Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 258

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Nableezy in topic Middle East Monitor
Archive 255Archive 256Archive 257Archive 258Archive 259Archive 260→Archive 265

Hornet Stories (hornet.com/stories) and Unicorn Booty (unicornbooty.com)

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hornet, an LGBT social network that appears to be a hybrid of Facebook and Grindr, publishes news stories on their website. The stories have named authors, but I can't find a masthead or list of authors.

On the Facebook article, I noticed a citation to unicornbooty.com added in 2015 that redirects to Hornet's primary domain. Taking Unicorn Booty's CrunchBase listing and defunct Twitter account into account, it looks like they were acquired by Hornet and then rebranded into Hornet Stories.

Domain uses:

Is Hornet Stories a reliable or usable source? (Please refer to this diff and this Hornet Stories article if you don't want to generalize.) — Newslinger talk 14:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Is facebook or Grinder?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
No, but I don't think Facebook or Grindr publishes original news stories. Hornet acquired a media company and now operates it alongside its social network. — Newslinger talk 14:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Which one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
They acquired Unicorn Booty, whose articles were migrated to Hornet Stories. — Newslinger talk 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Still seems like its a social network site, and I can find not real information about what unicorn Booty was (beyond a GBT news and pop culture site, which tells me nothing), given there apparent to be no separation of one form the other.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies — Newslinger talk 03:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post editorial

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

1. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/open-doors-slamming-gates-the-tumultuous-politics-of-us-immigration-policy/2017/01/28/b646ea48-e57a-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2uXbmEFJfd7NIfx5Ux3prT5d8qh3kIG1m4cp8lJXyWP46jlR1LMp2NIKk&utm_term=.4d68ddf422e5

2. Immigration Act of 1924

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_Act_of_1924&diff=880851867&oldid=880851814

The citation appears to be an op-ed, so I'm not sure if it should be included. My personal view is that it shouldn't be.

The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I would characterize that as "opinionated piece" as it speaks with a more casual, personal tone, but not strictly an op-ed. And in any case, the 1924 Act targetting Italians too seems to be readily sourcable to other works too from a quick google search. It would be better to use a historian than a news paper if possible (Eg first book hit on Google gives me this) --Masem (t) 02:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Masem: usable, but a specialist source would be preferable to this WaPo piece. feminist (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States — Newslinger talk 03:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy of Science and the Occult

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion
The question was answered by the first reply. Everything after that is fringe pushing and responses to fringe pushing. Neither belongs here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following is used as a reference in the lead of Quantum mysticism: [1]

References

  1. ^ Grim, Patrick (1982). Philosophy of Science and the Occult. SUNY Press. pp. 87–. ISBN 9781438404981.

Is it reliable the claims it is used to support?

Any comments on any other sources used in the article would be most welcome. I am just starting to look into how munch pseudoscience has crept in to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The germane WP:RULES are WP:PARITY and WP:BLUE. About the author: https://www.thegreatcourses.com/professors/patrick-grim/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Are we now asserting that no Quantum Physicist source needs to be cited on conclusions made regarding Quantum Physics because such assertions are tantamount to claiming the sky is blue? Regarding the assertions made in the article, we appear to still be lacking a single Quantum Physicist who can substantiate. If the book at issue has one it would improve the situation. But again, I would like you to find a single Quantum Physicist supporting the case made, including this book if the writer can be shown to genuinely be qualified in this field. Mrspaceowl (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
See demarcation problem: sometimes the debunkers are not quantum physicists, they're just debunkers or philosophers of science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Quantum physicists are experts in quantum physics and probably have no expertise or interest in mysticism. Quantum mysticism involves attempts to use quantum physics to "explain" various phenomena outside the field of quantum physics—a physicist is not needed to know such attempts are pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
If then, we take it to be true that physicists and any other scientist, regardless of disipline, are able to consign a view to the designation psuedoscience, which I believe is our position at present, one question still remains: is the book at issue a reliable regarding the claim it is said to support? Does anyone wish to make the argument? Mrspaceowl (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Straw man. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The topic is currently: is the book at issue a reliable source regarding the claim it is said to support? Could you explain your appeal to straw man here? Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Straw man was about "which I believe is our position at present". Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Disregarding ambiguities of expression here: suggest refocus back on the topic at hand: is the book at issue a reliable source regarding the claim it is said to support? Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The WP:BURDEN that a highly reputed professor of philosophy of science cannot be an authority upon pseudoscience is entirely upon you. Full professor: check. Academic press: check. What else do you wish? Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Your previous link routes to a homepage for a site that seems to have no obvious affiliation to any credible scientific organisation and gives no backing to the assertion that they are a professor. Could you provide a link to prove that this person is a professor, that they have published substantially and, critically, what the actual views put forward in his book are? For example a quotation would be handy. Once we have that it should be simpler for us to figure out if their field of expertise is the correct one given the exact assertion/assertions made. Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
That's what people at TTC do for a living: let full professors teach to the camera and sell such courses. Anyway, see https://lsa.umich.edu/cscs/people/post-docs-lecturers-visiting-scholars/pgrim.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a better source. It seems then that the person is a professor of philosophy, and thus would be placed to... hmmmm... It feels like we really need to know what the quotation from the book is as well. It seems that the most likely relevant field of those he is listed as occupying is philosophy of science. Thus it seems if the argument he is making concerns this, then it is likely a valid source. If the argument made instead directly concerns the science of quantum physics itself, or the current status of consensus of the physics community then it would not necessarily be considered credible. In the latter case, unless additional evidence can be given to show that he has spent some significant time studying not just philosophies of science, but also the general understanding of scientist regarding the concept of quantum mysticism as they exist in scientific communities. A subtle distinction to some, perhaps, but one of clear importance to reaching a unanimous judgment here, I feel. Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
You're treading on thin ice. You have been told about WP:PROFRINGE: presenting this quantum flapdoodle as anything else than WP:FRINGE/PS is a violation of basic policy. We're not here to WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
You're not really responding to the argument made above your own, but to something entirely different. I have not made a single argument here that would be covered by any of the rules you cite. Instead I am asking you to demonstrate why your source is credible and why his field is related. This is not in any way an unreasonable request, and I am being very patient and consensual here. Please reciprocate this respect by engaging with the reasonable requests made. Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
You're the one trying to undo our WP:PAGs, the WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it is a bad source. Have your read WP:PARITY in its entirety? Yes or no? If yes, why do you insist to undo it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this. -- WP:BURDEN Mrspaceowl (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
You're WP:Wikilawyering. WP:IDHT, WP:STICK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a shame, since I would have liked to come to an agreement that could have served the community at large here. It appears this was not saught by all. As per WP:STICK, debate over without any consensus reached. Mrspaceowl (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Your purpose around here seems to be undoing WP:PARITY. See WP:TE and there is an WP:ANI thread about you and WP:NOTHERE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
As per WP:STICK you cited debate over. By common agreement. Period. Mrspaceowl (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Omnivoracious: The Amazon Book Review for material on the Adam Hughes article

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Is this Review on Omnivoracious, which appears to be in a different format from the user-generated reviews, of a greater quality, reliability-wise, than those reviews? I'm looking for material to add to the Adam Hughes article on the 2010 collection of his work, Cover Run, and can't find any secondary sources, but this review has lots of material that I could use to add to the passage on that book, and Alex Carr, the author of the review, may be a notable person, but I'm not sure if it's the same Alex Carr as I've come across through Google. Anyone? Nightscream (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books — Newslinger talk 03:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Midway Mayhem

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  1. Source – Busch Gardens Tampa Cobra's Curse Construction Update 2.17.16 POV Tour, Train Reveal, Interviews! by Midway Mayhem
  2. Article – Was in Cobra's Curse, I removed it to make sure its reliability and verifiability on this noticeboard.
  3. Content – Used in a reference for the themeing of the ride, the queue area's show, how the trains are able to rotate, and what kind of restraints the ride has. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks — Newslinger talk 03:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger; Appreciate it, and will take into consideration with sources on the article. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Australian paradox

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Australian paradox about an article with multiple issues including RS and use of predatory journals, and I invite any and all interested parties to contribute there. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sludge

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Source: [1], and specifically [2]

Article: PragerU

Content: The source is used three times in the article.

First and second are here:

The second-largest donor is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[4][15] Other donors include the Morgan Family Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Donors Trust, and the Minnesota-based Sid and Carol Verdoorn Foundation, led by former C.H. Robinson CEO Sid Verdoorn.[15]:

Third here:

A video entitled "The Suicide of Europe", which featured author Douglas Murray, was criticized for providing false or misleading statistics about immigration in Europe.[15]

It does not appear to me that this source has editorial control. See [3]. It seems to be something like a confederation of bloggers, but I'm not sure I understand the model they're using. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

On the source itself: I'm not sure I understand the model either, but it certainly isn't an impartial organization, despite the pretence to neutrality. On the question of Prager's funding, this information could presumably be corroborated independently, in which case inclusion of this citation would seem unproblematic. But the editorializing about Douglas Murray is more murky; unless I missed something, the article cited doesn't actually offer a single example of Murray giving "false or misleading statistics" on immigration. TheBlueCanoe 21:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Some of the funding info can be corroborated with reports from Buzzfeed and Mother Jones. But not all of it: this fellow seems to have done some original reporting. I guess I'm unsure whether we should rely on it for the material that isn't corroborated. As for Sludge's criticism of Murray, this was directed at Murray's claim that, by 2017, 'Muhammed' was the most common name given to baby boys in the UK. Sludge cites a report from the UK office of National Statistics showing that 'Muhammad' (excluding alternative spellings 'Mohammed', 'Mohammad', and 'Muhammed') is the tenth most common name in England and Wales in 2017. This does not tend to inspire confidence in the quality of the reporting! Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. And even so, this would not be a misleading statistic on immigration per se, but on naming patterns.TheBlueCanoe 04:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Sludge appears too young to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Sludge was founded in 2018, built upon the Civil blockchain journalism platform (See Colorado Sun and Draft:Civil Media Company). I've not looked thoroughly, but I could not find clearly reliable publications citing Sludge.
The credentials of the author, Alex Kotch (http://www.alexkotch.com/), aren't bad.
Overall, I think the ref is ok for basic statements of fact, as in the funding information. Information from interviews should be fine as well, attributed to the interviewee. If used for opinions of the author, the content should not be in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there any difference between citing this source and citing a group blog? I see no difference but that this source isn't calling itself a group blog. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to use it unattributed as a source for facts stated in Wikipedia's voice. "Once the platform is fully launched, Sludge will be accountable to holders of the Civil token, who will use internal governance mechanisms to affirm the integrity and commitment to journalistic standards of Sludge..." just doesn't sound like the kind of fact checking I would like to see in a reliable source. It sounds more like fact-checking by upvote. And, though it's not an automatic sign of non-reliability, their platform is pretty unabashedly biased, as are the majority of their headlines. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

To tackle a more specific aspect, about the video and the claim therein, Sludge would appear to be a little wrong about the statement being false. Muhammad is the most popular name when taking into account variations on spelling: As explained by this BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45559619) "The rankings are based on names with the exact same spellings.... Muhammad (3,691 boys) and Mohammed (1,982) combined would still not be more popular than the traditional spelling of Oliver. However there are other variations on the name, such as Mohammad (837), Mohamed (269) and Muhammed (450) that would make it more popular if they were all counted as the same name." Of course, it would probably be Synth to use this source to counter the claim in the article, but it does show that they have shoddy oversight when it comes to fact checking. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. The point about the name has been well taken, and that material is no longer in the article. However, unfortunately, this is the only source we have for some of the funding info about PragerU currently in the article. And its also the only source we have for one of the quotes that currently appears in the article. I think the argument for relying on Sludge here is that the author's credentials are decent and we have no alternative source. But the identifiable errors in the reporting are a concern. And our guidelines clearly say that blogs aren't appropriate sources, and I don't see how Sludge differs from a group blog. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
At the very least any information sourced from Sludge should be attributed to Sludge in text, and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Even then, given the other issues, I'm not so sure it's a great source for facts. I would be inclined to agree with you that it should probably be treated more like a blog.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of Indian news sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

An editor, Markbulb (talk · contribs) has contacted me and asked me to remove three films from the filmography of the article Parvatii Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), claiming that the sources provided are not accurate and citing WP:LIBEL.

The three sources are

  1. The Times of India [4]
  2. International Business Times [5]
  3. Deccan Chronicle [6]

Diffs: I Restored removed content

Markbulb Requested removal et seq

There has been a discussion on the article talkpage around these films inclusion. He claims to have had a communication with the subject of the article, referring to her as a client, indicating that the news article sources for these entries are unreliable. I'm not sure how to judge this. The articles verify that the subject acted in the films stated. I also don't see how her being cited in these films (Nimirndhu Nil, Janda Pai Kapiraju, Maalai Naerathu Mayakkam) count as libel. --Auric talk 21:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not see how this is libellous either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for taking the time for looking at this issue. Firstly, I want to say - I am a huge believer in free speech and will never support censorship, so much so that I am a huge fan of Bitcoin and don't believe that our government should control currency.

Parvatii, is trying to remove these films from her filmography from the past few years, but it is unable to do so. I don't think my predecessors explained the situation well. Let me try to clarify the situation:

1) Parvatii, did sign for these films. Parvatii did shoot for these films. But, due to issues with the production team. She quit. 2) Majority of Parvatii's role was edited out. Apart from a 7 dialogue scene. This was used in the film without her consent - She is willing to testify this. 3) When Parvatii left the production, she made it very clear to the production team that they can't use shots of her that were taken. But did so without her consent. 4) Parvatii doesn't want to be associated with these films. She strongly feels that having these films in her filmography is defamatory in nature - as she quit and she didn't give consent to the production team to use her shots. 5) Parvatii did think of pursuing legal action against the production team, the time and cost involved didn't merit this course of action.

The movies in question is the same movie that was released in multiple languages.

Once again I really appreciate you guys having a look at this. I know its guys like you who are the real heroes of Wikipedia and are responsible for making wiki awesome!

Markbulb (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

183.82.130.43 (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware they are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Given what Markbulb says above, I think this is at best an issue for WP:BLPN, not this forum. The sources are reliable for the statements made and it seems she admits to being shown in some scenes, whether she agreed to it or not. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I would agree, this is a BLP matter, not an RS matter.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems, USER:Markbulb, that you are not disputing the accuracy of the sources, but you instead want to WP:CENSOR them due to various objections the actress has with them being included in her 'Wikipedia Record'.
As such, this is the wrong place. If you really wish to get them removed, there are two routes; you might bring it up at WP:BLPN and attempt to establish a consensus that this information does not belong on Wikipedia. Alternatively, if you truly believe that this is "defamatory" and actionable, then you can contact the Wikipedia Foundation and discuss it with them; information on how to do this can be found here, under legal: [7].
What I would recommend doing, if reliable sources exist for this dispute, is creating a draft on the talk page of her article explaining the dispute and request its inclusion in the article per the procedures defined at WP:COI, and thus in this way you can provide context to the roles. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
To add to the above. If there is some off wiki dispute this has nothing to do with us.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
She strongly feels that having these films in her filmography is defamatory in nature - as she quit and she didn't give consent to the production team to use her shots.
Then her problem isn't with Wikipedia, it's with the "production team". Get back to us if you've settled it with them and if reliable sources care enough to comment on it. --Calton | Talk 16:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I posted this here because Markbulb's complaints seemed to be focusing on how those sources, which AFAIK were reliable, were reporting false news and I was getting concerned.--Auric talk 01:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a definition for what constitutes a "reliable source"?

Latest comment: 5 years ago55 comments16 people in discussion

From what I can see, neither WP:RELIABILITY nor WP:VERIFIABILITY provide a definition of what constitutes a reliable source. Rather, they provide guidelines and rules of thumb, as well as circular definitions and references to each other: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"; "source reliability falls on a spectrum... editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable"; "the more people engaged in checking facts... the more reliable the publication", etc. What they don't seem to contain is a simple, straightforward definition: "reliable sources are those that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information on a subject."

