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, 455, 456, 457

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

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Breitbart again

The edit at issue:

Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said “It is absurd to have movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”

IHO, Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions by its commentators clearly presented as opinion. The material has been repeatedly excised with comments: The "consensus" on BRD doesn't override WP policies involving questionable sources, they can't make claims about 3rd parties, reverted to revision 636802416 by Gamaliel: Per WP:BRD and WP:BLP concerns; please discuss on talk and reach consensus before edit warring to include contentious material, Dubious source commenting directly on living individuals, should be used with caution and only after consensus for inclusion, Undid revision 636723525 by Srich32977 (talk) Breitbart is QS and multiple past noticeboard discussions have concluded that it is not a reliable source, and Contentious claims about third parties is against wp:qs and wp:aboutself. Such quotes can only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Again IMHO, the comment about "movie critics" is not directed at specific individuals, and is clearly an opinion about some critics who are not named or singled out here. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review. seems to have a result, as did Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review. which had a clear result - that is the cavil that it is not RS for opinions fails in a nanosecond. Leaving only the claim that WP:BLP is invoked for the reference to "movie critics". As the primary issue is asserted in the edit comments to be the one of WP:RS, this board is the place for discussion. Collect (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that Breitbart has a reputation of any sort for high-quality movie reviews, or for movie reviews at all. Maybe we should source movie opinion to third-party independent reviewers with actual reputations for offering critical opinions about movies? There are plenty of bloggers and questionable sources that write about movies they've seen; that doesn't make them RS for movie opinions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is a reliable source for its own opinion, but the issue isweight - who cares what its opinions on film critics is? TFD (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that there are potential WP:Weight problems, but that is a different issue. The question before us is if it is a reliable source for its own opinion in this matter, and the answer to that question I think is yes. --Obsidi (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. If this is a questionable source, it can't be considered a reliable source for article content regarding its opinion about third-parties. That goes beyond WP:WEIGHT, it's from the WP:RS guideline.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but in this case, I don't think what they are talking about meets WP:BLPGROUP. --Obsidi (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about BLPGROUP. Third-parties are defined more broadly in WP:RS. Questionable sources shouldn't be used for opinions on third parties.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable Source, Breitbart.com meets all the requirements set forth in WP:IRS, just as does the Huffington Post. It is partisan, just as Salon and Huffington Post are, but that does not make any of them unreliable. See WP:BIASED regarding Breitbart.com and others I listed. This board is not about weight issues that is for WP:NPOV/N.

I agree that at least in my opinion Breitbart is as reliable as Salon and Huffington Post, and probably more reliable then Rolling stone after this most recent UVA Rape Story (I mean talk about a poor reputation for checking the facts). In the past it has been considered a WP:Questionable sources but wp:Consensus can change. --Obsidi (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that its reputation has improved. Consensus could change, but that involves more actual agreement on the source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of course Breitbart is reliable for its own attributed, quoted opinions. The section in question is explicitly covering political commentary reaction to a political documentary (that means subjective opinions), and contains political punditry from sources like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, and others. Singling out the most prominent conservative news/opinion site for exclusion, one which employs professional reporters, editors, and critics (unlike many of the section's other, leftist sites), is not only absurd on the merits but would constitute a gross WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't excluded from that page, it has at least another quote that is specifically about their opinion of the movie; the other opinion sources you mentioned are about their opinions of the movie, not each other or the general state of movie reviewing. There's no indication that Breitbart is a usable source for article material from its editorials, or to describe whether people are too liberal to review films.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has already been found reliable for the film review on the basis that it's reliable for its own attributed opinions, so there's no legitimate, rational basis for asserting that it's somehow not reliable for its own attributed opinions on other topics, particularly ones where expertise is less of a factor. The controlling factor on inclusion would be WP:NPOV and due weight on a case by case basis, not sourcing policy. The section in question here is explicitly dedicated to political commentary, which Shapiro's article about the reception to this particular movie undeniably falls under, and there's no policy basis for prohibiting commentary about the reception to the movie in film articles (indeed there are numerous examples of such quoted opinion on receptions, particularly where there's some controversy at play). As long as the opinion is properly attributed it's allowable and important for us to cover. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not follow that Breitbart should be used as a source for general "political commentary" just because there was an RfC that thought a single review of a movie could be used, in a limited context. Please understand: Found usable for one context, never means found usable for all contexts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It does follow because the sourcing argument being used against it is the same rejected in the first RFC. Not only is this a similar situation (actually one that should be less, not more, restrictive, as I said above), but it's the same freaking article. RS status depends on context, but established precedents aren't irrelevant. VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

One use is not an established precedent, as has been explained many times. Looking at that RfC, more than a few supporters indicated Breitbart was a generally questionable source and shouldn't be used for more than a movie review. WP:RS says that opinions about groups, even very loosely defined, should be given more care, not less. Now, you're repeating yourself, so I can only repeat the policies. There's not much point in doing that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It establishes a precedent if the same issues are at play, especially in the same article. And no, most respondents approved Breitbart as RS because its own attributed opinions were being quoted. There was nothing singular or magical about film reviews somehow being ok when other opinions weren't. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Breitbart.com is not a reliable source and qualifies as a questionable source as outlined by multiple facets of WP:QS.

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts" Even the WP article for Breitbart.com outlines multiple instances where the site did little to no fact checking and/or published stories that were blatantly false or had no evidence to support them. On Politifact Breitbart.com appears with a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating and has hosted numerous other blogs/articles that received "mostly false" to "pants on fire" ratings. Other news outlets have criticized Breitbart's lack of fact checking including the Washington Post, New York Magazine, and The Daily Beast.

"Questionable sources are those that have...an apparent conflict of interest." Conflict of interest is defined in WP:QS to include "Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors" Breitbart.com writes multiple articles promoting Fox News polls and their parent company which also advertises on the site. They have also written and published articles attacking their competitors like the New York Daily News when Shapiro called them "hacks". The WP:QS "conflict of interest" goes on to say "news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors." This article exposes an apparent conflict of interest in an article published by Breitbart.com. The sources for conflict of interest also go on to say "They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company." and "a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood." Breitbart.com has multiple apparent conflict of interest as defined by the references in WP:QS.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional" This is backed up with multiple sources referring to Breitbart's articles, authors, and positions as extremist.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that...rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip" This can be observed by reading numerous incidents on the WP breitbart.com article in the "Controversies" section. These instances include the "Friends of Hamas" controversy, the "Paul Krugmen" hoax, and the Loretta Lynch gossip story.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views...that rely heavily on...personal opinion." Breitbart.com relies heavily on its personal opinion blogs/articles from numerous contributors and editors. They rely so heavily on it that even the lead for the WP article refers to Breitbart.com as an "opinion website". It's not rare to see opinion pieces plastered all over their front page while only a few links are actually credited to "Breitbart News".

Breitbart.com is a questionable on multiple accounts. The funny thing is that it only needs to meet one of the identifiers to be considered a questionable source and here it clearly qualifies for multiple identifiers. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A wall of text rehashing prior discussions on the RS/N noticeboard which repeatedly found Breitbart to be RS for opinions cited as opinions seems a waste here and the added implicit claim that Breitbart is so extremist as to be anathema is absurd. It is cited by WaPo, NYT, LAT etc. which would belie the claim that it is somehow to the extreme right of the KKK or the like. Sorry -- this has already been discussed - and dismissed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's questionable on multiple counts. This isn't a "dismissed" concern just because you disagree with the assessment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And banging the opinions cited as opinions drum ignores the fact that WP:RS does not treat all opinions the same. Being found reliable for some opinions not about people, does not translate to being found usable in articles for any opinion, and especially not about third parties. This is true of all sources, not just Breitbart. Every time you assert that Breitbart is a usable source for any opinion, you're misrepresenting actual policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

At least four discussions on the article talk page and at noticeboards disagree with your demurral. 0 for 4 is not a strong case for your position. Including at an article talk page closing of an RfC Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review? et al. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a simple, simple point. Being found as a usable source for one item, doesn't whitelist it for all items. The RfC you point to is for a movie review, not an opinion about people. Looking through the archives here at the RS/N, I can't find any other discussions where Breitbart wasn't challenged as a questionable source. Your "et al" doesn't exist.

