Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 275 Archive 276 Archive 277 Archive 278 Archive 279 Archive 280 → Archive 285

isni.com

General question: is isni.com (site for the "International Standard Name Identifier") considered to be a reliable source for biographical details like birthdate? It was added to a page I worked on, and when looking at the source I am unsure. Example link. I am unsure because it has a hint of reliability in that it collects data from a group of neutral institutional contributors, but how they compile that data into the specific pages is not clear. The blurb on thier web site states ISNI is the ISO certified global standard number for identifying the millions of contributors to creative works and those active in their distribution, including researchers, inventors, writers, artists, visual creators, performers, producers, publishers, aggregators, and more. It is part of a family of international standard identifiers that includes identifiers of works, recordings, products and right holders in all repertoires, e.g. DOI, ISAN, ISBN, ISRC, ISSN, ISTC, and ISWC. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Likely citogenetic; use ISNI's sources where appropriate, if the example link is indicative. The ISNI lists its sources at the bottom of the page, hyperlinked. For the example, these includes VIAF (Virtual International Authority File), LOC (Library of Congress) & Wikidata. Wikidata appears to be the only one of these which directly includes the birthdate. For other entries, there may be non-citogenetic sources which include biographical details; if so, use those, as appropriate. - Ryk72 talk 01:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @Ryk72:. What does "citogenetic" mean? I see no dictionary definitions for it anywhere.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi ThatMontrealIP, the term citogenesis was coined in the xkcd comic strip "Citogenesis". It refers to the phenomenon of (sloppy) journalists who use unverified information from Wikipedia to write articles, which then become cited as sources in Wikipedia. We have a list of citogenesis incidents which should help illustrate the problem. — Newslinger talk 02:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you kindly Newslinger!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
No problem! — Newslinger talk 02:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions

Is it ok to use this source for the following content?

  • However, the veracity of the account is disputed, with beliefs being primarily split on sectarian lines between Sunni and Shia denominations.

Thanks.Saff V. (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
There was a doubt for its publications.Saff V. (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand, are you saying there was a claim it was not published?Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Saff V., publisher is ABC-CLIO, which seems legit, on the face of it. This is in the publisher's normal area of competence. Guy (help!) 15:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source?

It is a blog. Although it lists 4 contributors in addition to "editor" Brad Linder in the about page, in reality Brad Linder is essentially the only author in 2019 (1 exception), and there have been only 2 authors since February 2016.

I've been recently tempted to use it as a source, a couple times, to change a primary source to a secondary source, like magic; however, this seems wrong.

It was suggested to bring it up for discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:/e/_(operating_system)&diff=913365830&oldid=913365695


I'd appreciate other views. Below are more details. Thanks.


It has been used as a source for many articles in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

95 results

Sometimes it is called "blog" in Wikipedia References, sometimes not.

I believe it mostly re-words and repeats press releases, and blog posts by companies. An example, recently:

https://liliputing.com/2019/09/first-batch-of-purism-librem-5-linux-smartphones-ships-in-late-september.html#comments

versus

https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-shipping-announcement/

In the liliputing blog post above, comments seem to confirm this:

"Some Guy: ...Also, this article seems to have been posted before anything about this is on purism’s website."

"Brad Linder: I guess someone forgot to tell them that the embargo lifted at 11:00AM 🙂"


"Daily Deals" are almost indistinguishable from "articles." https://liliputing.com/category/deals


The about page calls Brad Linder editor; however, he is also the primary author, and the ONLY author for the last 8 months, with one exception by Lee Mathews on 8/26/2019.

It says, "Liliputing has been mentioned on hundreds of news, and technology web sites," and gives 11 examples. However, 1 - Computer World is a broken link, most are several years old, and 1 - Techmeme, "works by scraping news websites and blogs,..."


https://liliputing.com/about

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Brad+Linder+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

57 results

Lee Mathews https://liliputing.com/author/lee Last article 08/26/2019, but this is the first since 12/26/2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Lee+Mathews+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

1 result

Lory Gil https://liliputing.com/author/lory Last article 02/05/2016

K. T. Bradford https://liliputing.com/author/ktbradford Last article 08/20/2014

James Diaz https://liliputing.com/author/cybergusa Last article 09/16/2011


The site warns: "Disclosure: Some links on this page are monetized by Skimlinks and Amazon's and eBay's affiliate programs."

It is heavily loaded with affiliate javascript from MANY different sources, as seen with noscript, etc.

-- Yae4 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Ugh. That site is basically a collection of advertisements. Guy (help!) 21:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Example of editing by readers:

Victor C: Brad, just letting you know, the WIN is mono. They had to remove the left speaker for the fan...

Brad Linder: Whoops! Fixing that now.

https://liliputing.com/2016/10/gpd-win-handheld-gaming-pc-quick-review.html , Reference 14 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPD_Win -- Yae4 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

While it's SPAMmy, It can certainly be used in a limited capacity. For instance on the Kodi (software) article, https://liliputing.com/2013/05/xbmc-running-in-linux-on-a-tv-box-with-an-amlogic-am8726-mx-chip-video.html is used to support that the software supports the AMLogic VPU chip. This is not an unreasonable use. Good to see that they make corrections to articles, which is good editorial oversight. It should not be used for anything other that plain, factual coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Making corrections after initially publishing inaccurate information, after readers point out the mistakes, is not "editorial oversight." Editorial oversight is having an editor, independent of the author, who catches mistakes before publishing. At this blog, the author is the editor, or vice versa. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Blogs do not generally update their posts. If there is the ability and will to recognize errors and omissions, that implies that there is some editorial oversight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. I wanted to use infosec-handbook.eu (blog) as a source too, but couldn't because it doesn't meet the criteria. BTW, it also updates based on reader feedback (and has more active authors). If we use liliputing for that video, then we could use any blog with a fancy appearance and tons of advertisements as a way of including youtube videos. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
What you were restricted in using that other website's content for is not up for discussion here.
We're not using the video itself, in the case I quoted, it's a specific discussion that is being used to support one fact. It is not generally reliable, as is the case with most other blogs. However, even blogs may be used under some circumstances. This is not a binary use vs. do not use situation, it's a large scale and judgment must be used to determine whether an entry can be used to support a fact.
Also, as stated above, it cannot be used to help determine if a topic meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The point was other blogs also do make corrections based on reader feeback, contrary to your claim.
Go down the list; Liliputing breaks most criteria: NO editorial oversight (aside from readers), self-published, blog, examples of making mistakes, sponsored content or primary purpose of showing you ads and getting you to click affiliate links. As I understand the process, if two of these discussions conclude it's a non-reliable source, then it goes on the "binary" list as such.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources

If that "one fact" is really worthy of being included, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Liliputing

Is Liliputing (liliputing.com) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog? — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Liliputing)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is general consensus that liliputing, as a self published source, should be considered generally not reliable. (non-admin closure) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Self-published source. I'll repeat what I originally wrote on 10 September: Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. Advert-infested clickbait of no real merit and no evident quality assurance, much better sources exist. Guy (help!) 21:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally Unreliable Anything but a factual statement is not reliable. Cannot be used for GNG or other reliability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. Should not be used as a source. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. (bot brought me here) Not anywhere close to the level of Wired, ZDNet, or even krebsonsecurity(Brian Krebs).---Avatar317(talk) 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. . For Christmas' sake, I can blog that I am God, if anyone built a church for me, I'd instantly be an atheist. No verifiable facts, no studies, no external review, just a claim. Secondary sources are used for a reason, hopefully review and verification. I suggest either filing this in the circular file, file 86 or file 13, aka the bit bucket.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a blog - I mean, it's a nice blog, but it's not an RS for Wikipedia purposes - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems reliable We recognize BuzzFeed and, I think, TechCrunch as notionally reliable sources, so unless we've seen them to be wholly unreliable, I think the nom's proposal is a rational one. Basically, give them enough rope until they show us otherwise. This would be in keeping with WP:CON, which can change, including after this RfC closes. I'd also add that WP:RSP is just a guideline, it is not an exhaustive list of sources that can only be used on Wikipedia—either to establish WP:GNG or substantiate facts.--Doug Mehus T·C 02:59, 20 November 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.

