Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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

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

RSP Entry: CoinDesk RSP Entry

Please note: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies

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

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

• Andreessen Horowitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761
• Initial coin offering - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173
• BitLicense - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899
• Virtual currency - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_currency&diff=prev&oldid=899205974
• Blockchain - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blockchain&diff=prev&oldid=899204625
• Petro (cryptocurrency) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petro_%28cryptocurrency%29&type=revision&diff=899240624&oldid=898403220
• ConsenSys - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ConsenSys&diff=prev&oldid=899172771
• CryptoKitties - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CryptoKitties&diff=prev&oldid=899172717
• Vitalik Buterin - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalik_Buterin&diff=prev&oldid=899039990
• Non-fungible token - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&type=revision&diff=899205438&oldid=898660433

So the question is,

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

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

Remove it - speaking as the editor in question, here's what my thinking was:

• In general: cryptocurrency/blockchain articles are magnets for spam and advocacy. And crypto news sites are bad sources, per the previous discussion on this topic - they appear to be specialist press, but function as advocacy. You will see every possible thing being spun as good news for cryptos. We don't need crypto sites - there's plenty of mainstream coverage and peer-reviewed academic coverage to establish notability. Using crypto sites as sources in your article is a bad sign at AFD, and using mainstream RSes and peer-reviewed academic RSes is a good sign at AFD - so the observed working consensus of Wikipedia editors in practice is strongly in this direction.
• In particular: Coindesk has a terrible habit of running articles on things that don't exist yet, barely-reskinned press releases and so on. There are plenty of refs that are entirely factual content! But you can say the same about blogs, wikis and other sources that aren't trustworthy in any practical sense. And this is even though Coindesk has an editor, I know a pile of the journalists and they're honestly trying to do a good job, etc. Quite a lot of the Coindesk refs I removed were to puffed-up nonsense articles, or in support of blatantly promotional article content. So the argument that editors will check the context doesn't work in practice - using the Coindesk articles that happen to be properly-made news coverage only encourages the use of their bad stuff, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is the most frequent AFD argument from crypto spammers.
• I urge those thinking about this to reread WP:GS/Crypto. Just think what sort of editing would cause that harsh a community sanction to be put into place. Those conditions haven't changed. Letting just a waffer-thin crypto site in the door will invite the spammers back.
• I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here - I make some money as a crypto journalist, often publishing in these very sites. I know my stuff is good and my editors are good! But I also know there's excellent reason it's not good for Wikipedia - when we have mainstream sources. If some subject or fact isn't notable enough to make it into mainstream or peer-reviewed sources, perhaps it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.
• For a recent example that did make the crypto press, check this out. (I spoke to them with my Wikipedia editor hat on for once, not my crypto journalist hat.) That's about spammy interests trying to weasel their stuff into just one page. Repeat for a large swathe of the crypto articles on Wikipedia, 'cos that sort of thing is entirely usual. Mainstream-only is good in practice. (cc Retimuko and Ladislav Mecir, who are also mentioned in that piece.)
• And, really - you think crypto sites should be used for BLPs? We have super-stringent BLP rules also for excellent reasons. I can't see how a crypto site would ever be acceptable as a source for a BLP, except maybe as an accepted subject-published link or similar - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: I'm skeptical of your claim "I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here", considering that you published Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, a book that is highly critical of cryptocurrencies. How would your !vote to remove all references to CoinDesk go against your own interests? Since you "make some money as a crypto journalist", wouldn't removing all references to CoinDesk effectively eliminate your biggest competitor and/or adversary from being mentioned on Wikipedia? — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that my own work in the ones I write for (which include Coindesk) wouldn't be citable. If you think you have a substantiable claim of COI on my part, you know where WP:COIN is, else I'll file that with all the other unsubstantiated claims that not being an advocate means I should stop editing in the area - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Your statement makes more sense alongside the fact that you have contributed to CoinDesk. Ironically, the fact that CoinDesk published your opinion piece "2017: The ‘Butt’ of Bitcoin’s Joke" makes them less biased than I had previously assumed. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable source - beyond the issues that David Gerrard lays out above, crypto news sites also have had issues with content being gneerated for pay but not noted as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to be fair, Coindesk has never been credibly accused of pay-for-play, and there's no good reason to think they'd do that. However, their editorial line has long been basically boosterism for cryptos (IMO) - David Gerard (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That is fair. However, beyond that for all the reasons you've mentioned, which I didn't bother to repeat since you'd laid them out in depth, I continue to believe it is an unreliable source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (do not remove all references to CoinDesk - here's my thinking and take on the matter:

• The previous RfC did a good job of getting consensus on how to treat CoinDesk articles. It clearly stated that CoinDesk shouldn't be used to establish notability but otherwise isn't barred from being used as a source. Why the sudden change in this policy by one editor deciding unilaterally that they no longer wish to adhere to this consensus?
• Yes, we all know the usual criticisms of crypto press. That's already debated and known to editors. If there are individual instances to consider incorrect usage of CoinDesk, e.g. to establish notability, by all means they should be deleted. But as long as it isn't the policy, I don't support a blanket removal of all the material from literally hundreds of articles affected.
• A lot of the material that's been removed is actually criticism of the projects. The bias is easy to understand - a lot of the overly promotional puffery has been removed by diligent editors already. This means removing all the CoinDesk references has made the problem of crypto-puffery much worse.
• Several instances of purely encyclopedic content was removed for using CoinDesk as a purely descriptive secondary source (e.g. discussion on popular standards). This hurts the quality of the articles from an encyclopedic perspective.
• This blanket removal of CoinDesk references already goes against the general consensus previously reached. There are literally hundreds (probably thousands?) of edits to go through, and I don't think it's feasible to go through them all to determine if the removal was justified. In many cases I've reviewed, I think the removal was unjustified, and in several other cases, it was totally justified. It's very hard to review now after these edits.
• In conclusion, yes, there is a problem with crypto puff material entering the articles, but the solution isn't to ban crypto press. Crypto press both has the puffiest pieces and the most critical pieces on crypto projects. As editors, we want to see a balanced article, but that balance gets lost of we cannot cite the criticisms. One editor shouldn't decide to remove criticism and encyclopedic content especially going against previous consensus

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

• Keep as a source per Molochmeditates. CoinDesk's role in promoting the use of cryptocurrencies is no different from PinkNews's role in promoting acceptance of LGBT communities worldwide. Recognise their bias, and use discretion when citing the source; but do not systemically reject an entire topic area from Wikipedia just because it is in some way problematic or difficult to write about. feminist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of them should be removed. But it should be done more carefully. A lot of them can be replaced by mainstream sources. Examples:

Andreessen Horowitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761

Wall Street Journal "blog" about the same thing.

Initial coin offering - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173

"The SEC ruled that celebrity ICO endorsements must disclose the amount of any compensation paid for the endorsement." Covered by Reuters.

BitLicense - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899

"In July 2016, San Francisco-based Ripple was awarded the second BitLicense." Covered by Reuters.

There should be zero coin news references used in an article if possible. Like do you really need to use CoinDesk to write a good article about blockchain?

So if it's an important detail, look for a mainstream source. If it's only on a coin news site you should explain why it's needed on the talk page or edit summary. Blumpf (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all references from Coindesk and other cryptopropaganda I'd thought that this was already a settled matter. There are reliable references to cryptomatters, e.g. Bloomberg, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Financial Times, BBC, CBC and sometimes in Fortune and some of the cable news networks. There's no reason not to just use these sources. The cryptopropaganda network is all shills all the time as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete all references. There is not enough evidence to indict CoinDesk as a source that publishes false or fabricated information. While CoinDesk is a biased and non-independent source due to the cryptocurrency holdings of its parent company (Digital Currency Group), I don't consider the content in CoinDesk to be sponsored content, and I don't think a removal of "all references" to CoinDesk is justified. In my opinion, a source only crosses the line when it publishes calls to action that support its interests. CoinDesk's articles do not contain that type of promotional language. CoinDesk is much closer to TorrentFreak (RSP entry), which is another specialist publication that assumes the role of an advocacy organization, than The Points Guy's sponsored content (RSP entry), which contains actual sales pitches. However, CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability (per existing consensus), and editors should consider whether content from CoinDesk constitutes undue weight before including it into an article. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To "delete all references" to a source "irrespective of context" is a very serious action that is only taken when a source is listed on the spam blacklist. The "Yes" position in this RfC goes further than deprecation, because deprecation respects WP:CONTEXTMATTERS while the "Yes" position here does not. If CoinDesk is not eligible for the spam blacklist, then there is no valid reason to "delete all references" to it "irrespective of context". — Newslinger talk 01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove all, but try to replace with mainstream sources when at all possible, per Blumpf and others. The FRS/Legobot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove all. Mainstream sources are fine. Coindesk is biased, and most editors don't have context to identify the cases where they might be able to be a neutral source. – SJ + 03:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

"sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concern" - but that's literally all the crypto news sites, though. Every single one. Is there an exception you had in mind? - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I have not had any good chance to review them in any depth, their connections, and how others see those sources. For example, if we have non-crypto-based RSes routinely quoting facts from a crypto source, even if that source is not truly independent, that still suggests that that source would be seen as authorative. All the concerns related to WP:NORG obviously should be applied to any crypto-related article, but it still doesn't mean throwing the entire work out if others see part of it as reliable. But I have spent literally only like 10 minutes looking into this, nothing I would consider suitable to say such exist.

I do worry that this rush of mass removals without a clear consensus is into WP:FAIT territory, even though I suspect 95% of them removals would be proper, at the end of the day. --Masem (t) 14:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point about RS quoting something like CoinDesk is a fair point and I would hope that David Gerrard has stopped removing CoinDesk as a reference while this RfC is being conducted. However, because Crypto/blockchain is a substantial field we have non-industry sources covering notable organizations/developments regularly. We can rely on them without having to figure "Is CoinDesk acting as a booster of the industry here or is it reporting news of significance?" Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a source. — Newslinger talk 19:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Society, sports, and culture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I've seen Quadrant Magazine listed as a source a few times recently and I'm dubious on its use. Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Quadrant Magazine?

