Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 250Archive 251Archive 252Archive 253Archive 254Archive 255→Archive 260

RfC: WorldNetDaily

There is a clear consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that it should be deprecated in the same sense as the Daily Mail with an edit filter. Particular thanks to Newslinger (talk · contribs) for his/her detailed analysis of prior discussions, which similarly support this consensus. Based on the consensus here, I will place a request at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested for implementation. MastCell Talk 19:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Should WorldNetDaily be deprecated as a source in the same way as the Daily Mail (RfC), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use WorldNetDaily as a reference? — Newslinger talk 16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey (WorldNetDaily RfC)

  • Yes. 16 previous discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard indicate an overwhelming consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source that publishes falsehoods and conspiracy theories. — Newslinger talk 16:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes a quick look at the lead and I saw massive ovecitte as to the fact it tells porkies, when that many sources think you are about as reliable as a lawyers bill you know there is a problem.Slatersteven (talk)
  • No Obviously the source is not reliable. However, i find the piecemeal selection of sites to be more of a name and shame exercise and not constructive. Instead, it would be constructive to create a page that summarizes conclusions of previous discussions. TFD (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No per WP:CREEP something like this should be a rare thing for only the worst cases. From what I see they are generally unreliable but I do not think an edit filter is required. PackMecEng (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Looking at the list of egregious conspiracy theories and general editorial bias. DN (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No There was a good reason to blacklist Daily Mail as they went out of their way to falsify stories, rather than publish inaccuracies, making the case that DM should never be used unless DM is at the center of the topic. That they have poor editorial should make them not an RS, but not a black-listed one, they still qualify for any RSOPINION statements. We should not be used editorial basis as a means to disqualify sources. --Masem (t) 01:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • They absolutely do not qualify for WP:RSOPINION (and I'm shocked that a longstanding editor would get this point wrong.) As WP:RSOPINION says, A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. WP:RSOPINION allows us to eg. cite an opinion piece from the NYT, assuming we follow its restrictions; it does not allow us to cite any publication that does not otherwise pass WP:RS. Fullstop. If an opinion has not been published or referenced in sources that pass WP:RS, it cannot be mentioned (let alone quoted) in Wikipedia under any circumstances, fullstop; any opinion worth covering should have at least some presence in a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
How should we handle cases like Christopher Monckton? His WND opinion column is used as a primary source for his comments, which were further discussed and given weight by The Independent and Huffington Post. –dlthewave ☎ 13:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this is okay under WP:ABOUTSELF, since Monckton is the author of the column, and the source is only being used to support claims regarding Monckton himself in the article about him. — Newslinger talk 21:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't. We have secondary sources describing his views and adding context (i.e. that he is wrong). Why would we then also want to link to him actually being wrong? What does linking to egregious bullshit add over and above the descriptions of it being egregious bullshit in reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 19:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes: the following is included in the lead: The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[7][8][6][9][10][11][12][13][14]. If it carries a relevant story, then this information is likely available in much better sources elsewhere. If it's the only outlet to have covered a particular story, then it's probably fake news or a conspiracy theory. An edit filter is a good idea. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Not supported really, and factually this is in use as RS and would continue as RS, so kind of false to state it’s not. Too much stating the sensational without proving a case or having any organised due process. Look, someone stuck it on a table as right wing nutcase and dinged some hearsay items and some extreme items of it. That’s not presenting a full examination or organised approach, its that someone opinionated, and declared they had a consensus. Seems what elsewhere would get called an overstatement or a false claim. I’ll say keep it for NPOV and because of creeping blindness by excluding a lot of WEIGHT of material, and just looks iffy. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - The less we rely on fringe conspiracy-mongering fake-news sites of any political persuasion, the better. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - This is not a reliable source for facts or opinions, as WND does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. Although the opinion of a guest columnist may be portrayed accurately, publication in WND is insufficient to establish a significant viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT. If it really is a significant viewpoint, it will be repeated by reliable secondary sources which can then be cited. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. I would have objected per TFD (in that it's so obviously unusable as a source under any circumstances that it's instruction-creep to write it out), but the fact that even a few people here seem to be arguing that it's sometimes reliable is alarming enough to suggest that it does have to be settled decisively. FWIW a quick search only shows 163 cites, most of them using it as a WP:PRIMARY source for bios of people who have written there in order to link to their columns or to establish that they're a WND writer. But glancing down that list does show a few places where it's being used and probably shouldn't be. As far as that goes - it's primarily famous for promoting debunked conspiracy theories. An essay there absolutely does not pass WP:RSOPINION. People forget that while our rules for opinions are more lax, they do still require WP:RS; we rely on basic fact-checking and editorial control even for opinion-pieces, and an opinion that has not been published by a venue that passes WP:RS should only be reported on in Wikipedia if a secondary source covers it (and then using, exclusively, the framing and context of the secondary source.) To do otherwise invites people to drop their own conspiracy-theories and opinions in as "opinions"; any opinion worth covering should be have be referenced in a reliable source. As WP:RSOPINION says, A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. - emphasis mine. WND is not usable as a source, even for statements of opinion - when we want to cover WP:FRINGE views or conspiracy-theories, we should do so by looking at what reliable sources have said about them. If none exist, we shouldn't spread them by relying on a source like WND. --Aquillion (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The biggest problem with these links is that in many cases no independent third party has commented on the content, so we have a Wikipedia editor as sole arbiter deciding that what J Random Blowhard says on WND is significant enough to include from the primary self-published source. Normally we only include self-published sources for uncontroversial statements, and secondary sources are always preferred, but a small number of editors seem quite determined to use primary self-published material from WND in biographies, which I think is a very bad idea. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I thought we already had! Doug Weller talk 16:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly No. How to use WND as a source has already been determined (see here) and these severe restrictions suffice. We still need to be able to use WND as a primary source for opinion pieces, without the suggested automatic block, since WND evidently reflects a speficic worldview. While we should indeed not use it for its factual claims and reporting of events, we should still be able to quote op-ed. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia if information from this opinionated fountain is cut off (see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD; see also this RfC discussion (corrected per Newslinger's heads-up below), as an example of such a typical use). -The Gnome (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Once again, the linked discussion that you closed just over an hour ago is not a RfC. Although your closure discounts a significant number of comments for being "outside the scope of the discussion", the general unreliability of WorldNetDaily is the central topic of this RfC, and those comments are relevant here even though they were excluded from your closing statement. Also, please see the first part of the discussion section below for an explanation of why this proposal is not a "block" or "ban".​ — Newslinger talk 08:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, Newslinger. (I failed to amend this too after amending the original-discussion template.) As it happens, I know the Daily Mail is not banned in the strict sense. However, every time an editor witll try to link to it as a sole reference, they are warned off by a edit-filter message. This is equal to a block, in practical terms. My point about the strong need to keep WMD as a source for primary texts, e.g. opinion pieces, without having to go through filters and warnings stands. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:RS/N discussion concerning WorldNetDaily, Daily Mail, Breitbart News, etc.

Discussion (WorldNetDaily RfC)

Newslinger, what is the point of singling out WND when there are a huge number of unreliable sources and we already have a page devoted to this? It seems all that does is invite WND to add this to their conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This is to determine whether an edit filter should be created for WorldNetDaily, which would be consistent with the other deprecated sources. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Why not just post a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? Alex Jones' Prisonplanet for example is listed there but do we really want him to say that his website was the second or third ever banned from Wikipedia? TFD (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than banning it, since an edit filter set to "warn" would inform the user that the source is deprecated, but wouldn't prevent the user from citing it in an article. In contrast, adding a source to the spam blacklist is equivalent to banning it, since the spam blacklist does prevent users from linking to the source. If this RfC passes, it wouldn't be correct for a publication to say that "WorldNetDaily is banned from Wikipedia". However, it would be correct to say that "editors are discouraged from citing WorldNetDaily in Wikipedia articles".​ — Newslinger talk 01:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
— Newslinger talk 17:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not get this either, this discussion/consensus is practically already codified at the sources page, no need to do it all again (not for this publication). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • This list of 16 complaints just is not making sense as any kind of evidence. So NYT has 28 complaints (listed... I am sure there are more than that), so WND list has 16 (and again I am sure more exist), so someone else has N... So what about it? I look at say the Billy Graham complaint and ... its someone deleted a mention of Graham doing WND input that linked to the WND article having it seemed a demonstration of WND provided a fact. I look at the item about WND books, and not only is it not the same thing as the website but again seems like demonstrated WND Books provided a fact. I look at the Open Source one and it mentions their being (perhaps) an advocacy like ACLU, SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etcetera and that again their report was correct but not widely covered. So the list is just saying there were 16 or more asking... and nothing more. I am more curious on what WP:policy was used to gather 16 queries to the table and what criteria is the page basing conclusions on ... or is it sheer opinions ? Meanwhile, this all just seems thin. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • This is an exhaustive list of every discussion on WP:RSN (and its archives) where the section header included the term "WorldNetDaily", "World Net Daily", or "WND". It was compiled from the search results of the "Search this noticeboard & archives" box at the top of this page, and no discussions that matched the query were excluded from the list. Discussions on WP:RSN aren't necessarily complaints: they're inquiries where editors ask "Is this source reliable for this use case?"
    The WP:RSP entry for The New York Times considers the publication "generally reliable" because the listed discussions (which were obtained from the same search box) almost always conclude in strong editor consensus that The New York Times is a reliable source. In these discussions, most editors take the reliability of The New York Times for granted, and phrase their comments in a way that suggests an attack on the general reliability of the publication would be unexpected. When an article from The New York Times is challenged, it's typically done on the basis of a policy or guideline that applies to all news sources, such as WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:RSOPINION, and WP:MEDRS.
    The discussions about WorldNetDaily are quite the opposite, with most editors describing it as unreliable. In many of the discussions, editors take the unreliability of the site for granted with regard to the site's poor "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and complain that WorldNetDaily has been discussed repeatedly and excessively when the consensus is clear. When an article from WorldNetDaily is condoned, it's typically done on the basis of WP:ABOUTSELF, which applies to all questionable sources. For specific incidents, the most significant complaint is of WorldNetDaily's role in propagating the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In general, editors show a strong consensus that WorldNetDaily should not be used for any type of factual reporting, because it publishes too many intentionally misleading stories.​ — Newslinger talk 15:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Newslinger that was a circular argument rather than one showing much evidence, policy, or consistent approach. So there were 16 asks on RSN here...again, lots of suspicions voiced for NYT also... and though WND provided factual info and is used as RS in cite somehow that doesn’t help count as RS ? How on earth is that arrived at ? What were the CONCLUSIONS of the RSN discussions seems more relevant — what percentage of the questions wound up accepting it as RS ? Look, other than what seems factual concerns on circulation WEIGHT and POV like ACLU or SLPC, it just looks like suspicions not supported and seems the blacklist is not as reputable here than WND. Come on, is this just someone put it in table because ‘I felt it shifty’ ??? Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The key criterion is a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (from WP:V and WP:IRS). From past discussions on WP:RSN, editors show strong consensus that The New York Times meets this standard, while WorldNetDaily does not. If you don't think the "generally unreliable" classification or the summary in the WP:RSP entry for WorldNetDaily is accurate, please start a discussion or RfC at WT:RSP about the interpretation of these discussions, and also present your preferred version of the summary. Likewise, if you don't think the "generally reliable" classification or the summary in the WP:RSP entry for The New York Times is accurate, please do the same. WP:RSP entries don't present any new arguments, but only summarize the comments from these previous discussions. The methodology for acquiring and summarizing the discussions for both WP:RSP entries is exactly the same.​ — Newslinger talk 01:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Newslinger are you now dropping your claim above that 16 queries “indicate an overwhelming consensus” ??? Because they simply were not showing as such when I open them up. Again other than your pointing to a list as if length 16 was important and claim consensus or poor for facts, but opening up several things only showed me cases where WND was good as a Source and/or no clear consensus made at the case, and NYT has a longer list. So the reputation is proven by your claiming the reputation annnnnd that is the circular argument, not one demonstrating evidence in support of a policy point. I am looking for How did the table entry reach and come to its statement or how is this question being evidenced, just not seeing any rules or method to believe the words. Look, WND is a website of opinions and news aggregation of conservatives but POV and small is not a RS block. For some of the 16 cases WND shown correct and some contexts it would seem ok.... a categorical blacklist looks like a claim with no serious support and failed to show a case. Tell me where or what the case is, because just looking at several of the 16 I got WND was right, right, again right, .... seems evidence that supports it being RS... not seeing how table gets ‘not reliable’ out of just there were 16 RS queries. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
As requested, here are summaries of each of the 16 discussions:
  1. 2007: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily has "a reputation for publishing fringe theories", and does not have "a reputation for accuracy, nor high standards of journalism".
  2. 2008: Weak consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
  3. 2009: Consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
  4. 2009: Consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source. Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
  5. 2009: Consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source. Consensus that a physical book published by WND Books can be cited as an opinion piece.
  6. 2009: No consensus.
  7. 2010: No consensus on a book published by WND Books.
  8. 2010: Extremely long discussion. Consensus that WorldNetDaily "is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material". Consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
  9. 2010: Long discussion. Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source with respect to its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  10. 2012: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source.
  11. 2015: Consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source, with the exception of WP:ABOUTSELF.
  12. 2015: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source with respect to its "reputation for fact checking and accuracy".
  13. 2017: Long discussion. WP:SNOW consensus that WorldNetDaily is "completely un-reliable".
  14. 2018: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source, even for opinion pieces.
  15. 2018: Long discussion. Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source for any situation. Consensus that citing opinions from WorldNetDaily would constitute undue weight.
  16. 2018: Strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source for any situation. Consensus that citing opinions from WorldNetDaily would constitute undue weight.
For each discussion, opinions from editors are weighted equally regardless of the volume of their comments in the discussion. (Regardless of whether a person posts two comments or ten, their comments as a whole are weighted as one opinion). Long in-depth discussions are weighted more heavily than short discussions. Since consensus can change, newer discussions are weighted more heavily than older discussions. If editors describe a source as partisan, this only affects the source's summary, and not its reliability classification. If you would like the challenge the classification or summary of WP:RSP entry for The New York Times, I can do the same if you request this on WT:RSP.​ — Newslinger talk 02:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Newslinger - look, WND is accepted as a RS is simply a fact - there was a lot of suspicions and many replacements, but they are still the source of factual material and in use as cites, and discussions often made mention that they are usable as RS. As to your list above, giving your view of the items is not responsive to the question I asked (instead the lack of evidence or method is again demonstrated) and it added that your summary looks flawed.
  • First note "I am looking for How did the table entry reach and come to its statement or how is this question being evidenced, just not seeing any rules or method to believe the words." Your list of 16 ad hoc personal views today of the discussions do not provide an explanation of how the table came to its conclusion back then -- the table does not make apparent any such evidence or any general method. The list of a couple dozen unorganized opinions does not make them more authoritative but does make the lack of context and method more obvious, and your list of 16 is heading the same way except now these are all your opinions. I on the other hand pointed out those WND discussions repeatedly support WND as factually correct, and in specified contexts reliable - and also mention WP repeated concerns as not standing up to scrutiny.
  • Second -- your evaluation approach looks flawed. in first pointing to 16 (as if that was significant) and now pointing to POV (as if that is significant). But a source POVness just does not preclude RS - WND does seem POV (opinion pieces and news aggregator rather than journalist site) but as I mentioned from discussions so are (distinct advocacy groups) ACLU and NRA and SPLC -- and having cautions on using ACLU and SPLC and NRA and WND seems correct per WP:BIASED, but that is not a block to RS. As I said above, I opened up several cases listed and found that despite suspicions due to its being POV, WND was factual and correct. For some of these, the suspicion seems to not be on evidence related to the item or looking for third party views and just runs on internal suspicions of editors from it having a reputation of POV. WND gets questioned as NYT is more so, and that's OK and reasonable -- but again, asking or number of askings does not block RS acceptance and use.
  • Third - in opening up the listed discussions, things seem a lot more of WND as RS with caution and not blacklisting, and assertions otherwise are not standing up to scrutiny.
  1. 2007: "Note that they are good sources for opinion", another noted that WND did do a correction (a WP policy indication of journalistic quality), and "should be citeable, but with appropriate caution". Result - RSN Discussion was not used, instead the article discussed that it was excluding critic Paul Sperry and agreed locally to [not use either source] effectively not RS determination of WND in this case.
  2. 2008: "it depends" (the RS of source they are quoting is the question), remark that for this topic "avoid using partisan sources", and in the end result - the article in question no longer exists, but weakly remarked as RS of the BIASED sort.
  3. 2009: "It's been discussed several times, but it hasn't been dismissed conclusively." "basic facts generally don't get slanted; opinions and analyses do" - so again one editor said a RS of the BIASED sort.
  4. 2009: WND "is already considered a reliable source for many articles"; "Whatever your taste regarding their politics, they meet a professional criteria to publish, a presumption in favour of them. I'd want to see circulation figures and / or media reviews of their newspaper". "would treat them more like a political advocacy group ( as I would the ACLU, SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc ) than a newspaper. Which means there will be some caveats about citing them for a BLP, especially for extraordinary claims"; Exclude the specific content based on UNDUE and possibly defamatory so exclude for BLP; and that it is Joseph Farah being aggregated there; and finally a sidenote that this content is also (elsewhere) in the news but not in article so WND seems not alone with wider coverage. Result - content not included, no RS consensus and multiple other concerns.
  5. 2009: "RS as far as stating opinions about the person, and as far as stating when the author held those opinions. ", "citing WND is more like citing a political advocacy group than a traditional news organization. Which is still allowable with attribution, though there are some caveats involved if it's a BLP. ", mentions that the same info is available thru the Telegraph or DHS.gov (better BESTSOURCES); so "the book was in fact a reliable source in this instance". WND Content accepted, but citing to the larger RS.
  6. 2009: "There was never an overwhelming consensus on WND, but it is highly slanted towards a Christian Fundamentalist and Christian Zionist point of view." "I would think that these sources would be fine, though perhaps better if bothe were attributed. (If we are to be even-handed--Nableezy just commented at an AfD in support of an article supported by Electronic Intifida, which has much lesser indicia of fact-checking and reliability than WND). " "WND may be OK for news and current affairs, depending on context. Not OK for historical placenames. "- Result: WND Content included, but cited to two more scholarly works.
  7. 2010: "book is certainly reliable for a statement as to the opinion of the book's author (P. David Gaubatz) ... but that raises the question of whether that author's opinion is worth noting (per WP:UNDUE). "; " the WSJ article provides more background, so it would supercede WND as a source"; "This knee-jerk reaction to anything associated with WND is getting old." "Some books WND publishes are more reliable than others. It's a question of individual books, not the publisher as a whole."; use "both the WSJ article and this book"; " I did find a few other sources. There was a brief mention in a Chicago Tribune article from 2004,[45], as well as a couple of articles that Farah ( founder of WND ) wrote in the Washington Post in 2004[46] and 2002,[47] plus"...; - Result: WND content included, but said cited to other sources; currently cited to Vogue (?)
  8. 2010: Mixed summary of not liked and no evidence given - "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."; "I have listed and commented upon every "controversial article" currently presented in the Wikipedia WND article and, IMHO, all, save for one, lend scant support for an assertion of chronic WND "unreliability" inre their demonstrable "fact-checking and accuracy" record."; "I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion."; " As a source for an assertion as to what WND's opinion is and what WND says about something, it is reliable. (Of course, this opens the secondary issue of whether discussing what WND says about a topic in the context of a specific article is appropriate or not. That is really a WP:UNDUE question"; "WND is being used a source for a column that they printed (ie, evidence that the author said it). Not a question of what the author said was true, but that they said it." "the question still remains (despite the prolific echoes inre WND as an RS) does the "reputation" stand up to scrutiny." "One should simply look who authored each specific publication in WND. "; "There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source. ";
I think that's enough to demonstrate supportive material exists that was not being shown. Look so there was prejudice shown but no evidence shown, and WND remained citeable. I just do not see any more of a case or organization to this other than IDONTLIKEIT there was 8 years ago. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Before I present my evaluation, I'd like to emphasize that within discussions #1-16, discussions #1-8 are most favorable to WorldNetDaily's reliability, since they conclude that WorldNetDaily is generally unreliable while carving out some exceptions that allow for its content to be cited. Discusions #9-16, which haven't been analyzed by Markbassett or me in this level of detail, establish much stronger consensus on the unreliability of WorldNetDaily.