Discussion (Liliputing)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer hardware task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Liliputing. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)

Should The Gateway Pundit be deprecated? float Or listed as generally unreliable? float Or something else?

See thegatewaypundit.com HTTPS links HTTP links; and for earlier thegatewaypundit.com discussion see earlier Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256#Among low-quality sources, the most popular websites are right-wing sources; along with other previous mentions at: 256, 250, 241, and 233. X1\ (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Gateway Pundit)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. I see clear consensus to deprecate the use of "The Gateway Pundit" as a source. (non-admin closure) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Depreciate / Unacceptable as a source. It's a batshit insane far-right conspiracy blog. I don't know the difference between "depreciation" and "generally unreliable", but I support whatever ensures that this rubbish doesn't get cited here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for just about anything outside of their opinion, with in-line citations, in rare situations where their opinion is directly relevant; they're a blog with no particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (obviously.) That said, see my comment below - they're only being cited five times that I can see. As far as I can tell nobody is arguing that they are reliable anywhere for stuff outside that. We don't need to hold RFCs for things that are already universally-accepted; there are far too many unreliable sources in existence to enumerate them all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, are you opposed to deprecating? X1\ (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for statements of fact, and opinion wouldn't/shouldn't carry much weight in most cases, but as Aquillion says, it's not exactly a frequent problem. Certainly not opposed to deprecating if there's evidence it would save a nontrivial amount of effort. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the very least unreliable. François Robere (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for anything beyond their own opinion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for ... anything. Given that it's a hoax/fake news site I wouldn't even use them for their own "opinion" since those could just as well be trolling. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate this fake news website known for partisan hackery and hoax articles. This is never an acceptable source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, do not deprecate Clearly not a reliable site. No reason to deprecate as it clearly isn't being treated as reliable. We need to stop the deprecation game even with sites like this. Springee (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Springee, but they are often cited on Talk pages, per "everywhere search". Again, why do you say deprecation game? X1\ (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You are free to disagree with the term game but I'm firmly against going around and deprecating sources left and right. I'm not sure how deprecation is even supportable under WP:RS. My concern is two fold. First, let's assume a number of deprecated sources are all talking about the same thing. That means there might be some WEIGHT for inclusion in an article. That doesn't mean we treat the material as reliable but I do think deprecated sources can help establish weight if not reliability of some information. Here is another problem [[1]]. An article about Mossberg cited The Daily Caller for a basic factual claim (company had produced X number of some shotgun). This isn't a critical fact but for readers who are interested in firearms the article is better for it's inclusion and it certainly isn't a controversial claim. The citation was removed since DC has been deprecated. Now do we actually think the DC isn't reliable for that particular claim? So the typical reply when someone brings up such a point is, well if it's DUE then a RS will mention it and we can source it there. So I looked. I didn't check every link but what I found was a Mossberg press release (likely the DC's source of information) and a number of firearms blogs and forums discussing the topic. None of those sources would pass RS muster. However, the fact that so many websites are talking about the production stat suggests that, for that narrow audience, this is something that improves the Wiki article. If DC were treated like we treat a low quality source like Splinter News we would use them cautiously but we wouldn't have editors seeking out all references and removing the citation or even worse, removing the article content with the citation. I see no advantage to marking such sources with a "kill on sight" order. So, even in a case like there where I would be very suspect of any claim made by this source, I'm against deprecation here because I think it is problematic in principle. Springee (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know if we deprecate sources only for the AP2 area, but that is where they are completely unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would be more comfortable with the concept if we specified something like AP2. Springee (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Presumably "AP2" is wp:AP2, correct? X1\ (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable in the slightest. Depreciate – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. soibangla (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate I'm not sure this is necessary, because it seems like they are essentially already de-facto deprecated since they're a widely recognized purveyor of fake news. I don't see any problem with formalizing that classification, though. Nblund talk 21:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable and OK with deprecating - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate The fewer of these blatant misinformation sites we entertain, the better the whole project will be. They have a tendency toward supporting conspiracy theories, don't fact check much at all and exist as a propaganda tool. An encyclopedia should not be depending on such outlets. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the very least unreliable. I agree with Simonm223 and most others, deprecate is appropriate. This source is perennial as noted by various contributors, particularly highlighted by Aquillion's everywhere search. It will be useful to point novices, contrarians, etc to the Wikipedia:RSP citation of discussion if it gets a place on the table (hopefully). I don't understand Springee's "deprecation game" comment. How is it a "game"? X1\ (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate X1\ and Simonm223 make excellent points. The source regularly reports on conspiracy theories under the guise of news, which immediately calls into question whether any of their genuine news coverage is tainted with the desire to drive readers towards their own partisan views. Their SEO is structured so anyone looking to affirm a personal bias could easily search for say, "Badger Party planning frisbee ban", and get something resembling a WP:RS that could be injected into an article and left standing as authoritative information until another editor eventually susses it out. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 05:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable not "Deprecate" Deprecation is an extreme option over-used but not consistently used (leftist sources are usually spared the measure of deprecation). We have good, workable guidelines in WP:BIASED which allow editors to use their judgment with sources like the one we're talking about. Deprecation when there's no signifcant pattern of a given source being used to prop POV up in our articles is itself deprecated in WP:NOTCENSORED. --loupgarous (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see any appropriate sources on that list. Though I wouldn't call any of them extreme left so much as extreme anti-Republican with poor or non-existent standards for fact checking. Thx X1.Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate I'm a latecomer to this but can't see a good rationale not to. Given the 3 posts above I'll add that this treatment should be even, any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bingo! Doug Weller there is another thread here about Fox News talk show hosts (not the News division). "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." The same applies to them, and they should be deprecated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Doug Weller I support the sentiment, but the application is lacking. This is particularly noticeable in the area of criminal justice. Freddie Gray was hurt before he was put in the van, not while he was in it. Daniel Holtzclaw's conviction is laden with red flags strongly suggesting that he didn't do any of it. And the Duke Lacrosse case was proven BS long before the NYT, WaPo, etc. said so. Each of the above has been documented in voluminous detail on sites that often remain relatively obscure and/or are treated as "unreliable" by WikiConsensus, while media that push "mainstream" narratives that fly in the face of demonstrable facts escape WikiPunishment. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I can do that in the Duke case.[2] In the Freddy Gray case, I have a source that is likely WP:RS via WP:USEBYOTHERS, namely [3], but even there, there are WP:SYNTH issues, as the conclusion is obvious from listening to the whole thing, but I'm not sure if it's stated explicitly. In the Holtzclaw case, there appears to be consensus that the sources are not WP:RS, and that's the problem. When it is determinable that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong, yet we continue to keep our definitions of what is and is not reliable, then exactly what kind of world are we living in.[4][5][6] Adoring nanny (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
A YouTube video by Michelle Malkin is your purported source? The same Michelle Malkin who pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, defends the illegal imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, and says the Anti-Defamation League is conspiring with antifa activists to destroy Trump? Alrighty then. (And your first link is to a website self-published by a member of Holtzclaw's legal defense team.)
Your apparent personal belief that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong about Holtzclaw is irrelevant to the encyclopedia and can have nothing whatsoever to do with article content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
That's typical of the type of response I get on this. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to take the considerable time and effort that would be required to determine who has it right and who has it doesn't. It is frustrating to see people respond by lashing out at me and/or the sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: You appear to be off-topic on judging whether The Gateway Pundit should be deprecated float, or listed as generally unreliable float, or something else? Citing a book is fine but irrelevant, undisclosed-podcast.com is irrelevant, HoltzclawTrial.com is inappropriate, National Review is considered per our table to be float debatable, and YouTube is float generally unreliable (depends on subsource). In your arguments, using only "generally reliable" float sources will add credibility. This isn't the world per your what kind of world are we living in comment, it is Wikipedia and Wikipedia is built on generally reliable RSs, not wp:OR. We remove wp:OR and unreliable RSs, and in some cases we are obligated, by law to remove them. If you are interested in the topics in which you commented and gave sources, that is fine, but this RfC thread is on judging The Gateway Pundit as a source, not a casual forum, see WP:NOT. X1\ (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gerntrash: "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? X1\ (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. It's far too unreliable. They regularly push conspiracy theories and lies, often from the Trump administration, passing them off as truth. "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." (Doug Weller). -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - I see it as misleading, sensationalist clickbait. Atsme Talk 📧 01:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. No corrections page for example, and definitely no reputation for accuracy. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Adoring nanny: "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? X1\ (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, in light of your uncivil question to me in another thread on this page, I'll decline to elaborate. I am asking you to disengage from my vote. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. Unreliable source that peddles conspiracy theories. Autarch (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. As above - might as well formalize this, since there is no need to ever cite this. Neutralitytalk 01:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. I don’t think I need to elucidate the reason why per the other comments. There’s clearly a majority consensus emerging in favour of deprecation. We can’t allow shades of grey when a publication this unreliable spreads conspiracy theories and fake news. The amount of discretion required to determine whether anything from this source can even be referenced, let alone to what extent, is clearly an undue burden on editors, and likely to be an exercise in futility. Better to wash our hands of it, and not permit arguments to made based on such a ridiculously unreliable source. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Corrected. I tend to edit from a mobile device these days with a tiny screen, and autocorrect either modifies things to an incoherent degree, or adds some spectacularly horrible predictive text. Thank you for pointing this out. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you Symmachus Auxiliarus. I want to understand what you were saying. I make a disconcerting amount of writing errors. Hopefully I catch at least some of them. X1\ (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate: Clear-cut example of being nothing short of a hub for disinformation. ToThAc (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. In the red box of doom on the media bias chart. Guy (help!) 21:28, 13 November 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.