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

Bacondrum (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a news source, I don't think the classifications are how it should be viewed. The publication has produced content that might be used with attribution to its author, sort of option 2, but after a certain period was shown to be unreliable in editorial selection and elementary checks (a Sokal-like article that was published, literally fabricated information). cygnis insignis 03:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​Fabricated information is a serious concern. Do you have links to examples of these articles? — Newslinger talk 23:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is named in an outline of the hoax this news item [in a Murdoch organ, if that matters, I can provide better] cygnis insignis 06:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've changed my position, although I note that the article still describes Quadrant as a "respected right-wing journal" despite the incident. For other interested editors, a more detailed description of the incident is at Keith Windschuttle § Hoax, but the incident is not yet mentioned in the Quadrant (magazine) article. If there are any other incidents that would establish a pattern of poor editorial controls, please share them. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse RfC. See Special:Diff/901760684. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2. Quadrant publishes mostly opinions, which makes it a biased or opinionated source, and all of its statements should be properly attributed. The source consists of both online and magazine editions; in the past two decades, the magazine has released 10 issues per year. Quadrant has 10 listed authors on its editorial team, but most of its online content is submitted by non-staff contributors. On average, the online edition publishes 1–3 articles per day; the low volume allows the site to publish higher-quality content than Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry). Quadrant isn't a good source for facts; outlets that focus on factual reporting are better. — Newslinger talk 23:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 for articles written by staff, option 3 for articles written by non-staff contributors. The incident described in Keith Windschuttle § Hoax casts doubt on the quality of Quadrant's fact-checking process for contributed articles and reveals that the magazine does not properly verify the identity and credentials of its non-staff contributors. The editor-in-chief promised to be more careful in the future, but did not offer details on how the publication would do so. Contributed articles should be treated as self-published sources, with exceptions for established subject-matter experts. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3. It is an opinion magazine, and might be quoted for notable opinions properly attributed to a notable contributor. It's articles are not a useful source for factual claims, and it's not prominent enough to make the opinions automatically notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2. Worth noting that even the "hoax" contained mostly true information, and that Windschuttle seems unhappy about the fact that he was tricked into accepting it. Looking at their website, I see opinionated statements, which leads me to be cautious with them for facts, but also no examples of anything clearly false. In general, their content ought to be treated like opinion pieces, without prejudice against deciding, on a case by case basis and using WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as a guide, that some pieces may be factual.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3, maybe Option 4. If this source were placed into Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I'm inclined to think it should be red. It has an entire section (w/ link in top header), Doomed Planet, dedicated to climate denialism. Therefore, the organization as a whole seems to lack interest in scientific credibility, which I suspect pervades their entire publication. II | (t - c) 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 5 Rigorous application of WP:NOTNEWS and avoid use of media sources wherever possible. That said, media sources that are clearly opinion, are even more suspect and should be avoided except when a columnist in them has an independently notable opinion. Then, and only then, it could be used for citing that opinion, as an opinion, with the normal WP:DUE concerns that surround individual opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 Quadrant publishes opinion, typically from little-known writers these days, and is not a RS for anything except the authors' views. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3. Opinion-focused source with no indication of fact-checking and no reputation to speak of. Regarding R2's objection, they are not entirely wrong, and it's true that the recent flood of broad WP:RFCs for sources is undesirable; however, these RFCs are still useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated. Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare), I don't think any outcome should be taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3: Every article in their current edition seems to be almost entirely ideologically-propelled opinion. I read one in its entirety, plus provided sources, by Mark Durie, regarding the New Zealand killer of 51 people at two mosques. The verifiable few facts I found were cherry picked from context. It's better than the Daily Mail, but what isn't? Activist (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3: Pretty clearly partisan and not concerned with reportorial objectivity. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3: Clearly much more focused on making political arguments that providing an accurate description of events. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 or 4 - Clearly not primarily interested in the truth. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following best describes the Daily Graphic (Ghana) and its website, graphic.com.gh? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, may include gossip or other trivial tabloid content presented as factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, primarily publishes gossip, or does not guarantee the accuracy of information that it publishes as factual reporting

This is a difficult one. It is definitely a news site, and people rely on it for up to date and accurate news. According to Course Hero and Boamah, Mavis, Impact of online newsportals on the patronage of newspapers in Ghana, GRIN Verlag (2018), p. 7, ISBN 9783668719965:

As the political agenda of Gold Coast journalism radicalized, newspapers began reaching out beyond the circle of elites, appealing to rural leaders and the urban poor with a more accessible language and fiery oppositional outcry. In 1948, political activist Kwame Nkrumah started The Accra Evening News, a publication stating the views of the Convention People's Party (CPP). Largely written by party officials, this inflammatory newspaper incessantly repeated the popular demand for "Self-government Now!" while launching angry attacks against the colonial government. In contrast, the London Daily Mirror Group, headed by British newspaper magnate Cecil King, established The Daily Graphic in 1950. The Graphic sought to maintain a policy of political neutrality, emphasizing objective reporting by local African reporters. With its Western origin, The Graphic sought to position itself as the most professional newspaper in the Gold Coast at the time.

However, this master thesis by Dzineku, Theorose Elikplim (PRINT MEDIA REPORTAGE OF THE ALAVANYO NKONYA CONFLICT:A CASE STUDY OF DAILY GRAPHIC AND GHANAIAN TIMES NEWSPAPERS.[in] Academia) provides a thorough criticism from page 32. I'm nudging towards Option 1 but would be interested to read what the community thinks.Tamsier (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahrtoodeetoo, the purpose of my raising this RfC is to get a baseline assessment of reliability so that editors engaged in page reviewing (or other topic-hopping maintenance tasks) who are unfamiliar with a given region or topic (in this case Ghana) can more reliably make decisions that comply with community consensus. I agree that the result of this discussion should not be posted to RSP; I intend to summarize the results of this discussion at WP:NPPSG, which is supposed to centralize information from RSN that potentially reflects a weaker consensus than RSP. In hindsight, this makes option 4 an arguably inappropriate inclusion in the survey, although given the responses so far this is a non-issue. Moreover, looking at the comments in the discussion so far, this is hardly a popularity contest: so far we have two well-thought-out comments drawing on high quality sources. I'm open to criticisms that this should be handled through a different process (a differently worded RfC prompt is likely in order), but these sorts of discussions are a net positive to the project and will particularly help us cover subjects that are systemic-bias blind spots. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that context really does matter per WP:RS, and you can't assess context without discussing specific article content. Moreover, the community has to look at a lot of article content, not just one or two examples, or even worse none, before drawing any conclusions about an outlet's general reliability. That's the very premise behind RSP. Those are outlets that have come up again and again. Not never. R2 (bleep) 20:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't for RSP. My goal here is to establish a guide that allows editors to distinguish reputable sources from tabloids and self-published outlets at a glance, as well as to identify particularly relevant conflicts of interest for a given publication. The purpose of this is not to head off discussion about sources, it's to provide a starting point. Of course context matters, but there are also aspects of a publication that remain true in every (or almost every context) and that are worth discussing and recording. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahrtoodeetoo, are you planning to insert this into more sections on this noticeboard? It doesn't seem directly related. cygnis insignis 09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I plan to keep objecting to these sorts of surveys, unless/until there's consensus that they're consistent with WP:RS. R2 (bleep) 15:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrtoodeetoo I move this query from the previous section: TDM is what, The Daily Mail? cygnis insignis 18:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse RfC. See Special:Diff/901760684. — Newslinger talk 22:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahrtoodeetoo If you "plan to keep objecting to these sorts of surveys" on principle, I suggest you open an RfC elsewhere on the merits of these kinds of discussions. Considering your objections are not very much related to the actual sources being discussed, to be posting the same message over and over here would come across as obstructionist. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing obstructionist about it. I have nothing against discussing the reliability of specific Daily Graphic sources in context. My objection is made in good faith and is as applicable to this noticeboard request as to other similar requests. R2 (bleep) 22:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An excerpt from The Press and Political Culture in Ghana by Jennifer Hasty, published by Indiana University Press in 2005 (page 47): "Under President J. J. Rawlings, the premier state newspaper, the Daily Graphic, articulated and reinforced a specific logic of state hegemony: political legitimacy based on state accumulation, populist morality, and benevolent patronage. Participation in the hegemonic project of the state distinguishes the Daily Graphic as a strategic node in the larger "ideological state apparatus" (Althusser 1971) designed to construct and reinforce an official national imaginary...The style of journalism practiced at Graphic throughout the 1990s...was designed to explain government policies and illustrate the positive impact of development projects on grateful communities, generally ignoring political controversies and popular criticisms." I'd lean for option 1, but option 2 might be in order with the consideration of the fact that its reporting of government business might be non-neutral. It is a state-run newspaper, after all. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 with two caveats, after having spent far too much time reviewing the sources.

First caveat, it is a partisan source with respect to the government (note that partisan sources can still be categorized as “generally reliable” at WP:RSP). Exactly how partisan is unclear to me, and evaluating that probably requires editors who are much more familiar with Ghana. The paper nominally has editorial independence and there appears to be little direct interference, but the board members are government-appointed and there are a number of additional issues, e.g. journalists tend to act favorably to the government from their own initiative.

I also observe that from their political news page they at least meet the minimum standard of reporting some criticism of the current ruling party (NPP) and some of the views of the opposition party (NDC), e.g. [72] [73]. I also checked the archives from 2014 (when the NDC was in power) and the situation was the same. From my own evaluation there are some signs that could indicate bias, but I can't say for sure, and most of it is relatively subtle. Certainly it doesn't look like it would be any worse than certain US news sources that we consider RS.

