Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

• fundinguniverse.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

It seem was discussed before, but i found out instead of problem as reliable source, the site seem in fact pirated the content of International Directory of Company Histories, which despite the book is RS, the website and the pirated version may not be a RS. So, should all the link be clean up entirely and add the domain to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? Matthew hk (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not, as I can find nothing about who they are, or how they verify their information.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally unreliable. FundingUniverse appears to be a self-published tertiary source that doesn't disclose who its authors are. The "Further Reading" section at the bottom of each listing provides a bibliography that makes a great starting point for research, but content from the site itself shouldn't be relied upon for accuracy. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if you can show that the content is pirated, you should be able to remove external links to it under WP:ELNEVER. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The content reproduced in Funding Universe is not pirated, it is released by the copyright holder. The content is from old editions of International Directory of Company Histories, and the same content is also used by the websites Encyclopedia.com, ReferenceForBusiness.com, and some others. One can determine the specific volume, date, publisher, and editor of the International Directory of Company Histories in question by Googling any sentence or long phrase (in quotation marks) of the content. They are always old volumes; Gale (the current copyright holder of International Dictionary of Company Histories) the keeps current volumes (the last few years) under copyright but releases content of the old volumes for general use. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any copyright notice of International Directory of Company Histories that release the content to that site. It sound strange. Matthew hk (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/terms.php. It just said the material was copyrighted but did not claim it received permission from the old publisher of International Directory of Company Histories. Also the first volume was published in 1988, they are not in the public domain. Matthew hk (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter that you can't personally find the info; what I stated is accurate. Gale publishes updated volumes of International Directory of Company Histories every year, and releases or sells the content of its various volumes from more than a few years back (a decade or more) to be reproduced by Encyclopedia.com, ReferenceForBusiness.com, and FundingUniverse.com. The source is attributed on each article/page. You're free to contact them to verify: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sound lame to email the pirate site to ask them do you pirated the content.They make a poorly coded website that also made invitation to post ad on the website. Also, http://www.fundinguniverse.com/licenses.php is dead link or intended or unintended "Unable to connect to MySQL server." to display the page. Matthew hk (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A recent RfC determined that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht WWII-era German propaganda broadcast may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour. Two of these mentions are sourced to the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series by UNITEC Publishing:

• Schumann, Ralf; Westerwelle, Wolfgang (2010). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – Der Jäger von Malta [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – The Hunter of Malta] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 706989728. ASIN B003ZNZTGY  (18 May 2014). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used at Joachim Müncheberg)
• Steinecke, Gerhard [in German] (2012). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 802538281. ASIN B008AIT9Z6  (4 January 2013). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used at Hans Philipp)

The series was previously discussed at RSN and is currently under discussion at MILHIST. –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who took part in discussion had no idea what is the Wehrmachtbericht and whether it was on honor or not. What K.e.coffman wrote is original research and misleading. Wehrmachtbericht was a honor. There are 1,182 individual soldiers mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, out of millions of soldiers who served in the German Army.

I quote from a research paper who deals with the Wehrmachtbericht and the German fighter pilots[5]:

’’To examine the effects of public recognition, we focus on mentions by name in the German Armed Forces daily bulletin (Wehrmachtbericht). This is for several reasons: Mentions were rare, and reserved for recognizing spectacular accomplishments such as a particularly high number of enemy ships sunk or fighters shot down. Second, mentions became known instantly over a wide area, being broadcast on the radio, published in the press, and distributed at command posts throughout German territory. Third, mentions in the daily bulletin were largely unexpected. There was no mechanical rule that entitled a pilot to being mentioned. Fourth, mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht are a fleeting form of recognition, providing the recipient with no tangible token of appreciation beyond elevating his status in the eyes of others. For all these reasons, we consider the mentions in the daily bulletin an ideal source of identifying variation for analyzing the effects of status competition.

Mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht were embedded in an elaborate system of awards and medals operated by the German armed forces.’’

My view on this is clear that for all mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht the Wegmann, Günter, ed. 1982. “Das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Gibt Bekannt‐‐”: Der Deutsche Wehrmachtbericht: Vollständige Ausgabe der durch Presse und Rundfunk veröffentlichten Texte. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag should be used and is very reliable as is used as a source for K.e.coffman favorite book The Wehrmacht By Wolfram WETTE which deals with war crimes and propaganda (see chapter 5 notes The Legends of the Wehrmacht’s “Clean Hands”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.46.144 (talk • contribs)

Comparable to Mentioned in dispatches? - Donald Albury 22:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects, Donald, I would agree. Especially in that they were named in widely distributed official government bulletin as MiD recipients were in the London Gazette. It also appears that they were in fact treated as an honour per the research paper linked above and other sources already discussed at WT:MILHIST. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not comparable because the available sources do not make this connection. If such sources exist, this matter can be raised at Talk:Mentioned in dispatches#Question on the Wehrmacht Report or Talk:Wehrmachtbericht. At present, neither article mentions the other. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that they were similar is BLUE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be easy to provide sources attesting to such. This can be done at Talk:Mentioned in dispatches#Question on the Wehrmacht Report, as this discussion is somewhat off-topic. The RfC is about Ritterkreuzträger Profiles from UNITEC-Medienvertrieb, not the Wehrmachtbericht itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no reason why not. Nothing has been produced here so far to make me question the reliability or accuracy of the content of the books themselves, the reliability of the authors, or of the publishing house, and I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty. Perhaps others with better German skills can find something, and I would be happy to revise my position if such was forthcoming. The publisher has about 180 different titles on specialist military subjects including the French Air Force and Cold War military exercises as well as this series. Titles from this press (and from this series) are held by state and university libraries in Germany including the Bundeswehr University Munich, and it seems to be a publisher similar to the Bloomsbury Publishing imprint Osprey Publishing, a specialist military publisher, not academic quality but nevertheless reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As this research paper says[6][7]: “Mentions in the daily bulletin were amongst the highest form of recognition used by the German armed forces. A typical report would only mention major events at the different fronts, listing gains and losses of territory or individual battles. Mentions were rare. During the entire war, fewer than 1,200 men were recognized in this way (Wegmann 1982), out of 18 million German men who served. Mentions by name were introduced in April 1940. One of the first soldiers receiving this recognition was Erwin Rommel for his role in leading the German armored thrust into France in the spring of 1940. A typical example of Wehrmachtbericht mentioned in dispatches is Hans‐Joachim Marseille’s mention on June 18, 1942: First Lieutenant Marseille shot down ten enemy planes in a 24 hour period in North Africa, raising his total score of aerial victories to 101. (Wegmann 1982)”

The principal awards for valor were the Iron Crosses and the Knight’s Cross. In addition, soldiers could receive a mention in the daily bulletin. This was one of the highest forms of recognition available in the German armed forces. Like Meintioned in Dispatches wikipage it differs from country to country. In Wehrmachtbericht some soldiers were mentioned multiple times, not necessarily because of receiving the highest award for valor the Knight’s Cross, but also by spectacular accomplishments such as a particularly high number of enemy ships sunk or fighters shot down (see the example above). Then there were also units and ships who were mentioned. Wegmann, Günter, ed. 1982. “Das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Gibt Bekannt‐‐”: Der Deutsche Wehrmachtbericht: Vollständige Ausgabe der durch Presse und Rundfunk veröffentlichten Texte. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag had been used as a source for The Wehrmacht By Wolfram Wette and in the research paper above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiorandI (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the publisher, do they have a good reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using sources that are beyond reproach is the best option. Misterbee1966 has already provided sources of this kind to show the report was an award. That is enough. The editors of MilHist chose to disregard those sources, despite advocating the exclusion of such mentions on the basis that reliable sources are lacking. It is a strange stance. Dapi89 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that its a good idea to re litigate the long-running RfC on the Wehrmachtbericht here, not least as it ended in a fairly clear consensus and this it isn't an appropriate venue for the re-litigation to occur. The question asked at the top of the thread is whether some German-language sources are RS. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on author de:Gerhard Steinecke who wrote Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many]. According to his German Wiki article, Steinecke studied history in Berlin from 1965 to 1970. He was the museum director of de:Schloss Kuckuckstein and later in Nossen. In 1984, he was released out of politcal reasons (not stated which) by East Germany. Following the German reunification, he wrote a variety of books about the history of Meißen, Philipp was born in Meißen, and other history related topics, see also Literature by and about Gehard Steinicke in the German National Library catalogue. Professor Jonas Flöter, in his book Eliten-Bildung in Sachsen und Preussen: die Fürsten- und Landesschulen Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal und Pforta (1868-1933) [Elite Education in Saxony and Prussia: the Prince and Country Schools Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal and Pforta (1868-1933)], thanked Steinecke for his contribution, see pages 11, 470, 471. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has the content of the de.wiki article been verified? It appears to be entirely unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheap military pulp serial with an emphasis on images. These works are popular history, directed at a certain audience. Editorial oversight is completely unclear and unlikely. If there is virtually no reference to these publications, neither critical nor endorsing, that does not speak for their reliability, but for their neglibility. --Assayer (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not reliable - Editors wishing to attribute Wehrmachtbericht references to these sources have failed to demonstrate their reliability or compliance with the inclusion requirement. "I don't see why not" is not a strong argument, particularly for a source that was added before the more stringent criteria were established. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not reliable: obscure, dubious publications. I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty is not how Wikipedia establishes reliability under WP:IRS. Being so obscure, such publications do not attract attention from reliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not reliable: obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS. buidhe 08:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? –dlthewave ☎ 05:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A recent RfC determined that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht WWII-era German propaganda broadcast may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour. Three volumes of Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 appear as sources for mentions in a number of articles:

• Stockert, Peter (1996). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 1 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 1] (in German). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-9802222-7-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Hermann-Friedrich Joppien and Josef Priller) (Amending to add Heinrich Bär) –dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stockert, Peter (2012) [1997]. Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 2 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 2] (in German) (4th ed.). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-9802222-9-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Friedrich-Karl "Tutti" Müller and Friedrich Geisshardt)

• Stockert, Peter (1997). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 3 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 3] (in German). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-932915-01-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Theodor Weissenberger)

–dlthewave ☎ 05:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As in the above RfC, I see no reason why not. Nothing has been produced here so far to make me question the reliability or accuracy of the content of the books themselves, the reliability of the author, or of the publishing house, and I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty. Perhaps others with better German skills can find something, and I would be happy to revise my position if such was forthcoming. Stockert's works on Oak Leaves recipients are held by state and university libraries in Germany, as well as the Bundeswehr University Munich library, and Friedrichshaller Rundblick appears to be a small publisher of historical books, with about 80 titles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you confirmed that the source describes the mention as an honor? This content was added before the new sourcing requirement was in place, so we cannot presume that it complies. –dlthewave ☎ 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• These books are very reliable especially for awards including mentioned in dispatches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DioandI (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again same question as above, who are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not reliable - Editors wishing to attribute Wehrmachtbericht references to these sources have failed to demonstrate their reliability or compliance with the inclusion requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 18:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not reliable: obscure, dubious publications. I see no reason why not is not how Wikipedia establishes reliability under WP:IRS. Stockert also publishes in Pour le Merite-Verlag [de] known for is historical negationist, xenophobic and pseudo-scientific publications. Being held in university libraries is not an indicator of reliability. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not reliable: obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS. buidhe 08:30, 28 January 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: Media, the arts, and architecture Wikipedia proposals 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.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Daily Caller?

• 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

— Newslinger talk 10:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you support option 4, then you are also supporting option 3. Option 4 is a subset of option 3, since all deprecated sources are also considered generally unreliable. If I had the chance to rewrite the RfC statement, I would have renamed option 4 something along the lines of "option 3A". — Newslinger talk 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 4 [shifi] $ A personal preference for facts over personal profit. cygnis insignis 12:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Option 4 give some of the stuff I have read they are deeply problematic.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 for the issues regarding preference for profit over fact, for the issues of the obvious extreme right skew and for bordering on WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS territory tbh. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 I'd place them somewhere between HuffPost and Breitbart, which means that it should generally be avoided for facts, but its opinions fall under WP:RSOPINION. This means a blacklist is inappropriate. feminist (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with Blueboar's point that context matters. feminist (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'd go with Option 5 as well. feminist (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and if you insist that we have to pick one from Option 1-4, I'd still say Option 3 is closest to my view. feminist (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 5: Context matters. How a source is used, and what it is used for has to be considered. The Daily Caller is primarily a news analysis and opinion outlet (as opposed to a news reporting outlet). As such, it should be treated similarly to the way we treat op-ed pages in old fashioned "dead tree" (print) news outlets... it is certainly reliable when used as a primary source - supporting attributed statements as to the opinion and analysis of its contributors.