Those discussions don't override policy and you're trying to dismiss the arguments made with your own strawman argument. WP:QS clearly outlines when questionable sources can be used as reliable sources for their own comments. This was never in contention because it's clearly outlined in the policy. However, WP:QS and other policies do limit where questionable sources can be used as reliable sources. That's the part you and others have repeatedly ignored in the RFC and in the discussion. This issue has been raised by myself and others and ignored by you. WP:QS says they should ONLY be used on material about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. The WP article "America: Imagine a World Without Her" is not material about breitbart.com or Shapiro, nor is it an article about one of the two. So WP policy is clear that it can not be used. Now, on the WP Ben Shapiro article, if you want to say "On may 20, 2013 Shapiro criticized leftist film critics panning a movie" then you could use Breitbart.com as a reliable source because it would act as a primary source for material about itself. That's what those clauses in WP:QS apply to and they clearly include the aspect of the RFC that you and others are clinging to, but also include where and how it can be used and where and how it can't be used. You know, the part that you keep ignoring.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The criteria for assessing a source's reliability include a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Breitbart websites do not have such a reputation. In fact, quite the opposite: they have a reputation for publishing misleading or false information, often about living people, in service of their political agenda. (Examples include the deceptively edited videotape which led to the resignation of Shirley Sherrod; a news article falsely claiming that Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy; and publishing recklessly false criminal allegations which cost a private citizen his job; see [1] and [2], among others).

  It's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reliability depends on context, and this context is about a subjective, attributed opinion in a section dedicated to such opinions and currently including them from far left blogs like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, etc., not for supporting facts in Wikipedia's voice. That said, I dispute your characterization of Breitbart. Breitbart did not edit the Sherrod tape (and indeed posted the video they received for the crowd reaction, not the comments seized on by other media outlets; it's not their fault a panicky administration jumped the gun and fired her for the wrong reason). By contrast, NBC actually did selectively edit a 911 tape to make George Zimmerman look racist and infamously rigged vehicles to explode in a fraudulent consumer reports investigation, CBS used a forged memo to try and sway a presidential election, CNN's chief news executive admitted after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 that for years the network had buried stories of atrocities and given Hussien's regime relatively favorable coverage in exchange for greater access and falsely accussed the US military of atrocities in the Tailwind scandal, The NY Times published numerous totally made up stories by reporter Jayson Blair in a major journalistic fraud scandal, a rabidly biased BBC drove one source to commit suicide after twisting his comments about Iraq for their own agenda, and there was massive irresponsible and inaccurate media coverage by numerous outlets (esp. the NY Times, NBC, and CNN) on issues ranging from the Duke lacrosse rape scandal to the recent Ferguson and Rolling Stone "gang rape" stories. I could go on and on, with more examples from these outlets and others. In at least most of these cases the fraud was discovered by outsiders, often conservative media. The outlets in question typically responded initially by digging in and doubling down on their fraudulent stories, only reluctantly issuing retractions and/or firing people as pressure grew. Don't even get me started on the serial dishonesty of blogs like Media Matters, the Daily Kos, etc. that are currently quoted in the section for their subjective opinions, and lack the type of professional editor/reporter/critic teams that Breitbart employs. The bottom line is that linking to 1-3 examples of alleged malfeasance by Breitbart, particularly when you're linking to leftist sources and the malfeasance is arguable at best, doesn't prove anything more about Breitbart's reliability than the above scandals do about those sources. Though, as I said above, it's irrelevant to this issue anyway since we're merely discussing attributed, quoted, subjective political opinions. If anything, editors who seek to exclude the internet's most prominent conservative site from a section explicitly dedicated to covering political pundits' opinions on such flimsy grounds forfeits a great deal of credibility when it comes to assessing sources, applying policy, and editing in a neutral fashion. VictorD7 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfection is hard to achieve, and is not required for a general reputation for reliability. Yes, arguing from small sets of examples is problematic. But overall, all I can say is that "it's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Except your assertions are not only disputed, but you totally ignored the fact that we're discussing attributed quotes by political pundits, including political group blogs that have no editor staff (unlike Breitbart), so "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" don't enter into it. As for your baseless personal shot, beware the boomerang. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think NBC News, or CBS, or the New York Times don't meet our criteria for reliability, then you should definitely raise that concern elsewhere on this board. However, it's not relevant to a discussion of Breitbart's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or lack thereof. MastCell ^Talk 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I pointed out that the argument used to attack Breitbart's reputation was pitifully inadequate, but that's a tangential issue. More importantly, its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is irrelevant to its reliability as a source for Shapiro's quoted words, unless you think the source is so untrustworthy that it can't be trusted to accurately relay its own editor's comments. VictorD7 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've told him how red herring arguments aren't relevant numerous times, I'm glad someone else understands that basic concept of reasoning and critical thinking.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything you're spewing are red herring arguments, as is the notion of "reputation for fact checking" when we're talking about covering attributed, subjective political pundit opinions, not news sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we're talking about the reliability of a source and WP:QS specifically identifies sources that rely heavily on opinion pieces as questionable sources. So it makes ZERO sense to try and argue that because it's an opinion that suddenly it's reliable because WP policy explicitly says that sources that rely heavily on opinions are questionable and that they have very limited use in WP, limited to use on material about themselves. Again, that's why you can't make a false dichotomy on global climate change between "support/against" and then start citing Ken Hamm's opinions all over the place. Those opinions are mainly derived from questionable/self published sources and are limited to content about Ken Hamm himself. Also, if the source, Breitbart.com, is questionable then it quotes from it certainly can't be used to make contentious claims about others. That's directly in WP policy and it's not a red herring argument as it directly applies to the quote and source in question. You might want to look up what a red herring argument is.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is no more a questionable source than CBS News, the Rolling Stone, or MSNBC.