The second caveat is that historically, the paper’s degree of independence depended heavily on who was in power and the structure of the government at the time. During some periods, it appears to have been essentially propaganda. I would tentatively suggest 2006 as the year when it achieved its current level of reliability. First, I would note that Ghana's score on the Press Freedom Index is quite high, better than the United States (!), and that the score has been roughly constant since that year. Additionally, while the current protections for journalism have been in place since 1993, the pre-2006 press freedom score was much worse and the academic analysis of the Daily Graphic seems to reflect that. Before 1993, the situation changed regularly but it seems like usually the problems were much more severe.

The sources and quotes from other editors above should also fit into this analysis, as determined by when those sources were published. Sunrise (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 or 2 per Sunrise's detailed research. Newspapers of record are assumed to be generally reliable unless there is some reason to doubt their reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, such as low press freedom. Since the newspaper was founded in 1950, a substantial portion of its history (1950–2005) is affected by low press freedom, and warrants more caution. The post-2006 quotes still raise concerns regarding editorial independence, and the Daily Graphic should be considered a biased or opinionated source, with attribution recommended for political and controversial topics. — Newslinger talk 12:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

oops. ta-da! https://www.theamericanconservative.com

Most if not all of the magazine is opinion articles, which are generally not considered reliable sources. Note for example the first article in your link, by Robert W. Merry, which says, "The Democratic contenders want open borders and free healthcare and to pay for it by hiking taxes." In fact none of them call for open borders and most of them oppose free health care. TFD (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Most if not all" is based on your reading the strap line of one article then, by this veteran former WSJ reporter. I noted that it takes a right-view above. So option 2 additional considerations is reasonable. But it includes much serious reporting e.g. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-quietly-promises-billions-in-new-nuke-contracts/ Cambial Yellowing(❧) 12:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish people would stop knee-jerk repeating "opinion pieces are bad" as if they were repeating policy. See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. GMG^talk 14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The American Conservative is the largest outlet in the heterodox paleoconservative movement, a small right-wing movement in the US, and a very valuable source for paleoconservative ideas. However it is still mainly an opinion outlet and has faced criticism on issues of race. I would say it is useful for opinion but should be used with caution on general reporting due to its inherent paleoconservative bias. Toa Nidhiki05 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unclear or additional considerations apply (a.k.a. "option 2"). The American Conservative is a magazine published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organization that describes the publication in this way:

• I would argue it is quite similar to Cato, even more so because it is the only major paleoconservative outlet. It’s basically the flagship publication of that movement and was even founded by Pat Buchanan himself. It’s not really a “straight news” or even news-opinion publication imo. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. I would treat both similarly. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cambial Yellowing, what you call serious reporting is actually an opinion piece. The author is commenting on a story that appeared in the New York Times about Trump's plans to increase the nuclear stockpile. There is absolutely no reason why we would use this as a source instead of the New York Times article that reported the story. GMG, it's not that opinion pieces are bad, but that policy says they are rarely reliable sources. Mostly they repeat facts already reported in reliable sources. When they report original information, they are not subject to the same editorial control as news reporting. So one writer may say Trump is a Russian agent while another says he did not collude with Russia. One may say climate change will destroy the world in 10 years while another will say there is no climate change. TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says is Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. But I have also seen this argument used to delete at AfD, and used to argue against using attributed statement of opinion from independently notable authors, writing opinion pieces in iron clad reliable publications. GMG^talk 01:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's from Biased or opinionated sources. I was referring to News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The two points are consistent: opinion pieces and biased sources are reliable for what their authors say. Some biased sources may also be reliable for facts as well, if the publishers made sufficient steps to ensure accuracy. Academic papers and books for example are almost always biased, which is why they are written. TFD (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, usable with attribution especially if the author has a particular reputation (for weight). Some independent analysis report it as "unfair interpretation of the news", "hyper partisan right", so unreliable for statements of fact. —PaleoNeonate – 02:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The American Conservative is fine for accurately reporting the opinions of its writers and we can presume its stories are honestly the writing of those to whom they're bylined; it has a legal personality in a jurisdiction in which it can be held liable for libel and it has a stable and consistent history of publication. However it does not have, nor does it claim to have, newsgathering capability and is essentially an opinion publication. One of the standards we should use to evaluate reliability is whether unambiguously RS cite its reporting. When I do a Google News search for "according to the American Conservative" or "the American Conservative reported" I don't get any meaningful results. So I would say it's reliable for attributing statements to its own writers but I would not use it for Who/What/Why facts like the size of a brush fire in Montana. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the TorrentFreak (RSP entry) article "Web Sheriff Sent “Forged” Taio Cruz Birth Certificate to MusicBrainz" a reliable source for the Web Sheriff article? The article is proposed as a source to support the claim in its title (that Web Sheriff sent a questionable birth certificate with inconsistencies to MusicBrainz in a demand for the database to change its information). — Newslinger talk 23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TorrentFreak. // Liftarn (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a huge stretch to say TorrentFreak is reliable for information about allegations of a forged birth certificate.

The TorrentFreak article was written the day after MusicBrainz' press on the topic, and simply relates information provided by MusicBrainz. This is churnalism. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we should disqualify them because they are not a primary source? // Liftarn (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)l[reply]

• Reliable with attribution. TorrentFreak contacted MusicBrains and Web Sheriff independently, and published their responses. This is original reporting, not churnalism. If there are issues with the terms "forged" or "allegedly forged", then stick with the facts (e.g. the spelling error in the hospital name). Since Web Sheriff claims that the image was provided by "the client / principal concerned", not produced by the company themselves, this portion of their response should be noted. — Newslinger talk 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, it's quite obvious that the image provided by Web Sheriff is a modified version of this birth certificate of Naomi Leafe-Marie Dawson, down to the same image size (568 x 777 pixels) and identical signature. The Dawson certificate was published on this page in 2005, predating the Web Sheriff controversy by over a decade. That page also contains a birth certificate with a slightly different signature, showing that the signatures are not identical across different certificates. My original research can't be cited in the Web Sheriff article, of course, but it supports the validity of the TorrentFreak story. — Newslinger talk 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Churnalism. Blogging. Contacting someone does not meet the requirements of RS, let alone BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in previous discussions, TorrentFreak is a respected source of information related to file sharing (including anti-piracy controversies). Its content has been used by other reliable sources (e.g. CNN, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Variety, The Verge, The Daily Dot, PC Magazine, Ars Technica, Newsweek, Engadget, PC World, Fast Company, and more) and academic publications (e.g. Marquette Sports Law Rev., Carnegie Mellon, UC Hastings). The CNN story uses TorrentFreak's coverage of another action taken by Web Sheriff. Sites like Engadget (RSP entry) are considered generally reliable despite being blogs; TorrentFreak is also well-regarded, although its topic coverage is much narrower.

This particular TorrentFreak article goes well beyond the MetaBrainz blog post to include quotes from "correspondence seen by TorrentFreak" and interviews with both parties in the dispute. Although the TorrentFreak article quotes the MetaBrainz post, a significant portion of the article is derived from new research not found in the original post, and "churnalism" is not an appropriate descriptor for the piece. — Newslinger talk 01:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's general consensus that TorrentFreak is generally reliable for articles on the topic of file sharing. So how does this specific article fall under thee category of "file sharing"? --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers an action taken by an anti-piracy company (which TorrentFreak has covered before) on behalf of one of their clients. — Newslinger talk 19:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that this is in line with the topic of file sharing?

Given all the undeniably unreliable sources that have been offered for this content, that this dispute has been going on for a long time, and the ongoing IDHT problems with the current dispute, it's difficult to look at as something other than a BATTLE (likely COI) situation. Let's look at the ref in detail:

It starts: Anti-piracy outfit Web Sheriff has found itself mired in controversy after asking a music metadata site to change information relating to the artist Taio Cruz. That's hype, and not factual. I don't see the article being reliable for anything related to this, and it's deep into BLP-violating territory.

Of the four sources the TorrentFreak article uses, two are primary and two wouldn't be considered reliable by Wikipedia criteria. As pointed out in the discussion above, TorrentFreak also received a response from WebSheriff, which was used by the author.

It ends: In all fairness MusicBrainz didn’t accuse Web Sheriff of forgery, only of passing a forged document on, but if the certificate is a fake, one has to wonder what the motivation behind it is. Is it a case of genuinely wanting to correct the facts and making a mess of it? Or is there something more sinister at play? In any event, faking a UK birth certificate is a criminal offense so Streisand Effect not withstanding, it better have been worth it.

I'm afraid that's not something that could be used for BLP info. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the TorrentFreak article's own sources make a difference here, since all secondary sources assimilate and interpret primary sources by definition. It is normal and expected for a publication to solicit input from both parties of a dispute that it's covering. It's true that the other sources cited in the article (including The Spartan Daily, discussed here) have been ruled out as unusable sources for this claim, but each source should be evaluated on its own merits and not by the other sources a Wikipedia editor bundled it with. Editor conduct is best discussed at another venue, since this noticeboard focuses on content.

Now, the crux of this dispute is whether the action covered by the article is in the scope of WP:BLP. A liberal interpretation of the facts treats the image of the birth certificate as an artifact transferred from Web Sheriff to MusicBrainz in a demand to change data in MusicBrainz's database; as there is no evidence that Taio Cruz is involved in this demand (only an unnamed "client / principal"), this interpretation does not see the situation in the scope of WP:BLP. A more conservative interpretation treats the controversy as a WP:BLP situation, since the demand that Web Sheriff made relates concerns information related to Taio Cruz. In this dispute, I am supporting the liberal interpretation and you appear to be supporting the conservative one.

