, but I am not familiar with all the sources on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The latter. It's a succinct explanation of why the incident was not covered earlier. There's another piece in the NYT (an interview with the editor linked above) that debunks the right-wing talking point that minor rephrasing means that the Biden campaign somehow controls the content (they noted that the wording was awkward and thus gave rise to ambiguity, which the Times acknowledged). When a RS corrects an article, we reflect the corrected content, not the original. Guy (help!) 22:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's not clear whether this is a right wing narrative. There are also other groups with a dedicated opposition to Biden and dedicated promotion of this incident for other reasons. I would say WP:FRINGE is the better category, but that will become clearer with time. The editing around this reminds me of the Murder of Seth Rich article in its early days, where there were coatrack anti-Hillary theories, including offers of a "reward" and insinuations by Julian Assange. That article is in good shape now, but it was not in good shape during the 2016 campaign. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• OVerall this is why when allegations of things like sexual misconduct which there's only "he said she said"-type evidence to go after, RECENTISM and NOT#NEWS very much applies and we should only be including after the dust of the initial allegations have settled. Ask if the allegations have affected the career path of the person at the center in any way, or in the case of Biden here, as they are coming up in the midst of the campaign, affected the campaign. If they haven't, and those investigating the allegations find no evidence to support, then we should only cover the minimally if at all. The rush to include them with instant sources that can change down the road (including the NYTimes) is not healthy for WP and leads to problems like this. --Masem (t) 22:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• With reference to NYTimes being reliable in the context of Biden's sexual-assault allegation and Reade, no it is not. Their credibility has been waning for some time now...CJR nails some of the reasons why. Press Think pressed hard on the Time's disconnect. Cornell hit straight on about opinion and news bias. Of late, some of our high profile WP articles are very close to being mirrors of the NYTimes, WaPo and like-minded sources that are consistently chosen by like-minded editors. I'll quote an interesting statement I read in a Bloomberg article: ”The encyclopedia’s reliance on outside sources, primarily newspapers, means it will be only as diverse as the rest of the media—which is to say, not very.” Not very is right - especially if we become overly reliant on and less cautious about the biased opinions published in today's clickbait media. As Dylan wrote..."The Times, They Are-a Changin". ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, yep, it's funny how certain guys here bend over backwards to justify the bias here, yet are the first to try to throw out reputable sources that just may have a rightwing bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• The initial NYT reporting on the Tara Reade allegation should not be used on Wikipedia, at least without the caveat that notes that their coverage was altered to please the Biden campaign. When I tried to add this context to the lead paragraphs, I was overruled by an administrator who defended the NYT coverage with the incorrect reasoning that the removal was a "Standard journalistic correction," rather than because "the [Biden] campaign thought the phrasing was awkward".[43] I want to also say that victims don't have to use the phrase "sexual misconduct" in order for sexual misconduct to be considered sexual misconduct. The "hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable” line that the NYT deleted (again, at the request of the Biden campaign) is cut-and-dry. Those are sexual misconduct allegations. Non-consensual kissing and hair-sniffing is sexual in nature. — Sockpuppet comment of a community banned user
• One should try to avoid this source, but I wouldn't suggest an outright ban. As a general matter, one should always prefer sources that are independent of the subject. The NYT's statement that it changed the article at the behest of the campaign tends to call their independence into question, but one imagines significant independence still exists. Hence my opinion above. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• There are are two stories here... first there is the story of Biden’s alleged sexual misconduct. Both sides of that story have been covered by other outlets, and so there is no NEED to use the NYT piece. Then there is the story of how the NYT changed the language of an article at the behest of the Biden campaign. For this, we can use the NYT piece (in both iterations) as a PRIMARY source for the language, but we should mostly use independent sourcing for fact. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• The New York Times "did not remove "facts" from the article. This information, "Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable." is still noted in the article.  What they did was correct a somewhat ambiguous statement that could be interpreted to mean that there are other cases of misconduct,  which was not what their reporting found. There has been some justifiable criticism of the Times for not including an edit notice with the correction. According to Times executive editor Dean Baquet “We didn’t think it was a factual mistake. I thought it was an awkward phrasing issue that could be read different ways and that it wasn’t something factual we were correcting,” Baquet said. It is not unusual for a subject of an article, or anyone else for that matter, to request a clarification. We expect reliable sources to correct statements which could easily be misinterpreted. Making a correction does not invalidate a source. The corrected statement reflects a summary of their reporting and could be included although whether it should be is a different issue.  CBS527^Talk 05:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Blueboar. Also, the NYTs did not merely clarify awkward phrasing. If they were to merely clarify without removing meaning, they could have said: "No other allegation about sexual assault or sexual misconduct surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of physical boundary violations by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." By removing the text about inappropriate touching, the NYTs is further separating those behaviors from sexual misconduct. But regardless, the statement as a whole is problematic because it inaccurately states that staff could not corroborate details, when in the same article they write than two interns remember Reade abruptly stopped supervising them in April 1993. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Of course they changed the meaning. The meaning was ambiguous, possibly misleading for some readers, and inconsistent with their reporting. This happens all the time in reliable journalistic reporting. It really is irrelevant what you would have written if you worked at the NY Times. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• You're misinterpreting what I'm saying about the change in meaning, and not commenting on the intention of my example. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Avoid using this source per the OP.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• At Joe Biden sexual assault allegation this NYT quotation is featured in the Lede The New York Times reported about the allegation some weeks after several other publications; it stated that "[n]o other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden". How should this be handled? Should it stand as is, without a note that the phrasing includes some editing advice from the subject of the "investigation"? petrarchan47คุก 05:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to avoid using this source. It's not like Joe Biden is an obscure individual. Surely, there must be other sources, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the scandal article... the controversy about the Times changing its language at the behest of the Biden campaign is discussed in a subsequent section on media coverage. I don’t think it belongs in the lead, so I have edited the article accordingly. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar I was shocked and remain concerned about the amount of space the NYT article is given at the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page. I am leaning towards siding with those who say the piece should not be used at all. I wanted to ask those with more experience whether such a determination requires a formal RfC, or if this thread is sufficient. petrarchan47คุก 19:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Best to use a formal RFC, in order to ensure a neutral presentation of the question at issue, since this RFC-like RSN Noticeboard thread did not present the question properly. The way the question was proposed at the very start of this thread was "The New York Times has admitted to removing facts from their article about alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the request of his campaign." The fact at issue therein is the text "beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." which was removed from the paragraph that begins with "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting..." after the article was first published.

However, two paragraphs up, the Times article included those facts in the paragraph that reads "Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable." This means that despite the Times decision to modify the later paragraph over the stated concerns about what it was implying with the term "sexual misconduct," the fact that Biden had been accused of kissing, hugging or touching other women in ways that made them feel uncomfortable was never removed and has remained in the published rticle at all times. As a result, this RFC-like thread subtly began with a falsehood when it claimed that the Times had admitted to "removing facts". A more neutrally worded RFC (with input from editors on both sides as to how to properly frame the RFC question) would fix this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar (Sorry for the double ping) Your fix was undone. petrarchan47คุก 19:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Avoid using this source -- any time an outlet admits that a campaign changed its coverage, that coverage should be treated with skepticism. If it needs to be cited, the controversy sparked (covered by RS's) must also be cited. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is standard practice in respectable news reporting. After the article was published, Biden's staff complained about the wording and the New York Times editors agreed and made changes. The original wording could be read as implying that Biden's unwanted touching was sexual misconduct, which is a matter of dispute. TFD (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• The New York Times did reliable reporting here I read the original version of the article, and I have read the revised version. They both said essentially the same thing, and the correction merely fixed some awkward wording. Just because something is a viral meme among a small, loud-mouth minority does not make it something which should change Wikipedia’s long standing consensus that the New York Times is one of the world’s most reliable sources. Samboy (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This really isn't a question of how editors feel about the revised version or the justification given for it, but rather if an article that includes substantive editing from one of the two subjects of an "investigation" can be used in the encyclopedia, and if so, whether readers should be informed of the controversy behind the edited section. Right now we are using the Biden version in the Joe Biden article without any note. The NYT went to great lengths to explain that the reason their reporting took 19 days to produce is that they worked very diligently on it. Therefore it is only right to assume their original statement went through intense scrutiny by journalists and editors before publication and was not lighthearted nor a mistake. So while the NYT reporting may be reliable, we cannot assume the same for the Biden campaign and their opinion. This is no less than the removal of a disclaimer about a pattern of sexual misconduct on behalf of the accused. If it said "essentially the same thing", there would have been no reason for the edit at all. In fact, it was a major change considering context (an endeavor that is sadly undervalued at WP). petrarchan47คุก 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Since we’re at RSN here, an editor’s subjective impressions about a source and why they feel the source is reliable is very much a welcome discussion. The question being asked here is “Is The New York Times reliable even though they changed that one sentence in that one article?”, and my answer is an unqualified yes, based on my reading of the article both before and after it was changed. Reliable sources respond and sometimes revise their articles based on feedback, especially when the feedback brings up WP:BLP issues.  Samboy (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The question being asked here is: "Are there any limitations on how this piece can be used in his BLP?". as Petrarchan said, the NYTs made a correction (which removes context) in response to representatives of the accused party and without noting the correction. That should create some limitations. For some more subjective perspectives on the Times and others sources, listen to the journalists who first reported the story after Grim.[44] NYTs is discussed at 45:20.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut The next step is to hold a straw poll about having an RfC to formalize a decision from the community regarding how this NYT piece can be used. I see the Biden-edited version is quoted at Biden's BLP as we speak. This cannot stand in an encyclopedia. The story surrounding the change, and coverage of the controversy, would be encyclopedic, but how it's being used presently violates our core principles. Please consider taking the reigns on this, RL is preventing me from helping. petrarchan47คุก 04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYTs text should be removed from Biden's bio before any RfC as there is no consensus to include it. The heading for the section should also be changed back to the last consensus version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• As per Specifico, MrX, TFD, CBS527 and Samboy, I believe the NYT correction shows why it is a reliable source and should be used. They clarified their reporting to make it more robust. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Blueboar above, "The admission indicates that they were not independent on this subject." The 'correction' was based on the opinion of the accused. Yes, it's robust all right. But this is not the DNC's blog. petrarchan47คุก 21:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Any suggestion that the NYT is not a reliable source is basically trolling. The fringe (from the far-right AND the far-left these days) talking point of "the Biden campaign dictated content removal" has been thoroughly debunked. Zaathras (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The above claim by Zaathras appears to be factually untrue. The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics (see entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), and reported "The New York Times is facing blowback after its executive editor admitted to removing a controversial passage in a story focusing on a 1993 sexual assault allegation against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden." "Times executive editor Dean Baquet told the news organization’s media columnist Ben Smith that the edit was made because the Biden campaign argued..." --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Avoid The NYT reported on itself about this article, “The Times Took 19 Days to Report an Accusation Against Biden. Here’s Why,” and reception about that editing at the Biden campaign request was noted, e.g. The Hill "NY Times faces blowback for removal of controversial passage on Biden sexual assault allegation". Meh. I'd suggest the NYT has some questions in the political arena but for the BLP level what specifically the NYT has as a view about Tara Reade is UNDUE for a mention, and I had deleted it along with other details. I think *any* specific single source is UNDUE for quoting out at the BLP level -- none of them have WEIGHT of being noted by other media and no quote from any of them has a particular BLP enduring impact to justify inclusion. If NYT stays deleted, then questions about their POV being done in cooperation with the Biden campaign are moot. And given this specific NYT article is somewhat a flap, I suggest any return o Tara Reade details should avoid that now-dated and now-decried article as just not BESTSOURCES. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Straw poll: New York Times/ Biden campaign statement

Should the following text be used in any Wikipedia article:

• ("No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting,) (a) nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. (b) The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."*

The sentence was changed from The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable. This change was made, per the NYT, after the Biden campaign complained that the "phrasing was awkward".*, * The edited statement is currently live on the Joe Biden BLP without noting the campaign's involvement. petrarchan47คุก 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: Zaathras, SPECIFICO, MarioGom, Blueboar, Kolya Butternut, MrX, ResultingConstant, JzG, Masem, Atsme, Sir Joseph, Adoring nanny, Cbs527, SharabSalam, A Quest For Knowledge, AzureCitizen, MaximumIdeas, The Four Deuces, Samboy, Bobfrombrockley, Zaathras

Discussion.

This is a poll on whether to have an official poll on a settled matter? ANS: NO. I don't see any significant argument here to deprecate the NY Times. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I sought advice from Newslinger here, and this was the course of action s/he advised. This is a question about a specific sentence, not about depreciating the NYT as whole. petrarchan47คุก 15:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Rather than a poll on whether to have an RfC, maybe we should have a straw poll on whether to include the text, and that poll will inform whether we need an RfC. I am opposed to the last 2/3 of that text because it is disputed by other sources. The sentence: "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting" is not problematic, but is perhaps undue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, you may want to ping editors who had only disscussed this at Talk:Joe Biden. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the straw poll question per your words above. petrarchan47คุก 15:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• A few points:

• As far as I see, the way the change is described accounts for the "hugs, kisses..." being removed, but we're not citing it for that.
• The hugs, kisses, etc. are already in our article.
• Wouldn't it be great if every source we considered reliable were transparent enough to draw attention to when a change was made after consulting with a campaign? That seems like a feature here. This isn't a "gotcha"; it's the Times publishing about its own editorial process.
• So yes, reliable. As for how it's presented in the article, that's for the article talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No