Whether it is reliable for some specific fact ... a lot depends on the reputation of the specific contributor (some have a better reputation for fact checking than others). Yes, the Daily Caller does make mistakes (as do all news outlets)... however, it has a fairly good reputation for acknowledging those mistakes and issuing corrections - and issuing corrections is an important factor in determining whether a news source is "generally" reliable (or not). Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of the perennial sources list, "option 5" is equivalent to option 2 (unclear or additional considerations apply). Context always matters regardless of how The Daily Caller is assessed. WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of questionable sources for uncontroversial self-descriptions even under option 3 (generally unreliable for factual reporting) and option 4 (publishes false or fabricated information; deprecated). — Newslinger talk 01:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 I can't think of a specific case where having this as a source is worth the trouble it's caused and will probably continue to cause. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give some examples of the “trouble” it has caused? Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar: My pleasure. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And how did this “cause trouble”... were editors trying to cite these reports? Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, I'm not PeterTheFourth, but I imagine Peter was saying the Daily Caller was essentially the trouble. I know I believed the Caller's reporting on Imran_Awan was accurate until recently, so there is that. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 01:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 In fact, this is my opinion on a great many sources. Opinions must be cited specifically as opinion is the corollary to this position. The main problem is that most journalists now rely on press releases for almost everything they write. Indeed in a study of "medical articles" almost every newspaper used press releases for a vast majority of their articles, and I doubt that this is then untrue of almost any topic where press releases exist. Factcheckers on articles being written are virtually non-existent any more. For any publication. Ask Der Spiegel. Collect (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 based on the usual source. This does not contradict Collect's point that churnalism is a huge problem in all media these days. Michael Marshall lists a number of tells, the most obvious of which is the prominent naming of the article's source in the third paragraph, with a lack of any other obvious corroborating or independent source. "Your house is in danger from zombies!" with, in para 3, "According to Fred Undead, marketing director of Undead's Zombie Insurance Policies Lts, the risk has been recognised by a large increase in policies against zombie apocalypse". But Daily Caller is not just doing that - churnalism certainly makes vast swathes of the Caller's not-obviously-bullshit content actually bullshit after all, but the core issue is the usual right wing bubble problem of positive feedback and ideology being given greater precedence than factual accuracy. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one thing to consider Ad Fontes Media while determining the reliability of a source, another thing to be completely reliant on it. You're going to have to provide more evidence than that. feminist (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely reliant on it. I use it to inform a single question: is this source unreliable because it is slapdash, or because it is propaganda. Daily Caller is propaganda. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad question. No reason was presented for bringing this up. It's an established news source and overriding WP:RS policy for yet another ban should not be the result of an out-of-nowhere RfC with zilch evidence of a problem or dispute that affects Wikipedia seriously. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a valid point, is there any evidence this is causing problems here that need to be solved?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent discussion of The Daily Caller on this noticeboard is a 2018 RfC that was closed without extended discussion (possibly because it asked for a general assessment of 3 very different sources). In that RfC, most editors asserted that The Daily Caller is unreliable. The second-most recent discussion is from 2013, which is stale under WP:RSP standards. The purpose of this current RfC is to gauge current consensus, as there is reason to believe that past discussions are out of date. Note that the current RfC's opening statement links to the WP:RS guideline, and asks editors to express opinions according to that guideline. I didn't explain my reason for starting this RfC in the opening statement, because it is supposed to be neutral and brief. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 5 While I can find examples of inaccurate reporting and controversial backgrounds for some of its editors, I cannot find any informed commentary about the general accuracy of their reporting. So why not say there is no evidence that it is a reliable source? In that case each time it was used would have to be evalutated on a case by case basis. I cannot think of any reason why it should ever be used. If it is the only source for a story, the information lacks weight. And there are obviously better sources when stories are well covered. TFD (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 Not quite as loopy as Infowars or Worldtruth, but their bias is massive and their lack of respect for accuracy not far behind. This is one of those sites that makes me wonder why we're always selecting out the Daily Mail for criticism and letting these even worse ones through. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 5. It is not well-established so context matters. BLP considerations apply to all sources so we shouldn't be emphasizing it for TDC. The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young. I'm not convinced by the above comments and I especially oppose the horrible option 4. wumbolo ^^^ 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Oppose option 4. The DM RfCs do not set a specific precedent and we have to look at each source individually. While the DC has published false information, it doesn't seem serious enough to blacklist it. Headlines shouldn't be examined at RSN. wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarification, The Daily Caller has not been awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and it has published opinions/columns attacking Pulitzer Prize winners (e.g. "Credibility Of Pulitzer Prize Takes A Hit By Rewarding ProPublica’s Liberal Bias", "Will WaPo Have To Return The Pulitzer For Wesley Lowery’s Ethical F**kup?", and "Wesley Lowery Brags At A Party: I’m Getting A Pulitzer!"). — Newslinger talk 02:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not say that it did. I compared TDC and Vox, which are similar at a glance, but differ in reliability because of the high-quality journalism at Vox. wumbolo ^^^ 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't think you would say that, but your sentence could be read that way because the word "it" could refer to either publication: "The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young." versus "The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young." Just a clarification, not an accusation. ​— Newslinger talk 09:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I also can't find any information about Vox winning a Pulitzer. Did you mean something else? — Newslinger talk 09:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I misremembered this Vox discussion, sorry. Also, I believed that "e.g." worked as a comma and I apologize for the ambiguity. I have striken my !vote because it was based on a false premise, and I have written just a !vote opposing option 4 until I can decide to support a specific option, after more evidence is presented. Thank you very much for understanding and checking my !vote. wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 The Daily Caller is hot garbage. See below. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 4 Perhaps I have missed something but I see nothing here that has shown an issue on Wikipedia. I see instances where they are unreliable and others where they are fine. Without evidence of an issue what is the point of this RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 If it wasn't enough before, their story about a nude selfie of a new member of Congress they don't like, that was fake, convinced me to !vote. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000, At what point was that story unreliable?... was it their initial version that reported how other people (not them) thought the photo was real... or was it the subsequent (clarified) version where they explicitly make it clear that the photo is fake? Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did have to reverse it after criticism, so quickly that they goofed the first time and broke links. They have been attacking this person and ran this story with the typical “some people say” language found in bad sources. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To stress what is discussed below, the problem text that was changed was strictly limited to the headline that was used. And headlines are not considered in any way an RS regardless of the source behind it. --Masem (t) 22:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But, if they’re willing to include the photo, and put that in the headline (which is as far as some folk read); that appears well over the irresponsibility line. I was wavering between options 3 & 4 and was pushed over the line by this, even though we don’t use headlines. O3000 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that we should judge the reliability of a media source by its headlines... regardless of how accurate and reliable the actual reporting is? Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 - Highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 I thought it was obvious that this website is extremely unreliable due to its unmitigated devotion to being unethical and flat-out lying. Somehow they make Fox News seem reasonable and measured. Trillfendi (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Routinely falsifies claims, see https://www.politifact.com/personalities/daily-caller/

  Only two false statements in total? That is impressive. wumbolo ^^^ 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100% of statements evaluated are false? That is indeed impressive. Just not in a good way. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 Pretty much the antithesis of a reliable source. Their extreme and unabashed political slant aside, it's not a great sign when most of the article about them is devoted to well-sourced instances where they deliberately published falsehoods. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 By my reading, there's no real difference in option 3 vs. 4 in terms of reliability, but that generally unreliable sources are WP:DEPRECATED when there's a real risk that editors might cite them. I think that risk might exist with the DC partly because of its popularity and partly because they once had pretensions of doing serious reporting. Still: I actually haven't turned up a lot of instances where they've been cited improperly, and I'm worried that we're venturing down the path of creating a sort of endlessly contentious media shitlist when we don't need one. Nblund ^talk 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need evidence to support option 4. (Which was there in the Daily Mail RFC). Having a far-right bias is not the same as fabrication of material. --Masem (t) 16:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Senator Bob Menendez rape allegation, turned down by multiple RS as being dodgey?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes provides plenty of examples. The problem though is that this is anecdotal evidence. No one expects that any reliable source, except holy writings, to be 100% accurate. You need to determine the inaccuracy rate and compare it with a similar publication we consider reliable or find a journalism textbook that evaluates its reliability. TFD (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that a source can be considered dodgey or generally unreliable based on the impression that other sources give to it, as part of determining whether to select from options 1-3 above. Jumping on a few words of text from an internal memo to blow that into a full-blown controversy, that's a good reason to call something unreliable - but let's not pretend that other sources don't do that. Just that most other good sources try to back it up with as much evidence as possible before making the accusation, whereas the DC in the case of Menendez jumped immediately. But that's all reason to keep the source unreliable particularly for contentious topics, but not unusable where they are reporting on less contentious material.

I'm specifically looking to find a case where they have publish outright factually wrong information, fully mis-reported people's words, or other true fabrications of the news (and without the editorial responsibility of correcting their mistakes), as was shown in the previous DM RFC, as to make the work as a whole untrustworthy. --Masem (t) 18:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For persistence, their climate change denialism would seem to be the longest running. Any meta-commentary I've read also seems to mention US politicians and their mix of whitewashing those they like and simply making up stories about those they don't, but I'm no follower of US political infighting. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really really don't feel comfortable blacklisting a source (aka effectively Option 4) based only on their bias or POV. If they are outright making up/fabricating stories (in contrast to exaggerating on trivial but truthful events as with the Menendez story) that's one thing, but that should be shown. --Masem (t) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Today provides evidence of The Daily Caller presenting false info. They shared a fake nude photo purporting that it was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. See here for more. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't read that Vice article that way at all. First, its a headline, which for any source we have determined should never be treated as RSes since they are often written by a completely different person. Secondary, as Vice points out, they replaced the headline when it was called out to them, which shows a minimum of journalistic integrity. The body of the DC article never made the claim, as Vice points out. So no, that's not evidence. (And further, I read the original DC headline that it has used cautionary language, not claiming it as fact in DC's voice as being such a nude, but that it was what a online user claimed.) --Masem (t) 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: So, at best, DC passed along a nude photo from an online user claiming it was AOC after it had been debunked by Reddit, titling the photo with her name, and adding the headline "Here’s the photo some people described as a nude photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." "Some people"? That's how they do journalism? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's tabloid style, and that's a good reason to already slot the DC as generally unreliable especially around BLP articles, but I'm specifically focused on trying to identify why it should in Option 4 that would effectively blacklist it if we're mirroring the 2017 Daily Mail RFC. Sleazy presentation and reporting is sleazy, but it is not creating false information that shows that we should bury DC from any use. --Masem (t) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Caller article says, "New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has enemies, and they’re not shying away from releasing a phony nude picture of the newest, youngest member of Congress."[8] (My emphasis.) Sure it's bad taste and the original headline (“Here’s the photo some people described as a nude photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”) uses weasel-wording. But headlines and photographs are not reliable sources regardless of the publication.

Here's a recent misleading headline from the New York Times: "Veselnitskaya, Russian in Trump Tower Meeting, Is Charged in Case That Shows Kremlin Ties." The headline in CNN is "Russian lawyer at Trump Tower meeting charged in separate case." The NY Times article falsely implies that she was charged in connection with collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

Note: at the bottom of the CNN article it says, "CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to reflect that Veselnitskaya was charged in connection with the money-laundering case." So apparently they too originally published a misleading headline.

TFD (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So... regarding the supposed AOC story, the DC reported it accurately (explicitly saying it wasn’t AOC)... but Vice reported inaccurately (by claiming that the DC said it was AOC, when the DC didn’t actually say that). Good case for perhaps saying Vice is unreliable... not a good case for saying DC is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar: the DC changed its headline. The original said that "some people" said it was AOC, without acknowledging that it was fake. DC's explanation for the AOC headline is that “eager editor made a misjudgement as to the framing.” (emphasis mine) - which doesn't speak very well for their editorial process. On a similar note: The Daily Caller also claimed Alica Machado was a porn star. The Bob Menendez story was apparent fabrication which DC still appears to have never recanted. They also employed Charles C. Johnson, who almost exclusively traffics in nonsense. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where they would be a usable source for news. Nblund ^talk 22:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original headline never acknowledged it as fake, but never acknowledged it as real. I agree that there's much better ways they could have presented that initial headline, but the headline wasn't declaring the photo was real. And again, headlines should never be touched or considered in context of RSes; they are written by people at these place to grab your eyeballs, not to necessarily fairly summarize the story. So this is really not a strong piece of evidence that shows fabrication of news stories. --Masem (t) 22:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that - I was specifically responding to Blueboar's claim that Vice mis-characterized the headline - they didn't. Headlines shouldn't be cited, but it's worth noting that the "editorial process" appears to have made the article less factual, rather than more factual. I don't believe the DC has been caught red-handed in the process of fabricating a quote (is that the consensus standard?) but they've got a long history of "reckless disregard" sins against journalism: Charles Johnson's claim about David Kirkpatrick were based an obviously satirical source - and the DC's "corrected version" only half-assedly says the claim "appears to be a fabrication". The discussion of DC's work in this report, especially the article discussed on page 120, seems to indicate that it the outlet is actually involved in creating fake news, rather than just passing it along. I'm dubious about the usefulness of deprecation all together, but I have a hard time imagining any scenario where we would consider them trustworthy for anything of note. Nblund ^talk 23:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern here, in the wake of the 2017 Daily Mail RFC, is that we have editors jumping to want to blacklist (spam filter) sites that should absolutely be treated as unreliable sources in cases of BLP or contested topics, but where they still may have some, possibly yet identified, utility for other features, such as being a fair RSOPINION source. DM was blacklisted because of clear evidence showing they were altering opinion pieces, eliminating even RSOPINION uses, but since then, I've seen people use the same logic that because a site is on the blacklist that RSOPINION can never apply and strip these sources out when they are only being used for RSOPINION (eg like Breitbart). Identifying DC as a highly unreliable source per Option 3 seems like a no brainer, but before we take Option 4, making sure that is fully justified if they are truly fabricating material to make it wholly unusual to blacklist them for all of WP. --Masem (t) 23:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For the sake of getting some third party criticism of the DC in here... The Columbia Journalism Review has written about it several times. In several places it notes how The DC tries to take itself seriously and talks up its own journalistic integrity/rigor, but CJR tends to undercut that kind of claim (my sense is it CJR might be a little more forgiving if not for this). Some of CJR's critical quotes:

• July/August 2011: "But when The Daily Caller has reached for the big scoop, the results have been less impressive. Headline-grabbing exclusives—mostly intercepted e-mails and tweets and attacks on media rivals—have exploded across the web before fizzling under scrutiny. Sexed-up headlines burned above stories too twisted or bland to support them. Quotes were ripped out of context, corrections buried, and important disclosures dismissed."
• July 9, 2014: "The Menendez “scoop” isn’t the first instance in which the Caller has seemingly strayed from its stated journalistic mission. In 2011, the site reported that the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing to hire more than 230,000 new employees, which would amount to a mind-boggling 1,300-percent growth in its workforce. It did not walk back the claim, even when it was shown to be untrue. The next year, proving hyperbole plays online, it called President Barack Obama “a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble.” Employees have tweeted racist and sexist remarks, for which the Caller has subsequently apologized. This doesn’t mean that all the Caller’s journalism is suspect, but it does suggest that the site isn’t what Carlson said it would be."
• September 8, 2018: "...the dream of a rogue outlet of hard-hitting, conservative journalism was never realized. And the site withered from there. Right now the site highlights sensationalist stories about “illegal aliens,” justifiable homicide, and a hit piece on Beto O’Rourke."
• Then there are a number of articles on specific stories, like this one about Obamacare from 2012. And this one from 2011, with the subheadline "Daily Caller mistakes opinion for fact." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{Note that these articles were not written by the Columbia Journalism Review, but by individual contributors.) Reliability is not a bipolar dichotomy, but a continuum. These articles have a similar theme: Tucker Carlson has failed to achieve his goal of combining the reliability of the New York Times with a conservative editorial position. No one questions that. I think though that David Uberti's comment in the Columbia Journalism Review is probably a good description: "This doesn’t mean that all the Caller’s journalism is suspect, but it does suggest that the site isn’t what Carlson said it would be." Ironically, his story itself contained an error, since corrected, that the sources used were Cubans. That would seem material, since Uberti said he thought they were working for Cuban intelligence. Incidentally, most of the problem reporting at the Daily Caller dates to 2011-2012, just after it was founded in 2010. There were similar problems in other online news sources when they were initially founded. TFD (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Menendez story happened in 2014, the Machado story happened in 2016, and the AOC story happened today. I don't see anything that indicates that they have a long-term trajectory toward reliability: in 2017 they published a piece by Jason Kessler without noting his connections to the United the Right rally, and they kept another white supremacist on the editorial staff until just a few months ago. Nblund ^talk 02:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: without disagreeing with most of what you've written, I'm not sure what you mean by these articles were not written by the Columbia Journalism Review, but by individual contributors. Are you saying they operate like Forbes "Contributors"? Or that they are on the website rather than the magazine? If the latter, that's not true of the first of the three. For the other two, is the CJR website considered less reliable? (actually asking, not rhetorically). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In journalism, publications invite writers to present opinions. For example, they may ask pro-Clinton and pro-Trump writers to explain the last election. Those writers express different opinions and do not represent the opinion of the publication. You might for example read an opinion piece in the New York Times by John Bolton that says the U.S. should remain in Syria until the year 3030 and another opinion piece by Rand Paul that says they should leave next week. That does not mean that the esteemed paper says they should leave next week or in a thousand years but that they have published articles by two different writers who disagree with each other.