This claim is being considered for the Web Sheriff article, not the Taio Cruz article, because it is only pertinent to the company's business practices and because there is no confirmed association between Web Sheriff and Taio Cruz. We already have five sources for Cruz's birth name (the name that Web Sheriff demanded MusicBrainz to remove) in the Taio Cruz article. Note that Web Sheriff confirmed that they provided the questionable image, but they also said that they did not create the image themselves. If the claim is included, the Web Sheriff article should make this point clear.

It would be great to hear from some other editors to break the deadlock in this dispute. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the TorrentFreak article's own sources make a difference here We disagree. Sources demonstrate the quality of the work.

We are evaluating this source on it's merits. Care to comment on what I've quoted it from it? It reads as a click-baity hit piece...

Yes, others' viewpoints would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the quoted sections, I don't think the tone used in the TorrentFreak article is uncommon for news articles related to controversies. The phrase "mired in controversy" is used by many reliable sources, including the Associated Press, The Atlantic, The Irish Times, The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail, and more, for a variety of subjects. CNN (RSP entry), The Register (RSP entry), and The Daily Dot, (RSP entry) have also published articles on Web Sheriff's actions that contain excerpts written in a lighthearted tone: "Welcome to the meme jungle Axl Rose", "In yet another battle for control of his name, image, and funkadelic music catalog, the artist formerly known as The Artist Formerly Known As Prince has launched an attack on the internet", and "Welcome to the internet, Axl. It’s a jungle out there". If the tone of a source should be a determining factor of whether it is reliable, this needs to be written into a guideline and applied across all sources. — Newslinger talk 04:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about tone, and quoting usage of a phrase is meaningless if accuracy is ignored. In this case "mired in controversy" seems grossly inaccurate. Reliability is about accuracy, not tone. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion:[74] (not directly related)
Source:[75]
Article: Gavin McInnes

Content:

He is the founder of the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist[13] men's group

The Law & Crime source (included in that source bundle "13") says this in support of "neo-fascist":
" Law&Crime has previously described the group as “neo-fascist,” a designation also in use by NBC News, the Associated Press and others."

As you can see, the L&C internal link is just a link to another article that merely includes exactly the same sentence, minus the internal L&C link. My contention is that this is worthless, especially in light of their misunderstanding of who is saying what (see below).

The other three links are to NBC, Chicago Tribune, and Haaretz. But all 3 are the same article by the AP (the Haaretz one has some other stuff in it about Fox, but the relevant bit is cut-and-paste from the AP article). The AP source article does not call the Proud Boys "neo-fascist" in their own voice, they merely quote a single individual who, as far as I know, is not especially expert, and who is political. This is the quote:

"New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, a Democrat who is running for state attorney general, said, "I am disturbed and disgusted by the videos I've seen of members of the neo-fascist, white supremacist Proud Boys group engaging in hate-fueled mob violence on the streets of New York City.""

That's not what L&C thinks it is: it's not NBC/AP/others using a designation, it's NBC/AP/others quoting someone. That's a schoolboy error, and makes them unreliable in this case. It might affect how reliable they're considered in general, but I'm not making that point here. It may be worth noting that Beyond My Ken, who reverted my edit, accepted my removal of the Chicago Tribune article that was also in the WP bundled cite.[76]

Is this L&C link a reliable source for the claim that Proud Boys in neo-fascist? (Talkpage entry that led to this question is here). Bromley86 (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not reliable. Law & Crime.com is one of those borderline outlets, so you have to look more closely at the source itself. The author has a legal background but virtually no journalism experience. I also looked through Law & Crime's masthead. While the editor-in-chief (Rachel Stockman) has ample experience, the rest of the editorial staff's experience is extremely skimpy. In addition to that, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This one doesn't pass the bar. R2 (bleep) 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it an exceptional claim that a white-supremacist male-chauvinist gang run by a charismatic leader and evidencing an obsession with aesthetics including uniforms and rituals involving white-supremacist symbolic actions is neo-fascist? I mean if it quacks like a duck... (A note, I am not commenting on the reliability of the source so much as whether WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:PROFRINGE requirements are in play here.Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is... it is not our job to determine whether the Proud Boys are new-fascist or not. Our job is to accurately relay what reliable sources say about them. In this case, it is accurate to say that Letticia James has said they are... but it is NOT accurate to say that those simply quoting her have said so. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's what one reliable source has to say [77] - gee what is another name for a western-chauvinist group of violent anti-semites and general racists? Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would use the word “Bigots”... but that’s just me (and I am not a reliable source). The point is, we have to keep OUR opinions out of the article, and accurately relay the what the sources say. The source we are talking about (Law & Crime), misrepresented what AP/NBC/etc said. THEY didn’t call Proud Boys “neo-fascist”, they reported that JAMES called them such. If there are other sources that use the term directly, we can attribute the label to them as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The neo-fascist label seems common enough to me that I would treat it as factual. Mother Jones, HuffPo, Daily Beast, NY Daily News, Buzzfeed News, Boston Globe. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe article links to the Daily Beast article, which has corrected itself and removed the term "neo-fascist" and replaced it with "western chauvinist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socratesone (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 July 2019}}

I'm still seeing "neo-fascist" on the Boston Globe article though, regardless of the link target. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RACIST. Use contentious labels with attribution only. Galestar (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's untrue, as long as sufficient high quality sources passing the Verification test. We certainly don't have to list the names of jouralists and media organizations on a confirmed white supremacist group. And I protest not being informed of this discussion on article talk. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 17:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:RACIST again. best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You still have to use attribution. (P.S. I wasn't informed either, saw it in my watchlist) Galestar (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a certain point that guideline gets steamrolled by NPOV, specifcially "Avoid stating facts as opinions." Now, I'm not saying here that the Proud Boys are nazis, but I think you would find a hard time getting consensus to confine "fascist" to an attributed quote in their article. My point is, there is somewhere in between being a victim of routine mudslinging and being the literal Nazis where we no longer need to treat "fascist" like it's an opinion. And therefore treating WP:RACIST as if it is sacrosanct is simply not a tenable position. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we sit in regard to press releases? Can they be reliable sources, albeit primary, in regards to basic claims about the subject? For example, if an otherwise notable awards committee announces nominees or winners via a press release, is that press release a reliable source as to who won or was nominated? Alternatively, if a company opens an office, can we use a press release noting that the office exists? - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what you've outlined is just fine. Press releases can't be used to establish notability, however, to cite basic and otherwise undisputed facts (i.e. non WP:REDFLAG) that we would otherwise allow a company's own website as a source should be fine (e.g. identities of an organization's officers, location of offices, ticker symbol, etc.). Were the content of a press release ever to be contradicted by the content of a WP:RS, the RS should win out. Chetsford (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Chetsford, and will add that the company distributing the PR will also include the ID of the person/company/university that released it. The latter makes it easier to verify. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with everyone. I would also note that there is a potential WEIGHT issue. As with a company's official website, I would use a press release to flesh out important details of something already discussed in a secondary source. I would not use it as the basis for new content unrelated to anything already in the article. In the case of the building, if an article already had a well-sourced section about "XYZ Corp. is deciding where to erect its new headquarters", I would be totally fine using a press release to update that section. In the case of awards, for sufficiently notable award programs, absolutely. I'd cut out the middleman even and prefer primary sources for the basic facts of who won what. This sort of belongs to Wikipedia's almanac-like aspect. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with both of the above. Also, I'd add — insofar as profitmaking companies are concerned — that we should consider a hierarchy of press releases. Press releases from publicly traded companies, at least in the United States, expose a company to significant liability if they misrepresent material facts, whereas those issued by individuals, non-publicly traded companies, and organizations have the full scope of protection of the first amendment. I can imagine a situation in which a sole proprietorship or non joint stock corporation, wanting to inflate its appearance, claimed offices in 10 cities when in fact it was a single person working out of his basement. A press release from a publicly traded company issued through a major wire service such as PRNewswire or Businesswire can presume the authenticity of basic, non-WP:REDFLAG facts (e.g. office locations, officer names, founding date, etc.) until proven otherwise by a RS. Other press releases should be approached with healthy skepticism. Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The example I had in mind was simply in a list of their three offices in an infobox, one of which is in city X, a press release showing that they are located there. To discuss the office in depth I agree that secondary sources would be needed for weight. - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Press releases have some limited uses, but they can be used effectively with attribution. Many times press releases are preliminary announcements and incomplete so better sources should be used if they are available. For your two contexts: new office opening up or announcements of nominees/winners, press releases should be ok. Might have to attribute to be transparent that the press release is from a legitimate source like a news organization or other fact checking organization and not a random organization or website.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Press releases typically fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF rubric. They're reliable about the publisher of the press release or its affiliates, as long as it's not unduly self-serving and there's no legitimate concern about its authenticity. However, press releases carry little to no weight, as their overt purpose is to promote the subject. Therefore, when it comes to things like awards, there there should generally be some additional showing of noteworthiness to get over the WP:NOTEVERYTHING hump. Otherwise our articles get larded up with obscure, meaningless awards. R2 (bleep) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The big problem I find is that they're a major flag for two forms of bad article:
  • corporate promotional puffery
  • BLP promotional puffery

  - and usually with the telltales of undisclosed paid editing.

  If you find an article with a pile of press release links, it's almost certain to be one of those two.

  It's certainly possible to apply press release links judiciously with good judgement. In practice, I find that press releases as references are overwhelmingly indicators of one of those two things. But don't take my word for it - do a linksearch on prnewswire or businesswire and tell me what the article space results from that look like to you.