I am sure there are editors here would would love to see this bias source be deemed non-reliable. Lets not do that. Breitbart.com is just as reliable as other bias sources, such as Huffington Post. So let us leave it at that. If it's a weight issue this is not the noticeboard to discuss such matters, but WP:NPOV/N--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what WP qualifies as a questionable source has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions about other sources. The qualifications are explicitly outlined in WP:QS. So your red herring arguments based on false equivalencies are irrelevant and are logically fallacious.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you personally added partisan bloggers' quotes from the Huffington Post currently in the same section it's difficult to take your claims seriously. You also apparently support the numerous leftist quotes from other blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion that currently reside in the section, and haven't tried to remove a single one. Of course your flawed interpretation of QS has already been rejected by RFC, explicitly finding Breitbart RS for its own attributed opinions (material about itself) there to boot. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Partisain bloggers has nothing to do with the reliability of a source. Opinions from reliable sources are allowed to be partisan and biased, but that only applies to sources that are considered reliable by WP guidelines. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source by nearly every single identifier described in WP:QS and I've specifically outlined them above. Also, I didn't interpret WP:QS, I've quoted it directly and an article about a film does not qualify as "material about itself". That's not interpretation, that's a basic understanding of the english language. Furthermore, the RFC ignored my arguments which is not rejection. Again, you misinterpret and misrepresent what actually occurred in the RFC and is happening here again. You and others blatantly ignoring WP policy to pursue red herring arguments or put forward arguments already refuted.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your own argument asserts Breitbart is "QS" because it "relies heavily on personal opinion", so the sources you support being partisan blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion most definitely is relevant to reliability, by your own logic. Given that, and the rest of the debunked nonsense you've repeated here, the most charitable interpretation is that your own understanding of the English language is lacking. VictorD7 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's merely one aspect of my argument and it's explicitly listed as an identifier of a questionable source in WP:QS polciy. Furthermore, the reliability of other blogs has no bearing on the reliability of Breitbart.com. That's why this is a red herring argument because an assessment of the reliability of other blogs is not relevant to an assessment of the reliability of Breitbart.com. Nothing in WP:QS policy mandates a comparison of sources to each other to establish reliability. Instead, they list empirical qualities that make a source a questionable source and Breitbart.com meets nearly every single one of those qualities, making it a questionable source. Also, though it's not relevant, those other blogs are from sources that are generally considered reliable, have a reputation for fact checking, and have meaningful editorial oversight. That's why those blogs are considered reliable since they are the extension of a reliable source. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, so there is no reliability for Breitbart.com to lend to its blogs. Though blogs are primarily opinion, the reliable sources I've previously referenced are not reliant primarily on opinion. This is contrary to Breitbart.com whose almost entire front page is filled with hyperlinks to opinion pieces and even its own WP article calls it an "opinion website". Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source and you've done NOTHING to actually refute the arguments above. Your rebuttals have mostly evoked a "But mommy, those other sites do it too" mentality which is a logical fallacy to begin with and is a false equivalency because most of those other sites/blogs more closely adhere to WP reliability standards than Breitbart.com does.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm exposing the numerous and intellectually fatal internal inconsistencies in your position, illustrating the fallacy of embracing it. And this noticeboard's sections frequently include comparative mentions or lists of other sources, so that's a lame dodge by you. Also, not that it matters to your QS interpretation since you've conceded your championed sources rely heavily on opinion (making them "questionable" by your logic), but none of them have been found "RS" in any conversation I've seen, while Breitbart, contrary to your claims, actually has been explicitly found to be RS by consensus, and on the article in question to boot. In fact they all have roughly similar or worse reputations than Breitbart. Again, most of them are merely opinion blogs, while Breitbart is a large, diverse news/opinion institution that employs teams of editors, reporters, and critics.VictorD7 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing you've exposed is your inability to construct a valid argument based on WP policy. After all of these responses you've YET to actually quote WP policy that says that questionable sources are determined by comparing them to other sources. On the other hand, I've quoted multiple parts of WP policy that do define questionable sources and explained in detail how Breitbart.com meets the qualifications of a questionable source. Again, your mentioning the RFC is pointless in determining whether Breitbart.com is a questionable source, since WP policy explicitly states that Questionable Sources should only be used as reliable sources on material about themselves. So a source can still be a questionable source and be reliable for opinions about itself, HOWEVER those sources/opinions can only be used in material about THEMSELVES which is the part you and the RFC blatantly ignored. Furthermore, your baseless assertions do nothing to refute the arguments made above. First of all, I never engaged you in conversation about other sources because I know it's a logical fallacy. Secondly, we never established whether those other sources were heavily reliant on personal opinion like Breitbart.com is. This is why your argument is also a false equivalency. The fact that you keep repeating this irrelevant and logically fallacious argument shows the dire situation you're in when it comes to trying to pretend that Breitbart.com is not a questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

To the extent your drivel here approaches coherence in places, it only further annihilates your own position while confirming mine. The RFC explicitly found Breitbart reliable for its own film review on the article, complete with a link to the review and article section in the RFC intro and everything, directly contracting your "QS" characterization and attempt to limit the source's use here. The RFC didn't "ignore" your argument, especially since the intro also linked to the discussion where we each laid out our arguments. It rejected your interpretation. I've refuted your position by quoting from numerous policies and guidelines explicitly stating that attributed opinions aren't held to the same standards as facts in Wikipedia's voice, observing that your characterization of Breitbart is disputed, examining the impractical empirical impact your interpretation would have on Wikipedia, and exposing your one sided application of your own invented policy, a gross WP:NPOV violation. You also provided no evidence supporting your preposterous claim that discussing more than one source in a discussion is somehow a "logical fallacy" or against policy. That you're actually implying there's dispute over whether sources like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, Slant, Indiewire, the Huffington Post, etc. rely heavily or entirely on personal opinion shows how desperately dire your own situation is. VictorD7 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your strawman arguments are indicative of your inability to substantiate your position. Never did I say that "discussing more than one source in a discussion is...against policy." It is a red herring issue, though, which is substantiated by understanding the definition of a red herring logical fallacy. Sorry, but the reliability of other sources is not relevant to the reliability of Breitbart.com. The only way it would be relevant is if I or others were arguing that WP should be represented by the "strongest of sources" which is not my argument. My arguments and others' arguments hinge on specific WP policy which you have NOT refuted. Instead, you resort to strawman arguments and red herring arguments, instead of addressing the policies. Also, linking to something is not addressing it or "rejecting" which actually requires comment on the arguments made and a valid refutation, neither of which were provided in the RFC. Again, you keep saying "interpretation" but there is none, I quote directly from WP:QS and WP:Questionable which explicitly limit questionable sources like Breitbart.com to "material about themselves" and furthermore, say that they can NOT make contentious claims about others. Sorry, but you nor a RFC gets to ignore WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Was the open RfC regarding Breitbart's reliability in this context announced here? It's on the article's talk page. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would say that Breitbart is a textbook questionable source (as mentioned above, it has always been considered that in the past, and I'm not really seeing anything that would change that), especially due to its reputation for poor fact-checking. Simply having a political POV doesn't necessarily make a site questionable in all contexts, but having such an extensive history of fact-checking errors in combination with a style of writing that frequently blurs the line between opinion and fact certainly does. It can still sometimes be cited to illustrate the opinions of its commentators, like any other questionable source, but only when a more reputable site supports the relevance of those opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have never seen a discussion establishing a consensus that Breitbart is "questionable", and your assertion about its alleged "reputation" is disputed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• well, yes, you are disputing it. based apparently on ignoring the multiple sources presented the definitely show its questionable nature and none providing evidence that any sources see it as reliable. such a "dispute" is hard to give credence to.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• The problem with Breitbart is that its accuracy is not only dubious, but sources are often actively misrepresented. Consider the recent case with the Gun control articles, where a newspaper story claiming that general crime figures are being under-reported in the UK was spun by Breitbart into an article about how UK gun law wasn't working as gun homicide was clearly increasing. This is not simply synthesis, but actively untrue; there was no suggestion from the story that was the case, and it would actually be impossible as firearms crime is reported separately - something the writer would have known. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How does that affect opinions from notable persons cited as opinion? Breitbart falsifies editorial columns to make people have different opinions that they write that they have? I generally feel that where an opinion is properly cited as opinion that fretting about anything else is worthless. Collect (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There are really two parts to citing an opinion. First, of course, you need a source to prove that the person actually said that; Breitbart is a valid source to prove that one of its authors said something, since that doesn't really require that it be a WP:RS. However, you usually also need a source to show that their opinion is relevant per WP:UNDUE, which is usually more complicated; Breitbart can't be used for that because it's not a reliable source, so in most cases any quote from Breitbart has to be accompanied by another, more reliable ref to show that the specific opinion or author being quoted is relevant. WP:UNDUE states that we're supposed to give weight to opinions based on their coverage in reliable sources, essentially (this prevents people from just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article); to quote Breitbart in an article, you therefore usually need a second source to show that whatever quote you're inserting meets that standard. --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, multiple facets of WP policy relies on sources being considered reliable and Breitbart.com is clearly not one. However, I don't feel you need to look at the specific various policies that limit their usage to reliable sources because WP:QS and WP:Questionable both limit the usage of questionable sources to material about themselves. That whole concept is what prevents people from "just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article" and it remains consistent throughout multiple WP policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge that Breitbart is RS for its own authors' opinions. That's the question here. WP:UNDUE is determined on a case by case basis, can't be properly addressed on this noticeboard sans context, and in this case involves a reception and explicitly titled "Political commentary" section quoting numerous subjective political opinions, including from blogs like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, and Salon.com ("questionable?"). The whole point is to cover the reaction to the film by salient political pundits from across the political spectrum. That said, regarding DUE, as the chief conservative website, the opinions expressed by Breitbart authors must be covered in such a section to avoid a gross WP:NPOV violation. I suppose one could say that Breitbart's noteworthiness in this context is established by other sources frequently citing it and/or documenting its extremely high traffic ratings. More specifically, Ben Shapiro himself is notable by Wikipedia standards, meaning he rates his own article (unlike most of the other pundits quoted in the section, and he's a UCLA/Harvard Law trained political scientist and media analyst who is a multiple times best selling author, has been interviewed as a professional pundit on virtually every major media tv network, and has had his work cited by countless media outlets. All this firmly establishes him as a political pundit worth quoting if we have a section dedicated to such punditry, and since he wrote an entire article about the reception to this film we would be derelict in omitting it, especially since his view is so widely shared by the population. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, trying to maintain NPOV doesn't mean that questionable sources suddenly become reliable and merit inclusion. Find a different source that's reliable instead of trying to include a questionable source which multiple WP policies explicitly prohibit.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Might you show me where opinions properly cited as opinions are likely at all to be falsified? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Might you make a rebuttal that relevant to the arguments being made?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• As multiple editors have noted Breitbart is reliable for a statement about what is said in Breitbart.