Discussion (The Gateway Pundit)

  • Is it actually being cited anywhere? A search finds only five uses in article space. Most of those should be replaced, but it's not exactly something pressing enough to require an RFC (with such a small number of cites, all of which look easy-to-replace, you can just replace them and open a discussion leading to an RFC if someone objects and you can't hash it out.) I'm not sure we need to bother with RFCs when it seems like virtually everyone agrees the source is unusable already (and are not using it.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say the important question is not how often is it used at this very moment, but the more difficult to answer, "How often do people try to use it inappropriately and how much time is wasted discussing it?" Deprecating a source can be a huge time saver, assuming there is consensus that the source is bad enough to be worth deprecating, and there is actually time to be saved. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hrm. A search for everywhere rather than just article content does turn up 86 uses (mostly talk.) Even then, though, it seems to be mostly new / inexperienced users bringing it up, and it's pretty clear that every time it comes up people are just like "no, you can't use that as a source." Most of the time they didn't seem to know WP:RS is a thing, so that conversation would still have to happen. --Aquillion (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There were some attempts to use it in 2016/17 before and after the election. Not so much now. It's possible these attempts could renew as we get closer to 2020. Volunteer Marek 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Aquillion is "Hrm" a reference to Ḥ-R-M? X1\ (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecating a source because it might be abused in the future is political censorship. It seeks to usurp editors' judgment generally to apply the WP:BIASED guidelines because a given source might be abused - but no significant amount of such abuse is evident. Using the RFC process to censor future edits to the encyclopedia by prior restraint needs to be examined in the light of WP:NOTCENSORED. --loupgarous (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Vfrickey: the only prediction we have is by using past evidence, so we go by a sources' "track record", and for this one it is not good. X1\ (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, the reason for that is User:JzG#Red box sources - I already replaced it wherever I found it, more than once probably. So the fact that there are cites now mean it's being added anew, and thus is probably a valid candidate for the filter. Guy (help!) 21:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October). — Newslinger talk 08:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Is planetbiometrics.com and findbiometrics.com RS?

Link search on enwp [7][8]. At my first glance, they appears to be unreliable as their traffic is too trivial according to some third-party statistics website[9][10]. But I think there is also possibility that they focus narrowly on a specific field without much public attention.--虹易 (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

rather unsure this [[11]] says they have an editorial team, and that they an industry publication (rather than a scientific journal, thus no need for peer review). But this [[12]] (its parent company) implies there may be neutrality issues over things like events. I would need to see some demonstration they are highly regarded, rathr then a glorified events brochure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Prize competition

I will offer a modest award to the oldest use of a spectacularly inappropriate source that was still live in Wikipedia when found. Mine first: Guy (help!) 17:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  1. 19:43, 27 April 2015 <ref>{{cite news |title=Mr. Churchill And The Aliens Bill |newspaper=The Times |date=Tuesday, 31 May 31 1904 |page=10 |url=https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t631031-8/}}<!-- lol, or something --></ref> Guy (help!) 17:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

CESNUR as a source for articles on New religious movements

The Journal of CESNUR is an open-access journal dedicated to the study of new religious movements. CESNUR has come up in a number of recent talk page (CESNUR) and deletion discussions (Eric Roux, Oleg_Maltsev).

Although it has previously been discussed at RSN, I'm not sure if there has been a general agreement on whether/how it can be used in articles. Could editors weigh in on:

  1. Is CESNUR an acceptable source for establishing the notability of an article on a new religious movement?
  2. Is CESNUR a reliable source for information on New Religious movements?