  I tend to find that replacing a press release reference with a {{cn}} or just deleting the non-notable claim is pretty much always appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting approach, but apparently not the standard view. If you are leaving the claim but removing the source, it seems that you don't view the claim as puffery. If the source is independent of the subject and reliable, then it is better to have that press release than an unsourced claim. - Bilby (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases aren't third-party RSes and just don't belong where a third-party RS should go, e.g. a BLP. Though as I stress, in almost all cases the claim is also puffery, and so quite removable - and I urge you to actually do linksearches on press release sites, and see if your estimation of the sort of articles they're used as references on is anywhere near mine - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you still miss the point. Let's take this revert on your part. Clearly being awarded the Japan Prize is notable, and presumably you felt so, as you didn't remove the prize. The reference used was a press release from the Japan Prize Foundation]. I can't see how the Japan Prize Foundation can be considered unreliable in regard to who they awarded the Japan Prize to. They would know. It is independent of the subject of the article - Jacques Miller - and clearly states that it was given to him. As such, it might be argued to be a primary source, but we can use those. By removing it we now have an unsourced claim that Miller won a major prize where we used to have a reliably sourced claim, and your only given reason for removing it was "rm claims cited only to press releases - not a WP:RS for Wikipedia" when it is, in fact, a reliable source, you didn't remove any claims, and we have no policy or even consensus (in spite of your claims to the contrary) insisting that we remove press releases. Overall, removing it has made the article worse, not better. There are inappropriate uses of press releases, but a unilateral decision to make blanket removals whether or not it is an inappropriate use isn't the correct approach. - Bilby (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you meant by asking this general question was a specific example, then. Again - since you're asking a general question up the top there, without having brought up the example you were thinking of - we should be speaking in terms of the general issue.

You asked up there "can we use", and trying to claim that justifies "therefore they shouldn't mostly be removed", which is actually a different question and not at all the one you were asking. And I already answered you on my talk page that there were circumstances in which we could use press releases, and in which I had.

So - I urge you to actually do linksearches on press release sites, and see if your estimation of the sort of articles they're used as references on is anywhere near mine. Please do report back with your results - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been deleting press releases with the effective rationale "because it is a press release". The question here was whether or not that was a valid reason. It was not. Individual instances may or may not be acceptable, but clearly you can't simply delete them because you have an issue with press releases in general.- Bilby (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're working really hard not to address why they might be - and, as far as I can tell, are - mostly a huge sourcing problem. For a third time: I urge you to actually do linksearches on press release sites, and see if your estimation of the sort of articles they're used as references on is anywhere near mine. Please do report back with your results, before making fresh statements. Please try to understand the actual problem. If you disagree, then please, by all means, report back accordingly with your numbers and examples! - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware with issues around press releases. The problem is not that there are issues - the problem is that you are reverting the good with the bad without (or even against) consensus. - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're claiming a consensus on a question you didn't ask, as I've noted. Given you clearly don't even want to examine the issue, it's not clear how to meaningfully respond to incoherent claims that you are literally refusing to do your homework on - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question was - can press releases be regarded as reliable sources. The consensus is yes, with caveats. On those grounds they shouldn't be automatically removed as unreliable - you will need to make a case as to why a given press release is unreliable. I am very willing to accept that they will be unreliable in some or even many situations. - Bilby (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Press releases are sometimes useable for non-controversial statements to fill details not mentioned in higher quality sources. There is also usual question of due weight - if independent reliable sources don´t cover some information, is there any need to include it in the article? Myself, I would replace a press release with better source, once available. Trivial facts mentioned only in press releases probably have no place in encyclopedic articles. Pavlor (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • IME, press releases are overwhelmingly a case of WP:NOTBROCHURE - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTBROCHURE is about the content of articles and use of links. It doesn't say anything about sources. - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the objections here to press releases really don't make any sense to me. I think Bilby is right. If it has been decided that some fact belongs in an article, and that fact is essentially that a person or group announced something, cite the announcement. It's not like the announcement becomes more trustworthy by getting filtered through another outlet - it's true because someone said so, this situation is literally the exception to argument to authority. I completely understand the argument that secondary sources are desirable for demonstrating that this fact is significant (I would actually cite both). I also completely understand underlying concerns about interpreting primary sources. But if it's been agreed that the statement is true, and it's been agreed that it belongs in an article, removing the definitive source doesn't make sense. Tag it with a request for an independent source if you want. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is my view as well. One of the ones he removed was a citation to a legitimate journalism award at Sharyl Attkisson. We had already had an extensive discussion on the talk page as to what awards should be included and what sources would be acceptable - the indiscriminate removal of this citation, and the noted award, ran contrary to this consensus that had weeks of discussion. More importantly it made absolutely, no sense because if an award is notable, there is absolutely no reason a press release containing a list of all nominees and/or winners would be unacceptable. IMO it's actually the most reliable thing to source because the list will be completely accurate, while a list in a newspaper or another website might be wrong or omit some awards and nominations. There are purposes where primary sources like press releases can be notable. At the very least, indiscriminate removal of press releases is not the way to do things. Toa Nidhiki05 04:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

• Option 1 The outlet has a consistent history of publication by which it can be evaluated, it has a legal personality in a jurisdiction where it can be held liable for libel, it has a gatekeeping process, and a cursory Google News search shows its reporting has recently been cited by known RS including BBC News and The Scotsman. Chetsford (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 Unless it can be shown otherwise is a respectable and reputable newspaper.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1: While the circulation isn't large, it certainly looks to be an entirely legitimate newspaper. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RfC. I don't see an {{rfc}} tag, or any reason to have an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what? People can ask questions on a noticeboard without filling an official RFC as well. Asking at a noticeboard is an alternative to the RfC process. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point. Ask at the noticeboard or do an RfC, no need in such an ordinary case to do both. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re list of options. This page's header suggested such a list as "a common format for writing the RfC question". That was a recent addition, which is being discussed in an RfC on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peter Gulutzan: I'm sorry, I'm new at this noticeboard. The Herald is not yet being used, but discussed in this long thread here, Talk:Carl_Benjamin#Benjamin_is_not_far-right, which I thought I'd spare the editors here from reading. I had hoped to point the editors there to WP:RSP or a previous discussion. Since I didn't find either, I thought starting this was appropriate. Maybe it's not. I don't know. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Due to my bungling (mentioning rfc within double braces), Legobot added an RfC ID. Poof, now it's real. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not real. First, this does not meet the requirements of WP:RFCST, it's just Legobot (talk · contribs) picking up whatever text lies between the |rfcid= and the next timestamp. Second, there is no actual {{rfc}} tag being displayed here as a box beginning "An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion." is absent. It has been known for several years that Legobot does not respect <nowiki>...</nowiki>, which is why the advice at WP:RFC#Duration explicitly says not to do it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 as per Chetsford, it has a long history as a reliable source, is not a tabloid, is quoted by other reliable sources, is long established, has received awards for its journalism, tthanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 5 Exclude as a journalistic source wherever academic sources are available. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 I presume this is some sort of hilarious joke that I don't understand. The fucking Glasgow Herald? Really? But anyway, per what Atlantic306 said above. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 Actually I though it was already an approved source as old as it is ~ you know ~ the last time I was there laddie ~ I picked up a four leaf clover ~ who would have thought several years later, I would have had to remember that day ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see many of you are having a laugh, but why wasn't The Herald on WP:RSP from all those years ago? Maybe, I am missing the point of that list. But I thought, it was supposed to be a quick resource to avoid this type of discussion. Also, I still don't know what technical mistakes I made in the nomination. Something about {{ RFC }}. Peter and Redrose confused me. I am sorry if I have wasted people's time. --SVTCobra 03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SVTCobra: It was Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) who made the first technical mistake, in this post (causing effect 1 and effect 2). You didn't make a technical mistake in the nomination - but you did with this post (causing effect 3 and effect 4). I will say this once again: Legobot (talk · contribs), which is the bot that searches for and publicises RfCs, cannot tell the difference between a real RfC and a demonstration that relies on <nowiki>...</nowiki> to indicate to humans that it is a demo and not real. Legobot looks for the three letters "rfc" (case-insensitive) preceded by two opening braces. If it finds those five characters in that sequence, perhaps with spaces between the "{" and the "r", it assumes that it is a live RfC, even if nowiki is being used. So, as advised at WP:RFC#Duration, you should use one of the template-linking templates such as {{tlx}}. Hence why I made this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ​The perennial sources list has inclusion criteria defined at WP:RSP § How to improve this list (one RfC or two significant discussions). Once the criteria are met, any editor can summarize the past discussions into a new entry on the list. If a source is not on the list, it generally means that the source is less popular, less controversial, or more specialized than the ones on the list. RfCs work best on controversial topics and topics that would benefit from community-wide discussion. To start an RfC, you'll need to add the RfC tag, which was overlooked here. Don't worry, just refer to WP:RFC, and you'll get it next time. — Newslinger talk 04:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. It just seems to me the list would be more useful if certain sources were 'green listed' ahead of them being challenged. Maybe it is to keep the list short, but a long list is preferable to searching the rfc archives, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explaination. Thanks, --SVTCobra 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

SVTCobra, you may want to take a look at WP:NPPSG, which is a work in progress. The idea for that page is to primarily meet the needs of new page patrollers who are evaluating articles about topics they are unfamiliar with, so it requires a weaker level of consensus necessary for inclusion (and consequently carries less weight and should be used with more caution)._signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard my mistake as a "laugh". Sorry, and thanks Redrose64. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are laughing at my bringing this here in the first place. The Herald shouldn't have been debated it appears. --SVTCobra 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: I'm not laughing at you, I think your bringing up the herald is a good thing ~ if you notice in my summary WP:Humor ~ by far it is not to degrade anyone in their edits ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis.com has frequently been used in articles about buildings. I believe it is WP:UGC because anyone can sign up and start editing [78]. This seems to be similar to the way that wikipedia works and we all know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In an AfD discussion I stated that Emporis.com is not a reliable source and am now being challenged. Is it a reliable source?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally unreliable. Emporis's FAQ states: "You can add buildings as soon as you have registered for the Emporis Community and have logged in." There are "Add Building" and "Upload images" links displayed throughout the site. Emporis clearly publishes user-generated content, which is not usable for Wikipedia articles. — Newslinger talk 04:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Newslinger's comments.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• User submited content without any editorial oversight = generally unreliable. Plain and simple. Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See below: Where did that idea come from? Who says there's no editorial oversight?Djflem (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their FAQ is quite clear about that... Pavlor (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also here to say it's unreliable. As well, I find myself very unimpressed with the sources cited on the Emporis article itself to back that it " is frequently cited by various media sources as an authority on building data". The one live, independent source that says that honestly reads like a press release. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, Wikipedia is unreliable, but this discussion is not about the Wikipedia article.Djflem (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this goes to the heart of WP:RS, "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I find no evidence that Emporis has a reputation of any kind. Nearly all of the press coverage that mentions Emporis is just fawning coverage of their awards ceremony, or context-free citations to the database. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable based on the following email correspondence 4 July, 2019 from Samantha Körber ,sckoerber@emporis.com> See also:https://www.emporis.com/corporate/contact.