This is yet another case of people choosing the wrong policy to argue about. This isn't a reliability issue... It's really more a DUE WEIGHT issue (and there are other policies and guideliens that we have to consider as well). The question isn't may we cite Breitbart for Breitbart's opinion (clearly we may)... the question we should be asking is: should we mention Breitbart's opinion in the first place?

That is more an editorial judgement call... The section in question (discussing the reception of a movie) can basically be boiled down to this: Reviewers with a liberal political bias panned the movie, reviewers with a conservative political bias praised it. The rest of the section consists of examples of liberals panning, and conservatives praising. The question is... do we need the examples (I am not sure we do), and (if so) which examples should we use?. There are lots of reliable conservative news outlets that reviewed the movie... and most of them essentially say the same thing that Breitbart says. This means that while we are allowed use Breitbart... we don't have to use Breitbart... we could use one of the others instead.

In other words... the debate that we should be having is: Given that the conservative viewpoint is that the movie was great... what is the best conservative source to use as an example of that viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Once you determine what weight is merited, the articles/opinions used to express that weight still must meet WP reliable source criteria. That's the part that's relevant here. You, as an editor, can't take a facebook post from Joe and quote that as the representation of the conservative viewpoint. Yes, there are numerous policies that need to be considered in every edit, but this is the relevant one that we're discussing now.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

and it is not reliable for claims made about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes This continual attempt to argue this issue is getting quite old. It appears simply to be an attempt to wear everyone out until they give up. Arzel (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

YES Ranks in the top 500 (US) on Alexa, and is as reliable as any of the top liberal sites. We accept the NY Times, a self-admitted liberal site as reliable despite its gaffs and mistakes. [3] [4]. [5] [6] [7], and I can go on and on. Atsme☯^Consult 15:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ramzy Baroud

Source in question: Ramzy Baroud, 'The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists,' Counterpunch November 27, 2014.

Is Ramzy Baroud writing for Counterpunch a reliable source for facts concerning the obscure Marxist splinter group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine?

I tried to raise a discussion on this, providing detailed sources that showed that the text at 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack was false, by citing Baroud's article. This was dismissed by a mechanical reference to an, to me, inconclusive debate back 6 years ago, at RSN. I don't think a single, dated, unsatisfactory discussion here can be taken as binding for eternity as though it were established policy. My view is that one must examine the quality of the source (Baroud, not Counterpunch), the standing of the author, and the nature of the material requested to be used. It turns out that later sources I turned up confirmed what Baroud had documented, yet regardless of this (a good test of reliability) some editors just refuse to accept him, since the article appeared in a journal they appear to dislike.

Counterpunch 'muckrakes', a perfectly legitimate branch of Investigative journalism which was the particular area of expertise of its founder Alexander Cockburn, and of one of its leading writers Patrick Cockburn, an expert on the Middle East. It specializes in getting over authoritative opinions that are not aired in the mainstream press. Counterpunch exposed the New York Times presentation of the fabricated data leading to the decision to invade Iraq (and was cited by mainstream historians like Chalmers Johnson for doing so. See his The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, Macmillan, 2007 pp.351,352,363,364). The mainstream source got everything wrong, and Counterpunch proved it. It publishes ex-Wall Street financial experts turned academics like Michael Hudson, Reaganite economists like Paul Craig Roberts, retired CIA analysts like Franklin C. Spinney, U.S. Senate national security expert and Congressional Budget specialists like Winslow T. Wheeler, Christian political conservatives like William S. Lind, historians like Robert Fisk, Israeli Knesset figures and pundits like Uri Avnery and Ari Shavit, historians like Gabriel Kolko, Peter Linebaugh and East Asian specialists like Brian Cloughley and Gary Leupp. None of these are known for their ideological brow-beating or slipshod use of facts, for example. To the contrary. They are polished, notable and established experts in their respective fields.

As to Ramzy Baroud, he is an Arabist, has 3 well-received books to his credit, and as a journalist, publishes widely in such mainstream press outlets as The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Times, Arab News, The Miami Herald, The Japan Times, Al-Ahram Weekly, Asia Times, Al Jazeera etc., as well as working on a late doctorate at Exeter University. Baroud's Counterpunch article is scholarly, analytic and cites all the statements by links to the relevant primary sources in Arabic etc., so they can be independently confirmed.

In reply to Cptono's note about editorial control over content. Well, why is it partisan I/P editors never raise queries about quality control the following sources used throughout the article, none of which is known to exercise editorial control on fact checking, none of which to my knowledge has a reputation for reportorial or in depth accuracy by area specialists, and many of which are dubious. The answer is, they are all, save 2 'friendly' to a POV (which Baroud's article is not).

• Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned.
• The Hindu
• Al-Araby
• Israel Hayom.(once in Hebrew six times in English), a free distribution paper created by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate on behalf of the Israel PM Binyamin Netanyahu. Notoriously partisan.
• The Jewish Press, an orthodox hence sectarian community newspaper.
• Algemeiner Journal notorious partisan
• Jspace community paper
• PFLP website Primary Source
• The Daily Star (Lebanon) (3)
• Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts
• La Información Dominican Republic University newspaper
• Sputnik (news agency) mouthpiece of the Russian federation, i.e., political.
• Daily Sabah Turkish paper created this year
• The Hollywood Reporter
• New Jersey Jewish News

Independent outsider reviews of this issue would be appreciated. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with inclusion for the following reasons:

• CounterPunch has historically been less than suitable here at RSN (attribution has been a way to use it for prominent opinions by established writers)
• Regardless of the author's merit's, what CounterPunch deems appropriate to publish and what they have potential editorial control over is problematic. The source has been called "extremist" but I think it is safe to simply say that they tend to have some sort of agenda and are contrary to the point of sensationalism ("edgy" is a nice way to put it). I question the appropriateness of a needlessly long quote and even giving it a potential page hit through the ref section.
• Ramzy Baroud doesn't seem that prolific at a glance. I'm not as familiar with the writer as others but nothing jumps out as so important that it receives weight (attributed in the text or not). A Google search shows what could easily be considered a heavy bias.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Question. We are under an obligation to be neutral and coherent in our application of policy. If these are your criteria, why have you raised no objection to the many sources I have cited above, which have been used to document the article. They all fail the high bar you set for Counterpunch(none of those sources, furthermore, can boast of the quality contributors some of whose names I have listed as published by Counterpunch). Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop it. I have raised my objections (as did a few other editors on the talk age). We should wait for others to chime in instead of dragging your IDIDNTHERERTHAT to AE..Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Both you and Epeefleche have misinterpreted (see below) a RSN discussion. It is perfectly normal to request clarification as to why you object to Counterpunch and a Palestinian author, while quietly accepting sources all over that page that are POV-pushing, mediocre, and fail RS. Neither on the talk page, nor here, will either of you clarify this point. I too certainly think this should be reviewed by independent outside editors, but in the meantime, I am perfectly in my rights to request that vague pronouncements and a failure to actually do anything but rehearse an opinion be clarified. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I believe it is long-settled here at RSN that Counterpunch is not an RS. This is especially the case for anything controversial. I see no reason to change that judgment. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't settled, and your judgement is a mischaracterization.

11 editors pitched in. 3 were neutral. One was dismissive. 7, a majority, tended to suggest it was citable for opinions if the author was notable, or the opinion of 'substantial interest'. I.e. whether Counterpunch is citable or not depends on who is writing, and the editorial circumstances (substantial interest of point cited, which is the case here).