Nblund, a lot of horrible people are reporters. It has no relevance to whether or not they are accurate. Newton was eccentric, but I am not tempted to test the laws of gravity.

What worries me is that the criterion for banning news media is not reliability but ideology. The Daily Caller, the Sun, the Daily Mail are not great news media but they meet Wikipedia's criteria. If we want to ban right wing publications, let's put that into policy. Because using anecdotal evidence can be used and will be used against any publication. Let's not forget that the most reliable media promoted the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. That fake news story was used to justify a war that led to over one million deaths and cost the U.S. trillions of dollars.

TFD (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Should we ban The Washington Post because Muslim Brotherhood supporters contribute opinion pieces to it and aren't properly described in the byline? Not to mention that Jamal Khashoggi worked for them. wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Muslim Brotherhood Supporters"? And blaming newsmedia (which issued corrections and followups as soon as the falsehoods became known) for the false pronouncements of the Bush administration, when Colin Powell has even admitted that the administration lied to him and fed him false information so that he would appear genuine by saying things he believed true based on them withholding the full story from him? (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/colin-powell-u-n-speech-was-a-great-intelligence-failure/) TFD, Wimbolo, I am getting the feeling that you're not really describing things in accuracy here and I can't help but feel that you're doing so deliberately. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, considering the tendency of Wikipedia to ascribe reliability to media ventures that make profit and the consequent tendency to treat far-left media (eg: itsgoingdown.com, newsocialist.com, rabble.ca) as unreliable, I'd suggest being stricter about far-right sources isn't outside the bounds of current policy at all. However I've also been quite clear that I'd like to see WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS adopted as policy, and that would as a side-effect make the vetting of racist and nationalist far-right news sources much stricter. Also, I've often mentioned that I feel Wikipedia is nowhere near strict enough about newsmedia content in general. In particular I find the dependence on news for recent political articles creates WP:RECENTISM and constant WP:NPOV problems; often we'd be better off saying nothing, or expressing only a brief summary about current political events until such time as they become matters of historical record. Whereas, the tendency to treat whichever preferred news source's 24 hour news cycle churnalism as fact is the current de-facto political method. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This, exactly. There's a unsettling trend that editors want to outright ban sources with extreme views because soley of extreme views. That should not be the case, though one can argue and demonstrate how extreme views generally may points towards fabrication and outright lying to get their view to work. To say we should blacklist a work because their viewpoint is so far off center is not really acceptable while at the same time editors routinely ignore RECENTISM and write about the current public opinion. It creates a feedback loop not geared towards the long-term. Hence why my concern on DC here is if they have actually falsified or faked stories that makes them wholly unreliable to be blacklisted. --Masem (t) 16:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this is the intent, but the kinds of "NotosourcesIhate" (why not "NoCommieSources" or "NoIslamistsoruces") attitudes tends to turn me off their arguments. I have no issue if we can all extremists sources of any political persuasion, but not if we single out one side for being "FeCKNGGGG!wrong", and indeed resorting to such language tends to turn me off as well. If you cannot argue without getting angry and shouting "Semprini!" I really start to wonder how much validity your argument really has.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty clear that my objection was with news media in general being a snake pit of WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM problems such that anything that isn't a top-shelf source shouldn't be used. And the DC is definitely a bottom-shelf media source. However credit where credit is due, that was a great Monty Python callout there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that is my point, you started off "TRUCKINGNAZIS" then said something I agree with, but it looked like your main point (the one you started of with) was "FundingNAZISLIKETHIS". If you had just made your point about the press in general I would have agreed. Your argument read more like "I hate their politics, but better make it sound like I am being all reasonableness" then "They are unreliable". This is why tone, attitude (and language) are so important (I suppose I could write an Essay "no Fucking fucking" about it). Note I am not being clever, but this is what spell checker wanted, so why not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to worry about the ideology here: The Daily Caller paid someone to report on an event that they themselves were organizing, without disclosing the connection. When they were caught, they initially kept the articles up, and then scrubbed his byline without explanation.

Here's my question: is there any scenario where we would look at original reporting from the DC that isn't covered elsewhere and conclude that it is reliable enough for inclusion on WP? Original reporting like this article, where a journalist heroically struggles to work "George Soros" and "Fusion GPS" into the same sentence, or this, where an anonymous source reports that David Malpass is a great guy? Would we ever trust any of this? Right leaning outlets like the National Review and Washington Times employ journalists who do some worthwhile reporting in niche areas - which I think is what distinguishes them from outlets like the Daily Caller that really have no apparent interest in actual news. Nblund ^talk 17:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every major news outlet does original reporting. Here's TDC's exclusive interview with Trump about Brenda Snipes [9], and here's CNN summarizing it [10]. What if CNN didn't mention the interview? We would have to cite TDC. wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any scenario where we would look at original reporting from any source that isn't covered elsewhere. If it isn't then it lacks weight for inclusion. Something that Trump said which was ignored by CNN and the rest of the mainstream media would be too insignificant to mention. In this case we would only report the parts of the Daily Caller interview that mainstream media carried. Banning the Daily Caller will not keep out material, allowing it as a reliable source will not introduce material. IOW whatever we do will have no effect on article content. TFD (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 Biased, but not fake news. It should be used with caution. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a unsettling trend that editors want to outright ban sources with extreme views because soley of extreme views." says Masem. I submit that this is incorrect, multiple people in multiple discussions on this page have described their objection not in terms of "soley of extreme views" but with regards to real concerns about the reliability of information provided on sources like the Daily Caller and Fox News. Mastcell and I provided detailed lists of reasons why we found Fox News to be problematic in terms of RELIABILITY issues, and each accusation that editors like us are merely engaged in some sort of "I don't like it" on the views is the definition of strawman tactics and incivility. Please treat us with the respect we deserve for discussing in good faith the FACTS involved rather than just blanket accusing people of viewpoint bias to shut down discussions with a heckler's veto. But to quote Mastcell directly from his comment (emphasis mine), "I and an IP editor both presented evidence, above, that FoxNews is both politically biased and unreliable. My hope was that we'd have a discussion about that evidence, but I've gotten used to disappointment." 73.76.213.67 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also many of us have argued that all news media should be be seen as not inherently reliable, its just that we have to start somewhere. Personally I would like to see all news media depreciated for a given period after an event (and by that I mean no news stories released before a given time period).Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The above is a suggestion that make too much sense but politics (of this supposedly neutral board) would likely not favor. "All news media" can be unreliable and end up giving retractions and redactions all the time. On this board I am seeing attacks, even sort of masked as satirical or "jokes", See: Why are more right wing sources considered unreliable than left-wing sources?" and "The liberal bias of facts", and we are considering if "right" or "right-leaning" (see Fox below) media should be "censored" depreciated. I can see discussions that portray someone leaning "right" as being uneducated or less educated, for the wealthy, and smears in that direction. That should likely be on a user page or essay and not here. I don't mind getting into these types of discussions but this is where serious consideration should be centered on the general "reliability" of sources brought here regardless of politics.

Unless the name is changed to something like "Liberal political news reliable source noticeboard", or consideration of "suggesting" two political type sources be used on every instance (classifying the political stance of sources), then the actual "reliability", "depreciated", or "unreliability" is far less confusing than a multi-tier RFC with "options" that seemed to be considered. All news sources will be biased: This is argued because it is true. Trying to make a determination of reliability based on the political stance of editors here is paramount to censorship. If a site gives "fake" news it should be blacklisted. Since we are likely not going to discuss "suggesting" The Wikipedia Breaking News Department to wait for sources to be vetted, before reporting breaking news, then "cleanup" after the fact would be the only option and not a topic of this board. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia really want to be a platform for the same organization that gave Jason Kessler a platform to promote Based Stickman and only pulled it after somebody died? [11] - as well as inaccuracy this isn't a run-of-the-mill conservative media source. It's the shallow end of the neo-fascist pool. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, I agree it should not be an RS, but the issue should (and only) be reliability, not POV.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a source is deemed reliable or in this case, not deemed wholly unreliable, does not mean WP is committed to repeating everything that work publishes. If we know a part of an RS is bogus information, we can overlook it. --Masem (t) 15:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were about using "political bias, one way or the other, as a means of classifying the "reliability" of a source. Most news media declare that the opinions of the reporters may not be the opinion of that media vehicle. Yes, that is just legal mumbo-jumbo to mitigate possible lawsuits, and no, we don't want "fake" news advanced on Wikipedia. To me, tearing down any historical statues or monuments is a mistake. I can't even imagine why there would be a need for a "white civil rights" group or rally, and think words like "white supremacist" should only be used to denote some historical context, and has no place in our society as well as "white nationalists". All of these conjure up meanings of a person or organization that does, or may, promote (or agree with) some possible genocide. That is why any Wikipedia editors that check sources should at the very least be given an "atta-boy" and a very good reason to have this noticeboard. However, since not one person on here can claim with credibility that certain sources are always unbiased, then trying to take a Wikipedia political stance as reasoning for excluding or deprecating (spelled it right this time) a source, because of a political stance or leaning, can lead to censorship.

I didn't vote for Obama and so far survived. I also didn't vote for Trump and hope to survive, but I support border security, as did Congress during Obama's term. This means I am for border security regardless of the political arguments being left-wing or right-wing, though I pretty much stay away from "political" articles and don't care for "breaking news". Where does that politically place me and maybe others just wanting to source content? The way I see it, this does not matter because unless content provides undo bias, that would be article content concerns and not reliability of a source. My question would be, when a source is "deprecated" do editors go about removing all these sites "per consensus at AFC discussion" or seek to replace such sources or tag them? If a source shows bias but is otherwise reliable is that not an indication of needing balance over "permission" to remove a source by using a "maintenance" scheme? I have suddenly become bored of apparently trying to crusade for "equal treatment" of sources from a political point of view. Have fun, 12:26 pm, Today (UTC−6)

I'm suggesting that the extremity of the position DC holds, combined with its history of falsification both point toward unreliability. Fascism is not a doctrine known for truth and honesty. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this kind of argument will put people off of your stance. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to fight the great fight.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 15 January 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: Biographies Wikipedia proposals 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.

Should the Notable Names Database be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. This might be stale according to WP:RSP but I am convinced that this should be deprecated; I'd like to point to a comment here from exactly ten years ago by DreamGuy: As far as I am concerned, that one should be in our black hole list (emphasis mine), seemingly predicting the deprecation of the source. As for the arguments, there is no evidence that NNDB does any fact-checking of its content. It is full of gossip like suicide attempts, drug use and criminal records, and it is connected to notorious gossipers [12] [13].
  I don't know what Jack Schofield meant with this article in The Guardian [14], but it kind of shows ironically that this is not a good website and should be avoided. It also mentions its feature to generate "lists" of people with various attributes, e.g. lists of alumni, which I do not want to see used on Wikipedia. NNDB also has a feature to generate "maps" of people's connections, a well-known tactic by conspiracy theorists.
  This website is like IMDb but much, much worse. There are many Wikipedia biographies (I think thousands) that cite this website and I believe that an edit filter would help new users to avoid this website. While there may not be much evidence of fabricating facts, this source has almost zero WP:USEBYOTHERS and it has an unknown way of getting its information [15] [16]. Note that I'm citing blogs because no serious reliable source bothers to talk about this website, even though I've found a handful of articles in Adweek, Los Angeles Times etc.
  I would not oppose adding this source to the spam blacklist as well. This website has a Wikidata property, but I don't know if it is relevant here. There's also a forum thread about the reliability of NNDB [17], which unsurprisingly does not find any evidence of reliability or a measure of accuracy. wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. NNDB (RSP entry) is a tertiary source, and some of the sources it draws its information are questionable. From a cursory search, it looks like most of the biographies on the website cite Wikipedia as a source (e.g. Mark Hamill, Patti Smith, Jesus Christ), which makes NNDB an unacceptable circular source. This was previously brought up in a 2007 discussion. NNDB also frequently references IMDb (RSP entry), which mostly incorporates user-generated content. Altogether, NNDB is not usable as a source because it's based on sources that would not be acceptable in Wikipedia. The fact that NNDB is used to support claims in numerous biographies of living persons (uses of nndb.com  ) leads me to support its deprecation. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes because there is actual evidence of harmful use of NNDB as a source. feminist (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Editors may use the site to identify info on a Bio page but they absolutely must collaborate that with a known RS ad use those RS for the citations. --Masem (t) 04:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak yes only because by nature it focuses on people, otherwise I would have preferred it to remain discouraged but not deprecated. @Wumbolo: This website has a Wikidata property, but I don't know if it is relevant here. (NNDB people ID P1263) It's not relevant; Wikidata is using it for authority control. They also have a property for Quora. @Feminist: What harm are you talking about? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The main problem is that this source is mainly used on BLPs, which generally require more stringent sourcing standards. feminist (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It is too weak a tertiary source, and its lack of fact-checking (editorial controal) basically makes it a form of WP:UGC, rather like IMDb except with serious BLP issues that push it across the line.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One user has been frequently insisting that this source http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/nightsoffalsehood/ which I deem as horrible source is a reliable source for writing about the incidents where this person has a COI in anything about Punjab insurgency and Khalistan movement. This source is being used too much in those articles and related subjects. Writer is Kanwar Pal Singh Gill who is alleged of human rights abuses and has been convicted of sexual harassment and his writings are highly non-neutral as you can read through this source and is certainly not inclined to present the events in a neutral way as his writings show. Should this source be considered reliable? Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable for their views, and thus we could say "according to...".Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources are not required to be neutral (in fact, most sources are not)... our job is to balance what different (non-neutral) sources say. As Slatersteven notes, the best way to do this is to use attribution. When the various sources disagree about a topic, explain who says what. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I had noted in the recent ANI thread Harmanprtjhj continues his WP:Tendentious editing to whitewash, Sikh terrorism related articles. Here as well he is trying to present a biased one sided picture, without saying how it was used in the article in an effort to get a blanket ban on the source he believes that conflicts with his whitewashing.
• Gill received a Padma Shri award, India's fourth-highest civilian honour, in 1989
• He has authored more than 11 books, [18]
• The book Punjab, the knights of falsehood is mostly centered around events from 1978 to 1987 which does not overlap with his tenure.
• While Gill headed the Punjab police from 1988 to 1990 and from 1991 to 1995. The sexual harassment is an entirely unrelated event as far as this book is concerned.
• Excerpt from his book that is being called "horrible" without any reasonable logic is an excerpt from a reliable and highly cited book (8110 Google books)Punjab, the knights of falsehood / K.P.S. Gill., Har-Anand Publications, c1997. Subjects: Sikhs -- Politics and government, Punjab (India) -- Politics and government. Summary : Political outline of Punjab and the involvement of the Sikhs in its making. Language : English, ISBN 8124105693 National Library of Australia's online catalogue
• As expected from any respectable publication, Gill provides citations and references to everything in his book. If any incident or fact was wrongly mentioned in his book, then it would have been all over in the media. which is not the case here.
• The book is currently used in wiki articles only as references for facts & incidents, and not for any opinion or commentary.
• IMHO there is absolutely no grounds to claim that this book is unreliable. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not comment on users.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say this is unreliable for discussing anything other than the subject's own views about the incidents which would require attribution. Excelse (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• May be used with caution. Can be presented as the view of an involved party. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If you directly attribute the cited material to the source, so that anything you put in Wikipedia from that source is not in Wikipedia's voice, you should be fine "As written by the officer themselves in their own autobiography yada yada yada" is more acceptable than just speaking in Wikipedia's voice with no direct attribution and only a footnote to the book. When in down, tell the readers where you got the information from so they can decide how much weight to give it. --Jayron32 20:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman and User:Jayron32, thanks for the kind comments, can you please elaborate the reason behind such a comment ? Is any factual information from this book incorrect? Also I would like to hear from you, how does Wikipedia war related articles handle such issues ? Knowing that most of the war related books are written by high ranking military officials from one side or the other, unless it is a quote or a commentary/opinion from the author that is being added into the article, I have never seen attributions to every piece of factual information evidence in the wikipedia article that is cited to the particular book by the military officer. [I have already noted in my comment above that The book is currently used in wiki articles only as references for facts & incidents, and not for any opinion or commentary.]--DBigXrayᗙ 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC) [struck at 21:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Don't use a source known to publish falsehoods! The idea that I would allow this source with caution indicates that there's no indication of falsehood. The problem is one of bias. Somebody involved in the events will have all sorts of cognitive processes that will alter memory to favor a desired outsome. That's how human brains works. We need to be a little skeptical of such sources. Use with care. Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman thanks for elaborating, I agree with the general comments that you made above. But for this particular case I don't see them to be applicable. "Don't use a source known to publish falsehoods" right, but what falsehood did you find in the book ? "Somebody involved in the events" Again I would note that Gill was not involved in the events described in the book. The book Punjab, the knights of falsehood is mostly centered around events from 1978 to 1987 which does not overlap with his tenure. because Gill headed the Punjab police from 1988 to 1990 and from 1991 to 1995. If you are making this claim, under the assumption, that a Police officer will follow the line of the government, please note that Gill has heavily criticized the actions of the government (e.g. Operation Blue Star, Sikh riots) in his book as one of the "biggest blunders" done by the government. So, lets not make general assumption based observations. Unless this book is found to falsify factual information, we should not really be making such comments about the book. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to badger editors out and accept what everyone has said about an obviously unreliable source. You are the only person endlessly advocating this misleading book. The book is so factually incorrect that I can create a grand list of lies and fabrications found in this book. But then I also don't feel like I should be spending that much time to analyze a very unreliable source. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A number of us have said it can be used with correct attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean (a) they are telling the truth or (b) capable of stepping back from a situation when describing it. Works by people involved in an incident etc at the time are effectively primary and need to be treated with care, for reasons such as Jehochman mentions. This is particularly so in a situation such as that of Gill, who has been a controversial figure in and out of office. Use him if there is no alternative but think hard about whether it is necessary and, if it is, attribute it in the prose. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we say "according to..." and then include any counter arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Will you please stop trying to teach me to suck eggs. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Harmanprtjhj, nobody has said that the source is "unreliable". Rather, Gill being an involved party in at least some of the events, the book fails the WP:THIRDPARTY criterion and it may be WP:BIASED. That does not mean that it cannot be used. It just means that it may need to be balanced against other sources. You have failed to tell us where problems have arisen. The two articles you mention, Punjab insurgency and Khalistan movement do not have a single citation to the book. So what exactly are you talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have located two book reviews of the book^[1][2] neither of which supports the idea that the book contains "falsehoods". Rather, the second review says:

Virtually all of this has appeared before in print. But the fact that the writer was DG of police, privy to bona fide information, adds a great degree of authenticity to the book.

So it seems to me that Harmanprtjhj is barking up the wrong tree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: It is unreliable in the sense that we are better off without using it unless it becomes too necessary, but not without attribution. Why you are deceptively tag-teaming with DBigXray? Anyone can find "The Knights of Falsehood" on Punjab insurgency and Khalistan movement.103.60.175.111 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are not going to endear yourself to any one with your snide remarks and vague allegations. So better stick to the matter at hand.

• On Khalistan movement, it is listed in "Further reading" list, which is not the same as citing it.
• On Punjab insurgency, I found three citations to the book (which was listed without author name previously). Which of those citations is supposed to be problematic? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am telling you what I (and others) have been observing for extended period and it is becoming beyond disruptive.
• OP mentions the articles then also says "those articles and related subjects" which indicates that the use of this source is probably more prevalent than just two articles. Although it would be irrelevant now to name each article since we agree that it fails "WP:THIRDPARTY criterion and it may be WP:BIASED". It can be used only "opinion or commentary" with attribution, but nothing else. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, "disruptive"? Funny, I never heard that term before!

I have now posted a book review that says it is authentic. So unless you find another review that says otherwise, that is where the matters stand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is WP:POINTy because a 22 years old review from outlookindia.com is irrelevant when it comes to authenticity or reliability. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the age of a review have any relevancy? Unless of course, they were of an earlier edition.--Auric talk 13:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many investigations and changes in scholarship related to this subject which has significantly modified the common observation that people view it differently that they did it 22 years ago. That's why the date of that review is important. 103.60.175.111 (talk)

• Look, you guys are fighting over the wrong thing. A book by an author is always a reliable source for the words that that author wrote in the book. If you are saying "This person said these things" and that person wrote a book saying those things, then the book is a reliable source for writing that in Wikipedia. It may or may not be a reliable source for saying "The things the person said are true", but that is a different question. If you want to quote or paraphrase the police officer's own statements about the events, then say "The police officer said, in their own book, 'yada yada yada'" That's fine. The reason that is OK is that the statement is scrupulously true: That officer did write that in their own book. Now, if you have a different source which disputes what the officer said, attribute that source in the same way. --Jayron32 13:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gill's book has never been used in any article to add Gill's personal opinion or sayings into Wikipedia article. The book is only used for verification of facts about incident that occured 40 years ago. When Gill was not involved in the events, since he joined in 1988.

Harmanprtjhj has been claiming that book is biased, well, can we see some examples of fact falsification ? Neither he nor anyone else in this discussion thread has provided any evidence of falsification of facts in the book. Even though it is expected of them to either produce sources to say that Gill is not reliable, or needs to produce alternative reliable sources that contradict what facts are mentioned in Gill's books.

None of the two book reviews Kautilya3 posted above says that the book has falsified any fact about the incident.

To take an example currently the book has been used at 3 places in Punjab insurgency. Jayron and few have suggested to add according to so the lines will look like this.

• "According to Gill, in the ensuing violence seventeen people were killed. "
• "According to Gill, Punjab Police Deputy Inspector General A. S. Atwal was shot dead as he left the Harmandir Sahib compound. "
• "According to Gill, six policemen abducted from a post near Golden Temple "

I see this completely redundant to add this "according to Gill" for undisputed statements of facts, in the articles. In spite of none of the reliable source published reviews claiming any factual error. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since he is a controversial figure and a very primary source, you can completely avoid using this source altogether unless you are using it for something where it wouldn't be WP:UNDUE to share his view with attribution. You need to treat it as just any other controversial primary source. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In considering that DM is treated as a blacklisted source, should information published in other RSes that point back to a DM story as the originating point be considered tainted by the DM and thus these individual stories be unusable for WP? (Or at least the parts that tie back to the DM information?)

Specific case in point: with news that we have a new Ghostbusters film coming, DM published a piece [19] that includes statements from actor Ernie Hudson that would be considered appropriate for inclusion if they came from any other source but DM. Several other sources (Esquire, Consquences of Sound among others) are repeating the information from Hudson all linked to the DM story. My gut says we should consider this information tainted due to DM, and wait for a corroboration from an independent source before adding it. --Masem (t) 16:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My gut goes the other way; when another source reuses content from DM, they are staking their own editorial reputation upon that usage, and for sources generally considered scrupulously reliable, that's good enough for me. We're not saying that material published in DM is guaranteed to be wrong. If it has been republished by sources we would normally trust, then it has passed that source's trustworthy vetting process, and we can trust it. It's the material that is unique to the DM that I worry about. If real journalists have vetted it, I'm no longer worried. --Jayron32 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be looked at both ways. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can see that, but I think it's like a net sum game, and we have to consider the quality of the RS repeating what the DM said. If it were the NYTimes repeating DM's information, that would be more than enough to me to offset the DM reliability issue. On the other hand, at least in the case of these Ghostbuster stories, I feel most of these sources are mid-tier RS, and not strong enough to get over the potential reliability problems of the DM. --Masem (t) 20:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they're attributing the report in-text to the Daily Mail, they may not have verified any of it. Case in point: Consequence of Sound was one of the outlets that had a write-up on that fake Dwayne Johnson interview where he supposedly bashed "generation snowflake" - Johnson presumably could have told them the whole interview was a fabrication if they had asked him to confirm the story. Nblund ^talk 20:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's my impression when I've come onto mid-quality RSes quoting or reiterating information that has a dubious edge on it from a low-quality blog or from social media, information that would require insider information. These mid-tier sources seem to report without some corroboration of their own. --Masem (t) 21:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO, as they are RS and thus are presumed to have checked the story.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe: it depends on exactly what our article would say. Assuming this is about the announcement of three original actors reprising their roles in a reboot movie, DM is blurring the lines. Its headline says Hudson "confirmed" the three actors "will reprise their roles" but that doesn't seem to be true. What Hudson actually said in the video interview was: "Ivan Reitman is there and everybody is in. Now whether the studio will do it, I'm the guy who sits by the phone and waits for the call. So if they call, I'll answer. If not, I've got other stuff that I’m doing." Esquire qualified that, publishing the full quote followed by: "That presumably means that Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd are bang up for a reuniting..." (bold added). COS published the full quote and then points out that since the DM/Hudson story broke, Sony released the movie trailer (meaning "the studio called"), and they point to a couple tweets from Aykroyd indicating his willingness to be in the movie, though Murray has not yet commented. So I don't think we can write that the three actors will be in the movie, sourced to any of it. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning that one of the actors said he'd do the movie if the studio called. However, if we're writing that the media is reporting that two of three actors have shown interest in reprising their roles, then I think that could be cited to Esq and COS, and it doesn't matter that they're relying on DM, because in this case, they're actually citing Hudson's own words in a video interview that just happened to be given to DMTV, so DM is just a conduit and not really a source of information (it's not like there is any suggestion they faked or edited the video interview). That said, give it a little more time, and there will probably be a much more solid official announcement, and the whole issue will resolve itself. ^Leviv_ich? ! 23:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The Daily Mail is not blacklisted. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It might as well be, no matter how hard the Daily Mail fanbois try to fudge the issue to pretend it's usable. And in this case, using the Daily Mail is not worth the thin "fact" it's trying to justify. --Calton | Talk 09:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• " Daily Mail fanbois" {{citation needed}}

" to pretend it's usable" {{citation needed}}

There are no DM fanbois. No one has had a positive comment for it. But it's not "banned", as the single-position biased editors amongst those against it certainly claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Daily Mail is not blacklisted. Currently, the only two sources that are both deprecated and blacklisted are Breitbart News and InfoWars. — Newslinger talk 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally usable. That the DM was the first to break a story does not suppress said story from the public wiki record - if it were, it would be our Daily Censor. If a WP:RS reports facts in each own voice (not attributed but to the DM - and giving credit ("first reported") is not attribution) - it doesn't matter if the DM broke this first, as the RS is reporting it in its own voice, and the information made it through the RS's controls. The situation is more trick when a RS reports that "according to the DM, X has done Y" - in this case, we should assume that some editorial checks were performed at the RS, however we need to be more careful (particularly if this was reported by the RS due to some extreme sensationalism (i.e the reporting of the DM was the news, not the news items itself)). However, even if attributed, if multiple RSes see fit to state that the DM has reported something - it is quite possibly DUE for inclusion. 11:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Perfectly usable. The Daily Mail is not blacklisted. It can be perfectly well be used when it is not the sole source. It is a mainstream British paper, mmkay? Furthermore, WP:RS which rely on DM reportages are perfectly valid sources. XavierItzm (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyright is a valid issue In the case that other sources use a quote which is in a copyrighted article found in the DM and is so attributed by that source then it is a clear violation of copyright for us to use the source and not acknowledge the holder of the copyright. I suggest that the EU laws are even stricter than this position. I further note that the "monkey selfie" issue where I opined a few times that WP must, if it has any sense of law at all, obey copyright laws and decisions. Publication of anything does not mean we can ignore copyright.Collect (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution isn't a full defence against copyright infringement in any jurisdiction that I know of. The main question is whether the copying is "substantial". Simply describing facts, in different words and in a different way, should not ordinarily lead to infringement. The reason the papers often give attribution is 1) courtesy, 2) defamation (i.e., they are attributing the statements to a source rather than saying they are their own views), 3) accuracy. FOARP (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally usable, possibly requires attribution. A reliable source can be used to support the claim that the Daily Mail reported something, provided that the statement is attributed to the Daily Mail and that the information constitutes due weight (which should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard). If, in addition to claiming that the Daily Mail reported something, the reliable source also provides original content that further substantiates the Daily Mail's reporting, then the information is usable and attribution is not necessary. — Newslinger talk 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it good practice to include in text attribution when citing ANY news source. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​To clarify, if a reliable source provides original news coverage that corroborates the Daily Mail's reports while only mentioning the Daily Mail in passing, then the reliable source should be referenced (usually with attribution) while the Daily Mail does not need to be attributed. — Newslinger talk 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be cautious based on Levivich's analysis. Maybe this is one to hold off on until a clearer confirmation is provided. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "Generally" in front of "usable" to clarify that this is my position on the general case. I agree with Levivich on this specific case, and note that statements in an article should be more clearly attributed when they are tenuous or controversial. — Newslinger talk 22:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As a general rule, when something in an unreliable source is covered by a reliable secondary (or tertiary) source, we can cite it to the secondary source; if this weren't the case, we wouldn't be able to cite anything, since all reporting ultimately comes down to someone doing original research on a primary source. Taking information from places like tweets, reddit posts, or (yes) the Daily Mail and turning it into a reliable news story is part of what a WP:RS does, and using secondary coverage to report on such primary sources that would not themselves be usable is standard practice. That said, it's important to rely on the actual secondary source being used (including its tone, weight, any disclaimers it uses, whether it attributes what it's saying and how cautious it is in doing so and so on), rather than just taking it as a blank check to include whatever we want from the unreliable primary source. Note that this has nothing to do with the reliability of the DM as a source - I'm of the opinion that assessing the reliability of our sources' sources is usually outside of what we're supposed to do, since it's essentially WP:OR, and since taking unreliable sources and verifying them, analyzing them, performing synthesis with them, and otherwise turning them into reliable content is what a reliable source does. --Aquillion (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Context matters. If an article published by a reliable source simply reblogs content from the Daily Mail (or any other source considered unreliable), and there is no evidence that the RS has performed their own verification, then that article probably won't be considered reliable. An example: Apple Daily, a Hong Kong newspaper (and the only major left-of-centre newspaper in Hong Kong), is generally considered reliable for local news; however, they frequently publish news articles on their website that are largely based on those of British tabloids such as the Daily Mirror (e.g. [20], [21]), The Sun (e.g. [22]), and the Daily Mail (e.g. [23]). Based on my experience, Apple Daily doesn't do much fact checking to see if the original article was accurate. It's still an RS for Hong Kong news, but clearly these Apple Daily articles on international news aren't any more reliable than the source. feminist (talk) 08:52, 28 January 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: Wikipedia proposals Media, the arts, and architecture 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.