My name is Samantha from Emporis Data Research Department. Thanks for your e-mail. Let me quickly give you an overview about our data quality and the work processes involved with ensuring our standards:

Emporis collects it’s data from a variety of sources and our job can basically be seen as a big puzzle game where we are trying to piece together the most complete picture of a building we can achieve while making sure we only enter confirmed data points and no rumors, conflicting data etc.

In general we have four main sources that we gather information from:

1. Industry partners: We work together with multiple companies from the construction industry, e.g. architects, engineers and developers, who provide us with information about their projects as they would like to see them represented on the platform. This is one of our main source for new construction projects but also for existing buildings.

2. Governmental institutions & public bodies: We also collaborate with governmental institutions and public bodies, with which we exchange lots of data regarding buildings and current construction projects happening in their respective countries, counties or cities. In exchange we supply them with statistics and other data.

3. Local editors: Emporis has a large international community of local editors all over the globe. These editors are working for us “on the ground” by e.g. visiting the construction sites to take photos or to verify the construction progress. Naturally, they do not only add and edit information regarding new construction projects but also provide a lot of information about existing buildings and involved companies, as well.

4. Our internal data research team: Our data research team here in the Emporis office in Hamburg, Germany is basically the back bone of our operation. We are constantly monitoring the web, getting in touch with developers or city councils etc. in order to get more information about companies, buildings and construction projects worldwide. And while we add and complete data whenever they find (new/updated) information, our team also has to double-check, approve and potentially merge all information that has been provided or entered to the database by exterior sources (e.g. the local editors) to ensure quality. Only after the evaluation the entry is released by us and published on Emporis.

As you can see, all the work is done manually and we put great effort into collecting our data to make sure all the information is as correct and comprehensive as possible. The same goes for the monitoring process to ensure ongoing data quality once data sets have become part of the database.For this process buildings get flagged regularly for a check-up with our data researchers. How often this is the case depends on how complete the data sets are and what status the building is in (e.g. as buildings that are under construction or are being planned undergo more changes than an existing building, they get flagged in shorter intervals than existing ones etc.).

I hope this helps to get an idea of how the Emporis data is collected and how the verification process works.

Samantha-Christina Körber

It is clear that despite claims made here there are a variety of sources and that the information is verified and validated by a data research team and editorial board. I advise further in-depth research or addressing specific questions to https://www.emporis.com/corporate/contact Djflem (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An alleged e-mail message quoted here is not a WP:RS. You have no evidence that this is a bona fide communication from a representative of the company, nor that any of the assertions therein are true. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that use the address provided above and ask yourselfDjflem (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:BURDEN is not on the person who challenges these things, but on the editor making the claim. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Körber can be reached @ sckoerber@emporis...(I'm sure every editor would like to the right thing and trust they will do what it takes get to get to the truth, no?)

Djflem (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is just PR spin by the company. The fact that the website uses "local editors" means it is not reliable. Th truth is the website tries to promote itself, but it is not reliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is allowed to an opinion, but Wikipedia should work with facts and information, not interpretation. Please point to Wikimedia policy about "local editor", and cite ackknowledge that many organizations (CNN, New York Times, Al Jazeera among them) use "local editor". Djflem (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchbase (RSP entry), Discogs (RSP entry), and IMDb (RSP entry) are similar databases for different subjects, and all three were considered generally unreliable in their RfCs because they incorporate user-generated content as one of their data sources. These sites also had some limited form of editorial checking, but most editors determined that it was not enough. It's unlikely that a small team could properly validate information from "a large international community of local editors all over the globe". — Newslinger talk 01:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable Look at their press page https://www.emporis.com/press and click year by year to see what reliable sources trust them as reliable for information. Dream Focus 23:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost all of the press coverage concerns mentions of the "Emporis Skyscraper Award" and events related to Emporis itself, which don't satisfy WP:UBO. Plenty of reliable sources, including the New York Times, use IMDb as a source, but we still prefer to avoid user-generated content. — Newslinger talk 23:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that emporis.com has been used extensively as a source here on wikiepdia (in possibly as many as 3000 articles). The consensus is that it is not reliable, but how do we get rid of it? Can it be blacklisted? How do we remove it from such a large number of pages?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Rusf10 trying shut the discussion started 2 days ago by claiming consensus has reached?Djflem (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first question would be, who is adding the links? Because the answer to your question will be different if these links are being added by editors who think they are useful, or spammers promoting a website. WP:BLAME might be useful here. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221:I think the answer is multiple people over the past 10-15 years. Look at any "list of tallest building in...." article and you'll see this website used as a source. Also, many articles on individual building also use it as a source. For example List of tallest buildings in New York City, an article that could easily stand without using emporis.com, uses it as a source over 100 times.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Large numbers of editors have used the source because it is comprehensive and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, it doesn't need to be necessarily blacklisted. Many of these links are in "external links" section, like IMDb links and blacklisting it will be more harm than good. However, based on the discussion above, it would be great if {{emporis}} was no longer used as a citation template. epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Emporis should probably be treated like Find a Grave (RSP entry), Discogs, and IMDb, where citations are generally not allowed but external links might be acceptable. Since {{Emporis}} is an external link template, not a citation template, it shouldn't be used for citations regardless of the result of this discussion. — Newslinger talk 05:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BURDEN of proof. Who has backed up claims that "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable? (bold mine) No one so far.are located worldwide: data is collected by our editorial Community, data researchers and public. Who can on Wikpedia knows the ratio of the contributions and how the information is gathered and processed from

1. Industry partners. 2. Governmental institutions & public bodies. 3. Local editors. 4. Internal data research team.

Determining that and basing decisions on facts rather than claims is how to deal with it.Djflem (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the ratio is undisclosed does Emporis no favors. If Emporis distinguished its user-generated content from its other content, we would probably be able to cite its other content (provided that the data is of high quality) while avoiding the community contributions. However, they don't distinguish the two, and we can't trust this data when its origins are opaque and probably questionable. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words nobody at Wikipedia knows exactly if the content is largely user-generated (bold mine). If there are 4 different sources and they were attributed equally that would be about 25%, which is certainly less than largely.Djflem (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you wouldn't know if it were 99% or 1%. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody at Wikipedia would, would they? So, any claims that data is largely user-generated (as policy states) are not valid and not reliable unless backed-up? Djflem (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, nobody knows. And if we don't know, we can't use it as a source. And until somebody knows a way to determine specifically which information is reliable, we can't use this as a source. If you want to use this source, then the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove it is reliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Elizium23, above: "Sorry, WP:BURDEN is not on the person who challenges these things, but on the editor making the claim.", as Rusf10 has. Djflem (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument reverses the burden of proof. According to WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The material here is the content in Emporis, which is being challenged for the articles it is being used on (e.g. List of tallest buildings in Peoria). The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add Emporis-sourced content to show that it is reliable, and not on the editor who is challenging the content. — Newslinger talk 21:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger is correct. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piling on to agree, the burden of proof falls on those who wish to use the source. We use sources that we know to meet our reliability standards. If we don't know, we don't use them. –dlthewave ☎ 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who has demonstrated that Emporis is "largely user-generated"(as stated in Wikipedia policy), which is a claim being made?Djflem (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From email correspndence July 8, 2019 from Samantha Körber <sckoerber@emporis.com>, which further clarifies Emporis' verifibliity process:

Thanks for our reply. I answer you here by mail, because I am not familiar with the Wikipedia forum. Could you please forward this information?

I have been reading through the thread at Wikipedia and it seems, that there are some points I may be able to shed a bit more light on.

Yes, we do receive data from external users as I already outlined. By now this makes up approx. 15% of our data.

However this data is not added to our database unchecked. When for example a new building is added by a user, it will not appear on the website or in the database immediately. The building is first put into what we internally call the "building workflow" where we process all the new information that is coming in and evaluate the data.

The user always has to provide sources for the data he added/edited which are then evaluated and double-checked by our professional internal data research team. They then determine what data and sources are indeed reliable and therefore make it onto the database. If we cannot 100% verify it, it will not make the cut.

We work with many large companies not only in the construction sector but also in finance, insurance, consulting, etc. (for a few references see: https://www.emporis.com/corporate/reference-customers) that base many of their business decisions on our data. Hence ensuring that our data is indeed reliable and correct is of utmost importance to us, as it is the very foundation our business case is built upon.

If people are in doubt about the process, they can sign up and try adding a building for themselves.

I hope this helps to further clarify things.

