Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.

While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Additional notes:
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Search the noticeboard archives

List of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280
281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290
291, 292, 293, 294, 295

Newslaundry on OpIndia[edit]

GENERALLY RELIABLE
There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient.
Newslaundry is reliable based on its awards, retractions, transparency and what's known of its editorial procedures/standards, in absence of any compelling case to the contrary. While it would help to have a complete picture of its editorial policies, absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
For the specific question that was asked, attribution being present, it is acceptable on reliability grounds. On a personal note, this does not amount to a consensus to include; please consider WP:DUE (and other aspects, if any), which this noticeboard does not, and therefore, did not address. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines targeting the leftists, liberals and Muslims.[1] Mainstream media and the political opposition (esp. Indian National Congress) were oft-criticized; posts published by OpIndia Hindi from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.[1] On February 12, OpIndia had organised an ideological seminar featuring prominent figures from right wing intelligentsia[2]; Newslaundry noted the seminar to have spread communally charged conspiracy theories about the Kathua rape case, equate the Shaheen Bagh protests to formation of mini-Pakistan and engage in other Islamophobic discourse.[2]

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

Do they have an editorial policy? I cannot find it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Newslaundry is an unreliable source with a clear bias and no indication of factual reporting. We should not allow Wikipedia becoming a platform to document feuds between the partisan sources in question. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable: According to this, they won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for their "investigative reporting".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable According to their about page they have won a lot of awards recently on the subject of investigation reporting and their work covering gender and human rights. But I couldn't find an editorial hierarchy. According to their hiring page, it looks like their reporters cover a variety of areas rather than having a "beat" and there isn't information about leadership. But I think the awards count for a lot. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - No information on leadership or editorial policy. As a new media site much like OpIndia, no certification from IFCN regarding fact-checking (which AltNews, cited in the article under criticism, has).Pectoretalk 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable We have no way of knowing if the editor also writes for it, they appear to have no editorial policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • They do provide some information at this webpage. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The extent of the corruption exposed in this report is impressive, and the research involved multiple Right to Information requests. "The Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, the most prestigious annual event in the Indian media calendar, is a recognition of the highest standards of journalism" in India, just as the Pulitzer Prize is the most renowned form of recognition for American journalism. Newslaundry also won two Red Ink Awards, in 2018 for their coverage of the Kaveri River water dispute, and in 2019 for their coverage of a police cover-up of civilian casualties in Sukma.

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

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

  • Reliable - per Newslinger. In addition, it also doesn't sum up that they would be factually inaccurate while also winning high prestige awards, I've yet to come across an allegation of misreporting against them which even mainstream media agencies face from time to time. Though there may be a degree of editorialisation in their content so care should be taken regarding that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable has a dedicated staff, uses bylines, has won awards for its journalism, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - No editorial policy available on the website. Concocted click-bait stories based on imagination. Retracted after clarification from the office of President of India. It published fiction instead of fake news. Not trustworthy.
    1. Newslaundry spreads fake news about president's puri visit Shubham2019 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
      Newslaundry was covering an alleged event that was initially covered by The Times of India, News18, and Times Now – other reliable sources. When the press secretary to the President denied the incident, Newslaundry officially retracted the story, demonstrating a strong reputation for error-correction, which is identified in WP:NEWSORG as a hallmark of a reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I wrote to the Newslaundry editorial team and this is what I heard back...I don't think there is any problem sharing the relevant portion of the email message:
Thanks for reaching out.
We are currently redesigning our website and we'll have a page explaining our editorial policy on the upgraded site.
Of course, like any credible news organisation, our work goes through a series of editorial filters before it is published. I believe the quality of our work testifies to this. Mr Raman Kirpal, cced in this mail, is our managing editor. He's an award-winning journalist with several decades of experience in the industry and he takes the final call on what appears on Newslaundry.
Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I inspected the source code of older versions of Newslaundry's home page, and noticed that Newslaundry switched its content management system from a (possibly in-house) platform based on AngularJS as of 16 January 2020 to Quintype as of 22 January 2020. While most of the site has already been migrated to their new platform, there are a few pages that are currently only accessible through archived versions. This includes Newslaundry's About Us page, which includes a list of Newslaundry's staff and a list of Newslaundry's owners (with percentage ownership specified for each owner). This transparency reflects favorably on Newslaundry, and I expect to see the editorial policy when the site finishes migrating to the Quintype platform. — Newslinger talk 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per Newslinger and others. I'm impressed by the apparent transparency (website transition confusion not withstanding) and their response to Liz. My only comment is that it might be, perhaps, that we should take any news items towards OpIndia (and similar sites) with a grain of salt per the concerns about an apparent on-going spat. Waggie (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Do they have any Editorial Policy? Half baked stories with facts missing in most of there reporting, completely biased source. Santoshdts (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable They don't have a well defined editorial policy. The news reporting is mixed with biased opinions. They generally lampoon and criticises other media sources. There is a clear lack of objectivity. They have also published fake news in the past.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    Do you have a reliable source to back up the "fake news" claim? — Newslinger talk 06:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    They published a news story on the President of India, which was denied by the President's office. Newslaundry is not important enough to be covered by other reliable media portals. There are a few sites like these which are engaged in trashing each other online based on ideological differences, they publish hit-pieces on each other at random intervals, their editors and reporters fight on twitter. There's a clear lack of objectivity.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    Your comment strikes a false balance between Newslaundry and the near-unanimously condemned OpIndia, and excuses OpIndia's unreliability as "ideological differences". Unlike OpIndia, Newslaundry corrects or retracts all of its stories that need doing so. — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unarchived from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per Newslinger. Note also that many comments above include uncited allegations. Daask (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per Newslinger. Just because two organisations are in a dispute, does not mean we have to play bothsidesism. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Published editorial policy[edit]

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

True they may not publish them, it does not say they do not have to have them. Thus any argument based upon "I have no idea what their editorial policies are" are valid, they may not be strong arguments but they are still valid. Our criteria is "has a reputation for fact checking", whilst no publishing editorial policy is not an indicator they fail this, the lack of one is a good indicator they may not have such a reputation. After all if I have no idea how they decide what to publish I cannot know it is fact checked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Acceptable for this, on the face of it: any caveats are addressed by the use of attribution. Guy (help!) 16:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC: Burden of proof for disputed[edit]

No action taken. Based on existing policies and guidelines, there is general agreement that in most cases the WP:ONUS falls on those seeking to include content. However, as several editors have pointed out the scope of the question posed is unclear, so this RfC does not support any change to any policy or guideline. If the participants would like to discuss specific issues such as WP:SPS in more detail, then they should hold a discussion focusing on that topic. King of ♥ 13:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Opinions (burden of proof)[edit]

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

The words "would belong" link to WP:ONUS, and WP:ONUS is part of the verifiability policy. WP:ONUS takes precedence over WP:PRESERVE regardless of cleanup tags, so the cleanup tags aren't really relevant here. — Newslinger talk 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 3. Neither, because this is a false dilemma that attempts to misrepresent/strawman the actual issue, as several editors have raised in the discussion section. No one is arguing with JzG about the purported subject of this RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It depends, as we have had cases of editors in the past that have mass-tagged with these types of labels which have been shown where the tagging is wrong. Where there is consensus that the tag applies, then the onus does fall on those that which to retain the source and/or information to ultimately deal with it, though the process of how that happens depends on numerous factors. So it's not a simply-answered question here. --Masem (t) 13:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 - this is a rather straightforward application of existing policy, as Newslinger points out. A converse rule also faces the problem of proving a negative. Neutralitytalk 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 - WP:BURDEN is policy, the countervailing claims aren't. This is straightforward application of fundamental Wikipedia editing policy. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to do the reading - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1: I just took the time to carefully read all of the linked policy/guideline pages (always a good thing to do when one is already pretty sure what they say) and choice 1 is indeed a a rather straightforward application of existing policy. Plus, the person posting it is named "Guy" which I am sure everyone will agree[Citation Needed] is always a big plus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 per Newslinger and others, and per WP:BURDEN and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Also, it's better for Wikipedia to not say a thing than to say a false thing, which is why we insist on reliable sources. Crossroads -talk- 05:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1: WP:ONUS's statement that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content is a clear unqualified statement.
    On the other hand, WP:PRESERVE's statement is qualified by if they meet the three article content retention policies, which is predicated on demonstrating that the material indeed completely satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Whether a claim that the material satisfies those policies is assessed, naturally, by consensus. Once consensus determines that these are satisfied, then the content should be preserved. — MarkH21talk 05:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 1, unless the source appears in green on the list of perennial sources. If there is already consensus about the source’s reliability then all that editor needs to do is note that consensus (perhaps in the edit summary of a revert) and the onus transfers to the challenger. I’ve seen instances in which the reliability of a source like the NYT or Telegraph is questioned on the talk page and the challenger actually expects to be taken seriously, there is a limit to onus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a valid question as posed, are we talking about new or long standing content? Is the tag in dispute? I agree with The Drover's Wife that this isn't a valid A/B question and with Masem's thinking. Certainly if something fails V then it can be removed. However, if a difference citation that passes V is found then we should treat that content the same way we would any other reliably sourced material (sink or swim based on WEIGHT, CONSENSUS etc) and if it was long standing content it should be assumed to have consensus for inclusion. What if the tag is in dispute? If there is no consensus on the validity of the tag then I think we follow the same rules as consensus, that is lack of consensus means keep as is. Else editors could game the system by tagging the sources that support content they don't like as suspect and use that as reason to remove long standing text. So while #1 is the correct answer in many cases it is not the correct answer in all cases. Springee (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (burden of proof)[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

I'm good with closing this WP:POINT nonsense and sparing the rehash, yes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
At this point you are involved, and that we not be appropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I said I was good with closing it, not that I would do it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

  • I am OK with that as well. But there are different kinds of SPS. Blogs, vanity presses and predatory journals are all kinds of SPS. Guy (help!) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
True, but the issue is not "is it an SPS" but "can we uses this SPS". So either the tag "SPS" must mean its a dodgy SPS or it just means its an SPS. What we need is clarity on what the tag is for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF between them cover just about any situation in which I'd think it logical to use an SPS, and both of them are plenty specific - I'm not convinced that we'd be even having this discussion if JzG (and anyone else in that boat) just read the damn policies and acknowledged that they understand that they exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
just read the damn policies Your assertion that he literally hasn't is frankly bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
David Gerard, well, to be fair, they do get edited over time, and not always by people looking to retrospectively make their edits compliant. Guy (help!) 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The whole crux of this dispute (at least the portion of it that I'm involved in) involves JzG removing self-published sources that are compliant with WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. It is impossible to resolve it if neither if you will acknowledge that they exist and engage in any way with why you are not following them. There would be no point having this noticeboard at all if everyone responded in every case "I refuse to engage with the existing written consensus guidance on this source or group of source, I argue that it's unreliable anyway and demand that you prove me wrong", which is what the various responses amount to an attempt to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The Drover's Wife, {{citation needed}} Guy (help!) 23:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

We already have in/out policies in this area: WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, both of which are long-accepted. Refusing to acknowledge that those policies exist and claiming that there's a "burden" of convincing a random editor that they should have to follow said policy is a stance that, if adopted more broadly, would make this entire noticeboard essentially moot: why bother establishing clear guidelines on the usage of sources if they can be ignored on a whim when someone disagrees with them? The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
If a self-published source can be shown to be written by a subject-matter expert, or if the use of the self-published source can be shown to qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, then WP:BURDEN is satisfied. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Christ on a stick, what is wrong with them? This is exactly why some of us do not think the "discouragement" goes far enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Strongly suggest removing the text "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context" from WP:RSP, or cautioning also that they literally fake their own historical articles. Never trust the DM - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
That's bizarre. Instead of using their own historical material, they took the trouble to invent fakes that look "old-timey" (and they buried a vaguely-worded disclaimer four pages down). Do they think that slightly yellowed images won't bring in the clicks? Is fabrication simply their instinctive course of action? In any case, I support David Gerard's suggestion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I could formulate a rewording ... but idiots try to drive trucks through anything that looks like an exception. So I'd suggest this behaviour is egregious enough to remove the sentence. If people want to argue it case by case they can show they went to a microfilm archive or something, 'cos we literally can't trust the online version or reprints not to make stuff up - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
That would be my take, There are archive versions not held by the Daily Myth. Thus any use if the DM must be independent of the DM.Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@XOR'easter:, in this case BoingBoing seems to be insinuating that the Mail may have been trying to make themselves look less pro-Nazi, so there is a motive beyond a contempt for journalistic integrity. signed, Rosguill talk 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
To be fair it looks more like a case of "our readers are so shallow they cannot understand anything not couched in modern terms and style". What I do not understand is why bother to make so much effort to create a "Fakesimalie". They could have done a "Yay for us 70 years ago" without "faking" a front page so totally (such as "for King and Empire").Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Remove wording. This is yet another reason why we cannot trust this source. buidhe 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Done.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I would rather this had been given more time for wider feedback, not that I disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I am tempted to revert that for 2 main reasons: 1. The inclusion there is the result of two RFC's. The wording is a summary of those RFC outcomes. By changing the wording fundementally in that manner, it no longer reflects the RFC. What that change does is prohibit (at least that is what it will be taken to do) all uses of Daily Mail historical material. It certainly needs a bigger discussion than the brief one here. 2. Its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Daily Mail despite its more recent faults has plenty of decent reporting over the decades previous. We cite the original publication, not The Daily Mail's reworked version of it. A more appropriate response would be adding wording to ensure the material cited has been verified from copies of the orignal. We take it on good faith anyway that written sources we dont have access to say what the editor says they do, and any editor using this as an excuse to misrepresent sources would be rumbled pretty quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Personally I would we rather used a nuclear bomb over such blatant crappyness, but I get your point, and said as much myself early on. Yes I would rather you reverted and this was made a formal RFC to overturn the last two.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
See [2].
Looks like I need to start a new Daily Mail RfC in order to make any changes to the Daily mail entry in the perennial sources list. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
See below - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
So we are using a situation source (Boing Boing) to determine the RSP entry of the Daily Mail, that seems rather odd. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It would if that were an accurate summary of the above. Fortunately, it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
That is an accurate summary of the above and additionally there's no proof. According to a source as good as boingboing.net The Times (apparently the May 2 1945 New York Times is meant) said "London newspapers received the announcement of Hitler's death just as the early editions were going to press but the second editions went 'all-out' on the news, with long obituaries of Hitler and biographical sketches of Doenitz ...". Thus the copy with the label "4A.M. Edition" might well greatly differ from what ends up in archives, and layout might greatly differ too if the early-morning audience was more inclined to visuals. The boingboing.net accusation is far more plausible but in the absence of a reliable source, or a copy of a "4A.M. edition" that differs from the picture, it's not established fact. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The term for it is historical negationism which has an illustrious history of practitioners. It is beyond the pale given it is an attempt to rewrite their own history as Nazi sympathizers. -- GreenC 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary[edit]

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

Suggested options:

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

10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested action on WP:RSPDM[edit]

  • Remove the sentence - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove as the material they did publish might be reliable, they are just not reliable for having published it. But if it is reliable someone else would have written about it. Thus (and given the possibly of accidental or deliberate abuse) I have to change to remove, if they cannot be trusted over what they themselves have published they cannot be trusted over anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per David Gerard's reasoning below. As a secondary consideration, we should be discoraging use of historical newspaper sources anyway. buidhe 10:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove, with the caveat that the print edition may pass, so a print archive might be acceptable? Guy (help!) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
So (in essence) remove and add qualifier?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't even add suggested ways to use the DM, they'll be taken as blanket permissions - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't look likely to pass, but an official WP consensus opinion that dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source for the content of the Daily Mail would certainly be interesting - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove the qualifier, per Slatersteven, and also the notion that these sort of qualifiers confuse the situation. --Jayron32 14:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Add a qualifier (though perhaps not needed as obvious). If the dailymail is unreliable, that may extend to their own historical content. But if you pull a dailymail piece off a microfilm archive or online archives not run by the mail ([3], [4]) then there shouldn't be any problem in that regard.--Hippeus (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the best answer is [A] just remove all mention of historical from the Daily mail entry of RSPDM, and [B] have the closing summary of the RfC you are reading now specifically mention that a microfilm archive or online archives not run by The Daily Mail is as good or as bad as the source where you read it. Having this subtlety in the RSPDM will indeed lead to misuse. Having it in the RfC closing summary will allow any editor to use the historical page (assuming that her local library's microfilm collection or www.historic-newspapers.co.uk are reliable sources for what was printed all of those years ago; if some other source starts faking historical newspaper pages we will deal with that specific source in the usual way). So I !vote Remove. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC I will not say "support" or "oppose" because that might suggest respect for the WP:RSP essay-class page, which I do not have. It is in fact quite easy to see document images for back copies of the Daily Mail via Gale. (I did so for the May 2 1945 front page via my local library site for free, I assume that others have good library sites too.) WP:DAILYMAIL makes it clear that editors have a right to use such material in some circumstances, regardless what people say in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove the sentence, and add a statement that historical content on dailymail.co.uk may have been significantly modified from its original version. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Add a qualifier It is possible to trust archives that were archived by trusted sources such as a national library, at the time of publication. Trustworthy archives exist as evidenced by the original BoingBoing post that found the original. -- GreenC 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Something else - Clarify, do not make false statements. PRESERVE the indication of where there is good content of Daily Mail. I do not see support given re their current print about history, but if you need precision that the good is historical items not current items about history, it should per WP:BATHWATER clarify the good is older published work. These might not be readily available elsewhere, as there simply isn’t much historical sources, and if the guide indicates the previously acknowledged good data is bad, then it’s just a case of the guide is giving false information. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There is certainly good content from the Daily Mail... but there is no indication of which content that is. The OP didn't point out the old content is good, but that it cannot be trusted. They aren't going to put warnings on their stories saying, "This content is okay, the rest is a bit dodgy." It's just not going to happen. This is how these papers compete with each other. They wind up people who otherwise like to believe they don't want to be informed about reality, but warned about reality. They aren't worried about Wikipedia. They are worried about Facebook and Twitter. It feels like they are being thrown out. They aren't even here. They've little to no interest in what this site represents. They just want to make a splash in the pond, not write an encyclopaedia. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Add the reality, or what is the point? Anything less is just covering it up more. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Add a qualifier that the Daily Mail may change their historical content, making it unreliable. Best practice would be to use another source, or link to a reliable archiving service. LK (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom, or add a qualifier as the second-best option: since they're faking their own historical content, they're not a reliable source even for that. As for the idea of saying that historical content can be cited if one finds and cites the original in a library (and not the current Daily Mail's provably unreliable claims of what the original was)... under what circumstances is a (say) 1951 edition of the Daily Mail going to be both a and also the only reliable source we can find for something, anyway, and under what circumstance is information only reported in one so old edition of them going to be WP:DUE (or, in the case of an article as a whole, WP:NOTABLE)? I think, if anyone is trying to leave open some use of the Daily Mail as acceptable, I'd like there to be a concrete example of that being necessary and not just a contrived hypothetical. (Off-topic, discussing using very old documents as sources makes me think of Chizerots, which has three sources, from 1870, 1909, and 2008 respectively, discussing how "the most beautiful" among them is a "type [that] seems more Arabian than Berberic".) -sche (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Add a qualifier. The fact that the Dailymail online cannot be trusted for archives for its past copies does not make their past copies inherently less reliable. You can still find physical copies that can be used for archives. If someone can provide actual evidence of the Daily Mail publishing false stories historically that can be justify the removal of this section. However, that is not the case this situation just makes finding archives of the Daily Mail harder which does not affect reliablity. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 09:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove. The Daily Mail has never been a trustworthy publication. There is zero reason to ever source anything to it. Anything notable to include will be sourced elsewhere, and anything that only ever appeared on the Daily Mail is likely fake. No qualifiers; there's absolutely nothing usable about it. oknazevad (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:RSPDM[edit]

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

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

If the result here is "Remove", it would probably also make sense to include an explanation that prevents this from being interpreted as contradicting the original conclusions. Maybe something like, "The original WP:DAILYMAIL RfC left open the possibility that it may have been more reliable historically, but a subsequent RfC [link to this discussion] determined..." Sunrise (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

certainly - it'll be linked as a third listed RFC, link it from WP:DAILYMAIL which is the 2017 RFC ... there will be various sensible ways to handle it. The present text has been modified in uncontroversial ways before, e.g. I noted other "dailymail" domains which aren't the DM, and dailymail.com used to be a proper newspaper, the Charleston Daily Mail, which is in fact used as a source in Wikipedia, before the DM bought it from them - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
certainly not - that would modify the closed and archived WP:DAILYMAIL RfC even though the subject here (read the topic, read the questions) is not about that, and even if it were it would not be legitimate here. If you want to overturn what the closers concluded in WP:DAILYMAIL your recourse is WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


I think WP:RSPDM in general is not as well written as it could be, and undermines itself in significant ways. In particular, it does not cite its sources or attempt to justify its objections. In order to find those sources we are presumably expected to trawl through a total of 45 separate discussions.
The Daily Mail is a well-established newspaper with relatively wide circulation. It is well known that it is biased, and it is also well-known to be disliked by precisely the sort of demographic that (one would assume) would edit Wikipedia. Given the zeal with which the DM is removed, it is quite easy for someone not intimately involved in the debate to conclude that the issue is not so much that the DM is unreliable, but that editors who denounce it do so for POV reasons. Particularly when the text being removed is something inherently subjective (e.g. a movie review) or where it is used as an example with explicit attribution (e.g. in a section on press coverage of an event).
It might therefore be useful to augment WP:RSPDM and WP:DAILYMAIL with a new essay, putting the reasons for our attitude to the DM and giving appropriate examples so that editors less familiar with the history can catch up and understand why it is being removed. Kahastok talk 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
No, that's nonsense. The DM has similar politics to the Times and the Telegraph, but - and this is the key point - those behave rather more like papers of record that aren't given to fabrication.
The primary objection that Wikipedia-type people have to the DM is that they are repeated, habitual liars who make stuff up, and are extensively documented as doing so. Do you really not understand that that's the problem? - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I suppose it's probably too much to expect you to actually read what I wrote before writing an abusive response. Kahastok talk 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems just silly, RSP is lazy and obviously a blanket statement will be sometimes flawed by giving false conclusions. Instead of examining specifics of an item in context per RS, or dealing with Mail had some bits accepted as RS, this just further pursues the false dichotomy of everything published by X is bad in every way or everything published by X is perfect in every way. Silly. The real question should be at what point are we to just ignore the WP:RSP supplement entry in favor of using the senior guidance WP:RS and/or get actual specific judgement of WP:RSN instead ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional RfC Question: Under what conditions can we trust The Daily Mail?[edit]

(Background discussion moved from section above. See below for the actual additional RfC question)

Let's talk about the basic error in thinking that led us here. Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that:

  • The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote,
  • wouldn't fabricate an interview,
  • wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words,
  • wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name,
  • wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine,
  • wouldn't lie about material being original and not plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait,
  • etc., etc.

Those who "just know" that there are times when the Daily Mail isn't lying expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation. Last week I had no idea that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages but I knew from experience that they lie in all situations. Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation. I am getting sick and tired of playing Whac-A-Mole. At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You will of course believe that this is precisely a problem I keep hitting in DM removals. "Surely it's reliable for his words!" No, why would you think that, it's the DM - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the above, I propose the following:

There are no situations where the post-1960 Daily Mail is reliable for anything. See below for claims about itself.

  • If TDM publishes an interview, that does not establish that the interview happened or even that the person interviewed or the person doing the interviewing actually exists.
  • If TDM publishes material under a byline, that does not establish that the person named wrote it, even if the person s famous or a paid TDM contributor. TDM can and will fabricate any material and publish it under any byline.
  • If TDM publishes material, that does not establish that TDM has the right to publish it or that it was not plagiarized from another publication. All material published by TDM should be treated as a possible copyright violation.
  • If TDM plagiarizes material from another publication, that does not establish that TDM did not edit it, introducing false information.
  • Regarding using TDM as a source about itself, we can write "On [Date] The Daily Mail wrote X", but we cannot use any internet page controlled by TDM as a source for that claim. TDM cannot be trusted to not silently edit pages it publishes without changing the date or indicating that the page was edited. We should instead cite the Internet Archive Wayback Machine snapshot for that page. For printed pages, we need to cite a source that TDM cannot modify, such as an independent online archive or a library's microfilm collection.
  • (added on 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)) In particular, the dailymail.co.uk website must never be used as a citation for anything, including claims about the contents of the dailymail.co.uk website or the print version of The Daily Mail. We are not to assume that what we read on any dailymail.co.uk page is the same as what was there yesterday, nor are we to assume that the content will be the same tomorrow, nor are we to assume that there will be any indication that a page was edited. We also are not to assume that users in different locations or using different browsers will see the same content.
  • Even in situations where we have yet to catch TDM publishing false information, TDM is not to be trusted.