• (a) This text should not be used without context. The fact that Biden's campaign is behind the removal of a crucial caveat originally printed by the NYT should be included if the final sentence is mentioned.
• (b) The NYT's claim that they found no evidence to support any part of Reade's claim is false, and should not be included unless accompanied by a rebuttal. "Two interns the Times interviewed corroborated Reade’s allegation that she was removed of her duties supervising them"*. petrarchan47คุก 16:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Petrarchan47, they are not "behind" it. They pointed out an ambiguity. This happens all the time. Guy (help!) 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, this text should not be used because the Times changed it due to the Biden campaign complaining that wording was "awkward". While NY Times is RS, certain reports of theirs may not be RS if the outlet admits to working with a political campaign on the phrasing. If this source must be used, the context behind the wording change must be stated (which can be sourced to many RS's that reported on this.) --MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So if a newspaper writes something, and someone points out a factual inaccuracy, and they correct it, we should still use the inaccurate version? Why would we do that? The Biden campaign have zero editorial control, this was a decision by the NYT, explained in detail by their editorial staff. I understand that you would prefer the published version not to exonerate him quite so emphatically, but that is really not our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 18:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, at this point (this point being, we are only still dealing with accusations, and there is no hard action yet taken against Biden). Assuming that nothing else changes about this situation, that the accusations only remain accusations that never are proven out and have no additional bearing on Biden in the future, then there's no point in making a big deal about the Times' correction. Should the situation change: that the accusations are found to have validity, or something more severe, such that the Times changing their story is part of the larger story, then the issue the change can be added. But right now, adding anything about the correction is currently unnecessary since we currently are treating Biden innocent of any of the actions he was accused of doing at the current state per BLP. --Masem (t) 16:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• No, nothing will be gained from holding a formal RFC. The discussions here are enough to determine consensus. That said, I still maintain that highlighting the NYT report (by quoting it) is WP:UNDUE. There are lots of reliable sources that cover the allegations, and Biden’s response. We can (and should) use these other sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Why is this here? The source is reliable. This is a question for the article's talk page. Or did you not get the answer you wanted there? Guy (help!) 18:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that Biden's campaign is behind the removal of a crucial caveat... is a misleading and bad-faith statement. Zaathras (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. Suggesting "the campaign's involvement" is misleading. Journalism happens with reporters talking to subjects, and the subjects can try to correct the record. It seems that the NYT went to the Biden campaign before publishing the article, the Biden campaign made a few points, and the NYT agreed with them. This is standard operating procedure. The NYT comments are valid. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Except that’s not what happened. The chain of events was: 1) The Times publishes an article. 2) The Biden campaign contacts the editor and complains about the language of said article, 3) the Times then changes the article text due to that call. This is what people call a “stealth edit”. In the days of physical paper journalism, this could not have been done. The paper would have been printed with the “objectionable” sentence included. Sure, the Biden campaign might have complained... but by that time it would be too late. The most the Times could have done was issue a “correction” in the next day’s paper. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• What is this? - It was a straw poll about whether we should have an RfC, and then, after people started commenting, the question was changed to be about whether text from a particular source should be used "in any article" (??). That's certainly an unusual way to use this board. Typically it's either asking for opinions about whether a particular source is reliable or whether a particular source is reliable for a particular claim in a particular article. The "in any article" is bizarre, as is the pre-RfC/non-RfC business. The underlying question concerns an objection to using a quote in a specific article, and not "in any article," and the issue taken with the quote is more to do with using the full quote rather than its reliability (a matter for the article talk page, not RSN). If the question is whether being transparent about a common step in the journalistic process renders a highly reliable sources unreliable, the answer is no. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"The Times report was soundly criticized after the paper opted to stealth-edit—i.e., make a change to an article that’s not disclosed in an update or correction".[45] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ohhhhh I get the hubbub now. Thanks for the link. Somehow misread the timeline of other links. Ok, so yeah, they understandably caught some flack for making a revision without being clear why up front. I still don't think that translates to "this is not a reliable source". If they had been transparent from the beginning, if the edit hadn't been made after talking with the campaign, etc. would it still be controversial? It seems like a typical step in the journalistic process (for better or worse) that should've just been handled before publication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we're evaluating whether the NYTimes is generally an unreliable source for the story, just whether the NYTimes is not reliable for the specific text quoted for this poll. They've been criticized for stating that no "former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation", when in the same story they report that two interns corroborated that Reade was abruptly removed from supervising them in April 1993. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It's also weird that the NYTimes wording "corroborate" is considered reliably sourced, but WaPo's use of the word is not: Talk:Joe Biden#Reade's story corroborators. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't this a BLP violation against Tara  Reade to include such information which gives no WP:BLPBALANCE without also including information about Reade's corroborators?  At this point this may require a BLP Noticeboard discussion if this is not immediately removed.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support this idea. It doesn't appear anything is going to happen "immediately" if at all, on the current route. petrarchan47คุก 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Avoid this text - there's no good reason to state 'the NY Times reports' in Biden BLP, their particular article is just not noteworthy in WEIGHT of mentions for that nor shown BLP impact. It might get a small mention in the allegation article, along with small note that article has a story about coverage being slow and that response was a flap re the Biden campaign influenced the wording. That would seem a part of the theme that the allegation story has gotten slow or muted #metoo responses. But really the even there the particular text said (or deleted) by the NYT seems UNDUE to quote out - the flap is over the slowness and that the Biden campaign influenced wording. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Of course use the text. It's the New York Times, pretty much the Gold Standard of reliable sources, and this looks like nothing more than a stealth FUD campaign to slant the article. --Calton | Talk 11:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

NPR

Very surprised to see NPR listed as "No consensus" on WP:RSP. On discussions on this noticeboard it seems fairly unanimously accepted as a reliable source ([46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] etc); this is the closest I can find to a centralised discussion. Of the two listed in the perennial sources summary, neither seems to discuss the points mentioned (for example, that it is "generally considered a partisan source for the purposes of American politics") or give any evaluation of the organisation's accuracy as a whole (the first not at all, the second discusses a possible mistake in what is supposedly an NPR report).

NPR has clear and extremely detailed guidelines on ethics including accuracy, impartiality, transparency and so on, one of the highest trust-to-distrust ratios among major media outlets, beaten only by the Economist and the BBC, and its listeners have been found on more than one occasion to be the most informed and least likely to believe misinformation.

(Also, since I'm here, PBS used to be listed on WP:RSP and I'm unsure how to find out where/why it's gone?)

Thanks. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Both NPR and PBS have a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy.--Eostrix (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• As it says its just because it is an old discussion, yes NPR seems to be at least a gold plated standard.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I say we should turn the NPR entry green. Are there any legitimate cautions we should put in the text? I don't see anything in NPR controversies that needs to be highlighted. For example, the first "controversy" says "An outside expert was appointed to perform quarterly self-reviews of its Israel-Palestine coverage from 2003 to 2013, finding "lack of completeness but strong factual accuracy and no systematic bias" --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Guy Macon, I agree. They have a very solid reputation. Not error free (who is?) but with a decent commitment to factual accuracy. Guy (help!) 14:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Both are generally reliable (assuming you mean their news programs) with reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Just All Things Considered and Morning Edition, the news produced by NPR right? The 'no consensus' bit in RSP seems to cover all NPR programming. fiveby(zero) 14:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm presuming we mean factual content, yeah. e.g., how opinion columns in NYT are noteworthy (they're NYT!) but attributed - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, these should both be green-rated. They're not perfect, but neither is the NYT. They're quite normally reliable journalistic sources for factual content - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• NPR includes Morning Edition but also e.g. Ask Me Another (which is great, but not something I'd expect to see as a source). As such we should have a green entry for "NPR news programs" or the like. I don't know why we'd be including very brief discussions about a source in RSP, like the two that are there currently, just for the sake of having an entry. It's misleading. And, revisiting something I've brought up before, it's hard to consider two brief threads "perennial". Some sources don't come up here because nobody wastes time challenging them. So yes, the entirety of the current entry should be removed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a reasonable action too, of course - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Removal is fine with me. I have some free time. Does anyone think it would be worthwhile to go though the perennial source list and start a discussion here about any others that have no had a lot of discussions about them? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I meant that the entirety of the current entry should be removed [and, if anything, be replaced with a "generally reliable" for the news programs] (i.e. I'm not opposed to that). But yeah, I think something should only be included on that list if there's either an RfC or at least two substantial discussions (which is subjective, so maybe we say "with at least 4 participants or a very clear consensus" or something like that). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
        • I would think a catchall statement for RS/P about reliability of networks as a whole, and the distinction between news, opinion, and entertainment "shows" to a network otherwise considered RS, might be helpful. We don't need to spell out every show (this become an endless tail to chase) but enough advise that talk page discussions on individual articles should be reasonable. We'd only need to highlight individual shows when the network itself is not normally reliable (read: The Daily Show relative to Comedy Central). --Masem (t) 16:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all news content. Additional considerations apply for opinion and commentary. buidhe 18:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I would absolutely boost NPR's status to green, generally reliable for news content. Book and film reviews, opinion and commentary pieces, interviews, etc. would of course all be subject to the separate policies and guidelines governing the use/citation of those types of content. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I noticed the same thing the other day and was thinking about making this nom before I realized you already had. Yes, absolutely, turn it green. I disagree with the current text that calls it a partisan source — it's not much different than the NYT or WaPo in terms of bias. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Many years ago I was working late on an engineering project and one of my coworkers said "hey, the election results should be in. Let's turn on NPR and see what they have to say." We did and heard:

• Hourly news reports about Reagan winning with multiple "man on the street" interviews about how disappointed people were. A common refrain (in the news section of the broadcast) was that Reagan planned on defunding public TV and public radio, with the implied assumption that this was the most important issue of the election.
• The commentators wailing and gnashing their teeth as they lamented the end of western civilization.

On the other hand, they are far less obvious about it now, and I have found NPR's science reporting to be consistently good. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I did production for PBS affiliates (long since retired) so can I provide input or does that make me subject to COI despite retirement? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hi Atsme, feel free to comment here. Since you've disclosed the (former) conflict of interest, others will see your comments in the correct context. — Newslinger talk 09:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• The reliability of any source depends on context. When a network (or channel) is involved, be it radio or television, it depends on the program so we cannot/should not attempt to generalize or pigeonhole an entire network, and the same applies to printed & online publications. With print, sensational covers/front pages sell magazines/papers, whereas online, it's all about clickbait. There is no doubt that sensational headlines attract readers and shock value keeps them coming back. The first thing editors should do is determine if the author/program host is credible/reliable and if they are providing opinion or reporting verifiable facts. Example (respectively): Trump performed his typical rant at the 2020 National Prayer Breakfast vs Trump spoke at the 2020 National Prayer Breakfast. A quick way to determine the bias of a particular author/host is to gage it by your own bias, and if you agree with what's said, look closer to determine why...and then write for the opposition by reading other sources that don't necessarily agree with you - better yet, you can't go wrong by choosing sources that publish all substantial views pragmatically. In summary, NPR is a generally reliable source for reporting verifiable facts, and when it's opinion reporting, we should strictly adhere to RECENTISM, NEWSORG, REDFLAG, and BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for news content per User:Neutrality. starship.paint (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Mmm maybe should review the points of evaluation was

"Some consider NPR reliable for attributed statements of opinion. Others argue that NPR is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings. NPR is generally considered a partisan source for the purposes of American politics. Since there have also been a number of notable controversies in the past, editors should check whether an NPR broadcast constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for wording 1

There appear to be a broad consensus to turn the NPR entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources green. I would like to discuss the wording, Here is my first shot:

There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPRs's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution. Some editors believe that NPR is a partisan source concerning US politics.

Feel free to suggest other wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I proposed an alternative wording which I believe is supported by the consensus so far below. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Re:"Some editors believe..." – I guess it doesn't matter that much but so far I actually haven't quite found enough people on this noticeboard to necessarily make that wording necessary: There's Hobit who says NPR is perhaps the closest to the leftward spin, but one gets the sense they try to not be biased. and XavierItzm who says because we westerners are marinated in the echo chamber of... BBC, ARD, NPR, etc., we no longer notice its bias!. All sources have some kind of editorial perspective (NPR less than most) and even though every source will have people who consider it biased, I guess I'm just wondering if we're eventually going to end up sticking this on every entry. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with ReconditeRodent. Some editors believe the NYT is a partisan source concerning U.S. politics, but we don't include that in its listing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ReconditeRodent as well for the same reason. Neutrality^talk 15:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Approve the proposed wording with a slight modification to the last sentence which could be joined with the preceding sentence as follows: NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution as opinions may reflect a partisan bias concerning US politics. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As I am not sure we need anything about political bias.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Concur with ^Atsme's view. Additionally, it should be noted that NPR is funded by the U.S. government. While American editors may take that for granted, it should be stated. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Funded in part indirectly through competitive grants, but it wouldn't hurt to state that they have received small competitive grants from government agencies. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The fast majority of NPR's funding comes from private donations. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. How about something like this: "There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. As is the case for all media outlets, NPR opinion pieces should be used only with attribution." (Note the slight copy edit - the adverb "only" should be placed as close as possible to the word or phrase it modifies, which in this case is "with attribution".)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• First two sentences fine, no need for final sentence on being "partisan". I like Mark Wothern's cleaner alternative immediately above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• I understand GM included that last sentence. NPR does lean left and the commentary shows are clearly left. Still, NPR is generally good. If I could think of something between GM's suggestion and Mark's suggestion I would be happier. I guess I would be OK with either suggestion. Springee (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for wording 2

There appears to be a broad consensus to turn the NPR entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources green. I believe that those responding to the suggestion above supported the following wording instead of my my first shot:

There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPRs's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution.

Do we agree on the above wording? and on turning the entry green? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like that is the consensus above. I think this can be closed now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

[57] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, although I think that second sentence is a bit redundant as it applied equally to every single RS which also publishes opinion peices. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

How'd we get here?

I just looked at the Wikipedia entry for NPR at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources -- assuming the chart's description is based on those two short discussions, the current wording of the Wikipedia chart entry is a complete misrepresentation of those two discussions. How does that happen? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It was initially added as "generally reliable" in Special:Diff/938336958, but then immediately adjusted to "no consensus..." in Special:Diff/938337050. ToThAc, would you like to comment here? — Newslinger talk 09:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, Really? Apart form the misrepresentation, are you saying it was just added to the chart in 2020, based on those two short very old discussions? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

​Yes, it was added in January of this year based on these two discussions. The entry appeared as Special:Permalink/938336958#PBS, with the "Stale discussions" hourglass in the "Last" column. While most controversial entries are noticed and disputed immediately, this one slipped through the cracks. I intend to publish a changelog of the list in the future, maintained by bot, but it will take some time to implement this. If you would like to dispute any other entries on the list, please raise the issue at WT:RSP or here. — Newslinger talk 11:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like someone now changed the description from what it was when I commented earlier about the misleading nature, which is ok, but I think I would have just taken out the listing entirely. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Publications by Robert B. Spencer

Jihad Watch

Is Jihad Watch, a blog by Robert B. Spencer, a reliable source for any topic? Should Jihad Watch be blacklisted to match The Daily Stormer, which was blacklisted in March 2019 (and discussed again afterward)? Jihad Watch is currently being cited in 42 articles  . — Newslinger talk 13:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source, at all. We have a good compilation of reliable sources at Jihad Watch supporting the characterization as "anti-Muslim conspiracy blog". Just some, easily accessible and mostly from WP:RSP-listed sources:

• The New York Times (RSP entry): xenophobic and conspiratorial sites, such as JihadWatch.org [58]
• BuzzFeed News (RSP entry): Jihad Watch, a website that frequently posts anti-Islam disinformation, spread across social media [59]
• The Guardian (RSP entry) by Brian Whitaker: the notoriously Islamophobic website, Jihadwatch [60]
• Snopes (RSP entry): fact-checked a hoax originating from the anti-Muslim blog JihadWatch.org [61]
• Foreign Policy: Jihad Watch, one of the main hubs of American Islamophobia [62]

Plus references to a few books by reputable publishers and papers on peer-reviewed journals. Deprecation is the bare minimum here, leaning towards blacklisting. --MarioGom (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's not The Daily Stormer, but not reliable either. Deprecate because of problems with accuracy. buidhe 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Definite blacklist candidate. I'm surprised it isn't already. Zero^talk 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Blacklist, should never be used in Wikipedia as it is anti-Muslim and regularly publishes conspiracy theories.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Caution, (or whatever we use) - I don't think deprecate or blacklist is the best option. Spencer is a NYTimes best selling author and while we may not agree with his beliefs/opinions, WP is a book of knowledge, not an advocacy that blacklists opinions or authors we don't like or whose views oppose our own as if we're on a mission to RGW. We need to look at sources pragmatically, and analyze what purpose they serve in providing knowledge to our readers - and it all depends on what article we're working on. I don't want to keep repeating our PAGs, but it appears some editors are not quite catching on to context, and that each case and potential use is different. My opinion may not be the most popular, but it aligns with our PAGs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Caution. Not very reliable, but is reliable for own views and in lieu of better sources. Has clear opposition against the religion of Islam, but it is wholly inaccurate to put it in same league as neo-Nazi Daily Stormer. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Except[et it has a reputation for lying [[63]], [64]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This links don't much seem to discuss lying, but rather Spencer's well-known opposition to the religion of Islam. There's a big difference between that and racism (as in the Daily Stormer.) --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