Should the user-generated music databases Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these should be cited as sources, but discogs.com is a reasonable external link. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, sorta, as it's debatable whether we really should be linking to Discogs. My opinion is that links to RYM and Lastfm should be banned on all articles (with some reasonable exceptions), and that links to Discogs should simply display a warning as such. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No user generated content should not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Remind me: does an edit filter flag all instances of external links being added to articles, or only those contained in references? If it's the latter then I'm fine with this proposal. feminist (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The daily mail filter checks for all links, but a filter could be created that checks only links within references. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but only if the edit filter is restricted to references, and does not cover external links. Discogs is similar enough to IMDb, which is allowed for external links at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. — Newslinger talk 08:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that might be difficult to implement on a technical level. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal solution would be to implement a regex-based filter rule, as documented at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format. If this isn't practical for some reason, we could add these domains to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList as an alternative. — Newslinger talk 11:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did think that regex could be possibly used for this, but how exactly would it determine what a reference is? Usage of ref tags? How would we avoid false positives? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​User:XLinkBot uses <ref> tags for this, and it works quite well. It would be difficult to parse wikicode with regex, so User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList might be the best solution. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for Discogs, which is, per Michig and Newslinger, a useful external link; it's not clear that we have a problem with Discogs that needs to be solved with warnings (let alone banning). Treating it equivalently to IMDB (user-generated and so unsuitable for formal citation, but high-quality and so valuable in other capacities) is advisable. Support for RYM and Last.FM, neither of which contribute much in the way of valuable content. Chubbles (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RYM and Last.fm and Oppose for Discogs per Chubbles. feminist (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have uselectionatlas.org sourcing many American federal election results. It this the best source for this info?--Moxy (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article for the website if you want some background Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell it is regarded as reliable by many RS. So yes I think this is usable (despite its at variance colour choice).Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you. BTW: The website is currently being linked from as many as 5,506 articles. --Leyo 22:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{rfc|hist|lang|reli}} There’s been a reversion war on Slavery in India, primarily due to the credibility of sources, see: Talk:Slavery in India#Manusmriti, which per Kautilya3 suggestion I’ll raise here. What qualifications must an author have, to reliably translate, and comment on a two millennia old work, and does a published commentary, on a Sanskrit work constitute a review, or is it still a Primary work; in the example above, is ‘’Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi, by Ganganath Jha, 1920, ISBN-10: 8120811550’’, a reliable, non primary source, that’s been authored, and published by qualified entities, and in particular whether the following excerpt can be considered reliable Verse 8.415^[1], and current. --83.104.51.74 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The user has been told that Manusmriti, a quasi-religious text from 200 AD, is a PRIMARY source no matter who translated it when, which he finds hard to accept. He also believes that it can be used to justify edits like this (at Slavery in India). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have disabled the premature RfC because RfC is not the first resort and this question is pretty simple to answer. Primary or not, you are using a translation from 1920. Lots of things have changed in the scholarship concerning any ancient texts in these almost 100 years. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence the translation is wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. There is no single way to translate any book, or even paragraph of a book, so there isn't really a sense of right or wrong. But when the original is 1800 or so years old and is fuelled by mythology etc, it isn't going to stand up as verification of anything except itself. It may not even be complete. The same could be said of the Christian Bible or the Qu'ran. Even the 1920s commentary, if indeed that were being relied upon here, would fail our usual standards, as the anon says above. We need modern academic sources that discuss Hindu law in the context required for the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but the issue is that the translation is not accurate. For this to be the case there must be alternative translations for this participial part of the text (or at least someone saying its wrong). Otherwise that line of argument is invalid. Now if it is incomplete and we have only a partial passage for this material that is a different argument (is this the case, is this particular passage incomplete?). Now is this discussion the contemporary situation (that is the edit, not the source) or a historical one?Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, there is no such thing as an accurate translation (we often cannot even agree on transliteration of Indic names) and when it comes to religious texts there are thousands of interpretations - hence all of the various sects etc within the major religions, and terrible attempts to codify aspects of religious law such as the Brits did in India. As for whether something is complete or not ... you're pretty much asking to prove a negative: we're not talking of situations such as a burned page or a couple missing in a numbered sequence here. I think you should perhaps read the article about the text and about broadly similar Indic texts/epics etc, such as the Mahabharata, which form a core to how a phenomenal number of Indian people think today. They're assembled concoctions of relative modernity compiled over long periods of time by multiple people and which are supposedly based on much older originals that no-one has seen in centuries. And those concoctions do not always agree on what the alleged original said. Then someone translates it into English! There is no way we are qualified to interpret and thus we must rely on modern expert sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not asking you to prove a negative, I am asking you to prove a positive, that there are alternative translations. And again I ask, what is it being used as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The translation from 1920 is being used as a source for writing about slavery, a social issue, that is still discussed in the modern times. For this situation we have to use modern academic sources because they have indeed researched the past translations and interpretations. Why do we have to rely on outdated translations when we have so many modern translations? The age of the book has significance in the sense that there were not enough translators of the ancient texts in those days (in 1920) but today there are many that have rectified lots of errors that had been made in the pre-independent India. Patrick Olivelle is one of those modern translator that we should be using.[24] 103.60.175.111 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is all general, not specific (and I take it form this that, yes, this is being used in the context of historical (not current) Indian culture and slavery) point. None of this show this source is unreliable for what it is being used for, only for what it is not being used for. Moreover it keeps on being said there are netter and more modern translations available for this text, OK proved one that differs form this translation in a way that alters its meaning? If all the translations say the same thing we can use any translation, if they differ prove it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But even if there was no difference then still we are more truthful to the policy if we are using the modern source. By modern I am not saying that we should take a book from 2019 and then reject Patrick Olivelle (2004), but anyone can agree that a source from 1920 is no longer relevant, be it this particular text or any other ancient text of any other country or culture. See WP:RS#Some types of sources 103.60.175.111 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy says nothing about having to use modern sources. The only issue would be where modern scholarship overturns older scholarship, not where there is no substantive difference. And I have no idea what relevance has to do with it, we are interested in accuracy and reliability, not relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is dawning on me that you may be one of the contrarian contributors I promised myself I would try to avoid: got to have a say about everything and rarely says much that is useful. And if anyone really wants to block me for saying that, feel free but I think you will find I have support. Not everything on Wikipedia needs a bright-line policy If you don't understand why an old source is problematic, you probably should think about taking up another hobby. Or read WHISTLERS and umpteen past threads on this very noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush Hardy's proof that 1+1=2 is 80 years old, which from your last comment would suggest you personally may nolonger treat as valid, as there's been no scholarship in the last decade to verify his assertion is still valid, and without positive reaffirment a 20th century source can't be trusted. Similarly there have been at least a dozen English translations of the Manusmriti, since Jones's 1770's effort, and that the EIC used as the basis of their implementation of Hindu Law in India, and its later adoption by the Raj, and Republic. The translations I've seen all have a similar interpretation of verse 8.415 on enslavement, despite being from 50+ pre-colonial originals, so I'll assert legal enslavement is covered in the work, and that quoting a 1920 translation, and commentary, by a Sanskrit scholar, holding a D.lit in the field, is a valid source for asserting the work covers enslavement, it was understood to codify enslavement in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries covered in the section, and is a valid, non primary source to cite in the "Regulation and Prohibition" section, for the period, as is the quoted Reprint of Jones's translation. Despite two particular editors objecting to the earlier Jones interpretation, and Jha's 1920, as not recent, a translation is a Primary source, offering an Opinion that Jha was not qualified to translate, and comment on a Sanskrit text, and so on, though not offering any Reliable source that invalidates any of the out of copyright translations of the work, or that Jha was an unqualified fraud. That IMHO is down to accepting the text covers legal enslavement in Hinduism, contradicts some of the opinions expressed on the page. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am afraid the OP has framed the issue in a completely misleading way. The issue is not whether the translation is valid or not. But rather, he maintains that the 1921 translation is a SECONDARY source. To wit: "till I’m persuaded otherwise, a properly published commentary on a work is a Review of the work, and ... so a box ticking secondary source." If all he does is to include in the article, content of the form "Manusmriti says X", that would be somewhat acceptable (even though we would need SECONDARY sources to demonstrate its relevance). But the OP draws inferences from it such as 'Replace “ancient times” with a less vague, “before verse Verse 8.415 of the Manusmriti”,...' [25]. The effect of the edit was to say that the term dasa (the Sanskrit word used to mean slave) might have had different meanings before the Manu verse, but after that, it was frozen for ever. No secondary source ever said such a thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment, No evidence has been produced this is not an accurate (or even not the best) translation available. It is not (as far as I can tell, and no evidence has been produced to the contrary) that it is being used for the current laws of India (thus any argument based upon that is invalid). However the above new post raises doubts (it is nice to actually know what we are talking about), but I am not seeing where he cites it, this seems cited to another source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been produced this is not an accurate (or even not the best) translation available.

So what happened to your claim about asking people to prove a positive, when you're doing the exact opposite?

So where's the evidence that this is an accurate (or even best) translation available? You know, the actual standard of proof? Or is this another bit of your contrarianism? --Calton | Talk 07:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent focus on this noticeboard as to whether various news outlets are reliable (or not) I am wondering whether we need to expand, clarify or strengthen WP:NEWSORGS (the section of WP:RS that deals with news outlets). I realize that this isn’t the venue for discussing specific changes to the guideline (that should take place on the talk page of the guideline itself). I just want to get a rough consensus on whether our current guidance needs improvement, and (if so) perhaps some initial (broad scope) comments on how it might be improved. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it is time to update it, I think the nature of news media has changed. Even the best rely to much now on social media and rushes to grab half backed exclusives, and the worst make no effort to even hided the fact they plain make stuff up. The main issue (as I said) is rush to published, thus not news needs to be stronger and say that no news media (no matter how RS) can be used unless the story is produced long after the event. I would go further and say that new reports (rather then magazine style products (be they articles or documentaries) should never be used.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) One of the biggest problems is the use of medical/scientific press releases verbatim or so nearly verbatim as to make the actual correct source, the press release itself. Wikipedia must address this issue at some point. The next real issue is the existence of "celebrity gossip" even from "reputable outlets." The sad truth is that major news outlets would rather issue "corrections" than factcheck juicy stories. There certainly are other problems, but these two well ought be dealt with. Collect (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

great comments... keep em coming. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wary of attempts to re-write our guidelines to deprecate the use of mainstream journalistic outlets. Our guidelines and policies are quite clear that reputable journalistic outlets are bedrock reliable sources, and much of the encyclopedia as it exists is built on them, so the change being proposed here is tectonic. It is true that in the US, at least, there has been a partisan effort to discredit reputable journalism and to attack its practitioners as "enemies of the people", but I'm disappointed to see that effort gaining traction here. Leaving aside the sociopolitical context of this effort, a change this massive and fundamental to the project should be based on something more substantial than a few editors' gripes about the media landscape. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree... depreciation is definitely NOT my goal in asking about this. I think it more an issue of better explaining when and how news sources should (and should not) be used, rather than whether they MAY be used. I am thinking of something to help editors better appreciate and navigate the grey areas of using news sources, rather than something that would present it as a black and white (good vs bad) issue. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, after the Istanbul night club attack the article on that was updates almost as a live news feed as new media produced new reports (much of which are now known to have been in "error"). If we had a hard and fast "NO NEWS UNLESS IT IS 4 WEEKS AFTER AN INCIDENT" Much of that wasted effort would not have been engaged in.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every decent editor should know that on-the-spot reporting often gets it wrong; every decent editor should know not to rush to judgment. See, for instance, John_M._Bacon#Battle_of_Sugar_Point, or SS_Sirio#Wreck (racist newspaper reporting claiming horrible things about Italian men). But that doesn't mean "the" news is unreliable per se--it just means that immediate reports aren't always reliable. But a hard and fast rule (four weeks?) isn't very helpful here (since some events that are immediately reported are simply reported correctly, verified by multiple sources, etc.)--never mind that NOTNEWS is the most blatantly ignored guideline we have. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago I watched journalist Matt Taibbi, then working for Rolling Stone, explain his experience about working on a feature article about his impressions of the Donald Trump campaign as he followed him around the country. He said it all became so predictable that he could just write code numbers, #1, or #2 in his notes for example, of Trump's campaign stops. Unlike the regular journalists, that gave him plenty of time to observe both the other journalists and what they were writing. According to Taibbi, the mad scramble for a daily smashing headline meant that next to no fact checking what so ever went on. So that's where we are today in this fast-moving world. What to do? In my experience of working on political articles, seasoned editors have a pretty good feel for letting the dust settle down a tad, though I'm talking about hours or in some cases a few days, not weeks or, God forbid, months! I very much agree with MastCell's concerns and hope that more cautious thoughts and actions prevail here. Gandydancer (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

insert my usual speil about NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. I think a core issue is making editors aware of how we need to balance being able to be up-to-date with long-term reliability. There are some points of breaking news that are objective or non-confrontational that would be part of an article still 5/10/20 years out, and that's what we can use mainstream RS to report on. But when we get to any areas where there is controversy or events moving too fast, even our RSes can be wrong, and we should not be rushing to add (or create articles) with this information until we know how best to write. That makes it less an issue about RSes no longer being RSes, but more than we need the right perspective of what is critical and should be added which may not reflect how the RSes are treated the subject at that instance. We have to be aware that Wikipedia does contribute to citogenesis in the news system, and we should be looking to stop that rather than contributing to it. --Masem (t) 20:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think the current policy should be clarified. Possible topics for discussion: recentism; primary/secondary (aka reporting/analysis) distinction; use of press releases, interview transcriptions, quotes, and video interviews (aboutself via news reports); citing for "truth of the matter reported" vs. citing for the fact of reporting; citing to news org's tweets v. videos v. web pages v. printed media; use of vanity press and kayfabe; routine v. significant coverage of athletes, politicians, and other public figures. I've seen a lot of variety in local consensus on these issues in my short time here and it seems like it would be good for the community to discuss the current news environment and see what clarifications should be made to the existing guideline. ^Leviv_ich? ! 01:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some bits and pieces:
  • There was a discussion on my talk page some time ago about a time delay or embargo period before topics in the news could be considered notable: [26].
  • I also have a note of an earlier WP:NOT discussion: [27]
  • I have a list of people who asked to be pinged when a discussion like this came to life: JFG; TheGracefulSlick; Masem; L3X1; TonyBallioni; El_C; Atsme; BU Rob13; Mandruss; K.e.coffman; Rhododendrites; Tryptofish

EEng 05:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping, and I'd appreciate another one if there is an RfC.
  There are two separate issues here: unreliability of early reporting, and the need for "historical" perspective in some topic areas including politics. We've all witnessed the ill effects of both many times. I would support any enforced delay for content based on news media coverage, up to four weeks, including article creation for events. Emphasis on enforced, and this should be a new criterion at WP:SPEEDY.
  Readers accustomed to coming here for summaries of recent news, and editors accustomed to providing them, would simply have to accept that this is, after all, an encyclopedia, as painful as that adjustment would be. We needn't redefine that word simply because technology has made it possible to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Since news reports on current events tend to be less accurate, it might also be a good idea to make the {{Current}} template more prominent. Most of the articles linked in the Main Page's In the news section aren't tagged with {{Current}}, and the template isn't displayed in Wikipedia's mobile website or mobile apps. More precisely, you have to tap the easy-to-miss "Page issues" link in the mobile website to see it, and the apps don't show it at all.