Best regards,

Samantha

Once again, all Wikipedians who would like to sincerely develop informed opinion to contribute to this discussion are encouraged to do so. Samantha Körber <sckoerber@emporis.com> Djflem (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: I fixed the closing blockquote tag. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

evaluated and double-checked by our professional internal data research team "professional internal data research team" means who? Corporate informations/about mentions only managing directors. Invisible editorial staff is hardly a sign of reliability. However, examples of use of their database by other reliable sources may support reliability of this source. Pavlor (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken up the offer made by Emporis to check the facts? The New Yorker is reknowned for fact-checkers. How visible are they they? How can that be proven?Djflem (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example?

Batty, Michael (2013), The New Science of Cities, MIT Press, ISBN 9780262019521

Al-Kodmany, Kheir (2016), New Suburbanism: Sustainable Tall Building Development, Routledge, ISBN 9781317087977

• Choice: Publication of the Association of College and Research Libraries, a Division of the American Library Association, Volume 46,Nummers 10-12, American Library Association
• "Emporis Buildings Database Now Available". Galvin Library (Illinois Institute of Technology). April 6, 2007. Dedicated to documenting tall buildings, Emporis is the world's largest publicly available database on architectural and building data. News, photographs, renderings, and firm data are collected by over 700 editors for more than 50,000 cities worldwide. These experienced authors and correspondents report 24 hours a day on new projects and developments in architecture, engineering, construction, and real estate with a high regard for accurate and reliable information.
• UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, UCLA School of Law, 2006
• Kheir, Al-Kodmany & Mir M. Ali (2013), The Future of the City: Tall Buildings and Urban Design, WIT Press, ISBN 9781845644109
• Glaeser, Edward (2011), Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, Penguin, ISBN 9781101475676
• Mehmet Halis Günel, Hüseyin Emre Ilgin (2014), Tall Buildings: Structural Systems and Aerodynamic Form, Routledge, ISBN 9781317690733
• Peter James Rimmer, Howard W. Dick (2009), The City in Southeast Asia: Patterns, Processes and Policy, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 9780824833138
• Joao Teixeira Lopes, Ray Hutchison (2016), Public Spaces: Times of Crisis and Change, Emerald Group Publishing, ISBN 9781786354631

Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Guaidó (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two articles from Reuters report that Brazil recognized Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela, but they use two different dates. Which is correct?

• "Brazil says it recognizes Venezuelan opposition leader as president" (Reuters, Jan. 12 2019)
• "Brazil recognizes Guaido as Venezuela's interim president" (Reuters, Jan 23 2019)

The relevance is did Brazil recognize Guaido as Acting President of Venezuela before the United States. According to Alonso Gurmendi a professor of international law at Universidad del Pacífico, the original story was misreported.[79], writing on Jan 14 2019, they supported Guaido as president (or speaker) of the National Assembly. He had not yet declared himself Acting President. In any case, all reliable sources now use the later date. For example: "Trump formally recognized Guaido minutes after the 35-year-old president of the Venezuela National Assembly declared himself the head of state. Countries including Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Panama quickly followed the U.S. lead."[80] (Bloomberg, Jan 23 2019)

TFD (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No to January 12, yes to January 23, but then maybe also sorta-kinda January 10? Going by official government press releases, on Jan 10 Brazil's government issued it's support for Guaido to "assume the presidency" and declared Maduro to be illegitimate. But it was on the 23rd that they seem to have made it explicit that he is the president. They then made it super clear a couple days later. [81][82][83][84]. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland a post was made referring to this [[85]], as an "academic" source. Now as far as I can tell [[86]] is social networking site with no editorial control or peer review, they publish anything uploaded. As such I am unsure if this can be considered an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• academia.edu itself, "not reliable", for the reasons mentioned. However, papers on academia.edu may have also been published in reliable sources. In the case of the paper linked above, it asserts that it was included in Zagłada Żydów. Studia I materiały (Holocaust. Studies and materials) Issue 2 (2006), which may well be a reliable source. See also: [87], [88]. - Ryk72 ^talk 12:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Academia.edu is a social networking platform for academics - where journal articles are often posted. It is not a source in and of itself. The link you are sharing - was published by Studia i materiały - ceeol link to this specific article - which probably counts as a reliable peer reviewed source (journal website). The academia.edu link - is just something available online without a paywall.... It is likely to be reliable for the fact this was published (particularly given external corroboration + that the person posting this on academia.edu is the author)... But it is not the publication itself, but a copy thereof. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Ryk72 with an added note that Academia.edu is a particularly aggressive social networking site when it comes to demanding access to email and other personal data to read articles, so i would recommend changing references to reliable sources copied over to Academia.edu to the host reliable journal whenever possible. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in itself. We have to treat each paper there separately for RS purposes. academia.edu is not a publisher. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Academia.edu is not a reliable source itself, but the articles you cite from there are usually from reliable sources like journals. Researchers often post their articles there so it is a good database for finding actual research papers that have been published elsewhere from reliable publishers. Therefore, if you find an article - cite it from the journal itself, not academia.eduRamos1990 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has always (How long?) been my understanding that Alumni should be notable and have an article that supports the Alumni claim. It isn't necessary to reference the claim at the institution, as long as the linked article is referenced.

Today I have discovered that sdome editors don't accept this, and have started decimating, and even entirely deleting well sourced lists, unless there is a direct citation for Alumniship in the School article.

Is it possible to clarify this for me? I'll have to apologise to the eds concerned if I'm incorrect. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its an interesting question, is a claim of being an Alumni valid if the institution doe not list the person as one. Any one can claim to be an alumni, I would assume RS would check. But is its an interview (say) rather then an in depth analysis they may not. I think this may be a case of attribution, say he made the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is inline citations vs. a level of indirection. @Roxy the dog: asserts that if there is an inline citation in the BLP of the alleged alumnus, there is no need for an inline citation in the list of alumni in the school's article. This is a misinterpretation of WP:V and WP:ALUMNI, the latter of which specifically states that alumni status must be referenced. We never rely on indirect referencing here, as articles may be edited at-will, and therefore there is no guarantee that an indirect reference will remain available. Elizium23 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done in the biographical articles.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my question. - I'm asking to clarify if an Alum, properly sourced as such in their own article, needs a source at their Alma Mater article, as well as the individuals article. Nothing to do with interviews. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - I have always supported this aspect of it - notability is implied when the subject has an article. You omitted the other requirement that their alumni status must be referenced, and this is not exempted by the existence of their article, nor by the existence of a reference inside that article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

e/c I'm not asking about notability. nobody is disputing that. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you read my quoted passage above, but I note that David Ellett contains no mention of any school. So that raises alarm bells about the rest. Before reinserting any alumni make sure they are properly sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Im asking everybody but you. I know what you think. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am not sure why this thread is here to begin with: "Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Roxy the dog's question is somewhat outside the scope of this noticeboard. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its one reason I got the wrong end of the stick.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fact should be cited in EVERY article in which it is stated. If the fact is “Person X is an alum of School Y”, and it appears in both the bio article on Person X and the article on School Y... it needs to be cited at both articles. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. That gives me something to do for the rest of my wikicareer. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding individual items to a list appears to require each name to be sourced in the school's article. If we think that is overkill or excessive duplication, then a change in the guideline is required. TFD (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason for the duplication: let’s say that fact/statement “X” is currently in two articles, but only cited in one of them. What happens if this article is re-written at some point, and fact “X” ends up being omitted from the re-write (perhaps the editors decide that it is a trivial detail that is not really important enough to mention). This would mean that, suddenly, fact “X” is not cited ANYWHERE. By repeating the citation in all articles where “X” is stated, we avoid that problem. What happens at one article has no impact on the verifiability of the other. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• selfgrowth.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Recently noticed here (obvious SEO refspam). I then noticed 11 extant uses in main space, some pointing to dead pages there. The FAQ suggests that any user who signs up becomes an "expert account" and can submit articles (WP:USERGEN). There's a special trusted group that may be equivalent to Wikipedia's autopatrol group. When looking at a few articles, they are obviously promotional, like [89] which seems to be an ad for tickets. Since no RSN entry existed for it, I'm adding one to the record. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently WP:UGC - can this be blacklisted? GirthSummit _(blether) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for the COIBot report, if that shows enough spamming, a request to blacklist it will be filed. It could still be filed without the report, but those reports are very helpful and convincing evidence. —PaleoNeonate – 22:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self publishing source. It does not really have peer review or show expertise so it is not good to cite on Wikipedia as a source.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No remaining use in mainspace, but still waiting for the COIBot report. —PaleoNeonate – 18:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/