" By painting Rauf as an extremist who was striving to build a “victory mosque” to celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center, the two leaders of SIOA sought to block the project while portraying all Muslims as radical – an assertion simply not supported by facts." Making claims not supported by the facts, lies.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per MarioGom, not reliable except as primary source, but doesn't seem like blacklist material either. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate or possibly blacklist per MarioGom. The above Snopes and Buzzfeed links alone include examples of disinformation, and I would be genuinely shocked if those are the only cases. If anything that Spencer has written is useful as a citation, another source will have covered it and we should use them instead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate, Never RS - unless it's about Spencer, JW itself, or an interview with someone talking about themselves, this blog should not be used. I'd say it's similar, if not more quacky than, Quillette. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Caution per Atsme and MaximumIdeas. Deprecating and blacklisting are powerful tools that should be seldom if ever used. Loksmythe (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source for anything (other than Spencer's views). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source for anything but Spencer's (or published authors) views, or presenting such conspiracy laden views in an appropriate article with context. Definitely should not be used as factual or given any due weight when it comes to Islamic history, the Islamic Religion or Muslims. Koncorde (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable, agree with Koncorde above. Possible to use for viewpoint of authors, but probably not worthwhile in most cases to do so.--Eostrix (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate. Completely unacceptable. Conspiracy theories, falsehoods, bigotry. Peer-reviewed publications, such as Christopher Bail's "Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream" (Princeton University Press, 2014, p. 84)[65] explicitly refers to the website as "anti-Muslim". Other academic publications such as Rohlinger's "New Media and Society" (NYU Press, p. 101) does so, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• 'Not reliable". When the best thing you can say about this source is that it is not nearly as bad as the Daily Stormer...--Hippeus (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate appropriate only for possible use to describe its own history/organization for its own page and only very carefully. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance for Supremacism

Is The Myth of Islamic Tolerance by Robert B. Spencer a reliable source for the Supremacism article? 58.182.176.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is using this book (albeit cited to different sources) for the following text, added in Special:Diff/952378144:

In The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, 63 essays edited by Robert Spencer and written by several notable authors on history of non-Muslim populations during and after the conquest of their lands by Muslims, was reviewed by The Middle East Journal and First Things as a book that "might be described as an extended bill of indictment against Islam and a debunking of the still commonly heard claim that Islam has been and is tolerant of minorities" goes on to "expose an unsettling fact: that Islam's famed tolerance of non-Muslims has over the centuries fallen well short of an embrace".

References

The edit summary 58.182.176.169 used in Special:Diff/952378144 was "→‎Islamic: 1. Pro Islamic POV bias removed by keep the phrasing consistent e.g. weasel words used to behave like Islamis apologist while unsourced claims added to dilute evils done under Islamis. 2 In previous edit "unsourced" claims "islam was more tolerant than christianity" etc. 3. Added The Myth of Islamic Tolerance". — Newslinger talk 13:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I would blacklist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, since there are some questions below, are you referring to Jihad Watch or the book? — Newslinger talk 10:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the link I found were about him, he is not an RS. So both, simply put what he says cannot be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely not a reliable source. Always use with in-text attribution if due, and it would need a separate reliable source to prove it is due. --MarioGom (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• None of the authors seem to have particularly good credentials as scholars of Islam, so I do not think it could be used for any controversial statements. Possible to be used for attributed opinion of notable contributors. buidhe 20:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• The quotation alleged to be from "The Middle East Journal and First Things" only appears in First Things. MEJ (a highly respected journal) only has a brief mention without judging it. Spencer's association with the hate site Jihad Watch is good enough reason to stay away from this book. Zero^talk 04:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, this book should not be "blacklisted". In general, Wikipedians should not be judging/censoring books that I suspect we haven't even read. Whether the First Things quote is "due" on the page in question is the real question, and should be discussed on that talk page. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Caution - not blacklisted - again, WP is the sum of all knowledge - we don't destroy/blacklist books because we don't agree with the author or book's contents. Draconian conquerors of territory destroyed books in an effort to erase history and all knowledge of opposing views. We don't have to agree with the contents of the book or the author - we have PAGs that apply when material cited to such a book is challenged - context matters. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• This book is by a self-described Islamophobe. No one's suggesting it be "destroyed", but it certainly should not be cited on Wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of historic reference, it would help immensely if you would include a link (or 2 or 3) to sources that say he is a "self-described Islamophobe". Thx in advance. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Here: "In my forthcoming book Confessions of an Islamophobe (coming November 28 from Bombardier Books), after rejecting the label for years (indeed, ever since it was invented as a tool to stymie resistance to jihad terror), I take it on. If it’s “Islamophobic” to note that the texts and teachings of Islam contain numerous exhortations to warfare against unbelievers, and that those exhortations are codified in Islamic law, then call it what you will" (Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch). Jlevi (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

His definition of Islamophobe is not how the term is used ubiquitously - he was obviously being facetious - so we should not take it out of context because doing so discredits WP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with MarioGom. Not reliable except for views of the author, whose due weight needs to be established in most contexts. I don't think the book should be blacklisted, however. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with MarioGom, Eperoton: not reliable for anything other than its own opinions, and not due without an RS specifically drawing attention to it. That having been said, blacklisting a book is silly, and I'm not sure how feasible it would even be to implement such a blacklisting, as to my knowledge the filter relies on url matching. Blacklisting should be reserved for cases where spamming is an ongoing or otherwise highly likely problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• The book seems to collect analyses of a significant and academically-defensible strand of thought on the subject of relations between Islam and others. We don't have to agree with any of it to regard it as useful for that purpose. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source for anything but Spencer's (or published authors) views, or presenting such conspiracy laden views in an appropriate article with context. Definitely should not be used as factual or given any due weight when it comes to Islamic history, the Islamic Religion or Muslims. Does not require deprecating, it should be excluded by most editors as fundamentally lacking in evidence, or being undue in the same way any other given book of fringe theories and pet project essays.

If they do represent a significant weight, then there should likely be better sources, or should be used only with in line attribution. Koncorde (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Canary

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274 § Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites - The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 245 § Is the Canary a reliable source?

Some other passing mentions as well. As far as I can tell The Canary (website) is often but not universally regarded as unreliable. It's being used on Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), twice, both for opinion not fact, pretty much in its area of maximum bias. I'm hardly a renowned right-winger but there's no way I would ever use this site as a source. Their "mission" is "A free and fair society where we nurture people and planet." Nothing to do with accurate reporting. Guy (help!) 23:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No consensus/Generally unreliable per prior discussion. May be useful for the positions of left wing politicians and groups on certain issues, but not generally reliable. buidhe 07:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Generally reliable: attribute opinion. "I'm hardly a renowned left-winger" but I use The Canary frequently. I have never had a problem with it. Its "About" page describes the efforts it makes to ensure its reports are rigorous: "Each article goes through a rigorous editorial process in which it is checked and amended by at least two editors (a section editor and a copy editor). Complex investigations are edited by at least three, including an investigations editor". It has received a favourable report from NewsGuard. Media Bias/Fact Check said: "Overall, we rate The Canary Left biased based on story selection that typically favours the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record".[66] It is regulated by IMPRESS which is "fully compliant with the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry". It also has its own Code of Practice, which lays out the standards and ethical principles that guide its writers and editors. Editor Jontel wrote in a recent discussion: "On NewsGuard standards, they rate The Canary 8/9, Evolve 8/9 and Skwawkbox 9/9. On Impress complaints unheld in whole or in part over three years, The Canary has two, Evolve one and Skawkbox five. A 2019 survey by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that The Canary was trusted by its readers more than publications such as Buzzfeed News, the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, HuffPost, The Independent, Sun and regional press, and almost equal to the Daily Telegraph". In previous discussions there has been a lot of opinion but a seeming lack of examples of the unreliability of The Canary. Burrobert (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Per Newslinger and WP:MBFC, MBFC is an unreliable source and should not be used to justify arguments like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked the Reuters study and found that the above is not very accurate. Here is a better summary: A 2018 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism described The Canary as "a left-wing partisan site" and an example of "alternative and partisan brands" (along with Breitbart and Infowars) which have "a political or ideological agenda and their user base tends to passionately share these views". The Institute's survey found The Canary to be used by 2% of the UK news audience, its readers to be among the furthest to the left on the political spectrum, and the publication to be more trusted than the Daily Mail, Buzzfeed News and The Sun, but one of less trusted news sites in the UK, with a trust rating of 4.69 where 10 is fully trusted.[67] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment From the same study, it is as trusted by its readers as the mainstream media is by its readers and it has huge usership considering its tiny resources and relative youth. Jontel (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is some more information from various reports put out by the Reuters Institute in 2018 and 2019. Firstly, the reports aren’t especially relevant to the question we are discussing as they do not examine "reliability". A lot of the discussion here so far has been able the partisanship of The Canary. The unanimous opinion seems to be that The Canary has a left wing slant. Excellent, let’s now discuss reliability. Anyway, some editors may still find this information useful.

• Reuters define alternative or partisan sites as those which have “a political or ideological agenda and their user base tends to passionately share these views".
• The list of alternative partisan UK sites which it has studied is: The Canary, Breitbart, Sputnik, Westmonster, Skwawkbox, Novara Media, Evolve Politics.
• The list of alternative partisan US sites which it has studied is: Breitbart, Daily Caller, The Blaze, Occupy Democrats, Infowars, Being Liberal, Talking Points Memo, The Intercept, Addicting Info.
• It says “The Canary publishes political news and ‘campaigning journalism’ from a broadly left-wing perspective.
• It says "the ambitions of the digital-born media highlighted here do not end with building sustainable online news businesses. A strong sense of mission has been prevalent from the start". In the case of The Canary this includes influencing the public conversation and "the creation of an investigative journalism fund".
• Reuters does provide some data on readership. Its 2019 survey showed that 14% of participants had head of The Canary and 2% had used the site in the last week.
• Regarding "trust", Reuters’ 2018 report provided two "trust" numbers, one that comes from survey participants who had heard of the site (but who may not have actually used it) and one that comes from users of the site. The number 4.69 is the one from people who had heard of the site. It is the 12th highest rating out of the 15 sites surveyed. Actual uses of the site gave The Canary a trust rating of 6.65 which is the 8th highest rating out of 15 sites. What does this mean for reliability?
• I haven’t been able to find any reference to the statement that “its readers [are] among the furthest to the left on the political spectrum”. A 2018 report states “In the UK, the Another Angry Voice blog and the Canary website are placed further to the left of the map, because a high proportion of their users self-identify on the left”. This seems to suggest that The Canary has a lot of left wing readers, not that their views are further to the left.

Burrobert (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, you know that Fox News is highly trusted by its audience, right? As were Pravda and the Volkischer Beobachter? Forty billion flies can't be wrong... Guy (help!) 22:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the place to compare the BBC and Channel 4 to those sources. What is the relevance to The Canary? Burrobert (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Not reliable Like Guy put it They have a clear agenda and even someone want to quote for opinion its clearly WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Attribute If you don't like left wing stuff, you won't like Canary (or Evolve or Skwawk), these sites are useful on occasion but use with caution.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not reliable As almost all the contributors to the last discussion here, this website is not at all reliable, regardless of what it might itself say. It is highly partisan, publishes information out of context in a very skewed way and has been shown regularly to publish inaccurate stories. Please see the talk page of Iain McNicol‎, where The Canary is being used as the source for a very sensitive BLP issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The final point is not the case. The article makes clear that McNicol was being named in a legal suit because he was Gen. Sec. of the LP; it was not about him personally. Jontel (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Highly partisan blog or website. OK for attributed opinion only.--Hippeus (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Canary is not a blog. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable As per Burrobert favourable reports from NewsGuard, Media Bias/Fact Check and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism regarding its Reliability. We all know that the 'news' media is impartial. 99% of all news media outlets are definitely skewed by a partisan political outlook, 90% of the time that skew is to the centre right or further to the Right, the Canary is one of the very few sources that has a left centre viewpoint. Its a very small counter weight against the overwhelming majority of the more right wing media. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We are going completely off subject, this board is not about political positions of news outlets, its about Reliability. We should not mistake having a different political viewpoint for whether a source's factual reliability is good or bad (that is irrelevant). The Canary does not hide their left of centre bias but it has a clean factual record and they always source their information to credible media outlets such as Forbes, BBC, The Guardian and Huffington Post etc. Perhaps opposing editors could present concrete evidence of unreliability rather than say its unreliable just because of its political viewpoint. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable:attribute opinion It certainly has a political viewpoint, selects stories to suit its agenda and can seek to be sensational. The same can be said for most or all of the mainstream British press. However, there are very few examples of it being inaccurate. Its readers trust it about as much as readers of other publications trust those. Again, many of the mainstream publications have had to withdraw or amend articles for inaccuracy from time to time. There is a left wing viewpoint: Labour gets around one third of the vote and Labour's 600,000 members elected Corbyn twice. This viewpoint is rarely reflected fully in the mainstream media: banning use of the Canary will prevent a full expression of the range of significant views. Finally, significant progressive stories may only be covered in The Canary in detail, so this information will be inaccessible to editors if its use is banned. Jontel (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, indeed. I rate The Canary as unreliable because it lists its mission in terms of ideology not fact, and because its writing reflects that. It was the most complained about IMPRESS regulated journal of 2017/18 [68], it has published false claims about Laura Kuenssberg, and blames Teh Jews for its problems [69].

Seriously, it's crap. Guy (help!) 17:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, the Canary published an incorrect headline about Kuenssberg. The story was correct and the headline was quickly corrected. And yes, Rachel Riley and others, who have chosen to remain anonymous, are trying to shut down the Canary by claiming it is antisemitic and pushing advertisers to boycott the site. Jontel (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• You are confusingly mixing your reply with personal opinion. Regarding Laura Kuenssberg, one accusation ...Ian Middleton in The Huffington Post wrote the accusations of abuse "may have been part of an orchestrated campaign on behalf of those looking to discredit the petition itself". The Canary published a headline that "(Kuenssberg's) listed as a speaker at the Tory Party conference". She had indeed been invited to speak at a fringe event, but this was cancelled and Impress faulted the Canary for not correcting the information with due prominence. Another... check her own page Laura Kuenssberg#Bias allegations "In January 2017 the BBC Trust ruled that a report in November 2015 by Kuenssberg broke the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines" ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that IMPRESS though independent, is not the main press regulator in the UK, that honour goes to the self regulator IPSO, where most of the other press are regulated and where you will find lots more similar complaints against various mainstream media. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

Claiming that The Canary blames “Teh Jews for its problems” is to accuse it of anti-semitism. You seem to making this serious accusation on the basis of no evidence. The only mention of Jewry in the article is in the quote from The Canary: "Despite clearly being against the actions of the state, not against Jewish people as an ethnic group, we’ve been smeared with accusations of anti-Semitism by those who’ve weaponised the term for political ends". Burrobert (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Those of us with some real-world experience recognize the term "political Zionists" applied to non-Israelis for what it is - a convenient euphemism for 'Jews'. It is the equivalent of the infamous Soviet Rootless cosmopolitan JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Those of us with some real-world experience" - WP:Puffery. The attempt to conflate criticism of the state of Israel and anti-Zionism with anti-semitism has a long history. It serves the interests of the Israeli state by silencing criticism of Israel’s actions and policies but there is no reason why the rest of us need to accept what has been called "an intellectually and morally disreputable position". Abba Eban, the Foreign Minister of Israel, wrote in 1973: "One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all". Political Zionism is a real thing not connected to anti-semitism. Burrobert (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There was no criticism of the State in the piece published by the Canary, just a reference to some anonymous "Political Zionists" who are trying to harm them. As I wrote , people with real world experience know what this is a reference to [70]. And I suspect that when similar dog whistles are used by Trump vs. Muslims or Hispanics , or racists vs blacks etc.. - you recognize them too. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"People with real world experience know what this is a reference to" - more WP: Puffery. The intended meaning of "political Zionist" and who it refers to seems clear enough from the article. "Despite clearly being against the actions of the state, not against Jewish people as an ethnic group, we’ve been smeared with accusations of anti-Semitism by those who’ve weaponised the term for political ends ". "And people who don’t like our politics have encouraged our advertisers to blacklist us". This type of attack has been described as "part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the holy state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick". The allegations aimed at Jeremy Corbyn over the period of his leadership is a good example of this technique. A recently leaked Labour Party report shows how antisemitism was used by officials of the party to undermine Corbyn’s leadership. The Canary itself published the article Allegations of antisemitism are being used as a 'tool to stifle debate on Palestine', says Israeli historian [71] in 2019, which included the following:

Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé has pushed-backed against what he characterises as the 'weaponisation' of antisemitism allegations. … [T]he historian, known for his work on Zionism and the destruction of Palestine, says this is being done in order to suppress debate and discussion on Palestine. ... Pappé says antisemitism allegations are "a tool to stifle the debate on Palestine, but it also, it kind of weaponises the allegation of antisemitism against the promotion to positions of power of people that Israel and it’s supporters do not want to be in those positions".