• ChrisO posed the question. No longer active. Neutral
• PelleSmith (corrects hostile characterization of Noam Chomsky, a contributor to Counterpunch) neutral
• Itsmejudith (corrects characterization of Robert Fisk (a Counterpunch writer) as left-leaning. Neutral

• Jayjg. Negative (‘strong political agenda and bias’ a 'left wing version of [[FrontPage Magazine’)
• Zeq (banned editor): ‘CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts.’
• Relata refero. No longer active. removes links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right.
• Crotalus horridus No longer active. ‘None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself.’
• Merzbow (No longer active: ’I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right.’)

• User:Blueboar
• User:eleland
• User:Nishidani (Agree with refero, i.e. ' It depends on who writes there.')

So, back in 2008, in a short discussion, Counterpunch was not dismissed out of hand. The majoir commentators put an unless/if condition on citation. Both Epeefleche and Cptono are taking it as a thumbs down, when the verdict was mixed and conditional. Secondly, the question I posed is not whether Counterpunch is reliable, but whether a notable author specializing on the I/P area, who, unlike all the other newspapers cited in the article, examined the primary Arabic sources, and correctly noted what the newspapers on day one failed to note, is citable. If we say he isn't, we are potentially laying down a precedent that a notable author/specialist cannot be used to correct an error on Wikipedia if his views are only cited in a non-mainstream newspaper. That is fatuously absurd.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is now another discussion below on this. To get things on track, it would be awesome if people completely involved could discuss if:

A) Counterpunch is reliable?

and

B) Is the author Ramzy Baroud's and/or his column significant enough to warrant inclusion?

Edit in question: here. Article is 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack (by the way, if we had another source we wouldn't have to even worry about it)Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We should not give carte blanche to Counterpunch as a reliable source - although I can see the appeal to editors who want to push controversial points. However, in this particular case I think it's reasonable to cite it, since it's reasonably well aligned with what we get from genuinely reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob -- Tx ... I think, actually, that the rubric is that where there are "genuinely reliable sources" that state x, and others such as Counterpunch that state "close to x", we are to cite to the genuine RSs for the proposition they support. Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, EP, Baroud gives a very detailed analysis, not 'close to x', but 'x' and much else (w, ..y,z). The article is far more comprehensive than the other newspaper reports, which (a) got it wrong or (b) got it right but were minor 'RS' not quite your western mainstream press, and were overlooked. The question is not therefore 'Is Counterpunch reliable' (I don't think any mainstream source is reliable in itself, and try to multiple-source in this area to make sure details are not partisan). The question is, 'Is Ramzy Baroud's article a qualitatively solid one' for the detail in question, and only secondly, 'does its appearance in Counterpunch invalidate it as a source?'Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop replying to everything. We can't get a reasonable consensus going when you run away with the conversation. You are obviously outnumbered on the article. You failed to create a neutral request here. We finally have an outside editor providing some reasoning but you just won't stop. So far we are looking at 4 editors to 1 with 1 involved going your way. No one else is going to chime in if you won't stop commenting. Just shut up for a couple days and let it run its course. This is why you get bullied.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with wiki boards? Questions are asked, and discussions take place. Through rational exchanges, a consensus is met. One does this to avoid mere vote/opinion stacking. This is the procedure I follow, and your repeated interruptions of my attempts to engage with interlocutors in a thoughtful analysis of the issues is, as you allow, 'bullying'. Wikipedia is not Athens, still less am I Socrates, but you are behaving like a sulking Callicles in the latter part of the Gorgias. I regret personalizing this, but you keep needling, rather than addressing substantial points. So let's drop the animosity.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned (@Nishidani)

It's not correct information. It was banned as radio station before 10+ years and I've already notified you that there is legal Galei Israel station in this radio niche. What we are talking about as a source now is Israel National News - one of many different quoted sources in a broad Israeli media spectrum.

• "Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts"

What about CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc. so criticized for their bias in Arab–Israeli conflict? :(

• "Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, The Jewish Press" - what else? :) as "Notoriously", "partisan", "orthodox", "sectarian" (what about Ynet, Walla!, Haaretz ownres, sectarian...?)

Such your private & negative characteristics have no sense without concrete examples approving their not-reliability. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Israel National News was rendered legal by a law that was then repealed, so it appears to operate without a licence. It is used all over Wikipedia and is thoroughly opinionized, with an overwhelming concern for reporting emotions and weird theories. No respectable journalist writes for it. All the other sources are browbeating, sectarian and not mainstream. I don't use them, but I don't run a campaign to elide them at sight automatically, without even consulting the cited page to evaluate it, as several editors are doing.

As noted above - Counterpunch is usable for opinions cited as opinions. It is not specifically known for fact reportage, nor is it considered a secondary reliable source for claims of fact. At least per discussions here. Collect (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with attribution. But the question is not about Counterpunch, but whether a scholar and widely published journalist like Baroud, when he publishes, not an opinion piece, but an analysis of numerous Arabic reports regarding an obscure group of militants, can be summarily dismissed simply because his report was published in Counterpunch. Our stringency about RS is not ideological, but functional: it aims to ensure factual reliability above all. It is being used however, selectively (against anything that throws light on the higher intricacies of Palestinian factional politics) here, by editors who reflexely remove Counterpunch at sight, and let the blogging opinionizing of minor Israeli sources pass without challenge. This is what I find deeply disturbing. No coherence in editors' excision of material.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion on CounterPunch is done. Is the author Ramzy Baroud and his column significant enough to warrant inclusion even with attribution? Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I err, but the outside consensus was that there is no intrinsic reason to deny citation of Counterpunch, that we are not beholden to the 2008 discussion, and that citation with attribution if the author and his views are notable is acceptable. Only Collect and User:bobrayner has taken the trouble to add a comment here specifically on Baroud, i.e. 'is usable for opinions cited as opinions,' echoing his other remark that 'Opinions of people notable in a field should always be allowed when properly cited as their opinions.' Given that Baroud is has a solid journalistic curriculum in major mainstream newspapers, I can't see any objection from four of the five disinterested editors who have commented (User:The Four Deuces; User:Collect; User:Binksternet, User:bobrayner vs User:Thargor Orlando who, by the way, said the 2008 discussion is not informative). The rest of us are partisans, and our views have no weight.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

TechRaptor

I would like to get opinions on some articles from TechRaptor. Its reputation is rather nascent, but I don't think that is a basis to dismiss it out of hand. Here are Alexa statistics[[8]]. It is third-party published material, not user-generated, and it has an editorial structure. It has and enforces a code of ethics[[9]] for its contributors, indicating editorial control. There are specific examples of corrections and retractions.[[10]][[11]][[12]][[13]] There is no evidence of conflicts of interest or specific failures to correct errors. I think its unreasonable to expect more than this from a source for claims that are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

It is proposed to be used in the article Gamergate_controversy for the following claims:

From [[14]],

1. An attempt was made to boycott the game SeedScape based on the developer's identification with Gamergate.
2. The incident caused a dramatic increase in support for the game on Steam Greenlight.

From [[15]],

1. Information about investors in Polytron, developer of the game Fez, was leaked in August 2014.
2. Kellee Santiago made a monetary investment in Polytron in 2009.
3. Kellee Santiago was the chair of the Indiecade awards jury in 2011, when Fez won Best in Show.
4. The chair of the awards jury bears primary responsibility for coordinating the juror process.
5. Santiago recused herself from voting, based on her financial interest in Polytron.

From [[16]],

1. Edward McMillen, developer of Super Meat Boy and Binding of Isaac, believes that in specific instances IGF jurors have voted to "help out" particular developers rather than on the basis of the submitted games.

From [[17]],

1. The Warehouse Group, a New Zealand retailer, has made a decision to cease offering all games and movies rated R18.
2. This decision was motivated by criticisms of Grand Theft Auto V, particularly its depictions of violence against women.
3. Grand Theft Auto V features much more violence against men than women and generally disincentivizes violence against women.

Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

To pick just one item out of your shopping list: the story implying skulduggery by Kellee Santiago. It's written by a guy identified as "BA in Computer Science from NJIT and is a fledgling software and video game developer." The story is predictably dire and inaccurate. To the website's credit, they do publish a correction by Indiecade that says Kellee Santiago recused herself (ie: there is no story). These fellows are literally amateurs. Not a reliable source. No news website with a functional journalistic process in operation would have published that false story. --TS 23:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There were no inaccuracies in the article, even before being updated with Indiecade's statement. It would be easy for a person to draw incorrect conclusions without the update, but that was the state of the best available information prior to Indiecade's input. Rhoark (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a rule, reputable news organizations will not publish articles making negative claims or implications without first seeking a response and comment from the person or organization accused. In this case, the non-story nature of the "story" would have been revealed prior to publication and there would have been no reason to proceed with such unfounded implications. This is as per the SPJ Code of Ethics, which states that ethical journalists should Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing. Sending a single request may or may not constitute "diligent" efforts.

Regardless, there is no reason to include a debunked allegation that amounts to nothing - contrary to what the headline still claims, there is no evidence of a conflict of interest at Indiecade. The fact that someone properly recused themselves from a situation of potential conflict of interest is not likely to be newsworthy or encyclopedic. The fact that the only source discussing the situation - and the only source making such an allegation - is TechRaptor, suggests that it isn't a real issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Their Staff page includes an editor with no editing credentials and many, many writers, none of whom appear to have previous journalism experience or degrees. I find very few sources responding to or reposting their content, which is not only a sure sign that they lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but also that nobody really knows about them. Their Facebook page has under 1400 likes and they are very prominently looking for Patreon funding. (Seriously, that ad is on every single page.) And they do change.org petitions, apparently. That just seems...odd for a news source. According to a previous discussion, they pay per article view—which they admit—and authors have stated they edit their own articles and TechRaptor itself does not do any copyediting. This is the very definition of an amateur, unreliable source. Woodroar (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The people involved do not seem to have a lot of experience, and the site has not had a lot of visibility. For which claims do you feel that makes them unreliable, and why? Rhoark (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For all claims, short of the exceptionally rare circumstance we would use them as an SPS about TechRaptor itself. Look, WP:V requires that we "[b]ase articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and TechRaptor doesn't have that reputation. Even if they were factually correct in every article published from now on, it takes time to build that reputation. It's not like The New York Times hired some schlubs off the street, printed a few copies and were considered reliable overnight. That takes time, sometimes years, especially if they start by making amateur mistakes like NorthBySouthBaranof mentioned above. But that's really what they are: amateurs, and it will be some time before they gain a positive reputation for us to consider using them. Woodroar (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel like a determination of reliability for innocuous facts ought to be capable of being made within the next 6 months, otherwise this is becoming a backdoor requirement that sources themselves be notable as topics. Rhoark (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand WP:V. We don't accept just any source to support claims that you feel are innocuous. Sources must be reliable, full stop. In the case of claims regarding living persons, they have to be impeccably reliable. We really only accept questionable sources when being used to support claims about themselves, and only in very specific cases is that allowed. This isn't one of those cases. Sure, you can try adding questionable sources to articles—as long as they aren't BLP claims—but they'll probably be removed eventually and per WP:BURDEN you won't be able to add them back. It's better to start with proper sourcing in the first place, especially since we're dealing with a controversial topic. As far as notable sources go, that isn't a requirement, but in many cases it goes hand in hand: sources must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and that typically means other reliable sources are writing about them; so if we don't have an article, it's very likely that we'd be able to write one. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I had hoped by posting this here it would attract more attention besides the usual suspects from the article talk page. Rhoark (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

9/11 sources

Are these reliable sources for 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Gordon Farrer

1. Farrer, Gordon (November 5, 2010). "Don't get caught in the web of conspiracy theory truthiness". Sydney Morning Herald – Smh.com.au. Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved May 30, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Charlie Brooker

2. Charlie Brooker (July 14, 2008). "So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you? You probably also think you're the Emperor of Pluto Charles Brooker for The Guardian Unlimited July 14, 2008". The Guardian. London. Retrieved September 20, 2009.

Charlie Skelton

3. Charlie Skelton (September 11, 2009). "9/11 anniversary: a lovely day for a spot of protesting at the BBC Charlie Skelton for The Guardian Unlimited September 11, 2009". The Guardian. London. Retrieved January 9, 2010.

Peter Tatchell

4.Peter Tatchell (September 12, 2007). "9/11 – the big cover-up?". London: Guardian News and Media, Ltd. Archived from the original on 10 January 2010. Retrieved January 12, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

911truth.org

5. Multiple uses of this website... Griffin, David Ray, PhD (December 4, 2005). "Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93: The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales". 911Truth.org. Retrieved October 28, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It is "reliable" for what it says its members think/believe, BUT only in context of specifically attributed material "911truth.org members believe X" and generally only when the beliefs have also been noted and commented upon by third party actual reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Site hasn't been updated in years, so you will have to still look elsewhere if the matter requires some updated information. VandVictory (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

911review.com

6. Multiple uses of this website... "Operation Northwoods". 911 Review.com. Retrieved June 7, 2010.

It is "reliable" for what it says its members think/believe, BUT only in context of specifically attributed material "911review.net members believe X" and generally only when the beliefs have also been noted and commented upon by third party actual reliable sources. (belated sign) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Also look at the content being sourced to them, which includes social and psychiatric commentary.--Theamazo (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If a video accompanies a text by an 'alternative' news outlet does this affect our definition of RS.

In the area I work in, much of one side of a complex reality is ignored or underreported, though covered in part by sources I personally try not to use except when the context or authorship of the piece seems to justify using them.

At Skunk (weapon), some editors are claiming that

• Haggai Matar, 'WATCH: Police spray putrid water on Palestinian homes, schools,' +972 Magazine
• Annie Robbins,'Videos: Jerusalem Skunk,' Mondoweiss

cannot be used.

These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers. They are of high relevance to the Palestinian side. Haggai Matar and Anni Robbins are journalists. Matar writes in Hebrew, worked for Haaretz and Ma'ariv, and won the 2012 Anna Lindh Mediterranean Journalist Award. Annie Robbins's works for Mondoweiss. I am less sure that she fits the profile, but her article is not what we normally understand as blogging. It is documented reportage.

The objection is that these are blogs. +972 Magazine has quite a lot of journalists who publish in Israel Hebrew newspapers, and some like Larry Derfner, former editor for the Jerusalem Post and Mairav Zonzein are published in mainstream Western newspapers, and mainstream Jewish journals like The Forward.

The two articles in question hosted by +972 Magazine and Mondoweiss contain videos illustrating the journalists' reportage. Does the presence of videos documenting what the text refers to validate these as sources specifically for what the article describes? My view on such borderline cases is contextual, whether the article informs, or rants, or just opinionizes. I see both of these specific articles as examples of straight reportage of an otherwise underdescribed (in Western mainstream media) events. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I know I have no real expertise here, but my guess would be that the Matar piece would qualify as a reliable source, based on the reputation of the author, and that the Robbins piece might qualify as corroboration of Matas if such were deemed to be required. I would tend to agree that blog posts which are obviously of an opinionated nature probably can't be used, but I think we have in the past found that blog entries of some newspapers and news sources do qualify as reliable, and if these meet similar criteria, as I think they probably do, they would qualify. The presence of videos in some sites, like perhaps Joshua Bonehill-Paine's website, given the, um, reputation of the site and its author in general, might be different, but those would I think be separate cases from this one. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Blogs that can be presumed to have decent editorial oversight - New York Times, BBC etc - are usually ok. Are these comparable? I must add a pet peeve: we do a lot to ensure that people with poor sight are not massively impeded here on Wikipedia (I know that we are not perfect) but I've been seeing a lot of videos of late and they are almost always useless for the deaf. It is because I am deaf that I can't comment here on whether, for example, the video is being used in an original research manner, an analogous example of which can be seen in a thread at Talk:Bhagat Singh today where someone tries to extrapolate a religious belief from appearance in a photograph. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish I knew of a way which we could use to maybe do something like wikisource does on some pages, like for instance this one, which could be set up to show the video on one side and a transcript of the audio on the other. I'm not at all sure that we could necessarily do that without some real copyright problems, or maybe extremely high standards of content, to not intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent what is being said. I honestly don't have a clue what could be done there, but maybe the foundation might be able to arrange transcripts of some sources on one of the sites. Maybe. But that would probably have to be done by the foundation itself. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Both articles have text accompanying the videos. In my understanding, blogs are rightly viewed as extremely iffy in so far as they are personal views, and we try to build up the data base of our articles on facts. When one has, with +972 magazine, an on-line medium that does a lot of translating of what the Hebrew press reports, is run by professional journalists, many who have solid curriculum vitaes as professionals, and report otherwise relatively neglected issues, with an accompanying video that 'verifies' that we are not dealing with personal opinions for an incident or event, but objective occurrences, then I think our rationale for challenging the 'blog' is substantially weakened. The editors opposing this material are opposing it because they mechanically erase at sight anything on their black list dealing with the reportage of incidents in the West Bank. They do not, to my knowledge, show any passion or alacrity for applying the extremely stringent reading of RS they use here, to any Israeli-interest events. I don't think this blatant instrumental, partisan use of rules shows any concern for wikipe4dia's factual objectivity. To the contrary it uses a rule to violate NPOV coverage. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why this question arises at all. May be because it based on such incorrect base as:

• "These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers"

See the following examples which I found in one minute:

• IDF uses 'skunk bomb' in Bil'in demo jpost
• Jerusalem: Between Ferguson and Damascus jpost
• Land Day: 1 reported killed in Gaza ynetnews
• Jerusalem Arabs: Police using riot control means for collective punishment haaretz
• Jerusalem mayor orders crackdown on Palestinian area to curb riots haaretz

... & besides of

• Israeli use of skunk water fuels anger in East Jerusalem ft
• Israeli Skunk Spray Effectively Dispersing Violent Arabs (2 Videos) jewishpress
• Unrest by Palestinians Surges in a Jerusalem Neighborhood nytimes
• Israeli ‘skunk’ fouls West Bank protests arabnews

So I do not see any need in those biased & not reliable sources. In my opinion, NYT, Haaretz, and arabnews is more than enough :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is underreported. I've searched extensively over the 6 year period in which it is, according to observers, used frequently, and found very little information. To call a source 'biased' because it reports a Palestinian POV is not to understand that in Wikipedia, NPOV consists of balancing POVs. Most of what strictly qualifies as 'mainstream press' coverage in the I/P area comes from Israel and the United States, and the reportage is notoriously skewed to one side. Any incident involving Palestinian violence gets world-wide massive and detailed, ongoing coverage. Most incidents reported in Ma'an News Agency as violence to Palestinians has no echo in the Western press. There are 10 incidents per diem on average of violence or clashes throughout the occupied territories, and you're 'lucky' to see one reported in a week in the mainstream foreign press. Systemic bias is at play, and while I subscribe to a strong reading of WP:RS in my editing, I have no problem in using minor sources as here where I approached a minor Israeli news outlet as usable if the information is otherwise underreported. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Government Laboratory High School

The above article has been on my watchlist for over 7 years now and I had some dispute with the creator and main editor of the article way back then. My problem was/is it was originally completely unsourced, then sourced with a single publication. The publication in quesiton is the School's own magazine, which I have a feeling may be biased. To make matters worse, the magazine has no online presence and seems to be inaccessable to anyone outside the school.

Most of the claims in the article aren't a problem, but a new editor has cropped up and slipped some content in (perhaps accidentally) before an existing ref.

The details are as below;

1. Source. Anushilan: 2002-2003 issue (Page- 158). Retrieved on November 17, 2008.
2. Article. Government Laboratory High School.
3. Content. diff showing latest edit although my problem is also with the sentence before.

-LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

LookingYourBest: I think this is an acceptable use of a primary source, however, notability of the subject needs to be determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources. There appear to be no secondary sources cited. An opinion from someone more familiar with the application of WP:NSCHOOL (Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools?) is likely warranted.

In the above diff, I think it is reasonable to doubt that the citation provided backs up both sentences. I would move the added material behind the citation, add {{citation needed}} to it, and ask MD. Sakibur Rahman to provide a source for the material. - Location (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Jews of Capitol Hill: A Compendium of Jewish Congressional Members

Is this source [18] a reliable source for labelling living and dead persons as "Jewish" where no other sources in their articles make such a claim? I would note this book includes people of "Jewish ancestry" on any type as "Jewish". Kurt F. Stone has no apparent academic credentials other than writing two books about "The Jews of Capitol Hill". [19] gives his c.v. -- he is a rabbi, and teaches at Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University but his c.v. does not seem to establish him as an expert in the field AFAICT. He is not a Professor AFAICT at either university.[20], [21] ("Adjunct Instructor"). Scarecrow Press generally appears RS otherwise - but I am concerned about using this particular source to simply label people as "Jewish" especially since at least one was specifically Roman Catholic in life as far as I can tell. I would also ask separately - is being buried in a "Jewish Cemetery" proof of self-identification as "Jewish"? Thanks to all. Collect (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as I created an article on wikipedia about Female Lieutenant Governors, I am now focussing on creating on for Jewish members of Congress. There are articles on wikipedia about members of Congress being Asian, African-American, Female and LGBT, I thought it would be a nice edition to add one about those who are Jewish. I have sourced the editions to my article so the information is neither incorrect nor wrong. SleepCovo (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment of an uninvolved editor. Jewish is not just a religious designation it is also genealogical. Rabbi's are usually reasonable experts on the topic of being Jewish as they have specific criteria laid out that they must follow. But I make no determination on the book itself or this person. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

However, could a Rabbi designate someone as Jewish by Jewish law without that person being Jewish in an otherwise meaningful sense and/or without them wishing to be identified as Jewish. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Such as not being in any way self-identified as "Jewish" noting the many discussions about people adding "Jewish" because of "Jewish name" or "Jewish grandparent" etc. Where an author is only an "adjunct instructor" the person is not specifically to be regarded as a scholarly authority. It reads far more like a selection of anecdotes about people with Jewish names than a sourced book -- which it is not (one reviewer pointed this out as a problem - as it contained simple errors about people he knew). The removal of problem examples was reverted -- including a reversion of a strange typo ("Suceeded from the Union" I found a strange way to describe a person). Scholar.google.com shows a marked paucity of anyone else even mentioning the books en passant. BTW, a rabbi can not define a person to be Jewish who does not so self-identify. Collect (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment or two on the last point. Of course a person can be Jewish who does not self-identify. As with a newborn, born to Jewish parents. Separately, Judaism is not just a religion. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. (unsigned)

Problem is this has been discussed many times on Wikipedia - always with the same result. We do not call a person "Jewish" because they had a Jewish ancestor, or have a Jewish name. We do not call a person "Jewish" in any BLP per WP:BLPCAT without strong sourcing. The book presented does not even give its sources, or any footnotes, has no sign of being fact checked, is not written by a person with academic credentials in journal publications, or any publications other than being from an "adjunct instructor" who wrote two books on the exact same topic.

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Is fairly clear, I trust. Collect (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another comment. It appears that this page isnt the only WP article on the subject. List_of_Jewish_American_politicians seems to be a rather well sourced list that includes members of Congress. While it is off topic for this page, I wonder if WP really needs two pages on this topic. AlbinoFerret 15:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't like these classifications,in fact I detest them, but they're here. I think as Collect says, one has only to include self-identifiers, duly attested by reliable sources. Barry Goldwater had Jewish ancestry on his father's side, but was raised Episcopalian. Religiously he was not Jewish, in rabbinical terms he wasn't either. He occasionally noted his Jewish roots, as I suppose he occasionally mentioned his maternal Anglo-Saxon Protestant roots. Since, as AlbinoFerret notes, there is a better sourced page on the same subject, this article should perhaps be merged into that, always taking care to source the new claims accurately (self-identification).Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source for darknet sites

What does it take for something to be considered a reliable source for darknet sites? "Mainstream" publications that report on sites like Silk Road (marketplace) and Agora (marketplace) have policies against including links in their published stories (e.g. [22]), so the addresses themselves seem to provided almost exclusively by sites that focus on darknet information, such as [23] and [24], and in the headers/sidebars of darknet discussion forums such as [25]. It seems rather ridiculous that Wikipedia be sucked into the mainstream blackout of darknet addresses when they are posted all over the rest of the web. What would it take for, e.g. deepdarkweb.net, to be considered "reliable"? Three ferns (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Arba'een

See also: Talk:Arba'een § Wikipedia policy

Please help us evaluate the following sources for the article Arba'een. The link after each item takes you to the citation as used in the article.