Note: I picked post-1960 because 1960 was when David English started his career at TDM. If anyone has evidence of TDM fabricating material before then, we can change the cutoff date. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional RfC Question Discussion[edit]

  • Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support As it is becoming clear that they cannot even really be trusted for their own opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The "1960" date - or any other date, or possible or impossible excuse - will absolutely be taken as a green light for open slather on filling Wikipedia with DM cites - I base this claim on the spectacular examples of DM fans trying to find loopholes in the words "generally prohibited", including one earlier today who claimed that "generally prohibited" didn't mean completely prohibited, therefore his use was probably good.
So I would not support listing a date without strong support for the DM ever having been good at any previous time - that is, clear positive evidence, rather than a lack of negative evidence.
Examples of all the things they do would probably be good too.
I would also explicitly note that the dailymail.co.uk website (by name) literally cannot be trusted as a source for the contents of the Daily Mail, amazing as that sounds - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Point well taken. I just removed the "post-1960" wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I also added a paragraph covering the possibility of TDM serving up different content to different users. There are documented cases of e-commerce sites giving you a high price if you are using an iPhone and a low price if you are using Windows XP, higher for Beverly Hills and lower for Barstow, etc. It would be technically possible for TDM to serve up different content regarding, say, Brexit to UK, US, and EU readers, and really hard for us to detect them doing so. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
See below for what DM advocates are like in practice. I could do with backup here from those who can actually read policy - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support without the post-1960 wording - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support without the post-1960 wording, per above. Let's not waste any more time on this garbage source. buidhe 20:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    • BTW, if people really want to get rid of DM references - talk on WP:RSN doesn't have any effect against dedicated DM warriors (and there really are dedicated DM warriors). The refs need to be got rid of, one edit at a time, and their removal defended (using literally our actual policies). This search is a good start - just start at the top and work down, judging usage and removing or replacing per the RFCs. If a few people even did ten a day, that would help improve Wikipedia greatly - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - please respect the seniority in guidance of RS and RSN, and a comment section within a RFC is not a valid RFC. What is in RSP is just some editors opinionating and phrasing, not necessarily a summary or strong consensus of views. If it was wrong in this case is just another example of such is imperfect and limited. I have always found the RSP idea simply too dogmatic and plainly a lazy and silly premise that there can be a perfect dichotomy of all-perfect or all-wrong that applies to all content of a publisher for all time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's important that we highlight the level of fabrication we're dealing with here, to help good-faith editors understand why the usual exceptions for attributed quotes aren't applicable to DM. –dlthewave 02:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support without 1960 wording. There are zero places where the Daily Mail can be trusted. They're as bad as the National Enquirer. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this unique to the DM?[edit]

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

Ish, I seem to recall that mock newspapers are common enough, but something tells me they are rather more obvious about not being genuine. But yes I can see this may need to be more general.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
We would have to find a source that [A] Is willing to lie about/fake anything at any time, and [B] has been around for over 100 years. Infowars will lie about anything but nobody is going to believe a claim that something was published by Infowars in 1917. The New York Times might say "we published X in 1917" but they haven't shown themselves to be willing to lie about anything and everything. As far as I can tell, there is only one source that fits both [A] and [B]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Mmm, the NYT flaws are something RSP supposedly should note, (e.g. they have a thing on for Trump,) and RSP supposedly was/is to capture RSN discussions, not go off and try to evaluate 100 years of publishing where there is no article usage in question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Typically you'll see a scan or image and then the actual original text as text - you won't see the actual thing the DM did, which was to say in the headline:
Read history as it happened: Extraordinary Daily Mail pages from the day Adolf Hitler died 70 years ago this week
and then - as a tiny text box in the bottom right corner of the fourth cover image:
SPECIALLY adapted and edited from the original Daily Mail editions of May 2, 1945 and April 30, 1945
without even the original images. And with the text of the articles changed from the 1945 text.
If you wanted to claim this is something that other newspapers do, requiring a general solution, I think you'd need to first provide evidence of other papers doing this - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
No this is totally not unique. If you are from the USA, hear this, people know in the UK and Ireland that the tabloids are sensationalist. Sensationalism is not a dirty word in the newspaper media over here. All national sized newspapers are openly biased in one way or another. The least sensational is the London Times (not the Irish Times, the Irish-only national papers are almost as bad as the British ones). This does not mean they are like the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. That is not what a tabloid is over here. The newspapers are all walking the sensationalist line over here. Like your TV news. Ours is the other way around. Our TV news is almost impeccable. Newspaper news used to feature a teenage girl with her boobs out every day. Get it. Understand. It's not a secret. Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed. Our newspapers are like, boobs out, SPLASH SHOCK EVERY SINGLE DAY HEADLINES, every single day. You can rely on them for daily gambling news. Newspapers here are the actual authority on that. One of the less popular daily tabloids, the Daily Sport, is nothing but gambling and boobs. There have been sitcoms about British tabloids since maybe forty years ago. They are not ashamed of what they are. It is simply what they are. ZOMG LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN CAN I HEAR THIS RIGHT???? Yes. Just like that. It has muted over the years, but it is still obvious. They run conflicting stories, they sensationalise, *they are often an important informative part of culture*... not simply nonsense like the Weekly World News, always based in fact... but that is as far as they can be surely trusted. If they say a bomb went off, you can be sure one went off... If they say the sky has fallen down, yes, get your umbrella out. Do they receive letters from Elvis on Pluto... no that is not what people are saying about them. Can you trust them to word and check facts as an impeccable source of information? No!! They are sensationalist. They actually try to walk the line between being honourable and being in court. They are not ashamed of that. They exhibit personality, bias, seriously... people do not respect them at all... people love them... You've watched or seen Japanese gameshows, and thought, maybe a lot of the Japanese are actually crazy, right? But RTG... how is newspaper culture supposed to compare to crazy Japanese gameshows??? Well... we can't do Jerry Springer and Oprah like you can... can we. It's like having a different accent. We stress different words. We have different attitudes about different individual things. Overall, it's pretty much the same insofar as it can be. It's like getting to know a different city. It might be north-south. It might be east-west, or it might be none of the above. ~ R.T.G 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Re "Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed", see [5] and [6]. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, well you can't win them all, but the non-regional newspaper press defaults to popular sensationalism, not impeccable documentarianism. We rely on these sensationalist journals because they are popular and free on the internet, but they are off the cuff, and that is not what Wikipedia is trying to be. Good grief, did I delete the part where I pointed out that we have "newsagents" instead of "drugstores"? Newspapers are very useful to culture over here to inform people of incidents and events in the world around them, but they exist to sensationalise. ~ R.T.G 14:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
User:RTG Agree, at least for recent history. Newspapers in the U.K. were more restrained and respectful before the 1970s. In the United States, for many years mentions have noted that television news switched to being entertainment and sensationalizing, and newspapers reliability and neutrality were in decline in the 1990s as another ‘death of truth’. Newspapers seem to largely be BIASED, going past individual specialties (e.g. Wall Street Journal covers business) into catering to their local market or playing to a subscriber audience. (e.g. NYT runs anti-Trump, Washington Examiner runs pro-Trump). In some ways that makes it easier for WP to find the POVs, but in general it is a WP issue as editors proclaim EVERYthing from NYT is not just RS but also TRUTH and WEIGHT because NYT said so — or proclaim EVERYthing from Mail is FALSE so not RS and large WEIGHT POVs get obliterated. Seems like 80% or so of what U.K. population sees is deemed non-existent right now. Unless it’s BBC or London Times, it just isn’t acknowledged to exist. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what there is to be done about that. It seems maybe even dangerous, not to have any biases in media at all, and that is because the people themselves cannot be strictly trusted. The people themselves are no more worried about their information services building an encyclopaedia than the Daily Mail is. I struggle with it. What is the popular meme? Even if you tell the people the best thing to do they won't do it. Jimbo Wales has been trying to start a people-driven news service for years. The current iteration is https://wt.social/ ~ R.T.G 11:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It is not unique to the DM, but the reason we have these sorts of discussion (as I said way back in the original RFC) is that they have a specific combination of prominence and unreliability that is comparatively rare. We can't individually depreciate or ban every single unreliable source; the purpose of these centralized RFCs is to address a situation where a source that is patiently unreliable in any context where we would want to use it is, nonetheless, being extensively used by some editors who try to insist it is reliable. I don't think we can address that in a sweeping sense at a policy level because whatever category we create or define, a source's defenders will insist it doesn't fall into it. When there's a significant disagreement over the facts as they relate to a specific source, and it's leading to constant issues over whether / where it can be used on Wikipedia, a centralized discussion like this is really the only option. --Aquillion (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted[edit]

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

Problem at For Your Eyes Only (short story collection) - see reversion with dismissive edit summaries, ignoring obvious policy issues, and personal attacks on Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection). More eyes needed.

I'll flag more of these in this section as they come up - I assure you, this is an absolutely typical example of the genre: ignore all policy and guidelines, dive straight into the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior and stop with the outright lies. If you’d bothered to read the bloody message on the talk page, you’ll see that I said I would replace the source. Stop being such a dramah monger. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Please desist in your personal attacks - these are a violation of the policy WP:NPA. I believe my claims are fully supported by the material in the history and on the talk page - you reverted against policy and strong consensus, and made personal attacks. You also responded to citation of policy with citation of essays. Have you considered following Wikipedia hard policy, such as WP:BURDEN? - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
No personal attacks, and stop being so disruptive. I have said I will find a replacement in the morning (I first said it about 5 or 6 posts ago, but you've ignored it and kept disruptively pressing your point). Take your little crusade elsewhere until I've had the chance to look properly. It's 12:40am and I'm off to bed, but (for the nth time), I will look again in the morning. In the meantime, reflect that there are ways and means of doing things, and you are not doing things terribly well. - SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
www.dailymail.co.uk is not an acceptable source. You say you have a better source? Then use that source. Do not re-insert any citation to The Daily Mail. Also, please don't make obviously false claims like "No personal attacks" when 23 minutes earlier you posted a personal attack ("Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior... Stop being such a dramah monger.") --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
FFS... You really don't bother reading what people say, do you? "You say you have a better source?" I've not said that at all. On several occasions I have said that I will look for one,after a night's sleep. If you are looking for the best way to piss people off with your little crusade, you've found it: an inflexible approach of edit warring to instantly remove information that has been in place for several years, without allowing a few hours for that information to,be replaced? Get a fucking sense of perspective. As to the supposed PAs: I have given a fair description of your approach to this situation. Now back the fuck off for a few hours to allow for a search for a new source. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Or you know, you get a sense of perspective and re-read WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:CIVIL. Leave the unreliably sourced information out until you have reliable source to back it up. Like everywhere else on Wikipedia. The world will not end if those passages are missing from the article for a few hours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. SchroCat, I don't even need to leave this thread to see you ignoring policy and being combative and disruptive. Guy Macon clearly read what you wrote, he fucking quoted your personal attacks! If "dramah monger" really does fall under WP:SPADE, then it would be perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to suggest that you're the one starting the drama as if out of some sense of blind entitlement, and being a hypocrite in expecting others to give you a few hours to bring in a replacement source instead of just letting the page not have that information during that time. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • He obviously didn't read it, given what I've said, but if you want to back up a disruptive process by using personal attacks to call me a hypocrite with a "sense of blind entitlement". then I guess the blindness is thick on the ground here and the PAs are fine to throw around. As I said on the talk page, the information has been in the article for several years, and to a source that is not banned (and yes, Headbomb, the world will also not end if those passages remain in the article for a few hours while an alternative is sought - particularly as some was removed and some left with a cn tag - no logic there at all. And I'll let you strike your sentence saying the information was "unreliably sourced": it wasn't). I had acknowledged that I was going to look for an alternative source, and yet that still gives someone the right to edit war, rather than a few hours grace to find an alternative? Common sense has been replaced with the crusading zeal way too much. You lot have an apexcellent way of pissing people off by not bothering with common sense and choosing the most inflexible and disruptive path that inconveniences readers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW, I've struck the lie in the title: I am not an advocate for the Mail and never have been. I voted in favour of the ban of the source and I'm glad to see it being removed, but it's the manner and method of that removal that is disruptive. Find a different way to deal with it, rather than edit warring and then calling me a "DM advocate". (That also falls under NPA, but I don't expect anyone will bother with leaving stupidity messages to warn Gerard about civility with name calling). - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the 2017 RFC and 2019 RFC, I don't see you on either. Did you change usernames? - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This edit removed a reference to the Mail on Sunday. Has the Daily Mail ban been extended to the Mail on Sunday? While they have the same owner they are editorially distinct as far as I am aware. From what I recall of the discussion all the evidence of falsified stories/quotes related exclusively to The Daily Mail title and its online presence. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither WP:DAILYMAIL or WP:DAILYMAIL2 covered the Mail on Sunday and there has been no RfC since then that would mean the source is unsuitable. Nice to know the disapprobation of the above (not to say the edit warring and grief) has been over the illicit removal of information cited to a source that is not deprecated. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I've tweaked the title again to reflect the reality. - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat,
  • Did you make this edit?[7]
  • Did that edit add the source www.dailymail.co.uk?
  • Did you also add "work=Daily Mail" in that same edit?
  • Is www.dailymail.co.uk the URL for The Daily Mail?
  • Did I revert you with this edit?[8]
  • Was my edit summary in any way unclear?
  • Did you then edit war to re-insert the source www.dailymail.co.uk?[9] again?
These are simple questions. You should be able to provide yes or no answers to each of them, but please do feel free to explain, in detail, why your edits actually added (and were reverted for adding) The Daily Mail] but you are now claiming[10][11]that they only added The Mail on Sunday? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Was this or this removing a banned source? Yes or no? Did this whole annoying mess start with the boundaries of WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DAILYMAIL2 being pushed to delete information removed from a legitimate source? Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source? These are simple questions. You should be able to provide answers to each of them.
And again, it comes down not just to the removal of information (some of which was removed illegitimately, some legitimately), but in the crass and inflexible way it was done. As the information has been there for over a decade, was it urgent that it was removed immediately, even after I had said I would look for an alternative after a night's sleep? Again, this is a simple question. You should be able to provide an answer for it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
A less easy to answer question is how many illicit removals have been made of information sourced to the Mail on Sunday? I do hope that a concerted effort is made to replace the information that should not have been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Evasion noted. I will take your refusal to give a straight answer as an admission that in this edit[12] you did indeed insert a citation to The Daily Mail. Again, please stop claiming that you only added a citation to The Mail on Sunday.
Re "Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source?" First ONE REVERT IS NOT EDIT WARRING. Please retract your false accusation and apologize. Second, I am not required to carefully examine your edits and remove only those portions that violate Wikipedia policy. It is your responsibility to make edits that follow policy. If someone reverts an edit of yours that contains a policy violation along with other material, It is your job to create a new edit that only contains non-violating material. Instead you purposely re-inserted the citation to www.dailymail.co.uk -- a citation that you yourself admit is not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
"One revert is not edit warring": yes it is, despite the shouty caps and bolding, if there has been a back-and-forth a couple of times and you join in, then you were as guilty of edit warring and me and Gerard. So no, no retraction, and certainly no apology. As you seem to be trying to avoid any responsibility for removing information cited to a legitimate source, there is little I can (or wish) to say or do. But you keep telling yourself you are perfect and I am the bad guy, if that's the way you want to go. You were in the wrong for some of these actions. Your evasion on the question of how much legitimate information has been removed is noted. No surprises. I'm off; I'll leave you to have The Last Word - I'm sure you'll enjoy that. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
And again you misrepresent Wikipedia policy. WP:EW says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions... What edit warring is: Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." (emphasis added). Making false accusations against other editors is a form of personal attack. I think it is becoming clear that your behavior is something that needs to be dealt with at WP:ANI. Given the previous blocks in your block log for edit warring and personal attacks, an indefinite block is likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I misrepresent nothing. I was actually blocked for undertaking one revert in an edit war between two others, so feel free to take that case up on my behalf. And if you honestly think that going to ANI is a beneficial step, crack on and do just that. Or is it an empty threat and a way to raise my block log? Don't ping me to this page again, I really have no desire to discuss anyone so willfully obtuse who refuses to acknowledge that they have erred even in the slightest (I have admitted it, by the way: it's just you who are trying to evade any sense of doing anything wrong.) - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Follow-up comment I think there are two issues that emerge from this discussion:
  1. It appears that Mail on Sunday is not proscribed by either RFC, and as such citations to it should not be removed without further discussion.
  2. There is then the manner in which the sources to The Daily Mail are being culled. While a consensus exists to remove it as source I cannot honestly say this edit exemplifies good practice. The problem with The Daily Mail is that it is untrustworthy, but much of what they report is still accurate. This was acknowledged in the RFC, and one of the arguments advanced by editors in favour of a ban was that an alternative source could be located for credible claims in most cases. Unfortunately this solution is being thwarted by an aggressive culling campaign. This edit removed legitimate encyclopedic information, which is probably to the detriment of the article. In the case of non-controversial claims that are not about living people would it not be better practice to simply remove the source and replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag? While SchroCat technically shouldn't have restored the source I get the sense from him that what he was really doing was restoring the information, and he eventually located alternative sources. Is this not the most desirable outcome?
Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Betty Logan, the Mail is deprecated. That means it's untrustworthy. If something is only in the mail, we can't use it; if it is in another source as well, use that instead. Don't use the Daily Mail as a source. Or any tabloid, for that matter. The print edition of the MoS may be considered reliable case by case. But is still a tabloid so a better source is always preferred.
I have two particular problems with the Mail as a source for Wikipedia. The first is how it's used, which is often for trivia, especially salacious trivia (that's their speciality, google "all grown up"). The second, and related, is the notorious "sidebar of shame". I have a serious problem with linking to any site carrying that kind of bullshit from any Wikipedia article. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
So a "quality broadsheet", e.g. The Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc., which quotes the Daily Mail as it's sole source would be acceptable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Martinevans123, yes. They can be expected to have fact-checked it. But calling the Telegraph a "quality broadsheet" is a bit of a stretch these days. Guy (help!) 11:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
How would you describe it? Next on the list to be a banned? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy, no-one is claiming that the Mail should be retained as a source. Two RfCs (in which I voted to ban its use both times) have confirmed that. What we are talking about is two different things here: 1. Much of this grief started because Gerard edit warred to remove a citation from the hard copy Mail on Sunday. That should not have been removed, and he has still to account for that. 2. The process when information from the Damily Mail or dailymail.co.uk is flawed. In this case the information has been in the article for over a decade, and yet it was suddenly necessary to delete it immediately without providing an adequate window to find a replacement? No. That's just dumb. It doesn't help our readers and it annoys the crap out of people. I said on the article talk page right at the start that I would find a replacement, but this was ignored, and the edit warring continued. How does that help anyone? As it was, the information was finally left in the article overnight (UK time) until I was able to find a replacement in the morning. I cannot see any benefit in the inflexible, unthinking immeditate removal-without-the-option approach. The information is still in the article, and all now connected to a reliable source (two sources at one point). The best outcome has been achieved despite the fervour for the inflexible and immediate approach. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I had always assumed that anyone removing a DM source was supposed to search for an alternative source, or add a {}, or both. Not just remove both DM and the info itself wholesale in one edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not recall that ever being said, and will make more work as at some point the unsourced material might have to be removed (per wP:v.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
As opposed to "make more work" by having to search for the info and a fresh source all over again? Isn't one expected to search for a better source for information sourced to any unreliable source? Isn't that normal procedure? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Tagging with {} would also have had the desired effect of highlighting the problem. If such a tag had been left on there for a day or so, that would also have avoided all the kerfuffle; as it is there has been a lot more work invoved because someone edit warred to remove a source that is entirely legitimate`. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
True, but it is a users choice if they wish to remove badly sourced information or tag it. There is no policy that even implies you should add back badly sourced information. We gain nothing with tags all over the pace saying "bad source" "dodgy information" "BorisJophnsonsaidit", we do however (I would argue) lose. Wikipedia has a reputation for unreliability. If our articles are littered with crap even we think is unreliable that image is hardly going to improve.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I certainly wasn't suggesting we "add back badly sourced information". Quite the reverse. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Martinevans123, no, the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources. It's an instance of BRD. There have been attempts to claim this by people who fundamentally oppose the entire idea of deprecation, but it's not policy. Guy (help!) 11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Some of this information was added when the DM was still considered to be WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
So? If it is now a dodgy source its a dodgy source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
So Guy said "the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources". I'm just saying that when it was originally added the person may well have been justified in using the DM as a reliable source. A person just removing the source now isn't adding anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
No they are removing something we now know cannot be trusted for information. What Guy said applies just as much to wanting to add information back (or indeed retaining information). This is why the DM was deprecated, because of its massive over use. We now have to clean up that mess.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
But there is absolutely no need to do it in such an inflexible and disruptive way. When Gerard removed a legitimate source and edit warred on it, there was no mess to clean up. When two editors decided to delete information supported by the Press Association and a Scottish newspaper, we're crossing a line between responsible housekeeping and disruptive editing. The orginal title of this section was "‎DM advocate". I'd rather be called a cunt that a DM advocate, but such is the mindset of a small group of zealots that anyone who asks for an 8-hour moritorium on removal is the subject of abuse and lies. Your call on whether you think this is an ideal pathway for the inhabitants of the RS board to behave, but I suggest the approach needs a rethink. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. It looks to me to be a rather odd case of WP:BRD. I'm just suggesting that removing material and a DM source wholesale, without any attempt to find an alternative source, might do more harm than good. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
True, but wp:brd is clear that once material, has been removed it is down to those who wish to include it to make a case at talk, not just add it back with a change of source (you are right, by the way, the new sources should have been enough as far as I can see). Thus (whilst) the DM part of this debate is about RS, the rest is not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah. So all those instances where I've followed David Gerard round and re-added stuff with a good source (and which he's consistently thanked me for), I should have instead taken to the Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) And it's not like I've really "followed him round" at all. I've seen his standard edit summary about DM pop up in my watchlist and when I've gone to look at the deletion I've thought "oh that looks like a very reasonable claim, there must be at least one other RS source that supports that...."
That's taking a misreading of BRD too far for any common sense approach. If the source is being challenged, then replacing the source is sufficient, even if that is just replacing exactly the same information, including qquotes. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
We also have wP:agf, I have no idea abvout this case but I have had trouble finding sources others have found. You are assuming no effort was made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
A more useful edit summary might say "I've looked for a better source and I can't find one, so am removing"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Three things: firstly, I was talking in general about providing a different source when material is challenged. (Don't forget that the verification policy says that @Material that fails verification may be tagged with {} or removed". There is, written into policy, a way that information does not have to be unthkingly removed as a matter of course. It can be tagged for a short period to allow for a replacement to be made. Secondly, If it is removed, there really is no reason to have to discuss replacing it with an alternative source on the talk page. Replacing the information with a new source is entirely appropriate. Thirdly, it seems that a few people have said they can't find the information (although raising AGF is a bit of a straw man here). I found it in two sources and Sarah SV found two sources using variants of the quote made to different journalists; I also found another variant on the official Bond site. Just because the person desparately removing as many DM sources as quickly as possoble didn't find an alternative (and yes, that does pre-suppose they bothered looking), it doesn't mean the infomation isn't there to those who know how to look for things properly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat, Oh, so David's actions resulted in better sourcing. So we're good then. Shall I close this? Guy (help!) 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, may as well gloss over the removing of a legitimate source and the sub-standard way people are demanding the immediate removal without thought to the loss of legitimate information. The lack of flexibility is always a given when a crusade is in progress. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please only discuss the DM, anything else just confuses the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as we are clear that the Mail on Sunday (paper version, not online) should not have been removed. At. All. Neither should the other sources. Part of the problem is that I have seen no comment from Gerard to acknowledge that they were wrong to remove it in the first place and doubly wrong to edit war to remove it a second time. I hope this disruptive approach is not something that is going to be repeated. In terms of the DM info, allowing a short moritorium on finding a new source seems to be a common sense way of approaching this, rather than such an inflexible approach that is currently in favour. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This RFC is about the daily mail, only the DM and just the DM. If you have other RS issues start a new thread. If you have issue about user conduct this is not then place.Slatersteven (talk)
Actually this sub-thread is (currently) titled "dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted". Since its opening post it has been nothing to do with the RfC (as such it should never have been a sub-thread of the RfC in the first place; the topic of discussion has not essentially changed since the first post, given we are still discussing matters relating to the opening post). We can change it from a sub-thread to a full thread if you prefer? - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
As this is not (and does not appear to be) an RS issue, but rather an issue over user conduct this is not the right venue anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Very true. Once has to question way it was opened in the first place, and why a personal attack was used as the original title. Never mind - but I really don't have high hopes that this has made any difference, and will not be surprised when it inevitably happens again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Another unreliable source? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com)[edit]

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

In this edit,[13] SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) replaced a citation to [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] with a citation to [ www.mi6-hq.com ]

[14] says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject."

[15] says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team."

So, generally reliable or self-published fan site?