Among discussions #1-8, only #1 (2007), #4 (2009), and #8 (2010) show consensus that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source. The others (#2-3 and #5-7) didn't result in consensus regarding the site's reliability. Here's a detailed analysis of #1-8, with a broader selection of quotes:

  1. FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily (2007)
    • The discussion involved 17 editors.
    • 10 editors stated that WorldNetDaily is unreliable. The other 7 did not express an opinion on WorldNetDaily's reliability.
    • The first comment ("WorldNetDaily has a reputation for publishing fringe theories. [...] Neither site has a reputation for accuracy, nor high standards of journalism. In the example above, there is no way these would be reliable sources.") was seconded by 8 other editors.
    • While one of the supporting editors claimed that "they are good sources for opinion, where that is warranted", that portion of the editor's comment didn't receive support from other editors.
    • The error correction you mentioned doesn't really support WorldNetDaily's reliability, as the error concerns WorldNetDaily accidentally using information sourced from The Onion.
    • In this discussion, no editors defended the reliability of WorldNetDaily. The discussion shows a strong consensus that WorldNetDaily is generally unreliable, with no consensus on whether it is a "good source for opinion".
  2. WorldNetDaily (2008)
    • The discussion was very short and only involved 2 editors.
    • One editor described WorldNetDaily as a partisan source.
    • The other editor stated the reliability of the WorldNetDaily article "depends as to whether World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission is regarded as a reliable source on Christianity affairs in India, as this is who they source most of their material for this". A significant portion of the article in question was quoted directly from the Commission.
    • Since this discussion was brief and had low participation, the consensus here is weak and deserves minimal weight.
  3. World Net Daily (2009)
    • This discussion was short and involved 4 editors. The discussion starter did not express an opinion.
    • One editor, as you quoted, stated that WorldNetDaily has "been discussed several times, but it hasn't been dismissed conclusively" and that the site's "writing is heavily slanted".
    • Two other editors were less charitable with their wording. One said "WND has been discussed several times on this board and has been determined to be unreliable." and the other said "it would only be reliable for its own viewpoint and not for any facts, which means in most cases there'd never be a reason to cite it".
    • The discussion did not generate consensus on the reliability of WorldNetDaily, but there was no dissent to the site being labeled as a partisan source.
    • Since the discussion was brief, it deserves reduced weight.
  4. Open source intelligence websites as reliable sources - WorldNetDaily (2009)
    • The discussion involved 9 editors.
    • 7 editors described WorldNetDaily as an unreliable source, while 1 editor defended WorldNetDaily's usage in certain cases. 1 editor did not express an opinion.
    • Quotes from editors who argued that WorldNetDaily was unreliable:
      • "They seem dangerously close to being the right wing equivalent of a Trotskyite party newspaper: Trotskyite papers can be RS, but the presumption would have to be against them until you can point to evaluations of the quality of the journalism."
      • "worldnetdaily - should be banned as a reliable source in Wikipedia since it is right wing and publishes dubious facts"
      • "WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source for disputed and possibly defamatory [...] information about a living person"
      • "WND has come up several times. As far as I can remember, it has never been found a reliable source."
    • The one editor who defended WorldNetDaily still qualified their opinion: "They may be OK for facts that come from public records, but I wouldn't use their analysis or their reporting of unverifiable claims".
    • The consensus in this discussion is that WorldNetDaily is both unreliable and partisan.
  5. Statement in book published by WND Books--Purpose: to reflect that author warned of risk before event happened (2009)
    • This discussion is about Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, a book published by WorldNetDaily's imprint, WND Books.
    • The discussion involved 8 editors.
    • 3 editors agreed that the book from WND Books could be cited as a source of opinions. 2 editors (including 1 unsigned) criticized the reliability of WorldNetDaily. 3 editors did not comment on the suitability or reliability of WorldNetDaily or WND Books.
    • The editor supporting WorldNetDaily's reliability stated: "Use of WND as a source of opinions is certainly allowable. It is absolutely RS as far as stating opinions about the person, and as far as stating when the author held those opinions."
    • The sole dissenter stated: "WND is neither particularly notable, nor does it have a good reputation as a publisher of reliable books."
    • Editors agreed that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source. An editor defending the use of the book said: "I would say that citing WND is more like citing a political advocacy group than a traditional news organization."
    • This discussion shows weak consensus that a physical book published by WND Books can be cited as an opinion piece, and consensus that WorldNetDaily is a partisan source.
  6. WorldNetDaily (2009)
    • This discussion involved 4 editors.
    • For this particular situation, 2 editors supported the use of WorldNetDaily content, while 2 editors opposed.
    • The discussion starter opposed the use of WorldNetDaily, saying: "Looking back at previous RS/N threads [...] there appears to be an overwhelming consensus that this "source"" is generally unreliable."
    • Other editors argued that WorldNetDaily should be accepted in some cases. Regarding the general reliability of WorldNetDaily, one said "There was never an overwhelming consensus on WND, but it is highly slanted towards a Christian Fundamentalist and Christian Zionist point of view." and another stated "WND may be OK for news and current affairs, depending on context. Not OK for historical placenames."
    • This discussion shows no consensus on the general reliability of WorldNetDaily.
  7. WorldNetDaily books (2010)
    • This discussion is about Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, a book published by WorldNetDaily's imprint, WND Books.
    • The discussion involved 8 editors.
    • For this particular situation, 3 editors supported the use of the book, and 4 editors opposed. The discussion starter did not express an opinion.
    • Editors who supported the book asserted that the book should be treated like most published works. According to one, "The book should be treated like any other book. [...] Some books WND publishes are more reliable than others. It's a question of individual books, not the publisher as a whole."
    • Other editors believed that WND Books inherits the reputation of WorldNetDaily and should be discarded as undue weight. One editor states: "WND on the whole is not considered a reputable publisher and it would be make a travesty of the RS policy to allow it to be used."
    • This discussion did not generate consensus on a book published by WND Books.
  8. WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed (2010)
    • This discussion is extremely long, and actually consists of 2 discussions collapsed together. 20 editors participated.
    • 5 editors argued that WorldNetDaily should be an acceptable source in at least some situations. 8 editors argued that those situations are rare, and stated that WorldNetDaily is generally unreliable. 7 editors did not express an explicit opinion.
    • Quotes from editors who supported WorldNetDaily's reliability:
      • "As a source for an assertion of fact, WND is not reliable. As a source for an assertion as to what WND's opinion is and what WND says about something, it is reliable."
      • "there's no reason for complete removal of all links to WND. The practice has always been that we do treat WND as a niche source, similar to TMZ for entertainment news."
    • Quotes from editors who disputed WorldNetDaily's reliability:
      • 'World Net Daily seems to fail miserably against the policy here which is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy".'
      • "I don't think they effectively fact-check even basic uncontroversial statements, certainly not when it gets in the way of their agenda."
      • "Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content. As noted above, accuracy and oversight, and not political leanings, are the reasons for this consensus."
    • The closure of this discussion was extremely contentious, and resulted in a separate lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Inappropriate move to subpage / Archival.
    • The original closing statement, written by an editor who did not express an explicit opinion in the discussion, was:
      • "Per MastCell, we appear to have a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material, but may be acceptable to source the opinions of its creators. The discussion has been going on for three weeks and additional contributions do not seem to be changing that view."
    • The editor who posted the largest number of comments in favor of WorldNetDaily's reliability engaged in an edit war over the closing statement. (See details here and here.) This editor then replaced the previous closing statement with their own version, which is the one currently in the archived discussion:
      • "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."
      • I consider this an improper closure.
    • Since the discussion was extended and had high participation, it deserves higher weight.
    • In conclusion, this discussion shows consensus that WorldNetDaily is generally unreliable. Specifically, it is "not acceptable as a source for factual material".

Older discussions (such as #1-8, from 2007 to 2010) don't carry as much weight as newer discussions because they are less representative of current consensus. As WP:RSP's lead section states: "Consensus can change, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or argument reaches a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes."

Discussions #8-16 (from 2010 to 2018) show much clearer consensus that WorldNetDaily does not have the "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" required by the verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. The most recent discussions (#14-16, from 2018) go even further to explicitly criticize the use of WorldNetDaily opinion pieces as undue weight in articles. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Newslinger Talking results and details is somewhat better, but again .... simple fact is that WND is in use as RS, and in other cases their material was factual and kept but cite switched to bigger source. So in some contexts they simply are a RS. This list of 16 seems simply not giving much to the discussion of whether they should be, other than a circular one. They just are ad hoc individual cases, not giving wider info or applicable to the items I mentioned.
  1. First, how did the opinions in the table come to it’s statement and how is it evidenced? I am not seeing any rules or organised method to make the entry credible, which seems a bit disreputable. At the least, one does not know what the table is saying or how much credence to give it.
  2. Second, your analysis still looks flawed by mentioning items irrelevant to RS as if they are something that matters. So there were (at least) 16 questioning ... irrelevant, e.g. NYT has 28. So the circulation has little WP:WEIGHT may mean material is UNDUE ... affects use but DUE is not a matter of RS. So they are perceived as WP:PARTISAN or said “right wing” ... irrelevant, also POV are ACLU, SPLC, and NRA advocacy groups, and the policy explicitly says “reliable sources are not required to be neutral”. The list of 16 seems treating their website and publishing as if all the individual situation asks re RS were all the same, as if one RS discussion applies to all other materials from a source, to be treating books or website (opinion articles and aggregator) as if these are items WND produced and the same source. These RSN are in theory asking about if forindividual products is WND RS for different contexts, not an overall TALK about a global block for all contexts.
  3. Third, the list of 16 I see a flavour of “use with caution” in discussion and that seems to be the practice. The list of 16 events just did not stand up to scrutiny or for the context of whether an overall block suits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
in other cases their material was factual and kept but cite switched to bigger source...
"Bigger"? No, to actually reliable. To say that replacing a source with something that's reliable as somehow evidence of the former being reliable is, well, breathtaking. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Calton - nope, factually untrue. What the discussions said and the policies named were not about RS. Those kept the WND material as correct, but had cite switch for a larger venue per policy WP:WEIGHT aka DUE, or to academic sources per guide to use WP:BESTSOURCES. There also seems expressed prejudice against WND as being right wing but the evidence and policies stated near the change were not RS. The WND as aggregator and opinion pieces (sort of a fundamentalist Yahoo) is only a RS that the material exists from sources stated, at whatever worth the source has, but that does not prevent other sources or coverage from also existing. Where a more prominent source and/or one more authoritative for the topic context appears later on, then putting in the bigger is better for WP... but that’s not about RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • RSN discussions often have consensus regarding statements of fact but are less clear when it comes to opinion. Several recent WND discussions concern the use of opinion pieces written by guest authors, so it will be important to decide how to proceed in these situations. –dlthewave ☎ 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is essentially like asking whether we can cite Mein Kamph when discussing Hitler’s views. It may be an appropriate citation to a primary source, but there are limited situations in which it is appropriate to mention Hitler’s views.
Yes, if someone writes an opinion piece (Op-Ed) on WND, and we mention this opinion in an article, then WND is a reliable Primary source for the view. Whether to mention an opinion in a specific article is more a question of WP:UNDUE). But if we do mention it, we should cite the publication where the opinion was expressed.
SO... I don’t think we can say “never cite WND, ever”... but, I think we can say: “while opinions written in WND can be cited to WND, the situations where it is appropriate to mention an opinion written in WND will be very rare.” Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sneaky Dino Redux: Sourcing Pseudoscience at list of cryptids

Hello, folks. Recently a request to merge list of cryptids into cryptozoology resulted in a unique and interesting situation relevant to both this board and the fringe theories notice board. You can read the decision in full here. In short: Items that cannot be referenced with citations that meet WP:FRIND must be removed, and if removal results in, say, several items on the list, then the list needs to merge into the list's parent article, cryptozoology.