Three suggestions:

1. Require In the news articles to be tagged with {{Current}}.
2. Increase the visibility of "initial news reports may be unreliable" in {{Current}} with bold, italic, underline, and/or a larger font size.
3. Display {{Current}} (and possibly other cleanup templates regarding article reliability) prominently in Wikipedia's mobile website and apps.

This would warn readers to be cautious when viewing articles on current events. — Newslinger talk 09:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I share the concerns mentioned by MastCell and Masem with regard to WP:NOTNEWS. I would love to see a policy change to slow the rate at which Wikipedia comments in depth on political conflicts and other breaking news. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - thanks for the ping, EEng. I figured it was only a matter of time before we'd be visiting this topic again; all the while hoping it wouldn't take as long as it did, but I've been practicing WP:IDGAF and have gotten pretty good at it. From my perspective, the problem stems from click-bait competition and the paradigm shift in how corporate media views the news as they try to adjust to the ever-expanding global market which is driven by a completely different demograhic and a huge s-pot full of new competition that caught them off-guard. Add to that, the fact that they are no longer hindered by the customary delays of print and distribute and it's much easier to publish apologies, corrections and retractions than it used to be... ("It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission"...or in media's case, fact-check). Unfortunately, sensationalism is back in all its glory as a result but it still all boils down to corporate media's bottomline; i.e., what they need to survive and be profitable, and I don't mean the latter in a derogatory way. The gray line between news, opinion and propaganda has grown exponentially, and as such it shifts more responsibility to WP editors. I'm of the mind that our PAGs actually do a good job of defining the pitfalls, and that what we need is enforcement; however, if the latter is an issue because of ambiguity in a particular policy or guideline, then by all means, let's fix it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing I see no good way to solve what Blueboar wants. Editors should use their brains in picking out RS stories to use, and I feel that would be better than attempting to legislate a holding time for articles before they can be used as sources. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the ping. Yes, this is a problem. In principle, I'd like to see better use of common sense by editors, but of course that isn't working. In my opinion, any kind of holding period is going to prove unworkable, and will do some harm along with the good. But I very much support Newslinger's idea about using the "current" template to label the problem more prominently. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The hard-and-fast 4 week waiting period seems wildly impractical. If Gerald Ford has just been eaten by wolves, it's silly for editors to sit on their hands waiting for some arbitrary time frame to pass before adding that information to the article - there's no possible reality where that story doesn't matter. Newslinger's suggestion seems relatively simple to implement, but these other issues are probably better handled by writing a supplemental essay rather than changing existing policy. Nblund ^talk 19:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Gerald had been eaten by wolves we could wait four weeks until we knew the full details and wrote an informed story that. We would lose nothing by waiting, other then inaccuracy caused by a desire to publish first. We are an encyclopedia, not a news paper.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what we can do. My recent bout of perplexity was, there was an unfortunate story about a missing airplane and a football/soccer player, instead of a sentence added to his article, there is practically instantaneously a mention in his article, and a whole new article, about so much that is unknown or so granular as to to just lead to, 'what, story-of-the-day ticker is this?'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one part of the problem: there is something I've seen about a sense of "conquest" to be the first to create a new article. (I know I feel a rush of pleasure to be the first to note a famous RD at In the News, among other things). I feel a lot of editors that do work in current news feel this. The most obvious solution would be to encourage them to go to Wikinews and do that , where that would be expected behavior, but everyone will complain Wikinews is DOA. The longer term solution is to get editors to recognize when a new article on a news-breaking story is appropriate or not, but that's going to require a lot of time to get that to sink in. More practically and in the short term, I think we should be able to be more BOLD and redirect news-story spinouts that, at the time, are seemingly unnecessary and where the details can be expressed in another article, like that plane disappearance. Should that story end up growing more significant, it can always be spun back out. But we need editors not to get upset and fight when such bold redirections are made. --Masem (t) 15:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think we need to make a change. If a specific use of a specific story from a specific newspaper is a problem, fix it yourself, and if someone objects, invite them into a discussion to work it out. That's how we do everything here. If it's important enough, it's important enough to actually go through the time to do that. Any blanket change to policy regarding the use of news sources is throwing out a giant baby in a tiny tub of bathwater. --Jayron32 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree no policy changes are needed but there are potential places to add in additional cautionary language ("Be aware of sensationalism and recentism that exists in 24/7 newscasting") in places. Moreso, this is more getting editors as a group to recognize how better to handle these situations, and this is something that exists throughout all expertise levels of editors, newbies to seniors. --Masem (t) 16:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that individual entries at famousbirthsdeaths.com are not reliable sources. For instance, https://www.famousbirthsdeaths.com/nf-bio-net-worth-facts/ has no author and there's no indication from where these "facts" are derived. SavageAlpaca7 (talk · contribs) disagrees, stating "*Do not change* source is properly stated". Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The site solicits additions and corrections from the public. It allows readers to vote on whether a person is dead or alive. It fails WP:RS by a few miles https://www.famousbirthsdeaths.com/about/ Collect (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable. Self-published source that uses user-generated content, similar to Famous Birthdays (RSP entry). According to the site, 68% of its readers voted that they think Tupac Shakur is alive. — Newslinger talk 11:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting info. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't use. If information is correct then it must be rather easy to find a WP:RS. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreliable. Poor even in the genre of celebrity biography spam sites. I'm seeing only four uses at this time. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the four uses as sources. There is some use in drafts that I didn't bother examining. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Mass removals which is (in my opinion) becoming heated and drifting in unproductive directions. The basic issue is in the specialty area of this noticeboard and would benefit from broader input, so I am starting a discussion here. The relevant parts of the discussion so far:

• JzG has been removing references in chemistry articles to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names. A recent example is this removal of a reference to this page that is used to support the assertion that "triazofos is a chemical compound used in acaricides, insecticides, and nematicides." Objections to removals of references to the PAN Pesticide Database have also been raised.
• Edgar181 and Leyo have objected to removals on the grounds that the articles are worse without the references or replacements being included, and also questioned JzG's expertise in chemistry. Edgar181 has posted that "I have found [the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names] to be an entirely accurate database (much more so than sources such as, for example, the PubChem database which is much more widely used on Wikipedia chemistry articles). I have used it mainly out of convenience because it is so easy to source this basic information. I have no objection if someone wants to replace it with a different source, but I object to the simple blanket deletion of all references citing this source."
• JzG has pointed out that evidence of editorial oversight or other indicia are needed to establish WP:RS – which is correct, of course.
• However, it seems to me that WP:SPS may apply to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names as it is maintained by Alan Wood, who has for several years served on the British Standards Institution / International Organization for Standardization committee that assigns common names to pesticides. This appointment is recorded on the website. Assuming this information was confirmed (which could be easily done by contacting the Secretary of the Committee), and noting that the information being provided is not controversial, would the Compendium be considered an RS under SPS?
• JzG, would you be willing to stop these removals while a discussion is held? Edgar181, Leyo, and any others, are there other sources you wish to raise and other evidence of reliability or the expertise of the publisher to consider under SPS? The PAN Pesticide Database appears to me to be maintained by an advocacy organisation, so I am unsure that it could be used to support any controversial information.
• I will post a notice of this discussion at WT:CHEM.

Thanks to all for your input and thoughts. EdChem (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further thought, regarding the PAN Pesticide Database... JzG has removed this reference to the database's page on sulfur. It was supporting the statement that elemental sulfur "can cause redness in the eyes and skin, a burning sensation and a cough if inhaled, a burning sensation and diarrhea if ingested." As a chemist, I can say that I'm confident on the accuracy of the information. I'm also confident that it could be found in a much better source, like (for a start) the MSDS for sulfur. However, in removing the source, we lose the link to the symptoms which is followed by "Source for Symptoms: Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning, 5th edition, U.S. EPA, Chapter 8. March 1999. (EPA R&M)" – and so, the PAN source actually points to a vastly better source. If the conclusion is that the PAN Database is judged to be a non-RS, would providing a list of all pages on which it was used by possible so that superior sources (potentially linked from the Database) could be provided? Alternatively, would JzG restore these and allow time for replacements to be sourced? EdChem (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is routine.

There are two sites under consideration here.

Pesticide Action Network, an activist group. From their website: For too long, pesticide and biotech corporations have dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities. PAN works with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem — and reclaim the future of food and farming. Does that sound like a neutral source for toxicity data? It sounds more like the EWG's Dirty Dozen to me. In many cases their classification was being treated as a significant thing in their own right, but always self-sourced: PAN calls it highly toxic, source, PAN calling it highly toxic. They may even be right, but they have a definite dog in the fight and in virtually every case a more neutral source exists and should be used.

Alan Wood’s Web site, Alanwood.net. This is being presented as "the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names", but here's the site's About page: About Alan Wood. It is, unquestionably, a personal website, a one man project by a retired information scientist. Alan Wood appears to be a smart man and certainly knowledgeable, but it's a personal website. There's no editorial board, no oversight, none of the indicia of RS. We're being asked here to accept that he is sufficiently expert on his chosen fields - character sets, microscopes and toxicology - that we can take his word as fact despite lack of any peer review. I can see how we'd get away with that for character sets (some of his WP:HOWTO content is very useful) but for toxicology, we're into WP:MEDRS territory.

Thus, I removed both. Because removing unreliable sources is kind of my thing. And yes, it gets pushback sometimes, because these sites are often considered useful or interesting, but we do have this whole thing about reliability and independence. A site can be right about something and still not reliable. Reliability is not judged by our personal review of information for accuracy, after all. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re PAN: I don't see how "activist group" and "works ... to tackle the pesticide problem" could be mentioned to claim a disqualification. Every newspaper we cite, every company, every government policy and what else, all may have a policy running (not always hidden), and so have a dog and an interest in the race. I do not understand what your reference to Dirty Dozen means. (This article has half a dozen sources straight from the producing company). -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect for all of the participants in this discussion, based on what I see, I oppose citations to PAN and any SPS or blogs. For me an "activist group" and "works ... to tackle the pesticide problem" is absolutely a disqualification. SPS's generally devolve into something spammy or vain, often praising the author and his credentials. I want agenda-less sources. Nothing is perfect, but starting with an agenda seems unlikely path to provide info that will allow readers to draw their own conclusions. We have been through some of this type of debate with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), a collection of many PhD's (with lofty sounding titles) with the specific agenda of discrediting the use of fluoride for dental health. FAN basically doesnt exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that "activism" by itself is not an argument. There may be other arguments sure, but not that one. IOW, once that part of the argumentation is struck (removed), does the objection still stand? And inverse: if activist Greenpeace has a sample researched for toxity, does that make the result not OK? -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are making it difficult. Personally I dont like the term activist. Being a tree-hugger, I admire some aspects of Greenpeace, but as an editor I would hope that we can get sources other than Greenpeace to support our text.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A pressure group, which PAN is, can't be an authority for information on the thing they are committed to doing away with. They may or may not have a valid view, which could be quoted if it's noted by independent sources, but being an NGO does not confer any legitimacy here. DePiep, this is perfectly normal. We can quote activist organisations if their views are independently assessed as significant, but we can't accept them as an authority in competition to the governmental bodies covering the same subject area. I take it that the personal website is not controversial here. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Is what I am saying from start: the fact that they do advocacy does not say anything about being a RS. No status (NGO or other) by itself can claim authority or reliability. Nor does it do the opposite. Your argument is elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am addressing that specifically. There is no evidence of authority, and its status as a pressure group indicates that caution is merited, therefore we should not present it as an authority. Which is exactly how we normally handle these things. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear since my comments were copied here from another discussion: I have added alanwood.net as a reference to chemistry articles because I find that I can rely on its factual accuracy; I object to its blanket removal from Wikipedia articles unless it is replaced with another source. For the other website, the PAN Pesticide Database, I am sympathetic with those that have expressed concerns about using it as a source, especially for potentially controversial content, based on its perceived lack of neutrality. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, though, WP:IFINDITACCURATE is not policy whereas WP:RS is. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But "WP:IFINDITACCURATE" and WP:RS are not distinct. WP:RS unavoidably relies on editors making judgements about the accuracy of sources. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Breitbart has an editorial process and article review, but we find it unreliable. But a one man site with no editorial process? It's very, very unusual to find one of those counted as reliable. The only one I can remember was so massively spammed by its owner that people just assumed it was dependable. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There's pretty much no question that PAN, a fringe advocacy group, should not have ever been used as a source due to lack of fact checking, so removing that is pretty uncontroversial. The Alan Wood site is indeed an SPS, so that shouldn't really be reached outright, but the WP:ONUS is on those wanting to include specific content.

I can't figure out why people are making a fuss over removing those sources though. The sources were either removed without removing the content or else it's there in the article history. There's no need to stretch for a low quality source though. There's NPIRS' database or straight from the EPA that includes pesticides that aren't currently registered in the US. Those are also much more likely to remain updated compared to a personal website. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alan Wood's website (Compendium of Pesticides Common Names) doesn't violate WP:SPS:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Wood has been a member of the BSI/ISO committee and can therefore be considered an established expert. He's still the chairperson of the technical committee within ISO standardizing common names for pesticides and agrochemicals. An ISO Standard is a reliable third-party publication.