The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from [ www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510171/Live-Let-Dye-Daniel-Craig-turns-clock-darkened-hair-007-photocall.html ] (25 January 2008). mi6-hq.com published it at [16] on 30 January 2008. This highlights one of the problems with replacing citations to The Daily Mail; if you search for other sources that say what DM said, you find a bunch of low-quality sources that pretty much parrot what was on the DM page a few days earlier. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty obviously not an RS, no - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I am getting the usual insults and refusal to follow Wikipedia policies at Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)#Replacing one unreliable source with another? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com). Normally I would report this at ANI, but I am still recovering from my recent Cardiac Arrest and I don't think the stress would be good for me. Would someone else here be willing to file it? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It gets worse and worse. He now claims that in the last few days you went to a library, found not just one but two sources that by an amazing coincidence just happen to contain the exact same quote from The Daily Mail that he edit warred to keep in, and yet for some inexplicable reason he cannot remember who Daniel Craig said it to or when he said it. Meanwhile, the person he says authored the source (Noah Sherna) doesn't seem to exist, but in yet another amazing coincidence, Sherna Noah writes for The Daily Mail.[17] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't lie. I have claimed nothing of the sort. I have also made no comment on who Craig said it to, so I am unsure where these falsehoods come from. I have advised exactly how you can verify the source, so try reading what I have said properly and use the link provided. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, Sherna Noah works for the Press Association. The Guardian also has a version of the same quote; I've left it on the talk page. It appears to be the same point made during an interview with a different reporter. SarahSV (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, someone needs to read WP:FANSITE. Guy (help!) 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy, no they don't. Macon needs to ensure he posts all the facts and 1. doesn't miss out key points (like two other reliable sources were added shortly afterwards), and 2. he doesn't lie, like he has above (I did not claim I went to the library and I did not say anything about who Craig was talking to; feel free to look at the article talk page to find out where I have said either of those things. They are entirely false). BTW, FANSITE shortcuts to Wikipedia:External links, which isn't the guideline you are after - you mean WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat, mi6-hq.com isn't a fansite, then? Someone should tell the person who maintains it. Wikipedia isn't a fansite either. These articles would mostly be improved by being about half as long. Guy (help!) 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy, that's not what I said. I was pointing out the link you provided, to FANSITES, actually discusses the addition of fansites in external links, not within articles. The pertinent link on this occasion WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library, meanwhile refusing to say where you checked the source, a reasonable person would conclude that you checked it in a library. (later you decided to reveal that you checked in using an online source). When you repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of where and when Daniel Craig said that, a reasonable person would conclude that you most likely can't answer the question. When you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites (the actual wording is "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable") a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules (something we have already seen with Wikipedia's rules againstr personal attacks). When you repeatedly claim that if you make an edit that violates Wikipedia's sourcing policies, the person reverting you is somehow required to carefully search your edit for any portions that don't violate Wikipedia's policies, and you just flat out ignore it when you are told again and again that there exists no such requirement, a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to even discuss whether you are following Wikipedia's rules.
This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source and with David Gerard asking you to follow our rules.[18] and correctly identifying [19] that your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source. Your subsequent behavior here has demonstrated that he was right. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
"When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library": I didn't. I told you to go to THE library - the one we have on WP. I even fucking linked it for you. If you're not able to click on the link despite it being handed to you a second time, I do begin to wonder just why you are being so obtuse. Other inaccuracies here include "you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites": you'll have to read what I said a little more closely. I said "WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites", and actually there is some deliberate leeway in the wording of the guideline (for example, if such a site was being written by one individual who was a published expert in the area, then it would be a point for discussion). "incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules" another tedious PA you like to throw out, and hopelessly wrong too, ditto the link to IDHT - all tiresomly inaccurate.
More nonsense follows; "This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source". Again, that's a straight lie. This started when Gerard removed a reference from the paper version of the Mail on Sunday. A legitimate source. I'll keep repeating that a legitimate source was removed until it finally sinks in and you stop telling porkies. "your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source" Another straight out falsehood. I don't know how many times I have had to say that I support the ban on the Mail (that I voted for twice) and the idea it should be removed: it's the crass and inflexible way it is being done that it disruptive. Now, if you're done with trolling and telling lies, I'll leave you to it. There is nothing contructive to be had in listening to more falsehoods from you - you appear to be in competition with the Mail to see how many inaccuracies you can cram into each line. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

[self-reverted] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, this is thoroughly out of order. SchroCat, it would be better not even to respond. SarahSV (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have already asked you once not to ping me to this page. Stop. You are behaving like the worst sort of disruptive troll. Stop. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • mi6-hq.com? Is that Mike Corley? Guy (help!) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Mike Corely appears to be focused on conspiracy theories involving MI5 persecution. I don't think he has much interest in James Bond, but of course mi6-hq.com is a fansite where anonymous users can post content, so you never know. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not discus 15 different sources in one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


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

Daily Mail: The halving[edit]

In Q3 2018, there were 27,336 uses of the Daily Mail as a reference on Wikipedia. At this moment, there are 13,630.

The cleanup of the backlog of bad sources continues. Please use a search something like this one, and help improve Wikipedia. If a few people can each do even ten a day, that'll make Wikipedia a noticeably better place - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail: It's below 10,000[edit]

The deprecated source backlog has less than 10,000 entries remaining! Your assistance is most welcomed - start at the top of this list (or wherever you like really), and see if you can knock off five - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WhatCulture[edit]

WhatCulture, the website where contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications", probably deserves an edit filter. Last month, I took the issue to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist because its use on Wikipedia is being a problem. It is generally specifically used for lists, celebrities, films, video games, and especially wrestling, and one can obviously tell the format of the coverage just by looking at its homepage. Frankly my blacklist suggestion was declined due to the lack of actual spam (the raison d'être of the blacklist), and during that time I came to better understand the use of edit filters. I then realized that I could either take the issue here on RSN or on WP:EFN, in which case the former is obviously correct. Normally, I do not request for putting warnings on links that should be avoided, but when those links become widely used, they become more or less an epidemic that needs to be curbed. I am not sure what I would be using that website for, if anything, so it would help if anyone can tell me why the source is at least useful. FreeMediaKid! 21:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Not reliable and would love to see it blacklisted. I'd put in the pile of "humor-based publications" like Mad and Cracked that are meant to be fun to read but have zero journalistic merit and should not be used for any real claims. --Masem (t) 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Top 10 clickbait garbage absolutely a terrible source. Watchmojo should also be added the list for the same reason, it is currently used in 30 articles HTTPS links HTTP links Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable The pro wrestling project included WhatCulture as a unreliable source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - the pro wrestling wikiproject has had this on its list of unreliable sources for some time, it is unreliable for any claim.LM2000 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Some of their lists are fun but not appropriate as a source. The only exception I could see would be if they interviewed any notable wrestlers/media personality, in which case it may be usable as a primary source regarding the interviewee.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable I've removed references citing them previously so it's kind of nice to see it being discussed here. The reason being that a lot of it is second-hand or pure speculation, not to mention they recently put out a fake news article saying that Karl Anderson had signed with AEW. The fact one of their presenters is considered a valid source on 2019 Superstar Shake-up is baffling to me. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The way I see it, it's a bit like imdb, anyone can register and provide content. It does have some editorial work, but I've never liked the website, too heavy on adverts, with advert chains to fake news websites. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree, LM2000, Solitude6nv5, and Govvy: - could you state whether you would want this source blacklisted? starship.paint (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, the project blacklisted the source because copied a made up rumor from Reddit. Also, as thFreeMediaKid said, "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" it's not a good begining. Looks like a farm content. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Apple Daily[edit]

Given that references to Apple Daily are used in a lot of Hong Kong-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:

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

Thanks. 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Apple Daily)[edit]

  • Option 4 or Option 5: It's a tabloid that regularly relies on poor sources, such as using a tweet from Solomon Yue a protest conspiracy theorist to cover which Hong Kong officials are on the U.S. list of sanctioned individuals in this article (now being added en masse to articles). A recent example of it producing false (i.e. factually incorrect but not necessarily with the intent to misinform) news (bolding mine):

    For example, a protest supporter last month posted a misleading image depicting Lam using her mobile device during the enthronement of the Emperor Naruhito, a sign of disrespect. Within hours, the post was shared thousands of times, including by prominent activist Agnes Chow and local news outlet Apple Daily. It turned out the image was actually taken before the event started, according to a report from Annie Lab, a fact-checking project at HKU’s Journalism and Media Studies Center.
    — A 2019 article by The Japan Times

    It's been described by academic sources as producing sham news, among a host of other journalistic issues:
    • A Wall Street Journal article (1999): describes it as giving readers a heavy diet of sex and violence and having been attacked for bringing tabloid journalism into Hong Kong homes
    • A Far Eastern Economic Review article (Taiwan — Lai's Next Move: The publisher with the Midas Touch hits new highs. But mainland China remains a dream (2001)): describes it as a racy tabloid
    • An EJ Insight article (2019): describes it as having never claimed to be objective or unbiased, particularly in reference to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests
    • A journalism book published by the The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press (2015): criticizes it for breaches of privacy and paparazzi-like conduct.
    • An academic reference book by Berkshire Publishing Group (2014): its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred
    • An academic book on HK media by Routledge (2015, quoting 2005 criticism): Apple Daily has been described as 'well known for its brazen, sensational news coverage ... Legitimate political and social topics have been supplanted ... by sex, sensational crimes, the rise and fall of celebrities, scandalous paparazzi investigations, rumors, and even sham news.
To its credit, it's an example of press freedom in Hong Kong with extensive coverage of the protests, and is a rare publisher in HK that is willing to take on the Chinese government. Nevertheless, it's a tabloid that engages in the usual poor journalism practices across all types of content. — MarkH21talk 23:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC); modified 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC); expanded 08:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC); struck Option 5 on basis on undemonstrated intention in false reporting 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC); parenthetical on "false" to save everyone's time 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC); add years of sources 18:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3, I think we should treat them with the same care we treat the New York Post and New York Daily News, they are usable in some circumstances but we always prefer higher quality sources. A distinction should be made between Apple Daily and the purely tabloid Next Magazine which should be deprecated. We must also be careful to make it clear that this is only about Apple Daily HK not Apple Daily Taiwan which has a completely different staff and editors (the Taiwanese one being much better, although they just had cuts [20] so who knows what the future holds). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2, changing iVote per [21] (the EJI Insight article provided above). They appear to currently be the third most reliable paper in HK and on a ten point scale score barely lower than SCMP (5.71 vs 5.89). The tabloid stuff looks to be largely in their past or confined to the separate Next Magazine publication. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 If it just a question of whether it is reliable, I would say no. I don't see a clear-cut case of intentional false reporting, so I don't think Option 5 is appropriate. In general, I would avoid it and seek better sources. However, ironically, I think the "controversial topics" of option 3 are where it may be valuable as a source. There simply aren't many news outlets covering Hong Kong political dissent, and I don't see major concerns about its coverage of this topic in particular. Editors should use it cautiously on a case-by-case basis. Daask (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or Option 3. Apple Daily isn't a fake news site, however some of the info may be opinionated against the government and should be treated with caution. It might, for example, downplay the violence by protesters and exaggerate use of violence by police. However, if it is reporting the GDP of France, it should be reliable. Political articles almost certainly cannot be quoted directly; they should be paraphrased if possible. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
striking out option 2 per arguments below. Not as bad to require a 4, but definitely not desirable in BLPs. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 They sometimes produce churnalism based on social media posts or images – but that's no different from other publications. They used to have a reputation of focusing too much on celebrity gossip, but that is no longer the case since a few years ago, as is reflected in survey results showing Apple Daily's reputation rising from the bottom to the top of the list. They take a different political position than every other print newspaper in Hong Kong, but that's not a reason to declare a source unreliable any more than to declare the Guardian unreliable just because they support Labour in a sea of pro-Tory newspapers. Apple Daily (HK) is perfectly reliable for news on property developments and government policy decisions, or reviews of local restaurants. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3/4 See my comment in #Discussion (Apple Daily). Matthew hk (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2: I agree with Daask. I would call Apple Daily a situational source, whether its usage is appropriate or not depend on the context, but I don't think this option is provided. Apple Daily is useful if we want to cover some of the more obscure details that English sources didn't cover, especially in the political/social aspect (certainly controversial topics), complementing other RS. If a controversial statement can be sourced to a RS, however, use those instead of Apple Daily. OceanHok (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2, as mentioned above by other users, it is ranked above average among HK newspapers, television and online news sites by both citizens and independent research.--Roy17 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2, per all, no point to make me Apple daily is not a RS. ----Wright Streetdeck 01:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 2: In a recent CUHK research, Apple Daily enjoy high reputation in terms of credibility. If a page has only (or primarily) included Apple Daily as source, stating the need of having more diversified sources at the top of the page will mediate any potential problem. Universehk (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 2: In the most recent survey conducted by CUHK, AD is second highest mark on Media Credibility--PYatTP (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is ranked as one of the more reliable Hong Kong outlets and without a convincing rationale questioning its reliability I side with it being generally reliable with the caveat of seperating out fact from opinion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 2: Apple Daily has an irreplaceable role in Hong Kong covering a wide range of sensitive topics extensively and exclusively. Political news articles may require verification, but occasional errors and the above journalistic issues do not seem to impact its general reliability. lssrn | talk 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Apple Daily)[edit]

  • @MarkH21: please either source or retract, the statement that Solomon Yue is a conspiracy theorist violates WP:BLP no matter what space its made in unless backed up by a WP:RS. I noticed its unattributed on their page, it has been removed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye Jack: Sorry, I took the statement from the WP article lead at face value too quickly. Digging in further though, sources do prescribe him as tweeting conspiracy theories:

    It’s a theory that seems to be somewhat related to the Wuhan lab conspiracy. One tweet by Republican Party official Solomon Yue, who has more than 100,000 followers, said: “#coronavirus is stolen from Canada by espionage & sent to Wuhan to be weaponized to kill foreign enemies.”
    — Article from Vox

    The problem of containment gets worse when power users such as politicians give this false information a boost. In US, Trump helped amplify tweets from the support of QAnon, the conspiracy group active in spreading Corona virus rumors. Republican party official Solomon Yue tweeted to more than 100,000 followers that the virus was stolen from Canada for use of a Bio weapon
    — Article from Rising Kashmir

    I’ve struck the label about him as a conspiracy theorist above, but the main point still stands about the article being based on his tweet. — MarkH21talk 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    The points a good one, I agree that Apple isnt generally reliable but we have a very high standard for calling someone a conspiracy theorist. Tweeting or re-tweeting conspiracy theories doesn’t count, we need a WP:RS to say in black and white “X is a conspiracy theorist” or “X is the originator of the Y conspiracy theory." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    I agree, and thanks for removing the statement from his article. — MarkH21talk 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    @MarkH21: Also just noticed that you’re mischaracterizing the The Japan Times article, neither the quote or the article supports the assertion that they’re "producing false news,” at most you can say “shared a misleading image.” Please correct yourself. I also note that since Solomon Yue is not a conspiracy theorist but is in fact the highest ranking member of the RNC born in China what they say and do is definitely newsworthy and reporting on it doesn't make them unreliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    Also Multimedia Stardom in Hong Kong: Image, Performance and Identity doesnt make that statement, its a direct quote from Lo 2005 (and thus a little dated for our purposes, we are discussing Apple News’s reliability today not in the late 1990s). Representing a quote as coming from the source which used the quote is dangerous academically. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    Actually now that I look at it a few more are too dated for our purposes: that WSJ piece is 1999 and the FEER piece is 2001. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    The Berskshire book has been weirdly fashioned to remove both the beginning and end of the statement which changes the meaning entirely, the full statement is “Yet, its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred, but Lai insisted that journalism should feel the market’s pulse and reader’s feelings. Criticism of the government and the powers that be, including Lai’s good friends, was the rule and without exceptions.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    The title of that EJI piece (which I believe is our most recent) is “Jimmy Lai's newspaper up in credibility, survey finds” btw, looks like you cherrypicked pretty hard to get these. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    The original Apple Daily article said that Lam was using her phone during the ceremony, as opposed to before the ceremony: 但她被當地電視台拍到在觀禮期間玩手機,對場合有欠尊重. Roughly: but she was filmed by a local TV station playing on her mobile phone during the ceremony, showing no respect for the occasion.
    Of course reporting that Solomon Yue says XYZ isn’t unreliable. However, publishing an article saying that six people are on the US sanctions list on the basis of his tweet that says Gang of Six: [six names] is very different.
    This is about the general reliability of Apple Daily. Editors can cite Apple Daily articles from 1999 or 2020 on Wikipedia. This is a whole body of literature being assessed.
    I don’t see how the part of the sentence about what the Apple Daily founder insists is relevant to assessing the reliability of the Apple Daily, or how it’s essential to the prior assertion in the quote.
    The EJI article isn’t asserting that Apple Daily is the third most credible news outlet; it says that the Apple Daily was third out of eleven paid local newspapers in a public opinion survey, while asserting in EJI's voice that the Apple Daily never claimed to be objective or unbiased. The survey barely means anything, and I hope that Wikipedia never has to rely on public opinion polls to determine reliability (even the deprecated Breitbart is distrusted by only 9% of US Republicans and 36% of US Democrats in a public opinion study by the Pew Research Center). — MarkH21talk 09:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC); minor typo fix/clarification 03:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    Your current argument is that Apple News made an error, you still have a long way to go to support “producing false news“ as that appears to be 100% your opinion rather than the opinion of the WP:RS.
    I don’t see how reporting on his tweet is journalistic misconduct as you’re claiming, plenty of people report on tweets these days and the tweet was by a notable person who is an expert in the field.
    We actually base general reliability on recent rather than historical reporting, if that were the case the we would have WaPo banned as a white supremacist conspiracy outlet. Thats why its wikipedia policy that the most recent WP:RS is the queen bee in any dispute.
    A public opinion survey in their home market has a bit more standing than your OR about false news. The way you pull that quote from the piece is highly misleading, in context it doesnt mean what you’re trying to force it to mean. Also again, even if it meant what you think it means bias and objectivity aren’t an issue for us WP:RS wise, lots of biased yet reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    False news isn't the same thing as fake news; fake news must be deliberately false. At least this is the most common definition and is the one used at the WP article, and seems to be the one you're using; I'm using "false news" to literally mean news that is factually incorrect. Apple Daily frequently reports information that is false, i.e. erroneous, but not demonstrably intentionally so. They have a habit of frequently making erroneous reports (here's another blatant front page error from 2013).
    The article isn't just reporting on the tweet, it just says that Regina Ip, for instance, is on the sanctions list. It credits the reporting of these people being on the list to Solomon Yue, without disclosing that it was based on the tweet Gang of Six: Commissar Carrie Lam, [...] Regina Ip are on a leaked 🇺🇸 sanction list.
    You're going pretty far back with that WaPo comparison. I don't think we're far enough into the 21st century that the recency consideration should exclude 1995-2005.
    It's not OR; RSes have reported several times about high-profile mistakes in Apple Daily reporting. I'm not trying to force anything, the quote means exactly what it means. But public opinion surveys don't have any standing on what makes a source reliable. This survey also appears to be the sole reason for your !vote that Apple Daily is Generally reliable. — MarkH21talk 15:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    This is getting off topic so I’l just address the main point and then you can edit your original comment. False news is not different from fake news or sham news, they’re different names for the same thing. What you are doing is calling errors/mistakes false news and that needs to stop now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    Again, I've clarified several times that what I mean by "false news" is "factually incorrect news without a demonstrated intent to misinform", so there's no further need to explain what I meant. There are several differing definitions of the terms discussed at fake news, as covered in its "Definitions" and "Types" sections. I've explained the definition that I am using and clarified the exact statement that I am making. — MarkH21talk 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    I’ve searched high and low for a definition of false news like what you’re describing here (the fake news page makes it abundantly clear that they are generally used interchangeably), I cant find one. Can you link your preferred definition? We generally don’t let editors define words however they like when wikilinking those words would indicate something completely different (as it does here if we wikilink false news in your statement). By your definition of false news every single WP:RS has “produced false news” which is an odd statement that I think would be objected to by almost everyone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    An MIT study published in Science defines "false news" in the exact same way that I have:

    We have therefore explicitly avoided the term fake news throughout this paper and instead use the more objectively verifiable terms “true” or “false” news. Although the terms fake news and misinformation also imply a willful distortion of the truth, we do not make any claims about the intent of the purveyors of the information in our analyses. We instead focus our attention on veracity and stories that have been verified as true or false.

    The rest of the paper then uses "false news" in exactly that way. Is that enough? Plenty of other reliable sources use "false news" to literally mean news that is incorrect, rather than the narrower requirement of being deliberately incorrect. There's a case to redirect false news to misinformation instead of fake news, but I don't intend on wasting any more time on this off-topic matter. — MarkH21talk 16:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    Using that definition publishing false news does not effect reliability as it relates to wikipedia so I’m confused by your argument. We require that it be deliberate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    The point was that they have had several high-profile incidents of erroneous reporting and sloppy journalism, and have been criticized for doing so. It’s more frequent and severe (relative to the body of independent coverage about their journalism, and relative to the age of the newspaper) than one would typically find for “Generally reliable” sources in WP:RSNP. — MarkH21talk 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
As someone who is is not familiar with the reliability of Apple Daily or Hong Kong news in general, I have to agree with Horse Eye Jack here that sources that are over a decade old are not appropriate to determine reliability. For instance Buzzfeed built an award winning news operation after initially being a publisher of listicles, if you were to judge Buzzfeed by article discussing the publication in the early years, you'd get inaccurate impression. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
If it were "fake news" (deliberate false reporting), which I don't think Apple Daily has done, then it would go to Option 5. Reliability is not just about whether the newspaper reports news falsely and deliberately. Reliability is about whether the newspaper reports news falsely at times (even if not deliberate). This is related to the reputation for fact-checking, which according to arguments above have appeared multiple times. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Reliability is more about owning errors, when reliable sources make errors (and they routinely do, NYT makes multiple errors a day) they correct or retract their error. Apple News (HK) does appear to do that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems more a Tier III thing personally, as it is, in my opinion, not completely reliable on controversial topics. As expressed above, they do correct their error.--1233 ( T / C 03:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Too long don't read. Apple Daily has many error as well as tabloid journalism. The magnitude of error is way too large. For example reporting Wang Ming-chen as the first Chinese physicist when copy editing the original The Beijing News. However, the The Beijing News article clearly stated that she is the first Chinese female physicist and by common sense many Chinese physicist are born earlier and obtain PhD way earlier than Wang.
Another example, they made a huge investment on video news. However, for Hysan, they can't even read the source material probably and reporting the company has 10 properties in Causeway Bay in the video news. But in fact, the company annual report clearly stated 9 in Causeway Bay and 1 in Wan Chai/Mid-level. Their investment on photoshop / video compare to basic proofreading fact checking is disproportionate.
For other metric, a depart of CUHK (香港中文大學傳播與民意調查中心) conducted a survey on creditability, many citizen gave the newspaper quite a low score. (this is an option (edit: damn me for another typo. I mean opinion) article on Ming Pao regarding the survey, not the primary source [22] )
For the good side Apple Daily has on-site reporter on live event, accusing them not reporting that they actually saw is a WP:OR. Instead, for HK local news, if more than one source to reporting event A and if Apple Daily's narrative is roughly the same as other newspaper, i don't see any point to not to keep 2 newspapers as citation. I personally not recomanded to use Apple Daily as single citation without cross checking BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I don’t see that Apple Daily got a low score, I see that Apple Daily got the third highest score. Google translate yields "Among the paid newspapers, almost all the newspapers' scores have dropped, and they have fallen considerably. With the exception of the Apple Daily, its scores and rankings in 2016 have risen, and this year it has risen to the third place, which is almost the same as the score of the second Ming Pao, and the South China Morning Post continues to top the list.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The option (edit: typo: opinion) article is stating overall the newspapers got a low score. By a metric of 1 to 10. Yeah 5.18 in Y2016 and rank 8th among paid newspaper is self-explanatory. It was ranked 3rd with a score of 5.71 in Y2019 , after the outbreak of 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Apple Daily is ranked 11th in 2006, 2010, 2013 surveys BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The scores are relative not absolute, they can only be used to judge the newspapers against each other. You can’t just say “5.71 is not 10 so it must be bad!” when the source doesn't say that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The score itself does not have a conclusion by itself. But the opinion author, 蘇鑰機, which also came from CUHK, choose "香港傳媒公信力:低處未必最低" as the headline, which roughly translated as overall the creditability of the whole industry is falling and not yet bottom . Ranked 11th for 2006, 2010, 2013, 8th in 2016 and 3rd in 2019. That's some reference point for other people to judge Apple Daily's credibility. Matthew hk (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Dude you don’t get to file a bogus ANI report [23] on me (which you almost got boomerang blocked for) and then carry on discussions with me as if nothing has happened. Pound sand, I’m done with you and your disruptive editing style. Don’t let me catch you on my talk page either, you’re banned from there. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, Horse Eye Jack, I recommend against holding this kind of attitude against users who fail to assume good faith. An allegation of editing on Dahua Technology, however egregiously failing to AGF, is not going to solve disputes. This discussion id different. Putting that aside, I consider Apple Daily kind of reliable for reporting straight facts like this report on COVID-19 but reports like calling the Communist Party bandits or reports of the protests (particularly the use of police force)? I'm not going to cite them. It is nowhere near reliable for contentious topics, as mentioned above. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Many users here tend to discredit Appledaily because of its political standpoint. The truth is, the press in HK is so distorted and heavily influenced by Chinese govt that often very few other established newspapers would cover the sensitive topics that Appledaily covers, so people not familiar with press in HK may find that Appledaily is sometimes contradicted by other sources, but local citizens and researchers' rankings reflect the actual credibility Appledaily deserves.--Roy17 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Roy17: What do you mean by independent research and researcher’s rankings if it’s different from the local citizens’ rankings (i.e. the CUHK public opinion survey)? — MarkH21talk 03:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @PYatTP: 3rd (not 2nd) in the specific category of local paid newspapers (11 entries) of the public opinion survey. Also emphasis on it being just a public opinion survey. — MarkH21talk 02:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is B'Tselem a RS?[edit]