Now, as many of you are aware, this topic has long been a battleground for pseudoscience proponents, particularly Young Earth creationists, both on and off Wikipedia. To ensure that the list bursts with claims about sightings of tricky dinosaurs that prove evolution wrong or whatever, there have been some very, shall we say, creative approaches to policy applied to related articles over the years. However, recently many of these attempts to turn Wikipedia into a cryptozoology vending machine have collapsed over the past year or two. When found suitable for the site, in their place we've gained informative and, subjectively, interesting articles that happen to also meet Wikipedia guidelines (as an example, compare: before and after). But to maintain that, we need more hands on deck.

In short: List of cryptids needs additional source critical eyes, otherwise it'll no doubt soon be filled to the brim with every unholy WP:RS violation the depths can conjure. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I put Mahamba up for deletion - there are probably still a few others on the list that need to go. --tronvillain (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
How about AGF?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I assume good faith, but bare URLs dumping isn't acceptable, and neither is the constant lawyering to get around common sourcing requirements for dealing with pseudoscience and fringe topics one can find all over that talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
How does are URLs "unholy WP:RS violation the depths can conjure", they may not be best practice, but they do not violate RS (one in fact was from the BBC, very non RS that). As to the SPS, which was was an SPS? Nor am I lawyering. Lay of the assumptions of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
This self-published source you attempted to use in the article as a source didn't exactly instill confidence. Again, please do yourself, the rest of us, and the article a favor by please sticking to quality sources, preferably by academics who aren't trying to push a pseudoscience.
I get that you're being egged on by the cryptozoologists, Young Earth creationists, and pseudoscience proponents (like the article's resident global warming 'skeptic') to champion their cause, and for some reason you've embraced the role to date, but I wish you'd take a moment to consider exactly what you're promoting with stuff like this. Stick to WP:RS and we'll have quality articles and not a promotional platform for this particular pseudoscience subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, that was an SPS I was mistaken to use it (it was the wrong "unexplained", it is a common title). But the rest were not, and I would remind you I asked for more time to be given to find better sources, and this was rejected. Nor did I attempt to reinstate it, after you removed it. Nor have I argued to include it since its removal. I am being egged on by no one, I am promoting nothing. And I do not see how this list promotes it. In fact I find this attitude utterly beyond comprehension. But this is not about me, this is about RS. Most of the sources you removed were RS, just not correctly formatted.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
They were in fact not, and I explicitly outlined why, and I know you read it and understood it. I even suggested where you could potentially find reliable sources. However, you're still scraping the gutter with this stuff rather than turning to, say, JSTOR or typical wellsprings for reliable sources. Rather than continuing to try to somehow skip around WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:FRIND, you'd do yourself a big favor by looking to where everyone else does for reliable sources on pseudosciences: academia. Search JSTOR, Google Scholar, or even academia.edu and see what you can find. Surely that'd be an improvement from scraping the internet for listicles and pushing to use pseudoscience sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The BBC, National Geographic are gutter sources? Any way until the question below is cleared up there may be a lot more sources out there that can be used.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
If a source doesn't mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, then you know there's a problem and the source quality is low. The subculture strives to present itself as really real science despite a complete lack of foundation in science and a total absence of institutional support, as academics commonly note. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Then I sugest you make your displeasure clear to The BBC & National Geographic, as far as I know they are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
You know better than that: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. We approach these sources with a critical eye. For example, National Geographic every year runs a story about Hel (being) being the mother of Krampus ([1]), an idea that originates from a work of modern fiction by artist Gerald Brom (Krampus the Yule Lord, 2012) and has no basis in history (an academic at the University of Colorado discusses it a bit here). This led to a thread here ([2]) where it become extremely obvious that National Geographic was not a reliable source for this topic on this very board. I know you've been around long enough to have seen examples of similar situations over and over—in fact, you were even involved in that discussion! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So to actually ask an RS related question, does a source have to use the exact phrase we used for the tile of a list or article (such as Cryptid) or are equivalent terns (such as "crypto-animal") or claims such as "Crytozooloogists have said" (or similar, would we need a huge list of acceptable "ephormisums"?) enough to count as a source for inclusion in the list List of cryptids.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Soulexpress.net

  • Would the following source (The Miki Howard Story) be appropriate for Wikipedia? I would add it to the "At Seventeen" article to support information on Miki Howard's cover of the song. My first response is the site is not particularly reliable or high-quality, though it is written by an editor of the site, which one can see at the by-line on the very bottom of the page. I would greatly appreciate feedback about this. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a high-end fanzine. These generally wouldn't be considered RSes, but they might be usable as expert opinions in an area, carefully applied if noncontroversial ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
My take as well, but I would need to see some demonstration they are regarded as an expert..Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the feedback! I was going to use it in the context of sourcing a song cover, and it was the only source that I could find. However, if there are doubts about the source, then I will just not use it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The link has been replaced so further discussion is moot. It has been established that in principle self-published material by the subject of an article may be used on a BLP if it is not unduly self-serving. Given that in principle the article is about the event rather than the person, questions remain as to whether this is appropriate for a BLP1E when the material is not directly related to the event, and how much personal biographical detail is appropriate, but these issues can be resolved on the article talk page. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

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

There's something a little creepy about linking to a self-published CV at the site portfoliobox.net for the recently deceased Grace Millane, particularly for a homicide case. Should this be removed? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If she is recently deceased BLP applies. However depending on its use, it counts as a self published primary source, and can be used as they usually are. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Even if her sole claim to notability is as a homicide victim? Can't quite put my finger on a policy but it seems in bad taste to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It appears to be only sourcing basic background (schooling) information which would normally be an acceptable use of a self published primary source. My only concern is that it's functionally difficult-to-impossible to confirm the document uploaded to portfoliobox was uploaded by the subject. So personally I would remove it as unreliable. You are arguing notability though, and there is a good argument there for BLP1E, but that's an argument for an AFD discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's definitely BLP1E, no question of notability due to extensive press coverage. Background biogrphical info is arguably not relevant to the event which is the subject of the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Can it be confirmed it really is hers?Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
No reason to think otherwise, it is consistent with published details about her. Perhaps the best argument for removal is that this is an article about a crime, not a biography. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Art of Manliness

Hi folks, is a reference from Review a reliable source. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

no its just another blog.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thats what I thought. I just had to hear it from the horses mouth. scope_creepTalk 14:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, per the about page it is a blog. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Not a RS It is a blog for essays on a particular topic. Given the puffery that the authors offer on the about page, it is not trying for a NPOV take. Chris vLS (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Frontiers journal article

So I have this publication lined up as a potential source for User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/African humid period, specifically for claims that humans may have been (part of) the cause for the end of that wet period. From what I know Frontiers is considered to be a somewhat dodgy publication but this article is sparsely cited among better sources (one of which comes to the opposite conclusion). So, would it be considered a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Never use anything from Frontiers. If something's truly accepted knowledge, it will be easy to find in a reputable source. See also WP:CRAPWATCH. Alexbrn (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

RFC: National Review

Do you think that National Review is a reliable source? It's being used as a source on the article for Josh Hawley 's place of birth, the source claims that he was born in Springdale, AR but I have some other more official sources which say he is from and a native of Lexington, MO. Here is a link to the source used: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/05/14/josh-hawley-senate-race-worthy-candidate-missouri/ . And here are the links to my sources which say that he's from Lexington, MO: http://ago.mo.gov/about-us/about-ag-hawley (this is an official .gov site), https://joshhawley.com/about/ (his official site). I participated in a discussion about it on the talk page there prior to this RFC but I'm being overruled, but I disagree with them so theirs no consensus.

So I would like some comments and feedback about National Review's reliability. 2001:5B0:4BD3:43F8:A40D:8771:7EEF:846F (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Two separate issues. Being a native of a location is not synonymous with birth location, nor is being raised in a specific location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The dictionary says otherwise: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/native 2001:5B0:4BD3:43F8:A40D:8771:7EEF:846F (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but not how it's used in this case. So, I'd say we have no reason to doubt the facts of the National Review story, the work of Miller, or the fact checkers at the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Theirs no reason to doubt the gov source, I'd rather go with an official source than the latter. 2001:5B0:4BD3:43F8:A40D:8771:7EEF:846F (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is still open for comments if anybody else would like to comment, in general is National Review reliable? 2001:5B0:4BD3:43F8:A40D:8771:7EEF:846F (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

In general I think the National Review is not a great source - they engage in some motivated reasoning on some issues - but they are probably better than Hawley's campaign or .gov website - which have no real editorial oversight at all. Candidates have been known to fudge a bit around these issues. The Springfield News Leader also says that he was born in Arkansas. I would lean toward leaving it out unless there's some clarity. Otherwise, I would err in favor of the National Review. Nblund talk 23:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Most of the content in the NR is editorials, which are usually not reliable sources wherever they are published. I see in this case the author is listed as the "national correspondent," so it is presented as a news story. I assume in this case the writer, John J. Miller, has sufficient credibility that we can rely on him to provide accurate biographical information. When there are conflicts between claims in reliable sources, it requires a little detective work to determine which claim is accurate - see what other sources say, maybe some address the issue of different birthplaces mentioned, maybe he was born in one place and grew up in another. TFD (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Articles in National Review are reliable. Perhaps in this in case the birthplace was conflated with the hometown. Or perhaps this was a mistake. Even the most reliable sources make mistakes. But in general National Review is an edited, reliable publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a need to distinguish between the reliability of the print magazine and National Review Online. Articles from the print magazine would be generally reliable, with opinion pieces usable as WP:RSOPINION. The National Review website is run separately and has much less editorial oversight than the magazine. Check the author of the article: if the article was written by a non-staff contributor, it would likely be unreliable, similar to an article written by a Forbes.com contributor. The article linked by OP was originally published in the magazine, so in this case the article would be reliable. feminist (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The National Review is reliable (with the usual treatment of opinion pieces). The online-only content (and note that much of the online content does end up in print) is probably more of a WP:NEWSBLOG - which are usable - but of lesser quality. Sources do make mistakes - true of event the best of sources. Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht

An RS-related discussion is taking place at MILHIST regarding mentions of individuals in the Wehrmachtbericht WWII-era German propaganda broadcast. A recent RfC determined that being mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht may only be described as an honor "when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour", but additional work is needed to decide which of the existing sources are actually reliable for this purpose. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Amnesty

Source: link 1, link2

Article: People's Mujahedin of Iran

Content:

  1. Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa. Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views. On July 28, Iran’s Supreme Leader Rouhollah Khomeini, “used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa” ordering the execution of all prisoners that were supportive of the MEK. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition. The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants.
  1. In 2016, an audio recording was posted online of a high-level official meeting that took place in August 1988 between Hossein Ali Montazeri and the officials responsible for the mass killings in Tehran. In the recording, Hossein Ali Montazeri is heard saying that the ministry of intelligence used the MEK’s armed incursion as a pretext to carry out the mass killings, which “had been under consideration for several years.” Iranian authorities have dismissed the incident as “nothing but propaganda”, presenting the executions as a lawful response to a small group of incarcerated individuals who had colluded with the MEK to support its July 25 1988 incursion. According to Amnesty International, this narrative fails to “explain how thousands of prisoners from across the country could have communicated and co-ordinated from inside Iran’s high-security prisons with an armed group outside the country.”

I agree that amnesty website is RS, but for above mentioned content amnesty website used as the primary source. Isn't it?Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources for a no-longer existant port

Hello, I'd like some guidance for the editing of a port that exists in wikipedia as a past item but has no extant presence now. All past existence is cited but the port no longer exists, but there is no good source that specifically says the port no longer exists. I know for a fact that newer developments exist on the historical port location but I can't reliable source that. I'm requesting some guidance, particularly because the existing article repeatedly refers to the port as a thing that exists despite the fact that it is a historical thing. Thanks, drawn to this because I was weirded out by the presence of a "port of omaha" article when anyone who lives here knows there is no operational port.

In response to the above, I have made some edits that hopefully will resolve any confusion. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This source lists the port of Omaha as still active as of 2014, and I made further comments on this at this edit summary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it OK to use the Daily Mail as a source in the article Eilean (yacht)?

Hi all,

Source
How a watchmaker put the wind back into sails of yacht that crashed after being made famous in Duran Duran video Daily Mail, 9 February 2012
Article
Eilean (yacht)
Content

This yacht has a long history. Perhaps it would fail notability guidelines if had not been featured in the "Fab Five"s Rio music video? Other online sources are available, but the Daily Mail article would appear to me a more extensive and also fact-based history of this yacht.

Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

At this time there are at least three other sources used. So what information does it add?Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You may be right. But against what are you judging the "more extensive and also fact-based" content of the Daily Mail? I mean, how do we know those are all facts? I guess this applies to the use of the DM generally. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Not an RS but [[3]] So did Bonati see it in 2005 or 2006?Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No. Again and again we have seen that when The Daily Mail has more details than other sources they made those details up. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No This instance does not meet either of the exceptions to the general prohibition per WP:DAILYMAIL: It is not a primary source about the Daily Mail itself and it was not published at a time when the Daily Mail actually was a reliable source. The material should be sourced to more reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 15:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Here we have an example of a completely uncontroversial, non-BLP, factual page which is threatened with deletion, at least in part, as a result of the DM ban. There is no real reason to doubt that the DM's content in this piece is accurate. Is this a great article? No. Will it ever be? Highly unlikely. Is it the kind of thing we should cover on Wiki? I can see no policy reason not to have it based on the coverage. FOARP (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
2005 or 2006?Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
WSJ says "seven years ago" in a 2013 piece - i.e., 2006, so they agree with the DM. Same with the New York Post - also 2006. I think classic yachts info, which is unlikely to be considered an RS at least based on a very brief examination, might just be wrong on this one. FOARP (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Dexerto.com

Can Dexerto.com be considered a reliable source or not? The site mainly reports on eSports and YouTube related news. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you cite the particular story and name of the article that people are disputing? Excelse (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Neil Degrasse Tyson

There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at [[4]]. Of particular interest to this board is if BuzzfeedNews is in general reliable, and in particular reliable for allegations of wrongdoing on a BLP ResultingConstant (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

BuzzfeedNews is generally reliable, and has been in particular reliable for allegations of wrongdoing on a BLP in past instances (Milo) so I'd say yes it is a reliable source in this case too. It's important to differentiate BuzzfeedNews (RS) from Buzzfeed (not RS). Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Amira Hass writing in Ha'aretz used in Halamish

This article by Amira Hass is used in Halamish for the statement that The Israeli Army issued an order in 1978 to seize privately owned Palestinian land from the villages of Deir Nidham, Nabi Salih, and Umm Safa and turned over 686 dunams to the newly established settlement. The article says

The settlement of Halamish was built in 1977-78 on an abandoned Jordanian base, on the road that connects Bir Zeit to other villages west of Ramallah. In 1978, the army issued an order to seize private land belonging to the villages of Deir Nidham, Al-Nabi Saleh and Umm Safa, and transferred 686 dunams (170 acres) to the new settlement.