It is uncontroversial that The Canary has been critical of Israel’s policies and actions including its influence on British politics through the pro-Israel lobby group Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) and its representative . Here is a list of articles published by The Canary about Israel this year:

• Keir Starmer received £50,000 donation from pro-Israel lobbyist in leadership bid [72] (17/4/20)
• A new Israeli atrocity in Gaza was carried out with the help of a multinational corporation [73] (26/2/20)
• Israeli anarchist released despite refusing to ‘play by the rules of a system that is rigged against justice’ [74] (20/2/20)
• Professor says ‘popular organizing’ is key to opposing the ‘entrenchment of apartheid’ in Israel [75] (17/2/20)
• Trump’s ‘peace plan’ gives the go-ahead to Israel’s biggest land grab in decades [76] (31/1/20)
• Charges dropped against activists who occupied Israeli arms factory for two days [77] (23/1/20)

Burrobert (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"The intended meaning of "political Zionist" and who it refers to seems clear enough from the article. " - Indeed. It mean Jews, just like Rootless cosmopolitans. Unless you think the Canary was trying to blame Theodor Hertzl or Max Nordau for their financial troubles. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not all Jews: that would not make any sense. The Canary mean Rachel Riley and her campaign Stop Funding Fake News which is entirely open about trying to put The Canary out of business. Jontel (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

They used the plural, so they were obviously thinking about more than just her. But let's talk about her, for a second. She may or may not be a Zionist - but what makes you think she is? OTOH, as our Rachel Riley article makes clear, she clearly identifies as Jewish. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we close and put an end to what may well turn into antisemtism and gets users banned?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC) troubles. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

They used the plural, so they were obviosuly thinking about more ta ust her. But let's talk about her, for a second. She may or not

• Generally unreliable. As with all such hyper-partisan media (regardless of political leaning), if the story is significant enough that Wikipedia will be interested, there's invariably going to be a non-contentious publication covering the same story, which will always be preferable as a source. The sole exception is the case of a handful of ultra-left figures, who may use the site to make media announcements in which case it's acceptable as a primary source for their comments. These instances should be few and far between, as such people are almost certainly going to choose sympathetic media with a broader circulation (such as The Guardian) for such statements; policitians are generally interested in spreading their message to a wider audience, not in preaching to the converted. ‑ Iridescent 12:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment We are going completely off subject, this board is not about political positions of news outlets, its about Reliability. All the News media sources are partisan, the question is the Canary a Reliable Source. Can someone who thinks it is not PLEASE provide actual evidence that shows that the Canary is unreliable. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  Bodney, excellent example of reversal of the burden of proof there. On Wikipedia, the editors seeking to include a source must show that it's reliable. they have run a campaign against Kuenssberg, including false accusations; they have said that opposition is caused by "political Zionists"; they are an active campaigning organisation; they have published literal fake news. I read the fucking Guardian and even I think The Canary is crap. Come on. Guy (help!) 20:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  One false headline about Kuenssberg, quickly corrected, and they are perfectly entitled to criticise her. How would you describe Rachel Riley and others who are trying to shut them down? They have a political viewpoint; are you saying that the Times and the Telegraph does not? It is called campaigning journalism and mainstream papers run campaigns, too. And make mistakes. Your examples are few and weak. Also, WP:PROFANEDISCUSSIONS Jontel (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Off-topic thread

OT; Can someone please explain me why User:JzG sometime tag as Guy (as here) and sometimes as JzG (as on Julian Assange)? this is not fine.. i think is wrong; JzG, please stay always on your tag JzG "User:JzG" without change on Guy "User:JzG|Guy" when you want! --5.171.8.64 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC) That's a bit rich coming from someone editing from an IP GirthSummit (blether) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Instead your answer is totally useless, and (al)so a little hostile; writing from IP is correct (and IPs can do right things too!), and also ask registered users not to use tag-alias-mutants. One registred user, one only tag; otherwise it can edit as IP! ;-) Anyway, i'm still waiting for reply. Thanks. --5.171.8.64 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC) The answer is pretty simple. My real-world name is Guy, and my original username was Just zis Guy, you know?, a reference to the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy and also my Usenet handle for a long time. I shortened it to reduce the byte-count in my sig and to make it easier for people to type, and to remove the "?", whihc of course is rendered as %3F in URIs. It's been that way for a looooong time. I can't remember when I adopted the current signature, but I don't think I have ever signed simply as "JzG". Guy (help!) 22:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Thank you for reply. In really i was not interested for the reason of your choice to change to Guy, but for why is possible to have a tag signature different from username. This made confusion; it seems that is in the history page - any - that you appear (always) as JzG, instead than "Guy". I think is better if none publish a tag different from the real username. P.s. I know the Douglas Adams books, but in this time i can't remember the quote you like; too much years from when i've read the books... and as my name is not Guy, and i've not read the book on english language.. it's very hard for me to remember this thing. So long, and thanks for.. --5.171.8.64 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Gag Halfrunt, Zaphod's personal braincare specialist, is ordering Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz to destroy the Heart Of Gold, with Zaphod on board, in order to kill Arthur Dent. When Jeltz queries him about killing his most profitable patient, Halfrunt replies "Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?" Guy (help!) 23:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC) To add to the reply. He is definitely not a sock puppet, his signature is Guy ([user:JzG|Guy]) but times when folks reply to him they write @user:JzG' and the edit history of an article always will drops the nickname Guy, so it looks like a different tag. My own tag is ~ BOD ~ but my username is Bodney, similarly in the history of an article it drops my nickname BOD and gives my full name Bodney. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the reply; yes, I had noticed that the dual user name problem arose from the history pages. Like I said, I think it would be better if there were no such differences. --5.171.8.64 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Cyntoia Brown

Hello. There is some disagreement about the Cyntoia Brown article.

People removed the references to court documents that I added. They are claiming that the article should not use primary sources, such as court documents because they could be misinterpreted or taken out of context. I disagree and would like for the Cyntioa Brown article to cite court documents, along with secondary sources.

Below is a list of quotes from the Brown article. For each quote, I copied and pasted the exact expert in the court document that it references. All of the article text that cites court documents is completely supported by those court documents. On top of that, I referenced specific page numbers so that Wikipedia readers who click on the documents know exactly where to look. There is absolutely no way these documents could be misinterpreted or taken out of context. 

I will also point out that court documents are far more reliable than opinion pieces and news articles. A judge writing an opinion is much less likely to make a mistake than a journalist. Additionally, many other articles about crimes and people convicted of crimes (including cases for more controversial than the Brown one) cite court documents. I believe that primary sources should be allowed in the Brown article.

ARREST AND TRIAL SECTION
    
    Example 1. 
    
    Article text
    
     "Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot. Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying ... and his  fingers interlocked." 
              
      Document text 
      
      "Based upon the nature of the victim’s wound and the lividity of his body, the medical examiner concluded that, when the petitioner fired the gun, the victim was lying in his bed in the same manner as he was later found, on his right side and stomach and with his fingers partially interlocked."
      
        The court doc does not say he was asleep. But several other secondary soruces cited do. 
      
      Example 2.
      
      Article text
      
      "A forensic pathologist testified at trial that, due to the nature of Allen's injury, he would not have been able to make any voluntary movements after being shot. Thus, in her opinion, Allen's hands were clasped at the time of his death."
         
       Document text
         
         "She (Dr. McMaster, the forensic pathologist) added, 'Because of the nature of the wound, I would not expect [the victim] to have any type of voluntary movement or to be able to move his extremities or his body in any way' after being shot. Thus, Dr. McMaster said that in her professional opinion, the victim's hands were clasped at the time of his death, as they were in the crime scene photographs taken by police after the incident."
        
        Example 3.
   
        Article text
   
   "Allen's gunshot wound had characteristics of those fired at close range. Additionally, gunshot residue from Allen's pillowcase showed that the gun was three to six inches away when fired."
            
         Document text
            
            "Although the medical examiner classified this as an indeterminate range wound, the stellate lacerations around the entrance wound are “typically” seen with “close range fire,” within “a couple inches or less, a few inches.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1973; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14- 15, PageID# 1993, 2005-2007.) Gunshot residue from one of the victim’s pillowcases indicated that the gun was three to six inches from the pillowcase when the gun discharged. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1550-1552, 1563-1564.)" 
           
         Example 4.
           
         Article text 
          
           "On August 14, Brown was taken to the Western Mental Health Institute for an evaluation. According to court documents, Brown attacked and threatened a nurse at the Mental Health Institute after the nurse did not allow her to call her adoptive mother. Brown jumped over the nurse's desk, grabbed her hair and face, and hit her, giving her several bruises and abrasions. During the attack, Brown allegedly told the nurse 'I shot that man in the back of the head one time, bitch, I’m gonna shoot you in the back of the head three times. I’d love to hear your blood splatter on the wall.' The nurse, along with another Western Mental Health Institute employee who witnessed the incident testified at trial." 
                   
            
          Document text
                 
                 Source 4. Sixth Circuit. "On August 14, 2004, while a patient at Western Mental Health Institute in Bolivar, the petitioner demanded to make a phone call to her mother, but the nurse, Kathy Franz, told her that she could not use the phone. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1479-1480, 1483, 1527-1528, 1530.) The petitioner “got angry” and attacked Ms. Franz. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1528.) She jumped over the nurses’ desk, grabbed Ms. Franz by the hair and face, and hit her. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1480, 1485, 1528.) They both struggled onto the floor, and Ms. Franz received abrasions and bruises from the attack. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1485, 1528.) The petitioner threatened Ms. Franz’s life, saying: I’m going to do you like I did him, but I’m not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I’m going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1481, 1528-1529.)" 
                 
                Source 2. Court of Criminal Appeals. "Kathy Franz testified that on August 14, 2004, she worked as a nurse at a facility[4] at which she encountered the defendant. Franz said that one day, the defendant asked her to use the telephone. Franz told the defendant that she could not use the telephone, at which point the defendant grabbed her by the hair and by the face; after that, the two women struggled and "both wound up [on] the floor." According to Franz, the defendant told her, "I'm going to do you like I did him, but I'm not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I'm going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall." Eventually, four or five of the facility's staff physically restrained the defendant. Another of the facility's employees, Sheila Campbell, witnessed this episode and testified about it at trial. The substance of Campbell's testimony largely mirrored that of Franz's, although Campbell added that the defendant asked permission to phone her mother before the incident and that the incident left Franz with bruises and abrasions."        
   
          Example 5
                 
          Article text
                 
                 "A recording of a phone call Brown made to her adoptive mother while in jail was presented as further evidence against her, as in the conversation she said, referring to Johnny Allen, 'I executed him.'"
                               
          Document text
                 
                 "During a recorded telephone conversation on October 29, 2005, between the petitioner and her adoptive mother, Ellenette Washington, the petitioner stated to Ms. Washington, “I killed somebody. . . . I executed him.” (Telephone Recording, R.E. 14-6, PageID# 715; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1915; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-15, PageID# 2041-2044.)" 

          Example 6
                   
          Article text
                   
                   "Brown also spoke to several jail cellmates about the crime, and confessed to killing Allen "just to see how it felt to kill somebody.""
                   
          Document text
                    
                    Source 6. Sixth Circuit. "In November 2004, while confined in Davidson County, the petitioner discussed the murder with three other detainees, including Shayla Bryant, who heard the petitioner give the following explanation for her criminal charges: She basically . . . said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1655-1656.) Ms. Bryant did not believe the petitioner because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) Ms. Bryant told the petitioner that she was lying, at which point the petitioner started laughing. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) The petitioner then confided that she shot the victim 'just to see how it fe[lt] to kill somebody.'” 
                 
                    
                   Source 2. Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death. The defendant told Bryant about the charges she was facing, and Bryant overheard a conversation between the defendant and Williamson in which the defendant 'basically said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him.' Bryant told the defendant that she did not believe the defendant's account because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' Bryant testified that the defendant then 'started laughing.' Through notes, the defendant 'basically said she shot the man just to see how it feel[s] to kill somebody.' Bryant said that the defendant appeared 'as jolly as she wanted to be' while discussing the victim's death. Bryant added, 'it didn't look like she had any remorse. She didn't cry. . . . She was just there.'"
                    
           Example 7
                   
           Article text
                    
                    "The cellmate later gave police a note Brown had given her which said 'everything is the truth, I swear it on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feeling of nervousness.' At trial, a forensic document examiner testified that the note was written by Brown. The cellmate whom Brown had given the note to and spoken with also testified at trial."
                                      
           Document text
                    
                    Source 2. 2008 Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death...Bryant said that she and the defendant passed notes to each other through a hole in the wall between their cells. On cross-examination, she said that she flushed most of the defendant's notes down the toilet but that she kept one of the notes, which she eventually gave to police. The note read: 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life, except for `I thought he was getting a gun' and the feelings of nervousness.'"
                    
                   Source 6.  Sixth Circuit."Like other detainees, Ms. Bryant and the petitioner routinely passed notes, and Ms. Brown retained and disclosed one note in which the petitioner wrote, 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feelings of nervousness.” (Handwritten Note, R.E. 14-5, PageID# 600; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656-1658, 1683-1684, 1788-1789, 1797-1798; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1868-1869, 1894-1896.) 
           
          MURDER OF ALLEN SECTION
            
          Example 8
            
          Article text
            
            On August 7, Brown had a neighbor drive her to the Walmart where she had left Allen's truck. She asked the neighbor to drive her back to Allen's house so that she could steal more items but he refused. Brown told him that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns.” 
                