There have been several posts here in the past about B'Tselem that I've found, and from what I can tell about the consensus is that it can be used but at the very least it needs to have inline attribution. B'Tselem is an advocacy organization, not merely an NGO, as such it has a POV and we should not attribute something to it in Wikipedia's voice. I found discussions here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B'Tselem , Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78#CAMERA_/_Alex_Safian and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_170#POICA_&_Israel. In the IP conflict area, any pro-Israel NGO is often dismissed automatically, yet ARIJ and B'Tselem is allowed because it's pro-Palestinian, even though they play loose with the facts (as was shown with B'Tselem a few weeks ago with Coronavirus and the UN). Regardless, I think there should finally be a decision that this NGO doesn't speak for Wikipedia and is not a RS that can be used for a neutral ref-tag without an "according to B'Tselem..." Sir Joseph (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally. NGOs that do not have a a good reputation may be (example CAMERA as you note), but B'tselem does have such a reputation. Other reliable sources (eg NYTimes[24][25][26][27] BBC[28][29][30] the Guardian[31][32][33]) regularly cite B'tselem. nableezy - 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Up above you claimed Virtual Jewish Library isn't a RS, even though it's cited by the NYTimes many times. And what is wrong with CAMERA? They report on media inaccuracies. The fact that they are pro-Israel means that you don't like it. There's also NGO Monitor, which is pro-Israel, that gets tossed out often, and Ad-Kan. Please let's not pretend that there's an even playing field here. (You say there are pro-Israel NGO's that are allowed, can you name some?)Sir Joseph (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
A source isnt reliable or unreliable by virtue of its stance on Israel or Palestine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is reliable or unreliable by virtue of its reputation for fact checking among other sources. JVL does not have a good reputation. B'tselem does. Therein lies the difference. nableezy - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, a pro-Israel NGO that is used? Hmmm, the ADL? ITIC? Some of the worse ones that are still used include the Hudson Institute. Being pro-Israel or any other position isnt what determines if a source is usable. nableezy - 04:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As to the matter, they are a political advocacy group. They aren't just for human rights. They are against settlements which is a political issue. They also routinely ignore human rights when it's perpetrated from the Palestinians, or worse, see Ezra Nawi for just one example. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Reliability and bias are two separate things. B'Tselem has a reputation for accuracy. Maybe the Virtual Jewish Library does as well, but that's another conversation. TFD (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the thing, it doesn't have a reputation for reliability, it has been found repeatedly to make things up. This was in March when even the UN praised Israel and the PA's cooperation, [34]. If they are biased, their sourcing should not be in Wiki's voice. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The Israeli military is not the source of truth in this world, sorry. That they accuse B'tselem of something does not make their well-earned reputation for fact-checking and accuracy not true. nableezy - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, so B'Tselem makes up fake news, and Israel corrects it and it's published in multiple RS, but according to you, only the B'tselem source is usable. Does that make sense? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Im sorry, I stopped reading at "fake news". nableezy - 04:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Youre bringing the chief of staff of NGO Monitor writing and saying that trumps the NYT or the BBC or the Guardian who all regularly cite B'tselem. Thats not how reliability is determined.And, oh by the way, note what said chief of staff of NGO Monitor wrote: the European Union, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland continue to fund B’Tselem. Thats because of their oh so sterling reputation. nableezy - 04:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a side note here, when you say regularly cite them I am just not seeing it. Most of the sources you list are over a decade old. PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
NYT: [36][37] [38]

BBC: [39][40][[41]

Reuters: [42][43][44]

Those recent enough for you? nableezy - 04:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup! Thank you, though it is kind of funny, the last two Reuters articles copy paste the paragraph cited to B'Tselem. PackMecEng (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Just as with good news sources, the distinction between facts and opinion can usually be identified in Btselem's output. In the case of opinion, "according to" is appropriate. In the case of facts, its reputation for accuracy is very strong. Zerotalk 05:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
On what you base you claim that they are trustworthy?They are even don't pretend to be some neutral observer.They have clear agenda so everything they present should be taken with their agenda in mind --Shrike (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Attribute even when they are used by media they tend to be attributed, so we should follow that as well. Especially the accuracy of their casualty stats have been called into question. buidhe 08:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    Camera.org is not reliable itself. According to camera.org, the NYT is biased,[45] the Washington Post is biased[46] and they even put editors in Wikipedia to promote pro-Israel POV. I dont think you should rely on such source.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    Btzelem is bisaed too what is difference? --Shrike (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You cannot assert that the 'facts' themselves are biased. Camera's mission is to spin the facts, not document the realities. One has a forensic approach to a 'crime scene', the other gives a tabloid account in which the assailant was compelled to defend themselves against the 'victim'.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Is that your neutral unbiased opinion? Perhaps this is reason enough why Wikipedia is biased. Terribly shocking. Camera just reports on the media's inaccuracy. I hope people don't presume to say that the media is accurate all the time, but of course it's yet another pro-Israel RS that is labeled as not-RS by people here, just like NGO Monitor, and others.Sir Joseph (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per Nableezy. It has been cited by multiple reliable sources like the BBC, Reuters, New York Times, etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable B'tselem is an NGO with positions based on international human rights law and has gained international awards for this work. The executive director, Hagai El-Ad has twice been invited to address (in 2014 and 2018) the UN Security Council. It receives funding from the EU and other governments. Their reports and statistics are widely cited. Does this sound unreliable?.Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unusually Reliable and Zero's point on the distinction between its reportage on facts versus comments that may be construed as B'tselem opinions, should be followed with regard to whether to attribute or not when citing this source.
Additional Comment. There is a lot of verbal confusion here, such as calling B'tselem an 'advocacy group', and unfamiliarity with what it does. An NGO whose remit is basically to document empirically (and this involves extensive field work interviewing people involved in incidents in order to sift out the facts from witness bias, as well as constructing vast databases, with statistical analyses) human rights abuses measures these in terms of two systems of law: Israeli and International. This is not 'advocacy' in the usual negative sense of the term, as biased lobbying for some cause. As one book puts it.

'Information on Israeli human rights violations is highly politicized. B'tselem, the Israeli Information center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories is perhaps the best neutral source.' Jack Donnelly, 'International human rights: unintended consequences of the war on terrorism,' in Margaret Crahan, John Goering, Thomas G. Weiss (eds.), The Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: Human Rights, Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy, Routledge, 2004 ISBN 978-1-135-99507-2 pp.98-111, p.110 n.10

We use mainstream newspapers whose reportage is basically breaking news written rapidly as every incident unfolds, without attribution all over these I/P articles. B'tselem instead exhaustively sends out interviewers to ascertain from all eyewitnesses (and from Israeli army reports and legal judgements) what actually appears to have happened, and is infinitely more objective. The fact that what it reports is often upsetting to espousers or spinners of the official government or military line doesn't make it an advocacy organization and indeed even the IDF has long admitted that it is dependable, as witness the following statement by the Israeli historian and senior IDF figure, Mordechai Bar-On

In one case the IDF chief of staff publicly challenged the numbers B'tselem reported on Palestinian casualties, and subsequently apologized when he learned that his figures were wrong and B'tselem's report was correct. In later years the military authorities often asked B'tselem to confirm their own information.' Mordechai Bar-On, In Pursuit of Peace: A History of the Israeli Peace Movement, US Institute of Peace Press ISBN 978-1-878-37953-5 1996 p.401 n.119

In short, recourse to RSN re B'tselem should stop until there emerges, not from notorious activist NGOs touting an official viewpoint, but from serious sources analyzing its actual performance, any evidence it systematically indulges in spinning the facts it reports so abundantly. It is more reliable than most of our unquestioned mainstream newspapers.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you not get the irony and hypocrisy here? So B'Tselem is OK, but another NGO is a "activist NGO?" NGO Monitor showed when B'Tselem made stuff up, just in March it made up a story about the coronavirus, yet it was dismissed because it was NGO Monitor, and IDF was dismissed because it was IDF, so the bias is clear for all to see. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You seem to fail to understand that NGO Monitor is not reliable and they havent shown anything. What Btselem reported was that Israel confiscated tents the Palestinians designated for a clinic. That has also been reported by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and as a result of those complaints the IDF has said they will stop demolitions in the West Bank. Not quite the silly spin you would like to put on this. You cant take crap sources complaining about ones that actually have a solid reputation and use that as evidence against said solid reputation. That has nothing to do with hypocrisy, and you would do well to stop making such personal attacks that have literally no basis in fact. nableezy - 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't NGO Monitor not reliable? And what B'tselem report was not that the IDF will stop demolishing stuff, but that the IDF confiscated supplies and demolished tents, yet they did no such thing. You are posting a news article that has nothing to do with what I posted. Bottom line is B'Tselem has ceased to be a neutral and human rights org and is now an advocacy org. It is not a RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Youve made your position on that clear. Unfortunately nobody else seems to agree with it, nor do the many sources that cite B'tselem as the widely respected human rights organization that it is. Why isnt NGO Monitor reliable? Thats like asking why isnt Electronic Intifida reliable. But its because serious sources dont treat it as a serious source for reliable information, but rather as essentially a propganda outfit known to lie and distort in order to advance its agenda. Youre comparing the equivalents of Electronic Intifida and If Americans Knew and demanding that they be treated like B'tselem. Thats just silly. nableezy - 04:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
SJ. Don't assert that I am being hypocritical.It is an WP:AGF violation. You are making a simple categorical error, which I guess I'll have to explain to you.
There is a category NGO.
Both B'tselem and NGO Monitor are subsumed within that category.
Therefore anything that is said of one, applies to the other. If B'tselem is OK as a source, so it any other NGO commenting on, or active, in that area.
Is it really necessary to explain to you that subsets of a category are not, by virtue of belonging to the same category, interchangeable? Or that because Jews, Christians and Muslims are subsets of the broad category Abrahamic religions, what is said of any one of the three applies automatically to the other two? Jeezus! (sorry, tetragrammaton, for the life of the prophet!).Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Attribute, like media does. They are an advocacy group, though a respected advocacy group.--Hippeus (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Attribute per Buidhe. ​Also per the previous discussions cited above, this is clearly not a neutral think tank, but an advocacy organization. Data from this group should be clearly attributed whenever used.YUEdits (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me summarize.

  • It was asked if B'tselem was a reliable source. The answer is unequivocably yes.
  • Many editors think attribution is required because it is an NGO. It was pointed out in the original discussion 9 years ago that since B'tselem is a major source for facts in the I/P area, reflex attribution everytime would mar innumerable pages with a formulaic repetitiveness.

'I think that formulation may be too critical of B'tselem. The question here is really whether and when in-text attribution is necessary. IMHO, much or most of the time it is not. We should focus on what is actually controversial, everything can be potentially controversial, especially here. Much of the actual criticism of B'tselem could be characterized as nitpicking or cavilling,...Right now, the article in question has too many "According to B'Tselem"'s, detracting from readability and doing little positive'John Z

  • For this reason, (given also that the Israeli army itself, whose actions B'tselem often criticizes, is known to accept that it is accurate- I recall one general remarking that it kept the army on its toes) User:Zero0000 offered a sensible suggestion:
  • Source facts to it, and only use attribution when B'tselem offers an opinion, a position he affirmed in 2011.

Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. Of course anything potentially controversial sourced to them should clearly indicate them as the source (which goes for all NGOs). Zero

  • So. Recent bad habits of reverting out B'tselem as not RS are against consensus. This is resolved as it was in 2011.
  • But editors have yet to clarify the point about attribution issue raised also in 2011: (a)invariably or (b)occasionally, according to the nature of what is being cited. If (b) you get formula splatter, which mars pages.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Attribute. I personally take their reports seriously, but this is a TA where it's difficult to establish a "baseline" of reliability (eg. some source with which to compare others), so any source that might be seen as "taking a side" should be attributed. This applies to most every local governmental and non-governmental organization, some foreign governments and a host of media entities. François Robere (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The full name for B'Tselem is "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied territories". This is therefore clearly an advocacy organization, and one that advocates a rather unpopular point of view in Israel. It has therefore all the incentive to be biased in its reporting. That is one reason I think that information from this source is suspect. In addition, when I look at the list of Board Members I am unimpressed by the general academic level (chaired by a high-tech executive, includes a script-writer), and very much impressed by how many political activists are on the board... Not to mention the fact that there is no indication that the board exercises any editorial control. Last but not least, their website has a blog section. In short, this organization is likely to be very POV in its reporting, has no indication of editorial supervision of its publications, and in general does not impress with its academic level. As a result, the blog section is of course completely unreliable, and the rest of its publications are likely so biased and lacking editorial control, that they can not be used as reliable sources either. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy has said above: "It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally." His opinion has been quoted by others here as a reason to consider B'Tselem a reliable source. However, reading his statement makes it clear that his opinion is only based on argument by assertion, and therefore lacks any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:SCHOLARSHIP for example warns of the dangers of scholarly publications "that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" and that is all the more true when this is not even a scholarly publication. WP:BIASEDSOURCES acknowledges that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" but also asks us to "consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering", and B'Tselem is lacking at least in the first of these requirements. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Uh, it isn't my opinion. Haaretz: Israeli human rights NGO, NYT an Israeli human rights group that monitors the treatment of Palestinians, NYT the Israeli human rights group. Please dont pretend like I am asserting something that has literally thousands of sources backing it up. But claiming that an argument by assertion (which was not made) is invalid and then proceeding to actually argue by assertion and not offer any evidence for your comment is a little funny. nableezy - 14:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
And, as for those other reliable sources citing B'tselem, please see WP:UBO. Whether or not the POV is unpopular in Israel is literally the least important thing I've read in weeks. What matters is how other reliable sources treat B'tselem, and they treat it as reliable. nableezy - 14:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Robert C. DiPrizio (29 February 2020). Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts. ABC-CLIO. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-1-4408-6748-4.
Brief review - "B'tselem is internationally recognized for its work on behalf of human rights..."
Donal Carbaugh (19 August 2016). The Handbook of Communication in Cross-cultural Perspective. Taylor & Francis. pp. 318–. ISBN 978-1-317-48560-5.
Marc H. Ellis (19 September 2017). The Heartbeat of the Prophetic. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 383–. ISBN 978-1-5326-1906-9.
So easy to find RS approving of B'tselem. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
These source only mention that B'Tselem exists and that it is a group of political activists in the field of human rights. That is not the question here. The question here is if they are a reliable source, and that I do not see written in these sources. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
When reliable sources cite a source, and do so repeatedly, that shows its reliability. Again, see WP:UBO. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that B'tselem is regularly cited by reliable sources. nableezy - 01:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PanAm Post[edit]

Hello! Another source that has raised questions: PanAm Post. I noticed that PanAm Post was describing a member of their staff as having a Harvard University "degree". They say that Emmanuel Rincón, a self-published author (WP:QUESTIONABLE/WP:RSSELF) who writes for the site, has "a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University". That "degree" is a free edX course provided by Harvard (see here, where 40,000 people are already enrolled!). This raises concerns about their reliability and if the site exaggerates the credentials of their staff (or their reporting).

So I am asking the community to decide the following evaluations about PanAm Post:

  • 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

Not sure if these type of RSN RfCs are still permitted since changes were proposed when I was last active, but a few opinions on this source would be appreciated!----ZiaLater (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • An embellished author profile is concerning, but these profiles are often embellished though normally not as above. Are there any other red flags? Looking at their website, much of the content appears to be opinions.--Hippeus (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2: PanAm Post has been listed in WP:VENRS, an essay dedicated to list and analyze reliable sources for Venezuela related topics, where it has been described as: Miami-based newspaper, described as "libertarian". Generally reliable, but news articles should be differentiated from opinion pieces and original invetigations, which should be attributed.
It appears that PanAm Post is generally considered as reliable to report news.
PanAm Post was the outlet that published an investigation denouncing the embezzlement of payments for the housing of Venezuelan military defectors by representatives of opposition leader Juan Guaidó in Colombia, which led to the audit and investigation of the situation afterwards. However, there have also been concerns about its neutrality and reliability after Orlando Avendaño [es] assumed the position of chief editor, along with Vanessa Vallejo [es]. Care should be taken with opiniated articles.
I don't know if there are different authors or important differences between the English and Spanish versions, but this should also be taen into account.
I stand with the original description, that if used, PanAm Post articles should be attributed. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
PS: Since the source has been described as "libertarian", the Cato Institute RfC, which has received similar allegations, might be relevant to the discussion, and it might help to invite editors more knowledgeable about this. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I guess, it is to me unclear how reliable this website is. As said by Jamez42, it has been cited by other reliable sources before so it is notable BBCAPWaPoWSJReuters but no information on how reliable is their reporting per se.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    In Forbes The 2020 Ranking Of Free-Market Think Tanks Measured By Social Media Impact, it was described as popular and with "solid reporting" on topics related to free market.--ReyHahn (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    Associated Press called PanamPost "a conservative online publication run by mostly Venezuelan exiles from Miami" in a piece that confirms PanamPost original investigation.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3, much of their reporting has a strong right wing bias which often manifests itself as omitted information, poor sourcing, entertaining questionable scientific views, and sloppy reporting. Ownership is also secret which makes it impossible for us to determine whether this source is independent of the subjects it reports on. The irony here is that the topic for which they’d be the most useful, Venezuela, is also the topic they are entirely unreliable on reporting. Their opinion pieces are batshit crazy, but its not like anyone was going to try to use an opinion piece anyway. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye Jack: do you have some sources to back their "right wing bias"?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever read them? Their editorial and opinion section is openly right wing, often comically so, (for example [47] header: "Few dare to acknowledge the reality that the world has been dominated by different shades of the left, over the last century. And to move forward, we must recognize that we have been defeated. It is time to rethink the world and Latin America"), something that cant be said of right of center publications like the WSJ. If you’ve read them for a while you might have noticed that the opinion section tends to bleed over into the journalism more than is appropriate from a reliable source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Also for what its worth the author of that extremist opinion piece is the guy "with a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I guess this is where opiniated articles should be distinguished from their reliability. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
No this isn't, if they had a separate editorial board and journalistic staff that would be one thing but they don't. That guy writes both opinion pieces and news articles (with barely a change in tone I might add). Thats just not something a reliable source does, sorry. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Horse Eye Jack. A publication which blurs opinion and news to the degree that this publication does, which entertains those ludicrously insane viewpoints and blends them in with its supposedly factual reporting, and whose ownership is secret, cannot be a reliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Devonian Wombat: can you share an example of a non-opinion article being heavily opinionated ?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Sure, here is an article: Bill Gates’ Strange Relationship with China and the Coronavirus which is not marked as opinion, instead simply as “coronavirus”, which accuses Bill Gates of essentially being a spy for the Chinese government, accuses the WHO of covering up for China, and to top it off, goes on a massive anti-vaccine rant for several paragraphs that declares the HPV vaccine caused thousands of deaths, and says that efforts to create a vaccine for coronavirus is part of Bill Gates’ effort to enrich himself. There is also this article: The Death of Venezuela’s Interim Government which is not marked as an opinion piece, instead as news, where the author spends the entire article ranting that the reason Juan Guido is not very popular is solely because he has tried to make some compromises with former supporters of Chavez and Maduro, and ends with a pretty clear call for violence. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Devonian Wombat: Many thank for the examples. Could you please elaborate with what you mean that its ownership is secret? --Jamez42 (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Jamez42: The PanAm Post is owned by PanAm Post LLC, but there is no information on who owns PanAm Post LLC, meaning that the site could have a conflict of interest with things it reports on, and we would not know. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Devonian Wombat: Understood. Many thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Ball is on the board of Atlas Network. Atlas Network states the following about Ball: Mr. Ball was until recently a regular columnist of Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper, El Universal ... Mr. Ball was amongst Venezuela’s most vocal public critics of the new Venezuelan Constitution proposed (and now in force) by Hugo Chávez in 1999. At the time, Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper “El Universal” described Mr. Ball as the “mastermind” of the campaign against the approval of the new constitution in the referendum of December 15, 1999. During the fall of 2001, Mr. Ball was named Chairman of the Organizing Committee of the first national work stoppage organized by the Federation of Chambers of Commerce jointly with the Federation of Trades Unions to protest against the autocratic tendencies of Hugo Chavez. In 2004 Mr. Ball was formally accused of “Civil Rebellion” and “Treason” by the National Prosecutor in Venezuela. In an article titled "The failure of the left" by Ball, we see his thoughts on Venezuela, writing "Since 1958 Venezuela has had nothing but leftist governments." He described the PanAm Post as his pet project, saying "PanAm Post has been more a vocation ... rather than a business activity". According to Ball in an error-ridden PanAm Post article, the Trump administration has even described the PanAm Post as "a Russian Troll" after he criticized the US for not maintaining a "credible threat of force on the Maduro regime". Ball has also discounted The New York Times and described it as the "Soviet Times" in an article that again said that Venezuela has only had left-wing governments.
The PanAm Post also promotes climate change denial articles against the scientific consensus on climate change as well, writing things such as "I, for one, am thrilled to have access to a cheap and practical source of energy: fossil fuels are not going to destroy the planet or make it uninhabitable for human and animal life" and the "Proud to Be a 'Man-Made Climate Change' Denier" article that describes global warming as "[a] massive lie designed to manipulate global policy into a wealth redistribution system. ... It is better to be a denier and free than a believer drinking the cyanide laced flavor-aide (it wasn’t cool-aid) in a socialist paradise".
Then you have the PanAm Post being picked up by Snopes for regurgitating unproven information from The Epoch Times, which has been deprecated on WP:RSP. Emmanuel Rincon, the questionable editor mentioned above, even cites The Epoch Times when discussing COVID-19 in China.
In summary, we have an extremist founder who created PanAm Post as a "vocation" that attacks what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, with PanAm Post being used as a platform for climate change denial and anti-China rhetoric resued from The Epoch Times (among other fringe topics), while their staff uses possibly cooked-up credentials. This seems like a similar case to The Grayzone, with WP:RSP stating Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. This seems like a blog for Ball and friends, not a reliable source.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this should be heavily judged on Venezuelan politics. Venezuelan politics are a mess. Many journalists have spoken against the Venezuelan government and accusations by Maduro administration do not usually add to much. Also PanamPost has also been very investigative on Maduro's rival Juan Guaidó, even finding reported corruption scandals, see Reuters. On the Russian Troll affair, the Soviet Times, Greta Thurnberg and China articles, those are labeled "politics and opinion", we need to discuss news articles and not opinion. Additionally, even if Ball founded it, could you clarify what is his position in the publication? it is certainly not the only reporter, while in The Grayzone a moderate percent of articles are pure Blumenthal (its main editor). For the rest you posted, I have nothing to say, it should be weighted in, I guess climate denial and anti-China go along with their libertarian bias.--ReyHahn (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The anti-authoritarianism can be credited to their libertarian roots but there is nothing libertarian about climate denial nor is that a position that most libertarians hold. Climate denial is more a fusionist position and when found within libertarianism is pretty much only found within right-libertarianism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, Devonian Wombat also has a good point that their opinion and news articles blend together (sometimes within the same news and opinion categories). Overall, their website is a mess and promotes some dubious material.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per ZiaLater's and DW's investigations. Website clearly publishes false and misleading info deliberately—not as an oversight—and cannot be trusted to tell the truth. buidhe 00:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Again, it seems to soon to call option 4. As showed by my comment above Panam Post is considered reliable in some fields and some of their original investigations have been showed to be relevant and confirmed by sources like AP. For what I've seen it is at worst option 2 for SOMETIMES mixing opinions and facts without a clear label, which just demands precaution.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Up until now, nobody has provided a non-opinion article reporting false news. The publication could be easily labeled option 2, demanding precaution and saying that it can be partisan to (right) libertarian views.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@ReyHahn: chill out. Respect WP:BLUDGEON as well as other people's opinions. It certainly *can* be option 4 and I would say that the stories already shared meet the standard for publishing false and misleading views but personally I don’t think they’re important enough to deprecate. I think thats something we should reserve for sources people are trying hard to use despite their unreliability, this source appears to neither notable or reliable. I certainly *could* have iVoted for option 4 though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Understood, I decided to modify the wording on the opening of the comment.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Also per my sources above, it appears to be certainly notable in South American news. Reliability is what we are trying to measure here.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Patric Cagle and Broken People YouTube sources, and groundlings.com[edit]