Is this correct, or am I missing something? François Robere (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Such a definition is a given, surely? Defining the common English word "reliable" as "can be depended on" is not useful, and trying to come up with a catch-all definition of "can be depended on" would be a disaster waiting to happen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope. We define mundane things like what is a "source" and what does "published" mean (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Overview), and we have endless discussions about aspects of reliability, such as context and age (also addressed there), but not clear definition of the end result, at least as far as I can tell. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:SOURCE gives a pretty good definition. "Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...." I think makes it pretty clear. If a source has a consistently good reputation in regards to fact checking and accuracy, it is generally reliable. This board is where you can discuss the said reputation of specific sources, and WP:RSP is where you can see a list of various sources and the current consensus on their reliability UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a circular definition. What is a "reliable source"? François Robere (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It only looks circular because it uses the word reliable (although I would argue it is using it in a slightly different way). But there is much more to the definition. Take that word out, and it works fine. A reliable source is a source with a good reputation for fact checking an accuracy. The better and more robust the fact checking, the more reliable the source. The problem with "reliable sources are those that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information on a subject" is that it doesn't give any indication of WHY such a source is reliable. That's just repeating the dictionary definition of reliable: "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted." And therefore is even more circular, as it just removes the qualifications of accuracy and fact checking, and instead relies on just being labeled "reliable" and then defining the word. Replace the words with their definitions to see why: "A source that is consistently good and able to be trusted is a source that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information" is basically just saying "A reliable source is reliable" and it doesn't help any editor understand why a source they wish to use is or is not reliable. WP:RS is about giving people a definition that can be applied. If a reliable source is a source with robust fact checking and a good reputation for accuracy, those are measurable things that any editor can use to determine if a source they wish to use is reliable or not. "A reliable source is reliable" doesn't help anyone. "A reliable source is a source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking" is less redundant, more specific, and much more useful. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
By this definition, a new news outlet could not be considered a reliable source, since it would not have developed a reputation yet. Is that right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It would likely depend on the prior journalistic reputation of the people running the site. If, say, Robert Costa and Katy Tur started a new news site, we could likely view it as a reliable source fairly early on, based on the the credentials of those two reporters. A news site started by a person whose prior writing experience is exclusively of the partisan polemic or conspiracy-mongering sort, whatever their particular bent, would likely not be given such a benefit of the doubt. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much what NorthBy said. Anyone can call themselves a news outlet, it doesn't automatically make them reliable. If it was started by people whose prior work has been consistently reliable, and if the early reporting shows the hallmarks of reliability (Accuracy, fact checking, etc.) I would probably lean towards giving it the benefit of the doubt. But largely yes, I would be hesitant to view any brand new news outlet as reliable until there is a bit of history to review. The same way that when a new academic study is published we take into account both who published it and how it is received by the larger relevant community over time after publication. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd appreciate comments from either of you about the source called "Sludge" listed above; I wonder how you'd apply what you're saying here to that case. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It is circular, but it can easily be resolved by removing the word "reliable", and presto! A definition for what constitutes a "reliable source". Why not do that? François Robere (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that. I think the word reliable should remain in the "Articles should be based on..." sentence, but I have no problem with adding a part that says something along the lines of "Reliable sources are published sources with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy." I guess it could be split into two sentences, "Articles should be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are..." UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've come across dozens of editors who don't know what a "source" is, confusing it with a citation, regardless of whether or not that citation was tagged on by someone with no idea where the information came from, when what it actually refers to is the source of the information. I literally came across so many editors who didn't know the difference that it was impossible to convince enough of the community that it was a problem with one or two of them for multiple years. I have yet to come across a case where having a policy or guideline that explicitly defines "reliable" as "can be depended on" would solve the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I actually have one in mind, which is how I noticed this. Regardless, regulations of all sorts tend to be specific and rigorous in their terminology for just those reasons, eg. defining what exactly is a "source". François Robere (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure we actually want or could agree on a solid definition of "reliable." There's a spectrum of reliability anyway - something reliable for x may not be reliable for y, and so on. --16:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we do and could, because the goal in all cases is the same: providing correct and accurate information. An overall definition that follow that goal isn't difficult to construct, I think, hence my ad-hoc suggestion above: "reliable sources are those that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information on a subject". François Robere (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@François Robere: Who decides what is correct and accurate? Reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors. Taking that out of editors' hands is the whole point. So your definition is a dog chasing its tail (speaking of circular definitions). Reliable news sources are, or should be, those who have a reputation for commitment to long-established journalistic principles. Signs of that: Firing a reporter for plagiarism. Willingness to go to jail to protect a confidential source. Degrees in journalism. Willingness to go up against a national government despite significant risk to the organization, as in the Pentagon Papers. Clear separation of news and opinion. And so on. NOT a sign of that: Publishing information that I feel is correct and accurate. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
See clarification below. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:RS does provide a definition although it may not explicitly state it as such. A reliable source is a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't actually. The full statement is: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation a reputation for fact-checking." It's not a definition but a guide, however if it was a definition it would be self-referencing. François Robere (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
To give my own weight to this discussion. Determining WP:RS is dependent on multiple factors, and not just reputation. Further, no one of these factors is wholly responsible for determining whether or not a source is reliable though a lack of one of these factors can make a source unreliable. First is independent editorial control, this will determine if a source is self-published or not. Another, which is commonly listed is a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy (though the statement doesn't answer whom the reputation must be among). The third that I am aware of is the level of the sources independence of a topic. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it does not have a strict definition by design, as reliability is dependant on a number of factors as Kyohyi points out. Also (as the various relevant policy/guideline pages point out) not all sources are reliable in all contexts. Some sources are reliable for some material, but not others. When you start looking for a strict definition you will soon be disregarding otherwise perfectly useable and sources reliable for the material they are being used to reference. Reliability of a source can only be assessed correctly (with some exceptions) taking into account the source, the material itself, and the article in which it is to be used (context). Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
My view is in effect that there is no uncontroversial definition of RS. When you take into account the factors that have been mentioned, and do your best to come to a reasoned conclusion about whether a source is reliable, that conclusion is not always something everyone agrees with. In that case, you face the difficult task of trying to build consensus even though there is a difference of personal opinion about the reliability of the relevant source, and that can look like trying to persuade people by giving your reasons, and trying to think of a compromise that will make everyone happy. In this sense, personal opinion does play a role, but this is moderated by the requirement that there be consensus. Does that seem right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(I'll quote myself here, because I wrote it just now:) The goal in all these cases is the same: to provide correct and accurate information to the reader. An overall definition that follows that goal shouldn't be difficult to construct, hence my ad-hoc suggestion from before: "reliable sources are those that can be depended on by an editor to consistently provide correct information on a subject". All of the cases and all of our discussions follow from this simple notion, yet nowhere is it put in writing. François Robere (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If it shouldn't be difficult to construct, why not offer one in a new sub-section below and then put on your thick skin as editors poke holes in it. After a week or so, be prepared to walk away from the definition.
I agree with the editors who state it is not an easy task as I have attempted to get even more simple concepts defined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers. I do believe this can be done to establish this whole system from first principles, just as other legal and philosophical systems try to do.
@Walter Görlitz: can you elaborate? François Robere (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to ping me as this board is currently on my watchlist.
changing the typo of "who" to "why" makes it easier to understand. If there's something specific that you do not understand about what I wrote feel free to ask, but what I wrote is understandable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to your experience trying to have "even more simple concepts defined". Could you elaborate on that? François Robere (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to know? I have done this three times in different forums. In some instances no change is made. For instance Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album article_style advice#Producer or production the editors got hung up on defining the role of a person being described rather than recognizing that the term is ambiguous, and to break the rule would be beneficial to the reader. In that case, we have maybe two dozen editors interested, and very few would actually comment. Here, we have many more interested and many more will comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Any successes? François Robere (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
"Reliability" in sources is dependent on many factors. There is a role for discussion. We aren't just WP:MONKEYS. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's fantastic, Bus stop. I hadn't seen WP:MONKEYS before. Thanks for that. Good editorial judgment--there's no substitute, and it's hard to come by. And there are intractable disagreements about what the best editorial judgment is in a given case. While we can all agree that the reliable sources are the ones that can be depended on (i.e. relied on!), that is not the sort of definition that can settle disputes, since people who make different editorial judgments in a certain case will of course disagree about whether a given source can be relied on to consistently provide correct information on the subject at hand. There's a role for discussion. Some people around here act like there isn't, or that if you disagree with them then you're a troll or whatever. But that's not a reasonable view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Search the archives of this page for "YouTube" to see why we will never agree on a definition of "reliable", and why that's a good thing. If you opened an RFC to enshrine "YouTube is not a reliable source" into policy, you would get a lot of support from people who don't know how YouTube works and who don't really understand how Wikipedia sourcing is supposed to work, but they would be wrong and the proposal would need to fail. Context is everything in such cases. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I'm not suggesting, nor have I suggested above, to disregard accepted criteria on "reliability". Rather, I'm pointing to the (glaring) lacuna of not having established what reliability actually is. What does it mean for a source to be a "reliable source"? A reliable source is not one that fact-checks, but one that we can rely on to give us accurate information; fact checking, editorial independence, etc. are all just mechanisms for providing that. We have rules and guides for everything: We define "what is a source" and "what does it mean to be published", where to place a comma in citations and how to format lists of biographies of music video artists born in the former USSR (you get the point...); yet in no place do we establish this basic notion that underlies all of our work here: "We're looking for sources that provide correct information." Everything else is just a means to that end; why not state so? François Robere (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems that what you call mechanisms are what others here are treating as defining characteristics. While I think some of our defining characteristics can be clarified better, I don't think changing the definition of a reliable source to "something that can consistently provide correct information" (yes this is a paraphrase) really clearly defines what is a reliable source. If anything I think that expression is more synonymous than defining. Better and clearer mechanisms (or as I would call defining characteristics) would work better in my opinion. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Would you accept a black box source that is verifiably correct in all or the majority of instances? If so, then all of these mechanisms are secondary. François Robere (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't accept things unless they actually exist. So you'd need to present to me, a black box source that is verifiably correct in all or the majority of instances first. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
In reality most sources are at to some extent "black boxes": We have no idea of the editorial processes of the Daily Caller, which is up for vote above, but we judge it on its results. The RfC summary of the Daily Mail discussion stated that "[it] may have been more reliable historically, but..." - it makes no mention of internal controls like fact-checking. We cite and attribute "official UK sources" on the Skripal poisoning - sources on which we know very little about. Reliability, hence, is more than the sum of editorial processes that we can account for here. François Robere (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll refer to what I said previously, No one factor determines reliability, though a failure of one factor can make a source unreliable. In the case of the daily caller the argument is that the source doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. However, that doesn't mean if a source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy means it is de-facto reliable. Our policy on BLP explicitly calls out self-published sources as not meeting the reliable sources requirements in that context. So if we can't identify if a source has independent editorial control, it is treated as self-published. If it is self-published then it is not reliable for BLP's. This is independent of accuracy. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • We appear to be going in circles, honestly, if you cant after reading WP:SOURCE and WP:RS not at least begin to identify reliable sources as you use them, or at least understand that the way wikipedia defines the term is on a scale dependant on many factors, this is likely a problem with your understanding, not the policy & guidelines. Fact checking, editorial independence etc are indications of reliability, as the above two policy/guide make clear. As it stands this noticeboard is for discussion about specific sources reliability, not for general discussion about what reliability means. If you have a source in mind feel free to post it along with the article and material you wish to use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you're completely missing the point if that's your conclusion of this discussion. François Robere (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

An exercise.

What is "reliability? It is being truthful (what then off ignorance?). Is it being factually accurate 100% of the time (what then if the fact (such as often happens in science)) turns out to be wrong in some way, Or is it only being right...the majority...most...some...occasionally (sod off cardinal Biggles now is not the time) some of the time, or of of facts that whilst as stated they are not untrue (most people who die stop breathing) but may not be exactly the truth? Or is it truth (OK Biggles you time is nearly here), Well we can have a whole debate about that (here we can have the same dig are religion we had at science, seems religion gets this one pretty much wrong all the time).Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"What is reliability?" Too often on Wikipedia, it means "this source agrees with what I want in an article". The sad truth is that modern media do not actually do real fact-checking before publication of articles due to the high costs involved, and the desire to be on-line two seconds ahead of the competition. In short "fact-checking" of new articles is essentially non-existent for those monetary reasons. Even "respected newspapers" take press releases and use them instead of actual journalism. Especially on science and medicine topics, and political topics for which they often use press release "memos" as their uncredited source. Add to that the insatiable desire for "celebrity gossip" afflicting the grey ladies of the newspaper realm as much as the "red hatters" of the tabloid realm, which means almost no "celebrity gossip" is fact checked at all. Does this sound too pessimistic? People hunt for "blogs" whose quotes can be used to support "A is an anti-Semite" or "B would kill all Arabs" or "C suggests using genocide as a goal" or the like of absurd overstatement (at the bare minimum). This may seem a bit like "the Emperor has no clothes!" but the gist is true. The Wikipedia belief in "reliable sources" is decimated by actual facts now. And too many "true believers" in whatever issue exists, fight to keep their turf clear of "wrong sources." WP:NPOV is close to deceased as a result. Collect (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree with all of the above, but that (strictly) is not an issue about how we define reliability, but rather about how we enforce that definition. But the one thing it is clear we will not get (possibly due to the over worship of the 5th(?) estate by the nation that makes up the bulk of Wikipedia's editors) is that is not going to change.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Devil's advocate... That's all the more reason to define what we want from sources. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm game. I may BRD some and see how it goes. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • To paraphrase Justice Stewart: “we know it when we see it”. A reliable source is one that we (as a community) deem reliable. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Once there was a whole book written on 'what is a Republic', or, at least that's what its title suggests -- Wikipedia tends to write in long-form on what it tries out as working concepts and gives them short titles like, "reliable sources", so look to such pages to try to grok it, but most probably you will not just reading that, you have a better chance to learn in the doing off Wikipedia, and perhaps on, like in research and writing in school, or in professional life. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's why I noted above that we work from an operational definition, which seemed to get lost. The most important part of my comment above was the reference to operational definitions. Operational definitions are not invalid definitions, even if they are not explicit definitions. The reference you made to Potter Stewarts famous statement on obscenity is germane here as a great analogue for how Wikipedia treats reliable sources, especially as expanded on in other court decisions, such as those that establish community standards for obscenity. People looking for a definition expect an explicit one, but explicit definitions are often circular (What is an apple? It's the fruit of an apple tree. What is an apple tree? The tree that produces apples. That sort of thing). When we provide operational definitions, that is define something by what it does rather than by what it is, we are far more useful to people trying to apply the concept. Thus, we can define an apple operationally, but indicating what it looks like, smells like, tastes like, is used for, etc. "An apple is a fruit which has a waxy red or green skin, a white or tan flesh, sweet flavor, often used in pie making, etc." Any explicit definition we could give for reliablility of sources would literally be just a restatement of what every dictionary defines the word "reliablility" to mean. That's next to useless. Instead, we have a page that gives a lengthy operational definition of a reliable source, by explaining what reliable sources do rather than merely what they are, that is they have a reputation for trying to present verifiable facts, they independently verify those facts, they present information which conforms largely with what other equally independent sources, doing their own fact checking, have also arrived at, their primary purpose is to inform rather than to convince or advertise or entertain, etc. One of my favorite operational definitions of reliable sources is the CRAAP test, which I use with my students so they can self-assess reliable sources. It's a great starting point, because it focuses on how to recognize reliable sources. Again, the OP's fascination with the definition of reliability seems misplaced here. Look it up in Oxford or Miriam-Webster if you want; Wikipedia is not using the word in a specialized way, or any different way. It's a normal English word. What is more important is how do we find and use reliable sources. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    My entirely left brain (I have no right brain) tells me it would be possible to develop a source general reliability (SGR) score based on objective criteria. It wouldn't be a "last word", for various reasons including that some sources are reliable sources for some facts but not for others, but it would still be useful to be able to say that Source X is generally more reliable than Source Y, and by "this" much. Of course it would be a very difficult sell after certain factions realized that it would demote sources supporting their POVs; that's simply another negative result of our self-selected self-governance system. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not a chance of getting that to happen. Many of the discussions here result in "the source is reliable for α, β, γ, and δ but is not reliable for ᚠ", or sometimes "but is not reliable for anything else". The archives here are littered with those. So how to do you state that a source is more reliable than another? Are you asking about topic γ or ᚠ at the time? Are you planning on using it for a purpose for which it has been determined unreliable? I know that individual projects have lists of reliable sources and unreliable sources, but they do not rate them as more or less reliable (even though some editors may feel that this is the case). Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    I think I addressed that. The main obstacle would be political, not that it would be completely without merit or value. It's an example of a problem that is intractable because of core problems that can't be addressed under our system of governance. In my view that's at the root of many persistent Wikipedia issues. Of course that takes the discussion off topic and "meta", and I shouldn't be in this to begin with. I must get better at resisting the urge to enter discussions like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    This is a classic epistemological discussion. Actually we can define an apple objectively using any number of means (taxonomical, physiological, chemical); it doesn't matter how we label it, or if we label it at all. As for operational definitions: They may be easy to define and apply, but they're useless for re/definition (ie making new rules), as well as for cases where no rule exists; and since they don't stem from a clearly defined notion, they can contradict each other and you'll have no easy way to resolve the contradiction. And they're lazy, especially in an enterprise with as many policies, guides and essays as this one. Regarding dictionary-like definitions: Would that be wrong? A dictionary definition isn't useful outside of Policy, so why not enter one into it? Is it that different from explaining what verifiability, NPOV, civility etc. mean? As I said, I have a specific interest here because there are border cases which aren't addressed by any guideline, and when that happens you need principle. François Robere (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not aiming for epistemology at all. Apples are things that most people agree are worth eating, although the type and variety that one may choose to eat may vary by person. While SPAM are things that most people agree are not worth eating, although it existence benefits some. STICK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    The existence of "border cases which aren't addressed by any guideline" does not go away by quoting the Oxford definition of a word. We make decisions on the reliability of sources based on a number of criteria, depending on the nature of what the source itself is being used to support. WP:RS is extensive (but not exhaustive) of the sorts of things we look for when assessing sources. That's sufficient. Hard cases make bad law, which is why we don't use the "border cases which aren't addressed by any guideline" in order to decide how to write the guideline. You create policy for the broad middle, and WP:IAR covers the rest. --Jayron32 15:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