           Document text
                                      
              "Later that day, around 5:00 p.m., the petitioner knocked on the door at the InTown Suites of roommates Richard Reed and Samuel Humphrey. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331.) Mr. Reed answered the door, and the petitioner asked him to drive her to Wal-Mart, which he agreed to do. (Trial Testimony R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331-1334.)."
                 En route back to the hotel, the petitioner asked Mr. Reed for a ride to a nearby house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1337.) She explained that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns,” and she wanted Mr. Reed “to go over there and help her clean it out.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1337.) Mr. Reed did not believe her, and he refused to drive her to the house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1339.)
                 Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Well here is one problem, you link to a number of documents one of which says "which led the police to conclude that the victim was asleep when he was shot. "Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven You said one of the documents says he was asleep when shot. Did you mean none of the documents say he was asleep when shot? The court docs don't directly say he was asleep when shot but many secondary sources we cited do. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

The you need to make it clear which sources you want to use, as the quote is from "STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CYNTOIA DENISE BROWN No. M2007-00427-CCA-R3-CD." Which I thought was the second source you wished to use. I also suggest you read wp:or, no matter how many sources do not say it the sea is wet.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I have collapsed the references from this section, they were appearing in other sections. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I refereed to STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CYNTOIA DENISE BROWN as the Court of Criminal Appeals doc because it is an opinion from Tennessee's Court of Criminal Appeals. That doc talks about the forensic pathologist saying Allen's hands were clasped when he died. That's what the text says. Other secondary sources back up the claim that investigators believe he was asleep.

There is no original research or interpretations of the documents. The article says what the docs (and other sources used) state. I truly do not see why this should not be allowed. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Ginegrbreadhouse97

If source A says the sea and blue and source B says the sea if blue that dos not mean source B is saying the sea is not wet.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I'm not following you. Can you explain what you mean? Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

We have sources (including the STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CYNTOIA DENISE BROWN No. M2007-00427-CCA-R3-CD which says " "which led the police to conclude that the victim was asleep when he was shot." that say investigators thought he was shot in his sleep. A source not saying that does not mean that source supports the conclusion he was not. A source has to say (in words) something. It is OR to draw a conclusion from what a source does not say. wp:v is clear a source must say it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The secondary sources do say he was asleep when shot in words. And the court docs talk about the position his body was found. If you want, I will use the court docs only after the text about how he was found. And I will only use the secondary sources for the claim that police believe he was asleep when shot. It will read like this

"Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot.Secondary sources Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying ... and his fingers interlocked. Primary sources" Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference

Again, I've collapsed that reference. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So that each claim has a specific source.

Can we use primary court documents or not?Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

No, not really, we are advised against using them.Slatersteven (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We are advised not to use them? But does that mean we are completely banned form using them? Or just that we should do so sparingly? I and other editors have used court documents in many crime articles and moderators never took them out. May I add some of the Brown court documents back?Slatersteven Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

@Gingerbreadhouse97: In the case of assertions about living person, which appears to apply here since the linked article is about a living person and this seems to concern what she may or may not have done, then do not use them as the sole source per WP:BLPPRIMARY which says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

As for "I and other editors have used court documents in many crime articles and moderators never took them out", well firstly there is no such thing as a moderator here. Second, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Third when the issue comes to the attention of BLP experienced editors, the end result is nearly always the removal of the information sourced solely to court documents. This often results in complaints, even though BLP policy clearly says not to do it.

So basically all you and your fellow crime article editors are doing is creating more work for everyone, and creating ill-feeling when the inevitable happens. Yes sometimes such additions skate by for years before someone notices them, but that's still not helping anything. Instead, you need to write articles which comply with our policies and guidelines, such as using reliable secondary sources, so that someone else doesn't have to fix things for you. It may be okay to add the primary sources in addition to the secondary sources but make sure that all assertions you make are supported exclusively by the secondary sources.

If you do so, the end result is a better article (from the POV of what we consider a good article) and less time wasted by editors adding stuff which is going to be removed, and editors needing to remove the stuff which should never have been added, and needless discussion on the removal of such additions. If you cannot find secondary sources discussing some aspect you feel is important, the unfortunate conclusion is it's probably not as important as you think it is.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Some questions.

What if the text cites court docs alongside secondary sources and is not completely based on court docs?

Can we cite court docs when writing articles about events rather than people?

What if the court doc is the only source available for a specific piece of information? In some cases there are no secondary sources to cite and only court docs.

Why can't we use court docs in articles about living people? Court docs are much more objective than news articles or opinion pieces. A judge writing a legal opinion is far less likely to get the facts wrong than a columnist writing a biased op-ed to promote political opinions.

Thanks Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Events (especially legal ones) involve people. Thus a crime (for example) is still a wp:blp as it must talk about both victims and perps.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What if the perp is not alive? Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

postcard.news and tfipost.com

Both sites have issues of their own - postcard has oftentimes posted fake news and at one point its founder was arrested for that ( https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/postcard-news-editor-mahesh-hegde-booked-for-spreading-fake-news-arrested-in-bengaluru-1201009-2018-03-30 ). On the other hand, tfipost seems to at least post true stuff, though it still cherrypicks news from what I understand. So, are both of these sources any good in reporting political news (which is about 90% of what they post)? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi RedBulbBlueBlood9911. Postcardnews has come up a few times on the boards here..take a look at archive 248 [78] which discusses it along with several other Indian news sites. The consensus seems to be no, definitely not reliable for anything. I don't think I've heard of tfipost, and a quick search of the boards doesnt bring up anything. Looking at the website is not encouraging- they seem to be setting themselves up as a glorified blog? I clicked on "meet the contributors" and they list 241 "columnists" complete with social media style profiles who post what appear to be opinion pieces. The about us page confirms this -" a platform for coming together and exchanging perspectives. The mainstream media narrative of India is highly tilted towards the left. Hence an average news reader of India gets to read news with “liberal” doses of “left-arm” spin. TFIPOST was created to provide an alternate Center-Right narrative. We are very new and already one of the most read and appreciated blogging platforms." Its just people's opinions, not WP:RS in any way. Curdle (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Both Postcard News (a.k.a. Post Card News and postcard.news) and tfipost.com (formerly known as The Frustrated Indian, TFI, and rightlog.in) are less popular equivalents of the propaganda site OpIndia (RSP entry). Postcard News was removed from Facebook after repeatedly publishing fake news reports. TFIPost is already on the spam blacklist for participating in the same doxing incident described in the OpIndia and Swarajya discussion. If editors continue to add links to postcard.news   inappropriately, the domain should be blacklisted as well. — Newslinger talk 16:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 16:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

:* Hi @Newslinger:, and thanks for your advice. I noticed that you’d started the discussion about getting OpIndia and Swarajya deprecated, and it interested me (yes, I know that it’s 2 months old). But since the sources weren’t deprecated due to lack of an RfC, I’d like to know if it would be a sensible idea to create a new discussion in the RfC area regarding the sources. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Newslinger:, I checked MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and tfipost isn’t blocked. Are you sure? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Never mind what I posted above, I was looking at the Deprecated Sources list instead, so I didn’t see the sources blacklisted. But in what case would it be necessary to blacklist or deprecate any site? Does it have to be linked on Wikipedia repeatedly or is a discussion concluding that the source is absolutely useless enough? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi RedBulbBlueBlood9911, tfipost.com is currently on the spam blacklist (MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist), while Postcard News is not. Neither website is deprecated. Also, while there was consensus to deprecate OpIndia and Swarajya (RSP entry), neither publication is deprecated because the discussion was not a formal RfC; however, both OpIndia and Swarajya are on the spam blacklist, and there is no benefit to deprecating sites that are already blacklisted. Generally, websites become candidates for the spam blacklist when editors repeatedly add external links to the site in an inappropriate manner, and only if the blacklisting would not prevent appropriate uses of the site to a significant extent.

Since tfipost.com is already on the spam blacklist, it would be unnecessary to deprecate it. Postcard News is not yet on the spam blacklist, but since it is a fake news website, I recommend removing the current citations   and then requesting blacklisting if editors continue to add this domain into articles after the existing citations are removed. An RfC is not required for this. — Newslinger talk 10:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely unreliable And in this case we don't even need to assess the content ourselves since there are externals sources that have done the work. In addition to the links above, see, [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] etc. PS: for future reference I should note that arrests/FIRs for spreading fake-news (or rather, hurting religious sentiment etc) in India should not be taken at face-value, but in this instance, all other indicators of unreliability match up. Abecedare (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  My above comment and links are about Postcard News. Haven't researched tfipost myself, yet. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Both are definitely unreliable. In the case of Postcard News, not just fake news but communal hate-mongering posts. In the case of TFIPost its a lower level of the same, but primarily misrepresentation of facts, omission of key facts, and giving a slant to any post. The total absence of impartial, referenced truthful reporting is a hallmark feature of both these sources. I second the views of Abecedare and Newslinger. AshLin (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• definitely unreliable: fake, political, communal stuffs. ❯❯❯ S A H A 11:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

HITC source for Darren Barnet

Is HITC news piece "Never Have I Ever: Who is Darren Barnet? Explore the age, Instagram and previous roles of Paxton actor" a reliable source for the Darren Barnet article? Specifically for his DOB. Other sources state his birthday is April 27 but not the year. An IP user keeps adding it back to the article. TJMSmith (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a reliable source "[84]" written by Metro, which can conclude has born circa 1991. You can change it back, because IP user 2600:1700:5040:3cf0:4195:535c:1a77:be2d keeps deleting it. It is clear Metro spoke to the actor. Factchecking139 (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

TJMSmith I cannot see anything in either the HITC or the metro source that mentions either a birthdate, or a way to calculate his birth year, unless I am missing something?. Curdle (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

TJMSmith :Curdle There are more websites that state his birthdate and birth year. I only can not add to the page now. A few clicks and you have many sources, if someone wants to add to the page? Factcheck2020 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to be sure it's widely known if you want to add full dob. See WP:DOB. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Verywell

I would like to ask the community to review the ban on Verywell. Verywell is a family of four websites: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, and Verywell Family. They deliver short articles on very basic topics, written in simple, plain language. Generally, they don't offer much content that can't be found in better, more professional sources. However, outright banning the Verywell sites is excessive. They don't seem to be unreliable. They just offer high-school level content, written in simple language, aimed at a wide audience. As a tertiary source, it may be of use in certain situations. Recently, I tried to cite a Verywell Mind article at ICD-11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it turned out to be on the spam-blacklist. I bypassed this by using links from Google and archive.today, but instead of skirting the rules, I'd rather see the ban lifted.

Verywell is part of Dotdash, the successor of About.com, which closed down in 2017. Dotdash and its websites are currently listed at WP:RSPSOURCES with a mark. The entry claims that the Verywell sites are on there "[d]ue to persistent violations of WP:MEDRS". No source is given for this claim. The entry lists 16 threads. 15 of them discuss the now defunct About.com. Only one of them, from December 2018, is about Verywell, but it wasn't really a discussion. I found no actual debate on Verywell anywhere on Wikipedia, although I did find two LinkReports regarding verywell.com, a domain which now redirects to verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com (search).

Each Verywell site has a team of reviewers consisting of board-certified physicians and other professionals, who approve articles before they are posted (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family). Also, each Verywell site has a certificate from the Health On the Net Foundation, which should assure some degree of quality (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family).

Also listed in the Dotdash entry at WP:RSPSOURCES are: The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, and TripSavvy. I think each should have their own entry and explanation, similar to Investopedia, which is also owned by Dotdash, but has its own entry. Furthermore, I wonder if Dotdash itself should be on the WP:RSPSOURCES list, because the website dotdash.com is in itself not a source.

I suggest the Verywell websites be marked as , with an explanation that they are tertiary references, should be used with caution, and only as ancillary sources.

Thanks for reading, Manifestation (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Standards at WP:MEDRS are high for a reason, and not all content written by certified professions meets the reliability standard; see WP:MEDORG. Although you would use the source in a limited and responsible way, other users might not. buidhe 21:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I get that, but the Verywell websites have an editorial board of certified professionals. The sites are not unreliable, just simplified medical resources written for the average Joe or Jane. They should be used with caution, but I can't see why they were put on the banlist. They are not spam sites.
I should note that I have encountered two situations on Wikipedia in which I wanted to cite a Verywell page, but couldn't. The first was on the article Remission (medicine), in which I added a bit about NED (No Evidence of Disease), a term used in cancer treatment. There's an article at Verywell Health about NED, and it's the only web article I could find that specifically discusses it. Alas, I couldn't use it, so I cited other refs instead which discuss remission more broadly.
The second situation was on the article ICD-11, which I wrote from scratch. I've cited a Verywell Health article as an additional overview ref of the mental disorders chapter of the ICD-11. As I mentioned above, I bypassed the blacklist this time. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Verywell before today, but I just spent a bit of time perusing verywellhealth.com, primarily the material on vaccines, infectious diseases, etc. (which is more up my alley). It all looked fine. No one is suggesting that this is the highest quality source around, but I see no reason why it should be banned. Does anyone see examples of very poor material on the site (or recall why it was banned in the first place, I can't find an older discussion on the matter)? Ajpolino (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino, these sites were added to the spam blacklist by User:JzG after this request from Jytdog in November 2018.

Manifestation also had a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2020#Verywell (the spam blacklist's usual page for such requests) with User:Praxidicae about three weeks ago. I believe that User:Beetstra, User:Kuru, and User:GermanJoe are currently active on the spam blacklist and might be able to evaluate this situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

As clear from the blacklisting requests and the reports that COIBot saved, this was blacklisted because it was spammed, and rather clear COPYVIO violations. That some organisation is well respected, or that a site is regarded to be a reliable source does not exclude that said organisation is participating in aggressive SEO activities. It is unlikely to be unbanned until the spamming has stopped. Whitelisting is your way forward for the material you really need. Seen the multitude of IPs (there are IPs in a couple of ranges who have been adding this) and editors (there is a sockpuppetry case) this is better controlled through whitelisting (no, 1 year is generally not enough).

Note: do not evade the ban, you are violating policies. Get what you really need whitelisted. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Beetstra. I would love to see evidence of the Verywell sites being spammed. I looked at the sockpuppet investigation you referred to, which is the only piece of evidence cited in the previous thread on Verywell at Spam-blacklist. It is a very small case, consisting of 1 master, 2 socks, and 1 IP sock. What happened was:

• 19 November 2018: Mservi68 (talk · contribs) adds a few urls to Choking game;
• 30 November 2018: Dulanji Perera (talk · contribs) makes a few meaningless edits to Social anxiety disorder;
• 1 December 2018: 192.248.16.125 (talk), a shared L.E.A.R.N. IP, probably from a high school in Sri Lanka, makes two edits to Social anxiety disorder;
• 1 December 2018: sockpuppet Dulanji P (talk · contribs) is created, and makes one edit to Social anxiety disorder with the es: "added the citations";
• 1 December 2018: Jytdog reverts the edits as a copyright violation, see page history;
• 2 December 2018: Spam-blacklist thread created by Jytdog, who writes that the Verywell sites are "being added to pages by students and people new to editing about health. It would be better if people didn't use them... but that is not what this list is for".
• 2 December 2018: Dulanji Perera reappears, and seems to re-add the reverted content to Social anxiety disorder;
• 2 December 2018: SPI instigated, all accounts blocked;
• 2 December 2018: Three of the four Verywell sites are blacklisted.

Unfortunately, Sphilbrick felt they had to revdelete the edits, destroying the evidence (see log). What is obvious, however, is that this wasn't a big case. Certainly not enough to blacklist three sites over.