Resting bitch face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Groundlings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get opinions on this and this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Under WP:ELPOINTS, external links are generally not supposed to be used in the article body (outside of citations), and the groundlings.com links in these edits are not compliant with the guideline. The YouTube video from The Groundlings and Patric Cagle lacks independent sourcing, and should be excluded from the Resting bitch face article as undue weight; its use in the article on The Groundlings might be okay as a primary source, but should ideally be supported by an independent reliable source. On the other hand, the Broken People video was mentioned in the cited New York Times (RSP entry) article (If you’re up on your Internet memes, perhaps you’ve heard of its linguistic predecessor: “bitchy resting face,” which emerged from a parody Public Service Announcement), which makes it an acceptable primary source in the Resting bitch face article. — Newslinger talk 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, thanks for commenting. I was tempted to remove the external linking, but I decided not to revert again (partially or fully) without first bringing the matter here for other opinions. I feel similarly as you do on all of this.
Pinging StylishFedora so that StylishFedora sees this if StylishFedora hasn't already. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger and Flyer22 Frozen -- The video "Resting Bitch Face" was clearly uploaded to YouTube on October 11, 2011, years before the creation of the Broken People video. That can't be in dispute. The woman in the video is the same Patric Cagle shown on the Groundlings website bio page. The man in the video is clearly the same Nate Clark as the one on his personal website and the Groundlings bio page. Would an image of the Groundlings theater program from the September 12, 2011 production (showing writing, acting, and directing credits) suffice as supporting evidence? (Confused.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StylishFedora (talkcontribs) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi StylishFedora, was that performance covered in any secondary sources? Performances that are not mentioned in reliable secondary sources are usually excluded as undue weight in articles unrelated to the performers, since they are not considered prominent enough to warrant a mention in the articles. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Newslinger, and thanks for the reply and guidance. I've been unable to find a secondary source that references that performance directly, but there is an article in LA Weekly[1] that references another performance (also documented on YouTube[2]) including the same two actors in the same show. If I tie them together and include a photo of the printed program from the show, would that suffice? —-- StylishFedora (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research, but unfortunately, that's not quite enough to make the connection. The secondary source needs to explicitly mention resting bitch face in relation to one of the following: the "Bitchy Resting Face" performance (preferred), The Groundlings, or the comedians in the performance (Nate Clark and Patric Cagle). Combining two different sources that don't explicitly make this connection is a case of synthesis, which falls short of Wikipedia's requirements. — Newslinger talk 20:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger Hm. The secondary source I'm trying to find certainly wouldn't reference the Bitchy Resting Face video, since the entire point of the original edit was to prove that the Broken People sketch was not the "original" Internet reference to the phrase as its editor claims, but rather the version written by Patric Cagle and posted to YouTube years before that one ever appeared. It's hard to understand how a video titled "Resting Bitch Face" -- clearly posted years earlier than the one referenced in the article which claims to be "the original" -- could not be a de facto refutation of the (internet) origin of the phrase, regardless of supporting secondary sources. (Doesn't the mere existence of the Resting Bitch Face video prove that point?) Is there a chance that the similarity of the titles (Bitchy Resting Face v. Resting Bitch Face) has caused some confusion here? -- StylishFedora (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger & Flyer22 Frozen - There's also an issue with the final sentence in the second paragraph of the Origin section of the Resting Bitch Face article, which is worded to imply that the term "Resting Bitch Face" is not, in fact, the original phrase and / or that the Broken People video is the origin of the term, both of which are plainly proven false by the mere existence of October 11, 2011 YouTube video. StylishFedora (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the Resting bitch face article doesn't claim that the phrase originated in the Broken People sketch. It just claims that the sketch was uploaded in 2013. The first sentence of the "Origin" section also includes an assertion that "the phrase dates back 'at least ten years'" before 2013. I'm not seeing any issues with the content in the article. The 2011 performance from The Groundlings doesn't meet the due weight requirement to be included into the article unless an reliable and independent secondary source is available that describes it in relation to "resting bitch face". — Newslinger talk 03:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger I disagree. Because the sentence that begins, "It has since gone on..." is in the same paragraph (and immediately follows) the "Bitchy Resting Face" reference, and because that sentence ends, "to become more commonly known," the implication is that the "It" of that sentence refers to the Broken People video as the origin of the phrase, which is refuted even by the NYT article, if not by the existence of the Patric Cagle video. The phrase was always "resting bitch face" so it did not "become more commonly known" as that. StylishFedora (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I've changed "It" to "The facial expression" for precision. Although we're not able to use the 2011 video, this clears up the ambiguity. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree that changing the pronoun is enough. The very fact that the reference to the Broken People video is placed in the Origin section (instead of in the "Spread in wider culture" section) implies to the reader that the Broken People video is the origin. I think a fair argument can be made that the NY Times article which states the phrase was at least ten years old is more than enough evidence to specifically not include a reference to the Broken People video in the Origin section. Regardless, I removed the "become more commonly known" bit and now I think it's much clearer. Thanks for your help on this. StylishFedora (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. I've renamed the "Origin" section to "History", since the content does not clearly expain what the origin of the term is. I hope you find this satisfactory. — Newslinger talk 19:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lovell Estell III (December 22, 2011). "Camp Sunday". Retrieved May 26, 2020.
  2. ^ "Signs from God". Patric Cagle. January 21, 2012. Retrieved May 26, 2020.

Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article?[edit]

The consensus is that yes, NBC is a generally reliable source for the Epoch Times article, meanwhile some editors feel that the CRC is unreliable. starship.paint (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Epoch Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a newcomer in English Wikipedia and only discussed on the ET talk page twice. Nevertheless, I believe my question in the subject line is valid, as the ET article referenced these two NBC reports at least 10 times. Yesterday when I made the 2nd comment on ET talk page, Admin Doug Weller advised: "if you are so sure about this, take it to WP:RSN". Following this advice, I am here now.

In the two NBC reports, NBC claimed that the fund ET placed in pro-Trump ads in the last year was more than any other organization outside Trump’s re-election campaign and more than what most of the Democratic presidential candidates spent on their campaigns in the same time. This claim is quite misleading.

According to CRC's report NBC News Fails CRC Fact Check: The Epoch Times Is No Pro-Trump Dark Money Operation, “It is true that the Epoch Times reporting is generally favorable to Trump, and that they used their coverage of the administration in many of their ads to drive subscriptions. However, this is commonplace for news outlets looking to draw subscribers, and no less than The New York Times has done the same.”

WP:REPUTABLE stated “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. “ NBC seems to be not a third-party in terms of assessing or reporting about ET, on consideration of the following two factors:

1. Being obsessed with the conspiracy theory that Trump works for Russia, in recent years NBC was caught for reporting fake news many times in this regard. Here are 2 examples: A, and B.

For over 3 years, ET has been reporting Spygate where the pro-Hillary US Intelligence Community (IC) set up traps to spy and to destroy their enemy Trump and his supporters. Many events unfolded in 2019 and 2020, such as DOJ’s IG report on FBI`s FISA abuse, the declassified FBI document showing the plot to trap General Flynn, indicate The Epoch Times’ reports on Spygate theory in the past 3 years seem to be accurate. Recently many other media echoed ET’s Spygate report. Here is one recent Yahoo news

Reporting facts is a media’s duty, which should not be classified as being pro-Trump. NBC and ET have been reporting two competing theories and therefore being competitors to each other. It seems that by associating ET’s Facebook ad for increasing subscription with Trump’s re-election campaign, these NBC reports made use of the anti-Trump sentiment to NBC advantage for beating down NBC’s competitor ET.

2. Both media’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party is opposite NBC Universe has a joint venture in Beijing with CCP, while ET early journalists in China were persecuted by CCP and last year CCP riots in Hong Kong tried to burn down ET’s printing house NBC’s economic ties with CCP made its reports on ET appear not following COI.

On consideration of above factors, I believe NBC can hardly be counted as a third party on the subject of ET and to cite NBC for introducing ET could be against WP:COI and WP:REPUTABLE, so I am raising the question for your review. Scarlett 04:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • NBC is a reliable source, while the Epoch Times is a propaganda mouthpiece for far-right interests, from Donald Trump to Covid disinformation campaigns to Falun Gong advocating. Zaathras (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC News is a high-quality reliable source. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC News is a source of the highest quality, and I've never heard any general criticism over its fact checking or journalistic integrity. I would count it as the highest level of reliability among news sources. --Jayron32 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As other editors highlight above, NBC News is generally considered a high-quality source. The CNC (Capital Research Center), on the other hand, which has produced movies like No Safe Spaces under its movie production extension "Dangerous Documentaries", is a right-wing political organization. Its defense of Falun Gong propaganda arms is not a huge surprise. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC is a highly reliable source, Capital Research Center (CRC) is a highly unreliable source. Any time you have to use a highly unreliable against a highly reliable source you should probably just walk away. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC is indeed a reliable news source, while the Epoch Times is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC is one of very few sources that we can pretty much make a blanket determination of its reliability. Capital Research, however, is laughably unreliable and far right garbage. The opinion of CR would be like considering the opinion of Redditors at r/conspiracy on The New York Times to be valuable or legitimate. Praxidicae (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC and ET aren't publishing two competing theories. NBC is reporting the truth, while ET is off the rails on their pro-Trump conspiracy theories. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The WP:COI guidelines being cited are not guidelines for sources to include or exclude; they are guidelines for which editors should or should not be editing given articles. The topic starter here may wish to read it, for instances where it may be of relevance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC News is a high-quality, reputable source. EP or CRC are the opposite. "Spygate" is fringe conspiracy crap. Neutralitytalk 13:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

The Post Millennial for article Supervised injection site[edit]

I am not seeing much prior discussions on this source. I am considering using this source for the article Supervised injection site. They do have editorial policy posted. Graywalls (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say that most likely they follow into the "should be be attributed" category, as they have a pretty strong right-leaning bias, and despite what they may say about their "rigorous multi-level review process" they still have published misleading or outright false stories that fit their preferred narrative without proper vetting. They may correct them after the fact when called out on it by prominent fact checkers, but, combined with the heavily loaded language in which much of their reporting is written, it does not instill much faith in their reliability, at least not to the point where potentially contentious material could be stated in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There's no evidence that The Post Millennial has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for reliable sources here, particularly given that supervised injection sites are an issue at least bordering WP:MEDRS. If this study is actually as "bombshell" as claimed, there should be some mainstream and medical sources reporting on the issue. If not... well, maybe it isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that there should be better sources who have picked up such a supposedly groundbreaking study. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this and the related Needle exchange programme seem to be riven with poor sources on both sides - blogspot pages, sloppy journalism, primary sources from advocacy groups, claims presented as undisputed fact, etc. They could definitely use attention from folks with WP:MEDRS expertise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millennial is a generally unreliable source with a reputation for advocacy and spreading misinformation. Its not appropriate to use on any article except perhaps its own even when attributed. This is a bottom of the barrel source, especially when it comes to socially contentious topics like the one here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Horse Eye Jack:, do you have anything backing up the claim about its reputation for "advocacy and spreading misinformation"? That's a pretty contentious claim. Graywalls (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • General comment: The Post Millennial is a relatively new outlet, it has a right-leaning bias, and it produces both news and opinion journalism. There's definitely some variability with respect to the editorial rigour in their articles. With those caveats in mind, they are an increasingly influential and professionalizing outlet, and I would not agree that they "have a reputation for...spreading information." All outlets occasionally err and issue corrections (yes, even left-leaning ones!) and there's nothing remarkable about that. So treat with a bit of caution (e.g. if they use loaded adjectives, bear in mind that it may be coloured by an ideological bias, but the facts may still be true), and consider in-line attribution as needed.
  • In this context: go ahead and use it. The article is just a lengthy summary of a report, which obviously exists, and which can be cross-referenced if there are any doubts. While a right-leaning political bias may affect the framing of the article, the facts appear correct.TheBlueCanoe 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look reliable. As other editors have noted above, the site appears to be little more than a small, right-wing tabloid. For example, the site's "culture" column consists of little more than attacks on "SJWs" and feminists, about how America's churches "provide the most essential service of all", attacks on the ACLU, defenses of single-use plastic, etc. Articles in the "news" columns are similarly couched with right-wing talking points, and the "Coronovarius" column consists almost entirely of flattering reports of "anti-shutdown protestors" and negative coverage of politicians enacting these policies (with, of course, glowing coverage of Trump).
The site also appears to play quite loose with its coverage when it doesn't align with the narrative they present. For example, this header refers to a straightforward assault or "shooting" as a "shootout", which misleads casual readers. There was no exchange of gunfire (OED: Shoot-out: "A sustained exchange of shooting, a gun-fight.").
In short, the site appears to be essentially a tiny Breitbart, with a similar rejection of objectivity. I'm sure a closer look will reveal further issues. Whatever the case, I recommend finding a more objective source. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable (though it may be useful for Canadian political news, since some articles indicate that they have good access to party officials). Consider checking out The Post Millennial and past discussions on RSN regarding the source. A major issue is poor division between opinion and news (CBC 2019). Even for uncontroversial facts, I would prefer any more reliable source. This source has come up in BLP talk on a few occasions, and it has generally been deemed not up to snuff for that purpose (<1><2>). Jlevi (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • comment I'm seeing on here it's mostly factual, with a bit of right bias, however I am not sure if mediabiasfactcheck.com is considered a respected authority on wikipedia for source bias. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
MBFC is sometimes useful to see if they've linked anything reliable, but past RSN conversations indicate with strong consensus that the site itself shouldn't be used directly. Jlevi (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable per Jlevi and Bloodfox, who have shown misleading information and poor distinction between factual reporting and opinion. Since they are mostly aggregators, news should be cited to the original outlet. Attributed opinions are unlikely to be due weight. The CBC article says "The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. Approximately 75 per cent of the language in the policy is identical to declarations of principles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Globe and Mail and Torstar publications." (!) That's blatant copyvio, so WP:ELNEVER may also come into consideration. buidhe 23:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably avoid using it in the particular case mentioned above for the reasons NorthBySouthBaranof and Roscelese give: if the study in question is significant, better sources will cover it, and (especially as this is a MED-adjacent topic) biased sources are not ideal. As to the general case (of whether they should be used anywhere), they're certainly a biased source in my experience seeing other TPM articles I'd seen in the process of Wikipedia articles, and now seeing specific examples provided above, and plagiarizing their ethics policy(!) and being called out for inaccurate reporting elsewhere suggests they're also an unreliable source. (One might make the usual proviso that they could be reliable for statements about their own current staff, beliefs, etc, although as the Daily Mail RfC further up this page indicates, trusting an unreliable source to be reliable even about themselves can be risky.) -sche (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable; see here, here, and here. It's comparable to Breitbart in that it makes no distinction between opinion and news, was founded to stridently advance a particular political agenda, and has a history of playing fast-and-loose with the fact as part of that goal. Perhaps most notably, while they have an ethics policy, they plagiarized much of it from the Washington Post (see the second link.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Though I agree with questioning TPM's reliability in general, I would like to note that the second source you mention (regarding the libel notice) may not be entirely useful for this discussion. I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics to make a strong statement, but that piece is framed in terms of allegations and a lot of he-said-she-said. I don't think the piece ever makes a statement in the publication's voice. That may change if we see a a result from the court/libel case. Jlevi (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Plainsite.org on Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk[edit]

In relation to Tesla, plainsite.org is currently cited in a couple of places. Yesterday I removed a third plainsite.org citation related to Tesla. I did so for two reasons. Firstly, a few days ago the person behind plainsite.org filed a lawsuit against Tesla. Secondly, in the filings of that lawsuit they divulge their personal, financial investments against Tesla. (Investing against a company means short selling of that company's stock or as in this case, the purchase (from an entity unrelated to the company) of put options that will pay out handsomely if the company goes bankrupt.) Per their filing, the plainsite.org owner has made an investment that will as a maximum pay out $200,000 if Tesla goes bankrupt (or the stock becomes essentially worthless) by June 19 of this year. Among the investments listed in their filing is an investment against Tesla on March 8, 2019, so on that date they created a personal, financial interest against Tesla. On the Tesla article, I removed the reference to plainsite.org (and the content that it alone supported) because I consider it self-evident that we cannot cite material from a website operated by a person who has started a legal conflict with Tesla and who is actively investing against the company. In addition to Tesla, the lawsuit list as defendants also Elon Musk, a company Smick Enterprises Inc. as well as an apparently non-notable, named individual. As such I think a general decision on the scope of plainsite.org citations is necessary. For this discussion I am paging QRep2020, an anti-Tesla-focused SPA who happens to have introduced all three references to plainsite.org. Lklundin (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How is this user QRep2020 not a COI account? Seems to have flown under the radar despite already being blocked. A true advocacy/COI SPA. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I included Plainsite.org because I could not find any other website on the Internet that is keeping an living count of lawsuits where Tesla is a party. I frankly agree Plainsite is a bit too involved - though Aaron Greenspan has denied being a part of TSLAQ - but until there's another website that is providing that sort of detailed important information, I thought the point was important enough to surface. Feel free to prove me wrong as I didn't spend hours researching. QRep2020 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
As if short-sellers are known for their reliability and honesty. -- GreenC 19:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence that this has been true on a large scale? Conversely, why would I trust someone promoting a stock? Don't they have the same COI as a short seller? Springee (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Nobody involved in short selling, holding or promoting a stock should be editing the relevant article directly in my opinion. Isn't that textbook COI? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • How is any of this relevant to the current discussion? What reason do we have to believe someone from Plainsite is editing entries on Wikipedia? QRep2020 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
First, my comment was directed at the claim that short sellers in general are unreliable or dishonest. I didn't take that comment to be Wikipedia specific and my answer certainly wasn't meant to be. As for Wikipedia specifically, are you suggesting one of the editors here has a COI or just that Plainsite has the COI? What level of fiscal involvement becomes a COI issue? If I own 100 shares of Grumman should I be barred from editing the Grumman article? Springee (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, my understanding is that you should not be editing Grumman. I'm a little surprised you need to ask this but maybe there is something I am woefully misunderstanding about WP:COI? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
How did you derive that from WP:COI?
Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject.
On one hand I could take it to mean Democrats are not allowed to write about Republicans as they have an interest in making Republicans look bad. Republicans are not allowed to write about Republicans as they have an interest in making Republicans look good. So only independents can write about Republicans? That might fall into the common sense end of things. Back to Grumman, if I were a major shareholder then I would have a clear COI. As a minor shareholder of a major (and technically no longer existing) company how much impact could my edits have on the stock price? I mean if everything I write is from RS and has WEIGHT then how could it be the sort of cutting edge news that would move the markets? WP:COI gives examples of company owners but not typical shareholders. I would agree that Greenspan from Plainsite would have a COI with regards to Tesla based on disclosed investments but I don't believe Greenspan in an involved editor here. Absent insider knowledge how could I with some tiny fraction of Grumman shares impact the stock price by editing the Grumman article? Springee (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you are trolling or something. Despite being linked to the correct spelling of Grumman you are still typing Grumann and as you say it doesn't even exist anymore. or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency). At this point I am extremely skeptical of your handling of any of this and I think we should look further into it to see if any funny business is going on. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I've corrected the spelling error from Grumann to Grumman. Grumman is no longer a company. It merged with Northrup. Thus there are no shares of Grumman to speak of. Springee (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. Couldn't be more clear. Please explain how this could possibly elude you? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that owning some shares in a company makes you a "Paid Editor". That is the section you are quoting. Springee (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Despite how you may wish to interpret the section heading that introductory sentence states plainly that it is about a financial conflict of interest and what this includes. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
So then how is owning a few shares of Grumman (spelled correctly this time) a bigger COI vs editing an article about a political candidate I want to see succeed or fail? Per WP:EXTERNALREL, "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.". If I own one share of Grumman how much incentive do I have to try to sneak some market moving information into the article? Again, "governed by common sense". Springee (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a discussion for either WP:COI/N or Wikipedia Talk:COI. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a reliable repository for the relevant lawsuits. That is, if a RS mentions X vs Y lawsuit and that lawsuit is available on Plainsite then I would say we can reliability assume the copy is reliable (not a altered or doctored). Additionally if a RS links to information on Plainsite I would consider it reliable for inclusion here (assuming WEIGHT). Essentially we should treat Plainsite as we would the content of a personal blog.
Lklundin, DIYeditor, it is not appropriate to start this off with a discrediting statement about QRep2020. Certainly there is no evidence they have a COI with Tesla. As for disliking Tesla, well that is clear but how many editors here dislike the left or right yet are actively editing those topics. If there is evidence they are editing problematically then take it to ANI. It should not be a topic here. Springee (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I reject the claim that QRep2020 is being inappropriately discredited here. The editor should be informed when edits that they (alone) have made are being discussed here. The SPA tag exists exactly to inform others about such an editor. That QRep2020 appears to edit disruptively and make advocacy out of COI is explained here. Lklundin (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding to my about comments about Plainsite, it has been used as a reference by news outlets. [[48]][[49]][[50]][[51]][[52]][[53]][[54]][[55]][[56]][[57]][[58]][[59]][[60]][[61]][[62]][[63]][[64]][[65]][[66]] In most of these cases Plainsite is acknowledged as a transparency site that filed for fredom of information requests or simply collected and published the relevant legal documents. In almost no cases save for a comparison of the number of active legal cases pending against various car companies, is Plainsite credited with some level of data transformation. Again, I think we can assume the information is truthful but should assume the information has zero WEIGHT. It would only be included in cases like CNBC citing Plainsite as the source for depositions etc. Springee (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if we can sidestep the issue at hand for now. I came across a "Google Dataset Search" entry for Tesla lawsuits that references Plainsite as the source. Although the information was assembled by Plainsite it looks like the entry does not list Plainsite as one of the databases. Maybe this would work instead of a link to Plainsite since Plainsite is under scrutiny. Are there any policies on Wikipedia about data sets and sources? https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/search?query=%22tesla%20lawsuits%22&docid=5q3qE%2FgkHRIQhrg7AAAAAA%3D%3D QRep2020 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that really changes things in my view. There are two questions that we have to ask before information from Plainsite could be used in any article. The first, is if the material is reliable. In basically all cases it's reliable as evidence that "Plainsite said X". Per WP:RS it can't be treated as reliable for general statements of fact. I think it can be reliable as a source for "copy of lawsuit, deposition materials etc related to legal case X". This is how it has been cited by a number of RSs. We should not use it as a source for Plainsite generated claims including statistics (example X had 50 lawsuits in 2019). However if say NBC News says "X had 50 lawsuits in 2019 according to Plainsite" that would be considered RS since a RS is vouching for the material. All of this only addresses the reliability of the material. The other question is WEIGHT/DUE. Even if we had a letter from the all mighty saying Plainsite was 100% true there is still the question of weight. In this case we really need 3rd party RSs to cite the information to show it has weight in context of the bigger topic. I don't see that the Google search does that. Springee (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. The matter at hand really is then whether Plainsite is a reliable "repository" of lawsuits. If it is a reliable repository, then an editor can cite it in a Wikipedia article and count the amount of lawsuit references under the guidelines allowed for calculation by Wikipedia:No original research for inclusion of a statement of the references tally. Plainsite might be biased but biased sources are allowed under Wikipedia:Reliable sources and even with that it is not as if Plainsite is generating factual statements. If something as controversial and profiteering as Wikileaks is allowed to be a repository source on a Wikipedia article then Plainsite should be as well. QRep2020 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
We might be in agreement but I'm not certain. Per OR and RS we shouldn't have a sentence claiming Tesla is involved with X no. of lawsuits because Plainsite lists X or says so. However, if a RS says in his deposition Tesla CFO said X [cite per RS that links to Plainsite] then I don't see a reason not to have both the cite to the RS as well as linking directly to the deposition. If the Wikipedia article is going to attribute the claim it should go to the RS unless they attribute the specific claim to Plainsite. So if RS says "Tesla did X per Plainsite" then it would be OK for the article to say "legal something site Plainsite said Tesla did X"[citation to RS]. Note that the details of any such edit are subject to local consensus. Springee (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we are unfortunately. How about linking to a new or updated Wikipedia list article that lists the approximately 700 lawsuits and employs an External Links section to link to the docket list on Plainsite vis-a-vis a source link in References section? I do not want to go so far as to suggest precluding any reference to Plainsite because regardless of perspective Plainsite did do work to assemble the list and I bet it is against some Wikipedia policy to "snatch and run" with the producibles of other sites' efforts. QRep2020 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This is really an article level discussion but what you need is a RS that draws attention to the number of lawsuits. If Forbes has an article that notes the number of lawsuits or compares the number of cases vs other automakers then we have some weight for article inclusion. This isn't a question of where the list comes from, rather if the information is DUE for inclusion. If Tesla had more pending lawsuits than all other car companies combined it would be a shocking fact but it wouldn't be DUE unless a RS discussed it (even that doesn't guarantee inclusion). Think of this as Wikipedia informational due process. Sometimes it seems like good information is being excluded but that's just how things work around here. We are meant to be summarizing what reliable sources say about the subject. Consider that our intended audience is a decade in the future. If the number of lawsuits is considered important it will come out. Perhaps not as soon as we would wish but it will come out. Springee (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
While it should be clear that we cannot use plainsite.org as a reference for Tesla (and Elon Musk), it is different if a RS cites plainsite in connection with one of these entities. Wikipedia has created for itself the process here for (re)evaluating whether a source is reliable. The typical, reliable news media cannot be expected to retroactively assess whether a source they cite is still reliable in their view and will typically not on their own retract a story if a source they quote turn out to be something else than it was at first. So if for example CNBC e.g. a couple of months ago cited plainsite.org in relation to Tesla (or Elon Musk), would we then cite the CNBC source with or without attribution (knowing that their source had the above mentioned problems)? Lklundin (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would be OK citing CNBC in that case. We would have to ask, how would/could the material sourced to Plainsite be compromised by the site owner's fiscal interest? Please note that a similar fiscal interest has or currently exists with sites like Electrek and Cleantechnica other than they profit with increases in Tesla stock vs drops. Back to Plainsite, the primary thing the website offers is a publicly accessible repository of court and government documents that would otherwise be difficult/expensive to access. Do we have any evidence at all that such records are false or altered? None that has been presented. If CNBC says, "Musk said X in his SolarCity deposition according to legal records requested by Plainsite" where is the concern? I can see some concern if CNBC says Plainsite says "Tesla has 50 lawsuits pending vs 10 for GM". Still, given Plainsite's involvement with Tesla and TSLAQ I would have to assume CNBC would understand that Plainsite isn't an unbiased source yet chose to cite them anyway. So while a case could be made that a stat purely generated by Plainsite may be questionable we should still treat it as reliable if a reliable source does the same. Springee (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. If a RS cites plainsite.org on Tesla (or Elon Musk), then we should be able to use that with attribution. Lklundin (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Can YouTube video (having more than 100K views) be used as references for notability[edit]