The Atlantic itself fits WP:RSP but this article is self-published under WP:RS ans WP:SELFSOURCE. It fits wp:cherrypicking and wp:bias since it is a one way article. In addition, Nadya Labi herself may have wp:bias herself and the source can't be verified going against wp:veribilty so unless her piece can be proven as correct and not exaggerated it could be wp:fakenews. Finally, it is not able to be compared and backed up by another source confirming what her claims are about secret homosexual activity in Saudi Arabia so it can be wp:1R as well. Moneyspender (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your post does not make sense to me. Are you proposing that this article be used as a source for a Wikipedia article of some kind? Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to news articles, but to articles here on the project. Please clarify whether there is a dispute and/or a particular article here on Wikipedia which you intend to address. Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this source is being cited in the article LGBT_rights_in_the_Middle_East but it don't think it applies because of the countless violations against Wikipedia standards. Moneyspender (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC) I want to know if this is considered a reliable source or not given its difficulty to be verified and trusted as a source talk. Can you please assist in clearing up the vagueness given all the issues I mentioned. Thanks. Moneyspender (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable. I don't think your arguments apply the mentioned policies and guidelines correctly. As you've mentioned, The Atlantic (RSP entry) is considered a generally reliable source. This article is not self-published, becuase it was published in The Atlantic, not the author's own website. As an investigative journalism piece, it presents accounts of several Saudi Arabian people as case studies; it is common for journalists to give specific examples of a phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with WP:CHERRYPICKING, which tells Wikipedia editors not to cite information from articles out of context. You haven't presented any evidence that the author is biased, and opinionated articles are still allowed to be used with in-text attribution, which was done in Special:Diff/904829271. The Atlantic is an external source, which satisfies the verifiability policy, and WP:FAKENEWS is a baseless assertion, not a policy or guideline. Finally, the LGBT in the Middle East has more than one source, so WP:1R doesn't apply. Additional citations are required to substantiate extraordinary claims, but this particular article is reliable and adds support for these claims. — Newslinger talk 23:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable - basically, Newslinger covered it. The article is not self-published, as Labi is not the publisher of The Atlantic, but rather a freelance writer with a respectable list of clients (Atlantic, Wired, Mother Jones, etc.) WP:Bias is not a guide to using sources, it is an essay on Wikipedia editors. WP:Cherrypicking is meant to be a limitation on how we edit our articles, and is not about how sources are created. When we discuss verifiability, we are not discussing checking that what the source says is accurate, but rather that the sources says what we claim it is saying... and that source is very easy to verify, because it's available online without a paywall. (I at least assume that "verifiability" is what the OP meant by "veribility"; please correct me if I'm wrong.) Seeing that the Atlantic is a generally reliable source, there is no reason given to believe that this is a WP:Fake news situation. WP:1R is an essay about single-sourced articles lacking sufficient notability, but this is not a single-sourced article and your complaint is not about notability. I doubt that WP:REICHSTAG applies in this situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable until proven otherwise. Issues raised by OP don´t even make sense. If your main problem is some POV presented by RS, your only way to balance NPOV in the article is to find another high quality RS. Pavlor (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I was directed to this discussion by Newslinger when they posted it on Wiki Project Africa. As stated therein, I think they were in the wrong project as this has nothing to do with Africa. In any case, I've read the article and did not find any issue with it. The source is reliable as per our policy. I don't know what the OP's issue is. Homosexuality is rampant in Saudi Arabia and the whole middle east so I don't know what the OP is objecting to.Tamsier (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa is listed as one of the projects at Talk:LGBT in the Middle East. I probably should not have notified this project since the article from The Atlantic focuses on Saudi Arabia. Sorry for the confusion. — Newslinger talk 11:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? regarding using Breitbart as a source. Your input would be a big help in reaching a consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the appropriate venue, rather than that page. No, it is not a reliable source. A good part of their income comes from hate views, so I don't even click through. cygnis insignis 06:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about putting the RfC here -- or perhaps BLPNB -- but as I correctly predicted, certain misguided editors think that it is a good idea to post lists of shit sources that deliberately tell lies as long as it is done in Wikipedia space and not article space. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do they have a bad reputation for fact checking and reporting (which caused them to be considered generally unreliable), but since they have a conflict of interest (like the DailyMail), in that they are not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, their reporting is likely to be flawed and exaggerated. I'm sure that as usual, if there's something important and notable, papers with a better reputation have reported on it. —PaleoNeonate – 07:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it might be for their view of it (but I am not sure why that would be of interest), but no not for any factual reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'll be really blunt here, Stormfront, Daily Stormer, info-wars, Brietbart etc are neo-Nazi/alt-right propaganda outlets. They are total and utter rubbish, barely an accurate word has ever been published by these disreputable and disgusting fraudsters. The debate has been had and the result was clear - these trash outlets must never be used to cite anything. Bacondrum (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little discussion going on at Talk:Tidal force#Free fall, and I wonder whether https://openstax.org/details/books/university-physics-volume-1 would be a reliable source for including a formula from example 13.14 on page 664 of the downloaded pdf. Comments welcome. TIA. - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely not. The source is fine, but the content it's being used for is so far beyond anything the source actually says that it's basically original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is a this a reliable source?:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/mek-and-bankrupt-us-policy-iran-35982

Article to be used in: People's Mujahedin of Iran

Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only with attribution to Paul Pillar. As the "fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution," his opinion on matters related to Iran are definitely due note but, they remain his opinions and should not be reported as fact. Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as above, its a blog.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the opinion section of nationalinterest.org. Pillar is a notable academic and his opinion is WP:DUE as an opinion. But it's opinion and has to be situated as such. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that I was agreeing with you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, did you know that 33% of americans are in favour of dropping nuclear weapons on [a place], me either 'til I read The National Interest; could be a coincidence but I'm guessin' the sample size of the poll was n=3. cygnis insignis 16:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They report that n=3000 in the lede of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore they cite the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as the source. So your skepticism, while warranted, may be misplaced. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the source for the claim. [90] As is often the case with science reporting, they cherrypicked the most sensational detail of something more nuanced, but they're not being misleading. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Etika, a person who recently committed suicide, we know he was last seen on June 19, and his body found on June 24, but from all existing good RSes, we have no exact date of death, so we are using "circa June 19" as the death date. However, Etika's girlfriend (a fact well known) has stated she has seen the police coroner report that places the death on the 22nd. A lot of good intentioned IPs (likely fans of Etika, but I don't think this is like meatpuppetry) are adding this date but we simply don't have a standard RS for this. Is it fair to point the gf's tweet as confirmation of the date as an RS? --Masem (t) 00:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This flies in the face of absolutely everything written at WP:SPS. This is an unverified Twitter account, making claims about a third party. There is no way I could envision this being admissible. Why is it even a question? Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy situation. Probably should see if other sources are available instead of using a twitter account. Many times even close family don't really know. Detectives could discern and then give a press release. If he is as well known as you say he is, a news organization is bound to release more reliable data.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a question because this gets changes about twice a day by different people, and if this was a way to justify that date, then we'd not have to worry about these constant changes. --Masem (t) 00:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is confirmed by reliable sources that the said Twitter account belongs to the girlfriend, then it can be used to add to the article "His girlfriend declared on Twitter that she had seen the police coroner report that places the death on June 22". In any case, what the Twitter account says should not be treated as an indisputable fact. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masem, I know how you feel. I think you can request page protection here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection at the noticeboard. I would recommend either "Semi-protection" or "Extended confirmed protection" for that page for about a month or more - reasonable amount of time. That should fend off many anonymous IPs and new users that might emerge and will prevent them from editing.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No its not RS, it would fall foul of both wp:primary and/or wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, social media posts are not a reliable source for anything. If a reliable source quotes a tweet, that is the only time it can be used and the citation should refer to the reliable source, not Twitter. Bacondrum (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amid my response to WP:TOOLONG tags at this article I'm hereby requesting a general review for non-RS or self-published sources, and opinion on what should be done about them if there are any. For starters I'm unsure about these: [91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98]

Seperately, there was a discussion at the article Talk some time ago about the use of Shepheard-Walyn (publishers) LTD, [99] with user opinions that it is a self-publishing firm personally close to the School of Economic Science. It would be good to have the final word on that here; as far as I'm aware self-publishing and proximity to the subject would not disqualify its publications as sources for the article, but it might have a bearing on how they are used and the prominence they are given. Comments please. Cheers, --Roberthall7 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For fear this will be ignored if you only give links, here's a quick copy-and-paste compilation from them.

1 Insight is better than ice cream, Frank Crocitto, Candlepower Communications, ©2000.

2 Moving against the stream : the birth of a new Buddhist movement, Sangharakshita, Bhikshu, Windhorse, ©2003.

3 Confusion no more : for the spiritual seeker, Ramesh S Balsekar, Watkins, 2007.

4 Nothing left over : a plain and simple life, Toinette Lippe, J.P. Tarcher/Putnam, ©2002.

5 People almanac. 2003, Cader Books, ©2002.

6 There's no more dying then : words of comfort and illumination. Stephanie Wilson, Shepheard-Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd, 2007.

7 The book of one : the ancient wisdom of Advaita, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2010.

8 Back to the truth : 5000 years of Advaita, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2007.

A quick look around yields

1 It seems Candlepower Communications have only published two books, both by Frank Crocitto.

2 Windhorse is a specialist publisher, a registered charity whose annual accounts show sales exceeding other income.

5 An annual publication from People, so might fail WP:BLPRS.

7 & 8 O Books was the original name and is now an imprint of John Hunt Publishing, described as "has been reinventing itself as a trade and co-operative publisher". "Regardless of whether a book is submitted and accepted with an author subsidy or not, according to John Hunt Publishing, ‘every title gets treated the same. No bookshop or reviewer is going to know if one title or another has had a subsidy.’" suggesting a significant number of authors pay for publication.[100] No indication of editorial oversight. 92.19.31.86 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Do we concur (3) is Watkins Books, the publisher of esoterica? Do we concur it's in the spirituality genre? Do we concur (4) is the same publisher as TarcherPerigee, the Penguin subsidiary? Do we concur it's in the spirituality genre? Or autobiography? Are we able to rule these two in as RS for the purpose of WP:V referencing the opinion / POV of each author? -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider The Month a reliable source for the statement that Louise d'Artois died of typhus? Futurist110 (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given today it might be called a blog "edited by its members", no.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue with it. The editors were noted writers in their time, and authorship was by invitation. Though as per Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Do we have a reliable source for the cause of death of Louise d'Artois?, if there is an objection to this, you do have a book by a historian that says the same thing, and does not cite The Month for it. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Someguy1221. No issue based on the RS guideline has been brought up about it. It was not self-published like a blog, but a literary, general interest Catholic review that published 19th & 20th century writers who are quite well known and respected to this day. Conceivably it might be considered biased if the purpose it was being cited for was a matter of religion; but that is not relevant here.John Z (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The editors were noted writers in their time, and authorship was by invitation."

Fine, who was the author? Who were the editors? Frances Margaret Taylor(a nurse)? Henry James Coleridge(professor of theology)?

Per, Wikipedia:Reliable sources;The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
• Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

So far, aside from personal opinions that The Month is a "reliable source", nothing has been presented that indicates this is a reliable source, except maybe for religious topics. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]