All Music Reviews

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Proposal withdrawn by ScotlandLaddie04. — Newslinger talk 19:00, 7 February 2019 (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.

I have changed my mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotlandLaddie04 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Which reviewers are you thinking of? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
He is referring to this, a reliably sourced genre he disagrees with wherein the Allmusic reviewer, Jack Rabid describes the song as "another solid pop single". Robvanvee 05:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting suggesting that a fellow Wikipedia editor would do something with a self-serving motive and not be forthcoming with that information? I'm totally shocked!
Regardless, not likely to happen. I won't offer a polling opinion, but will say that AllMusic meets RS and reviews there that contain prose are completely reliable regardless of who the author is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Websites are only blacklisted for severe issues that affect the usability of the entire source. If you disagree with one AllMusic reviewer's genre classification for a song, your best course of action would be to find other reliable sources (WP:RSMUSIC is a good starting point) that classify the song differently, and then include them into the article. Blacklisting would be inappropriate here.​ — Newslinger talk 05:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    ScotlandLaddie04's original comment, before they removed it, was:

    I would like if AllMusic reviews by specific people should be blacklisted for Wikipedia's reliable sources websites. I just don't think one person's own review is reliable for a genre source.

— Newslinger talk 19:00, 7 February 2019 (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.

media bias chart from adfontes media

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Many here are I'm sure already aware of this, but I have found this chart very valuable as a sort of cheat sheet. valereee (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking if that is an RS? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It can be useful when you need a reminder for an off-the-cuff example of a particular type of unreliable source when talking about bias; and I suppose you could use it as a very quick check to get a sense of where the baseline for discussions over a particular source are likely to start or how it's likely to be received here. If you have multiple sources it can also be worth a quick glance at a chart like that to get a sense of which ones are strongest (although this board usually focuses on "reliable" vs. "not reliable", assessing which sources to go with when there are many to choose from is also a vital part of WP:RS and WP:DUE.) But ultimately it's just the opinions of one website with no real sourcing or explanation, so it's not like we can actually use it for anything more than a rough reminder. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks accurate to me. But then, who's to say I'm unbiased (or objective)?  O3000 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • While it looks broadly accurate to me, there are a few things in there that I found eyebrow-raising - in particular, it rates Newsmax above Fox News (not just above, but three whole tiers above it!) That definitely doesn't reflect the current consensus here, at the very least. --Aquillion (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
IMO, Fox has dropped a couple tiers in the last couple years. Also, our Fox consensus is based on the news programs, whereas their rating appears to include all shows. Newsmax used to be awful and I would've positioned it lower two years ago. But, I haven't looked at their site in a couple years and haven't seen their TV network. O3000 (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
​Note that they have separate charts for all the parts of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and The Young Turks. Scroll down to see them. Their ratings place FoxNews.com just a little bit higher than Newsmax. — Newslinger talk 13:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the overall Fox rating is dragged down by a few shows -- which, alas, are among their most popular shows and oft quoted on the home page of their site. O3000 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Aquillion: yes, the "Fox overall" rating isn't as helpful as the individual show ratings. Ditto the other major news networks -- Cuomo is rated lower than Early Start. @Emir of Wikipedia: just found it helpful in a rough way for sources I'm not deeply familiar with and as a way to check that I'm using the best source for a particular assertion, so I thought I'd share. Yes, it's just the opinions of one website, but they seem to be doing their best to be as objective as mere humans can be, and I've found that they roughly agree with WP consensus on many sources. Like I said, I use it as a cheat sheet. valereee (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, hi. For some reason your ping didn't work. The reason I said what I said was because I wanted to know if you were asking if you wanted to know the reliability of the chart. Discussions that are not about determining the reliability of specific sources, but about information to consider when analysing sources, should go on the talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia My ping probably didn't work because the first time I posted, I broke it. :) Whoops, sorry, about posting in the wrong place -- thought I was on a talk page lol! Another example of not-my-best-work! valereee (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem, we all make mistakes. Even if some say that the chart is not completely accurate it is still interesting, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That chart is laughable. CNN is at least as far left as Breitbart is to the right. Fox News have moved strongly to the left over the last couple of years and has become one of the least biased of the large U.S. TV news sources. Fox News now have journalists/hosts/reporters on both sides of the political spectrum, democrats and republicans, some who strongly support the President, some who strongly oppose him. CNN and MSNBC do not employ a single journalist/host/reporter that supports the President... they do occasionally include republicans in discussion panels, but those panels are typically very unbalanced(like 5-7 democrats and 1 republican) and when Republicans are included in panels or interviewed they are usually treated in a very hostile manner. The coverage of the President on CNN and MSNBC is close to 100% negative. This chart puts serious right wing sources like Breitbart, Daily Wire, The Daily Caller, etc on the far right side, while putting extremely biased anti-Trump sources like the New York Times and Washington Post in the middle of the chart. It's unfortunate that so many people have not understood the depth of the change in political journalism that has occurred in the U.S. over the last few years. BreakingZews (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
"Fox News have moved strongly to the left over the last couple of years and has become one of the least biased of the large U.S. TV news sources." is one of the craziest things I have read all day. For real. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Your opinion is not representative of current consensus, which is shown in the articles and prior discussions for Breitbart News (RSP entry), Fox News (RSP entry), The Daily Caller (RSP entry), The New York Times (RSP entry), and The Washington Post (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 11:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You Know I Got Soul reliability and use?

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I am thinking about working on the Tamar (album) article as a possible GAN/FAC project. and I was wondering if I could use the following source (1) as part of the expansion? Here is the About page for the website (2) and the Contact page (3). Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Self-published source. YouKnowIGotSoul.com lists a founder and a single editor as its staff, and only discloses the founder's first name. All of the articles are attributed to "YKIGS", and do not disclose their author(s). The site uses an informal style of writing that is common in personal blogs, but not in high-quality publications. I see a couple of passing mentions of artist interviews/statements on YouKnowIGotSoul in other sources, but no clear endorsements of the site. I don't recommend using this source, as I think it would make the article less likely to meet the good article criteria, and probably cause it to fail the featured article criteria (which demands "high-quality reliable sources"). — Newslinger talk 11:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much agree, looks like just another site.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs — Newslinger talk 11:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that it's unreliable, if we're considering a piece of editorial (i.e. opinion-based) content like the article at the link you provided. When citing someone's written assessment of the album, the lack of an individual writer's name is a bit problematic. I would imagine most of the factual content provided in that article would be reproduced elsewhere, even if the (anonymous) writer's critical judgments are not. It also would not be a very good source to establish a subject's notability.
However, I don't think I'd consider the whole site categorically unreliable and off-limits. YKIGS currently hosts 771 interviews with R&B musicians (that's 77 pages holding 10 interviews each, plus a 78th page with 1 interview). The most recent posts, at least, seem to include video interviews as well. I think it would be acceptable to cite a statement by an artist from an interview conducted by YKIGS, unless the artist said substantively the same thing in a better source. For example, if an R&B artist said that Marvin Gaye influenced her new album only in a YKIGS interview, I think it would be permissible to cite that interview for that information. But if the artist said the same thing in a separate interview with The New York Times, it would be preferable to cite the Times and omit YKIGS. —BLZ · talk 00:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment, and I completely agree with you. I have used a You Know I Got Soul.com interview with Natina Reed in her article, as that is the only source of information on things relating to her life and career. Thank you for the clarification. I also agree that it is not a good source for establishing a subject's notability if other sources do not also exist on it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that interviews can be used as primary sources for the interviewee's statements about themself. — Newslinger talk 12:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

ACCA global website

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, can I use ACCA global website as a citation to support our university accreditation? Iiwannou (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

eu-atlas.org

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is zenodo.org/record/1252803#.XGCPW7gxlEY a reliable source for biota/conservation information in Tropic Seamount? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

informationcradle.com

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Is informationcradle.com (used in 46 articles) a reliable source? It was the only English-language source I found that mentioned Stella Chung's marriage and subsequent separation [8]. On that page, the information about her marriage is almost the only information which wasn't copied and pasted from this star2.com article. (Almost all of the text in her Wikipedia article is unreferenced.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say it is probably not an RS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

dai-sport.com

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm hoping to get some help in discerning whether dai-sport.com could be considered a reliable source. The about page on the website doesn't provide much further information on who runs the website. However, Terry Phillips who is (formerly?) the chief football reporter for Media Wales, whose publications include the South Wales Echo, Western Mail and WalesOnline, is a regular reporter for the site which seems to suggests a degree of professional journalism. Small profile for Phillips. Kosack (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Sport in Wales, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales — Newslinger talk 02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Often, I treat sources differently depending on what they are being used for. The difficulty is that even experienced journalists are now copying dates, etc, from Wikipedia, so an independent website like this is probably not reliable for that kind of detail. Deb (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Most reliable news websites would at least list an editor and have profiles of their contributors or explanations of how the content is received. If this is simply a website that publishes user-submitted material, I'd tend to treat it as a bit suspect. Sionk (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both, you seem to confirm my worries. I'll avoid using this source. Kosack (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

youcontrol.com.ua

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A user spammed the webpage from the website to articles of Ukrainian companies and now Crédit Agricole. It seem scrapper of the database from the data of the Ukrainian chamber of commerce or local company registry. Is it reliable source? Certainly it fails for external link section as it is partially a pay to view source. Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Off topic, but the user seem totally spammer. None of the edit (excluding minor edit to fix himself) were related to spamming link. He also spammed https://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com Matthew hk (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Spam blacklisting done. Spammer blocked. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Modern Mogul

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Someone spammed the webpage from the website to the articles. It seem a well designed website, but is that a reliable source, a self-published source (a well designed personal blog) or some sort of echo or mirror site to content of other web. For the attempt to spam the site to Federico Marchetti , certainly it fails verification. But i am not sure on Scan (company) and Spectacular Smith. Matthew hk (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW the same user had also used http://www.londonexaminer.co.uk, did it seem not appropriate ? Only http://southernbusinessreview.com seem runs by company that did not wish to disclose their name. Matthew hk (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
He also spammed http://cloutbeat.com all look likes newly set up "new media" that have no google hit. Matthew hk (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:ELNEVER prohibits links to copyright-violating material, including the content on this website. — Newslinger talk 03:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Requested blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § modernmogul.co.uk, southernbusinessreview.com, londonexaminer.co.uk, cloutbeat.com. — Newslinger talk 03:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: Is there any tool to check copyvio between external sites? I am not sure the other site that spammed by the same user, was also set up like that (copy genuine content from other site/reliable source, and then spam their sites into wikipedia). Matthew hk (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
​The other sites (southernbusinessreview.com, londonexaminer.co.uk, cloutbeat.com) are also copyright violations and/or extremely questionable per the evidence I presented in the blacklisting request. I just manually checked the articles with a web search engine by copying and pasting in a paragraph. I'm not sure if that counts as a "tool", but it works well enough for me. — Newslinger talk 17:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Blacklisted by JzG. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com) for UGNazi

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Are Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com, not to be confused with Hacker News) reliable sources for the UGNazi article?

Softpedia was previously discussed at "Softpedia Linux software reviews" and briefly mentioned at "Software review sites" and "Download pages as source for notability?". The site has a list of editors. The articles in question are:

  1. "UGNazi Leaks 1.7 GB of Data from WHMCS Servers"
  2. "UGNazi Hackers Leak Data from Washington Military Department"
  3. "UGNazi Hackers Launch DDOS Attacks on CIA, DOJ Sites to Protest CISPA"
  4. "UGNazi Attacks Wounded Warrior Project to Spite The Jester"

The Hacker News has an editorial team and a copyright footer of 2018. The articles in question are:

  1. "Web Hosting software WHMCS vulnerable to SQL Injection; emergency security update released"
  2. "UGNazi hackers attack on CloudFlare via a flaw in Google"

— Newslinger talk 11:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture — Newslinger talk 12:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Softpedia: Marginal. Softpedia is mainly a software download site, and based on my (limited) experience the articles are intended for users downloading software, which means they probably aren't very high quality. I would likely prefer sites (of a similar or higher tier) with a focus on news reporting over Softpedia's news articles. The Hacker News: Probably reliable. I am less familiar with The Hacker News but they do look like a professional (or at least semi-professional) publication. An Alexa rank of ~9600 and 525K Twitter followers are higher than I expected. Based on my initial impression I would maybe place The Hacker News near The Register in terms of reliability. feminist (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    ​Thank you. However, I'm a bit wary of using Twitter followers as a metric, since purchased followers have entered the mainstream (see "The Follower Factory"). — Newslinger talk 16:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    Well, it's a metric, and I looked at the Alexa ranking first before looking at Twitter. feminist (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    My comment was just a note for posterity. The engagement metrics on their tweets actually look quite convincing. — Newslinger talk 11:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Daily Caller

Latest comment: 5 years ago120 comments38 people in discussion
There is an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Two of the three supporters of option 1 point out, essentially, that "the NYT gets things wrong too", which isn't an argument taken seriously by the majority of editors here, and the two votes for option 3 cannot sway the consensus that way. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2019 (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.