A user has argued that because this is filed as an opinion piece that it is not a reliable source. Is Amira Hass a reliable source for that statement? nableezy - 19:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The peice is clearly marked as an opinion piece - it is not an article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It is reliable. Opinions should be cited as opinions, whether or not they appear in an article labeled as an opinion piece. However, whether there was such an order issued in 1978 is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. For matters of fact we should consider the expertise of the writer. Since Amira Hass has hardly any equal in her deep knowledge of matters like this, statements of fact appearing in her article are reliable. Zerotalk 21:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
No, she is not a reliable source because she is not an expert on the subject. In any case, it makes no sense to use newspapers as sources for historical events. The role of newspapers is to report what happened yesterday, not what happened forty years ago. Zero0000, please see WP:NEWSORG. TFD (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Which subject is she not an expert in? She has several published works on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has received a number of awards for her reporting on the subject. See her profile as a visiting faculty member at NYU here. nableezy - 21:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes clearly seems to be reliable, her credentials appear impressive. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, as corroboration for Hass, Peace Now maintains a list of military orders for seizing land for the establishment of settlements here. It lists, in 1978, military order ת/28/78 to seize 315.3 dunams of land for Halamish. nableezy - 21:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, OCHA reports that in 1978 military order 28/78 was issued for some 600 dunums of privately owned land next to that camp were requisitioned for “military needs” and allocated to the settlement. nableezy - 21:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
If you have a bona fida source, you should not be advocating the use of an opinion piece by a far-left activist / journalist.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
To use a favored quote of yours, WP:BLP please. nableezy - 10:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
But Hass provides further detail, naming the specific villages and the exact amount of dunams given to the settlement. Which is why Id like to continue using it. So, asking for more outside opinions on this, is she a reliable source for this material? nableezy - 10:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable This is an opinion piece. Facts need solid sources, not assertions in opinion columns.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A source shouldn't be automatically thrown out just because it's an opinion piece. If the writer is clearly knowledgeable, as this one seems to be, and if the publication has a reputation for fact checking and editorial independence, we can accept it. I'm not saying we should in this case (I'm making more of a general point about principle), but we can't throw it out just because it's an opinion piece. (By the same token, you'd hope that the information would be verifiable some other, non-contentious way...maybe in one of her books?) Drmies (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable for her opinion, not as a statement of fact. So this needs attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven is right... an opinion piece can be reliable as a primary source for an attributed statement as to the author’s opinion, but it is not reliable as a secondary source for an unattributed statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
What if the author is an expert on the topic? I understand opinions are opinions, but as Zero wrote above, this isnt an opinion. This is a question of whether or not an order was issued. Where she expresses an opinion of course that should be attributed, but this is not an opinion. nableezy - 19:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Newspaper opinion pieces aren't vetted and edited to the same degree aa an article. In fact, they often are not checked at all (beyond seeing they aren't advocating something illegal or grossly defamatory - though Haaretz did let Hass publish a piece advocating stone throwing that had quite a bit of blowback and calls for prosecution - [5]). Some of these opinion columns are written off the top of the author's head - with various figures and facts relying on the author's recollection. An expert might be get it right most of the time - but their error rate in an oped would still be far greater than in a non-opinion vetted publishing context (newspaper article, journal, book by good publisher).Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
But WP:RS says: When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If Hass is an expert on this topic then for what she says is a fact, that there was this army order in 1974 and it had this effect, would be fine to include as fact, wouldnt it? I dont see how its relevant that she has opinions unpopular in Israel, what I am asking is what she reports as fact is acceptable to use as fact. nableezy - 22:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

nableezly, she is not an expert in history. She does not have any relevant academic degrees or publications. That does not mean that she is not an impressive journalist or that the books she has written are not reliable sources. It merely means that no special exception should be made for her columns. Note that all her awards were for journalists, except one for human rights, while none were for history. What's the problem anyway? If her facts are right, then source them to a history book. Who uses current newspapers as a source for history anyway? TFD (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

She is indeed no expert in history. Her main expertise is reporting the Palestinian perspective (and she has lived in a Palestinian city for many years) - as well as covering various activists and organizations. She might be great at evaluating what the man on the Ramallah street thinks, but she does not really have access to other areas.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: The problem is finding the details that she reports on that military order in English is not all that easy. I can substantiate through other sources that such an order was issued and that the settlement in question was given that land, Ive offered them above, but I so far cannot find the detail that she provides on which villages the land was confiscated from. She is an expert on the Israeli occupation, and I think whether or not she is reliable for what a specific Israeli military order issued in those territories says falls under that expertise. nableezy - 07:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
No, she is not an "expert on Israeli occupation". She is perhaps an expert field reporter (and an opinion columnist) - presently in Ramallah, previously in Romania.Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Even that incredibly inaccurate profile of her would accept that she is reliable for the contents of an Israeli military order. nableezy - 15:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
No, she is perhaps reliable for feelings and opinions in the Palestinian street. She has no access to current military orders (she might be able to reflect what Palestinians think of them), and orders from the 70s are well prior to her tenure as a field reporter. Opeds are opinions - usually unchecked or lightly checked.Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@TFD:, newspapers are good sources for historical events, what makes you think different? After all, 40 years ago, it was also yesterday's news. Some newspapers also have a looking back column, such as "Forty years ago today"...--Auric talk 13:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If you were an historian writing about the collapse of Communism in 1989 (about 30 years ago), you would find contemporaneous newspapers helpful, but would rely on many other sources as well. You also would find that a lot of news reporting at the time was wrong, even though it was the best information available at the time. For example, Ceausescu did not kill 100,000 demonstrators. Or take the case of whether Trump colluded with Russia. An historian writing 40 years from now will presumably have access to evidence not currently available and write a book that will be a better source than current news reports. TFD (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I will note that Hass had lost a defamation case in court for reporting which was directly contradicted by video evidence of the report regarding Israeli settlers. Beyond bias, this definitely raises reliability questions (beyond this being merely an opinion to begin with).[1]

References

  1. ^ Auerbach, Jerold (2009). "Chapter 9". Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 168–169. ISBN 978-0-7425-6615-6.

Balkan Post

Hey, would an univolved editor assess the following source please?

--Mhhossein talk 13:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It's giving "404 Not Found" error to me. Hitro talk 16:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


Try [6] ... try also [7]. Collect (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I verified the claims about MEK headquarters with this article at Tirana Times which is reliable in my opinion. Hitro talk 06:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Independent Journal Review

Regarding this addition at Qanta A. Ahmed, I looked in the archives here for information on Independent Journal Review, and found a couple of discussions, from February 2017 and again in May–June 2018, that seemed to treat the site as a straight news source. However, according to a Business Insider profile of the company, the site has both a news division with (some) editorial oversight, and a blogging division, labeled "Community", with almost 2,000 active "members" churning out clickbait for "the redneck army", according to BI. So in evaluating this source for reliability, it would seem to be important to know which of these two sides of the website any specific piece comes from. The exact piece in question was one of the clickbaity ones (The site lets you add the author as a "friend" and view their "votes" and "badges"), which I judged as essentially a self-published source and therefore unusable for biographical content. Any thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The author appears to have been staff - authoring dozens if not hundreds of pieces until 6 months ago. She is presently employed as a staff writer in Newsweek.[8][9] It does not appear this was part of the "blogging part" of IJR - nor is it marked as such. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the "members" are not all contributors, so disregard that. However, the articles from their "news" side, like this one, are labeled "News" at the top, unlike the one in question. It's very odd. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The "News" tag seems to be mainly place on items that they reprint from the Reuters news wire. There's little reason to think this item by Fink did undergo IJR's usual editorial controls. In this case - this is rather straight up reporting of a an expert - Ahmed - who has been summoned as an expert to Congressional hearings on the issue (e.g. [10]). Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Good for her. That's not relevant to the reliability of this source, however. The fact that IJR's "News" is almost entirely Reuters articles doesn't exactly bode well for the state of their independent journalism. There are a few non-Reuters news pieces, such as here (republished from here) and here, for instance. But William Steakin seems to be the only person currently writing "news" at IJR. Since the Fink piece was published, they seem to have shaken things up a bit. The rest of their site consists of blog posts labeled "IJR red" and "IJR blue" – tailor-made to appeal to right- and left-wingers, I guess. Meanwhile, their "Team" and "About" pages seem to have vanished into the ether. If they had any editorial oversight at all, I'm not seeing any sign of it now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Removing profiles of journalists who left the NEWSORG (and work for a competitor) is rather routine. Reprinting news wire stories is also highly routine for much of the news content of many outlets - even WaPo and NYT reprint quite a few wire stories. Tagging wire stories differently from self-generated stories - is rather routine as well. So far - you've got absolutely nothing here beyond an IDONTLIKE of the content they chose to report. Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The news content of the site looks to be at least 95% republished wire stories; that's a far cry from WaPo and NYT. I also linked to one of their own self-published articles with the "News" label above; here are some more: [11][12][13]. I didn't say anything about jounalists' profiles being removed; I said that the site has no mention of any editorial staff, period. Our standards for reliability include a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. If anyone can actually demonstrate any of these things, please do so. Otherwise I see too many red flags that this is just another partisan hack blog. I'm not seeing so much as a contact page; the "Contact" header at the bottom of their homepage sits atop a blank space and doesn't link anywhere else. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this? The edit in question contains a quote from Dr. Ahmed, the subject of the article. It quotes a statement that Dr. Ahmed made on a Fox news program. There are two cites. One of them contains the video of Dr. Ahmed saying what the edit says she said. The other accurately transcribes the video to text and it also says she said what the edit she said. Delving into the history and reliability of IJR is a lot of work to ask when the answer appears, well, kinda irrelevant to improving the article in question. If there is not consensus on IJR on the article page, maybe just use one cite and move on? Cheers -- Chris vLS (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: Sangdeboeuf is asserting the Ahmed's words are a BLP violation towards Linda Sarsour, and asserting that secondary sources (in addition to Ahmed's televised appearance itself) are required for inclusion. Should IJR be deemed unreliable, by this line of reasoning (whose congruence with BLP police I am not certain of), then the assertion of a BLP vio becomes possible (essentially - treating Ahmed's words on Fox as WP:BLPPRIMARY vs. Sarsour). Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Chrisvls: I don't think there is any consensus that the IJR is unreliable, anywhere. There is editorial review at IJR, and it is a respected source of news, which can be seen from the article itself. See also summarized below:
* It is a recepient of the "Best New Publisher-Vertical or Brand" in 2015 by Digiday (garnered "more than 30 million unique visitors each month thanks to a large and engaged audience").
* It is not partisan: in 2017, it launched conservative and liberal verticals, The Declaration and The Response to transparently present a variety of perspectives around conversations across the United States
* Has partnered with ABC News to host the Republican Presidential Debate in February 2016.
* During the 2016 election, was listed in the top 10 websites engaged per news story on Facebook.
* In January 2017, it was the first major U.S. news outlet to confirm that Judge Neil Gorsuch would be nominated by president Donald Trump for the Supreme Court
* During Rex Tillerson's diplomatic trip to Asia in March 2017, the Independent Journal Review was the only news publication invited to send a reporter to accompany the trip
* In November 2017, IJR was one of a handful of media publications, including The Washington Post, The Economist, Mic, The Globe and Mail, and others, to participate in the launch of 'Trust Indicators' by The Trust Project
The case that Sangdeboeuf is making to consider IJR a "self-published" source explains how she does not understand what self published sources are. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There is editorial review at IJR... Then why is there no sign of it on their website?
  • ...it is a respected source of news, which can be seen from the article itself... Respected by whom? And Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
  • [14] The Daily Mail also has a "large and engaged audience". That doesn't make it reliable.
  • [15] "[A]dding a longtime liberal writer to balance the site’s political commentary ... whose stated mission is to 'delegitimize Trump’s presidency' and 'embolden the opposition'" just means it's partisan in both directions in order to maximize site traffic; it has nothing to do with accuracy.
  • [16] "And soon, [IJR would] find out just how much they'd be on the national stage as ABC began its broadcast. Turns out, it wasn't that much. Aside from a couple opening videos, the viral millennial news site contributed one question. And an app and website the company launched, CheerAlong.com, a sort of dial testing for the masses, was never mentioned." Not much of a "partnership", then.
  • During the 2016 election, was listed in the top 10 websites engaged per news story on Facebook. Yes, coming in five spots behind Breitbart. [17] I guess that makes Breitbart an extra-reliable source? Engagement on Facebook has nothing to do with accuracy or reliability. See: [18][19][20]
  • [21] That "few other media trusted IJR enough to go with the report" is a sign that the website has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's the opposite of WP:USEBYOTHERS.
  • [22] "Independent Journal Review, a website partly owned by a top adviser to Vice-President Mike Pence ... Last week a reporter for the Independent Journal Review quit in protest over a post that seemed to allege a conspiracy between Barack Obama’s vacation to Hawaii and the decision by a federal judge there against Trump’s second travel ban." Being Rex Tillerson's favorite news outlet is not a sign of reliability. Political conflicts of interest and pushing conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are definite reasons not to consider the site reliable.
  • [23] "'The public can use [trust indicators] to see who and what is behind the news they are reading, and how the story was built,' Lehrman said". Good PR move. I haven't seen these "trust indicators" anywhere on IJR.com. Will they also disclose that Nick Ayers is a major investor in the site? [24] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The Trust Project's FAQ page has a link to this layout of publisher sites that use the indicators; IJR's entry under "best practices" has links to a couple published corrections but the "About" link goes to a blank page. I note also that the indicators themselves are based on a set of 8 criteria such as author expertise, type of work, use of references, etc. However, none of this guarantees that an individual outlet or article is "trustworthy"; it seems to be more about transparency, of which IJR seems to have precious little. The Trust Project itself is pretty vague on how it vets news organizations; saying merely that publishers "have put a lot of effort into compliance, and the Trust Project has performed a compliance check on all of them", whatever that means. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Claas Relotius in Der Spiegel

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-germany-der-spiegel-fraud-20181219-story.html