I want to know that if a view having more than 100K views (example for a song). Can anyone use it as reference to that song in that singer's biography Discography section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChunky (talkcontribs)

No, youtube numbers cited to youtube doesn't mean anything, WP:N-wise. If Rolling Stone writes an article about the song, then it may be notable, and if that article bothers to mention the number of views on YT, it's fair to mention it in a potential WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Notability and popularity are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No, as discussed. Also consider looking at Arguments to avoid: Google Test for a similar discussion on google hits. Jlevi (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This howling dog video has 401,012 views, is the dog notable? Seriously, no, YouTube numbers are not the kind of sources Wikipedia uses. However, a video with 100k or a few million views could mean sources are out there.--Eostrix (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
and to add, 100,000 is not even top 500.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
it's actually worse than the Google Test. Take a look at [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+youtube+views ]. You can buy fake YouTube views for $1 to $2 for a thousand views. Or you can accomplish the same thing without cheating by buying YouTube ads that lead to your videos. GEICO, TurboTax, Grammarly, and Wayfair have all received millions of legitimate views because they ran ads on other, more popular YouTube videos. The cost for this is roughly $200 per thousand views, so this method is pretty much used only when a reasonable percentage of those views turn into paying customers.
Other online venues where there exists a thriving market for fake views/subscribers/likes/followers/positive reviews/etc., are Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. See [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+reddit+upvotes ] and [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+facebook+likes ] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I am stating my opinion but not the current practice: If it is from an official account (with Youtube Verification in some form), I think it is acceptable. Universehk (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally no. YouTube is a video hosting platform, and does not make the publisher any more or less reliable than if it had uploaded the video on its own website. If the YouTube channel is verified in some way to a source that would otherwise be considered reliable, then the video would be reliable and count toward notability regardless of the number of views (subject to the other conditions in the general notability guideline). If the YouTube channel is verified to a self-published source, then the video would still be considered unreliable and not count toward notability. Most YouTube videos fall in the latter category. — Newslinger talk 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the principle of WP:GHITS should come in here. In layman's terms: No, they should not because as people said above, number of views is completely meaningless. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope as per everyone above, Also if the video is deleted the article is stuffed ... whereas if it's a news article then it wouldn't matter if the link died as we have Wayback Machine. IMHO Youtube should be avoided at all costs when it comes ro sourcing. –Davey2010Talk 11:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. If an article in a WP:RS finds the number of YouTube views of a video notable enough for a mention, that article can be cited in Wikipedia for a mention of the video's YouTube views. Otherwise, no, don't cite the YouTube video itself unless the use complies with WP:ABOUTSELF. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

ConservativeHome[edit]

ConservativeHome is a conservative (suprising no one) UK political website / blog founded by Tim Montgomerie and currently owned by Lord Ashcroft. It has been cited over 300 times and externally linked nearly 500 times HTTPS links HTTP links on Wikipedia. To me Conservative Home looks like a self-published partisan blog like Guido Fawkes or The Skwawkbox, and therefore should generally not be used as a source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Shared blog at best - definitely not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Most of these links appear to be to articles about contributors saying that they contribute to the blog. That doesn't seem to be an rs problem. I don't even think it's a weight problem because people reading the biography articles may want to know where they can go to find their contributions. TFD (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't doubt that some of them are about contributors to the blog, and they are usable per WP:ABOUTSELF. But I don't see how they could constitute a majority of uses at least from a brief look at the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Only useful for aboutself and (minimally) attributed opinion. Other uses should be axed. buidhe 23:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Opinion, attribute for anything else. In [[67] their about] they do bill themselves as a news site with an editorial team (with six staff members listed). It not run by Montgomerie anymore (he does contribute). This isn't Guido Fawkes or Skwawkbox, more akin to LabourList. This is a partisan oriented news/opinion site, and for news there are more reliable and neutral sources.--Hippeus (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The Canary also has a considerable number of staff, despite this they were judged to be generally unreliable (Not that this directly relates to CH). I think that CH is usable (minimally) for attributed opinions, but for general citations, I agree that better non partisan sources could be found. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
That's a valid comparison. Partisan opinion sites designed to preach to the faithful are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia, and shouldn't even be linked unless some reliable third party makes a case for the sigfnificance of any particular content. Guy (help!) 10:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This site is opinion, and should be used sparingly, with attribution, and not at all unless some reliable independent third party source has established the significance of any particular article. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. We should never go mining the internet for random opinions to make a point in an article. Guy (help!) 10:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Forum/many-headed blog for the Conservative Party/Tory whips' offices. Not suitable for news as such. GPinkerton (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Self source only, too partisan to be reliable for factual information, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mirror[edit]

I forgot to ask this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Local papers, but is https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/keith-lemons-new-show-horrifies-22005570 reliable? I wouldn't use it myself, though that's probably not based on policy but because my late father used to work for the paper until about two months before Robert Maxwell's death and they weren't attempting to make it a reliable source then (the phrase "two and a half percent news content" was apparently bandied about a lot at the time). WP:RSP says there is no consensus amongst Wikipedians as to whether or not it is reliable.--Launchballer 15:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

When did we last discuss this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
It's fine for non-controversial stuff like direct quotes of what it itself has said, with direct attribution, and reporting of banal facts like sports scores and weather reports and the like. It's also notable that banal stuff like sports scores and weather reports are basically always available in better sources anyways, so it would be rare outside of direct, attributed quotations that it would be better than just using another source. --Jayron32 17:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Least-worst of the British tabloids, though still not great and any other source (that isn't actually worse) is to be preferred. I'd rate local papers higher. First time I read the Daily Mirror, in 2002, I had the distinct thought "this is the stupidest thing I'll read today", and I was still on Usenet at the time. I'm not sure how good it is on pop culture coverage - if it makes stuff up. That story doesn't look made-up as such, though I'm not going to consider quoting a few people on Twitter evidence of notable widespread public horror and would be reluctant to file it in the 2.5% of news content - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Obviously its not the most insightful source, the are usually better quality sources but I am not sure if it has been shown to be actually unreliable. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
yeah, I haven't heard of it being caught actually lying much. (It's lost a few defamation cases.) But just because it covers something doesn't make that thing notable, I'd say - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Meh. It's less crappy than the Mail, but if the Mirror is the only source for something then we probably shouldn't include it anyway. Guy (help!) 10:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the point of going through each possible source. Editors should always chose the best sources available and only enter information that is widely reported in relation to the subject. Generally that means not using tabloids except in certain circumstances. Where this type of source usually comes up is why some editor wants to put something into an article that they have found on their news feed and The Mirror or some other tabloid is the only remotely reliable source that has reported it. The problem is that if one source they find is blacklisted, they will find another one. But the same can be said of the broadsheets. If a story about a well-known subject is mentioned only in The Times or the Guardian, then it lacks weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
True, that is the ideal, and it is was the practice we would not even need RSN. The issue is it is used, and often as the only source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I have put the Mirror in as a source for sport scores, I figure it's not gonna lie about those and it's not a usage that implies article notability. Though I'd rather have the BBC, Guardian or Tele - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd say Daily Mirror should be posted as generally unreliable like the Daily Express. While it could be considered the "least worst" of the British tabloids, it's still important to point out that it is a tabloid, and by nature puts story in front of fact. I do agree with User:Jayron32, in that it should be okay for direct quotes, but beyond that I think it is just as hard as with other tabloids to distinguish reliable information and should be avoided when possible. Maxmmyron (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not completely unreliable, its usable for uncontroversial content such as sport facts, film, tv and music reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm tempted to convert this into an RfC. How do I do this?--Launchballer 02:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What if secondary sources conflict with and apparently misinterpret a primary source?[edit]

Death of George Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If a movie or book is a reliable source for a plot description, isn't a video also a reliable source? If this source clearly conflicts with what a few secondary sources are saying, what should we do? I have left a "dubious" tag because of this. I apologize for the video I link containing some extraneous commentary at beginning and end but it is the best and only complete copy of the video I have found. I link to the exact timestamps that are relevant here.

Primary source:

  1. Video on YouTube (5m36s) African-American man walks up and starts commenting.
  2. Video on YouTube (6m05s) What sounds like the same man tells him to get up and get in the car, that he can't win. Is plainly not the Asian officer standing there whose voice can be heard in the video. There is no way you could interpret this to be one of the cops if you listen to all he says.

Secondary sources:

  1. Agence France Presse: the officers taunted him to "get up and get in the car."
  2. CBS News: An officer keeps insisting he get in the car
  3. WVLT-TV An officer can be seen insisting Floyd get in the car
  4. Buzzfeed News: A person can be heard talking to Floyd, telling him to get up and get in the car, although it is unclear if it is an officer speaking. (found and added since I posted this comment)

Agence France Press??? They transcribed an English video?

This may not seem important but this has real world implications. People may be understandably irate if they are told police were taunting the victim and telling him to get up while holding him down. This is not what happened. A bystander was telling him to give up. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Updated 06:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint has excellently found the conflicting secondary source and updated the text to reflect this conflict. This resolves the exigent issue. I still wonder what is the answer to this broader question of secondary sources conflicting with primary. My feeling is that RS experts are going to say the secondary source takes precedence but it makes me uneasy because of this case. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: - I wouldn't question Agence France Presse just because they're originally from France. They're one of the 'Big Three' news agencies. That newspapers around the world cite Agence France Presse is a testament to its credibility. starship.paint (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I would use WP:INTEXT attribution and otherwise leave it alone until/unless a new secondary source mentions an issue. AFP and CBS are reliable enough sources that you should defer to them over direct editorial interpretation of a YouTube video.
For the general question, it depends on the quality of the secondary and primary sources. — MarkH21talk 06:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint's solution is the correct one. When a secondary source seems to conflict with a primary source, you really only have a few options. One (the ideal one) is to find more secondary sources - ideally later-published, higher-quality ones that spell out the contradiction directly and correct it, but ones that fit any of those criteria can be good ("we found twenty sources and this is the only one describing it this way" is a valid argument.) Another option is to consider whether the existing secondary source is low-quality or unreliable on the subject (obviously this is not an option when dealing with AFP, but often if a source is glaringly wrong it's a good reason to examine them more closely.) The third option is to omit saying anything at all based on limited coverage, at least until more sources appear - this is especially a good choice for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, which you might not want to cite to a single source even if it's high-quality, or for WP:BLP situations where a higher standard is required. WP:RECENTISM is often also a reasonable thing to invoke for temporary omission in situations where it seems like secondary sources are getting it wrong and you expect corrections to appear shortly; part of the reason for that policy is to resolve situations like this. What we cannot do, ever, is to use a primary source to directly correct a primary source, either explicitly ("X said Y, but they were wrong[cites to X and primary source]") or implicitly (X said Y.[cite to X] But actually, Z![cite to primary source]), since that's WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. If you can't find a secondary source correcting the one you feel is incorrect, the thing to do is argue for omission; if you can't successfully do that (because eg. multiple high-quality sources are getting it wrong and there's no corrections anywhere), sometimes you just have to accept that we're an encyclopedia and therefore have no choice but to follow what reliable sourcing says even when it leads off a cliff. --Aquillion (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    +1 to Aquillion says. -sche (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Huffington post[edit]

Is this true "HuffPo is not considered a RS in general and must not be used in the context wherever there are doubts about its articles, as in this BLP. Removing what was not a position of AI" as a user has suggested at Piers Robinson?Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • To give actual context, Piers is a UK academic currently best well known for being part of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, including Vanessa Beeley and others that have alleged the Douma chemical attack was staged (see [68]), and that that the White Helmets were "actively involved in managing a massacre of civilians" (see [69]) and has been criticised for this in The Times [70] [71] and the HuffPost [72] [73], and has also been criticised for being a 9/11 skeptic in the latter, see [74]. All of the posts criticising Piers in the Huffpost are by the same author, Chris York, senior editor at HuffPost UK. Kashmiri thinks that the HuffPost is blanket unreliable and has been repeatedly removing the sources, citing them to be BLP violations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • well, we yellow-rate it and suggest attribution. Also, be super-careful it's an actual news article and not a contributor piece - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I never said that HuffPo "is blanket unreliable"; I warned that we should not include controversial or defamatory information about living persons based on a HuffPost article – especially when the article author is a self-confessed "specialist in conspiracy theory debunking"[75], which simply means his writings are likely to be influenced by his personal point of view. BLPs are a tricky area and whenever there are sourcing doubts re. controversial information, it should rather be left out. — kashmīrī TALK 14:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Kashmiri I think that's fair, and I apologise if you think I misrepresented your position. I agree that I would rather use another source rather than the Huffington Post, but due to a lack of reliable secondary sources we are left with relatively few options. How do you feel about citing the WGSPM documents cited in the HuffPost articles directly, alongside the articles themselves? I am uncomforable with citing the WGSPM or Robinsons's writing directly, as these are WP:PRIMARY sources and feels uncomfortably close to WP:OR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to not use HuffPost. It's a perfectly legitimate news outlet and their journalists go to all the same briefings the paper newspapers' do. It's neither a tabloid nor party political. GPinkerton (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The OP's initial statement makes it seem like HuffPo is not reliable. Wikipedia has reached no conclusion that it is or isn't reliable, as there's never been a broad RFC on the general reliability. It is treated as reliable by other scrupulously reliable sources which cite and quote it frequently, which is usually a hallmark of general reliability, but Wikipedia has not had the discussion per se. I would treat it as generally reliable for its factual and investigative reporting, and as with any source, including the really reliable ones, published opinion pieces and unvetted guest contributions are not news anyways. --Jayron32 04:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree there is no problem with citing news articles from HuffPo. The fact the particular journalist, a senior editor,[76] describes himself as "specialis[ing] in US politics, conspiracy theory debunking, and explaining complex stories in a way that won't make your head hurt" does not diminish his reliability, merely names his areas of expertise, which include the topic of the WP article in question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Janusz Korwin-Mikke a far-right politician?[edit]

Are the following sources reliable for the claiming that Janusz Korwin-Mikke is a far-right politician?

I am aware that the first source may not be strong enough on its own, but I wonder if it will be appropriate to include also that source, provided the other two are reliable. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@TU-nor and Slatersteven: - are you sure the book source states that this man is far-right? I'm not seeing the quote. What I'm seeing from the book is that another man, Pawel Kukiz, is from a far-right party. starship.paint (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The book may not the Times Of Israel does.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Here are some more https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/08/nigel-farage-ukip-europe-janusz-korwin-mikke, https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2019/1009/When-the-right-wing-is-still-too-socialist-Poland-s-far-right-unites, https://www.jpost.com/international/polish-mp-says-pogroms-were-good-for-jews-assisted-natural-selection-619640, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/tension-gay-rights-moves-fore-polish-election-191010102922825.html. Is that enough?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
And there is https://books.google.no/books?id=CislDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Janusz+Korwin-Mikke+far-right&source=bl&ots=T3K_OvbXhh&sig=ACfU3U3b7IaPMjuTzPZSBjuYREh9bZUhJg&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7vYyardnpAhWQ16YKHaczAv8Q6AEwKnoECGIQAQ#v=onepage&q=Janusz%20Korwin-Mikke%20far-right&f=false, https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/03/09/far-right-polish-lawmaker-says-pogroms-were-good-for-jews-made-them-powerful/ and any number of more examples. But which are the best? --T*U (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @TU-nor and Slatersteven: - I'll just repeat many of what you already raised above, use the Associated Press [77], the Guardian [78], the Christian Science Monitor [79], Buzzfeed News [80] and that Taylor and Francis book [81], that should be indisputable given these sources. I'm not as familiar with the quality of the sources from the Middle East. Also, here is a Reuters source [82] that his party, New Right Congress, is far-right. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Slatersteven and Starship.paint: Thanx both! --T*U (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ToI and Jewish Telegraphic Agency (where the story is syndicated from) are both very reliable in my experience. buidhe 23:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Scriptural texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § WP:RSPSCRIPTURE: Moved to the noticeboard, as this discussion has introduced new arguments not found in previous discussions. — Newslinger talk 12:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

About "Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources". Several related articles like David or The Exodus mostly don't follow this approach in the "narrative" section, which seems to work fairly well. The Exodus takes a mostly MOS:PLOT approach, While David has a lot of cites, mostly primary outside "tricky" stuff.

So I suggest we soften the "summarizes" somewhat, something like "though a MOS:PLOTSOURCE approach can work well regarding some scriptural stories." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC) I've linked this discussion at Wikiprojects Christianity, Judaism, and Classical Greece and Rome.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I too feel that MOS:PLOTSOURCE applies. Meaning that there is a big difference between "summarizing", which basically does not call for any source apart from the primary source, and "interpreting" or "analyzing", which should be based only on sources, to avoid original research. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    Debresser, the problem there of course is that there are a lot of translations of the Bible and they are not all consistent, nor are they internally consistent within a given translation. Since Wikipedia isn't a Bible study I think we should avoid the "plot" approach. Guy (help!) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    That is of course correct, but that can be dealt with when it becomes a problem. There's still times when the PLOTSOURCE-approach works well, inconsistencies can be small and need not necessarily enter the "recap" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
user:JzG's argument that the Bible is a translation and any translation is per definition an interpretation, is taking things too far. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Debresser, no it's not. Translations can be (and have been) motivated by specific agendas. Some people assert that only the KJV is reliable. The NIV was based on a very thorough and scholarly review of the original sources but KJV believers spend endless hours arguing that the many differences are evidence for the superiority of the KJV. It's exactly what you'd expect from translations of centuries-old sources that were themselves written down long after the events they describe. Guy (help!) 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
That strikes me of more of a problem with the King James Only movement than with using the Bible as a source for its own narrative content.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich, so how do you handle a dispute between a KJV editor and an NIV editor? Or any other two editors with differing editions? Which one do we favour as correct? See my problem here?
It's not as if there is any shortage of independent scholarly analysis of every single word of the Bible. We can easily defer to a secondary source that analyses all the various translations and describes the consensus view. Guy (help!) 18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
JzG, to me that question is akin to "how would you solve a despite between an editor pushing a fundamentalist view of the Bible and one who isn't." The KJB was written 400 years ago, no (reasonable) scholar believes it is infallible and we should obviously use more up to date translations. Anyway, this question is not particularly useful in the abstract: what specific detail of e.g. the Exodus narrative is affected by it?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich Riddle me this: how did Haman meet his end? Hanging? Impalement? Crucifixion? Something else? On what was he punished - was it a beam, a stake, a tree (literal or otherwise), a gallows, a gibbet, or a cross (however constructed) that he prepared for Mordechai's execution? The complexity of this question is dwarfed by the question, for instance, of what Jesus is supposed to have carried towards his own execution, or of what is meant by the word "σταυρωθήτω!" Is it "he on rode ahangen" or " Impale him!" or "Let him be impaled!" or "He should be crucified!" or "Let "him" be crucified" or "Crucify him!"? All these English translations are in common circulation and none should be used without scholarly citation.GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
There's no disagreement on how Jesus died. Using The Dream of the Rood as a "common translation" is a strawman argument. As for Haman, if there really is disagreement, then it should obviously be discussed somewhere in the article (which it is). But that's not a normal problem, and simply listing various premodern translations is hardly going to make your point. As I say, modern, scholarly translations should be used.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich You obviously haven't read either Cook's Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World or Samuelsson's Crucifixion in Antiquity! I don't know why you mention the Dream of the Rood, I have not brought it up; the only pre-modern translation of Matt. 27:22 I have used is the 10th century Wessex Gospels. The rest are all contemporary, in-print translations. Look harder, and you'll see ... GPinkerton (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich, the fundamental point is sound. Various translations are inconsistent, and we are not allowed to decide which one is right. We should always use secondary sources. Can you imagine that there is a single verse in the Bible that has not been analysed by at least a hundred scholarly secondary sources? Guy (help!) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
JzG, by that standard we wouldn't be allowed to summarize any work that has been translated into English based on the work itself if there were more than one translation. But I guess that is actually what you think about plot summaries in general, so props for consistency I guess. My own contention is that issues in translation are generally so small that they aren't likely to cause problems. If they do, then the issue be discussed elsewhere and then it isn't really a problem again.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich Now that is a strawman argument! This isn't about "any work that has been translated into English". It's about scripture, which according in each case to a vociferous minority, is not fiction and needs to be treated differently. GPinkerton (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, cf. for instance WP:RNPOV. There's no reason for us to treat the Bible differently than any other source. If you can make an argument about Bible translations, it should be applicable to any translation used.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia is exactly the reason WP:RSPSCRIPTURE exists. The majority of scripture is considered fiction by the majority of people and can therefore never be a reliable source, even for its own content. There is ample reason to treat the Bible exactly the same as other scripture. GPinkerton (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Not according to MOS:PLOT. Applying it differently to narrative religious texts is a blatant double standard.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that the Bible ought to be a sufficient source for its own plot. Where there is dispute over wording or differences between versions this can be noted with reference to secondary literature.—Ermenrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 26 May 2020
Ermenrich It should be obvious by this stage that the Bible's whole "plot" is fundamentally contentious, ambiguous, and very far from agreed-upon, to say nothing of the wording, the entirety of which is constantly in dispute, or even the text itself, which varies enormously in length, arrangement, and subdivisions depending on who you ask or who happens to be editing Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that the status quo wording is preferable, not just due to the issues of translation but also because these issues are compounded by differences in interpretation by different religious groups (not to mention the blurry line between pure plot elements and rules/theological principles that are based on the "plot") , as well as the inherent age and obscurity of many of these texts (an example off the top of my head, it's far from trivial to establish what's going on in Genesis 4:23–24 just by looking at the Hebrew Bible itself). That having been said, I don't think that we need to take an axe to existing high-traffic articles that have a PLOTSOURCE approach; IMO having the status quo and enforcing it leniently will make for less of a headache than loosening the classification and opening the door for editors to start arguing that their interpretations of the text need to be included. signed, Rosguill talk 01:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    Either way, there's nothing wrong with improving The Exodus plot with secondary sources, PLOTSOURCE encourages that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Remember that though RSPSCRIPTURE started as BIBLE (I think), it's not just about the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that nothing should change about policy. All summarizing is necessarily interpretative, and there is no benefit to Wikipedia editors adding to the huge volume of existing exegesis. Wikipedia is not a Sunday school, a madrassa, or rabbinical conference. There is plenty of secondary and tertiary material to cite, and nothing will be gained from resorting to original research on the content of ancient texts. Absolutely nothing should be referenced to scripture alone! GPinkerton (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    Nobody is discussing changing a policy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
To the contrary, see below, that I propose to change this guideline (not policy) a bit. You yourself proposed an small addition above. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Explanatory supplement to a guideline, even more not-policy ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill I personally think that it is better to use more lenient wording, because in case of disputes or inconsistencies, secondary sources are anyways going to be necessary to resolve those disputes or inconsistencies. Keeping the more stringent approach in the guideline gives rise to the very real possibility of editors who wil insist on a stringent approach and start removing large pieces of material from the project. We can't count on editors to use a lenient approach, and I've seen policy/guidelines fanatics just too many times in my over 10 years here.
All that is needed is to remove the words "or summarizes" from the guideline. As I said, the difference between "summarizing" on the one hand and "interpreting" or "analyzing" on the other is huge, even when taking into account that any summary is to a certain degree an interpretation. There is definitely a tension between WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and MOS:PLOTSOURCE, and this would be the easiest and best way to resolve it. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why should editors not remove large amounts of material from the project if it doesn't meet policy? What's the value of keeping it? GPinkerton (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE? If you see The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative as problematic, it's preferable that you fix it instead of remove it, since it's quite probably well-covered in sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
First of all, because saying the material "doesn't meet policy" is not correct, according to MOS:PLOTSOURCE (and WP:COMMONSENSE). Even if it were unsourced, there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information. Only unsourced information that is challenged should be removed, and why would anyone challenge such information, which nobody is saying that is not true? In general, information has intrinsic value, and it hurts me to see you write words like "What's the value of keeping it?". Debresser (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser: Information has absolutely no intrinsic value - what a bizarre thought! I challenge such information, and I remove it per WP:UNSOURCED and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. You say: " there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information" but that's just not true. All information has to be verifiable. If it's unsourced, it's unverifiable and must be removed, per WP:V.
Read WP:V again, unsourced=/=unverifiable: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Then PRESERVE mentions that removal can be a bad idea, compared to other solutions. The policies both apply, bizarre as it may seem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I see the existence of the entire article as problematic; the whole article is plot summary of Book of Exodus. I have proposed merging the two articles, since their subjects are identical . GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that'll happen, but we'll see. And WP:PRESERVE will apply to other articles too, like Book of Exodus, which is similarly sourced in the Summary section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: WP:PRESERVE does not trump WP:DON'T PRESERVE, which certainly applies in the instance of the exegetical and duplicated The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative section. GPinkerton (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
IMO, WP:PRESERVE applies to the plotsections in the articles mentioned in this thread, since there are likely to be sources in abundance, and anyone can start using them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The "plot" belongs in its proper article, the Book of Exodus. There is no call for a plot summary of Pride and Prejudice anywhere other than in the article Pride and Prejudice; we don't need it, for instance, at Early modern Britain or British Empire. I don't see why the plot of the Book of Exodus is any different. GPinkerton (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
And to me it seems natural to describe the tale of the Exodus in The Exodus: [83], as long as we have that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Plot summaries do not deserve their own articles. GPinkerton (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, the article The Exodus covers far more than a "plot summary", it discusses the potential mythical and historical sources of the belief in the Exodus event as well as the development of that belief until the compilation of the Pentateuch, and its cultural significance.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: Quite. All topics properly covered under Book of Exodus (history of its composition, legacy and behaviour of its adherents, &c.). GPinkerton (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I would have said something like what Ermenrich said, if I had been awake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
As stated elsewhere, not at all. The Exodus takes place over four books of the Bible, it isn’t all contained in the book of Exodus.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: As mentioned elsewhere, that is entirely untrue. The Exodus is the departure of the Jews from Egypt, and that happens in Exodus. GPinkerton (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that this above back and forth between Ermenrich and GPinkerton demonstrates the pitfalls of having editors interpret even the plot of religious texts without recourse to secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 22:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, It most certainly does not, it illustrates the pitfalls of an editor not actually looking at the articles they are discussing. See [84] The Exodus sage in the Bible incorporates events in Egypt after the death of Joseph through the Israelite departure, the wilderness wanderings, and the Sinai revelations, up to be not including the conquest of Canaan. The account, largely in narrative form, spreads over four books of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so Rosguill, this branch of the discussion is very Exodus-specific (my fault, perhaps). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Or see more authoritative definitions:

The Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt. The story of the Exodus is contained in a series of narratives in the book of Exodus. It became the epitome of God's power to rescue his people.