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

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

— Newslinger talk 11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Option 4 for the issues regarding preference for profit over fact, for the issues of the obvious extreme right skew and for bordering on WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS territory tbh. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I'd place them somewhere between HuffPost and Breitbart, which means that it should generally be avoided for facts, but its opinions fall under WP:RSOPINION. This means a blacklist is inappropriate. feminist (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5: Context matters. How a source is used, and what it is used for has to be considered. The Daily Caller is primarily a news analysis and opinion outlet (as opposed to a news reporting outlet). As such, it should be treated similarly to the way we treat op-ed pages in old fashioned "dead tree" (print) news outlets... it is certainly reliable when used as a primary source - supporting attributed statements as to the opinion and analysis of its contributors.
Whether it is reliable for some specific fact ... a lot depends on the reputation of the specific contributor (some have a better reputation for fact checking than others). Yes, the Daily Caller does make mistakes (as do all news outlets)... however, it has a fairly good reputation for acknowledging those mistakes and issuing corrections - and issuing corrections is an important factor in determining whether a news source is "generally" reliable (or not). Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
For the purposes of the perennial sources list, "option 5" is equivalent to option 2 (unclear or additional considerations apply). Context always matters regardless of how The Daily Caller is assessed. WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of questionable sources for uncontroversial self-descriptions even under option 3 (generally unreliable for factual reporting) and option 4 (publishes false or fabricated information; deprecated). — Newslinger talk 01:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Blueboar: My pleasure. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
And how did this “cause trouble”... were editors trying to cite these reports? Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Blueboar, I'm not PeterTheFourth, but I imagine Peter was saying the Daily Caller was essentially the trouble. I know I believed the Caller's reporting on Imran_Awan was accurate until recently, so there is that. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 01:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • 1 In fact, this is my opinion on a great many sources. Opinions must be cited specifically as opinion is the corollary to this position. The main problem is that most journalists now rely on press releases for almost everything they write. Indeed in a study of "medical articles" almost every newspaper used press releases for a vast majority of their articles, and I doubt that this is then untrue of almost any topic where press releases exist. Factcheckers on articles being written are virtually non-existent any more. For any publication. Ask Der Spiegel. Collect (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    "Factcheckers on articles being written are virtually non-existent any more." is an extraordinary claim. Do you have evidence supporting this claim in its entirety? — Newslinger talk 16:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 based on the usual source. This does not contradict Collect's point that churnalism is a huge problem in all media these days. Michael Marshall lists a number of tells, the most obvious of which is the prominent naming of the article's source in the third paragraph, with a lack of any other obvious corroborating or independent source. "Your house is in danger from zombies!" with, in para 3, "According to Fred Undead, marketing director of Undead's Zombie Insurance Policies Lts, the risk has been recognised by a large increase in policies against zombie apocalypse". But Daily Caller is not just doing that - churnalism certainly makes vast swathes of the Caller's not-obviously-bullshit content actually bullshit after all, but the core issue is the usual right wing bubble problem of positive feedback and ideology being given greater precedence than factual accuracy. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It's one thing to consider Ad Fontes Media while determining the reliability of a source, another thing to be completely reliant on it. You're going to have to provide more evidence than that. feminist (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not completely reliant on it. I use it to inform a single question: is this source unreliable because it is slapdash, or because it is propaganda. Daily Caller is propaganda. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad question. No reason was presented for bringing this up. It's an established news source and overriding WP:RS policy for yet another ban should not be the result of an out-of-nowhere RfC with zilch evidence of a problem or dispute that affects Wikipedia seriously. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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

The most recent discussion of The Daily Caller on this noticeboard is a 2018 RfC that was closed without extended discussion (possibly because it asked for a general assessment of 3 very different sources). In that RfC, most editors asserted that The Daily Caller is unreliable. The second-most recent discussion is from 2013, which is stale under WP:RSP standards. The purpose of this current RfC is to gauge current consensus, as there is reason to believe that past discussions are out of date. Note that the current RfC's opening statement links to the WP:RS guideline, and asks editors to express opinions according to that guideline. I didn't explain my reason for starting this RfC in the opening statement, because it is supposed to be neutral and brief. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5 While I can find examples of inaccurate reporting and controversial backgrounds for some of its editors, I cannot find any informed commentary about the general accuracy of their reporting. So why not say there is no evidence that it is a reliable source? In that case each time it was used would have to be evalutated on a case by case basis. I cannot think of any reason why it should ever be used. If it is the only source for a story, the information lacks weight. And there are obviously better sources when stories are well covered. TFD (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Not quite as loopy as Infowars or Worldtruth, but their bias is massive and their lack of respect for accuracy not far behind. This is one of those sites that makes me wonder why we're always selecting out the Daily Mail for criticism and letting these even worse ones through. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5. It is not well-established so context matters. BLP considerations apply to all sources so we shouldn't be emphasizing it for TDC. The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young. I'm not convinced by the above comments and I especially oppose the horrible option 4. wumbolo ^^^ 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose option 4. The DM RfCs do not set a specific precedent and we have to look at each source individually. While the DC has published false information, it doesn't seem serious enough to blacklist it. Headlines shouldn't be examined at RSN. wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    For clarification, The Daily Caller has not been awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and it has published opinions/columns attacking Pulitzer Prize winners (e.g. "Credibility Of Pulitzer Prize Takes A Hit By Rewarding ProPublica’s Liberal Bias", "Will WaPo Have To Return The Pulitzer For Wesley Lowery’s Ethical F**kup?", and "Wesley Lowery Brags At A Party: I’m Getting A Pulitzer!"). — Newslinger talk 02:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    I did not say that it did. I compared TDC and Vox, which are similar at a glance, but differ in reliability because of the high-quality journalism at Vox. wumbolo ^^^ 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    I didn't think you would say that, but your sentence could be read that way because the word "it" could refer to either publication: "The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young." versus "The website is similar to e.g. Vox which is generally considered reliable because of the couple of Pulitzers it won, even though it's young." Just a clarification, not an accusation. ​— Newslinger talk 09:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    I also can't find any information about Vox winning a Pulitzer. Did you mean something else? — Newslinger talk 09:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    I misremembered this Vox discussion, sorry. Also, I believed that "e.g." worked as a comma and I apologize for the ambiguity. I have striken my !vote because it was based on a false premise, and I have written just a !vote opposing option 4 until I can decide to support a specific option, after more evidence is presented. Thank you very much for understanding and checking my !vote. wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Clarification that my !vote is basically "option 2". I can't decide between 1 and 3 because TDC has quite a bit of fact-checking controversies on one hand, but it never fabricated a story like The New York Times or Der Spiegel on the other. wumbolo ^^^ 09:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 The Daily Caller is hot garbage. See below. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 4 Perhaps I have missed something but I see nothing here that has shown an issue on Wikipedia. I see instances where they are unreliable and others where they are fine. Without evidence of an issue what is the point of this RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 If it wasn't enough before, their story about a nude selfie of a new member of Congress they don't like, that was fake, convinced me to !vote. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Objective3000, At what point was that story unreliable?... was it their initial version that reported how other people (not them) thought the photo was real... or was it the subsequent (clarified) version where they explicitly make it clear that the photo is fake? Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they did have to reverse it after criticism, so quickly that they goofed the first time and broke links. They have been attacking this person and ran this story with the typical “some people say” language found in bad sources. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
To stress what is discussed below, the problem text that was changed was strictly limited to the headline that was used. And headlines are not considered in any way an RS regardless of the source behind it. --Masem (t) 22:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Understood. But, if they’re willing to include the photo, and put that in the headline (which is as far as some folk read); that appears well over the irresponsibility line. I was wavering between options 3 & 4 and was pushed over the line by this, even though we don’t use headlines. O3000 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying that we should judge the reliability of a media source by its headlines... regardless of how accurate and reliable the actual reporting is? Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
100% of statements evaluated are false? That is indeed impressive. Just not in a good way. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Pretty much the antithesis of a reliable source. Their extreme and unabashed political slant aside, it's not a great sign when most of the article about them is devoted to well-sourced instances where they deliberately published falsehoods. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 By my reading, there's no real difference in option 3 vs. 4 in terms of reliability, but that generally unreliable sources are WP:DEPRECATED when there's a real risk that editors might cite them. I think that risk might exist with the DC partly because of its popularity and partly because they once had pretensions of doing serious reporting. Still: I actually haven't turned up a lot of instances where they've been cited improperly, and I'm worried that we're venturing down the path of creating a sort of endlessly contentious media shitlist when we don't need one. Nblund talk 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4, or, failing that, option 3. They clearly present intentionally false and misleading stories; the only real question is whether people are actually trying to cite them enough to make the red tape of overt depreciation necessary. Personally, I've noticed a recent uptick in people trying to cite them, which suggests that sort of measure might be needed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4', without a larger consensus on this "deprecated" system. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Racist, white supremacist, science-denialist publication that churns out outright false or intentionally misleading information to smear opposing movements and public figures. Their history of (un)reliability is self-demonstrative, with the latest example being claiming that they have a nude photo of an active congresswoman. They have absolutely no problem with going out of their way to violate the basic tenets of journalism and they clearly know what they're doing. Worse than DailyMail in a sense, since at least DailyMail doesn't publish material that encourages political violence. Outside of ABOUTSELF, it should not be used to cite anything. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    So you'd support banning the New York Times for publishing material encouraging the murder of 100,000+ civilians? wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    Remind me again that some irrelevant whataboutism is absolutely helpful and encouraging. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 The Daily Caller is right wing biased in the same way that Washington Post and New York Times are left wing biased. They are just as reliable as WA PO and NYT, but offer a different perspective. A lot of people here are misinformed and obviously biased against the Daily Caller, I have never seen anything remotely racist or "white supremacist" in any of their articles. But it seems from the voting here so far that this will be a political judgement with left wing editors voting them down, and not a real judgement on their reliability at all. BreakingZews (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    The Daily Caller (RSP entry) is not "just as reliable" as The Washington Post (RSP entry) or The New York Times (RSP entry) – not even close. The latter two have 47 and 125 Pulitzer Prizes, respectively, while The Daily Caller has none. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. Clearly you would never rely on it for its opinion content, but the news reporting is just as good as anything else. Has it ever erred on factual reporting? Possibly. However, don't forget the New York Times won a Pulitzer for collaborating with the Russians (in the person of Stalin) to hide the man-made genocide that killed of hunger 7.5 million people in the Ukraine in the time of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Do I hear anybody wanting to blacklist the NYT for this complicity with the Russians? Anybody? Of course not. Likewise, the Daily Caller is just as good for factual reporting. XavierItzm (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Separate entries. I regret not noticing this earlier, but as described in The Daily Caller § Allegation of non-profit abuse and "Charity doubles as a profit stream at the Daily Caller News Foundation" (albeit negatively), The Daily Caller is affiliated with a non-profit news agency called The Daily Caller News Foundation (dailycallernewsfoundation.org), which publishes news articles that are then syndicated at no cost to publications, primarily The Daily Caller itself. Ignoring the legal ramifications of this arrangement, articles published by The Daily Caller News Foundation appear to be of a higher quality than the rest of The Daily Caller's reporting. (This excludes the foundation's video content, which is of an extremely poor quality.) Stories on The Daily Caller that are sourced from the foundation can be identified by a small disclosure at the bottom of the page, which states: "Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org." For example, the foundation's current headline story, "‘A Governor Who Has Achieved Many Important Goals’: Virginia Democrat Says Ralph Northam Should Stay", was republished in The Daily Caller here with that disclosure. Since these syndicated articles can be clearly identified, I think it's worth creating separate entries in the perennial sources list for foundation articles and non-foundation articles. Additionally, citations to foundation stories should preferably point to The Daily Caller News Foundation (and not The Daily Caller), as this is how we treat syndicated articles from other news agencies. — Newslinger talk 10:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    After reviewing samples of foundation and non-foundation articles, I am going with option 2 for articles from The Daily Caller News Foundation, excluding their videos (which should be classified as generally unreliable), while noting that the source is biased or opinionated, and that editors should attribute their statements, especially if they are controversial. The Daily Caller News Foundation can be compared to CNSNews.com and other publications of the Media Research Center (RSP entry), a conservative advocacy group. In my opinion, non-foundation articles from The Daily Caller fall under option 3 or 4, and should also be designated as biased or opinionated. Ideally, few or no citations should point to the dailycaller.com domain, since the content with any redeeming value is also hosted at the original source (the dailycallernewsfoundation.org domain). — Newslinger talk 12:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: This would be an acceptable approach unless there is proof that DC foundation's content are also unreliable. This discussion is becoming a protracting timewaste. If we're extending this we'd have to ping everyone above. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Note on procedure: The RfC was extended using instructions from WP:RFC § Length. I didn't ping anyone because the RfC statement was unchanged. — Newslinger talk 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 -- I acknowledge that I tend to be on the harsher side regarding what I see as systematically problematic sources, but really, the Daily Caller has had many strikes, and they are out. What sort of professional outlet with any sense of dignity or ethics (or even a pretension of them?) posts fake nudes of a female politician [[9]], and then when they are easily demonstrably fakes? This is just one example of a pattern of failure to even feign journalistic ethics. I'll go on a limb and say if it weren't for the current scenario of political polarization in the West, their following would be considerably less. Most of what they are reporting on is reported on much better by other sources anyways. We can, and should, do without? --Calthinus (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Ample evidence to justify this. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Generally reliable but WP:PARTISAN considerations apply. WP:PARTISAN: Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific contex. There is no evidence of intentional falsification, and the controversies are political. I would consider Salon (website) a very similar left-wing source. --Pudeo (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Senator Senator Bob Menendez rape allegation, turned down by multiple RS as being dodgey?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Snopes provides plenty of examples. The problem though is that this is anecdotal evidence. No one expects that any reliable source, except holy writings, to be 100% accurate. You need to determine the inaccuracy rate and compare it with a similar publication we consider reliable or find a journalism textbook that evaluates its reliability. TFD (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I can accept that a source can be considered dodgey or generally unreliable based on the impression that other sources give to it, as part of determining whether to select from options 1-3 above. Jumping on a few words of text from an internal memo to blow that into a full-blown controversy, that's a good reason to call something unreliable - but let's not pretend that other sources don't do that. Just that most other good sources try to back it up with as much evidence as possible before making the accusation, whereas the DC in the case of Menendez jumped immediately. But that's all reason to keep the source unreliable particularly for contentious topics, but not unusable where they are reporting on less contentious material.
I'm specifically looking to find a case where they have publish outright factually wrong information, fully mis-reported people's words, or other true fabrications of the news (and without the editorial responsibility of correcting their mistakes), as was shown in the previous DM RFC, as to make the work as a whole untrustworthy. --Masem (t) 18:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
For persistence, their climate change denialism would seem to be the longest running. Any meta-commentary I've read also seems to mention US politicians and their mix of whitewashing those they like and simply making up stories about those they don't, but I'm no follower of US political infighting. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I really really don't feel comfortable blacklisting a source (aka effectively Option 4) based only on their bias or POV. If they are outright making up/fabricating stories (in contrast to exaggerating on trivial but truthful events as with the Menendez story) that's one thing, but that should be shown. --Masem (t) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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