Appears to not be a "reliable source" at this point. At least 25% of his Der Spiegel articles are fabricated in whole or part, according to reliable sources. Collect (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's all gone a bit Daily Mail (except: Der Spiegel is dealing with the issue). Are we citing stuff to this guy's stories? Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The question is... is this a reliability problem that is unique to one reporter, or is it a problem that is more systemic ... causing us to question everything in the paper? Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    • It would seem the former. The fact that the paper is taking action is a good sign. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
      If the paper discovered it, publicly admitted it, and then posted retractions/corrections to all content - that's not a negative sign for the paper. It does mean we should review all uses of Claas Relotius on Wikipedia (at the moment - the trivial search has a single use (Per - this from today - Der Speigel still stands behind Traute Lafrenz being the last White Rose survivor (which is what we're sourcing), but says parts of the interview were falsified) - and update per Der Spiegel's corrections (Der Spiegel hasn't posted corrections yet - they've noted all the pieces, but they are still working on what's wrong in each). Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
      Nice work, Ice, thank you! Chris vLS (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
      I swapped out that reference for a Bild story as parts were faked. Could we set up an edit filter for "Relotius" to catch future additions? Fences&Windows 19:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
      Assuming (they said they are doing this) Der Spiegel posts corrections (or retracts) the affected pieces - an edit filter is not required - as future online sources will be ok. The potential problem is not future additions (which will be based on corrected articles), but pieces that were added in the past to Wikipedia (e.g. possibly without Relotius in the ref - but just Der Spiegel (lazy editors such as myself sometimes do that)) and that contain errors.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Y'all celebrating Der Spiegel for an ex post-facto investigation are missing tiny detail: as NPR has cited the victims of Der Spiegel's defamation,
"A simple phone call/email from @DerSPIEGEL to any of his 'characters' would have discredited his article immediately."[1]

Der Spiegel says it has 60 editors doing fact checking. Would it kill you to be a bit skeptic of such a claim? Have you seen the fisking of one of Der Spiegel's articles? It was all made up, basically![2] XavierItzm (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Have any of his articles been used on Wikipedia? From the Spiegel piece[25] which recounts his forgeries, most of his forgeries seem to revolve around interviews with non-existent everyday people or stories about minor but interesting events. I.e. the kind of stuff that we don't usually include in Wikipedia articles. However, there is one exception: the Spiegel piece mentions that the guy wrote a fake story on Colin Kaepernick (derived from a non-existent interview with his parents), so somebody should check whether any of those falsehoods are on the Kapernieck page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/2018/12/19/678330959/celebrated-33-year-old-german-journalist-adds-a-line-to-his-resume-fraudster
  2. ^ https://medium.com/@micheleanderson/der-spiegel-journalist-messed-with-the-wrong-small-town-d92f3e0e01a7
This has happened at many other quality publications, such as the Hitler diaries at the Sunday Times and the Judith Miller articles at the New York Tines. As a reliable source, expect Der Spiegel to retract stories, which then should not be considered reliable. As a general matter, I think we should have guidelines for using investigative journalism as a source. Maybe intext citation should be required in most cases. TFD (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Glory Wrestling

Is this source reliable - http://www.glorywrestling.com/ ? Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable for what? Please read the notice at the top of the page.- MrX 🖋 18:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The reliability of a source usually depends on the context of what claim one wants to support with it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Proponent Restoring Large Amounts of Unsourced Content Over RfC

Over at the List of Cryptids, we have pseudoscience proponents (eg. @Fyunck(click):) restoring large swathes of unreferenced content (diff), although an RfC was clear that unreferenced items were to be removed from the list ("every listed item must be properly sourced"), and, of course, baseline Wikipedia guidelines that state that material challenged must only be returned with a reliable source (e.g. WP:PROVEIT). (I've also posted this at the pseudoscience noticeboard — as this sort of behavior is getting rather old, the article could use some more eyes from this list) :bloodofox: (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And posting this (rather not neutral) notice, on two forum simultaneously, looks like forum shopping. Now you should be looking for sources yourself before deleting entries (and some of the stuff you deleted did have a source, anyway), anbd I would point out it took a few minutes to find at least one source. By the way what has this to do with reliable sources?Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm much more interested in what users who aren't trying to insert self-published material into the list have to say about the restoration of mass swathes of unreferenced content. In fact, I am to date the only user who has added WP:RS-compliant sources to the article (Loxton & Prothero—some of which Fyunck removed—can't have those academics saying negative things about my pseudoscience!). The "sources" you're providing are random Google search media items, a topic for another thread on this board in the future. You're smoke screening and supporting a bad actor here—who you're also coordinating with—and that's hardly in the article's best interest. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
They are from RS, and no they are not random, if they were there would be quite a few more.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Remove the unreferenced items, per the RfC and WP:PROVEIT, and we'll talk about the quality of the sources you're adding to the article. If something was accidentally deleted along the way, restore it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Per the RFC, Eberhart can be used as a source, are you going to stop removing it?Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
As two others point out at the RfC, the RfC certainly not establish Eberhart—a cryptozoologist—as a reliable source (WP:RS), and it did in no way override WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

For reference here is the addendum by the RFC closer [[26]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Which I had already linked above, of course. Meanwhile, your pal is adding anti-science opinion pieces like "Loch Ness monster: Why we can't let science kill mystery" as sources, which conveniently forget to mention that the subject of the article, cryptozoology, is a pseudoscientific subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me for sounding dumb, but isn't this a list of Cryptids, which are necessarily pseudoscientific? Surely all the sourcing needs to do is state that cryptozoologists believe it exists? So long as the items in the list actually have a source then surely that's OK. If Eberhart is a prominent, credentialed Cryptozoologist then he is a reliable source for what cryptozoologists believe exists which is not the same as saying he is a reliable source for statements of scientific fact. Agree with Slatersteven that this is a poorly-formed RfC. FOARP (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Cryptozoologists don't have 'credentials'—no accredited school or program in any way supports the pseudoscience: you can get no degree or certificate in cryptozoology. Eberhart is an extremely apologetic cryptozoologist, who uses his own taxonomy that no other cryptozoologist appears have adopted, and is by no means a reliable source for what cryptozoologists believe. Academics also note that cryptozoologists are well known for attempting to deceive the public by, for example, presenting themselves as scientists. Academics who study cryptozoologists, like Prothero and Loxton, definitely are reliable,: they're independent. Cryptozoologists will have you believe all sorts of stuff about their subculture—they're simply not reliable, as Prothero and Loxton make quite clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is an area where RS and NPOV intersect. Although unreliable sources may be used to present an opinion or document the cryptozoology community's description of something, our NPOV policy states that articles must represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This begs the question of why we would ever use an unreliable source, since any content published by a non-RS would also need to be supported by a RS. In the context of cryptozoology, there are countless cryptids that are described, illustrated and embellished by just about every cryptozoology blog/wiki/fansite out there, but only a few (Nessie and Sasquatch, for example) are ever mentioned in reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 02:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem is what denotes an RS her, if we ignore the RFC closure of course.
Is it identified in more than one RS (for what mythical animals fall within Cryptozoology) as a cryptid? If so, yes, it's a cryptid. FOARP (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Do they have to be have to be academic

  • No But they have to be reliable, and to be reliable within context. For instance, I've been disputing the reliability of a piece published in the BBC on the article page not because the BBC isn't a reliable source (it is for anything except China IMO) but because the particular article cited is a puff piece on a Harry Potter franchise film which draws its quotes from a couple of random guys the author seems to have met at the pub. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • They have to be authoritative. Given the history of bullshit, academic sources are clearly preferred but not mandatory - the author is important though. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
What do we mean by this, what does "authoritative" means?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
In the way Joe Nickell is authoritative for paranormal claims. Widely cited in reliable sources, with an obviously reality-based view. Interesting philosophical point: by what objective criteria would one separate Nickell from Charles Berlitz? I'd say the published critiques are useful. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
That is what I am asking, how do we define "authoritative". Can only skeptics be authoritative, or when dealing with a set of peoples views can notable members of that group be considered authoritative for what they believe?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I would go with someone who is widely cited by media outside the walled garden, as an expert or authority, and not as a proponent. That requires some care of course. Media are sloppy and will cite obvious loons as "bigfoot expert" or whatever. Essentially the kind of people that weighty documentaries call in to describe the most likely explanation when discussing cryptids. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

.*No any other issue is separate form this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Again, it's not up to you to decide that the issues raised under this question are irrelevant. A !vote is not a vote and the opinion stated, how that opinion links to Wikipedia policy, is very significant. My argument is effectively that the question isn't framed right. I would suggest that JzG is entirely correct with their assertions regarding the importance of authoritativeness. This also points back to why my example is relevant. There's nothing authoritative about a listicle written by a freelancer to promote a fantasy movie which cites two men with no known background in the subject beyond personal interest. It's irrelevant that it was published on the BBC website. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Do they have to use the word Cryptid

  • Yes - or at the very least should reference the opinions of cryptozoologists with reference to that name. This is because, as I mentioned at article talk, there is no definitive functional criterion for ascertaining what is or is not a cryptid. As the people who have devised this category use a very loose ad-hoc criterion for selection, we need to depend on explicit references to an entity as a cryptid in an reliable source for us to call it that, as opposed to a mythological creature, extinct animal, urban legend, etc. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No As long as it is clear from context WP:CONTEXTMATTERS they are talking about a creature said to be cryptozooalogical. There is nothing in policy that says sources must use exact phrases.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC

Do they have to call it a pseudoscience

  • No But the sources should pass muster for WP:PROFRINGE - so while an article like the Slate guide to cryptids in the USA might be reliable, even if it didn't explicitly say, "of course these cryptids consist of one part mis-identified animals, one part random zoo escapee, and ten parts urban legend and bigfoot is just a dude in a gorilla suit," one written by Fortean Times would not be. Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No Again any other caveats are irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

They should not parrot cryptozoologogists

Not sure what this means exactly.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that is all the objections raised to various sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

An example is the BBC article on the Fantastic Beasts movie. The listicle was created not to examine cryptid myths per say but rather to promote a movie about magical monsters, and in the process the author has haphazardly and repeatedly quoted two random guys with no particular standing or credentials beyond being... a bit too interested in Nessie? Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No Nothing in policy says that RS cannot quote idiots, or that invalidates it as a source, only that it should not be claimed to be a fact. After all an RS went to them for their opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. NPOV requires that we omit information if inclusion would "unduly legitimize" it; articles are required to be based on reliable secondary sources; content on fringe topics needs to be WP:FRINDependent. Putting this together I would expect the only information we should include on cryptids must have a foothold in respectable secondary secondary sources outside the crytpid bubble. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A reliable source, pretty much by definition, will contextualise cryptids as mythical. I view this much like Velikovsky or Charles Berlitz: we should not use obvious cranks as primary sources, and uncritical repetition of cranks is indistinguishable from being a crank yourself. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Can it be a passing mention

Editors Demanding Use of Fringe Sources in Article: Carving Out an Exception to WP:RS?

Remarkably, Slatersteven is now demanding that we use fringe sources on this article, evidently hoping to carve out some sort of exception to WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A book by a folklorist

Is this an RS for the Kraken being identified as a cryptid? [[[1]]], it seems to me to meet all the criteria for an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say so. I don't think there's a formal enough definition of cryptid that we could apply strict exclusionary criteria, and the kraken is a very well known mythical creature, to the point of being the primary subject of notable fiction. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=58tjDwAAQBAJ&pg&q=Kraken+%2B+cryptid

On Contact / RT

In his wi-K-OP-ed linked above, @Bullrangifer: identifies RT as a uniformly bad source. I would be interested in his (and others') comments about the program On Contact, which recently featured an interview with economist Mark Hudson [27] about the history of debt peonage/slavery. (is the ILO a good source? e.g. [28], I didn't find any guidance in your op/ed on these questions).

Should On Contact be viewed as a reliable source for Hudson's opinions? What about Glen Ford's, Richard Walker's, Dana Frank's? Should interviews like "Wikipedia: A Tool of the Global Elite" [29] be rejected as categorically unreliable, because Hedges' show is made possible by RT? (Disclosure: this program led me to remove smear which had been identified as such for quite some time from the Chris Hedges wiki-entry.)

Should the Third Party debates in US presidential elections similarly be considered bad sources because RT has historically financed them? Bull mentions the "100% exchange of positions since the days of the civil war" of the two major American parties. Would most agree that the story of the evolution of:

  • the Democratic-Republican party
  • the Whigs
  • the Socialists & the Progressives (1912)
  • the Federalists (Clinton did well in 1812, for example)
  • the Greens
  • the States Rights' Democratic (1948)

into the modern (post-Perot) binarism is somewhat more complicated than this facile "they switched places in the South" line suggests? (Cf. 270towin) Is the word "duopoly" to be considered antithetical to good TP wiki-speech, Bull? ^^ Do you agree with me that RT cannot be called a unequivocally "bad source" as you do in the op/ed which you keep linking to here at RS/N?

Zesty eoy holy-fishes to you @BullRangifer: (ping, ping, all ping...) — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 14:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: - you pinged the wrong username. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think RT is always a bad source (straight news reporting is often good), but for politics it can't be trusted because it's Putin's propaganda arm, just as Fox News is the GOP's propaganda arm. Both should be officially deprecated for politics.
BTW, in light of Trump's latest moves, this quote is worth noting:
  • "Fox News is no longer the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News." -- David Atkins[30]
That's a significantly wise observation. The GOP and Dems were agreed on a bipartisan decision on border wall funding, and Trump was bowing to accept it. Then Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh criticized him and he suddenly flipped and decided that a shut down before Christmas was a great idea. SMH! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Um... bull, get a grip, I didn't ask RS/N about Trump: I asked RS/N about On Contact. Incidentally, I forgot to ping you on the TP of your op-ed (which admittedly is all about {{What else?|Trump}}). Your reactions to investigative journalist Helen Buyniski (1st link in the 2nd paragraph of the OP) would surely be informative, though I would hope they would be cordial. — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 01:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Helen Buyniski? You mean the one who writes for Michel Chossudovsky's conspiracy-mongering Centre for Research on Globalization [31]? Why would anyone interested in facts have any interest in what she writes? She wouldn't recognize a fact if it came in a gift-wrapped package from God. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Ken, could you provide an example of any mistakes made in the interview in question? In essence, I think you are saying: Why would anyone interested in facts have any interest in what RosasHills or BullRangifer writes? They have written for Wikipedia. :-o
I think you would need to at least show she has made significant errors, rather than relying on a simple "condemnation by association". As I understand it, she has done significant research in an area where Bull was quite active just over a decade ago (cf. ArbCom case Barrett v. Rosenthal).
My goal in asking wasn't to reheat old soup but to remind people that it is a bad idea to censor all journalists who work for a particular institution having acquired an unsavory reputation in some echo chambers (whether it be the Daily Mail, RT, GlobalResearch.ca, Wikipedia, or the NYT (cf. James Risen)). Bull's op-ed quite clearly suggests that RT is exclusively Russian propaganda, so his reposting of his essay here (again) made me want to ask him about this claim. I was glad to read above an explicit repudiation of the view he espouses in his op-ed.
Concerning the specific interviews I mentioned, I've already added the reference to the interview with Michael Hudson to his entry, but saw—on the TP of Criticism of Wikipedia—that one person was hesitant to include Hedges' interview of Buyniski, on the grounds that she didn't know off-hand the exact current level of protection on HRC's page when the interview was recorded and said as much. Another person criticizes her for something that Hedges said (that wikipedia editors are "often unpaid"), which led her to explain to Hedges the bright line rules about declaring COI. For the record, Chris Alcantara wrote largely the same thing in the Washington Post in 2016 (Wikipedia editors, many of whom are unpaid and live across the globe,...) [32].
It is true that Buyniski points out, with a lot of evidence, that en.wp is quite vulnerable to WP:BEANS, but this is something I doubt that those who block hundreds of accounts/IPs per month are likely to contest. — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 17:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope, no can do. Not here to service your agenda. Peddle your fish elswhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Understood, Ken. I've always found the pedaling so hard though ... ~ 🐡 ~ SashiRolls t · c 22:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
You riding a bike or something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Interviews are generally poor sources, even for opinions, because they are not fact-checked or corrected before airing. Human speech often contains Freudian slips, malaprops and misstatements. Responsible journalists however should be able to winnow these out when describing a person's positions.
The mainstream complaint about RT btw is not that it is unreliable, but that it concentrates on stories and opinions that put the U.S. and its allies in a poor light, unlike mainstream media which provides little coverage to them. So it's not that the third party debate was doctored, but that it is subversive to provide an audience for views outside the two major parties.
TFD (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Council on Foreign Relations

Hey, would an univolved editor assess the following source please?