CESNUR's website is here. Nblund talk 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I am not confident in this source, but can't pput my finger on why. I am pretty sure it can't be used as a source of fact, but might be valid with attribution (however, I think it may well be UNDUE in many cases). Guy (help!) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • It's a junk source for cults and has been for decades, I wouldn't trust it an inch - David Gerard (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely not reliable for factual matters, but it's not even acceptable for notability given its troubling history of lobbying/promotion in exchange for expenses. Feoffer (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • CESNUR is definitely authoritative in the study of NRM. He may have a certain justifiable bias. On the other hand, anti-cultists are conducting completely rabid propaganda with scary tales about zombies, brainwashing and so on. Compared to them, CESNUR is not so bad. But, perhaps, critics will cite more authoritative sources that are engaged in the scientific study of NRM, and not the fight against them?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    Nicoljaus, I think that may go to the heart of it: it's an activist source masquerading as a dispassionate analysis. Guy (help!) 10:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    This does not seem to me to be generally accepted. Rather, activists on the other side usually say so. CESNUR seems to be sponsored by the Italian authorities. Why do they need an "activist source"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    COINTEL. --Jayron32 16:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    Conspiracy Theory (film)--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I searched for Swarajya magzine in archives or its reliability but cannot find either.

Should we consider swarajya magzine as a reliable source? This site is known for many fake articles and at many places this portal comes as contradictory with biased views. A couple of example of fake news are-

1)This

2)and this recent one

A good insight and comment regarding this would be useful. Edward Zigma (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Please note that, first of all, WP:NEWSORG sources are only considered reliable for "news", i.e., happenings that the reporters have experienced, witnessed or heard about. Opinion columns of any kind whatsoever are not included in that. We also consider news organisations to be very poor at historical information (even BBC News, e.g., see this edit). Only scholarly sources are good for that. Authentic historians are even better. Having said all that, we don't (yet) have a blanket ban on Swaraya. But we all know that it is a Hindu Right channel and we factor that in when analysing its information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

songmeaningsandfacts.com in Party Favor (song)

in Party Favor (song) songmeaningsandfacts.com is being used to source the statement that The song is formatted as a voicemail that Billie is leaving for a boy who has become possessive of her. It is an attempt at forcing him out of her life., specifically this is sourced to this page. Many "song meanign" sites depend on user-generated content, and it is not clear to me athat his site has sufficient editorial control. Moreove the page seems to confuse the events of the song with events in real life. Some songs are of course autobiographical, but this page doesn't say that it is, jsut seems to assume it. That decreases my sense of its reliability. Any opinions? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, doesn't even load for me, DNS failure. Seems unlikely to be RS. Guy (help!) 18:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Guy DNS failures usually mean a problem at one ISP or another on the path between the reder and the site, and have nothing to do with the site's reliability. At mot it may indicate that nthe site used a cheap ISP that has a lower uptime percentage than some. Anyone else have a view? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
DESiegel, We view the same facts a different way. I have multiple redundant DNS and any site that doesn't resolve is almost always hosted out of someone's garage (or, as in this case, on a high contention AWS instance), and therefore is unlikely to be RS. Wayback machine finds its website title is "Song Meanings and Facts Blog. It's a cheap WordPress site with no indication of reliability. And it's still down for me. Guy (help!) 22:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
delete I was able to access the site just now. No named editorial body; no named author for this particular piece; 'powered by WordPress'; I can't find any indication that this is any more reliable than a random blog. GirthSummit (blether) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

SPS again - readsludge.com

OK over at Talk:PragerU a doubt has been raised as to https://readsludge.com/ status as an RS, at least in part because of an accusation it is an SPS. We have had one debate about Sluge here already [[13]] which apparnelty (according to this [[14]]) came down against its use (not sure its that clear cut).

So is it an RS?

Is it an SPS?

Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I don’t think SPS applies. However, as it is less than two years old (founded in 2018), I don’t think we can call it RS. I am not saying that it is UNreliable... it simply has not been around long enough to gain ANY reputation, one way or the other. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like SPS to me. Not entirely sure. They seem to refer to the network they're participating in as A real network of decentralized self-publishers in this article, and they refer to their platform (called Civil) as utilizing innovative tools for true self-publishing in this article. On what basis do you say that they aren't SPS Blueboar? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it's SPS or not but it's very new, seems to have a very strong POV and no reputation for reliability. I would question its use on grounds of DUE more so than SPS. Springee (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I emailed them. David Moore, one of their contributors, responded. They have three reporters: Alex Kotch, David Moore, and Donald Shaw. Shaw is a co-founder of the site, and I believe that Kotch is the other co-founder, but I couldn't verify that. When one of the three writes a piece, one of the others (typically Shaw) fact-checks and edits the piece. It isn't clear to me whether this amounts to editorial control or fact checking in the sense we expect of RS, but it isn't straightforwardly self-published as I had feared. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

OSF

I have no idea what OSF [[15]] is beyond a host to "share your research". I cannot find any clear reference to peer review (or indeed any review) rather it seems to be a place to post user generated (allbut scientific) content. Thus I am not sure if this falls into SPS or if it can even really be considered an RS (as I am not sure who can even post "studies" there).Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, it's just an open hosting platform. See here where it is described as "COS has developed a variety of software tools, workflows and data storage solutions called OSF to help researchers manage, archive, discover and share research more openly." There's no vetting of information, it's just an open forum for sharing "research". By Wikipedia standards, it is not a reliable source by any measure. --Jayron32 15:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
SS, are you asking this in reference to the "A Supply and Demand Framework for YouTube Politics" paper discussed here [[16]]? As far as I can tell this is an unpublished academic paper and I'm not sure what to do with it. It covers the same area as the widely discussed Data and Society regarding influencers on Youtube [[17]]. The D&S was discussed widely in the media and in many Wikipedia articles it's discussed in a way that suggests it's a peer reviewed academic work vs the reality that it's self published. There is a related study which, like the Supply and Demand paper is from the academic space and appears to be unpublished but going through the process, "Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTube" [[18]]. As a group these papers, especially the first one, have received a lot of media coverage but so far none are peer reviewed. I'm really not sure how they should be handled, especially since the 3rd seems to contradict some of the most significant conclusions of the first. Basically (and don't take this as a precise summary) the first two largely suggest that some of the right wing YT personalities act as gateways that help, with algorithms suggesting other videos, to radicalize people towards the far right/alt right. Thus we have a number of cases where Wikipedia articles say something to the effect that "A study [article subject] was identified as a gateway to [alt-right]". The latest study suggest that such a pathway doesn't really happen. Regardless, it seems that we have very limited research in the area and we've added this content mostly based on how much press it's received vs the quality/quantity of the underlying research. I would be interested in the views of others as to how this would be best handled. Springee (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
In this specific instance yes, but I suspect this may well crop up again now it is out there. The last time something similar cropped up my point was "lets wait until it is published, just another (similar) host.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
There are two ways to handle unpublished papers: 1) If they are "unpublished but will be published soon", wait for them to be published before adding their information to Wikipedia. WP:TND, we can wait to get it right. 2) If they are "unpublished and will never be published" then we should ignore them as though they didn't exist. They have nothing useful as a source for us, so we don't write about what they say, we just don't use the information. Either way, for the time being, we don't use the source and don't report on what it says. --Jayron32 16:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that point and certainly we shouldn't directly cite an unpublished academic paper. But what about cases where the paper is discussed by new sources? The "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube" report was self published published by a research institute. So by the "not peer reviewed" standard we shouldn't include it. However, many news outlets discussed it. Now we have this Penn State paper which, presumably, is seeking publication but currently isn't. As before we have news sources discussing it. So do we talk about it because the media is talking about it or do we wait until it's published? If the latter why would we treat it differently than the Alternative Influence paper? And yet another follow on question, assuming the Penn State paper is published would we add it's questioning of the Alternative Influence paper's conclusions to articles?
I'll offer the PragerU article as a reason why this is coming up. The 7th (and longest) paragraph in the reception section [[19]] is about the Alternative Influence finding. To some extent that makes sense since many news outlets reported on it. However, if the research is contradicted by other research (let's assume the Penn State paper is published as is) then we have a peer reviewed source that says a self published source drew the wrong conclusions. It seems like a bit of a catch 22. Springee (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
No issue with using other RS that talk about it, that is what third party means.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
So to follow up on that, the Alt Influence article is prominent in the PragerU article. The Penn State research (as covered in Wired) says the basic theory is wrong but doesn't say, "The Alt Influence conclusions about PragerU are wrong." Should we remove the Alt Influence material as questionable based on more recent research? Alternatively, should the Alt Influence paragraph have material added noting that the fundamental premise has been questioned by other researchers per Wired's discussion of the pre-publication research. Would we instead wait until it's published and then say the Alt Influence material is questionable and remove it? This seems like a very gray area in part because it's so recent.
I'm trying to think how it would work if this were a more stable, less poltical topic. Consider if Wikipedia was around when minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic surgery) was first being proposed. When laparoscopic surgery was first proposed it was considered unethically dangerous. The concern was the limited dexterity of the tools and limited vision would result in unreasonable risk vs open surgery. So if we had a 1960s Wikipedia article on say Appendectomy might say that laparoscopic surgery is dangerously inappropriate here because of X,Y and Z. A later paper might not specifically mention Appendectomy but says the issue X,Y and Z aren't problems because... Thus the second paper isn't about Appendectomies but it relates because it questions the conclusions used in the article. That appears to be something like what we have now (assuming the Penn State paper is published). The first paper made a big splash but the second paper questions/refutes a foundation of the conclusion reached by the first. Anyway, this is rambling but I'm interested in the best way to handle this sort of situation. Springee (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a subject for another talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a question that can reasonably fit here (is the first source still reliable if the second disputes it) or at NPOVN (how do we handle conflicting, non peer reviewed reports that have been covered in the media). Springee (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven, it seems to me that the only way we should link this site is if the material has been published in a peer-reviewed journal and uploaded by someone who has the necessary rights to do so. That will almost certainly cover pretty much nothing other than pre-review versions of articles, as a secondary source to back up the published version, which may well contain corrections. Guy (help!) 13:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I think Wired linked to that address to provide a copy of the research. Normally I agree that we don't use this sort of paper until it's part peer review. However, what about cases where it's discussed in media? Also, we widely discussed a related paper that was self published (see my questions above). Springee (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Deprecated sources discussion on WP:AN