  • I don't read that Vice article that way at all. First, its a headline, which for any source we have determined should never be treated as RSes since they are often written by a completely different person. Secondary, as Vice points out, they replaced the headline when it was called out to them, which shows a minimum of journalistic integrity. The body of the DC article never made the claim, as Vice points out. So no, that's not evidence. (And further, I read the original DC headline that it has used cautionary language, not claiming it as fact in DC's voice as being such a nude, but that it was what a online user claimed.) --Masem (t) 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Masem: So, at best, DC passed along a nude photo from an online user claiming it was AOC after it had been debunked by Reddit, titling the photo with her name, and adding the headline "Here’s the photo some people described as a nude photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." "Some people"? That's how they do journalism? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
      • That's tabloid style, and that's a good reason to already slot the DC as generally unreliable especially around BLP articles, but I'm specifically focused on trying to identify why it should in Option 4 that would effectively blacklist it if we're mirroring the 2017 Daily Mail RFC. Sleazy presentation and reporting is sleazy, but it is not creating false information that shows that we should bury DC from any use. --Masem (t) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Caller article says, "New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has enemies, and they’re not shying away from releasing a phony nude picture of the newest, youngest member of Congress."[10] (My emphasis.) Sure it's bad taste and the original headline (“Here’s the photo some people described as a nude photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”) uses weasel-wording. But headlines and photographs are not reliable sources regardless of the publication.
Here's a recent misleading headline from the New York Times: "Veselnitskaya, Russian in Trump Tower Meeting, Is Charged in Case That Shows Kremlin Ties." The headline in CNN is "Russian lawyer at Trump Tower meeting charged in separate case." The NY Times article falsely implies that she was charged in connection with collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.
Note: at the bottom of the CNN article it says, "CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to reflect that Veselnitskaya was charged in connection with the money-laundering case." So apparently they too originally published a misleading headline.
TFD (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
So... regarding the supposed AOC story, the DC reported it accurately (explicitly saying it wasn’t AOC)... but Vice reported inaccurately (by claiming that the DC said it was AOC, when the DC didn’t actually say that). Good case for perhaps saying Vice is unreliable... not a good case for saying DC is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Blueboar: the DC changed its headline. The original said that "some people" said it was AOC, without acknowledging that it was fake. DC's explanation for the AOC headline is that “eager editor made a misjudgement as to the framing.” (emphasis mine) - which doesn't speak very well for their editorial process. On a similar note: The Daily Caller also claimed Alica Machado was a porn star. The Bob Menendez story was apparent fabrication which DC still appears to have never recanted. They also employed Charles C. Johnson, who almost exclusively traffics in nonsense. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where they would be a usable source for news. Nblund talk 22:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The original headline never acknowledged it as fake, but never acknowledged it as real. I agree that there's much better ways they could have presented that initial headline, but the headline wasn't declaring the photo was real. And again, headlines should never be touched or considered in context of RSes; they are written by people at these place to grab your eyeballs, not to necessarily fairly summarize the story. So this is really not a strong piece of evidence that shows fabrication of news stories. --Masem (t) 22:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand that - I was specifically responding to Blueboar's claim that Vice mis-characterized the headline - they didn't. Headlines shouldn't be cited, but it's worth noting that the "editorial process" appears to have made the article less factual, rather than more factual. I don't believe the DC has been caught red-handed in the process of fabricating a quote (is that the consensus standard?) but they've got a long history of "reckless disregard" sins against journalism: Charles Johnson's claim about David Kirkpatrick were based an obviously satirical source - and the DC's "corrected version" only half-assedly says the claim "appears to be a fabrication". The discussion of DC's work in this report, especially the article discussed on page 120, seems to indicate that it the outlet is actually involved in creating fake news, rather than just passing it along. I'm dubious about the usefulness of deprecation all together, but I have a hard time imagining any scenario where we would consider them trustworthy for anything of note. Nblund talk 23:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
My primary concern here, in the wake of the 2017 Daily Mail RFC, is that we have editors jumping to want to blacklist (spam filter) sites that should absolutely be treated as unreliable sources in cases of BLP or contested topics, but where they still may have some, possibly yet identified, utility for other features, such as being a fair RSOPINION source. DM was blacklisted because of clear evidence showing they were altering opinion pieces, eliminating even RSOPINION uses, but since then, I've seen people use the same logic that because a site is on the blacklist that RSOPINION can never apply and strip these sources out when they are only being used for RSOPINION (eg like Breitbart). Identifying DC as a highly unreliable source per Option 3 seems like a no brainer, but before we take Option 4, making sure that is fully justified if they are truly fabricating material to make it wholly unusual to blacklist them for all of WP. --Masem (t) 23:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
RSOPINION is more limited than most people think it is. It says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. The final sentence is pretty important. My concern is that I feel a lot of people read WP:RSOPINION as saying that you can use absolutely any source as long as you slap an in-line citation on it, even if it's otherwise worded as fact (ie. "Joe Schmoe of the Daily Caller says that John Doe is a serial killer.") That's not how it works - even for an opinion piece, we rely on them being published in a reliable source to provide a degree of fact-checking; it is their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that gives an opinion piece cited to eg. the New York Times op-ed page more weight than random uncited musings by a Wikipedia editor. The last paragraph of WP:RSOPINION (which unambiguously bans sources that fail to provide reliability from being used in a WP:BLP, even for statements of opinion) makes this even more clear. I feel that if an opinion piece in the Daily Caller or the Daily Mail is notable, worth citing, and passes the bare minimum of fact checking necessary for us to cite it, then it ought to have been referenced in a secondary source, and we can cite it indirectly through that. Beyond that, weakening the WP:RSOPINION limits to allow absolutely anything to be cited for opinion invites editors to essentially argue by proxy (dropping whatever op-eds or unreliable sources they agree with into the article), which makes for unreadable walls of text cited to terrible sources. Requiring that opinion pieces be published in things that generally otherwise pass WP:RS (as WP:RSOPINION suggests with its example) ensures a level of WP:DUE - simple publication in an RS can be taken to mean that that source is putting the weight of its reputation behind the idea that this is an opinion worth considering. The Daily Caller has no relevant reputation, its endorsement carries no weight, and, therefore, I would argue that citing an opinion piece from it is no different from citing a blog or forum post - or allowing an editor to write their opinion into a Wikipedia article themselves. What, in other words, does a cite to the Daily Caller add that signing the same opinion with four tildes does not? WP:RSOPINION must clearly require some criteria or there's no meaning to providing a source at all. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For the sake of getting some third party criticism of the DC in here... The Columbia Journalism Review has written about it several times. In several places it notes how The DC tries to take itself seriously and talks up its own journalistic integrity/rigor, but CJR tends to undercut that kind of claim (my sense is it CJR might be a little more forgiving if not for this). Some of CJR's critical quotes:
  • July/August 2011: "But when The Daily Caller has reached for the big scoop, the results have been less impressive. Headline-grabbing exclusives—mostly intercepted e-mails and tweets and attacks on media rivals—have exploded across the web before fizzling under scrutiny. Sexed-up headlines burned above stories too twisted or bland to support them. Quotes were ripped out of context, corrections buried, and important disclosures dismissed."
  • July 9, 2014: "The Menendez “scoop” isn’t the first instance in which the Caller has seemingly strayed from its stated journalistic mission. In 2011, the site reported that the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing to hire more than 230,000 new employees, which would amount to a mind-boggling 1,300-percent growth in its workforce. It did not walk back the claim, even when it was shown to be untrue. The next year, proving hyperbole plays online, it called President Barack Obama “a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble.” Employees have tweeted racist and sexist remarks, for which the Caller has subsequently apologized. This doesn’t mean that all the Caller’s journalism is suspect, but it does suggest that the site isn’t what Carlson said it would be."
  • September 8, 2018: "...the dream of a rogue outlet of hard-hitting, conservative journalism was never realized. And the site withered from there. Right now the site highlights sensationalist stories about “illegal aliens,” justifiable homicide, and a hit piece on Beto O’Rourke."
  • Then there are a number of articles on specific stories, like this one about Obamacare from 2012. And this one from 2011, with the subheadline "Daily Caller mistakes opinion for fact." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
{Note that these articles were not written by the Columbia Journalism Review, but by individual contributors.) Reliability is not a bipolar dichotomy, but a continuum. These articles have a similar theme: Tucker Carlson has failed to achieve his goal of combining the reliability of the New York Times with a conservative editorial position. No one questions that. I think though that David Uberti's comment in the Columbia Journalism Review is probably a good description: "This doesn’t mean that all the Caller’s journalism is suspect, but it does suggest that the site isn’t what Carlson said it would be." Ironically, his story itself contained an error, since corrected, that the sources used were Cubans. That would seem material, since Uberti said he thought they were working for Cuban intelligence. Incidentally, most of the problem reporting at the Daily Caller dates to 2011-2012, just after it was founded in 2010. There were similar problems in other online news sources when they were initially founded. TFD (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The Menendez story happened in 2014, the Machado story happened in 2016, and the AOC story happened today. I don't see anything that indicates that they have a long-term trajectory toward reliability: in 2017 they published a piece by Jason Kessler without noting his connections to the United the Right rally, and they kept another white supremacist on the editorial staff until just a few months ago. Nblund talk 02:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: without disagreeing with most of what you've written, I'm not sure what you mean by these articles were not written by the Columbia Journalism Review, but by individual contributors. Are you saying they operate like Forbes "Contributors"? Or that they are on the website rather than the magazine? If the latter, that's not true of the first of the three. For the other two, is the CJR website considered less reliable? (actually asking, not rhetorically). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
In journalism, publications invite writers to present opinions. For example, they may ask pro-Clinton and pro-Trump writers to explain the last election. Those writers express different opinions and do not represent the opinion of the publication. You might for example read an opinion piece in the New York Times by John Bolton that says the U.S. should remain in Syria until the year 3030 and another opinion piece by Rand Paul that says they should leave next week. That does not mean that the esteemed paper says they should leave next week or in a thousand years but that they have published articles by two different writers who disagree with each other.
Nblund, a lot of horrible people are reporters. It has no relevance to whether or not they are accurate. Newton was eccentric, but I am not tempted to test the laws of gravity.
What worries me is that the criterion for banning news media is not reliability but ideology. The Daily Caller, the Sun, the Daily Mail are not great news media but they meet Wikipedia's criteria. If we want to ban right wing publications, let's put that into policy. Because using anecdotal evidence can be used and will be used against any publication. Let's not forget that the most reliable media promoted the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. That fake news story was used to justify a war that led to over one million deaths and cost the U.S. trillions of dollars.
TFD (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Should we ban The Washington Post because Muslim Brotherhood supporters contribute opinion pieces to it and aren't properly described in the byline? Not to mention that Jamal Khashoggi worked for them. wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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

For the record, considering the tendency of Wikipedia to ascribe reliability to media ventures that make profit and the consequent tendency to treat far-left media (eg: itsgoingdown.com, newsocialist.com, rabble.ca) as unreliable, I'd suggest being stricter about far-right sources isn't outside the bounds of current policy at all. However I've also been quite clear that I'd like to see WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS adopted as policy, and that would as a side-effect make the vetting of racist and nationalist far-right news sources much stricter. Also, I've often mentioned that I feel Wikipedia is nowhere near strict enough about newsmedia content in general. In particular I find the dependence on news for recent political articles creates WP:RECENTISM and constant WP:NPOV problems; often we'd be better off saying nothing, or expressing only a brief summary about current political events until such time as they become matters of historical record. Whereas, the tendency to treat whichever preferred news source's 24 hour news cycle churnalism as fact is the current de-facto political method. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This, exactly. There's a unsettling trend that editors want to outright ban sources with extreme views because soley of extreme views. That should not be the case, though one can argue and demonstrate how extreme views generally may points towards fabrication and outright lying to get their view to work. To say we should blacklist a work because their viewpoint is so far off center is not really acceptable while at the same time editors routinely ignore RECENTISM and write about the current public opinion. It creates a feedback loop not geared towards the long-term. Hence why my concern on DC here is if they have actually falsified or faked stories that makes them wholly unreliable to be blacklisted. --Masem (t) 16:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea if this is the intent, but the kinds of "NotosourcesIhate" (why not "NoCommieSources" or "NoIslamistsoruces") attitudes tends to turn me off their arguments. I have no issue if we can all extremists sources of any political persuasion, but not if we single out one side for being "FeCKNGGGG!wrong", and indeed resorting to such language tends to turn me off as well. If you cannot argue without getting angry and shouting "Semprini!" I really start to wonder how much validity your argument really has.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty clear that my objection was with news media in general being a snake pit of WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM problems such that anything that isn't a top-shelf source shouldn't be used. And the DC is definitely a bottom-shelf media source. However credit where credit is due, that was a great Monty Python callout there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
And that is my point, you started off "TRUCKINGNAZIS" then said something I agree with, but it looked like your main point (the one you started of with) was "FundingNAZISLIKETHIS". If you had just made your point about the press in general I would have agreed. Your argument read more like "I hate their politics, but better make it sound like I am being all reasonableness" then "They are unreliable". This is why tone, attitude (and language) are so important (I suppose I could write an Essay "no Fucking fucking" about it). Note I am not being clever, but this is what spell checker wanted, so why not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we need to worry about the ideology here: The Daily Caller paid someone to report on an event that they themselves were organizing, without disclosing the connection. When they were caught, they initially kept the articles up, and then scrubbed his byline without explanation.
Here's my question: is there any scenario where we would look at original reporting from the DC that isn't covered elsewhere and conclude that it is reliable enough for inclusion on WP? Original reporting like this article, where a journalist heroically struggles to work "George Soros" and "Fusion GPS" into the same sentence, or this, where an anonymous source reports that David Malpass is a great guy? Would we ever trust any of this? Right leaning outlets like the National Review and Washington Times employ journalists who do some worthwhile reporting in niche areas - which I think is what distinguishes them from outlets like the Daily Caller that really have no apparent interest in actual news. Nblund talk 17:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Every major news outlet does original reporting. Here's TDC's exclusive interview with Trump about Brenda Snipes [11], and here's CNN summarizing it [12]. What if CNN didn't mention the interview? We would have to cite TDC. wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is any scenario where we would look at original reporting from any source that isn't covered elsewhere. If it isn't then it lacks weight for inclusion. Something that Trump said which was ignored by CNN and the rest of the mainstream media would be too insignificant to mention. In this case we would only report the parts of the Daily Caller interview that mainstream media carried. Banning the Daily Caller will not keep out material, allowing it as a reliable source will not introduce material. IOW whatever we do will have no effect on article content. TFD (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Also many of us have argued that all news media should be be seen as not inherently reliable, its just that we have to start somewhere. Personally I would like to see all news media depreciated for a given period after an event (and by that I mean no news stories released before a given time period).Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments: The above is a suggestion that make too much sense but politics (of this supposedly neutral board) would likely not favor. "All news media" can be unreliable and end up giving retractions and redactions all the time. On this board I am seeing attacks, even sort of masked as satirical or "jokes", See: Why are more right wing sources considered unreliable than left-wing sources?" and "The liberal bias of facts", and we are considering if "right" or "right-leaning" (see Fox below) media should be "censored" depreciated. I can see discussions that portray someone leaning "right" as being uneducated or less educated, for the wealthy, and smears in that direction. That should likely be on a user page or essay and not here. I don't mind getting into these types of discussions but this is where serious consideration should be centered on the general "reliability" of sources brought here regardless of politics.
Unless the name is changed to something like "Liberal political news reliable source noticeboard", or consideration of "suggesting" two political type sources be used on every instance (classifying the political stance of sources), then the actual "reliability", "depreciated", or "unreliability" is far less confusing than a multi-tier RFC with "options" that seemed to be considered. All news sources will be biased: This is argued because it is true. Trying to make a determination of reliability based on the political stance of editors here is paramount to censorship. If a site gives "fake" news it should be blacklisted. Since we are likely not going to discuss "suggesting" The Wikipedia Breaking News Department to wait for sources to be vetted, before reporting breaking news, then "cleanup" after the fact would be the only option and not a topic of this board. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia really want to be a platform for the same organization that gave Jason Kessler a platform to promote Based Stickman and only pulled it after somebody died? [13] - as well as inaccuracy this isn't a run-of-the-mill conservative media source. It's the shallow end of the neo-fascist pool. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant, I agree it should not be an RS, but the issue should (and only) be reliability, not POV.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Just because a source is deemed reliable or in this case, not deemed wholly unreliable, does not mean WP is committed to repeating everything that work publishes. If we know a part of an RS is bogus information, we can overlook it. --Masem (t) 15:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
My comments were about using "political bias, one way or the other, as a means of classifying the "reliability" of a source. Most news media declare that the opinions of the reporters may not be the opinion of that media vehicle. Yes, that is just legal mumbo-jumbo to mitigate possible lawsuits, and no, we don't want "fake" news advanced on Wikipedia. To me, tearing down any historical statues or monuments is a mistake. I can't even imagine why there would be a need for a "white civil rights" group or rally, and think words like "white supremacist" should only be used to denote some historical context, and has no place in our society as well as "white nationalists". All of these conjure up meanings of a person or organization that does, or may, promote (or agree with) some possible genocide. That is why any Wikipedia editors that check sources should at the very least be given an "atta-boy" and a very good reason to have this noticeboard. However, since not one person on here can claim with credibility that certain sources are always unbiased, then trying to take a Wikipedia political stance as reasoning for excluding or deprecating (spelled it right this time) a source, because of a political stance or leaning, can lead to censorship.
I didn't vote for Obama and so far survived. I also didn't vote for Trump and hope to survive, but I support border security, as did Congress during Obama's term. This means I am for border security regardless of the political arguments being left-wing or right-wing, though I pretty much stay away from "political" articles and don't care for "breaking news". Where does that politically place me and maybe others just wanting to source content? The way I see it, this does not matter because unless content provides undo bias, that would be article content concerns and not reliability of a source. My question would be, when a source is "deprecated" do editors go about removing all these sites "per consensus at AFC discussion" or seek to replace such sources or tag them? If a source shows bias but is otherwise reliable is that not an indication of needing balance over "permission" to remove a source by using a "maintenance" scheme? I have suddenly become bored of apparently trying to crusade for "equal treatment" of sources from a political point of view. Have fun, 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
I'm suggesting that the extremity of the position DC holds, combined with its history of falsification both point toward unreliability. Fascism is not a doctrine known for truth and honesty. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And this kind of argument will put people off of your stance. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to fight the great fight.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
But their positions do matter, both in terms of assessing their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and in terms of assessing whether the false or misleading stories they've published in the past were deliberate. Bias or the politics of a source alone are not a reason to depreciate them; but when a source has a pattern of publishing false or potentially-misleading stories, it's reasonable to look at their politics and biases in order to determine whether those were accidents or part of an intentional effort to mislead readers and manipulate the public by publishing untruths. Everything about the history and politics of the Daily Caller implies the latter. Outlets like Vox, Slate, the The Economist, or The Wall Street Journal, for instance, have a clear point of view, but nothing about their politics implies that they wouldn't be committed to the truth as they see it; and their errors (which are far more rare) don't really form a clear pattern based around that point-of-view. By comparison, the Daily Caller absolutely adheres to a bare-knuckle, politics-as-scorched-earth culture-war perspective, which is something we have to take into consideration when evaluating them - and, more importantly, they've published false or misleading things in a specific pattern that seems intended to advance that ideology. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Daily Caller is politically biased and favors right wing narratives, in just the same as NYT, WA PO, CNN, MSNBC are politically biased and favor left wing narratives. A few years ago I would have said that the Daily Caller was more biased than most news sources, but that is not true today. Since the election(or beginning in the election campaign) many of the mainstream medias have gone quite dramatically to the left, with the major news sources having a 92% negative coverage of the President(for some, like MSNBC, that percentage is closer to 100%). If you are left wing yourself, then you will perhaps not mind that. But for anyone who has an balanced or a right wing view, it is pretty obvious that there is no reason to treat the Daily Caller or other such large right wing publications any different than biased left wing publications like Washington Post and New York Times. This should not be about whether a source is a part of the "establishment" media, it should be about whether a source is reliable. And the Daily Caller is absolutely reliable. They are not flawless, but neither is the Washington Post or New York Times... BreakingZews (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The "92%" figure that you cited is from a study published by the Media Research Center (RSP entry), which is a conservative activist group whose stated mission is to "expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media". The study only included evening TV news coverage (on three selected channels), which is not representative of the online news sources that make up the vast majority of Wikipedia's citations for modern politics. Additionally, the President of the United States is expected to receive a higher proportion of negative coverage when he has a lower approval rating; it is not reasonable to conclude that negative coverage implies media bias. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion and Simonm223 in that the past pattern of Daily Caller's false and misleading publication transpires into a clear, extremely ideology-based, "politics-as-scorched-earth culture-war perspective". To suggest that WaPo or NYT or similar publication's perceived POV slant is equivalent to the Daily Caller's history of promoting known neo-fascists - would be a gross false equivalence. The Daily Caller should be deprecated as it is grossly inappropriate as a source. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Your comment is extremely inaccurate. See The New York Times talking about Mussolini as if he's the savior of Italy, with the headline "MUSSOLINI, HOPE OF YOUTH, ITALY'S 'MAN OF TOMORROW' " [14]. For a modern example, see a NYT journalist soft-pedaling a neo-Nazi [15]. I'm not sure if you're talking about TDC publishing a piece by Jason Kessler or not. If you are, then we are finished as TDC has "nuked" his articles from their website [16]. There isn't any other example of TDC being explicitly fascist. You may argue that some article in TDC is slanted toward a "fascistic" perspective, but look at this Washington Post article slamming Antifa (United States), a supposed antifascist organization, here [17]. wumbolo ^^^ 22:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Your whataboutism does not resolve key points raised against the accuracy and reliability of The Daily Caller, which is the subject of this discussion. Sure, NYT and WaPo's bourgeois journalists and their owner capitalists has always been against progressive movements - that's not the same as showing a pattern of deliberately smearing public figures and movements they don't like with outright falsehoods and misleading syntheses. Else you might as well say that NYT and WaPo was awarded Pulitzer and other prizes not for their investigative journalism and largely consistent factual reporting but for their blatant violation of journalistic principles and ethics, because that's what the hot garbage Daily Caller did. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not participating in any whataboutism. You yourself said that it is a "gross false equivalence" to compare the fascism of TDC to that of NYT and WaPo. I was merely providing evidence to oppose the notion you presented. At least now you're finally talking about the actual reliability of TDC, although with no evidence. wumbolo ^^^ 09:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Except it was. As stated in the source cited in our article, the edited version posted by the Daily Caller was later found to have been deceptively edited to give false impressions as to its content. Not the behavior of a reliable source. This is not mentioned in the article you cited because that information came out after it was written. That's why it's important to pay attention to when an article is written, and make sure that there haven't been more recent developments, as there were in this case. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2019 (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.