Please consider that the CFR is listed as the fifth most cited Think Tank in 2015 by Think Thank watch. --Mhhossein talk 13:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The source may have opinions which should be cited as such, but the claim presented is one of fact if one adds "according to the US State Department", and clearly supportable as such. Collect (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
It is a tertiary source, while secondary sources are preferable. It meets rs, but it is more helpful to use sources that provide references. That way, if there is any dispute about facts or context is required, that we can investigate. TFD (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
As below, attribution is necessary and care should be taken to determine whether the think tank is presenting research or opinion, with opinion being subject to WP:DUE limits. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

I am seeking opinions as to whether this site can be classified as a reliable source in relation to the political leanings (or bias) of articles on various media publications. It states, "Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News), founded in 2015, is an independent online media outlet. MBFC News is dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices". It's About Us states multiple staff and I would not view it as self published but could be wrong.Merphee (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

What kind of source is this supposed to be? It's not an academic source, and it doesn't seem like a news source. If this would be considered in any way reliable, it ought to be considered reliable by other news sources. Are there any news websites that use this website as a source? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I posted here to get some independent opinions onetwothreeip. Anyway if you had read the Wikipedia article Media Bias/Fact Check article, you would have seen that while it has its critics, and I quote the section from the Wiki article, "The site's ratings have been used by BBC News and Newsweek when discussing the reliability and bias of other media organisations.[6][7][8] Data from the site has been used by researchers from MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab and the Qatar Computing Research Institute to train an artificial intelligence machine learning algorithm to identify 'fake news'.[9][10][11] The site has also been used by researchers at the University of Michigan to create a tool called the "Iffy Quotient", which draws data from Media Bias/Fact Check and NewsWhip to track the prevalence of 'fake news' and questionable sources on social media" All of that hardly classifies it as WP:SELFPUB. As I say I am very interested in other experienced and independent editor's opinions.Merphee (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely not a reliable source. It's an amateur operation run by one guy (who describes himself as "an arm chair researcher on media bias") as a side-gig.[33] The methodology is utter pants[34], and the website changes ratings if users complain or on the basis of user ratings. The methodology is basically nothing more than unknown people clicking a few articles on a website, and then determining bias. How it got mentioned by BBC News and slipped past the fact-checkers, I do not know (that Newsweek covered this site makes more sense given that Newsweek has been awful for years). To what extent it's been cited by those computer scientists (note that this is not in peer-reviewed research), it's been as a collection of fake news websites (i.e. not for its determination of media bias in non-fake news websites). The website is such an amateur operation that it can't even do a proper reference list consistent with any style guide, see the bottom of this link[35]. Every time it's mentioned on the RS noticeboard as a determinant of RS status, an angel dies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, the famous "can't format a reference" critique. ^^ This comment is really just a circular reference to how this source was being used on the much-watched Daily Mail article. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 13:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I would say generally no. As Snooganssnoogans pointed out, this explains why it's not reliable. While some source do cite it, I don't believe that WP:USEBYOTHERS applies because of the lower quality of the citing sources.- MrX 🖋 13:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the others who have noted that this website is unreliable. It’s self-published (WP:SELFPUB) and there is no evidence that there is strong editorial control or that the authors are subject-matter experts. Particularly on the highly charged topic of media, editors must rely on high-quality sources (the Columbia Journalism Review and university press-published books are examples). Neutralitytalk 14:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This site has always bothered me as it tends to look at the audience of a source as an indicator of the bias of that source; which I find questionable. I’ve also noticed apparent contradictions in its evaluations. More importantly, I just don’t see a reason to believe they have accurately evaluated 2,600+ media sources as claimed. O3000 (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Not reliable. If places the pro-Clinton Center for American Progress to the left of the socialist and anti-capitalist Jacobin.[36][37]. I can't find where they define left or right. TFD (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason why this site should be considered reliable for anything other than statements about the operator's personal opinion, and doubt very much that that would be relevant in any article, except for the article on the site itself. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I encourage editors to help in editing the Media Bias/Fact Check article. There are related disputes about how to describe the website on the article's talk page.[38] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I can't see how this is related to the dispute here. feminist (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Being a WP:RS to be cited in articles is very different from general reliability. Should it be cited in an article on a news publication to show that it is reliable/unreliable or biased? Probably not. Is it useful in WP:RSN discussions? It can be. feminist (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems a bit iffy to me too, any evidence anyone but us uses it as a source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Djpaulixx's life

Djpaulixxmixer is an upcoming Deejay of Uganda and he is not much known but soon later will be a star, his original names are Ntate paul who was born by a lady who is called Katushabe Joyce and his late father Samuel Basudde who live in Namasuba in Wakiso District along side Entebbe road, Ntate Paul was born in 1998s on 09.14 in Namasuba but later when he ten years old he was taken away from his parents due to financial issues up to his grandmother's place where he completed his secondary studies while practicing deeyaying in one of the libraries one called "SEN PRIDE" and "HASSAN VIDEO LIBRARY JJEZA", Dj paulixx is still making more history and many more will be brought soon later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpaulixxmixer (talk • contribs) .

  • @Djpaulixxmixer: if he's not known now, he doesn't get to have a Wikipedia article now. Please wait till he's a star. Another thing: your username is the same as the name of the subject you're writing about. If you are Djpaulixxmixer, please don't create an article about yourself, or add to an article about yourself. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Also, this is the wrong page. Bishonen | talk 13:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC).

Network Propaganda

Anyone else here reading Network Propaganda (ISBN 9780190923624)? Mike Godwin was posting some excerpts, so I bought a copy. It sheds some really interesting light on long-standing issues we've had here, specifically the disconnect between the right wing media ecosystem and mainstream media. One interesting example was the difference between the left-wing "trump raped a 13 year old" meme and the right-wing pizzagate meme. Bullshit inserted from the left is fact-checked and dies on the vine, bullshit inserted from the right is amplified. The right wing media bubble does not self-police or, for the most part, fact check other sources within the bubble. The result is a positive feedback loop that has driven conservative media far to the right, but which does not affect mainstream media because its core values are still anchored to the practices of heavyweights like WaPo and NYT. Breitbart overtook Fox as leading source of conservative news, and Fox clawed this back by essentially joining Breitbart at the uncritical extremes. There is a near-total disconnect in terms of cross-citation between mainstream media and the right-wing bubble, the centre right has all but disappeared. The mainstream continuum goes from the left (HuffPo etc) to the centre right (WSJ) and stops. The distribution of media bias is bimodal, with a normal distribution of mainstream sources centred on WaPo, NYT, CNN and so on, a disconnect, then a very tight hard-right distribution including Fox, Daily Caller, Breitbart and so on.

The implication of this is that virtually anything covered only in the right-wing media ecosystem would appear to be suspect. If it's not discussed by the mainstream media we have no real way of telling whether it's true or not, because the right wing media ecosystem basically doesn't care. Individual leftist sources certainly also do not care, but their bullshit does not get amplified by others, whereas in the right wing ecosystem it does.

The book is, to me, a very interesting and insightful explanation of the issues we've seen on Wikipedia over the last couple of years. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Interesting. Think this kind of stuff should go on the talkpage and not the mainpage, but still some interesting information. If there is anything else interesting please share with us. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It is indeed most interesting. But depending on how it's interpreted, this could lead us in a dangerous and unencyclopedic direction. I posted more on the talk page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ghosttowns.com

I'm surprised this was discussed only once in the past. I don't see discussion except for the talk page at WP:GTS. There's 500+ articles referencing this website and I see majority of the time the information present as self published. It's usually that the information present on this website can be partially verified through a third-party source. If not, it then usually comes down to something that can't be verified. How reliable is the website as a source? Would a RfC be the next step for discussion? – The Grid (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like user-generated content with no sign of fact-checking. The users had to have gotten the historical information from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is the source that we should be using here. –dlthewave ☎ 23:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The authors claim to be college professors, but the conspicuous absence of any mention of which college does not inspire confidence. That would lead me to believe that this source is probably of questionable reliability, however it is cited by other reliable sources (& [39]) which tips the scales in the other direction per WP:USEBYOTHERS.- MrX 🖋 18:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Mmmmm, sounds all a bit iffy and user generated.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources for List of largest cities throughout history

I just found this article. The first "city" mention in Murybet dated to 8000 BC with a population of 500. It's article doesn't call it a city, and under all the academic definitions I know there were no cities then. City also suggests that Murybet wouldn't qualify. But it's got a source which is now dead.[40] But the source was working material for this book[41] and I don't find a claim that Mureybet was a city in the book. I don't think a pdf no longer on his website can be used as a source. Çatalhöyük is called a proto-city in its article although as I recall at least some of the archaeologists involved with it see it as a large village. The source for that column in the political scientiest George Modelski. Not a reliable source for what is basically archaeology. The third source is Tertius Chandler. I'm not quarreling with his list but looking at his article I find " The book includes estimates of the population of cities since ancient times. Although the book has been widely quoted,[3][4] urban historians have criticized Chandler's superficial and uncritical use of sources, leading to unreliable population estimates for many past cities.[5][6]". So I'd argue against him as a source. Doug Weller talk 21:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Since the article summarizes the conclusions of a number of scholars, each in a different column, there is no reason to include it if none of them mention it. Besides, there is no reason to believe it was the largest settlement at the time, just that it is the largest that we have found. TFD (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a table comparing four sources would cite anything other than those four sources, but it looks like editors filled in the gaps with numbers from works cited by Morris; self-published "supporting material"; interpolations of Chandler's statistics from unexplained PDFs; "historical documents"; and "Data from Richard Forstall's table for Rand McNally & Co". Anything that doesn't appear in the actual, published works should be removed. It's also unclear why both Chandler and Fox 1974 (3000 Years of Urban Growth) and Chandler 1987 (Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth) are included outside of a historiographic discussion. Typically we would use the newer revised source and ignore older versions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I will add, they should also be called cities by RS. A town or village is not city.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Are Think Tanks considered reliable sources for politically controversial articles?

Think Tank Sources:

(Politically controversial) Article:

Requesting feedback from uninvolved editors please. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(see above) The CFR source may have opinions which should be cited as such, but the claim presented is one of fact if one adds "according to the US State Department", and clearly supportable as such. Collect (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Collect (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
By the way, removing The Christian Science Monitor and the like as not being "reliable sources" is weird. Collect (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Considering there's a lengthy financed smear campaign against the MEK , and Think Tanks often lack editorial oversight and take on commissioned work, why not avoid adding possible POV-pushing and simply quote directly from the source? In the example mentioned above:
"According to the US State Department, it supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran (1980-88)". (US State Department)
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
It's hard to comment on this in isolation, but the Brookings Institute is a very well regarded expert institution. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
As is the Council on Foreign Relations. Both of these groups should be considered as being experts in their subject matter -- which doesn't mean that their opinions are necessarily correct, but it does mean that they can be quoted as reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
BTW, concerning this and the previous two sections, it would be much better if the full dispute in question was cited here instead of individual questions in isolation. Context can make a considerable difference in these matters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
In the example given here, the claim was one of fact, and not of opinion. The removal on the basis that there is a smear campaign against the MEK and therefore all sources - even major academic sources - which are critical of the MEK must be removed is not really a "reliable source" issue at all. Collect (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In general think tanks are reliable only for what they think about things. Any statement sourced to a think tank should be attributed with a note of their particular bias. There is, of course, a hierarchy. The Brookings Institution is a pretty scholarly endeavour, the Heritage Foundation not so much. For disputed content like this it's better to go with tenured academics in the peer-reviewed literature. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • According to criteria established by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program of the University of Pennsylvania [42], the Brookings Instiution is ranked in their 2017 report as the #1 think-tank in the world, the Council on Foreign Relations is rated as #12 (US & non-US), and the Jamestown Foundation is not listed. (The Heritage Foundation is #21, sandwiched between Amnesty International (UK) and Human Rights Watch (UK) - undoubtedly an uncomfortable position for Heritage to be in.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Very much primary and self-published sources. These are useful for what they think (albeit primary), and that's often hugely partisan, because most "think tanks" these days are not the same thing as they were 50 years ago: most are now funded and told what the answer is, and their job is to think up reasons to justify it. See European Research Group, which is vehemently anti-Europe and does pretty much nothing that could really be described as "research".
Some of the better think tanks (and the CIA has historically been quite good for this, also the Christian Science Monitor) have also published very objective surveys and reviews of "the state of the world", without any opinion added to it. These, for the good examples, meet RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Any think tank which perfoms its own creative thinking or research and then publishes it will be a primary source for its own views. This may not (in the real world) matter, but here on WP, WP:PRIMARY is a restriction that we have to deal with. They may be seen as a secondary source for objective commentary by observing the world though. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
No more than any subject expert is a primary source for their views. We don't call books written by subject experts "primary" and the work of a legitimate think tank is not primary either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The peer-review and funding elements make significant factors though, specially for politically-charged topics. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, and they would also be seen as WP:PRIMARY. We would distinguish between a think tank publishing, "A study of trade unions and their declared allegiance to a central communist party through South East Asia" vs. Strangelove & Krinkelhammer's "Why we need to nuke Vietnam now". Research and opinion, even from the same body, would be seen differently. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Research and opinion, even from the same body, would be seen differently Since this same dichotomy pertains to reliable sources as well (as in news stories vs. op-eds), I agree. But that makes the research of these institutions - when they have a reputation for accuracy, which some do and some don't - reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that they are reliable for what they think, not for it being a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  • It is important to understand that think tank sources typically contain both facts and analysis based on those facts. We deal with facts and analysis differently. As a community, we agree that facts can be stated without attribution, while analysis should always be attributed to the analyst (as it is opinion). The problem comes when people disagree over what the facts actually are... one author may accept something as being fact that others don’t accept as fact. When this occurs, WP should also attribute. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I would avoid them. The problem is not that their facts are wrong, but that many are selective in what they report. On the topic of poverty in America for example, one would expect to see a very different set of facts in a paper by the progressive Institute for Policy Studies and the libertarian Cato Institute. So the first might concentrate on relative income inequality while the other might focus on how many people have cellphones. TFD (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. Using Think Tanks as RS, specially for politically charged topics, can push a particular POV as they're not peer-reviewed and, as Andy Dingley commented, "most are now funded and told what the answer is, and their job is to think up reasons to justify it". However, opinions seem to be divided over their use as RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The thing is... our job as editors is to present the various points of view on controversial topics to our readers. We need to state who say what about the topic. The way to avoid “pushing” a POV is to present the various opinions (attributing those opinions to those who hold the POV, so the reader knows who says what). Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm with you in that different discourses need to be included in an article to help balance its neutrality, but shouldn't these come from peer-reviewed publishers with a reputation for being nonpartisan? I know certain Think Tanks have an academic reputation and may be perfectly fine as RS for certain topics, but I would side with Guy's comment that to present the different points of view "for disputed content like this it's better to go with tenured academics in the peer-reviewed literature". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope... reliability does not require non-partisanship. While we (the editors of WP) need to be non-partisan (neutral), our sources do not. To maintain our own neutrality, we must present the various non-neutral views on a topic, giving them DUE weight according to the prominence and predominance of the viewpoint. On political topics, think tanks often present the most cogent expressions of a given viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
At the very least, American think tanks are going to, in almost all cases, insert a pro-US bias into their work that is problematic when dealing with groups whose interests run counter to US foreign policy objectives. I would suggest attribution is necessary, even for surveys, and opinion pieces should be weighed carefully per WP:DUE prior to inclusion. There's quite enough American systemic bias on Wikipedia, but this is probably not a hill you want to be dying on. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Can we then conclude that, in the particular case of controversial political topics, Think Tanks surveys should be attributed, and Think Tank opinion pieces should be weighed carefully per WP:DUE? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Practically speaking, the way to establish due weight is usually to consult academic sources such as text books that outline the various opinions and explain what weight they have. Having done that, it is usually best to use them as article sources rather than consult the think tanks. So if we are explaining that according to CATO there is very little poverty in America because everyone can afford a cellphone, we want to explain also how accepted that argument is, otherwise we are providing a false equivalency. TFD (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Good input. All this is helpful. Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I would say that they're generally not WP:RS for the things people want to cite them for. Normally, anything a think-tank publishes directly is going to fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH; a very small number of high-profile think tanks may have the reputation that would let us use them, but even then, I'd consider them WP:PRIMARY sources for their own views and would generally try to avoid using them for anything controversial - when they say something important, it should be easy to find a secondary source citing or describing them, and use that. And this is compounded by the fact that political think tanks in particular are by definition going to be pushing into controversial areas, which is where it's most important to use high-quality sources. In a few situations we could cite them for their opinions, yes, but even with that I would be extremely cautious - intentionally seeking out every opinion (or "all sides", for all sides an editor considers relevant) is WP:FALSEBALANCE. It becomes too easy for editors to say "I want the opinion I agree with to be represented everywhere regardless of WP:DUE" and to dig up a comment from a think-tank or op-ed they agree with in any situation. In situations where a think-tank is WP:DUE, there should be secondary coverage, and we can just cite that instead of citing the primary source directly. --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Good advice; thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Are sources required in an infobox?