I've looked at LinkReports/verywell.com and checked all the listed IP edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (deleted), 7 (possibly spam), 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Only the 7th edit, from 58.120.109.240 (talk), appears to be spam. All of the other edits were likely done in good faith. Is there more evidence of spamming? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging JzG here, who originally added the sites to the banlist. JzG, I know this is 1.5 years ago, but do you remember anything of this? Thanks, Manifestation (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, spam blacklisting and reliability are different. If a site is reliable but spammed, then we can whitelist links where there is clear consensus on talk for their use. This was definitely spammed.

Also revdel does not "destroy" evidence. It's a necessary protection legally, and the edits are still visible to us admins. Guy (help!) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:
"This was definitely spammed."
Do you happen to remember where it was spammed? As in, on what article(s)? Maybe I can plow through the history and locate the edits and IPs as evidence.
"Also revdel does not "destroy" evidence. It's a necessary protection legally, and the edits are still visible to us admins."
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, various sockpuppets are identified above. Look at their contributions. Guy (help!) 13:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't a spammer. That was a student from Sri Lanka who copy-pasted text from Verywell into Social anxiety disorder. She created Dulanji Perera and Dulanji P. She may also have been Mservi68, but I'm not sure, because the IP address is shared among students, and Mservi68 did not edit Social anxiety disorder. It is possible she made the addition in good faith, clumsily creating two accounts while also editing while logged out. (I am assuming she's female, because Dulanji Perera is a feminine name.) - Manifestation (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, then I suggest you go to WT:SBL and ask for delisting. I do not remember anything of it.

Note though that sites like this are likely to be considered on a par with Livestrong, and removed as failing WP:MEDRS for most claims they are likely to be used to support. Guy (help!) 14:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, ‘destroying the evidence’? No, those are clear copyright violations which are hidden from public view for good reason. They are visible to admins.

This discussion has no place here. Even if you get the consensus that this is a reliable source, it is blacklisted based on the basis of copyright violations and spamming. The original request did only list a few accounts (though enough seen the copyvio), the reports show more, like 13 IPs in a short range which, seen their attempts, are very likely related to a couple of other IPs who tried to add the links Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:
"then I suggest you go to WT:SBL and ask for delisting".
I did, but Praxidicae cited WP:RSP, so I thought I had to go here.

@Beetstra:
"This discussion has no place here."
Yes it has, because Verywell is at WP:RSPSOURCES, which claims that it is on the banlist due to repeated violations of WP:MEDRS, while providing no evidence of this. I do not believe Verywell is unreliable.
"it is blacklisted based on the basis of copyright violations and spamming."
A copyright violation is not a reason to blacklist a site. Also, I have not found evidence of spamming yet. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

1. RSP and SBL are completely separate processes. If you want RSP changed, you can ask here. If you want the spam blacklist changed, you should ask there.
2. We do blacklist for WP:LINKVIOs and other forms of copyright violations. We have done this for approximately forever. It's not the first choice, but it does happen.
3. If you want to use this site for something specific, then go to WT:WHITELIST and follow the directions. The anti-spam folks are pretty generous about such requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I just discovered something that could be misunderstood as evidence. At LinkReports/verywellmind.com, if you search for "Video game addiction", you will see that several dynamic IPs *attempted 35 times* to add one particular Verywell Mind article to Video game addiction. Attempted, because the edits were kept being blocked. These attempts were made in January and February 2019, after Verywell was added to the blacklist. I believed for a minute that this was a not-so-smart bot. However, after checking the other edits made from these IPs, I now believe this was in fact someone from Ethiopia who repeatedly tried to insert the link, somehow incapable of accepting that it didn't work. Again, I still haven't seen evidence of spamming. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, yes, we monitor for hits after blacklisting. And multiple hits is attempted spamming and considered evidence for retaining a blacklist item. We recently cleared out those with no hits in several years. Guy (help!) 18:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Verywell is a popular family of websites, with articles on a wide variety of topics. Logically, someone tries to add one every now and then, triggering the blacklist. That isn't spamming. It happened to me too; see my comment on No Evidence of Disease above. As for that Ethiopian person: he/she just stubbornly tried to add the url to Video game addiction, refusing to give up for some reason. Again, not spamming. Spamming is done to multiple articles, massively, usually with an automated script. If repeated triggering of the blacklist is a reason for retaining the website on the blacklist, this would be some kind of closed loop paradox. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, you have a complete misunderstanding of spamming. There are no automated scripts needed. Hammering is certainly a reason to retain it (especially since you again focus on the Ethiopian IP (really!!), and ignore the FR proxy doing the same. If the only attempted additions are by a couple of well established editors then that could be a reason to not maintain it (if nothing else is giving a reason). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation,” ... I now believe this was in fact a mentally challenged person ... perhaps autistic?” ... are you a psychic? And that person is then so mentally challenged that they remember to continue 3 weeks later ... and then yet another month later he is on an open proxy in France. And seen how highly dynamic the IPs were, I doubt that any of the other edits are by the person working from these IPs. Well, let me be a psychic as well. Perhaps this was in fact a spammer and the spam blacklist stopped it. Or it was a spambot. Your guess is as good as mine.

We are however still diverging. We are at RSN, we should be discussing reliability of the site here. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record: I withdrew the "mentally challenged" and "autistic" parts of my comment after being challenged about it on my talk page. I didn't mean it as an insult. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Manifestation wrote (above), "I suggest the Verywell websites be marked as , with an explanation that they are tertiary references, should be used with caution, and only as ancillary sources." Keeping in mind that this is the RELIABLE SOURCES noticeboard, I have not seen any evidence in this discussion, or in my experience with several different Dotdash sites, of consistently inaccurate, misleading, or unscientific articles.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I have left a message at Newslinger's talkpage. He added to the WP:RSPSOURCES table that Verywell was blacklisted due to "persistent abuse", subsequently changed to "persistent violations of WP:MEDRS". I wonder what his opinion is on this matter. - Manifestation (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've changed the entry for Verywell/Dotdash (RSP entry) back from "persistent violations of WP:MEDRS" to the generic phrase "persistent abuse" in Special:Diff/954810043, as the rationale for blacklisting was spam-related. As I explained in my talk page response at Special:Permalink/954816151 § Verywell, my mention of WP:MEDRS was a misinterpretation of the comments in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2018 § verywellmind.com and I apologize for the mistake.

  As for my personal opinion, I think Verywell's reliability is similar to the reliability of Dotdash's other websites (marginally reliable), although WP:MEDRS – which emphasizes the importance of high-quality academic sources and warns against the use of popular press sources including Verywell for "scientific and medical information" (in WP:MEDPOP) – should be taken into account. — Newslinger talk 12:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger. I agree with the marginally reliable marking. Verywell is certainly not the best source ever, and not academic, but it could be used as an ancillary reference. As for the spamming: there is no proof this happened. I've started a new thread here at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist in which I request the unbanning of Verywell. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

To answer the last bit of your inital comment in this discussion, entries on the perennial sources list are generally only combined for parent companies and their subsidiaries, and only if the subsidiaries do not have different reliability classifications or substantially different descriptions. Beyond Dotdash, examples include RhythmOne (RSP entry) and Vice Media (RSP entry). Before splitting an entry, each new entry would need to meet the inclusion criteria and be different enough to merit a separate entry. I can see the justification for splitting Verywell into a separate entry if it remains on the spam blacklist. However, I would consider merging Investopedia (RSP entry) into the Dotdash entry as the consensus on Investopedia is not substantially different from that of Dotdash's other sites. — Newslinger talk 15:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Zirikli

Is al-Aʻlām by Khayr al-Din al-Zirikli reliable for the ethnicity of Al-Tahawi? I know that it's a tertiary source (a tarajim: biographies), but I don't know its reliability. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I recommend to use some newer work, if available. I would assume good faith (even though this author is described as a "Syrian nationalist"), so this source may be useable, but with a caution. It could be used for basic uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for possibly controversial informations (eg. ethnicity). Pavlor (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

TheseusHeLl, according to The Encyclopaedia of Islam[85], he is an Azdi, meaning he is an Arab.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Should this one be added as RS?

I don't know how or when to add a source to the list, but as it was recently challenged by a new editor, would like it to be considered for inclusion so that it can be easily referenced. It is Creative Spirits, a resource for matters relating to Indigenous peoples in Australia. Although I was initially a bit cautious because it is a self-published source (created by Jens Korff), I always check sources, and have found his material to be pretty meticulously sourced. (This means that I have often also gone to the original source, if available.) I have also found him cited in other sources upon occasion. As he says on the page I've linked to "Some of my content, both articles and images, have also been published in other works around the world", including a Year 10 textbook. The National Library of Australia catalogue entry is here, and that also leads to their archiving of the website here. He is quoted on the Victorian education website here - History: Aboriginal Australia and on Austlit and there's an article on Artshub (paywall). It's cited in an article in Aboriginal History (journal) and others here, here, here, and others. Can someone please advise if/how this can be recorded as an RS, or does it need to be posted elsewhere for debate? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would be cautious about using about using this source: certainly not BLPs or anything controversial and most info can and should be sourced to better quality sources. As you can see by searching uses of the source many of its uses on Wikipedia do not follow this rule. buidhe 08:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Tough one, it seems to fit SPS but the Australia's web archive thought it “to be an important component of the national documentary heritage” (assuming of course this is not a lie). The best I can say is it might be, but there needs to be a bit more evidence he is an acknowledged expert than one Ozzie government database.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe and Slatersteven. I share your hesitation, and would not use it for anything controversial or BLP myself; hence wondering about adding it as "generally reliable", with added qualifiers. Pandora (the NLA archive) is overseen by librarians and (as a former one of those in a past life) I trust their judgement on the whole, and it does have specific criteria for inclusion. I usually check out Korff's sources and add them either instead or as well, but on the whole his info checks out, and I've rarely found anything that I couldn't dig up somewhere else. I just feel that it is better mentioned on this page than not at all, so that editors have something to refer to if they encounter it. It's pretty useful for having a lot of content in one place. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This is really too specialized and limited in the number of allowable uses to go on the RSP list, which is really for sources of wide usage. buidhe 11:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note... we don’t actually maintain a list of “generally reliable“ sources (here are too many for such a list to be feasible)... instead we maintain a much much shorter list of generally UNRELIABLE sources. To make THAT list, a source has to be pretty bad. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your advice, Buidhe and Blueboar. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry of Andrija Zmajević

Article Andrija Zmajević, section Biography, sentence Zmajević was born to a Serbian family in Perast, in the Bay of Kotor, at the time part of the Republic of Venice (now Montenegro) in late July 1628.

Are the following sources reliable for the claim "to a Serbian family"?

1. "Kako je Matija Zmajević postao znameniti Hrvat". www.dan.co.me. Retrieved 2019-09-05.
   U svom literarnom radu ispoljavao je višestruko interesovanje prema istoriji, kulturi i narodu "kraljevstva Srbije". Održavao je prijateljske veze sa najistaknutijim srpskim prvacima svog doba, s hercegovačkim mitropolitom Vasilijem Jovanovićem (Sveti Vasilije Ostroški) i s patrijarhom Arsenijem III Čarnojevićem. O patrijarhu je pisao da je "po starini zemljak naš, drag prijatelj" (ovo se može videti u ilustraciji iz njegovog kapitalnog dela "Ljetopis crkovni").
   ZNAO je crkvenoslovenski jezik i ćirilicu i tim pismom, o kojem je primetio da se njime "služi čitava naša nacija", pisao je. Za sebe je govorio da je "vatreni katolik i vatreni Srbin".
   Od Zmajevićevih velikih književnih dela sačuvana su dva. Spev "Slovinska Dubrava" i "Ljetopis crkovni". To je istorija svetskih ideja, od postanja do epohe baroka, pisana dvostubačno - sleva na našem narodnom jeziku i ćirilicom, zdesna na latinskom, na 1.000 stranica. Jedna verzija nalazi se u Splitu a druga, kompletnija, na ćirilici, čuva se - prvi deo u Vatikanu, drugi u Padovi. Tu su ušle mnoge narodne legende i predanja, narodna istorija, epsko viđenje događaja i autorov lični doživljaj prošlosti i savremenosti.
   Andrija Zmajević je bio rođeni stric Matije Zmajevića, ruskog admirala i svakako jednog od najzapaženijih izdanaka peraške familije.
   English translation provided by a fellow editor:
   In his literary work, he expressed multiple interest in history, culture and people of the "Kingdom of Serbia". He maintained friendly relations with the most prominent Serbian notable personalities of his day, with the Metropolitan of Herzegovina Vasili Jovanovic (Saint Basil of Ostrog) and with Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević. He wrote about the patriarch as "our old countryman, dear friend," (this can be seen in the illustration from his capital work "Chronicle of the Church").
   He knew the Church Slavonic language language and the Cyrillic alphabet and that letter, for which he noted was "used by our entire nation," he wrote. He used to say that he was a "fierce Catholic and fierce Serb".
   Two of Zmajevic's great literary works have been preserved. The song "Slovinska Dubrava" and "Chronicle of the Year". It's a history of world ideas, from the beggining to the Baroque era, the whole work is written in two paragraphs - left in our national language and in Cyrillic, right in Latin, 1,000 pages long. One version is in Split and the other, more complete, in Cyrillic, is kept - the first part in the Vatican, the second in Padua. Many folk legends and traditions, folk history, epic perceptions of events and the author's personal experience of the past and present have entered into it.
   Andrija Zmajevic was the born uncle of Matija Zmajevic, a Russian admiral and certainly one of the most notable members of the Perast family.
2. "Hrvati otimaju našu baštinu". www.novosti.rs (in Serbian (Latin script)). Retrieved 2019-09-05.
   Za svoju tvrdnju da je Matija Zmajević sebe smatrao Hrvatom, Denis Krnić ne može naći nijedan istorijski izvor. Stoga, vjerovatno nije slučajno zašto dotični zaobilazi relevantne istorijske izvore, koji nedvosmisleno ukazuju da su Zmajevići bili srpska porodica katoličke vjere.
   English translation provided by a fellow editor:
   For his claim that Matija Zmajevic considered himself to be Croat, Denis Krnic can't find a single historical source. Therefore, it most probably isn't a coincidence that he is bypassing relevant historical sources, which unequivocally indicate that the Zmajevics were a Serb family of the Catholic faith.