JAXenter (jaxenter.com, jaxenter.de) and HTML.it for Draft:Eclipse Theia

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Are JAXenter (jaxenter.com, jaxenter.de) and HTML.it reliable sources for Draft:Eclipse Theia? In particular, can these sources be used to establish Eclipse Theia's notability?

JAXenter hasn't been discussed on this noticeboard, but past AfD discussions appear to indicate that it's a marginally reliable source. The English edition has a list of authors, but I'm not sure about the German edition. The publication is owned and operated by the Software & Support Media Group (sandsmedia.com). The articles in question are:

HTML.it is owned and operated by Triboo Media (triboo.com). The article in question is:

I am asking about these sources in response to questions from another editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force § Review article. Thanks in advance for your help. — Newslinger talk 13:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software — Newslinger talk 13:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Errors/mistakes in reliable sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

I came across an interesting test case in working on the oft-problematic aquatic ape hypothesis that I'd like to get some feedback on. In this situation here: Brenna, J. Thomas; Collins, Richard; Palmer, Lauren; Nilson, Erika; Leger, Judy St; Ran-Ressler, Rinat; Wang, Dong Hao (2018-05-10). "Sea Lions Develop Human-like Vernix Caseosa Delivering Branched Fats and Squalene to the GI Tract". Scientific Reports. 8 (1): 7478. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25871-1. ISSN 2045-2322. is a paper published in a high-quality open access journal Scientific Reports by a team that is verified (through some interviews elsewhere) to be influenced by arguments made by supporters of said hypothesis. As such, their paper contains a number of interesting claims (some of which are admitted to be speculative). One unequivocal statement made in the paper, however, is "These are the first data demonstrating the production of true vernix caseosa in a species other than Homo sapiens". However, there is a source from the 1930s, unmentioned in the paper, which clearly describes a vernix caseosa on a chimpanzee [19].

This could simply be an innocent oversight on the part of the author, but it's interesting that WP:V makes essentially no mention of what to do when you find a mistake in an otherwise reliable source. Is there some policy or guideline that gets at this fundamental fact-checking issue?

jps (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it we do not get to judge a sources accuracy. One reason maybe the above, what is a "true vernix caseosa " and what about the 1930's source contradicts that claim (and does it say it was "produced" or merely present)? Thus (according to wp:or how you read a source may not be how others read it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea what a "true vernix caseosa" (compared to a "false" one?) is supposed to mean. You are correct that typically Wikipedia does not do accuracy checks, but we aren't hamstrung (see the discussion of the history of this idea elucidated here). In case you're intrigued, the quote about vernix caseosa from the Yerkes and Elder source is as follows: "She was observed to bite one of its feet as if testing its edibility, and she scraped the lower back with teeth and lips so hard that it looked as if she were removing the skin. Actually she took off only a coating of vernix caseosa which overlay the hair." And if vernix caseosa exists, it was produced. To claim otherwise is just inane. jps (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes I read it, hence my comment about how it in no way contradicts the other statement. Both could be correct.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
No, they cannot both be correct... unless you know how to tell the difference between a true versus false vernix. jps (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Both could be correct, I would also point out that a "vernix-like material" appears on seal pubs, so again we go back to what do they mean by "true", and does the 1930 source refer to the same substance, or a similar one. I do not know the difference, and neither do you. But that do explicitly say "true vernix caseosa", so it is clear they are drawing a distinction between it, and some other material.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
jps is correct; they cannot possibly both be correct. The later source claims the "first" discovery of vernix in non-humans, the earlier source documents earlier known existence of vernix in non-humans. That is a direct and unambiguous contradiction.
However, it seems to me that it's more likely that the earlier paper was wrong than the latter. Advocacy issues in the later source aside (which are worth considering), the earlier source doesn't establish how they knew that it was a vernix caseosa, and not something similar or analogous to a vernix caseosa. I think the only way to really settle this is to look for research on the vernix caseosa, to see if it had been established that it was truly exclusive to humans, or is only most prominent in humans.
Note that the Yerkes/Elder (older) source is also an RS; The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine is a well-respected journal. So if we're to presume that once we establish a source as reliable, we must trust it implicitly, we're still at an impasse, because these two sources contradict each other on this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it definitely occurred to me that Yerkes/Elder could be wrong! But I find absolutely no indication that anyone has found their observations to be dubious. jps (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Me neither. I checked out a good chunk of the cites listed at NCBI and none of them say anything about the vernix. Hence why I suggested looking into the literature surrounding the vernix, to see if maybe there was a time when a vernix-like substance which is commonly observed on non-human mammalian newborns was considered to be a vernix, or if it's always been held that the vernix is unique to humans. If the former, then we can safely presume that the earlier source is wrong. If the latter, then... Well, things would get very interesting, and probably require a lot more work, up to and possibly including a write-up about it submitted to a sci-hist journal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
For an example of what I'm referring to by reference a write-up in a sci-hist journal, see Roger Ekirch's research into the historical prevalence of biphasic sleep, which was a rather surprising rediscovery of what was, by all measures, common knowledge in the pre-industrial era, but had been lost since. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I would also point out that the medical literature on vernix caseosa tends to focus on the fact that it is prominent in premature births. Humans suffer from the obstetrical dilemma and so the proposal has been put forward (both in the literature and in pop sci commentary discussing these matters) that the situation could very well be something like a vernix occurs in all mammals in the womb as a protection from pathogens, but it is removed (or much less prominent) by the time most non-human births occur. This subject has not been researched very closely. jps (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That's true. Human infants are born much less developed, it may be that the vernix of non-humans typically dissolves in the womb. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.
Indeed, the first thing - assuming that we find the first record of nonhuman vernix caseosa worth including in an encyclopedia, which personally I doubt - is to find out the definitions being used. However, if they're all using the same definition, the problem might be solved by some phraseology such as "Brenna et al claim that theirs is the first mention of nonhuman vernix caseosa from a non-human, though Yerkes and Elder reported it in a chimpanzee in the 1930s". Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
+1 to the above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems a bit synthetic for the aquatic ape hypothesis article to me, though clearly not for the vernix caseosa article. Not to mention the proposed text uses a common word to avoid. Nevertheless, it is more accurate than the proposal on the talkpage which was just to report as the Brenna team said -- that it was the first such demonstration ever. jps (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking through what I can access of the vernix literature now. I'm also reading abstracts of papers I can't access. So far, I haven't seen anything, but it's not a small body of work. As jps said, the majority of it seems focused on premature births and, more specifically, necrotizing enterocolitis. If we can't find a resolution, the wording proposed above seems like the way to go. I think it's fine for either article, as we're not drawing any conclusions, merely juxtaposing the two claims. See WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
But Yerkes and Elder's work is manifestly irrelevant to AAH. It just happens to have a sentence about a substance that AAH people get excited about. I feel kinda like it's best not to make much todo over this on the fringe article. I have no doubt that the "common lore", such that it is, that "vernix is unique to humans" is just wrong. But I'm also not convinced from the literature that this "common lore" is really all that common amongst those in the know. There is that pesky Indian Journal of Dermatology article cited in Brenna's paper, but I'm not inclined to give that journal much credit for editorial oversight either. Anyway, let's keep digging. I've read about half a dozen papers on vernix caseosa now with little to show for it. jps (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you've read hard enough. There's this from 2008 (10 years before Brenna) that says "According to present knowledge, vernix production is unique to humans," and there's this from 2005 which says "Vernix caseosa is a fetally derived biofilm unique to humans," and then there's this from 2006 which says "...the uniquely human skin cream 'vernix caseosa'," then there's this from 2017 that says "...the uniquely human fatty substance (vernix caseosa)..."
I don't think you've understood this discussion. People can be wrong. Even lots of people can be wrong. There is, as MPants has pointed out, a possibility (that's looking increasingly unlikely) that Yerkes and Elder mistakenly called something "vernix caseosa" and it later turned out to be something different, but we haven't found any evidence that this is what is going on here (I would welcome it if you had any evidence of this to share). The other (and, I would argue, more likely) alternative is that the repeated claim that vernix caseosa is unique to humans is simply incorrect and that this has been known by biologists (in the literature, at least) since the 1930s or earlier. That others claim that it is unique to humans is immaterial to our discussion unless they specifically deal with the Yerkes and Elder observation and explain why it is wrong (or refer to a source that does so). jps (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. I've found a citation that explicitly says that the researchers don't know if there is a vernix analogue in non humans; [20]. I'm also finding quite a bit of older work that makes passing references to vernix in non humans, but nothing that's relevant enough to cite. I've also found a lot of studies comparing vernix caseosa to skin surface lipids in other animals, such as [21] and [22]. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect going on. I've found sources stating that vernix only occurs in humans, and I've found sources making a passing mention of the vernix of animals. It seems to me like the most likely explanation is that many scientists (especially those active prior to the 1960's) used "vernix caseosa" as a shorthand to refer to analogous substances in animals, whereas other scientists (later ones, and ones who work in medical research) use the term more specifically to refer to the human substance. If true, then -by definition if not practicality-, then both sources are wrong, because any such analogue found in animals is just that; an analog. If that's not the case, then it's quite clear that there is an analogue in animals and only the Yerkes/Elder source is correct with respect to the question of whether or not the Hao et. al. source discovered it. The only case in which the Hao et. al. source is accurate about being the first to discover vernix in animals is if vernix is defined exclusively by its chemical composition and presence on newborn skin, which is a rather odd criteria.
The overall impression I've gotten is that the current definition in use in the literature (since the 1960's or so) includes the species, which makes Hao et. al. wrong by definition and explains how their claimed discovery has managed to exist in the literature for almost a year now with no documented citations. IMHO, there's usually a few that spring up very quickly whenever there's a claim as drastic as this being made, usually from critical responses. The presupposition of an arbitrary distinction between a "true" vernix and an analogue with near-identical chemical makeup would explain that, as readers of that claim would simply dismiss it categorically without any need to criticize the work that led to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that this is probably as good as we are going to get. Any species-specific definition for a substance produced by a living thing is going to be problematic. Do only bees make honey? Or do these wasps only make a "honey-like" analog? jps (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That’s probably the reason Brenna specifies sea lions as having a “true vernix,” but if we’re all uncertain we could just email the guy to ask for some clarification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
In this case, you should look for corroborating sources. What do other reliable sources say about the matter? Do they concur? Recall what WP:NPOV says:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
NPOV is about POV, but in my opinion, this also applies to facts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I would be a lot more careful with applying UNDUE/WEIGHT to things that are considered facts, as the quality of the sources become more important. That essentially is where MEDRS starts (avoiding mainstream sources for facts related to human health). Or as another example, say out of 20 sources reporting a fact, we have only one, the NYTimes reporting this fact as version A, and 19 other sources of the quality of Buzzfeed News or the Verge, all reporting this fact as version B. I would likely believe that NYTimes is right and the others are wrong, but obviously I would try to investigate to see if there are more direct primary sources that avoid the problem. --Masem (t) 03:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
True, the quality of sources is important, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Defunct website as a source?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can a defunct website, which is not archived at archive.org or anywhere else as far as I can tell, and was taken down by it's maintainer be cited as source? Seems to me like it would fail WP:V by definition, but I thought I'd asked here before I challenge it. I am thinking specifically about this citation Screamo#cite_note-SYWh-85--which presumably refers to www.stuffyouwillhate.com, a site that longer exists according to [23], and which is being used to assert that a certain genre of music includes certain bands. Yilloslime (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It makes more sense than citing the card catalogue for the Library of Alexandria only because it could theoretically be accessibly archived somewhere that we've just not been made aware of yet. Otherwise, I'd say no. Now, another source that is otherwise perfectly reliable and could have reasonably been around when the site was up might be an acceptable source so long as there isn't a significantly larger number of similarly reliable sources contradicting it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Altermann Galleries