I invite discussion at Talk:Homecoming (TV series)#RfC: Are sources required in this article? regarding whether sources are required for infobox material that is not sourced elsewhere in the article. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:V. " All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable... any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (Ephasis added). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I do think that some of the filming/broadcast details of a movie/TV show are a bit too esoteric and technical that unless you can clearly point to where they are in their credits, or on a streaming service's page, then they need to be sourced. That sourcing should be in the body so that the infobox is reproducing that information. --Masem (t) 22:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: Thanks. Your comments at the RfC would be greatly appreciated. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Blog spam

Resolved
 – Site has been blacklisted...added ton MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist -Moxy (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We seem to have a problem with a fan blog being used all over the alien - predator franchise pages... avpgalaxy.net. should we get a bot to help fix this? This site his come up before in the past for spamming Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/avpunknown.com... Moxy (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I still do not see the problem. AVPGalaxy is still a recognized and trusted source of news in regards to the Alien/Predator franchise and has been for a long time and repeatedly referenced, and the information contained within its articles isn't even disputable. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
it's a fan-generated cite a Blog if you will and something that we don't consider reliable. What is odd is the site is being added without the addition of any material... you're just adding the site everywhere without an edit summary for what appears to be no reason at all except fan spam....here and here ..--Moxy (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I suppose there are many recognized sources which you would label under the fan-generated label, and nevertheless, the information remains accurate, and I'm only adding the information because it is notable (and considering the controversial nature of the article's contents, perhaps you're even experiencing some discomfort with it being cited). - TurokSwe (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying you just spamming the site you're not adding anything. I see you're in conflicts all over about multiple things... perhaps best to step back and see what others are saying. I'm also concerned with the Facebook links your adoing lIke this ... Facebook posts links are also a concern....is this copyrighted?--Moxy (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
How am I supposedly "spamming" and how can you possibly say I "haven't added anything"? Noting that I have added more articles covering the news. Just to put your mind at ease. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
You mean to tell me that while edit-warring with half a dozen editors (and counting) concurrently, you're not at all suspicious that you may not be in the right here? Also, regarding you reverting JzG's constructive edits - no, it hasn't been discussed. Every other editor in between the three noticeboards you've been brought to over the past two days have stated that you're incorrect. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 16:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I mean that you're falsely accusing me to make a case for whatever reason (noting that disliking AVP and anything related to it does not qualify as a justifiable reason). - TurokSwe (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
OK who recognizes it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean "who"? If you'd actually been familiar with AVPGalaxy and all their work through the years I doubt you'd be questioning such an established reliable resource. Please do explain to me what your problem would supposedly be with AVPGalaxy. Specifically. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
From their disclaimerpage - "Aliens Vs Predator Galaxy is a non-profit fan site". Does it have an editorial board? Staff appears to be two people, have they any news background? Do other high quality sites reference this one? Basically, how does it meet WP:RS criteria when everything that can be seen screams out that this is a great fan site, but it's just that. Memory Alpha is probably the absolute top fan site you'll ever see, but it's not used as a reference except a very bare handful (and probably not many of those). Ravensfire (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
"Fan site" in terms of having been brought into existence by people who happen to be fans of the franchise and offers ways for fans to engage with each other (largely within the limits of the associated forum), however users are not allowed to alter the site or any of its articles. The site is very much a well-established, controlled, reliable, and reputable (even within the Alien/Predator franchise itself and has repeatedly featured exclusive content, news, and interviews from the franchise and the people behind it) without any doubt and has been for a very long time (just check the info and contact pages on the site; noting that the staff consists of actually at least eight people with the two mentioned administrators). Surely it's a "fan-site", but definitely not in such terms that it's unreliable and without value. Noting that I've never even heard of "Memory Alpha" and that's a product of Wikia (which actually is controlled by its users, and I'm surprised this one has its own article on Wikipedia) and nothing comparable to AVPGalaxy. - TurokSwe (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
By "who" I mean who recognizes it, who uses it as a source of reliable information? At this time I am not seeing anything that tells me it is an RS, rather then just another blogger.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Countless fans along with the people behind the Alien/Predator franchise, of course (which I'd figure the contents on the site would demonstrate). I still find it extremely odd that this is actually an issue. - TurokSwe (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

deadline.com

Is deadline.com reliable for the following content? I wonder if it is factual since I have failed to find any more reliable source for it.

At the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show, former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler cited Oliver's episode as a turning point in the issue of net neutrality. “John Oliver took the ultimate arcane issue, Title II, and made it something that got people interested. And that’s good.”[1]

References

  1. ^ Lieberman, David (January 6, 2016). "FCC Chief Sees "Spectrum Extravaganza" As TV Auction Deadline Approaches – CES". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved January 1, 2019.

This is not really the usual Hollywood gossip for which deadline is normally considered acceptable. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 23:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Since I added that for the quote, Deadline Hollywood is considered a RS for entertainment-based news. And given that the key part used is to quote Wheeler's publicly made statement at a CES event, that's fine. --Masem (t) 00:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
And if you want more assurance, here is the CES talk, the John Oliver starts around 15:30, the specific quote around 16:12. --Masem (t) 00:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank, you, that is indeed reassuring. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Arizona Border Recon

Is Arizona Border Recon a paramilitary militia? Al Jazeera says it is [43]. Their own website has a disclaimer. This is in danger of becoming an edit war, third opinions invited. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Al Jazeera would take precedence over a primary source like a website of the militia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Why not both? Following WP:ABOUTSELF the website could support the claim the group does not consider itself a militia. Kim Post (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I had a long response written, but after reading it prior to posting I realized that I was basically restating what Kim Post said. If we can find other reliable sources that agree with Al Jazeera, I am fine with stating in Wikipedia's voice that they are considered to be a paramilitary organization. If not, we should attribute the opinion to Al Jazeera only. In either case we should note that the organization disagrees with this characterization. CThomas3 (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Paramilitary or similar seems uncontroversial. The New York Times has described this organisation as being "a paramilitary organization performing reconnaissance operations along the border with Mexico" [44]. The Southern Poverty Law Center [45] calls them a "militia" which engages in "paramilitary activities" despite the group's denial. Wired [46] and The Washington Post [47] call them an "armed citizen group", which seems much the same thing. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I think its better to find more reliable source then Al-Jazeera. Its a government owned in where there is no freedom of press exist. --Shrike (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen all day. Would you make similar statements about the BBC or the CBC? Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
No of course did you read my comment actually?Do you think that Bahrain Qatar and UK have same freedom of press? --Shrike (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that capitalism is fundamentally corrosive to free expression, so I'd say that as both are capitalist states, yeah, it's about the same situation for the state media apparatuses. Of course I've had the fun of living in a country that the BBC reports on as "scary far away place" and seeing how the experience on the ground failed to correspond to reality in any way, shape or form. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
No its not look at Press Freedom Index -Shrike (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The analog to AJ would be VOA. AJ exists to promote Qatar's influence.Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure that the actions of a racist militia on the southern border of the United States is of great interest to Qatar. Or perhaps a group of heavily POV editors in the Middle East article set would like to see this particular source which is unfriendly to their POV be blacklisted regardless of context... Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
They say they are not a militia but they seem to define militia as a group trying to overthrow the government. But all militia means is that they are soldiers who are not part of the regular forces. So the description seems apt. TFD (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be too little discussion of the point in the article and too much edit warring over a summary statement. It is clear that this definition is of some importance to them - I'm seeing alternate phrases like "paramilitary group" and "private security organization" being raised in the history - so please, everyone just add a quote or a few verbatim words from their favorite source with inline citation, including of course the organization's own statement about it is, build it up into a paragraph or a section, discuss what the distinction means to them if you can find some sources about that. This needs to be a longer article and there's no way to get the necessary information across in a shorter one. More building, less capturing the flag! Wnt (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for Dingonek

There's an ongoing sourcing debate at the AfD for Dingonek. The term brings up a large number of GBooks hits, however none of them are current academic works by any stretch of the imagination. A few reported sightings of this creature were published in apparently reputable memoirs and journals in the 1910s [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. Next came the cryptozoologists: [53] [54] [55]. The most recent sources are Uncle John's Bathroom Reader [56] and juvenile literature [57]. Are these sources reliable for the purpose of establishing notability? If so, how would one develop a NPOV-compliant article without current scholarly sources? –dlthewave ☎ 16:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

We are not required to use only academic work.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm also to date unable to find reliable sources this topic, academic or otherwise. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

al-islam.org

This is a user editable religious website, which copies material verbatim from other sources, has little regard for verifiability and neutrality. It has been long used as source by POV pushers. Sometimes without link to specific page; they would just link to homepage of the site to dupe others into thinking that claim is supported by a source e.g. this, this. When removed, it will usually be stealthily inserted back after a gap of a few days like this. Often material presented on this site is at odds with established scholarly research, for example: false, pov+half-truth, half-truth. Many more examples can be given. When confronted, users citing this site would say: it is RS. I doubt it, but would like to get opinion of others. Thanks. A good example of material found on the website: [58]AhmadLX (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The stated purpose of al-islam.org is "to digitize and present on the Internet quality Islamic resources, related to the history, law, practice, and society of the Islamic religion and the Muslim peoples, with particular emphasis on Twelver Shia Islamic school of thought." As such, it's similar to Google Books. which offers many digitized books, but only some of those books would be considered reliable sources. If something is cited to al-islam.org, one must examine the underlying source being cited and determine its reliability for the article that cites it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This is no book. Plenty of their web pages are like this, created and edited by users, and fall under WP:UGC.--AhmadLX (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
AhmadLX, How is that not a book? The foreword is from 1983. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean, maybe it was an actual published children's book/pamphlet from the World Organization for Islamic Services in 1983, but is that verifiable? That a PDF download is purely a conversion of the website rather than the original makes it more speculative. --tronvillain (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The PDF download is probably an automatic conversion. This is obviously a transcription. Not everything does it Google Books style. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
ISBN? Is this third party? Their so called books are just one-sided views of history, opposite to generally accepted narrative. For example: one of their books says that Muawiya II renounced his throne, condemning his father's actions. According to historians, Muawiya II died after 6 month rule. Same is true about with everything else they "publish". If they publish this on their website or from some obscure publisher based in Qum or elsewhere, does it make that a neutral 3rd party reliable work? AhmadLX (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No, not everything does it Google Books style, but what about verifiability? Does Al-Islam have such a reputation for accuracy that we can be sure that this is an accurate transcription of something actually published in 1983? Is this just a transcription, or is it a translation? If so, by who? In this particular case, this is a self-identified children's book, and wouldn't be a reliable source for much even if all that was established, but nothing I can see reassures me about other content on the site. --tronvillain (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, can anyone find an example of something on the site that would be considered a reliable source? Looking around, I'm having trouble finding it. Say, this - it's apparently written by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, but where, and when? Even ignoring that MQI appears to be his own organization and that he appears to be engaging in massive self-publishing or whether or not he constitutes an expert, what on the site allows verification that it was even written by him? --tronvillain (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
And the fact that they are reproducing all the text of these so called "published books" and allow users to edit them, says enough of their credibility. Those comparing this site with google books should imagine if google allowed viewers to edit the books in preview. AhmadLX (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I doubt it,::::::No, not everything does, but again, given even they are not sure.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
IF al-Islam.org is a user editable website then it is not a reliable source.
This would make it no different than Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Attempting to edit something results in a message saying "Thanks for the modification, your changes are in draft now, will be published after the review." Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
AhmadLX, WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
So where are these experts at al-islam.org , whose work in the field has been published by reliable thrid party publications?AhmadLX (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That one example was a citation to A Shi'ite Encyclopedia, authored by the "Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project Team" and published by the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project itself, saying "Most of the articles provided in this encyclopedia are original contributions, while the rest are excerpts from the Ahlul Bayt and the Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'ah books." That, at least, seems to clearly not be a reliable source. --tronvillain (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going with no on this. We have a long-term problem with private religious apologist sites (e.g. fisheaters) and these links do more for the site owner than they do for neutral content. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Largely depends on the context. I don't see if this website is dedicated to producing incorrect information but sometimes their content may differ from other reliable sources. Shashank5988 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

GoFundMe

Would this

[...] who donated $10,000 to the crowdfunding project.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gofundme.com/thewarningband?u=3327568|title=Update 28 of the Fundraiser|last=Warring|first=Nick|year=2015|website=[[GoFundMe]]|access-date=5 January 2019|quote=Alex Rigopulos recently contributed $10,000!!! Thank you Alex!}}</ref>

be usable at Alex Rigopulos? I'm verifying here, because if it is I'd have to ask WT:WHITELIST to whitelist that particular URL on gofundme dot com. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say no. If it hasn't received coverage in independent sources then by definition it's not something Wikipedia should be mentioning either, and if it had received coverage in independent sources we should be using those as the source. ‑ Iridescent 08:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I should add that the sentence starts with

In April 2015, rock band The Warning met their GoFundMe goal thanks in large part to Rigopulos,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-entertainment/2015/04/16/mexico-sisters-the-warning-meet-gofundme-goal/|title=‘The Warning’ Hits GoFundMe Goal, Drops EP in Same Week|last=Sweeney|first=Chris|date=16 April 2015|website=[[Boston (magazine)|''Boston'']]|publisher=[[Metrocorp]]|access-date=4 January 2019}}</ref> [...]

where Rigopulous' identity is already verified. My question is exclusively about the $10,000 amount. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