Regards, --T*U (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise, we can see this information in the second article: "Papa Sikst V bio je Srbin iz Boke" "Pope Sixtus V was a Serb from Boka Kotorska" Pope Sixtus V.[86] Mikola22 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

In the first article talk Vasko Kostić. As far as I can see this Vasko Kostić has some book on the internet and the chapters are (Kroatizovanje srbo-katolika, Croatizing of Catholic Serbs), (Sistematsko kroatizovanje svetosavske Boke, Systematic Croatization of(Serbian, Orthodox) Boka Kotorska), (Da li je sv. Tripun hrvatski svetac, Is St. Tripun Croatian saint), (Da li Boka uopšte ima hrvatskih svetaca, Does Boka Kotorska have Croatian saints at all), etc. Editor Sadko knows why he supports such sources. Mikola22 (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would not usually consider internet portals RS for contested questions of ethnic identies. Zmajevic is profiled in a university press book titled When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans, which describes his family as coming from Montenegro and does not call him a Serb. Another RS book describes his chronicle as "Slavic" rather than Serbian. buidhe 21:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Croatian paper, I quote: "Zahvaljujući brojnim uradcima historiografije, prilično su nam dobro poznati osnovni podaci iz životopisa Andrije Zmajevića. Njegovi su se preci doselili početkom XVI. stoljeća s Njeguša, iz sela Vrbe, u grad Kotor. Predanje o podrijetlu iz Crne Gore iznosi i sam Zmajević u svom »Crkvenom ljetopisu«, "Thanks to numerous works by historiographers, we are quite well aware of the basic data from the biography of Andrija Zmajevic. His ancestors settled in the early 16th century from Njeguš, from the village of Vrba, to the town of Kotor. The story of origin from Montenegro is stated by Zmajevic himself in his "Church Chronicle". Serbian family is not mentioned. Mikola22 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Concur with Buidhe. Both sources are a garbage for this kind of controversial information. Best solution: remove the phrase (and both sources) altogether. Pavlor (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Agree. Retconning a modern Balkan ethnicity back to the 17th century is fraught with peril.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just to clarify for those unfamiliar with the sources, Dan is a high-circulation, relatively independent and right-leaning daily newspaper in Montenegro. The first reference is just from their online edition. Večernje novosti is a Serbian daily with a history of alignment with the right-wing Serbian Progressive Party. The second reference is just to the online edition. Neither is an awesomely reliable source for a matter of this type, and both are prone to ethno-centric claims. For such contentious matters, we should rely on academic literature and biographical pieces. I think the clearly sources above (Fine, Trencsényi & Zászkaliczky, and the Croatian Institute of History-affiliated Čoralić's article in Croatica Christiana periodica) indicate his family should be described as being from Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?

I'm not saying History.com is not reliable... but it's not reliable—ජපස (talk • contribs) 21:00, May 4, 2020‎ (UTC)

Is the website for History generally reliable? I'm not talking about ancient aliens stuff, but information posted on their website such as this? Back in 2009 it looks like it was deemed reliable per how reliable sources are determined, but that was 11 years ago.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable Articles like this one are just fine to cite for historical articles, especially those that are not well studied or super controversial. However, university press books and peer-reviewed academic journal articles are preferred. Certain topics, such as Antisemitism in Poland, may have higher sourcing requirements. buidhe 02:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, that article exudes the whiff of bullshit. And in fact areas that are not well studies are precisely the areas where we should avoid History Channel, due to its long association with cranks. Guy (help!) 18:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Highly unreliable — They produce popular pap, not serious history. Zero^talk 03:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Use with caution - a lot of those articles look like Buzzfeed-style and using the example you asked about I can't find any information on the background of the author "Evan Andrews" to tell if he's a credible historian. I'd be very careful of WP:CIRCULAR issues as well with articles like this. Use of programs as citations might work if the credits show contributions from reliable historians, but of course then there is the problem of availability for verification, and the danger of "artistic license" and dramatizations. I'm almost tempted to say that if History is the only source available for some inclusion, then perhaps its not really worth inclusion. -- Netoholic @ 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Even when the History Channel shows a genuine expert saying something, it doesn't mean it is reliable. What is not shown is often more important than what is shown. I have unfortunate personal experience of this (two shows that I appeared in which egregiously misrepresented experts). They are an entertainment outlet, not an academic institution. Track down what the expert wrote independently and use that. Zero^talk 03:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Use with caution - I agree with Netoholic's concerns. I wouldn't object to using it as a source for a basic fact but if anouther source contradics or if the claim is controversial I would be cautious. Springee (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Use academic sources instead, treat press releases with caution, and avoid entertainment outlets entirely. If it's significant enough to include in an article, it will be found in much higher quality sources. If the only available source is the History Channel, then it's most likely not significant enough to include or undue. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Probably not, no. It depends on exactly what fact(s) you want to ref, but... Ghengis Khan has been very thoroughly studied for many centuries, there's tons of good academic material I'm sure. If you've got a fact to want to use, and this is your only source for that fact... that's a big red flag, plus also an indication that the fact may not be very important. For obscure subjects it'd possibly be different. I don't have a good vibe about how thoroughly the article was checked by an independent fact checker, altho that's just a guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable (yes because of the ancient alien stuff), When they were not the "UFO channel" they were "the Nazi channel" or "the conspiracy channel". Basically the TV equivalent of one of those "fact or fiction" magazines that peddle sensationalism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable I can't imagine any reason to use the History Channel as a reference; the few articles I paged through consisted of superficial factoids and are almost certainly based on higher-quality sources that we should find and cite instead. –dlthewave ☎ 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable It's a legitimate news channel with professional writers. The issue here why anyone would chose to use as a source an article called "10 Things You May Not Know About Genghis Khan," no matter who wrote it, especially when it does not provide sources? If the top scientist at NASA wrote an illustrated book called "Wonders of our Universe for Children," it would not be a useful source, whoever the publisher was. TFD (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

But from what I have seen this is the level of most (well all I have seen) of their content. Its all "ancient Aliens" and "Hitlers 10 worst underpants".Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, in the current climate, I might even watch that. Guy (help!) 20:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. The publisher publishes information on aliens in ancient history as well as conspiracy theories about Hitler's demise (see: TV Review: ‘Hunting Hitler’). The History channel does air (and write) some reputable documentaries, however separating the wheat from the chaff is impossible on a publisher basis here.--Hippeus (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Avoid. Anything accurate can be better cited to sources that are far MORE reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable: As the popular media descend into a frenzy of clickbait, it's rather sad that history.com has joined them — popular pablum may be nice for the public, but we need reliable, well-sourced, preferably academic sources, especially for history. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, with caution though (as with all sources). As mediabiasfactcheck reports They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. Disqualifying them entirely is extreme. As others have said in most cases a better source exists probably though. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Media Bias/Fact Check is unreliable as it is self published and has questionable methodology per WP:MBFC Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: wasn't aware it was in the list thanks. I've checked real quick the discussions. Am I correct in saying it has been considered to have questionable methodology in relation to the "left/right" bias but not the "factual" score? Seems that way from a quick look at the linked discussions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: While much of the discussion was about orientation, much of the other discussion was about that it apparently changes the result based on users, and the that it uses wikipedia as a source. I would avoid using it. The main issue is that is a self published source by a single person who appearently works as a healthcare professional, Wikipedia usually avoids self published sources for a reason and if they are to be used they should be subject matter experts, which he is clearly not. What makes him any different to some person with a blog on Medium? I don't see any good reason to cite it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: That's a bit of an exaggeration. The "publisher" is apparently one person but he does use a panel of evaluators to make an assessment according to a published methodology https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ We have relied on stuff like https://beallslist.net for years on wiki and some people still do.

In any case your point is valid and I agree it's not the be-all end-all of media reliability (nothing is) but in this case I agree with their assessment. You can read their assessment as mine except for the "to favor liberal causes" which I have no clue about. The political spectrum in the US is very different from the European one. Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto Yes, but quoting assessments because you agree with them is called (not to be rude) confirmation bias. We don't take self-published sources (like blogs) at face value as RS unless they are "Established experts" per WP:SELFPUB. Jeffrey Beall is a professional librarian, and therefore an established expert on the topic of academic journals. As far as I am aware, nobody involved with MBFC has any sort of established expertise in politics or media, and therefore it should hold the same due weight as a random medium post, i.e. none. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Think about it, if only experts could provide something useful, Wikipedia would not exist. It all depends on the methodology you employ and obviously all methodologies have their flaws. Interesting read citing MBFC: [87]. In any case, as I have said I was unaware of the finer points of MBFC when I cited them. However, confirmation bias notwithstanding, I stand by my assessment. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Think about it, if only experts could provide something useful

I'd say that, no, you haven't thought about, ESPECIALLY since you're positing this misinterpretation in the very place that disproves it: what, exactly, do you think the function of a "reliable source noticeboard" is? It's to figure out who really ARE the experts who can provide "something useful" and not some amateurs who are simply saying what you want to hear. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hemiauchenia and Gtoffoletto, Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is indeed a self-published source authored by someone who is not considered a subject-matter expert under the definition in WP:SPS. This means that MBFC should not be used in article space. For discussions in project and talk space, it's okay to link to MBFC if you agree with its analysis, but linking to MBFC does not make your argument any stronger than if you asserted it without referencing MBFC. When editors cite MBFC on this noticeboard, I point out the fact that MBFC is self-published – not because its evaluations are necessarily wrong, but because MBFC's evaluations carry no weight compared to statements in reliable sources. MBFC is still a good starting point for research: MBFC's entries frequently include links to reliable sources (such as reliable fact-checkers). However, in past discussions, editors consider MBFC's evaluations to be generally unreliable. I hope this clarifies the use of MBFC on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 10:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100%. In any case. This discussion is not about MBFC. We are way off topic. Thanks for illuminating me on MBFC as I was not aware of the problems with that source. I still agree with their assessment of this source. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable I'm not sure why any article like "Top 10 facts about Genghis Khan" should be cited in any article, we should preferrably be using academic papers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that article is not a reliable source and much better sources are surely available. I would hesitate to disqualify the entire publisher though. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, honestly, I wouldn't be at all reluctant. Guy (help!) 18:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Guy, haven't you stated the opposite in your vote below? I completely agree with what you said below: "case-by-case" and certainly not the only source (I would apply this to everything though) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, what I am saying is that based on this report I would be at least very cautious, but I leave the door wide open with a Welcome mat to evidence supporting deprecation. I would never cite History Channel. Guy (help!) 18:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy I see what you mean and agree. But I wouldn't disqualify them completely as they do also publish interviews with sources that would not be usable if we disqualify the whole publisher. I would advise caution with this source and always prefer alternatives but blanket bans are quite extreme and can have unanticipated repercussions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly not blanket reliable, given their history of publishing complete bollocks, so I think this would need to be case-by-case. That said, if History Channel is the only source for something? I would exclude it anyway. Guy (help!) 18:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable, having done some more reading. Here's an example: [88]. HC broadcast a conspiracy theorist documentary. It was knocked down trivially easily by a blogger, *but* we can't cite bloggers. So if we allow HC to be considered reliable, given their long record of producing, frankly, bollocks, we introduce a situation where a source that is known for producing bollocks might stand as fact until a reliable source decides the bollocks is notable enough to publish the debunking. I repeat also my earlier assertion:L anything that is only on HC should not be included. Which leaves a situation where the only legitimate use of HC is as an additional source for something that is already covered by a better one - and by linking the redundant source we risk drawing people down a rabbit hole because we don't know what else is in the programme and we can't trust them to stick to tiresome reality. Guy (help!) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Trade off - There is an old Wikipedia trade-off that is useful for us and our readers (see generally wp:preserve). We want our articles to say something, and we want our articles verifiable (but note verifiable does not mean always cited). Basically, there is noting wrong with telling a reader here is something true (if it is true and relevant) and history channel says so too. But if it's something not true or there is a controversy about it history channel is going to lose out to better documentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, and who judges? Say, for example, History Channel produces a documentary that claims Amelia Earhart ended up in Japanese custody on the Marshall Islands, and the US Government knew but covered it up? Who says whether this is true or not? Should we "preserve" that content because it has truthiness? Guy (help!) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipdians judge. As for my judgement, I would not host a new theory or claim or speculation from the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - Most of what it pushes these days is of little substance. If the fact you want to add to an article is of any importance it can be found elsewhere. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Marginally reliable, but basically useless as anything they publish factually should be sourced to better sources anyways. For anything which is reliable (i.e. not the Aliens crap, etc.) it serves as a very shallow tertiary source with so little depth as to be basically useless. Not the "burn with fire" sort of stuff we would seek out to remove immediately, but it should be replaced when convenient and avoided when better, more scholarly sources exist, which they usually do. --Jayron32 19:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable I don't watch much TV and certainly I am no expert here, but in the few shows that I've watched they TV-ized the facts to make them more interesting and sensational. I vaguely remember one show where they presented information as though it was mind-blowing new information when as a matter of fact it was widely accepted stuff. IMO it is worth watching but not worthy of using as a reliable source. Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Something in the back of my mind is going "oi mate look over here", I seem to recall just such a usage of some history channel tosh in just this way. Some old and not at all new theory being presented as if it was some new and shocking revelation. AS I said above sensationalist rubbish that gores the intellect for click bait cheap shocks.Slatersteven (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - not everything on the site is crap, but too much is. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• I just wanted to say I really enjoy Forged in Fire (TV series) myself as light entertainment combined with technical wonkery. But yeah, I wouldn't say history.com is reliable for history.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable. It is, at very best, far too shallow to be actually useful. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• History Channel? Even though the OP is "not talking about ancient aliens stuff", nevertheless that is the outlet with the credulous UFO programs. Absolutely not reliable. If there's what looks like a reasonable documentary with academic sources, why wouldn't we instead look for those sources? Though apparently one of History.com's sources is Wikipedia,[89] — you know about Wikipedia? It's a user-generated site that anybody can edit! Bishonen | tålk 10:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Note: The diff you linked isn't about history.com. We were talking about something else -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable and we shouldn't be basing our encyclopedia upon listicles anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable - offers far too much obvious rubbish. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Multiple editors have already mentioned Ancient Aliens and UFO Files/UFO Hunters, but I think History's most egregious violation of journalistic expectations is their handling of their discredited 2017 documentary, Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence. The documentary presented a photograph that was claimed to be of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan being captured alive by Japanese forces after they disappeared in 1937; however, two days after the documentary aired, the photo was confirmed to have been published in 1935. History stopped airing the documentary and withdrew it from streaming services, but never retracted the claims that were made in the documentary despite promising an investigation, with this page on the conspiracy theory still online. This incident illustrates History's lack of fact-checking, and their unwillingness to retract discredited claims. With the unretracted Earhart documentary, pseudoscientific programs like Ancient Aliens, and other conspiracy theory shows such as Hunting Hitler (discussed by Hippeus above), History as a publisher makes enough false and unsubstantiated claims to be considered a questionable source. — Newslinger talk 12:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable/Attribution only - we should avoid History as a source , with the only possible exception being an in-text attribution if, say, a notable historian were interviewed in a History program/article. The issue with citing History as a source is that they often try to cover WP:FRINGE perspectives, a viewpoint which fundamentally conflicts with Wikipedia's encyclopedic prerogative to reflect what is covered in WP:RS. History is presumably right some of the time - something-something blind squirrels and stopped clocks - but we can also presume that any important historical detail they write into their programming will be covered in more traditional, reliable sources better suited to be cited by Wikipedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and on a personal note I think their programming is swill. When I was younger I used to love watching their military history programming, but when I grew older, began reading actual literature, and started working in some of the industries covered I realized what garbage the programming I watched was. AND keep in mind this was stuff that was on before History became infamous for covering sensationalist, fringe topics... I can only imagine what the channel airs now. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be black listed...... an embarrassment to the academic community. People who thinks it's reliable should not be editing history articles at all.--Moxy 🍁 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this discussion is being used to remove article content covering interviews and documents published by History and regarding the article subject [90]. I don't think this was the point of this discussion (which is also not over yet). I don't think the consensus is to ban or black list the source (although some have proposed it). If anything I think this is an example of why we should not COMPLETELY ban this source. It may report interviews with witnesses/sources/historians (like SamHolt6 pointed out) and we should be able to use History's coverage if useful. I think most agree there may be sensationalist language and wild/fringe speculation but the reporting is usually attempting to be factual. Mistakes happen but as the Earhart documentary mentioned above proves when information published is disproven or not verified it is usually removed from programming. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying History.com is not about UFO's... but it's being used about UFO's.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences

Is this a reliable source? I wanted to use it to source a sentence about vegetation changes in Ethiopia during the African humid period, but I know nothing about this publication. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Africa-related regional notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa. — Newslinger talk 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at editorial team, all of them are from Addis Ababa University (AAU) which I believe has some prestige in Ethiopia. University associated journals have lower prestige than international journals, but the team there is composed of experts.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Its in to the top 30 universities in Africa, at 16 position. These universities will cover topics specific to areas and countries they serve. Conlinp (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll apply it then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikitree

• wikitree.com  

Being used as a reference for the ancestry of lots of people. Looking at a random example the entries appear to have "Profile managers", and looking at the profile manager for that page there's no evidence he has any kind of professional experience. The various member types on the website are detailed here, and I can see nothing that convinces me this is a reliable reference at all. FDW777 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

With 562 articles using it as a reference, it looks like a big cleanup job. Does anyone think it should be blacklisted? FDW777 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that they have a Wikipedia article (WikiTree).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, it can be added tot he edit filters, ask at WP:EFN. Guy (help!) 18:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This absolutely should be blacklisted imo. There is no value outside of the article about it. @Primefac: could a bot run be done to remove the link and replace with {{cn}} or something? Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Filmreference.com

There really needs to be a discussion with a goal of adding to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It has been previously discussed here, here, here, and here (likely partial listing). There is general consensus that the site is not reliable because there is no editorial oversight. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Repository of resources notes: "Not a reliable source for article use; use only for research purposes". -- Otr500 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's already blacklisted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Florida Bulldog reliable?