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello. Do you think I can cite the Altermann Galleries, specifically this webpage please? It looks reliable, but it is a commercial art gallery. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, the webpage cites "Reference: The American West: Legendary Artists of the Frontier, edited by Dr. Rick Stewart, AskArt.com." I don't think AskArt would be reliable, but Dr. Rick Stewart appears to be the chief curator of the Amon Carter Museum of American Art, and they are citing this book, but not specific pages.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

ReviewMeta, Fakespot, and other e-commerce review checkers

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Are ReviewMeta (reviewmeta.com), Fakespot (fakespot.com), and other e-commerce review checkers reliable sources? These sites check any product listing from a list of supported retailers, and then display a set of metrics regarding the "quality" of the customer reviews for that product. The data is generated automatically.

Online retailer reviews, including ones from Amazon (RSP entry), are considered generally unreliable because they are user-generated content. However, it's unclear how automatically generated summaries of online retailer reviews should be classified.

ReviewMeta and Fakespot have received plenty of coverage from reliable sources, and both are notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles. However, my personal experiences with a previous version of Fakespot have been less than stellar, as the site returns returned wildly different ratings when I asked it to evaluate the same product multiple times. The current version doesn't do that anymore, as they've removed the ability to re-analyze a product on demand.

This question is from Talk:Mark Dice § Removed "Amazon reviews" section. — Newslinger talk 12:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Without knowing how they do it I would say not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Reviewmeta does explain their basic process how, but offers caveats faq on the limitations of their algorithms. valereee (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
So how do they "know" what a natural review looks like, all seems very subjective. Reads like those dodgy personalty tests that never seem to be able to predict anythingSlatersteven (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I just went through it and it all looks like bog standard statistical analysis. So to determine a final "Pass" or "Fail" rating, they probably took a sample of known Fails and used those to establish a range of results that would constitute a Fail. Anything that's not in that range is thus a Pass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I did some tests, and got the bizarre situation of a fail based upon suspicious reviews, yet the actual stars and even rating changed not one jot (on a Mark Dice book, by the way).Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That's because they don't discount what they consider to be "legitimate" reviews. The way they work is that they look at a number of statistics on the reviews, such as the average number of reviews made by each reviewer, and the dates on which reviews are made. They then use this to establish a degree of influence exerted by reviews which fall outside of the scope of typically legitimate reviews, and use that to determine the overall Pass/Fail state. But they also use those methods to come up with a statistically likely number of "fake" reviews while noting which reviews are likely to be fake, then they exclude those likely fakes and re-calculate the score.
The purpose of hiring fake reviewers is not, after all, to boost the rating of your product. You could do that by selling exclusively to friends and family, and end up with a perfect 5-star review rating. No, the purpose is to inflate the review count, which is used in a number of algorithms to help determine how much to promote your product, and is a large part of the algorithm used to determine your product's place in the "best-reviewed" rankings.
This is why the "adjusted" score at sites like this are often so similar to the actual score: paid reviewers frequently post both 5 and 4 star reviews, because a wall of 5 star reviews looks suspicious, but a teeming mass of 4 and 5 star reviews with the occasional 3-star review thrown in looks legit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would be very hesitant to cite them. They're not the sort of source we normally rely on, so it shouldn't come up much. But I would never cite them for anything unless an established RS cited them for that exact same thing (and we were citing said RS), and even then, I would always attribute the rating. If they start getting cited regularly by RSes, then I would be happy to re-evaluate my position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The one thing I'm certain about is that these types of sites cannot be used to establish notability, since they indiscriminately examine every single product listing from their list of supported retailers. I agree with MPants at work in that it's unlikely for information from these sites to constitute due weight, unless the analysis is mentioned in a separate reliable source. — Newslinger talk 15:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Death certificates?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. Would a death certificate be enough to confirm someone's death? Last year, Adán Medrano Rodríguez, a former drug trafficker, was reportedly killed. It wasn't reported in the media likely because Medrano was a crime boss from a lesser known generation (prior to the Mexican Drug War that began in 2006). An acquaintance of mine who knew Medrano's family told me he was killed in 2018, so I was wondering if I could add his death date and cause of death if I'm able to get a hold of a certificate from the government / hospital offline confirming it (I would cross reference his full name, DOB, height, etc.). I'm thinking not, but wanted a second opinion. Thanks, MX (✉ • ✎) 15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought this might well fall foul of primary. Also it is a bit ORy. I would say it would be best not to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
A death certificate would definitely be a Primary source... usable but with many limitations. The NOR problem comes in linking the certificate to the article subject... we have to ask whether there is a possibility that the certificate you are using might be for some other person with the same name. I would avoid. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sukavich Rangsitpol (Thai: สุขวิช รังสิตพล RTGS: Sukkhawit Rangsitphon; (born December 5,1935)is a Thai politician ,businessman and education reform who served as the Duputy Priminister of Thailand from 1994 and 1996 to 1997. He had previously served as the governor of the Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (ETA)between 1993-1994

Starting another thread has not answered my question. What are you asking?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

NextShark

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

reliable source? Not finding an article, not finding it in the archives or perennial. valereee (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It is hard to find info on them in general. It was even a pain to find their about us page.[24] They appear to be a part of the Grateful Lifestyle. Which is then a Gannett company which itself is part of USA network.[25] I am sure we could dig down the rabbit hole deeper as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Their About page is not linked from the main page, even though they have an "About NextShark" blurb at the bottom. That's weird, but what I'm seeing there looks pretty small time. They seem like they might be reliable enough, but I have serious doubts as to whether them writing about a subject established due weight for us to report it. If they're the only source, then I'd say not to use them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Rangsitpol Education Reform

Economic, social, political,environmental and population development in Thailand have created a series of problems that must be addressed addressesed by education.

His Excellency Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol,Minister of Education of Thailand, launched the current education reforms. The main aim of education reform is to enhance the quality of education from 1996 until educational excellence is achieved by the 2007.

The goal of the education reform is to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for a better quality of life and to develop the national into peaceful co-existence in the global community .

The objective of education reform is to create learning individual ,organization , and society. An educated person or the authentic learning outcome should possess the following abilities and characteristics which are based on Thai cultural heritage and appropriate level of education: good physical and mental health,critical thinking, intellectual inquisitiveness ,professionalism, sense of responsibility, honesty,selfsacrifice,perseverance ,team spirit, adherence to democracy,and love for King,Country and Religion.

[1]

I am confused, is the source by Sukavich Rangsitpol or Pimpan Dachakupt?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems clear that the author of the source Dachakupt... I am guessing that the OP is asking whether it is reliable for use in our article (or section of the article) about Sukavich Rangsitpol. I will note that the article is currently flagged for having some issues re copyright, so the OP may be trying to figure out what can and can not be used (and how). Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
OP is this the case?Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dachakupt, Pimpan (1999). "The current innovation in curriculum development in Thailand". International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice. 1: 93–101. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Can a document filed with the U.S. Copyright Office, searchable at cocatalog.loc.gov, be used as a reliable source to verify the date of a transfer of a copyright from one publisher to another? Ohnothimagain (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would expect so, yes. I'd be interested to hear any compelling arguments against it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The only minor concern I'd have is that we have sources that at least affirm that at some point copyright changed hands, even if they don't name the date. Then that makes sense to dig into official records and get that exact date. Issue would be to make sure that we know we have the right companies and dates involved. If no source reported on any mention of the transfer nor the copyright existing with the second entity, they our digging into it would start walking into OR. (It would start being like using court records). --Masem (t) 16:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No argument about WP:OR, but I just want to say that I would still consider that information reliable. But without an RS mentioning the transfer, it would certainly be undue for us to hunt down the record and mention it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The transfer of copyright is well documented but the sources are vague about when it occurred. Any idea how to cite this? Ohnothimagain (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd write something like "On [date][copyright office source] the copyright was sold to [company][secondary reliable source]." Without knowing more about the subject, I can't be more specific.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It's concerning the transfer of the copyright of the Beatles' songs "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You" from Ardmore & Beechwood Ltd., the EMI subsidiary that originally published the songs, to Paul McCartney's MPL Communications. It is widely reported that he owns those two songs—the only Beatles songs he owns—but when he acquired them is either not given in sources or said to have occurred in "the mid-1980s" which is probably a guess based on the fact that he recorded a new version of the two songs in 1987. A simple search of the copyright records shows the assignment of copyright from Ardmore to MPL was executed on March 23, 1978. Ohnothimagain (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That looks acceptable to me. The example text and citations I gave is not WP:SYNTH because it's not drawing any novel conclusions from the two sources, simply juxtaposing them via their obvious relation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Apoifis 2014 a RS? (Anarchism in Greece)

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Nicholas Apoifis, a lecturer in sociologywrote his thesis on Greek anarchism [26]. His thesis turned into a book [27] (download) by Manchester University Press, part of CONTEMPORARY ANARCHIST STUDIES in 2016, cited and awarded awarded the UNSW Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences Dean's Award for Best Monograph for an Early Career Researcher, 2017]. In his thesis, Apoifis writes This is more than a moot point. If true, the presence of anarchist symbolism in a protest as far back as 1862 highlights the longevity of Greece’s anarchist history, making it all the more significant that it is a history from which contemporary activists are alienated. While we cannot be certain, I suggest that the red banner was probably an anarchist inspired banner, for three reasons. Firstly, in 1862 red was the colour of anarchist flags. Anarchist symbolism had not embraced the more iconic contemporary images of black, or red and black flags and banners (McKay, 2009).67 Secondly, the banner was unfurled by anarchists68 Εμμανουιλ Δαουδογλου (Emmanuel Daoudoglou), Παυλος Αργυριαδις (Pavlos Argyriadis) and Italian Amilcaire Cipriani, who joined other anarchists in the protest (Pomonis, 2004, p.1). This is the same Cipriani who later, in 1871, would fight for the Paris Commune alongside Μαρια Πανταζι (Maria Pantazi) (Pomonis, 2004, p.1). According to Vasili, Pantazi was the first Greek female anarchist, and probably the only Greek female anarchist to fight in the Commune.69