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#UK_newspaper_sources_and_how_to_handle_deprecated_sources? - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

TV news reporting vs news websites

When discussing the major news outlets, we often get to a point where someone draws a distinction between the “regular news” programming and the opinion/analysis programming. But how often do we actually cite what is broadcast on air? Seems to me that most of the contentious citations are to the various network WEBSITES and news APPs (especially the cable news websites and apps)... their PRINTED journalism, as opposed to their SPOKEN or IMAGE journalism. This is perhaps where we need to have a more focused discussion, because it is in that printed material where we really get into serious clickbait/spin territory (and they are all guilty of it). Am I on to something here? Please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would rather we did not cite off air because it may not always be available.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven, also there's a tendency to editorialise when citing video content. Not so bad with news because it tends to be scripted, but the whole "X did Y, source, video of X doing Y" always feels wrong. Guy (help!) 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Tend to (mostly) agree.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You think the print coverage is more problematic than their broadcast coverage? That's surprising. I would say personally, regardless of what policy might technically allow, we should generally never cite broadcast coverage at all. If the content is DUE, there is going to be a better source available, and if there isn't a better source available, then it probably isn't DUE. GMGtalk 18:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I do... especially news app coverage (which is essentially one big headline). CNN’s TV coverage is much better than CNN’s print coverage. Sure, both are inferior to say the coverage in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal... but That’s not what I am discussing. Blueboar (talk)
In general CNN’s print coverage is considered more reliable than their TV coverage... What gives you the impression that it isn’t? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just out of touch. I don't really know what you mean by "news app". GMGtalk 18:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you own a smart phone? Down load the Fox or CNN app (they are free)... if you do this, you will see what I mean. You get click bait headlines and cut down snippets of the latest news... and lots of ads. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't use an app, but the articles on CNN's or Fox's websites seem just like regular newspaper articles to me. Should the apps be treated differently than their websites? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Well that sounds hellish. But doesn't that have more to do with the presentation than it does the source itself? Presumably you can still access the full article. How would that really be different than Facebook or Reddit, where the presentation in "the feed" might be awful, but the story itself would be the same for anyone who clicked through? GMGtalk 19:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, ha! Yes. Apps generally have more or less the same content as the website. The big difference is between websites and any media that have a significant production cost - print or broadcast, basically. That's a big part of the Daily Mail problem. The website is full of churnalism and other crap that doesn't make it into print. Although quite a lot of what does make it into print is also churnalism and other crap, but mainly produced by people who are paid a bit more and given at least some hope of writing a proper story on the per-word budget. Guy (help!) 20:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
A what? François Robere (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
François Robere, A hand-held electronic device also capable of certain networked communications, m'lud. Guy (help!) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, one of those! I read something about them on the news. Looks fancy! François Robere (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I just downloaded the CNN (RSP entry) app for testing, and a spot check reveals that the articles in the app are identical to the ones on CNN's website. In my opinion, most news channels' websites tend to be more reliable than their TV broadcasts, because:
  • News broadcasts are limited to the durations of their time slots, which causes details to be excluded. Articles on news websites aren't restricted to this extent: articles that are too long simply get split into multi-page articles (which generate more ad revenue).
  • News channels have a limited number of time slots every day, and need to attract a high amount of attention in order to maximize ad revenue. This leads the channels to prioritize content that grabs the viewers' attention (i.e. the TV equivalent of clickbait), even if it isn't the highest-quality reporting. News websites have no limit on the amount of content they can publish, and there is plenty of room for high-quality journalism, even if they are presented alongside clickbait. Without a space constraint, websites can cater to a wider variety of audiences than TV broadcasts, instead of just the lowest common denominator.
  • Breaking news tends to be less reliable, and a large portion of news broadcasts is dedicated to breaking news. News websites publish more well-researched content. Also, news websites are updated with error corrections right on the article page, while TV broadcasts only correct their most egregious mistakes in future broadcasts.
In discussions on news channels, I get the impression that many editors are judging the reliablity of the channels based on their TV broadcasts. Since the vast majority of Wikipedia citations are to website articles, not videos of TV broadcasts, it would make more sense to evaluate news channels primarily on the quality of their websites. — Newslinger talk 12:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Liveleak

We have something over 300 citations to liveleak.com. Examples:

  • Ted Nugent At various times he has labeled Clinton a "worthless bitch","Liveleak.com - Ted Nugent Goes Off On Obama And Hillary!". Liveleak.com. Retrieved May 24, 2018.
  • 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting (external links under "raw audio"): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e91_1342808686&p=1 Aurora Fire Department raw audio
  • Improvised explosive device The bomber will conceal explosives on and around their person, commonly using a vest (or possibly a prosthetic "Liveleak.com - DHS Warns Of Pregnant Prosthetic Belly Bombings". www.liveleak.com.)