The compendium itself is updated within weeks of ISO's updates.

The compendium is also a reliable source used in a website chemists all over the world (in both academic and industrial environment) utilize daily: ChemSpider is created by the Royal Society of Chemistry. And it is one of the reference sources for the Göttingen State and University Library.

Furthermore, Wood's work was referenced in a peer-reviewed journal in 2003: Chemie in unserer Zeit is maintained by the Society of German Chemists.

I have no objection in the use of the compendium as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.

Georginho (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One cite 15 years ago? Er, right. And it seems that Chemspider has the review that Wood's website does not, so we can cite that instead. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the age of a citation matters. In an academic article, pesticides are referred to by their common names without the authors having to cite sources to prove that these common names are correct. The article I link was used by the author to bring Wood's website to the attention of a broader scientific community.

The downside of ChemSpider is its crowdsourcing aspect. It's meant to be a database of millions of molecules, as an alternative to, e.g., CAS. ChemSpider is free, but it needs crowdsourcing. CAS is proprietary, but it's reliable because the molecules are entered by full-time scientists in one center in the US. If you ask chemists (like myself) and agrochemists, they will certainly use Wood's compendium as reference work, not ChemSpider.

Georginho (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And the downside of Wood's website is its no-other-sourcing aspect. There does not appear to be any indepndent review of content, so unless he is infallible we should not be using this as a source in this way. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the no-other-sourcing and independent-review bits. WP:SPS gives room for established experts. He's one. He updates his compendium according to ISO updates. His work is accepted as reliable by chemists from what we've seen in the academic article I mentioned above and even in the patent I linked below. Chemists at the biggest agrochemical company in the world view Wood's compendium as an important source, so significant that it was included in their patent.

I don't understand your objection in using his website. Chemists at WikiProject Chemistry accept it as authoritative. Will it be easier for you if we can invite any agrochemist editor to give his/her opinion here (albeit I'm not sure how to find one)? Or shall we contact a couple of agrochemical companies like Syngenta and Bayer? Or we can contact an agrochemist professor (which may be easier).

Georginho (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this person also an "expert" in the greek alphabet, Microsoft Word, Mac OS fonts, pesticides or the dozens of other articles this website (which really appears to be a hobby site) this is spammed on? I'd say this is closer to refspam than anything that satisfies reasonable inclusion. Praxidicae (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the case, as the author is also an expert on unicode. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• From what I can see, PAN, apart from failing as an RS (its an advocacy group, you might as well cite PETA for facts about animals instead of a biologist published by an independant reliable publisher), was being used in part for medical information, and PAN doesnt come remotely close to being MEDRS compliant. RE Wood's website. Its clearly a self-published website and so only useable per SPS. Is he an expert? I would say given his career he certainly qualifies as an expert on "standardizing common names for pesticides and agrochemicals." I would even extend that to general information about pesticides. I am not so certain he would qualify as an expert for everything about chemicals/pesticides though at a more technical level. I cant imagine if its contained in his website it couldnt be found in more reliable sources. Like any SPS I would say the individual content matters. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if anyone has read http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Docs/data.html#AccuracyofData prior to stating an opinion on the reliability of this database. --Leyo 01:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This paraphrases what I just wrote over here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Mass removals. I agree that pesticideinfo.org and alanwood.org are self-published and thus fail WP:RS. I also believe that both are very accurate, but that is beside the point. My point is that simply removing all citations to them without replacing them with better sources is more problematic than leaving things alone. It would be better leave them in place and add an appropriate sourcing template (like "questionable source" or "medical source needed" or whatever) than to have no source at all. This is especially true when the information being sourced is not in dispute and the existing source, like pesticideinfo.org, provides the references to more authoritative and WP-compliant sources. In other words, pesticideinfo.org provides citations to reliable sources for just about everything it says. So rather than completely removing the citation to pesticideinfo.org it would be better to change the citation to whatever pesticideinfo.org is citing. But that's a lot of work. If you are not willing to do it yourself, at least give others to opportunity to by leaving the citation to pesticideinfo.org in, and adding a tag. Nothing is gained by leaving things unsourced. (At least when we're talking about content that no one disputes. I agree that more aggressive removals are called for if there's an actual content dispute, but that's not the case here.) Yilloslime (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually 'removing but leaving the material if its not contentious' is a perfectly fine option where the material is likely correct but needs a better source. See WP:CHALLENGE part of WP:V. The only time material should be removed outright when the source fails reliability - is if its obviously suspect in some way, or its material related to a living person per WP:BLP. So thats well in line with current written policy and practice. Keep in mind that an alternative is that any editor would be justified in removing the material outright because of obviously SPS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly these references should not be removed without replacing them. alanwood.org is very likely accurate given that the person is an expert. That site will not fail the RS just because it is self published. There may be better sources with more oversight and checking, but until they are located and inserted the others should not be removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Graeme Bartlett. Like I mentioned in my comment above, chemists view Alan Wood's Compendium as a reliable source. In fact, I would like to add that even agrochemists at Syngenta also used the compendium as reference work in 2012.

I strongly support the use of the compendium.

Georginho (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday somebody added some Who's Who links to biographies of UK politicians (such as here and here). I mentioned it at the helpdesk and was advised to post here. Any thoughts on this? Is its use ok in this particular context? This is Paul (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who (UK) doesn't fill me with confidence. It doesn't look as though they do sufficient fact checking to be as reliable as I'd like. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The information is supplied by the subject, and the entries are generally paid for. This is not an independent source. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It's definitely unreliable, but as subjects write their own entries [28] it could be considered a self-published source and permitted for basic information as per WP:ABOUTSELF. – Teratix ₵ 12:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With in text attribution, perhaps. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not even sure then, but maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Entries aren't paid for - people considered sufficiently notable are asked by the publishers for details - and entries are to some degree fact-checked by the editors. It's an extremely well-known and trusted publication in the UK - I can't see any justification for calling it "self-published". Yes, its main source of information is the person concerned, but I'm not sure this is much different to a reputable newspaper publishing an article about someone based on an interview with them, or a published autobiography, both of which I think we'd accept as sources within their limits. WP:PRIMARY - "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." TSP (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (Edit-conflicting with above but agreeing with it.) The people to be included are decided (idiosyncratically) by the editorial team. However, the content of the entries is certainly influenced, are to some extent decided, by the subjects.[29][30][31][32] I think a reliable source would be helpful for the comment above that "the entries are generally paid for". As I understand it the British Who's Who is distinct from some other versions in not accepting payment but I don't have a reference to hand for the non-UK situation. So, it is a guide to notability and needs to be handled carefully for reliability. Thincat (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are right, the payments does not refer to the original British Who's Who. There you can only get in by being nominated by a trade association or inheriting something or whatever. But the information is still provided, fundamentally, by the subject. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think some editors are asserting that Who's Who is paid for based on their experience in the US, where there is a history of Who's Who scams. The UK Who's Who (that is, the one published by A & C Black under the Bloomsbury imprint - a reputable publisher) does not sell entries and is thus at least independent in the sense that the entries are not paid for. Research and evidence is needed to show that fact-checking applied to the information provided in questionnaires, though. If it is purely lifted straight from the questionnaires then that would be a primary source (although there is nothing wrong with primary sources). There may of course still be a spam issue here even if this is a reliable source. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK< this needs to be cleared up, can someone produce a source for the claim you can but your way in?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Although many have tried, you can't buy or bluff your [sic] onto the list." - BBC News

OK, theh I see no reason why this would be any less reliable then then writing a book about themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But we don't usually accept all a subject's claims. Eg we have articles on people who claimed qualifications they don't have. Without factchecking how is it reliable? The same thing goes for birthdates - some people claim to be younger than they really are. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I was ambivalent in my first post here. We can use it, as long as we attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See this article in The Spectator (the house journal of the British establishment, and a publication one would expect to be fawningly deferential to the sort of people listed). Who's Who is not only notoriously inaccurate, but because they promise to respect the entries submitted by their subjects, they include inaccuracies and fabrications even when they know the entries are inaccurate or fabricated. I can't see any circumstances in which WW is a reliable source for anything other than as a primary source for the contents of WW (e.g. "Iain Duncan Smith claimed in his Who's Who entry to have attended the University of Perugia, something he later admitted fabricating" could cite the relevant WW entry as a primary source. As with our other regular dubious source, Mail Online, if Who's Who is claiming something and you can find another reliable source, use the other reliable source; if Who's Who is claiming something and you can't find another reliable source, it's highly likely to be fake. ‑ Iridescent 15:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this means is that it is only as inaccurate as any other primary source - a liar who is interviewed may lie, a truth-teller interviewed may tell the truth. It does not make Who's Who an unreliable source per se for what these people have said about themselves. "According to A.N. Other's Who's Who entry, their hobbies are XYZ" seems an appropriate way of treating it. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that at the time. I have had a few friends with entries, and it was suggested that one of them had included an obviously bogus fact, which had been solemnly reproduced. This gentleman had a puckish sense of humour so it had truthiness, but I never verified it. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid inclusion; self-promotional, inconsistent, all bad things for an encyclopedia. Editors should be encouraged to review an Who's Who for a Bio article we might have to see what claims can be corroborated for inclusion, but that's using good sources that can be found. --Masem (t) 15:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Its about as useful as any other primary source. Basic biographical information is likely correct (where born, schooling etc, age is a bit more problematic). And by basic I mean the bare bones. EG if an entry says 'Blah excelled at sports when attending X school' - it wouldnt mention Blah failed all his exams and was expelled, so at best you could say they once attended school X. This is a purely made up example, but there are plenty of entries in Who's Who UK that are thinly disguised whitewashes, its about as trusted as a Daily Mail interview. To follow up on Iri's comment above. If IDS claimed in an interview he attended a certain university, and we had no evidence he didnt, it would likely be included in his biography until some reason to suspect it was false. The alternative is assuming everyone lies about everything about themselves. Which may be accurate, but unfair. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some facets of a bio article that if the only source is a self-statement that we should be cautious to include. Where someone grew up or went to school, that's reasonable to include from a self-statement. But stating something like they were their valedictorian of their class, or won a obscure award, or the like, that's something I'd not include if the only source is that self-statement. --Masem (t) 00:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought that was the point I was making? :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Ha. Reading that Spectator article, I was just left wondering whether Wikipedia is an ersatz Who's Who, or is Who's Who an ersatz Wikipedia? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 235#Forebears that Forebears.io was not considered a reliable source. Can people confirm whether this is still the case or not? We have a good-faith contributor, User:Pamrel, who is creating pages (like Puska (surname) or Pellegrini (surname)) and adding sections (like on Weimar) based solely on this site; but it is unclear where they get their data from or why it should be considered reliable. Fram (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to indicate they have changed, so not it is still not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally unreliable self-published source. Many of their pages have an invitation to "Submit Information on This Surname for a Chance to Win a $100 Genealogy DNA Test", which means the site is full of user-generated content. According to the site's credits page, the site's "Historical data and reference" comes from FamilySearch (RSP entry) (generally unreliable) and the National Archives of Ireland (likely reliable), but doesn't specifically indicate which sources are used for each page. Since none of the content on Forebears is original, it would be best to avoid this site altogether and to cite the sources that it scrapes its data from (when those sources are reliable). Note that the forebears.io and forebears.co.uk domains appear to go to the same website. — Newslinger talk 11:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I'll start removing the site then, unless other information comes to light. Fram (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is 45.com a reliable source? Can it be used in any circumstances? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this [[33]], seems to indicate it is user generated.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This website seems to fall under WP:AFFILIATE: "Although the content guidelines for external links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". But looking at the link above, it seems it is user-generated, so no. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally unreliable self-published source. Their help page confirms that their entries are most likely all user-generated content. The only source they disclose is user contributions: "If you have a record in your collection and it's not on our database then please help us along by clicking Add 45." and "You can help create biographies for every artist and label on 45cat (not just the "notable" ones unlike some websites!). Every artist and label has a "Create Biography" link - or if the biography already exists, then you can edit it with any improvements or additions you have." show that 45cat is very similar to Discogs (RSP entry) and Rate Your Music (RSP entry), both of which are generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 12:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's all pretty clear. Personally, I find the images of record labels at 45cat, with artist and composer names, as well as Catalogue numbers, clearly shown, a very useful resource and sometimes more reliable than dicscogs.com. But then I also tend to find discogs about 99% reliable too. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited editors from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music to participate in this discussion, as they are likely to be more familiar with this source than I am. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Like discogs.com, this site is reliable is as far as showing that a specific pressing of a recording existed. Its content is otherwise not reliable. The converse cannot be supported: if the recording does not appear on the site it never existed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree with you 100%, Walter. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Its been discussed some in the past,and this was the conclusion that was come to then as well. (Its already listed as a source to stay away from at music source list.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I searched the archive here but failed to find. Any link would be much appreciated. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikiprojects often host their own discussions and keep their own lists. I linked to it in my comment above, but to clarify, see WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC for music lists, WP:VG/S for the video game one, and...there’s a few more like a movie one, but I don’t gave those memorized. Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*???. Is there an actual problem that you are trying to address? Like discogs, it's mainly used on WP as a pointer to liner notes in picture and/or text form. Chubbles says it way better below. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I find discogs.com images sadly lacking. 45cat has photos of labels and is often useful for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is user-generated, like IMDB or Discogs. I don't use it for citations and don't encourage the use of it in that way. However...almost every usage of it as a reference is verifying basic catalog information about a published sound recording, of the sort that is essentially uncontroversial almost all of the time. Given that it often has images in addition to text, it's a great informal place to find track listings and credits of recordings, and it has a lot of information that is not otherwise available online - its photographs allow users to check discographical information without having to track down a physical copy of a recording. I can't imagine doubting an editor's discographical contributions merely because the information came from 45cat, and I think that anything that is sourced to places like Discogs and 45cat should, rather than being stingily removed, be converted to a reference to the recording itself when and if a citation is needed. Chubbles (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I added a view by Dr. Gustav Solomon Oppert to article Vanniyar but Sitush (talk · contribs) immediately termed it as unreliable as it supposedly belonged to the British Colonial India and removed the edit. On the other hand Sitush seems to be okay quoting material from other sources that were based upon events that transpired during the Colonial period in India when it favors his POV. So requesting other users to comment on the reliability of this source.

Article: Vanniyar

Content:

..the Pallis or Pallavas of southern India once held a very high position, as rulers of the country, at the time of the invasions of the Chalukyas..