- The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (2000)

The biblical traditions concerning the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt are mostly preserved in the second book of the Hebrew scriptures.

- The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001)

The Exodus, the escape of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt under the leadership of Moses, is the central event of the Hebrew Bible.

- The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993)

Israel's departure from Egypt.

- Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (2 ed.) (2010)
You can see plainly that the sources treat the Exodus as the events of Exodus. This illustrates the pitfalls of falling into pits. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm a newcomer to this discussion but I write primarily in the field of religion, which has at times included areas of the Bible, so I have an interest. I support Gråbergs Gråa Sång's suggestion as both practical and realistic. Comparing different translations demonstrates no substantive shift in meaning in 99% of cases, so that's not a real obstacle. There are some real disagreements, but in most Bible articles, those disagreements are not pertinent to the topic, and when they are, they are worthy of articles all by themselves. Those should be mentioned and linked. "Interpretation" includes application and recommendations--"values attached meaning"--and everyone agrees there is no place for that on WP, but a plot summary does not need to be an interpretation. It can and should be simply a summary. I vote in favor of Gråbergs Gråa Sång suggestion, since it basically just acknowledges the reality that this is already being done with some success. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@GPinkerton Now you are just confusing "unverifiable" with "not sourced". The first means that it can not be verified. The second means that it can be verified, but a source is not present. Completely different things. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser: No, the latter means it could be verified if there was a source. If there there is not, it is not verifiable. We are not speaking of Verificationism, but verifiability in Wikipedia. Unsourced=unverifiable=completely the same things. GPinkerton (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That is precisely my point. Who says there is no source?? There is first of all a primary source, which is the Bible itself. And there do exist many secondary sources as well for the Biblical narratives, just that we don't need to add them per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. Debresser (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser: Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources. It is not appropriate to use scripture as a primary source for anything, still less itself. MOS:PLOTSOURCE does not obviate the inability of scripture to be a reliable source of anything, and MOS:REALWORLD calls for the treatment of such narratives to be independent of the in-universe narrative. I argue MOS:PLOTSOURCE is designed for Wikipedia articles that deal with actual narrative works; it might be appropriate at Book of Exodus to add material cited to Exodus itself, but it is not appropriate anywhere else. It is not appropriate to use scripture as an unqualified source of information on any article not dealing with the scripture itself. GPinkerton (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I think it's worse than that. PLOTSOURCE is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS allowing the cliques of genre fans to engage in what amounts to critical review, using Wikipedia as a publishing venue. It gives carte blanche to film fans to, for example, include intricate trivial plot details and showcase their diligent fandom. I am sure that the intentions are generally pure, but the result is great swathes of content that relies solely on individual Wikipedians' observations of primary material - often visual, not based on text that you can check - and that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. OK, it's a rather fundamentalist view, but I have seen too many blatantly interpretive "plot summaries" to be at all sanguine about this. Guy (help!) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, plot summaries are fine for universally acknowledged fiction, but summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis, which does not match Wikipedia's aims of reflecting scholarly (and not rabbinical or exegetical) literature. GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
What makes PLOTSOURCE a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I do not think plotsource can be used when there is not only more than 3 but more then 100 versions. It seems just a recipe for edit wars over whether or not witches should live or silly text like "according to the NIJV Hop is the greatest, but according to the RNIV its Hope, whilst the ININV says "and hope if the glowiest".Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think this discussion is getting held up in the weeds. On the one hand some editors would like to do away with MOS:PLOT altogether and are arguing on those grounds. On the other, editors are arguing that different translations of the Bible are different - which is true to an extent. But it's not as though we don't possess original texts of the Bible in languages other than English. A number of the issues that have been raised so far deal with issues that arise from translating from the Septuagint or Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew/Aramaic of the Old Testament or Greek of the New Testament. Such bldifferences can easily be mentioned and dealt with. Obviously every text or language has ambiguities, and every translation is different, but this is not generally a problem when, for instance, you're summarizing War and Peace based on translation. Whether in the Book of Exodus the Hebrews are said to build "treasure cities" (KJV) "supply cities" (NRSV) or "store cities" (Jan Assmann) is not really a major issue for summarizing what happens. Nor is the different ways that a verb meaning "to execute" is translated, whether it be "impale" "crucify" or "hang": they all have the result the person in question is to be killed. When something rises to the level of being a major dispute between translations, then of course scholarly sources need to be used to comment. But such cases are extremely rare. I have yet to see a single convincing example of where the "translation problem" makes a major difference for summarizing the plot of a narrative Biblical book.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Except that (unlike a novel) everyones translation is the authoritative version. Nor is it simple a case of "house, home or building". It it witch or poisoner? Nor is the Christian bible exactly a faithful translation of the Hebrew text (and that is the original version of the old testament).Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Whether a particular group considers "their" translation authoritative is irrelevant. Scholars look at the originals, and Wikipedia summarizes scholarly knowledge. If there's a major difference (poisoner or witch) it can very easily be noted. Most such differences are not large, however, and we should show an obvious preference to modern, scholarly translations over older translations that are 1) less accurate and 2) do not reflect contemporary language and usage.
Anyway, I think I've made my position pretty clear. I'm going to bow out of this discussion rather than repeat myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If I read you right, we should identify and resolve the inconsistencies by our own analysis? I hope I am misunderstanding you there. It is really pretty simple. In all of literature there is no work that has a greater volume of secondary analytical sources. Not even Shakespeare comes close. Using primary sources is unnecessary. Guy (help!) 16:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If by "our own analysis" you mean "we should use a modern translation and note discrepancies between major modern translations if there are any with recourse to secondary literature," then yes, that's what I'm saying.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy's point is excellent, the Bible is the most examines commented on and analysed book in human history. I doubt there is one word that has not been mulled over in countless RS. Why do we need to even use it, what is the text that is being argued over here?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the discussion was started because The Exodus currently bases most of its plot summary on the last four biblical books of the Pentateuch themselves.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The text of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, see beginning of thread. And though I only used biblical examples, I didn't foresee the discussion becoming this bible-centric. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
So why not use secondary RS instead?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself: 1) most secondary sources do not summarize the content of all four books in more than a cursory way. At best they mention specific episodes and analyze them 2) the NRIV Bible was on hand and I naturally assumed it could be used the same way as I could the Aeneid according to MOS:PLOT.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Nothing stops that, certainly not MOS:PLOTSOURCE, and it is welcome where it happens. But it didn't occur for the editors of the plot-sections David, Solomon, The Exodus, Book of Exodus, Book of Genesis, Gylfaginning etc to do so, I'm guessing because the "better primary than nothing" mindset is out there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading then NIRV makes a number of changes to the Hebrew text.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Im sure that it does, but these are mostly syntactic as I recall. At any rate, what significant changes does it make to the Exodus narrative beyond details? We’re summarizing, not quoting after all.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Because the whole reason why a (say) film plot is RS for its plot is because Col. Robert Neville, M.D is a US army doctor Vs mutants led by Anthony Zerbe (in its original form), but you could not use that as a source for the plot of the novel (even though there are many similarities). So we should also use the original (and only the original) of (say) the OT.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The idea that some Hebrew text or English translation based on it is somehow more reliable than one based on Greek or Latin is some very special special pleading! Texts considered holy are very often mainly translated and edited by religious minorities (all religions are minorities) and their translations are inherently POV as a result. There is no possibility of neutrality in deriving Wikipedia's NPOV from scripture without the mediation of reliable scholarly sources (i.e. ones not written by the religions themselves centuries ago). Scriptural translations, however new, cannot be neutral or reliable, and that is not their intended purpose. GPinkerton (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That is kind of my point, there is not single authoritative version.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Ermenrich and others, a simple summary of the "plot" of a biblical story line can be sourced to a modern translation of the text itself, if anyone wants to add a secondary source they can do so but it should not be a requirement.Smeat75 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Coming over from WikiProject:CGR, I agee that in principle, the Bible itself is an adequate source for its own contents, provided that the interpretation of those contents should be sourced to reliable independent sources. Even though many passages in every book of the Bible have been commented on or disputed, the general narrative itself is usually straightforward. Where disputes arise as to the meaning of an unclear passage, or something that could be translated with two or more plausible meanings, or either literally or metaphorically, then of course additional sources are needed. But simply reporting a straightforward summary of any book should be non-controversial, and the Bible shouldn't differ in that respect from Pride and Prejudice or Winnie-the-Pooh. Which, I might add, might be good for calming down after disputes like this. Hunny, anyone? P Aculeius (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@P Aculeius: My contention would be that scriptures differ from the examples you mention by their inability to be read without making a symbolic or interpretative judgements. For instance Numbers 31 might be summarized thus: "Moses orders the genocide of the Midianites, the Eleazar and the Israelites obey and secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children, and then Moses organizes the division and ritual purification of the Midianites' property among himself and his warlords at Moab." That's what the text says happened. But doubtless this is not how Biblical exegesis frames the matter (i.e., the typical victim-blaming is usually employed in theological commentary). A straightforward summary, but perhaps not an uncontroversial one. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
"Numbers" 31 is a perfectly good source for the fact that it says something. What it means, or why it says it, requires an independent source. But the fact that it says it doesn't need another source. P Aculeius (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That is far from a neutral summary of the contents of Numbers 31 GPinkerton. Using the term "genocide", not in the text, is an interpretation which would certainly require a secondary source as would "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children" which is also an interpretation, not what the text says, similarly using the term "warlords".Smeat75 (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Smeat75: It is neutral. The words genocide, concubinage, and warlord are not in the text, but we don't summarize narratives by rearranging the original words but describing the events. Using terms like "warlord" summarizes the content of the text's "officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle", while "genocide" is the term used to describe the deliberate massacre of all the male Midianites, all the adult female Midianites, and the confiscation of their possessions, all of which Numbers 31 says Moses organized using the more wordy rhetoric of "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him". Moses orders virgins to be spared "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive" adding that they are "for yourselves". I don't really know how describing this process as genocide and concubinage can be controversial at all! It does, however, demonstrate that without secondary sources summarizing scriptural events will not be to everyone's satisfaction. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No of course we don't use the exact words only in a different order but that is a very slanted summary of Numbers 31. A neutral summary would say something like "ordered them all killed" not genocide and "you can keep the virgin girls for yourselves" rather than "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children". Certainly if anyone wanted to use such POV terms they would need to be referenced to a secondary reliable source but a neutral summary does not.Smeat75 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I said that "Numbers" 31 is a satisfactory source for what it says, but I didn't use GPinkerton's wording, which was irrelevant to the point I was making. Obviously it's a questionable description, since it employs anachronistic terms, and seems to be applying modern sensibilities to a description of events that may or may not have happened, thousands of years ago. Naturally any summary needs to be neutrally worded—which is not to say that it can't say anything positive or negative, just that as editors we can't add our own opinions to the way that material is presented by the source. That's what independent sources are for. But it has no bearing on whether the a writing is an adequate source for its own contents. P Aculeius (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Honestly, my recollection of MOS:PLOTSOURCE is that a huge part of the reason for it is because so many works lack secondary sources on their plots - if we were to remove it we would have very little to say about many works at all. Additionally, the reading and interpretation of the plot of most works (especially ones that have few secondary sources) is generally uncontroversial. Both of these rationales are as wrong as it's possible to be in the case of scripture. MOS:PLOTSOURCE even says Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. Obviously that "sometimes" applies here and the "otherwise" does not, which means PLOTSOURCE does not apply to scripture; but if there's confusion, perhaps PLOTSOURCE should be rewritten to more clearly state that if secondary sourcing exists we are required to use it and not primary sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, referencing a Biblical verse generally leaves less room for distortion than referencing a secondary source. While everyone has an agenda, it is much harder to fit an agenda into a word-for-word translation than into a freerunning discussion of the Bible as well as whatever other subjects one wants to discuss. Also, the reader can easily look up a Biblical source themselves, while an academic secondary source is more difficult to verify and its reliability much more difficult to verify. If someone will object that Biblical translations are often by biased religious groups while acceptable secondary sources are by academics, the response is that there also exist Biblical translations by academics. If there is a specific point in the Biblical text that is disputed (like "genocide" in the example above), then that's the moment to bring a secondary source which summarizes the controversy while giving each side its proper weight. Ar2332 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. That argument would apply to all primary vs. secondary sources; you are essentially arguing that a primary source is always better than a secondary one, which is exactly the opposite of policy. We can argue whether it is acceptable to use primary scriptural sources in the absence of a secondary source, or whether citations to primary sources need to be removed on sight rather than waiting form someone to do the legwork of replacing them; but it is non-negotiable that a (reliable, high-quality) secondary source is absolutely required in any situation where "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic" text is required,. which is the vast majority of what we do. It is vital that secondary sources will always completely replace any editors's personal statement or interpretation of a primacy source, and it is policy and that we cannot cite entire sections solely to primary sources (certainly WP:NOR is a stronger policy than MOS:PLOTSOURCE.) It is easy to say "everyone has an agenda so let's just use the primary source", but what you're ignoring is that when an editor performs WP:OR using a primary biblical source (something that I would argue is almost inescapable when citing one), we are reflecting their personal agenda as a random anonymous editor; whereas secondary sources have reputations and weight that can be used to evaluate them. Our articles should reflect the writings, interpretations, and focuses of reliable, established scholars of biblical text (or the equivalent in terms of reputation and reliability.) They should not reflect the personal musings, interpretations, focuses, or readings that anonymous editors bring to the primary text. That means that as a matter of policy we should always strive to minimize the extent to which we cite religious texts as primary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a complete misstatement of policy. Primary sources must be used with caution, but they are not inherently unreliable, nor should they ever be removed "on sight". In the case of what a work of literature (not limiting that to fiction, which is what PLOT and PLOTSUMMARY explicitly apply to; while the Bible may not rise to the level of a formal history, and relates many events that are not of a historical nature and not susceptible of proof, it certainly isn't "fiction"—but this is beside the point I'm making here), the work itself is necessarily the most authoritative source for its contents. Where translations differ in some meaningful respect, or different manuscripts give different versions, then of course additional sources are needed—additional, shedding light on what the original text says. In the case of an example cited above, "Numbers" 31, it would be absurd to depend entirely on secondary sources for the content, without citing to the source in which it occurs—particularly as "Numbers" 31 is likely to be the only account of those precise events that secondary sources have to analyze—although of course they may be able to compare what is said with other passages and other events for which additional material is available.
It is not "original research" to report what is said by a primary source, as long as that account is explicitly attributed to it, reasonably accurate, neutral, and verifiable. If anybody can read "Numbers" 31 and see that it says what it is cited for, then there is no problem. And of course if what it says doesn't match what an editor writes about it, or the wording of the article isn't appropriate, that should be addressed by revising or rewording the article, not by removing the source: secondary sources are just as susceptible to being mischaracterized in an article as primary sources. Note, I am not contending that secondary sources are unimportant. They are essential for the interpretation of the material contained in primary sources. But we do not remove primary sources because the secondary sources for interpreting them are lacking, nor simply because secondary sources have been cited. It isn't always necessary to have primary sources, but there's nothing whatever wrong with using them, provided they're used appropriately for the content of what they say. P Aculeius (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton said above "summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis". A statement I completely disagree with. Summarizing is not the same as exegesis. A good summary will try not to interpret at all. It is precisely because of this distinction that I am of the opinion that the words "or summarizes" should be removed from WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guy that PLOTSOURCE is a bad idea in general, although perhaps unavoidable if there are few sources discussing the plot (although arguably the solution is that marginally notable films and so forth should just be deleted). Without enforcing secondary source requirements it is very easy for editors to do as GPinkerton is demonstrating. For scripture it's especially unjustifiable because there are so many sources discussing it. We should try to use the most reliable sources to avoid cherry-picking the sources that might be pushing a certain agenda with their interpretation. The Oxford Companion to the Bible and The Cambridge Companion to the Bible seem like good places to start. buidhe 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this discussion, I have to admit I'm not quite clear what the central point of this dispute actually is. Are we talking about providing a summary of the book of the Bible in the article? I don't see why WP:PLOT doesn't apply: what any article wants is a concise summary of the written text, with enough detail so a reader can identify which book of the Bible it is, not some paraphrase. (And if the summary is hung up on differences in translation, I suspect that is a warning that the summary is going into too much detail.) Is it about how to use statements from the Bible in other articles? Is there any reason not to treat it as we do any other primary source? We cite it for basic facts (e.g. David was king of Judah & Israel, with chapter & verse), then turn to secondary sources to explicate the text, if it is unclear. If there are significant differences in translations of the passage, & if it matters to the article, IMHO we provide the word in question (from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) & again turn to secondary sources to explicate the text. Just because the Bible is a religious text shouldn't mean we handle citing it as a source any differently than, say, The Iliad or Pliny's Historia Naturalis.

But these are obvious solutions to this problem; having written this, I feel like I'm lecturing experts in a subject about which I audited a single class. Since there are a number of intelligent editors here I respect, I must be missing what the point of this discussion truly is. -- llywrch (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I found everything you've said perfectly common sense too, Llywrch, but as currently written WP:RSPSCRIPTURE states that Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. I guess some edits take this to mean that a summary of the content of say The Exodus from the Bible is in violation of this guideline. I haven't really understood most of the arguments put forth in favor of limiting summaries of biblical narratives in this way, which mostly hinge on (honestly, extremely detail-oriented) differences in different translation and the fact that various groups hold only their translation to be correct. It could indeed be that there's some degree of talking past each other here.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC Revisiting Hackaday[edit]

Hackaday is currently listed in the WP:SOURCEGUIDE as "no consensus" per the previous discussion. In the previous discussion, the editorial policies was not discussed. These policies are posted on their website at https://hackaday.com/policies/

When you contribute content to Hackaday, you retain ownership of the copyright, and you also grant permission to us to display and distribute it. In addition, you are responsible for the content of that material.

Hackaday has no responsibility for the content of any messages or information posted by readers. We, in our sole discretion, may or may not review, edit, or delete from the service any material which we deem to be illegal, offensive or otherwise inappropriate. The tenor of the projects we feature on the service regularly use items in ways they were not originally intended (hack) and readers must understand the implications of this. Hackaday makes no guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of content or the result of accessing and using information on our site. We shall not be liable to anyone for any damages resulting from information found on the service, even if damages are the result of inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other cause. The opinions expressed by our editors and contributors are their own and not those of Hackaday.

We reserve the right to unpublish or refuse to unpublish anything for any reason or for no reason whatsoever.

With this new information taken in to account, I'd like to reconvene discussion on use of Hackaday as sources. Essentially, the only editorial oversight seems to be that they only choose to host or not host submitted contents. I argue that this source should be considered unreliable for factual accuracy, fair due weight presentation and notability building purposes just like HuffPost and Forbes contributor articles are treated in WP:RSP. Graywalls (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am the Editor in Chief of Hackaday. First off, thank you for considering our site as a reliable source. We do indeed have an editorial practice that oversees all articles published. All contributors are paid for their work and have contracts making them part of our writing team. We follow editing practices that ensure every article is edited and fact checked by one of the editors (there is no circumstance under which anyone publishes their own work without an editor reviewing it, including me). You can review the of our current contributors and editors on the about page. We do not accept content from outside of our writing team, and we do not publish sponsored content. The policies page that Graywalls linked to is quite old, having been published in 2014. It doesn't reflect our current system which has been in place since 2015, and needs to be updated. Szczys (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • If so than all pre-2015 content is likely unusable. buidhe 23:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I hold the position that Hackaday contents should be treated as WP:SPS and doesn't rise much above WP:BLOGS with very limited use in factual information (what are the qualifications of the editors?) and unusable for supporting notability of other organizations. The editorial policy explained by the involved staff member here is quite meaningless without the editorial policy clearly being published on the website itself. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hackaday RfC[edit]

  • Option 1: May be useful for satisfying verifiability, but should not be used for purpose of determining notability.
  • Option 2: generally reliable.
  • Option 3: It's a blog. Generally unreliable for factual reporting and should be treated as any other WP:BLOGS
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Hackaday RfC response[edit]

  • RS Depends on context - seems fine on actual articles and technical content. Really this needs to note subsections about, -- the article space is separate from the blog area. Just like cspan or cnn here the webzine section has editorial control and paid writers, a mix of created content and curated collection; the blog section does not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable regarding the article space. The writers are experts in their fields, they have a technical background and they do not seem to feature articles that are outside the scope of the expertise of the writers. I agree with User:Markbassett. I also think that Hackaday can be used for establishing notability. Dwaro (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Sputnik[edit]

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Sputnik (news agency)? Sputniknews.com HTTPS links HTTP links has been cited over 2,000 times on Wikipedia.