1. The blog of "Faith Leader, Theology Lecturer, Author" Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi on huffingtonpost.co.uk.[26]
2. Al-Alam News Network, owned and controlled by the Iranian state.[27]
3. Shaykh Saleem Bhimji of al-mubin.org, "Translators, Publishers & Distributors of Islamic knowledge based on the Teachings of Prophet Muhammad and His Illustrious Family", writing on al-islam.org.[28]
4. IslamicFinder's scripted Hijri calendar.[29]

--Anders Feder (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This older discussion dealt with some parts of current request. Mhhossein (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Myswar.com

Does anyone have any idea if this is to be considered reliable or not? From what I can see some of the information seems to be added by registered users; I've tried to register in order to figure out how much but something failed during confirmation. I'm specifically wondering if the credits listed are user-contributed or added in other ways. Bjelleklang - talk 15:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of this site, but based on the About page, it's either a user-generated content site or a fan site, neither of which are considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I suspected, thanks. Bjelleklang - talk 20:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources for an article about The Colony in Malibu

I'm a tea house host helping a new editor who wants to either create a new article or add info to an existing article. Here is the draft article which has been rejected several times: Draft:The_Property_(Malibu_artists_colony)

I'm wondering about all the refs he currently has there. They all seem borderline to me, not great but not necessarily invalid. The specific refs are:

A book by Jay Ruby called Coffee House Positano: http://www.upcolorado.com/book/2726 I searched for this book in my local library (San Francisco... and the system searches all libraries in the city) and also in the Link+ system which is a collection of academic libraries in the Bay Area and didn't find the book in either although I did find that Jay Ruby has other published books in the system.

A story in a small local paper called the Malibu Times: http://www.malibutimes.com/malibu_life/article_3d0d3bdf-4267-50fb-a6c8-6d6fee3654e4.html Not sure how credible small papers like this are.

An article in a journal called Anthropology Now also by Jay Ruby called Studying Sideways in Malibu: http://anthronow.com/current-magazine-cover/september-2014

The two options we are considering are either writing a new article about "The Colony" or (probably more likely) adding the info to the existing article about the Coffee_House_Positano Do any of these references seem strong enough to establish notability for the new information about this artist colony that grew in the ashes of the Coffee House? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Question reliability of source on renaissance writer.

Dear all,

I am having a bit of a problem with the book History of the Popes by Joseph McCabe (London 1939). Mr. McCabe, who never had formal education in history, "was an English writer and speaker on freethought, after having been a Roman Catholic priest earlier in his life."

In the article for Pope Leo X (1475–1521, one of the Medici, confronted Martin Luther) we find this statement:

Two of the leading papal historians of the time (...) shared a belief that Leo engaged in "unnatural vice": these were Leo's governor Francesco Guicciardini, who wrote "At the beginning of his pontificate most people deemed him very chaste; however, he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to that kind of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named" (...)

The statement has a reference to page 409 of McCabe's book.

The problem is that Guicciardini's text is very old and anyone with internet connection has access to lots of editions. All of them contain the first part of the citation: that at the begninning of his pontificate Pope Medici was known to be chaste and of good morals. It so happens that in every version of the text, the second part of McCabe's quotation is missing.

Anyone with internet connection has free and immediate access to the following editions:

Italian (original language):

• A XIX century edition, Florence 1836, page 418.
• Another XIX century edition, Paris 1837.
• A XX century edition, Florence 1929, page 49.
• The italian wikisource version.

German:

• Darmstad, 1849: "Er wurde fur keusch gehalten und fur einen Mann von vollkommenen Sitte." Page 66.

French:

• London 1738: "la réputation qu'il avoit lui-même d'être liberál, poli, & de moeurs irreprochables", page 317.

Spanish:

• Spanish Manuscript: "estimado por casto y de perfectas costumbres", page 958. Copied by hand 1691-1697.

English:

• London edition of 1753: "the reputation of a chaste person and of unblameable manners", page 144.

None of these include anything similar to what McCabe quotes "he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to that kind of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named".

I ask your opinion, because to me it seems as if McCabe had quoted the first part from Guicciardini and invented the rest. I believe that McCabe's book should be considered "not reliable", and that the false quotation should be mended to reflect what Guicciardini really said. What do you think? El Huinca (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only looked at the English translation (page 114 btw, not 144) and didn't find anything resembling the second half. I tried searching the book for various phrases that might have been used but couldn't find anything. I have seen several quotations probably originating from McCabe though, such as the "Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to the Mid-Twentieth Century"[30]. They also claim to quote Guicciardini, but doesn't make it clear what edition was used. Based on what I've seen I'd say that the book should be regarded as unreliable, but given how many other sources there are that uses the quote it should probably be mentioned in the article somewhere. Bjelleklang - talk 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a strange one. On the one hand, multiple sources don't include that sentence, which points toward the unreliability of the sole dissenting source. But on the other hand, Joseph McCabe appears to be widely cited and quoted, and I find no sources commenting on his faulty quotations, so I'm not sure we could consider him unreliable. I am unable to find any sources speaking to this discrepancy, either, so any explanation we give would be WP:SYNTH. It may be that we state by source: multiple sources say X, and Joseph McCabe says X+Y. I could also see an argument for WP:DUE, where were simply go with the words favored by the most translations, which doesn't include the second sentence. Of course, whether or not Joseph McCabe is reliable is irrelevant at that point. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Curtis on Vladislav Surkov

User:Sayerslle has used a link [31] to a YouTube clip of a segment from the television program Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe broadcast in December 2014 to support the following claim in the Vladislav Surkov article, 'He also backed anti-Putin parties, but then said that this was what he had done, with the result that uncertainty arose as to what was real, and what fake.' For convenience, an apparently accurate transcript of the segment may be found here: [32] The excerpt in question is a short piece by English documentary film maker Adam Curtis. Curtis is a reasonably well-respected documentary film maker. However, my concern about this as a source is the use of weasel-words in the source itself: 'those who have studied his career'. It is very unclear from the transcript whether the statements are supposed to be factual, are the opinions of the unnamed 'those who have studied his career', or are the opinions of Curtis himself. Additionally, the claims made are so vague as to be unverifiable. He is claimed to have backed anti-Putin parties, but these are un-named. He is claimed to have said himself that he did this, but where and when he said this is un-stated. This is biography of a living person so we need good sources for claims. It seems to me these claims are currently poorly sourced, and I would like to see them removed unless better sources can be found. I post this here in case anyone can provide another perspective. - Crosbie 08:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

this is the guardian in 2013 - He was considered one of Russia's most deft politicians, crafting Russia's system of "managed democracy" and steering its powerful propaganda machine, mainly via control of state-run television.

Yet his star has been steadily falling since Putin returned to the presidency last year and pursued a path of open repression over the cunning manipulation favoured by Surkov.[33] - the portrait is clear enough in RS whatever . Sayerslle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Sayerslle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I like Adam Curtis, but this film isn't a suitable source for a biographical article because it's light on detail and because Curtis is not well-known as an reliably uncontroversial filmmaker. It's a also a copyvio. Formerip (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

and the economist As the political mastermind for Vladimir Putin for most of the 2000s, Mr Surkov engineered a system of make-believe that worked devilishly well in the real world. Russia was a land of imitation political parties, stage-managed media and fake social movements, undergirded by the post-modern sense that nothing was genuine. ideologuesexit - the economist, the guardian, peter pomerantsev in the lrb - the portrait is clearSayerslle (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)