Source: ^[1]

Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, its a very old source and modern scholarship may have overturned it. But he was an notable expert in his field, and so might be OK if attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Oppert's view as per the above content lends credence to the view that the Pallis (also called Vanniyar) are the Pallavas. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be a view form about 80 years ago [[34]]], but finding no more modern scholarship. But POV (as in "its British" (even if it is in fact German)) is not a valid objection to a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (with Bish) Who has suggested the problem is that it is British? Or German? I am mystified yet again. The issues with British Raj era sources is HISTRS, methodology, prevailing theories, inherent credulousness, purpose not being academic etc. Nothing much to do with nationality of the authors. If you don't know what you're talking about, say nowt. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said "belonged to the British Colonial India", thus I took that to mean the objection was to it being a source from the British empire. Now I had no idea what had been said between you two, and had to assume what is says is an accurate reflection of the dispute. Looking (now) at the talk page you say Raj era. So it was the OP that suggested it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But why on earth not look at the situation before commenting? Anyone who hangs around the boards as much as you do should be aware that caste topics are contentious and complaints often misrepresented. AS for the OP, I think it would have been better if they had notified me of this discussion, and even more so if they had put a notification in the relevant article talk page thread, which is what I am about to do if no-one has beaten me to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I answered the question he asked (it it would not be the first time a wider issue has been placed within a more specific issue, would it?, and he does seem to be trying to make a wider point) If you look I make it clear I am not sure about the source (note the stuff about modern scholarship), because of its age. But I also stand by the idea that whilst a "raj era" source may not be RS for facts, it is an RS for its opinion. And thus (as long as the claim is attributed) is could be included. I see nothing that dissuades me from that opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to this not being about British sources, so would a source published in (say) 1896 be an RS for any fact about Indian myth or history?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the information Bish and I have linked to below or are you just continuing what seems to be a stream of conciousness? I'm reminded of A. E. Housman: "Three minutes thought would have told him he was wrong; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time". Please, step back, read up on the background and consider the implications of what you suggest as it applies to a notoriously awkward topic area that is subject to not one but two different sanctions regimes. I spend far too much time here retreading old ground and it is tiresome, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What am I suggesting, I asked you if "not sources form the era of the RAj" is a blanket ban on all sources form that era, its a suimple yes or not (and by the way, your user page does not have the force of policy).Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. You're wasting my time, just as you do that of many others. I'd rather get on with building the encyclopaedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am talking about. Sitush and his cronies term any and all resources that talk of a Palli-Pallava connection as being unreliable. They remove any edits made to the article if it talks of a Pallava connection no matter how reliable the source is. Nittawinoda (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, and I resent the suggestion that I am tag-teaming or something similar. I am my own person. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that Nittawinoda has now in at least three different places offered the hair-raising argument that because sources written during the Raj era (a period of "scientific racism", see [35]) are unreliable for Wikipedia, there is some sort of problem with using modern academic sources about events during the Raj era. Here, on my talkpage, and on his own talkpage. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what one thing has to do with another. Are these events supposed to never be spoken of? Edit warring based on such clueless reasoning will soon lead to a block or ban. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Yep. There is also some background at the hopelessly incomplete User:Sitush/CasteSources. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Nittawinoda has been focused on messing up caste articles indulging in false glorification, Sources provided by Nittawinoda are not reliable. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111[reply]

Not all of them have been unreliable but many have because I think they've fallen into the trap of searching for specific things that they want to prove rather than reading generally and just reflecting the outcome of that reading. It is a common mistake. We're drifting off-topic anyway with comments like this. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus on using Dr. Oppert's source as a reference? I see that atleast one other editor Slatersteven (talk · contribs) is alright with using it as a reference in the Vanniyar article. Nittawinoda (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nittawinoda: I can't find any reason to use it. I can find a couple of academic references to his work on Jewish issues and one on his Prester John work. And the Jstor article "A Longing for India: Indophilia among German-Jewish Scholars of the Nineteenth Century". Evidently "He developed the theory of a pre-Aryan/Semitic race called Bharatas in India. Basing his theory on language and religion, 'which in matters of this kind are the most reliable and precious sources of information,'[his words] he claimed that these agricultural Bharatas - a branch of the Finnish-Hungarian race - had settled in India before they were invaded by the pastoralist Aryan and Semitic ancestors". He said that as they worshipped a matriarchal deity they were inferior to the invaders. I don't think I'd touch him with a barge pole for the suggested purpose. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barge pole is about 4 meters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But in the UK it is commonly said that "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot bargepole". 4 m (13 ft). Oh, well, that's metrication for you! - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nittawinoda, the consensus is going to be "not reliable". I think even Slatersteven may now realise this. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put words into users mouths, I have asked a question you have refused to answer, are all 19thc sources about India unreliable? Do not take my agreeing (by qauiescence) to stop talking about this with you due to your desire to stop talking to me about it as agreement, it is curtsy. I would not have responded here to you but for you misrepresentation of my position.10:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

I said I think. You're a timesink and, frankly, a clueless nuisance, so I've no actual interest in your opinion anyway. I've already answered your question if only you bothered to read the links that were given. Those links collate stuff precisely to save time, not to waste more of it. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Another reason to see that the proposed source and text is not suitable is to consider that it says "once held a very high position, as rulers of the country". That is a WP:REDFLAG claim. If true, there would be multiple reliable sources with detailed information. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

do people think that this publication is a reliable source for lava tubes in the Payún Matrú volcanic field? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who is Carlos Benedetto?Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the president of the Argentine Speleological Society. I see his name mentioned a number of times in newspapers, when the context is Argentine caves. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever heard about Game Data Library? It has been added to a few pages like Go Vacation and Luigi's Mansion and, as per the discussion over on Anthonymouses talkpage I cant find anything about it on Google. Thoughts? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Self-published source. According to the site's about page, "GameDataLibrary is a one man project". The author's name is not revealed on the site, and the site is hosted on Google Sites, a self-publishing platform. — Newslinger talk 10:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've invited editors from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources to participate in this discussion. — Newslinger talk 10:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And if that’s the case, then it generally not going to be considered a usable source on Wikipedia. There’s a million self-run amateur video game websites/blogs out there. The only difference here appears to be that they chose a bit more professional name than your average “Super Frank64 Rants About Video Games”. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I also don't see any hallmarks of editorial credibility/pedigree for purposes of republication in an encyclopedia. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Falls into SPS, not usable or reliable. --Masem (t) 17:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Filter 894 (log) has had no meaningful effect on the rate of addition of self-published material from vanity presses. The filter picks up:

• AuthorHouse / Author House authorhouse.com - insource / all links, see also AuthorHouse / Author House
• Trafford Publishing trafford.com - insource / all links
• iUniverse iuniverse.com - insource / all links
• Lulu.com lulu.com - insource / all links
• Xlibris xlibris.com - insource / all links

Note that these searches turn up only a subset of the likely total, search is not especially reliable, regex searches in CirrusSearch are expensive and a definitive search, for example, /publisher\s*-\s*author\s*house/i, times out.

There is definitely a mix here of outright spamming, good-faith additions by people who don't know about the vanity press model, and a very small minority that are, by consensus, legitimate sources.

In many cases the links are not to the publisher's website, they are to Google Books or Amazon (a problem in itself), so just blacklisting the domains would not fix the problem.

What, if anything, can we do about this? I must have removed several thousand references to vanity presses over time and the numbers are growing much faster than any one person can remove them. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strengthening MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished might help. The icon can be changed to File:Information orange.svg or File:Nuvola apps important.svg, the same ones used in level 2-3 warning templates. The message can include a sentence, preferably in bold, briefly explaining and linking to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If this isn't effective, then the message should also caution editors that spamming will lead to a block, and inform them that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags (as seen in {{Uw-spam3}}). — Newslinger talk 13:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is easy to do, so I have done it. Let's see if it makes a difference. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. — Newslinger talk 14:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the strengthening of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished, but if I am allowed to, I have a suggestion concerning the grammar:

and can lead to your being blocked or banned from Wikipedia (current)

and may lead to you being blocked or banned from Wikipedia (suggested rephrasing)

I am not a native speaker though. --Leyo 21:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​The words can and your are technically correct in this context, since can expresses the possibility of something happening, and your being is allowed according to Merriam-Webster's usage notes. I think your suggested rephrasing sounds more natural when read out loud, though. — Newslinger talk 03:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's copied from the warning templates. It's a templated message anyway: {{edit filter warning}}. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the grammar lesson. --Leyo 22:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ecastles.co.uk: 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

I came across this site a while back, I checked the site and could find no indication at all that it meets WP:RS (there isn't even an About page). The only reference to the site owners is "©Castles and Fortifications of England and Wales", and Google links that straight back to the original website and this personal web page, which I think is the owner. Nothing about this says WP:RS, but I have had one removal challenged so I am bringing it here. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Self-published source. The site doesn't give any explanation for how the content was compiled. Its home page has an "email me" link, which suggests that "Castles and Fortifications of England and Wales" is managed by just one anonymous author. — Newslinger talk 12:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England. — Newslinger talk 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree wit the above, unless it can be shown he is an regarded expert in his field.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When searching for sources, this is one site that has popped up many times over the years. Past discussion has indicated it as an unreliable source. It's easy to see why, because anyone can write for it. However, there's also staff writers like Simon Gallagher. Perhaps we should use this as a case-by-case thing, much like Sputnikmusic and Dotdash (formerly About.com)? Kokoro20 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd avoid it for RS, fine for RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 17:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say avoid as well. I would not call it UNreliable... but anything it covers will have better, far MORE reliable sources easily available. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not even sure about opinion if it is user generated.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except, it's not entirely user generated. Articles written by staff do exist, like I mention above. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but to what degree? We would have to have an "only if written by staff", and even then do the staff just rewrite user generated content, is there an editorial policy? There are just too many possible problems for us to not just go to better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for input on whether the website https://stopterrorfinance.org/, operated by The Consortium Against Terrorist Finance, should be considered a reliable source. I realize this may be a little late since the website no longer works, but it's still in use as a source for a lot of articles such as Wahhabism, Qatar Charity, Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism, Madid Ahl al-Sham, Army of Conquest, Al-Qaeda, and Qatar Investment Authority. In every instance it's used as a source, it pertains only controversies surrounding Qatar, strangely enough. It is used as a source for this rather controversial and vague statement in Wahhabism:

The Assalam Mosque is located in Nantes, France was also a source on some controversy. Construction on the mosque began in 2009 and was completed in 2012. It is the largest mosque in its region in France. The mosque is frequently listed among examples of Qatar’s efforts to export Wahhabism, their extreme and often intolerant version of Islam, throughout Europe.

Another interesting quote which I found on the Al-Qaeda article attributed to this website is:

Qatar finances al-Qaeda's enterprises through al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra. The funding is primarily channeled through kidnapping for ransom. The Consortium Against Terrorist Finance (CATF) reported that the Gulf country has funded al-Nusra since 2013.

This is contentious because according to FT: "Yet allegations that the Qataris have – directly or indirectly – helped Jabhat al-Nusrah have not gone away. At least one Arab government recently said as much, although experts on jihadi movements say the extremist group’s funding comes from al-Qaeda in Iraq and from private donors in the Gulf, not from governments." A statement as contentious as this should be very well-supported.

The website has 47 results for "Qatar", which is more than all the other Persian Gulf states combined (Saudi Arabia has 16 results, UAE has 3 results, Bahrain has 4 results, and Kuwait has 8 results); it's also worth mentioning that most of these hits for the other Gulf countries are mostly mentions in articles focused on Qatar's activities. I bring this point up because the terrorism financing of Qatar certainly doesn't surpass that of its neighbors like this website seems to suggest, leading me to question its reliability as the sole source for Qatar-related controversies. Several websites and organizations have been created by Qatar's neighbors to denigrate its image as a result of political disputes (such as the similar sounding www.stopqatarnow.com), and this doesn't look very different. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a dead link as is their use on Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, I'm perplexed by its link between Wahhabism and Qatar, as I'm sure Wahhabism is more typically considered to be more centred on Saudi Arabia than Qatar (§Definitions and etymology has some background on this; although the perceived idolatry of having an eponymous "branch" of Islam muddies the water somewhat), and the two countries are fairly distinct from one another, especially following the recent political falling-out between the two countries (to the point that deliberate misinformation against Qatar does not seem implausible). I'm honestly skeptical of the claims in the source, although I can't say I know the literature well enough to provide alternatives/contradictions off-the-cuff. Are there any other sources that reliably substantiate the claims? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked for reliable sources for both quoted statements. For the Assalam mosque, it goes without saying there's some controversy, but nothing like what's written in the Wahhabism article - in fact I'm pretty sure I read that same sentence 100 times before with 'Saudi Arabia' instead of 'Qatar' the other 99 times. Even the Gatestone Institute, while wary of Qatar's influence on Qatar, doesn't make any claims of exporting Wahhabism or terrorism or whatever, nor is Qatar's specific form of Wahhabism considered an "extreme and intolerant version" (it's more liberal than Saudi's). For the second sentence, as with most allegations of funding groups during the Syrian Civil War, it is very hard to prove. While there are allegations that Qatar supported Al Nusra with weapons (whether directly or indirectly) to topple Assad, there's no concrete dates or proof that there was official contact between the state and group rather than private donors and the group (see FT article above).

To me, this has all the hallmarks of an Emirati or Saudi smear website, similar to the way the UAE uses the Foundation for Defense of Democracies to try and influence the US' relationship with Qatar through misconstrued facts (the FDD is also used as references on some of the articles above), and also similar to the UAE's release of several multimillion dollar movies accusing Qatar of terrorism. In fact it strikes me that all of the articles above were edited by a paid editor, and I'm pretty sure I found 4 socks of the same user who has a very special and unique interest in writing only about Qatar's ties to 'terrorism' using mostly primary sources, FDD and stopterrorfinance.com. I found it all very suspect since they account for probably the majority of edits to any Qatar-related topics in the past several years aside from my own edits. Anyway sorry for the wall of text - I recognized my own bias on this messy topic and don't want to be unilaterally 'white-wash' these articles without hearing community input. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The site e-flux.com (articles: e-flux, e-flux publications, Supercommunity) appears to be a website that accepts press releases and other material for a fee from museums and other cultural organizations, and publishes them on their site. See the paragraph under heading, "What are e-flux's announcements?" on their About page. Dozens of articles on Wikipedia on artists, curators, galleries, and museums use this site as a source. This doesn't sound very much like a reliable source to me. Can we get opinions on this? Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we would need to use this rather then the originals anyway. I think we need to know what it is being used for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask if Radio Farda can be considered a reliable source on the Sepideh Gholian. In addition I know that HRW is RS but is this source reliable? Saff V. (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also how about the reliability of this community on this article?Saff V. (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, as it used to be a white propaganda station during the cold war. I would so OK with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:, Are all three OK?Saff V. (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see, Radio Farda is part of radio free Europe (the thing I was referring to). HRW (as far as I know) a general considered an RS for their views, but needs attribution. iranhumanrights, unsure about, might be better to use clear cut RS, anything they say worthy of inclusion will appear elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFE/RL is a serious news organization and should be considered reliable, but I think attribution is called for on subjects that are close to its propagandistic mission. Eperoton (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]