A most sensible solution IP. Thanks for taking our concerns over reliability seriously. (If you were using the bostonmag source more extensively, it would make sense to paraphrase things like "thanks in large part" > 'due largely' , just to avoid any doubt of copyvio etc, but in this case what you suggest looks fine.)FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying. Combined with the Boston article, the sourcing looks better.
However, the GoFundMe post was written by Ted Boylan, who identifies as the "promotions manager" of The Warning, and is a self-published source. Since the $10,000 claim involves a third party (Alex Rigopulos), citing GoFundMe for this claim would violate part #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF ("it does not involve claims about third parties") and would not be acceptable. I also see that the $10,000 amount is listed in the sidebar of the GoFundMe page when sorted by "Highest Donations", but this is unusable since GoFundMe doesn't verify its donors' identities, as I mentioned before.
You're welcome to include this information in the The Warning (Mexican band) article if you can find a reliable source that mentions the $10,000 figure in conjunction with Alex Rigopulos's name. Note that even if this source is found, whether this donation should be mentioned in the Alex Rigopulos article is also a question of due weight. — Newslinger talk 11:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I agree with your assessments, including the remark about due weight, and I've removed the phrase from the article. Feel free to close this discussion. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Da Silva, Chantal (20 December 2018). "Border wall GoFundMe campaign reaches $4.5M, with donations from "Barack Obama," "Hillary Clinton"". Newsweek. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

Eupedia.com

This website is used in about 100 articles[59]. It's "About" page[60] says "Eupedia.com was founded in December 2004 by Maciamo Hay. Our aim is to create a detailed and informative guide to countries of the European Union, with an emphasis on travel, history, culture and life in Europe. Since 2009, Eupedia also has a dedicated section for genetics focusing chiefly on European population genetics, historical genetics and genetic genealogy, as well as related fields such as prehistory, archaeology and anthropology. At Eupedia we consider that the knowledge of history is essential to understand the complex ethnic, cultural and linguistic patchwork of the modern world. Retracing the ancestry and ancient population movement in Europe and its interactions with other regions like West Asia or North Africa provides valuable insight into what it means to be European today and what common heritage Europeans share with their neighbours. Understanding the diversity of genetic variations in society and how numerous historical migrations shaped our genes and identity is one of the most potent ways to eradicate xenophobia and dispel myths about racism." I've just removed it as a source from Genetic history of the British Isles where the source was an article on genetics by Maciamo Hay, the owner. There's a link on the About page to Hay's FB page[61] where it's pretty clear that he has no qualifications in genetics even though he calls himself a historian and population geneticist.[62] He has other websites besides this one and papers, some from Eupedia. on ResearchGate and Academic.edu. He's a cofounder of Japan Reference (JREF) which is also used as a source.[63]

I think he clearly isn't an RS and probably should be added to the spam black list which we can use for sources such as this. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Not finding anything about any kinds of editorial controls, or even who writes for it. I would say it not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
It looks like a standard company site to me. Not very reliable - obviously not a specialized scientific source - but you've presented no evidence that they are spamming their links either. Given that they have pages available, editors might easily have made these links (mostly to copyrighted pictures of castles) because they improve Wikipedia. I think an editor should be allowed to assume that a tourist-oriented company that prints a picture of a castle is reliable enough in talking about it that they got the right picture for the right castle. Definitely do not add to any robotic blacklists, with a side-prayer of Kyle Reese standing on the robot blasting away with a shotgun until the light flickers and goes out in its beady little eyes. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wnt: I don't think there's any spamming going on either and I don't see how you thought I was, it's just that the spam black list is used for more than just spam. He's not running a tourist business either, as you seem to suggest. You seem to be ignoring its use on articles about genetics and about genealogy, as quick examples. He describes it as a "combination of Wikipedia, Wikitravel and Wikicommons". Doug Weller talk 17:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: It is a tourist site, just a spectacularly inaccurate one (pretty much every statement on this page is wrong). ‑ Iridescent 17:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: There was a lot of effort expended to try to pretend that the "spam blacklist" would not be a general censorship list. If this is how you people are freely admitting you use it now, let's rename it the Wikipedia Censorship Office Blacklist.
The reason why I ignored a few articles about genealogy is that when you blacklist a site you affect all the articles, including the ones about castles. Are you telling me that you want to mechanically censor the use of any site that contains some statement about genetics that is made by someone who in your expert opinion has "no qualifications in genetics", regardless of what good it can do on our other articles? Regardless of the fact that by your own admission about a hundred editors (minus some duplicates no doubt) found it worth linking to in their own vestigial puny-human sense of initiative? I got a better idea: if you think they're doing such a lousy job writing articles why don't you go edit those articles and find pictures of a bunch of castles nobody could care less about? Wnt (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
How about concentrating on the RSN issue? I said what I'd prefer, but that's not a decision that need be made here. Please don't put words in my mouth, I said 100 articles use it as a source now, it could have been removed from other articles and in fact I'm sure has been. I have no idea why you are venting at me but it's not appropriate. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't like blacklists and I don't like machines telling editors what to do. That said, the blacklist you proposed wouldn't help you if people cite the article at ResearchGate. I agree that this reads like a masquerade of a genetics article -- it uses appropriate terminology and looks plausible at first glance, but going deeper in it seems very conversational, describes some pretty major omissions from a previous draft, etc. in a way that is very indicative that it never suffered the usual slings and arrows of peer review. Worst of all, it lacks citations! Still... it may be ahead of the game by relation to the usual newspaper's competence in the field of genetics! Wnt (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington Examiner

Turning Point USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has numerous cites to The Washington Examiner. Given the controversial nature of TPUSA, the less than stellar reputation of Washington Examiner, and its known right wing bias, I suspect we probably should not be using this source in this article. I'd also question the use of The Hill. Thoughts? Guy (Help!) 13:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is based on. The Turning Point USA article cites the Washington Examiner only three times. All of the Examiner coverage of Turning Point USA that is cited in the Wikipedia article is negative. This piece is about allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault at a Turning Point conference. This piece is about Turning Point censoring questions from attendees at a summit. And this piece is about another conservative organization accusing Turning Point and its founder of damaging the conservative movement. If the Washington Examiner is biased in favor of Turning Point, there is nothing in the Wikipedia article that shows any evidence of that. As to The Hill (newspaper), it's not cited in the Turning Point USA article at all -- and I don't recall hearing that The Hill has a conservative bias. Guy deleted one cite from The Hill from the article yesterday, but the cited article doesn't portray Turning Point favorably, focusing on a former top official who reportedly sent racist text messages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Your question is malformed. Please follow the instructions on the top of this page.
Since we are at RSN, I would like you to explain why removed content about founder (sourced to Fox News), content about number of chapters and "presence" (sourced to tpusa.com), a citation to Detroit Free Press (which is actually a republished story by AP), content about "SOS Liberty" (sourced to an opinion piece by Kirk), and content about Trump tweet (sourced to a blog at The Hill, which is obviously a WP:NEWSBLOG, but in this context it is used to support uncontroversial facts, not opinions). Those removals don't seem constructive to me. Why do you claim they are unreliable sources? Politrukki (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That's three times more than it should, IMO, as Washington Examiner is a poor quality source with an obvious agenda (and The Hill is also prone to publishing opinionated garbage). The question is not malformed, it's a request for input from those who frequent this page. It's not about content it's about my feeling that we should use more robust sourcing on articles about controversial subjects, something I think most here will support but I haven't decided whether to got to bat on it yet. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If there are concerns about the accuracy or bias of The Hill (newspaper), they haven't come to my attention before, nor is there anything stated in the Wikipedia article about that publication that raises such concerns. Do you have any sources that accuse The Hill of being particularly bad? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say. Other than the normal background level of griping that every media outlet reporting on Washington gets, I've heard nothing about this. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
What is three times what? You still haven't explained which sources your question is about and you have not explained the context, so yes, your question is malformed. By failing to follow the instructions of this noticeboard, you are wasting our time. You need to read SOURCE and CONTEXTMATTERS. You also dodged my questions of why you removed seemingly reliably sourced content or reliable sources. Why do you think that The Hill's news reporting of Trump tweet was opinionated garbage – it was not – or were you referring to another source in your opening post?
If you are concerned about potentially questionable sources that are already cited in the article, there are many. Why single out Washington Examiner and The Hill? Politrukki (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's one example of past discussions of Washington Examiner at this board: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 229#Erick Erickson and The Washington Examiner. Very controversial subject, but the source was edit-warred into article and is still there more than one year later. Politrukki (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Washington Examiner's reputation appears to be questionable. In any case, it seems to be a minor outlet and should not be used for contentious material, if at all. The Hill's news reporting seems to be okay, although they publish a lot of opinion pieces which should be treated with caution, as with any other outlet. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why The Hill's news articles shouldn't be considered generally reliable for American politics. The Ad Fontes chart places The Hill firmly in the green rectangle of reliable news sources. Their opinion articles need to be checked for the author - I think I've seen The Hill publish an op-ed from the Family Research Council - but they do indicate contributor articles clearly, with the line "The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill" - so that's good. These articles should probably be treated the same as Forbes.com contributor articles. feminist (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The main problem is that they distinguish poorly between factual reporting and opinion. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
How so? --Shrike (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I thinks you got it backwards. In my experience, The Hill news articles clearly focus on news, not editorialising (or "news analysis"). Opinion pieces and contributor posts are clearly labeled as such. Some contributors are clearly experts in their field and may be cited with or without in-text attribution, depending on context. But probably the vast majority of opinion pieces are unusable for Wikipedia. Politrukki (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, although I'd consider their contributor posts to be self-published sources. feminist (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I also think The Hill is fine. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. And I've seen opinion pieces in it that skew in both directions. Their news reporting appears straight-forward to me. The Examiner on the other hand, is not reliable. While its "news" stories may be "fair interpretations" (see below), they are still interpretations, and not straight-forward reportage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
But surely that makes them valid WP:RSOPINION, right? feminist (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I note that the Ad Fontes chart cited above places the Washington Examiner in the yellow rectangle meaning "fair interpretations of the news". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding The Hill, I reviewed several articles linked from their home page, and they look generally reliable to me. Their news reporting appears to be unbiased, the quality of the content is high, and the writers do not quote people out of context. However, I would consider articles written by The Hill "contributors" to be self-published sources, similar to ones from Forbes.com contributors and HuffPost contributors, since their application process doesn't appear to be very robust. — Newslinger talk 20:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Tunefind

  1. tunefind.com
  2. Wake Up Call (Maroon 5 song)
  3. The song was featured on the television shows, Entourage[1] and The Hills.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Entourage – Sorry, Harvey". Tunefind. Retrieved November 5, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "The Hills – Second Chances". Tunefind. Retrieved November 5, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I did find this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_131#TuneFind --David Tornheim (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

How do songs get verified?

If we get the song direct from the Music Supervisor (the people who select the music), the song will be verified automatically. If someone from our user community submits a song, it must be voted on and verified by the Tunefind user community. We use a karma-based algorithm that looks at a user's accuracy on Tunefind. The more accurate you are, the more power your vote has on the site. If you want to build up your power, submit and vote on songs!

— Newslinger talk 04:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll post some more, probably equally unreliable ones. Just want to check before deleting. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

thatgrapejuice.net -and- stereogum.com

1. thatgrapejuice.net

stereogum.com -- Our article: Stereogum

2. Wake Up Call (Maroon 5 song)

3. A remix version by Mark Ronson and featuring Mary J. Blige was released on November 13, 2007[1] and was included on the band's remix album Call and Response: The Remix Album (2008).

A director's cut version include more scenes from the original video.[2]

References

  1. ^ "New Song: Maroon 5 & Mary J. Blige – 'Wake Up Call' (Mark Ronson Remix)". That Grape Juice. Retrieved January 7, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "New Maroon 5 Video - "Wake Up" (Director's Cut)". Stereogum. August 2, 2007. Retrieved January 7, 2019.

--David Tornheim (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That Grape Juice - unclear: I am less confident about That Grape Juice. The blog has an editorial team and a couple of references in Billboard ([70], [71]), but the site didn't bother to update its copyright footer to year 2019, and clicking on the author's name in the article above (Sam) shows an "Access Denied" error. All of the posts linked from its home page are short and low-quality, and none of them constitute significant coverage of any topic. That Grape Juice's interviews appear to be of a higher quality than the rest of its content. In this particular case, I don't think "New Song: Maroon 5 & Mary J. Blige – ‘Wake Up Call’ (Mark Ronson Remix)" is sufficient to substantiate the claim, since the embedded link or video has been removed and replaced with a "{Link Removed As Requested}" message. — Newslinger talk 07:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure that being owned by someone makes it an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: Thanks for the extensive analysis. I agree with Slatersteven that ownership does not confer reliability. However, I do think some of your other evidence makes Stereogum is more compelling. How do you know that [72] is a blog?
If you see other evidence in this Maroon 5 video (or others from Maroon 5) of poor sources, I'd love to hear about it. There are numerous IP's that keep showing up trying to restore the same unsourced (or poorly sourced) content at different Maroon 5 articles, and these articles seem to have accumulated primarily WP:PROMO. The IPs are pretty persistent. I suspect the IPs are all COI parties from some marketing company--logging on from different computers. I'm close to the point of trying to report it as WP:SPA or WP:COI, but not sure how that will help. Deleting the WP:PROMO seems the best for now and WP:ROPE. I don't know if that is happening with all the other big corporate songs or not. My guess is that it is. Dealing with this one band is hard enough. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
​I called "New Maroon 5 Video -“Wake Up” (Director’s Cut)" a blog post because Stereogum is described as a "blog" in its article, and the terms "article" and "blog post" are mostly interchangeable for blogs. Usually, I'll use the term "blog post" for short posts that wouldn't meet the threshold of significant coverage, because it's a lesser name. For what it's worth, I don't think the Stereogum piece is enough to substantiate "A director's cut version include more scenes from the original video." because the short blurb doesn't even say that much. The editor should probably be asked to find a more substantial source. — Newslinger talk 12:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, while it seems that Stereogum would be a sufficiently reliable source for this kind of content, the article/blog post doesn't actually support that statement. --tronvillain (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yachts / www.charterworld.com

Is www.charterworld.com WP:RS for facts and history about yachts?

I was cleaning up and adding WP:RS to Pegasus V. This material was there when I arrived at the page:

May 2011 saw the sale of Princess Mariana at an asking price of $98,000,000. Following the transaction, she was renamed Pegasus V and made available for charter.[1]

The current version of charterworld does not support the content, but likely an old version found on the WayBackMachine does:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081015000000*/https://www.charterworld.com/index.html?sub=yacht-charter&charter=princess-mariana-1290

My guess is that it is not WP:RS since it seems to be more for sales, but wanted to check here before deleting. If any other sources in the article are bad WP:RS, please let me know. All the WP:RS seems obsessed with the listing prices--I question whether we really need that in an encyclopedia, but since this is such a big ticket item, it might qualify. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "PEGASUS VIII". www.charterworld.com. Retrieved 2019-01-04.

I'd tend to saying it's unreliable, unless someone can dig up evidence for it being a reputable publisher. There's a huge amount of spamming, promotion, and coi-editing where it comes to luxury items like yachts (which I've been meaning to look into given the use of superyachtfan.com in article). I share your concerns about Pegasus V deserving an article. Have you checked with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships --Ronz (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No I haven't. But I'll take a look. Thanks for the feedback. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

WeHoVille

WeHoVille is used extensively as a source for this WP:BLP. I don't think it passes WP:RS, what do others say? Guy (Help!) 13:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like some sort of West Hollywood community newspaper. Possibly reliable for non-controversial biographical details, but low-quality. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253&oldid=1142578111"