I doubt that any of these are appropriate. It seems to me that we should probably have this on a reference revert list, and remove most if not all these links. Guy (help!) 18:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I've always intuitively questioned the reliability of the copyright information at live leak. It's everywhere on free image/video searches but it still seems like a sketchy site, too sketchy for me to upload anything from it personally. GMGtalk 18:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    GreenMeansGo, agreed - quite a few of the ones I am reviewing are blatant copyright violations, and others are there mainly because they have been taken down from elsewhere (e.g. for racism), which seems like a pretty good reason for looking elsewhere for a source. Guy (help!) 20:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    I can see that it could possibly be useful as an external link to primary video in the case that the content couldn't be uploaded to YouTube. As understand it YouTube disallows pretty much all violence and nudity, where there are probably some cases for our purposes where that could be educationally useful. But those are probably exceptionally rare. Even then we'd have to be able to verify the copyright status re ELNEVER. Other than that, I'm not sure why we'd use it at all as a platform for sourcing. All the legitimate secondary outlets that produce educational video content seem to all use YouTube. GMGtalk 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    On a related note, per this it looks like it was originally posted by the author on YouTube and ripped off on LiveLeak. So ELNEVER. The second one is by a local Colorado government agency, and Colorado is not among the US states that releases the works of local governments into the public domain...so ELNEVER. The third...well...the video is gone, but if it is truly a video by DHS, then we should upload it on Commons and link to it there instead. The LiveLink site also appears to copy the CBS text verbatim, so we're back to ELNEVER. If this is representative of our links to LiveLeak, then we should just blacklist it as a serial copyright violator and be done with it. GMGtalk 22:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    GreenMeansGo, Quite a few have been removed even by LiveLeak, indicating copyright issues (the only thing on which they act, as far as I am aware, and then only in response to DMCA). I suspect you may be right. Guy (help!) 23:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • LiveLeak is at best a generally unreliable source, because it consists solely of user-generated content. As with YouTube (RSP entry), we generally don't cite an uploaded video unless we are confident that it's uploaded by a confirmed or verified account of an organization that we consider reliable, or unless the video itself is covered by independent reliable sources in a way that makes it a primary source. These cases are rare, and WP:COPYLINK still applies. — Newslinger talk 13:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Does WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday

This is a narrow question concerning policy. Does the automatic ban of WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday. On a policy board, that I was guided to, the consensus was that the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday were separate newspapers with separate editorial boards. And therefore, the blanket banning of WP:Dailymail did not apply.

Clarity on this issue is important, in order to have a fair and balanced discussion of the merits of material, which an editor wishes to change in an article. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • If the only source for contentious material is the Mail on Sunday, that would make me suspect that it shouldn't be in the article. The MoS isn't the Daily Mail, but it's heavily associated with it, and more importantly regardless of this association it's (a) still a gossip-laded tabloid and (b) has been known to fabricate stories itself [20]. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall no it is not, but I am not sure why.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The wording of the RFC closing statement [21] is a little ambiguous: "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist." This would on its surface appear to ban only the daily, and not the Mail on Sunday, except that the online version for the two newspapers share the same website. I don't see how this can be formally resolved without a new RFC. Meanwhile, I would ask Guest2625 once again to actively engage in the discussion s/he started on Talk:Jeffrey Epstein about the use of this specific source for the material it is being cited for. Even if there is no blanket ban on the use of the Mail on Sunday, I think it is abundantly clear that there is no consensus to use it for the material it is being cited for (which the source cited describes as "outrageous", and "rumour", concerning someone about whom "little is known"). 86.143.229.179 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It doesn't apply, for the simple reason (which is entirely adequate just of itself) that it hasn't been decided to apply. There was an RfC, it didn't cover the MoS. There is no "ban" of the DM, there is what's in WP:DAILYMAIL and nothing more.
As to whether this should apply, then that's another question. Maybe it should. But it should be noted, as for the even-worse Mail Online, that the editorship of the MoS is different and sees itself as superior to the Mail, with reportedly some significant internal strife between the two of them. Does that make the MoS good enough to use here? You'd have to run an RfC for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Avatar317 removing WP:ABOUTSELF material