  • 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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Sputnik)[edit]

  • Option 4 - Sputnik is literally RT's even less reliable sibling - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Sputnik News is currently described at the RS/P as "There is clear consensus that Sputnik News is generally unreliable. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. Some editors consider Sputnik a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions." after the result of the RT RfC, I think this is a no brainer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: As with RT its not bias, its lies.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Pure propaganda, not reliable for Russian official statements given the purely pro-government slant. GPinkerton (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Propaganda outlet. (Hohum @) 20:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, its RT with less of a veneer of respectability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Exists purely as a propaganda outlet, actively and intentionally publishes false and fabricated information. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Nothing but propaganda. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Let's formally deprecate and blacklist. This is a clear state-sponsored propaganda outlet with some straight-up dezinformatsiya mixed in. Neutralitytalk 01:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, a propaganda arm of the Russian government which fabricates stories to further the interests of the Russian administration, certainly not reliable as a source for factual information. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3.999, unreliable for everything, with the exception of statements by the Russian government.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 with exception for official Russian govt position. buidhe 23:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Canonically unreliable. Guy (help!) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: most fact checkers have a piece or two on false reporting published by Sputnik [85].--ReyHahn (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: depends on context - *factual* content seems OK for non-political content seems OK, though political content obviously has a poor rep among WP editors. But looking at the actual list of cites shows good factual content contributions of Russian information for ISS, Vietnam, etcetera that seems among BESTSOURCES for such, and content for Chuck Norris, Covid, Gagarin etcetera that seems valid. Looking at site, the tabs for Business and Tech are likely more factual. The tab for World news seems partly OK - though feels to me a bit much Trump bashing, not the only RS with that flaw, and in covering sections of the world outside the UK or US this would seem a prominent source. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per everyone above - Pure propaganda. –Davey2010Talk 20:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Sputnik)[edit]

Whitelist for batakindonews.blogspot.com[edit]

Can an admin/bureaucrat put this site: batakindonews.blogspot.com into some kind of whitelist for websites? This website is controlled by a guy who can't buy real website, but his news is filled with first-hand interview with the corresponding subject.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOGS, very unlikely, and that goes even more if you want to use it in WP:BLPs. Do you argue that the blogger is an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8]"? Seems to me that you have to find other sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Nope. Won't use it for BLPs. Besides, the real difference between a blogspot and a news website is that someone has to pay for it, which kinda states that a reliable sources requires someone investing money in it. There were no assesment that says that this website was written by an expert, but most of it was written by first hand interviews. I think WP:NEWSBLOG is more proper.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No, the difference between a blogspot and a news website is not "that someone has to pay for it", but rather that news websites have fact checking and editorial oversight, among other things. If you are saying this is a WP:NEWSBLOG, what news organization is it the blog for? Because NEWSBLOG refers exclusively to blogs that are maintained and hosted by actual news organizations, not simply blogs that say they are news. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@AmbivalentUnequivocality: Sorry....but the main (and only author) of the blog is a reporter named Leonardo TSS (Leonardo Tolstoy Simajuntak), is a reporter from the KabarIndonesia online newspaper, based in the Netherlands. Here is the accreditation certificate. His blogspot may be an extension of the KabarIndonesia newspaper, but I'm just assuming here.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
KabarIndonesia is maintained by the Yayasan Peduli Indonesia, and is listed as a stichting in the Netherlands [86]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talkcontribs) 07:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Just thinking here. How does an "interview" could be fact checked? For example, this article only contains the indirect speech version of the interview. No personal opinion, etc, were added. Sorry if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talkcontribs) 07:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Using for Forbes.com for Kanye West's networth[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Using for Forbes.com for Kanye West's networth. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

see WP:FORBES. Staff written articles are fine. CONTRIBUTOR articles are seldom considered reliable and treated similarly to other self published sources. Graywalls (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, it would be best to comment on this at the WP:BLP noticeboard, where it's clear that I'm aware of WP:FORBES. My concerns are what I stated there, and that includes my comment there on an edit you made. As seen there, other have also expressed concerns. This section here was simply meant to be an alert to the centralized discussion; I was employing WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion on the perennial sources list[edit]

There is currently a discussion about adding a notability criteria for inclusion on the perennial sources list, alongside stricter criteria for RfC's. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on wording in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources[edit]

There is a request for comment on the first sentence of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. If you are interested, please participate at WT:DEPS § RfC: Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. — Newslinger talk 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Sina.com[edit]

Which of the following describes reliability the news outlet Sina.com? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • 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

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Sina)[edit]

  • Option 3 or 4, no editorial independence, no reputation for fact checking, and no reputation for reliability. Per "Independent commercial news portals or news sites such as Sina or Tencent do not have the autonomy to produce original news content, and instead can only reprint news articles from state-run news outlets (Esarey and Qiang, 2011; Stockmann, 2011).”[87] and [88]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • None, no assessment required: Sina doesn’t create original news content and only posts articles from other sources. Therefore the reliability of an article posted on Sina is purely based on its origin news source, with Sina playing no greater role than a search engine. — MarkH21talk 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • None. Sina is only a news aggregation website, so no effort should be made. That is all. Wo.luren (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • None: News sources of nearly all levels of quality and fact-checking can be found on Sina. The reliability of the sources should be based on the groups they are created by, not just simply the aggregation site that they are being hosted on. For example, something like "Foresee the Next Ten Years' Luck" written by Xiamen Astrological Culture is definitely not an WP:RS, while other articles being hosted on the site like "Capital 'Fake Marriage' Agency Business Set to Price Dump", written by Economic View, part of China News Service are much better sources. Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ Kɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici) 15:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not applicable: Per KK, and the second link HEJ provides is irrelevant to this "survey". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Sina)[edit]

Relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Fan Bingbing#Sina.com and Talk:The New York Times controversies#Unreliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I’m a little confused, shouldn’t the reliability be based on the underlying news source? E.g. a Xinhua article posted on Sina.com should just reflect the reliability of Xinhua. If that’s what this is about, then there’s no real point of assessing Sina.com separately. The source article is usually clearly marked.
    Or are we assessing something else? — MarkH21talk 07:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I you happen to run across a link to a reliable source on Sina (or The Daily Mail or Infowars for that matter) you can use that source just as if you found it through Google. Nobody will know your secret. This noticeboard section is only for cases where someone tries to use Sina as a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Guy Macon: I agree. Does Sina post any of its own content? I thought it was a news portal. — MarkH21talk 09:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Its used on dozens of BLP pages where the underlying source (Chinese state media) would be inappropriate, in this case here we have @CaradhrasAiguo: who has asserted that they both publish original news stories and are generally reliable. Sina is used as a source 15 times on Fan Bingbing, the BLP page this discussion started on. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
          • @Horse Eye Jack: Looking at the Sina sources in Fan Bingbing, they also say which Chinese newspapers the articles were taken from. I don’t think there’s any need to assess Sina itself since all of their content is taken from elsewhere. The reliability of an article posted is based solely on the origin of the article, not on Sina.
            In other words, this RfC is pointless unless someone gives an example of a Sina-original news article. — MarkH21talk 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
            • That is exactly the claim I’m reacting to, @CaradhrasAiguo: says "Sina News reliability should not be impugned”[89] and claims to have refuted the First Monday (journal) article "I was not citing the reprimands to support the argument for reliability, merely as evidence to bolster the fact they do not 100% "reproduce content from official news organizations”.”[90]. It would be helpful if they would come here to explain their argument. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
            • @MarkH21:@Guy Macon: turns out they do exist: [91][92]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
            • Looks theres more! Idk why I ever took MarkH21’s word that the Sina sauces in Fan Bingbing say where the content comes from other than Sina, a solid half don’t [93][94][95]. 5/10 are sourced just to Sina, one is a broken link, One is sourced to Sina Weibo, one is sourced to "Daily News", one is sourced to "Times Business Daily" and one is sourced to West China Metropolis Daily. At least from this snapshot they seem to overwhelmingly characterize the reprints/summaries of official sources as their own work. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a request for comment (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at WP:RFCST. — Newslinger talk 09:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry this is my first time making one of these, does this work? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. I've added another RfC category and the tracking tag. — Newslinger talk 00:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Can I withdraw the RfC if the underlying content dispute ceases to exist? CA has changed their tune and is no longer arguing that Sina is a reliable source in their own right which means as far as I can tell nobody is arguing that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually I take that back, in identifying the sources credited for the articles I came across two that are only credited to "Sina Entertainment” [96][97] so they do in fact seem to publish under their own name. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Using interviews as Population censuses[edit]

I want to put a [better source needed] template temporary after this source here: [98] my question here is can we use interviews as reliable sources for ethnolinguistic population counts. The interviewee (a famous person) claims that there are 3.2M Pashtuns in India. While the official government language census speaks of 21.800 Pashto speakers in India here [99]. But anyways is an interview of a famous (organizational) person in general considered as reliable for population ethnolinguistic counts? Casperti (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is another attempt of User:Casperti to WP:FORUMSHOP after being opposed here; additionally, User:Casperti is misrepresenting the source here. The claim is being made by the president of the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind, an organization representing Pashtuns in India. The number of Pashto-speakers does not equal the number of Pashtuns, as Pashtuns in India speak a number of languages. AnupamTalk 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
another attempt?? Instead of making accusations again Could you please give me the explicit evidence for that? Beside Talk:Pashtuns#infobox you have already the comments of user Mar4d that does not support this source + you have created the wikipage of that organization which shows actually the POV in your case. In any case I am just asking whether it is even allowed. If it is not allowed then I take it back and do not have a problem with it. Casperti (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
No.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable source only for their opinion, not for facts. Should not be used in infobox and probably not WP:DUE. buidhe 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Counterpoint Research[edit]

Would a statistics site like Counterpoint Research be reliable to support stats? I read somewhere that Statista is unreliable, so I want to make sure.

Example URL: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/india-smartphone-share/

RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 07:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

More nobility fansites[edit]

Adding to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295 § RfC: Three genealogy sites, there are some more sites that appear to be nobility fansites rather than reliable references.

  • almanachdegotha.org HTTPS links HTTP links - virtually unreadable, no About page that I can find, no evidence of an editorial board.
  • chivalricorders.org HTTPS links HTTP links - now defunct but archives also show no obvious evidence of reliability.
  • www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha HTTPS links HTTP links - Angelfire-hosted "Online Gotha", appears to be a one-man project.
  • jacobite.ca HTTPS links HTTP links - another one-man project, Jacobite fansite run by an enthusiastic amateur but no editorial board and no relevant academic status.
  • englishmonarchs.co.uk HTTPS links HTTP links (added 22:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)}

There's another one which looks on the face of it to be reliable:

It looks OK, but I am a bit suspicious. Thoughts? Guy (help!) 09:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support deprecation at least of chivalricorders.org, www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha and duses|jacobite.ca. Not sure about the other two. Almanach de Gotha was the Royalist genealogist handbook in the 19th century, I don't know how reliable its modern revival is.Smeat75 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed it was. And Online Gotha has nothign to do with it. Guy (help!) 22:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I am sure these have cropped up before and found wanting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Depreciate all I agree with Newslinger that these sites (perhaps aside from the Angelfire one due to usage and Almanachdegotha.org as it does appear to officially represent the modern publication, even if in its modern form it isn't all that notable) aren't worth adding to the Perennial Sources List, as they are used only around 100 times. Guy, I don't see why you find reliable about the .be one, there's no indication it is definitely the online verison of the Almanach de Bruxelles, which I can find essentially no reference to on google outside the initial 1916 NYT story, so I'm not sure that the original publication is even notable. The online version is totally inaccessible without a subscription, hasn't updated the copyright on the website since 2012 and looks exactly like all the other nobility websites, there's no reason to think that it is reliable merely because it charges a subscription and has an unsubstantiated connection. I would say that the original Almanach de Gotha published up through 1944 is reliable, though I have no opinion about the revival from 1998 onwards, though it appears not to be all that popular, as the official twitter account has less than 1,500 followers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I had more followers than that on my original Twitter account! Online Gotha is not affiliated with the revived Almanac de Gotha, as far as I can tell. It's a fansite. Guy (help!) 22:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, it says on the website "Welcome... to the Official Website of the Almanach de Saxe Gotha the Online Royal Genealogical Reference Handbook Der Saxe Gotha Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels" And it also claims on its website to be © 1995-2020, 1995 being the same year that the rights were sold. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Hang on, gotha1763.com HTTPS links HTTP links also claims to be the official website for the book, and has a much sleeker website, yet appears to have nearly the exact same follower account and automated messaging on twitter as the .org site, It also claims to have some kind of relationship with the King of Spain and Prince of Monaco, the Prince of Belgium and the Duke of Somerset? What? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Almanachdegotha.org (Almanach de Saxe Gotha) is run by a, err let me be kind and say a special individual, who claimed to have re-established the Holy Roman Empire. The website trades on the respected name of the Almanach de Gotha and I see it has now added another respected publication, the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, to its handle, so it cons people. The genealogies were copied from the Online Gotha, the other texts from Wikipedia, so the genealogies are probably reliable at least.... The website Gotha1763.com is the website for the Almanach de Gotha books, so does not list its genealogies online. - dwc lr (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@DWC LR:, fair enough for .org, but how do you know Gotha1763.com is legit? Its website is admittedly much better looking, but its official twitter account, looks almost exactly the same as the .org one and I can't find any proof of its legitimacy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: I’ve consulted their books, but their website has no use as a source because they don’t list their genealogies online (like some of the websites listed at the top), they are only available in the books which can be brought via their website direct, the publisher or book stores. It looks like .org just copy and pastes the tweets days later, .com always tweets first. The .org person is loopy so I’m not surprised. - dwc lr (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate all per the reasons given by nom.Smeat75 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage[edit]

The Burke's Peerage website (which appears to be official) is cited over 500 times on Wikipedia, and the Book Volumes appear to be cited several thousand times. Burke's Peerage is obviously a much more notable and storied institution than the self published fansites, so I think it's worthy of its own separate subsection. My questions are: Is the website a reliable source, and does it have a separate reliability to the historical book volumes? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Reliable for genealogy, most of the rest is supplied by the subject so I don't have a strong view. Guy (help!) 15:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Debrett's[edit]

Debretts.com is currently cited over 1,700 times, seemingly also primarily for biographical information, and, of course, for etiquette. Many of the links appear to be dead, several example archives of People of Today from 2012 can be seen here, here and Keir Starmer. Debrett's is obviously a storied institution as well, being the longtime publisher of Debrett's Peerage, which again appears to be cited several thousand times. My main concern is that for the biographical information, particularly the (seemingly defunct as of 2017) "People of Today", it appears to be a Who's Who sort of thing where the information is simply solicited from the person without any fact checking, which would make it a self published source (see this letter to Architects' Journal). Debrett's is best known as an authority on etiquette, so I would tentatively consider them reliable in this area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Mixed. Peerage is as reliable as you get for the kinds of things it publishes, but last time I looked people of today is basically pay to play. Guy (help!) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The letter to Architects' Journal suggests that (at least in 2004) the entries for People of Today were solicited by Debrett's, and that the author did not have to pay to be included (but was strongly encouraged to buy the book), which in my eyes makes it at least a better source than Marquis Who's Who (admittedly an extremely low bar), which does engage in the pay to play behaviour you describe . I would concur that both Burke's and Debrett's Peerages are reliable sources for genealogy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: Carfolio.com[edit]

As a previous attempt to post a discussion on this page didn't work. I'm opening a request for comment on the reliability of carfolio.com.

This RfC asks:

  • Should this website be considered a reliable source when sourcing information related to automobiles?
  • If the answer to the above question is yes then on what grounds should this website be considered as reliable?

U1 quattro TALK 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely less reliable than the manufacturer websites - I would go with the manufacturer websites instead of this website. There is just no editorial policy or anything suggesting that they are more reliable than car manufacturers, which would get sued if they lied about specs. Besides, their licence reads © Carfolio.com - all specifications presented on this site, their display and formatting belong to Carfolio.com. Unauthorised republishing prohibited. which seems to suggest that they own the data (which I think is not legal). And last but not the least, they seem to think that there are two Suzukis and one is an Indian company (which gives an idea about how accurate their info is). RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Not Reliable: I broadly agree with RedBulbBlueBlood9911's assessment of the site.One qualification is they do seem to have some editorial process, as at [100] under the heading "Add information" they state that "no submissions will be accepted without a veryfiable [sic] source". But, as they do not actually cite the sources on each page (as far as I can see), its impossible to determine what is cited and assess the merits of this editorial process. So essentially this makes them a tertiary source that actually obscures the sources they are based on. I would think accepting a source like this as reliable reduces the verifiability of WP, as you are essentially accepting the word of carfolio's unnamed editorial team that some unknown source is actually backing up their site. Also, I'm not a lawyer but their legal stance (in full here [101]) towards the data on the site seems unenforceable and inconsistent with the idea that their data is fully sourced. Prova MO (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Toki Pona[edit]

Can anyone weigh in on the reliability of some of the sourcing for this article, Toki Pona?

As an uninvolved editor I reverted an edit a week or so ago, that was cited to this google site. The editor has now reverted and left me this message at my talk. I'm pretty sure all of the items I listed above fail WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:SECONDARY (and that was just a quick glance at the references for that page, there are undoubtedly more), but I'd appreciate some input. Also, @Devbali02: Heiro 18:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Disruptive editing: repeated addition of badly sourced information by Devbali02 --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
In the email message[107] Devbali02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) claimes "The website in question, https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji, is the official website of sitelen Emoji." The page is referenced at https://github.com/holtzermann17/toki-pona-emoji/issues/3 and references https://www.reddit.com/r/sitelenEmoji and https://www.facebook.com/groups/486127038880577/ so I think we can treat them all as WP:PRIMARY sources for Sitelen Emoji. The question in my mind is this: is there any WP:WEIGHT evidence that justifies making any mention of Sitelen Emoji anywhere on Wikipedia?
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/en/File:The_Emoji_Set_of_Sitelen_Emoji_as_of_April_2020.jpg
Finally, this edit[108] makes my think we are either dealing with a COI editor or a misleading username. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of WP:OR, WP:COI, and WP:SELFPROMO at that article, on top of the WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY issue. But I do not know enough about the subject, and do not have time to comb through that article to figure it all out. My list above was literally from a quick glance at a few of the references. It needs a thorough going over though. Heiro 23:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Response to the claims that this is a COI: I don't have my name mentioned in the most recent edit. It is important to understand here that Sitelen Emoji is not "an organization." It is neither a company, nor a non profit, nothing. It is simply a writing system for toki pona. Yes, I am involved in it, and have made certain tools for it. But as was mentioned in the edit, sitelen emoji is simply a set of emojis chosen by the community. I do not own sitelen emoji. If you want, another person knowledgeable about sitelen emoji can make this edit. But since your allegations may have resulted from confusion as to what edit you are reversing and what sitelen emoji is. You should look at the text in the edit for what it is. I have also posted this on another user's talk page, where this discussion is ongoing. Bali (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bali, you admit being the same "Dev Bali" who (in your own words) "compiled earlier attempts to create one Sitelen Emoji" and "made an android keyboard that makes using the script like pinyin for Toki Pona". You have a clear conflict of interest (COI) regarding Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona.

Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. Plase obey the following rules.ou:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your Sitelen Emoji website;
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Press Releases[edit]

Can press releases be considered realiable sources? In the article VITAL the press releases below are used 9 times as inline references: GlobalNewsWire; Businesswire; EurekaAlert; The Corporate Counsel. If NO, can secondary sources based on the same press release be considered reliable? See the links to Busines Insider, Vice, Fortune, Multitudes in the article. Thank you for your advise. --Postconfused (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For attributed claims, yes. And for nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
They're primary sources. If you have long slabs of article sourced only to press releases, they should probably be removed - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
To clarify - the problem is usually not an RS one - it's WP:UNDUE, it doesn't connote notability, it's promotional, etc. In harsh sourcing environments, e.g. cryptocurrencies, the press releases and their claims should generally just be removed. In less harsh environments they might be useful; they're definite evidence the company said the things in the press release. But they don't connote notability of the fact, or that it should be included.
Secondary sources closely based on the press release are considered churnalism, and are functionally not much better than a press release - an article backed only by a wave of churnalism is likely to die at AFD, for not meeting WP:NCORP.
The article VITAL (machine learning software) has proper RSes that talk about the thing independently; it might be an idea to cut it more strictly to those. But that's an UNDUE thing, not an RS thing - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you David Gerard. Unfortunately, the article did not die at AfD. No consensus(!?), despite the fact that the Columbia Business Law Review  Corporate Management in the Age of AI and the New Yorker clearly stated that such press release was incorrect and exaggerated and "it was a lure for gullible outlets". Now I am going to rewrite the article but I wonder if the press releases and related churnalism can be removed. Once again, thank you for your advise!Postconfused (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Press releases have zero usability for establishing notability. They're useful mostly for expanding and supporting factual claims for which a reliable source has already mentioned. "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." from WP:SPS. Moreover, we don't include anything on the face of earth that's verifiable WP:ONUS Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As someone who largely works on scientific articles, I would say that citing a press release that accompanies a scientific paper is essentially pointless and only the paper itself should generally be cited, as the press release generally adds nothing that isn't in the paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seconded - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia thanks for your comment. Would you consider the following three peer reviewed journals in the same article reliable? Multitudes, Critical Times (Duke Press) and the Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (ref, 13, 17, 18)? They just quote the press releases or the above chournalism. --Postconfused (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Postconfused:, the ref "Coding Time " in Critical Times (Duke Press), which is a Critical theory analysis made by a scholar well known for his work in Critical race theory, is absolutely post-modernist nonsense, it looks like the computer science brother of the Sokal Hoax, "Algorithmic memory is made up of myriad data points, latent until invoked, static until plugged into algorithmic movement with a beginning and end in exactly that order, formulaically bounded" What? I'm not sure it would be worth citing as attributed opinion of a humanities scholar or not, but it has absolutely no scientific merit as a critique. The Multitudes article is considerably better written (at least in auto google translate to english), but I think the author does not have a clear idea of what an algorithm actually is. I can't read the last article as it is all in Mandarin. For the two articles I can read, the question is not on their reliability, as they are for the most part opinion pieces, but whether citing them consitiutes WP:DUE weight. I definitely think the citation to the postmodernist scholar is undue weight, but I am iffy about the Multitudes one, maybe the section should be re-named to responses? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia Thank you bery much, I really appreciate your feedback. Postconfused (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Vector Marketing[edit]

Looking for opinions: is this article considered a reliable source for sourcing a lawsuit against Vector Marketing, specifically for the claim below?

In 2003, a recruit who was successful in a lawsuit against Vector for failing to adhere to labor laws in New York, co-founded a group, Students Against Vector Exploitation (SAVE).

The source in question is authored by the group whose co-founder initiated the lawsuit. This seems to fail WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:SECONDARY.

This is the existing source on the page for the lawsuit claim above, which bears no mention of a lawsuit. Because of this, the existing source was replaced with a "citation needed" tag and another editor reverted that edit claiming the source is verifiable. After starting a discussion on the talk page, the only source that was found to backup the lawsuit claim is the above article in question. Looking to get additional opinions from other editors.

As a side note, sourcing seems to be an ongoing issue on this page and could use some extra set of eyes. For example the Popsci source was previously discussed here and subsequently removed from the page, yet it is currently on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayepaolo (talkcontribs) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a request for comment (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at WP:RFCST, and use a brief and neutral statement as the first signed comment in the discussion. — Newslinger talk 07:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong Free Press[edit]

Could Hong Kong Free Press had requested for this source [109] and [110] for democracy protests and Tiananmen massacre vigil ban in Hong Kong, including China. --TheMuscovian (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheMuscovian: Sorry, what is the question? — MarkH21talk 01:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It means it reports and stories about Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, and some topics about COVID-19 pandemic. --TheMuscovian (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I still don’t understand. Are you asking whether the Hong Kong Free Press is a reliable source for those topics? — MarkH21talk 01:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica[edit]

@Germash19: has been editing the article of List of the busiest airports in Europe for years, and has been adding the same reference citing outdated, old, and geographically wrong images from Encyclopedia Britannica. Claiming that Krasnodar, and the Krasnodar International Airport is located within Asia, when it is entirely within southern European Russia, in the western extremity of the Russian Federation, and the North Caucasus is generally considered a part of Eastern Europe.
Now, coming to his point that the southern part of European Russia, is apparently within the Asian continent, as he claims, is as absurd as it seems. If you follow the map shown in Encyclopedia Britannica, which is clearly wrong, and shows that the North Caucasus is outside of Europe, and is a part of Asia, it seems like the North Caucasus is an exclave of Asia not even connected to Asia or Asian Russia by land, and is rather located within Europe. The image also excludes the smaller European portions of the transcontinental countries of Georgia and Azerbaijan. It is also not like that Krasnodar is located close to the divider of Europe and Asia, the Ural Mountains, and the Caucasus, that he keeps adding the reference that apparently the airport is in the boundary of Europe and Asia, and also a bold claim that it can be considered in Asia, without citing any other references or sources supporting his claims. The Krasnodar International Airport is located within the city of Krasnodar, which is located in Krasnodar Krai, a federal subject of Russia, which is clearly located in Eastern Europe, which borders the Black Sea, and is separated from the Crimean Peninsula by the Sea of Azov. In fact, he also believes that Sochi, a seaport on the Black Sea coast of Russia, is also in Asia. So, according to this reference, the highest mountain in Europe, Mount Elbrus, which is located in the North Caucasus, is also located in Asia, so why is it considered European then?
Here are the references:[4]

References

  1. ^ AsiaEncyclopædia Britannica
  2. ^ EuropeEncyclopædia Britannica
  3. ^ Европа // Большая советская энциклопедия : [в 30 т.] / гл. ред. А. М. Прохоров. — 3-е изд. — М. : Советская энциклопедия, 1969—1978
  4. ^ Depending on the boundary between the continents, the airport can be considered as located in Asia [1][2][3]
They may not be alone [[111]]. Do you have an RS that contests this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The reliability of Encyclopedia Britannica has been extensively discussed before, see WP:BRITANNICA Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Depends on the used definition of the Europe-Asia boundary. If my memory serves me right, we were taught similar boundary in high school (with Mont Blanc as the highest mountain in Europe) - that was some 20 years ago. Books I have at hand (an old school atlas and small seven part encyclopedia) put Elbrus outside of Europe exactly like Encyclopedia Britannica. Pavlor (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Facebook[edit]

Should Facebook be subject to an edit filter, and/or added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which reverts the use of a reference for unregistered and new users under 7 days old (Per the IMDb discussion on this noticeboard) to discourage its use? Facebook is currently cited over 50,000 times on Wikipedia per facebook.com HTTPS links HTTP links Facebook is currently described at RS/P as "Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight." 15 specific Facebook pages are currently on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Facebook is also specifically cited at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources as an example of "unacceptable user-generated sites" Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Facebook)[edit]

Please state clearly if you support or oppose the use of an edit filter, XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, or both

  • Oppose as it is acceptable for self source of minor details such as date of birth, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That's odd. My facebook page has my date oif birth wrong. Thank goodness it isn't being used as a source for my date of birth. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Atlantic306: is this an oppose for XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which only reverts the use of sources in references for unregistered and new users with less than 7 day old accounts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support warn edit filter and XlinkBot Facebook is almost entirely user generated content, and is extensively used in WP:BLP articles, which require high quality sourcing, which Facebook falls far below. While I agree that it may be useful in limited WP:ABOUTSELF circumstances, Facebook links should be used only with caution by experienced editors and preventing new users from using Facebook would help curb problematic usage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)