Chalk19's main arguments is that there is no historical evidence of Pantazi and Daoudoglou real persons and Apoifis is not a RS because he is a sociologist. In my opinion, he is published and cited so he makes it as a RS. So we can mention Pantazi/Daoudoglou in the article, and when/if newer evidence is presented that they were inexisted persons, we can attribute. We can attribute now as well. Anyway, is Apoifis RS? Cinadon36 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Apoifis is not a historian. Ηe is a Lecturer in Politics & International Relations, and a "co-founder of Coaching Unlimited, an initiative that provides sport specific coaching accreditation and research based health promotion workshops" (see his CV, obviously in his own words, [28]). He wrote an ethnografic/social anthropological study on contemporary anarchist activity in Athens, Greece, based in interviews he got from activists. His book has nothing at all do do with history; According to himself, it "was based on unprecedented access to the world’s most militant anarchist movement and involved highly engaged ethnographic fieldwork, referred to as Militant Ethnography" (op.cit.). As an introduction to his study, Apoifis composed a brief sketch of the past of Greek anarchism, drawing mainly from pamphlets available in English, written by activists and published by anarchist groups, not by professional historians (for example P. Pomonis is just a translator of international anarchist, and libertarian communist literature to Greek). He even made extensive use of an anonymous post on Greek anarchist history uploaded in a blog. All these are known in detail to Cinadon36 from the following discussion in el WP, cf. el:Συζήτηση:Κώστας Σπέρας#Ουδετερότητα - Γενική Κριτική, plus this. Unfortunately user Cinadon36 insists in turning the blind eye to these facts, and this is very tiring. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Because I know your position on the matter, that does not mean that I must accept it as it is. The talk at the particular discussion was not a free discussion- but other users do not want to heaρ our whining about the specific article in el.WP which is a disgrace, full of citing blogs and even a site to promote tourism in Serifos[29] - a point I raised in the Talk page but I wasnt allowed to remove the inappropriate sources or tag the article as POV. There is no discussing culture in el.WP- you said it elsewhere. So, as for this particular thread, Apoifis is a scholar and can evaluate primary sources. We -as WP users-can't. Sociology and history arent far away as academic disciplines and there is a chapter on anarchism history in his thesis. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: I am the main editor of Kostas Speras article. I have used a blog of island Serifos to say simply that a statue of Speras was build in the island in 2009! I also used a blog of a well known amateur historian to write about the votes that took the political party of Speras. The article is full of uptodate historians. Not even one of the users of EL:WP in the article discussion didn't support user Cinadon36 objections. I am out of topic. But there are accusations and i had to answer. I won't come back in this matter here. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: I removed the two controversial sentences from the article until a consensus is reached. "Most notable, [[Emmanouil Dadaoglou]], a merchant from [[Smyrni|Smyrna]], had probably come across anarchist ideas after meeting Italian political refugees, who first arrived in Patras in 1849 due to the [[War of the Two Sicilies]]. Together with Italian anarchist [[Amilcare Cipriani]], founder of the "Democrats Club", they organized a group and took part in the revolution against [[Otto of Greece]] in 1862. They put up a barricade near [[Kapnikarea]] in Athens.{{sfn|Βουρνάς|1998|p=}}{{Fails verification|date=February 2019}} [[Maria Pantazi]], probably the first Greek female anarchist fought in [[Paris Commune]] according to oral anarchist tradition.{{sfn|Apoifis|2014|p=88}}" I do not feel that the removal distorts the article's narrative. It is kind of trivial knowledge, but yet, I believe that there is a place for it in a 21 Kbytes article, at least attributed. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This is for getting an idea of Apoifis' sources on the history of Greek anarchism. Let's see where he relies when he writes about Dadaoglou and Pantazi. His reference is to Paul Pomonis (a Greek anarchist translator and activist, not a historian of any sort) pamphlet The Early Days of Greek Anarchism: ‘The Democratic Club of Patras’ & ‘Social Radicalism in Greece’, London: Kate Sharpley Library, 2004. Parts of it (or may be all) is available to read from anarkismo.net, see [30], [31], [32] etc. Pomonis is just putting together things that he indiscriminately copies form books of well known historians of the Greek socialist and labour movement like Kordatos, Demetriou, Noutsos et.al. This is what he writes in his booklet on Daoudoglou: [33]; he is just reproducing the story/legend we already now, and -even more- whithout references to literature at all -no question for references to historical sources and historical evidence. So, Pomonis' "book" is totally worthless as history, it does not have any value at all, it is no better than a student's paper in high-school. This is the kind of secondary sources that Apoifis is using while summarizing the history of Greek anarchism in his book. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Tottaly worthless", these are strong words. It the job of Researches to identify the Primary Sources, or other sources that are of some value. Here are some author authors that have mentioned Dadaoglou: Othon Alexandrakis thesis and Immanuel Ness encyclopedic entry on Greek Anarchism. Chalk19's arguments seems like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and not really supported by any RS. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, well, well!!! A PhD on The struggle for modern Athens by another anthorpologist, who according to his CV "[h]is teaching, publications and research focus on: citizenship, migration, emergent and contested identities, governance, cities, Greece and Europe", and "[h]is broader academic interests include ethnographic methods/writing, theory, NGOs, discourse publics, and memory" [34]. So, in his PhD, Alexandrakis just writes down what "Nikos" (an informant, a narrator who took part in the study) told him about Dadaoglou, and then he adds Pomonis as a source! Great! An, then, an essay in The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest based on the well known problematic pamphlets of Pomonis (an anarchist traslator), Kottis (a Greek elementary school teacher), and Sotros (a Greek-Australian anarchist activist). Don't you have anything new to show as? Somenthing that is not circulating the unverified story of Daoudoglou? Any book, article etc. that has moved away from Kostis Moskoff's original remarks about the lack of sources concerning this story, a work that is based in research to the direction of finding historical evidence about him and his wife. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
PS. Cinadon36, why not one of your "favorite" researchers does not mention what the prominent Greek social historian Kostis Moskoff had remarked while writing on Dadaoglou and Pantazi: that their story is "unverified" since all we now about them comes from one and only source, from what Platon Drakoulis, the early Greek socialist propagandist and agitator, had writen in his journal. Cf. K. Μοσκώφ, Εισαγωγικά στην ιστορία του κινήματος της εργατικής τάξης (An introduction to the history of the [Greek] labour movement), 2nd ed., Athens: Kastaniotis Press, 1985, p. 152. ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Chalk19: Ok, you might dont like all these RS but, they are all RS and you have provided no RS claiming otherwise. You might enjoy reading this humorous article: The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia PS- I do not have a favourite researcher and I do not know why the didn't mentioned Moskov, I only know that they are PR. Apoifis got published by Mancherster Uni Press. That 's enough for me. Immanuel Ness is also a well appreciated scholar. Ironies against those two researchers wont get you anywhere. Chalk19, when you find a single RS disputing the "myth" of Pantazi & Dadaoglou, please ping. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, not even Apoifis doesn't claim that he wrote history. He continuously writes what anarchists of Athens told him about their view of the past of Anarchism in the country. So it's not something bad about Apoifis, cause his aim was to describe about the Public history of anarchism in Greece, not about the history. So, if in the future will write an article about the Public history of anarchism in Greece then for sure Apoifis will be an excellent R.S. But not now. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, Apoifis does not "continuously writes what anarchists of Athens told him about their view of the past of Anarchism in the country". It is a fault statement. Apoifis does discuss various aspects of anarchist history with 3 radicals, but his book is much more than the 3 interviews. And again, it is not just Apoifis, there 's Alexandrakis and Ness. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Apoifis, Nicholas (2016). Anarchy in Athens: An Ethnography of Militancy, Emotions and Violence. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-5261-0803-6.
  • To summarize: As a topic, from what I've seen, the history of Greek anarchism has abysmal sourcing, at least or especially in English. Apoifis is a social anthropologist (not a historian) but the published version of his dissertation—the subject of this discussion—is among the few published accounts of Greek anarchism. The issue raised by the above editors is that Apoifis repeats the claims of unreliable sources without critical analysis. Read: While a historian would cite a primary source to discuss whether or not it's true, Apoifis repeats the claim as fact. (The editors above can address Apoifis's bibliography and sourcing issues as need arises. For example, he cites libcom.org without discussion, a site with user-generated content that we would not deem reliable on its own.) But since few/no other reliable sources engage with these claims in writing, Apoifis's book, published by Manchester University Press, launders the unchecked claim.
The question is whether Apoifis should be blindly trusted because of its academic press backing, or whether we should not use Apoifis for historical claims, based on the faults of its verifiability chain. Looking for outside opinions. czar 21:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Genius.com

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

The only previous discussion for Genius.com was in 2016, in which most of the participants opined that the source shouldn't be used because it is user-generated. Points raised in the original discussion:

  • A lot of lyrics and annotations are user-submitted, so we wouldn't consider them reliable.
  • Most lyrics on the website do not constitute copyright infringement due to agreements with music publishers.

However, the discussion doesn't consider:

Genius is used as a source on about 1,419 articles.

Are Genius lyrics, annotations, descriptions, articles, interviews, videos or verified commentary considered reliable sources? Jc86035 (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians — Newslinger talk 11:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Lyrics: I'd say no, not where it's controversial. Yes, Genius is allowed to display lyrics on its sites because of its licensing agreements, but it doesn't mean that they are necessarily accurate. The site allows users to suggest edits to lyrics, so no. Annotations and descriptions: no, per WP:USERGENERATED, unless a particular annotation does not fall under that policy. Articles, interviews and videos: reliable, like any other music review site, with the usual exceptions for press releases and the like. Verified commentary: reliable as WP:BLPSELFPUB. feminist (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally no, per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur that their lyrics contribution pages smack quite afoul of WP:USERG, but I have before seen these Genius users cite other reliable evidence for their contributions. So, technically there is a use for it, but we should use the source they cite instead, rather than actually citing Genius. I genuinely did not know that artists themselves can make verified comments, and I would find those acceptable. In conclusion, oppose all obviously user-generated content, support others, including verified artist comments. Basically everything feminist said. dannymusiceditor oops 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't be used in general. This example from above written by "the News Editor at Genius" shows the author noting a correction to the article in the comments section. While I give him credit for acknowleding an error and fixing it, that approach is amateur. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Does this happen a lot or is this an isolated example? The recent date concerns me. Do you have any comment on the verified artist contributions? Could it be used as a primary source in that capacity? dannymusiceditor oops 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    The article states "Correction: A previous version of this article stated that this the first week “Happier” spent in the Top 5. While it is currently at its highest chart position, it previously peaked at No. 3 in December 2018." This seems like a reasonable way of acknowledging an error to me. feminist (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Feminist and DannyMusicEditor: I chose the articles from the ones that appeared on the front page. Even if they do have some editorial controls, I'm leaning towards preferring other sources whenever available (at least for non-interview content). The top YouTube comments on the videos are often of the "this is clickbait" or "isn't the video supposed to be about x?" variety. Jc86035 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    Sounds like any other SEO-driven internet property to me. Yeah, it's not a high quality source, but it's comparable to some of the weaker publications listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. feminist (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Still user-generated. The stray bits and pieces that aren't user-generated have problems because there's no clear editorial controls or reputation behind them (comparable to citing things on Amazon or Steam or similar sites that sometimes contain tempting data for us.) Citing comments by the author is dicey - provided there is no question as to who they really are, this is comparable to citing them on Twitter or Reddit or other social-media cites. Occasionally we can use such a cite as a WP:PRIMARY source, but I would usually prefer for it to be accompanied by a secondary source, since without that we can't provide any interpretation or analysis at all, and often even simple inclusion carries implications (ie. "this statement by this person is noteworthy and says something about them / the song / etc", which we'd need a secondary source to back up.) However, I think they might pass muster as an external link; WP:ELNO bans blogs, social media, and wikis, but (while it's not precisely a wiki) the exceptions for wikis seem to apply to Genius - it is stable, recognized, has a large number of contributors, and does provide a degree of very basic editorial control, sufficient to include as a general external link even if we can't cite it for any one specific statement. --Aquillion (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

W. Tate Brady

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I am unsure of how to handle pages that use sources that directly misquote primary resources, misrepresent quotes out of context or make unsupported claims. In the past I have used the WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD to highlight the misunderstanding that primary resources are invalid as many editors believe. In this case i crawled through tens of pages of correspondence, a small snippet of which was used as a source by an unqualified researcher with no CV relating to historical research for a small independent local magazine. as a result of this periodical, a misunderstanding has arisen within the historical understanding of Tulsa that there is any evidence that W. Tate Brady participated in the tarring and feathering of I.W.W. members in 1917. I have been unable to locate any proof of this and so removed the reference and replaced it with a reference for the primary resource and added a dubious tag and talk section to explain why i find it dubious. I expect some would take offence to its removal and revert any edit that removed the reference to the 1917 incident so i would like to appeal to the community to decide on its merits.

I draw attention to this article which started the fiasco, http://thislandpress.com/2012/04/18/tate-brady-battle-greenwood/. In particular I draw attention to the reference given in the ThisLandPress article, "Papers of National Civil Liberties Union investigator L.A. Brown, New York State Library, March 25, 1918." The NYSL does not hold a collection by this name. I contacted them to request a copy. They did not hold the collection in which i found a copy of the poorly photographed computer screen showing the misrepresented section of the collection. I ended up finding that it was held by Princeton University's Mudd Library under the name of a different collection which i understand to be an intentionally deceptive attempt to conceal the primary resource they quoted.

I am unsure of how to proceed in editing this paragraph and would like to request comment from the community, 

"A contracted Investigator hired by the NCLU accused Brady, in internal documents, of being one of the organizers behind the Tulsa Outrage of 1917, in which members of the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.) were tarred and feathered by the black-robed Knights of Liberty.[4] According to the investigator, All 17 members of the I.W.W. identified Brady as the man who applied the tar and feathers. The investigator stated that he did not have sufficient evidence to prove this in a court of law.[5]"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.21.145 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

THe issue I suspect is not primary sourcing by both wp:or and wp:v. You need an RS to say something is wrong, it is not good enough for you to be able to see it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I can upload a copy of the full reel as it is public domain as it is for non-commercial academic use and out of copyright. however im not sure it meets the requirements for wiki commons as the copies i have are from cengage which in some countries may constitute a copyrighted document as the copies were created more recently. some libraries argue that they maintain ownership of the copyright of copies of documents. it's in a collection of letters between investigators and I.W.W. headquarters covering every prosecution of union members in the united states. I have uploaded the folio to this link. https://ufile.io/4w9y0 it is a winrar archive with a pdf file containing part of the folio and then jpegs I saved of the remaining pages which wern't completely digitized. mudd library stated that the documents hadnt been digitized completely yet at the time of the creation of that particular PDF. The tulsa affair letters begin at about page 60 of the pdf through to the end, with the remaining letters in jpeg format. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

MMMM! the more I read the less I like. I am not sure that documents you do not own but have copied can ever be used as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
And now I have checked the link it does not appear to be a set of letters, but a copy of some part of a Wikipedia article (complete with cites).Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry i accidentally must have uploaded my notes on the letters. https://ufile.io/4w9y0 I have reuploaded the rar file here and changed the above link to avoid confusion. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the copyright issues. Unfortunately, I don't think these files can be used without violating the policy against original research. I noticed that you added the {{dubious}} tag to the disputed statement in the W. Tate Brady article, which is good. Your best course of action is probably to contact This Land Press and request that they make a correction to the "The Nightmare of Dreamland" article. Their contact information is listed on their About Us page. If they publish a correction, this can be used to nullify the citation in the W. Tate Brady article. — Newslinger talk 12:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Erratum and Template:Retracted

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See

I've just created {{Erratum}} to offer simliar functionality to {{Retracted}}. Enjoy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks for making that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Is Middle East Monitor (MEMO) considered reliable for factual reporting? The subject recently came up here. It is generally understood by observers that MEMO is a pro-Muslim Brotherhood website.
Here are some of the bizarre MEMO articles that have caught my attention over that past few years:

The above stories, which are based on questionable Arabic sources, have never been thoroughly investigated, but are clearly far-fetched and MEMO was their original English language publisher. I'd like to hear some third opinions on this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

From About us There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination.Reads like propaganda site --Shrike (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't expect their Palestine coverage to be any less problematic. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment — in the dispute discussion at Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état that Fitzcarmalan noted at the outset of their post [38], I strenuously objected to the use of a MEMO Op-Ed intended to demonstrate that Israel secretly backed the 2013 coup in Egypt. That Op-Ed contained statements that were almost certainly false — for instance suggesting that Israel participated in the August 2013 Rabaa massacre — and also referred to reports in Haaretz from 2014 that may exist, but that I have not been able to locate.
That said, as an Op-Ed, the piece contains a disclaimer at the bottom: the information in this article doesn't necessarily reflect the views of MEMO.
Furthermore, I think we absolutely cannot exclude a source because it is "pro-Muslim Brotherhood." The MB was elected in Egypt and then toppled by a coup, and the resulting military government has imprisoned dozens of journalists [39][40][41][42][43].
The first article [44] used as an example of dubious reporting attributes the claim to Algerian outlets, and that was correct: [45][46].
I can find no evidence to substantiate or refute the second article [47]. The third article [48] has been the subject of this critique [49]. The MEMO article cites this report [50] which does appear to say what MEMO claims it says. Other claims made in the MEMO article are true [51].
What do you think, Fitzcarmalan? -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I did not call for the exclusion of MEMO as a source, nor did I start this thread in the form of an RfC. The "pro-Muslim Brotherhood" part was meant to point out the outlet's potential bias so that it be taken into consideration. The reason I initiated this discussion is to encourage third opinions about the subject. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
And I'm not denying that MEMO had sources to back up those claims. My point here is that the original sources themselves (al-Chorouk, al-Quds al-Arabi and al-Sharq respectively) appear to have made up those stories. If it turns out that MEMO intentionally promoted hoaxes, wouldn't that put their reliability into question? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Not to endorse this source without really knowing much about them, from the examples at least they're reporting that other outlets said XZY - the statements are attributed - that's their job. And while trying to fact check these today it does seem that Egypt has military deployments and corresponding ambitions in the wider region. -Darouet (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Um how are any of those articles bizarre? Al Jazeera reported on Egyptian troops in Eritrea, see here (Google translate if youd like, but the gist of it is Egyptian forces were deployed to a base in Eritrea]. To the point, an op-ed in MEMO should not be used unless the author is an expert on the topic of the op-ed. Their news reports should be fine however. nableezy - 02:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How are any of them bizarre? I mean, I'll give you the Eritrea story, despite the fact that it was denied by officials from the relevant governments. But are you seriously telling me that there are no issues whatsoever with the Algeria stories, which are most likely fabrications or (at best) gross misrepresentations of official statements? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
In those articles they attributing statements found in a UK based Arabic newspaper (Al-Quds Al-Arabi) to that paper. Id have to go back to the 2014 archives of that paper to substantiate that those articles indeed existed, but I dont see why you think it so bizarre that such statements would have been made. There had been several politicians and military leaders in Egypt discussing an intervention in Libya in 2014. Here is the Atlantic talking about it. I dont think there is anything "bizarre" here. They are attributing it to another source, and unless that source does not actually say that then I dont see the problem here. Searching an al-Quds al-Arabi is a bit difficult, but I will see if I can find what articles they are referring to. nableezy - 19:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
As I said earlier above, there is little reason for me to doubt that the original articles existed. What I'm questioning here is the original articles themselves and the possibility that MEMO relays hoaxes to English-speaking audiences uncritically (attribution is not the issue here). So yes, it is very, very unlikely for an Egyptian president to say that his army is "capable of invading Algeria in three days" and for an Algerian ambassador to say that his country has the "ability and readiness to defend Libya from any Egyptian invasion" when no such dispute over Libya existed between these two governments at the time. Anyone who follows MEMO would easily notice that they have an occasional thing for fake crises and war scares, to say the least. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Then you have a different problem than reliability. If what they are doing is saying according to X, Y said Z, and in fact according to X, Y did in fact say Z then I dont see how you can complain about their reliably reporting on what X said of Y. nableezy - 06:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258&oldid=1251600311"