1) Membership numbers: As I have said on my edit summaries for 40DfL, all organizations love to inflate their membership/rally attendance/marcher numbers to sound bigger than they are. Here's a good example: American College of Pediatricians - The group was founded in 2002 and claims to have over 500 members, although independent sources have previously reported that the group has between 60 and 200 members and one employee. WithOUT an independent source, claims like these are WP:PROMOTIONAL and don't belong in Wikipedia.
2) Any organization that promotes the same cause as 40DfL is not INDEPENDENT or NEUTRAL to 40DfL. Again, as I have said on my edit summaries, see: WP:IS. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Clearly NOT the case for the FloridaCatholic and ChristianBroadcastingNetwork when they report about 40DfL. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what a WP:RS is. Also you don't seem to grasp the meaning of "independent". Elizium23 (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
So, any Catholic source is a priori unreliable for any claim about abortion? What about Anglican sources? Presbyterian sources? The Salvation Army's position on abortion is debated, are they independent? Planned Parenthood, on their official website, makes claims about the number of clinics they operate and the number of medical affiliates they have. This is a WP:PROMOTIONAL claim, by your metrics, and should be removed from the article. Also, the sources cited on that article include such as Ellen Chesler's book "Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America". A pro-abortion source such as this is not "independent" by your metrics and is not reliable for its claims on abortion. What about media outlets with a pro-abortion stance? Surely they are not independent. Ms. Magazine comes to mind here. I'm curious what you think of these extensions of your policies. Elizium23 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The "any catholic source" issue aside, in the issue at hand, this is a lot more than just "catholic". The newspaper is an official publication of the Catholic Church, and the subject being written about is an official program of the Catholic Church. It also plainly reads like an advertisement or press release. It would be inappropriate to take any of the numbers from that article as anything more than what the Church claims to be true. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me - are you referring to 40 Days for Life, or something else? Nothing under discussion here is "an official program of the Catholic Church". Definitely not 40DFL, which is interfaith and non-denominational. There are Catholic leaders and Catholic endorsements involved, but it's fundamentally not a religious organization. So I'd humbly request that you rethink your accusations about independence of the sources. (Also the Catholic Church is... big. A newspaper in Florida is rather far removed from, say, a religious order centered in Switzerland, just to give a random example.) Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me - are you referring to the article published by Catholic officials in Florida that got its information by interviewing other Catholic officials in Florida, or something else? You also zoomed the issue of the tangible bias in the source, which is more than enough to make this editor doubt that any fact checking took place. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
40 Days for Life is based in Texas, not Florida. It does not identify as a Catholic organization, nor is it staffed by Catholic clergy or religious. The fact that Catholic officials in Florida participate in it means about as much as the fact that Catholic officials in Florida run Microsoft Windows 10. What is your point? Elizium23 (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
You've basically stated the most important point. Catholic Officials participate in the movement. Read the article you are using as a source. It is literally persuasive writing - it's an advertisement for the subject. If the Florida Catholic wrote an advertisement for Windows 10 based on interviews with Catholic Officials who were participating in a Microsoft launch event, I would object to that too. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations, nice straw man you have there!
It's taken me a while, but I finally realized you've veered way off from the OP I posited. Your position on Florida Catholic has very little to do with the points I raised, so why are you hammering on about these insignificant points? Elizium23 (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It's the example you used to illustrate the problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
No it isn't. What gave you that idea? Elizium23 (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It is literally the only diff you provided in your original post. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Someguy1221, have you looked at the article? It's vile. Endless self-serving / PR claims sourced to pages like "how to describe the benefits of membership". About half the content of that article needs to go as a matter of some urgency. Guy (help!) 20:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
JzG, no I haven't had a chance to yet. I basically stopped at the introduction and can't believe the conversation above went the way it did. If the whole article is more of the same, I will agree with you once I've gone over it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Someguy1221, There is huge resistance on talk to even acknowledge the problem. I think once the self-sourcing is removed we'll end up fighting over whether it's appropriate to include mission statements because they are in the press release that forms the source, and how many references to the same two or three books are appropriate. It's one of those articles that would be twice as good if it were half as long, IMO. Guy (help!) 11:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
An organization that is simply pro-Catholic or anti-abortion might be citeable under WP:BIASED, with in-line attribution making their bias clear; but such sources need to be used cautiously, and one with such a clear bias could never just be stated for flat unattributed statements of fact. Citing them for statements of fact or citing massive parts of the article to them one-sidedly is clearly not acceptable, even if that's a WP:NPOV issue rather than a WP:RS issue. Though, I'd also cut to the more serious point that I don't see how The Florida Catholic is an WP:RS anyway - do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I'm not seeing it. Just because an organization sets up something and calls it a newspaper doesn't make it an WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The Florida Catholic is a long-running (since 1939) regional religious newspaper with reported circulation of 138,000.[22] It merged with the bilingual Miami Voice (another established publication) in 1990. I've found their archives useful for Florida politics and history: you can see some past issues here and here. The current editorial staff are listed here. Cheers, gnu57 21:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Avatar317 that organisations cannot always be trusted to reliably report their membership. As with most things, reliable sources have ways to try and estimate a number. While RS may often just accept the figure they are provided by the organisation, good RS should assess whether the info they are being given is credibly and if they feel it may not be, either try to estimate it and report the discrepancy or at least make it clear they are only reporting what they were told and have reasons to doubt the credibility of the number. But the other thing to remember is that we don't just require reliable secondary sources for fun, but also because they help us assess significance and due weight. While membership numbers may seem a reasonably significant part of an organisation, ultimately if no RS felt it worth reporting, maybe it isn't actually that significant. Note that I have similar thoughts for stuff like Youtube viewership numbers or subscriber counts. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:ABOUTSELF is for minor and uncontested facts, not marketing claims. Membership numbers are a marketing claim. And certainly not for half the references in an entire article, as is the case here. Guy (help!) 19:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would tend to agree - WP:ABOUTSELF needs to be used cautiously. These claims are both largely self-serving and make up a large part of the article, which is a problem. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The article is bloated with trivia and outright promotion sourced to affiliated authors and publishers. There's a fine article hiding within, and the poorly sourced material should be cut out to highlight the significant facts and narratives. The good news is that this is a notable organization, so unlike some promotional articles, this one will survive in good shape after proper edits. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

NZZ as generally reliable

NZZ - add as a generally reliable source to the list per WP (especially for neutral, detailed reports on international affairs):

Neue The Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ; "New Journal of Zürich") is a Swiss, German-language daily newspaper, published by NZZ Mediengruppe in Zürich.[1] The paper was founded in 1780. It has a reputation as a high-quality newspaper and as the Swiss newspaper of record. The NZZ is known for its objectivity and detailed reports on international affairs.--Rgb128 (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It would probably only be worth adding explicitly if this was coming into question - is there a discussion where someone's claiming it's unreliable? - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
About as much as any other news rag.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
See for example DISK of NZZ or comment above with "news rag" from Slatersteven.--Rgb128 (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is my opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
If you are referring to WP:RSP, no it should not be added unless there have been at least a couple of major discussions contesting its reliability. RSP is not intended to be an exhaustive list of reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 12:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: NZZ

Which of the following best describes the reliability of NZZ (RSP entry)?

— --Rgb128 (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (NZZ)

  • Generally reliable, but I question the need to have the vote here? Is the reliability of NZZ being widely questioned? AFAICT, it is of similar reliability to any large city mainstream newspaper in the US or UK. --Jayron32 15:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (NZZ)

 --Rgb128 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Rgb128, and thanks for bringing up these three German-language sources. Historically, editors on this noticeboard reserve formal RfCs for the most controversial discussions. This includes sources that have been repeatedly discussed, sources for which broad restrictive measures (e.g. deprecation) are proposed, and sources for which new information contrasts with longstanding consensus (e.g. the Newsweek RfC). For less controversial discussions, it's usually best not to start a formal RfC on this noticeboard, since RfCs divert attention from other tasks. You may be interested in Rosguill's proposal on regional source surveys, which would evaluate underrepresented sources (including non-English sources) in an organized way. — Newslinger talk 12:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the background information on the historical use of this noticeboard reserve. I find the list in general a good idea and would like to conduct the formal RfC because of:
  • DE.WP is the second biggest/active Wikipedia
  • even in German speacking countries and Europe people fight/argue nowadays about the reputation of (established) media outlets
  • this RfC and the resulting listing could clarify/shorten a lot of this discussions & provide a guide which reputable sources to use for german speacking countries
Hope it is ok to run this RfC? --Rgb128 (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary RFC Has there been any serious question as to this paper's reliability? Please link relevant talk page discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Die Welt

Add Die Welt as a generally reliable source per WP.EN and WP.DE:Die Welt. --Rgb128 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

About as much as any other news rag.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Die Welt is at the lower end of the German quality press, but yes, for factual reporting it's generally reliable. FAZ and NZZ (above and below) are at least one rung better. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Stephan Schulz: Can you provide any evidence/source to substantiate your claim/statement "Die Welt is at the lower end of the German quality press"?--Rgb128 (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I would say "it is well-known", but there are actual studies (e.g. the one referenced in http://www.bankkaufmann.com/meldung-345098.html). I've requested the full text from the author, but even the abstract/press report mention FAZ, Süddeutsche, and Zeit as the top quality newspapers, and do not mention Welt. There are not that many other quality national newspapers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thnx for the link to an unknown blog (0 user/283 guests) talking about a survey in 2011 conducted by a college-man. Did any reputable source with a certain reach report on this survey? Are there maybe any other sources for your "this well known"? --Rgb128 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The "college-man" is now Professor for Media and Technology Management at the University of Cologne, and he earned his PhD on economic analyses of journalistic quality. I've linked to an arbitrary of the many outlets republishing the press release, as the full paper is not accessible online. It is based on a full published paper (https://elibrary.vahlen.de/10.15358/1613-0669-2011-2-22/die-journalistische-qualitaet-deutscher-tageszeitungen-ein-ranking-jahrgang-8-2011-heft-2). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I've got a copy of the paper from the author (via ResearchGate), and it lists Die Welt as the lowest of the second rank papers, below Frankfurter Rundschau and above Die Tageszeitung. TAZ is alone on the third rank, and the 4th rank papers include Bild and Neues Deutschland, which I don't think anyone would include as "quality press". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Die Welt

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Die Welt (RSP entry)?