Is the Florida Bulldog online news outlet reliable for Biographies of Living Persons or other topics?
ToeFungii (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Florida Bulldog is an online news outlet that focuses on investigative reports according to its mission statement (See Here).
• Began as a county reporter in 2009 and starting in 2015 began covering South Florida news.
• Reported extensively, including FOIA lawsuits, regarding 9/11 (although not used on any Wikipedia 9/11 articles).
• Has: published conflict of interest policies, a full-time editor, a Board of Directors, a Board of Advisors, and a donor list; a 501C3 operation that does not post its IRS Form 990s.
• The exact size of its staff and their level of employment is difficult to determine.

Note: The primary reason this source is being listed is due to content on Gregory Tony. The Bulldog published an unfavorable article about Mr. Tony who contradicted statements in a traditional & online newspaper, the Sun-Sentinel.
The two articles are: Bulldog article | Sun-Sentinel article.

Comments
Well its does seem to have a clear line between editor and writer, but I note a disturbing obsession with 11/9. I would need to see that have a good reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Not exactly answering the question, but does he even merit an article? not sure what category Sheriffs fall under to check the notability requirements. Certainly doesn't show WP:GNG at present - its a BLP, with only two references! Curdle (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• That seems to be wrong Sun-Sentinel link posted above. The Sun Sentinel article discusses the Florida Bulldog article for what it's worth.[91]. Not only this, the underlying decades old Philadelphia Daily News news story about the shooting is discussed here.[92] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

* Biased - The Bulldog appears to be similar to the Washington Examiner and Times in that it leans/slants its reporting. In looking through the Bulldog's staff, directors, and advisors they all appear to lean a particular political way based on past position (incl elected/appointed) and donations. Its historically top donor is Michael Connelly who according to the FEC has donated frequently to liberal/Democrat candidates and organizations (he's donated over $40,000 per year since 2014 and over $10,000 since the site began.). See donors and FEC Contributions, but others are also liberal/Democrat contributors. So while it has a better structure than a blog, it has a definite political viewpoint that is expressed in its articles. Also the Bulldog's biggest claim to fame is its 9/11 reporting as it devotes a significant portion of its site to it, but none of its reporting is used as a cite here on Wikipedia.

For the article in question, Tony was appointed by a Rep, so even though he is a Dem, he's not the chosen Dem. The Bulldog article never lists its story sources, and it's since been picked up by other news outlets. If Tony had in fact been charged, there would be a paper trail and it's never sourced in any article. Tony can't prove a negative, ie he wasn't charged, so all he can do is make statements. as proposer ToeFungii (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The 1619 Project and the World Socialist Web Site

The critical views/criticism language of The 1619 Project -- other than the bits of reflexive conservative anklebiting -- is almost completely sourced to the World Socialist Web Site. This does NOT look kosher to me. --Calton | Talk 09:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Its run by the NYT, so I will actually need to see something that says this is crap.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The World Socialist Web Site is run by the New York Times? Buh? --Calton | Talk 10:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

No the 1619 Project is. If you had made this about one single source my response would have been clear.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think WSWS might be reliable as a source for opinions it publishes, but not as a secondary source on anyone else's opinions. It's hard to disentangle what falls into those two brackets in this particular article. This is not an issue for this noticeboard, but I'd also question the noteworthyness of the material: the historians' views might be noteworthy, but the views of one fringe website aren't - see WP:DUE. So if the historians' views are only published by WSWS then not worth including in the article.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WSWS is a resource site, not an RS as Wikipedia uses the term. I'd expect reprints of third-party sources would be fidelitous. Opinion pieces on the site would be blog posts, and would need to be expert SPSes or similar I'd expect - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is the RS question here?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish Week reliability?

How reliable is The Jewish Week? It reports that Shai Reshef is the son of Polish-Jewish Holocaust refugees. A Wikipedia user who says they are a content manager for his university started this discussion, stating that the info is incorrect (from first hand experience). How should this be handled? TJMSmith (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

His first hand experience is wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is a respected NYC publication. Doesn't mean it is universally right, The New York Times has errors on occasion as well. If you can't find a second source, you might as well leave it out as it is a small detail.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about The Daily Mail)

• Daily Mail fakes own historical front pages --Guy Macon (talk)

Quote from WP:DAILYMAIL: "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically"

We need to modify our handling of old pages from The Daily Mail to say that care must be taken to cite the original historical material and watch out for modern, edited versions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Christ on a stick, what is wrong with them? This is exactly why some of us do not think the "discouragement" goes far enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly suggest removing the text "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context" from WP:RSP, or cautioning also that they literally fake their own historical articles. Never trust the DM - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Instead of using their own historical material, they took the trouble to invent fakes that look "old-timey" (and they buried a vaguely-worded disclaimer four pages down). Do they think that slightly yellowed images won't bring in the clicks? Is fabrication simply their instinctive course of action? In any case, I support David Gerard's suggestion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I could formulate a rewording ... but idiots try to drive trucks through anything that looks like an exception. So I'd suggest this behaviour is egregious enough to remove the sentence. If people want to argue it case by case they can show they went to a microfilm archive or something, 'cos we literally can't trust the online version or reprints not to make stuff up - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be my take, There are archive versions not held by the Daily Myth. Thus any use if the DM must be independent of the DM.Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, in this case BoingBoing seems to be insinuating that the Mail may have been trying to make themselves look less pro-Nazi, so there is a motive beyond a contempt for journalistic integrity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair it looks more like a case of "our readers are so shallow they cannot understand anything not couched in modern terms and style". What I do not understand is why bother to make so much effort to create a "Fakesimalie". They could have done a "Yay for us 70 years ago" without "faking" a front page so totally (such as "for King and Empire").Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove wording. This is yet another reason why we cannot trust this source. buidhe 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.[93] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would rather this had been given more time for wider feedback, not that I disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am tempted to revert that for 2 main reasons: 1. The inclusion there is the result of two RFC's. The wording is a summary of those RFC outcomes. By changing the wording fundementally in that manner, it no longer reflects the RFC. What that change does is prohibit (at least that is what it will be taken to do) all uses of Daily Mail historical material. It certainly needs a bigger discussion than the brief one here. 2. Its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Daily Mail despite its more recent faults has plenty of decent reporting over the decades previous. We cite the original publication, not The Daily Mail's reworked version of it. A more appropriate response would be adding wording to ensure the material cited has been verified from copies of the orignal. We take it on good faith anyway that written sources we dont have access to say what the editor says they do, and any editor using this as an excuse to misrepresent sources would be rumbled pretty quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would we rather used a nuclear bomb over such blatant crappyness, but I get your point, and said as much myself early on. Yes I would rather you reverted and this was made a formal RFC to overturn the last two.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See [94].

Looks like I need to start a new Daily Mail RfC in order to make any changes to the Daily mail entry in the perennial sources list. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See below - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary

The WP:RSP summary on the Daily Mail includes the sentence "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". However, the Daily Mail also presents altered versions of its historical content, as documented above. (At the bottom of the altered content was a small single-sentence disclaimer noting it had been "specially edited and adapted" - which was not noticed by many members of the general public.) This leaves readily available historical versions of Daily Mail content questionable - as well as its untrustworthiness per the 2017 WP:DAILYMAIL RFC and its 2019 ratification, the site dailymail.co.uk appears not to be trustworthy about the Daily Mail's own past content.

Suggested options:

1. Remove the "reliable historically" sentence from the summary on WP:RSP
2. Add a qualifier: "Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail."
3. Do nothing
4. Something else

Suggested action on WP:RSPDM

• Remove the sentence - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as the material they did publish might be reliable, they are just not reliable for having published it. But if it is reliable someone else would have written about it. Thus (and given the possibly of accidental or deliberate abuse) I have to change to remove, if they cannot be trusted over what they themselves have published they cannot be trusted over anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per David Gerard's reasoning below. As a secondary consideration, we should be discoraging use of historical newspaper sources anyway. buidhe 10:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove, with the caveat that the print edition may pass, so a print archive might be acceptable? Guy (help!) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So (in essence) remove and add qualifier?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't even add suggested ways to use the DM, they'll be taken as blanket permissions - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:RSPDM

I think we should just remove the sentence. It's ill-defined and not well supported in the RFCs themselves - when, precisely, was the DM not terrible? By what measure? - and IMO, encrusting a qualifier with further qualifiers is not clear. And qualifiers have historically been used by editors who want to use bad content as an excuse to add otherwise-unusable content - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that there are things they are notable for (such as the photo of St Pauls), but then if its notable others would have noted it, we don't need to use the (well this) Daily Myth).Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this unique to the DM?

Do other news sources do this? If so, we probably need to address it at the policy (WP:RS or WP:V) level. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

CGTN (China Global Television Network)

CGTN is an international news channel and website, that is ultimately controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Its widespread availability makes it comparable to Russia Today. It has only been briefly discussed once a few months ago where it was noted to not be used in any articles. This number is now over 500 articles  . CGTN has attracted controversy for airing forced confessions. My questions about its reliablility are:

• 1. Is it a generally reliable source?
• 2. Does it have a history of mixing factual reporting with propaganda, as with Russia Today?
• 3. Is it reliable for reporting on China and Chinese politics?

Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• 1=No. 2=Yes. 3=No. There shouldn’t be too much debate over this one, the general tenor of the reporting can be summed up by this piece,"By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” [95]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable in very limited contexts (to support the fact that the Chinese government issued a statement about events, for example). But in-text attribution is needed. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• 1. CGTN publishes a lot of good material on many topics, comparable to other national broadcasters for non-controversial topics. 2. I don't know, it may be better than Russia Today for some topics, but see the next point. 3., use WP:INTEXT attribution for contentious topics (e.g. Xinjiang re-reducation camps), not for routine stuff (e.g. date of the appointment of an official). --MarioGom (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  By the way, skimming through the list of articles that use it as a source, I think a lot of them (majority?) are good examples of contexts in which CGTN is perfectly usable. MarioGom (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• More or less the same as other state-owned media:
  1. For topics that aren’t as politically sensitive like tourism information or uncontroversial cultural highlights, it’s somewhat acceptable. For politically sensitive topics, it’s only reliable in very limited contexts, e.g. for statements on government statements as Blueboar mentioned.
  2. There’s a fair amount.
  3. Only in limited contexts as mentioned in 1: mostly only reliable for government statements. Assessments and criticisms given by CGTN can be carefully mentioned with attribution.

As usual, it should be used with care and WP:INTEXT attribution if the topic is remotely controversial. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• CGTN tends to be generally reliable for non-political contexts. Articles such as this are just as good quality as articles from other news sources, on topics that English language news sources rarely themselves cover. For political or controversial contexts, statements made by CGTN should be attributed to CGTN themselves. CGTN should rarely be used for politically sensitive or controversial sources without attribution. To specifically address the questions of Hemiauchenia: 1. Generally reliable for non-political contexts, such as culture and tourism. 2. CGTN will likely present politically sensitive or controversial topics in a way to support the Chinese government. Claims made by CGTN should be attributed when they are made, and CGTN should not be used in these contexts very often. 3. It seems to be reliable reporting on China-related topics, although topics on things like government activities should always be treated with caution and attributed when used (as I mentioned in point 2). Khu'hamgaba Kitap ^talk 14:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau

Is the BBB a reliable source for this statement at Genesis Communications Network?

"Anderson created the network in 1998 "as a way to promote his company, Midas Resources, a precious metals firm which as of September 11, 2015, Theodore Anderson's bullion coin representative registration. No. 40389579, was revoked. Further, Theodore Anderson was prohibited from being an owner, officer, member, or shareholder of any entity that holds a bullion coin dealer registration in the State of Minnesota for two years. "

I've underlined the text in question, the promotion bit is from the other source. Note that the " before 'as a way' has no concluding ". Doug Weller talk 14:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

While the BBB is not a proper legal venue, I would consider the conclusions they make about a business the equivalent of primary court records and the like when presented on the example page. BBB's investigations are reliable (after they have processed the complaints from users) to determine where a business has been in legal trouble or other similar business, but I would not be pulling them in unless I had already existing sourcing that puts their business status in question. --Masem (t) 14:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use BBB as a source for its own material (e.g. their ratings for a business), but I can't think of a good reason not to include this as it appears to be a statement of fact that would carry legal penalties if it were stated in anything other than good faith, backed by primary sources. Guy (help!) 18:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Two genealogy sites

• royalark.net  
• worldstatesmen.org  

Most of List of current pretenders seems to be drawn from two web 1.0 sites: Royal Ark and World Statesmen.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Self-published royalty websites showed consensus against using Royal Ark in respect of living individuals (all entries on the pretenders list are living). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Kekoolani predicated much of its argument on the assumption that this consensus holds. If anything, World Statesmen looks worse.

There are nearly 2,000 citations to royalark.net and over 3,750 to worldstatesmen.org.

It looks to me as if these should be deprecated and added to the unreliable sources filter, as this is functionally indistinguishable from spam at this point. Guy (help!) 18:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can also add thepeerage.com   to this list, which has nearly 10,000 citations and appears to be a self published source. What's your opinion on the reliability of Burke's Peerage and the Almanach de Gotha? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Citing individual Youtube reviews and Know Your Meme

Are these reliable in gauging reception? In the [[[Nostalgic Critic]] article, several of those response videos as well as the Know Your Meme page, which seem to be under evaluation, are used as examples of negative reception towards one of the subject's works. They don't seem to reach WP:notability as well.--PatCheng (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is has to be case by case, if Anita Sarkeesian was to review a game yes (as she would pass SPS), if however I was to know (as who would give a damn what I think, me and my shadow).Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ourcampaigns.com

(ping -A-M-B-1996-) A number of US election redirects (1978 United States Senate election in Kansas, ...Iowa, ...Idaho, ...Oklahoma) have recently been turned into articles using ourcampaigns.com as the primary (and for three their only) source. Previous threads here have not nailed down whether this source should be considered as reliable, but www.ourcampaigns.com/about.html indicates that it is user contributed (though somewhat patrolled?). This source is currently used in about 2700 articles, but does not appear at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I believe that it should be listed there, and that at minimum the site's use should be restricted if not deprecated. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)