 --Rgb128 (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Die Welt)

Discussion (Die Welt)

 --Rgb128 (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Unnecessary RFC Has there been any serious question as to this paper's reliability? Please link relevant talk page discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

FAZ

Add Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a generally reliable source per WP.EN and WP.DE:FAZ. --Rgb128 (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

About as much as any other news rag.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is out of process, but FAZ is indeed one of the more reliable German-language newspapers, comparable to the Wall Street Journal. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: FAZ

Which of the following best describes the reliability of FAZ (RSP entry)?

 --Rgb128 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Generally reliable, but I question the need to have the vote here? Is the reliability of FAZ being widely questioned? AFAICT, it is of similar reliability to any large city mainstream newspaper in the US or UK. --Jayron32 13:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary RFC Has there been any serious question as to this paper's reliability? Please link relevant talk page discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(My opinion) Forbes is an unreliable source.

The reason why forbes is an unreliable source, because WP:QUESTIONABLE states that sources that uses opinions as sources are unreliable. Forbes shouldn’t be a deprecated source, but there are more better sources than Forbes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneciaTaylor (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Where? I can find this "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This is already in WP:RSP - staff or print edition articles are considered RS, Forbes contributor blogs are only as good as any other self-published source - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal at WP:VPR

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#On the use of deprecated sources for a discussion on how to treat deprecated sources. Please make proposals at that location (not here), and comment on any existing proposals that others have made. --Jayron32 19:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

RealClear media

I'd like to understand the consensus re RealClear media, notably RealClearPolitics, which is used as a source on Lou Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's my understanding that this mixes content aggregated from other sources of varying reliability (e.g. WaPo, The Federalist and National Review), plus commentary from their own - right-leaning - staff. There ahve been examples of egregious error (e.g. [23], which repeats a false conservative talking point in respect of whistleblower reports).

I suspect this is a case where aggregated content should be cited from the original sources an original content would only really be usable in an WP:ABOUTSELF context, but I don't know. Guy (help!) 13:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi JzG, RCP does publish their own articles even though a majority of the frontpage is devoted to news aggregation. The article used on Lou Dobbs is one example of an article published by RCP. From what I can tell, the articles hosted on RCP are not copies of articles hosted elsewhere. All "outside content" is an external link and is not reproduced on RCP. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
User:JzG The commentary article as an opinion piece wouldn’t be used as a cite or as representative of the publication, but note that topic about what went on when is hardly clear. The RCP commentary included links to documents, including the IC IG language which explicitly is looking for first-hand information, and instructions at the time. The letter isn’t about the IC and isn’t first-hand info, yet proceeded on and then the form/instructions changed, and the commentary noted the changing rationales of the IC IG. (The fact-check article also notes it is that old form which was used in the August 12 complaint filing.). The fact-checked article has a different view - but then, the two are not using the same links, and neither is addressing the points of the other. I don’t think in any case you can get much about RCP overall based on one commentary which may have been above average versus one fact-checked article which may have been subpar for them, when the two don’t speak about each other or to the same points. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
If you actually follow through the sources, specifically the DNI statement on the handling of the whistleblower report, you'll notice that RCP either totally borked their reading of the document, or they are simply lying. Either way, the fact this is neither retracted nor corrected casts a poor light on the whole outlet. Even as a "commentary", if RCP allows debunked conspiracy theories to be given a voice on their site, that's not a good sign. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Someguy1221 umm, you seem to have mistaken the ICIG for the DNI. And likewise missed that this wasn’t RCP writing, plus missed that the commentary gave more facts with links. The only thing debunked here is the notion that fact-check gave the whole story. If RCP links to reasoned commentaries showing factual info, that’s not a bad thing. They do it more than DUE would, but then again WP has the problem that most WEIGHT is in various wild and false speculations, while RCP is just looking to interest readers with a mix from many POVs rather than doing some WP policy. That gets an eclectic mix - not as varied as digg.com but same pot-luck effect. The summaries from RCP themselves of polling etcetera seem accurate and factual. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


  • I’m not aware of the consensus mentioned. I agree RCP seems largely an aggregator, with various sources and topic areas outside politics such as Sports. The selection of topics, items, and sources seems eclectic. Where RCP is conveying factual data itself seems good, but linked items should be judged on their own credibility. There seems a mild right-lean in that selections are roughly bipartisan (or nonpartisan), which gives more prominence to small pubs and right-lean pubs than what external prominence is. publications than external prominence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective

Is this source a reliable source to support this edit?

"Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy is a bimonthly peer-reviewed academic journal. It was established in 1987 and is published by Routledge in collaboration with the Society for Social Studies of Science and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology. The journal has an online supplement, the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, which publishes critical replies to journal articles, book reviews, and article reviews, and hosts debates on social issues involving the production, organization and reception of knowledge." -- Social Epistemology (journal)


Note that there has been a strong dispute on a very similar topic at:

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Daily Stock Dish/DailyStockDish.com

Just a heads up on this, Daily Stock Dish has been popping up now for at least a few weeks as a Google News source.

Strangely all the articles appear to be copies of other published articles from a few weeks prior so everything is strangely reported weeks late. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Allsides.com a reliable source?

We use it in a number of articles[24] eg The Daily Telegraph's second paragraph in the lead says " Bias assessment platform Allsides classifies the paper as leaning right." But Media bias in the United States says "Allsides [1] ranks news sources from left to right wing from a US perspective using its own proprietary methods. [2] It does not claim accuracy. Its rankings of left or right are decided by popular vote." I've found this also[25]. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

We should find more analysis, but at a glance I'd say that we should refrain from using it, and always attribute it in a way that clearly separates it from Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Skimming the many discussions about it, they all seem to conclude it's unreliable. I agree with the other conclusion, that it's probably never due mention. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

How to differentiate between two sources

Are "FORBES" and "FORBES MEDIA" website same or different? I checked about both on wikipedia Reliable sources noticeboard but I only found the name of "FORBES" in reliability section. Then what about "FORBES MEDIA", is that not reliable? Please anyone make this difference clear because I want to update net worth of different people. Thanks (223.230.170.254 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC))

Forbes Media LLC is the official name of the company itself, and it operates multiple outlets. The website Forbes.com is the generally unreliable one, though depends on the author if it's a contributor piece, though I think you can still find legit magazine articles there. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Should SERSC and IJCSI sources be cited at Talk:White-box_testing#Predatory_publishing?

Requesting a third opinion here. The first is a publisher, the second a journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Still needed btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Still needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Commented there. Nemo 12:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Canada Student Employment Guide

Source: The Canada Student Employment Guide (8th ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Student Employment Network. 2002. pp. 134–5. ISBN 1-896324-40-1 – via Internet Archive.

  • Article: Centra Gas Manitoba
  • Used to support: General info about the company
  • Concern: Appears that info is out of date. Indicates that Centra Gas Manitoba remained owned by Westcoast Energy at time of publication in 2002, when it was sold to Manitoba Hydro in 1999. The issue here is about the time at which the info has been updated. There is no information on when pieces of info the text have been updated, and this example suggests that info can be a couple of years out of date at the time of publication. This is likely true of all editions of the book.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

How to fix an incorrect editing tag?

The "use of deprecated sources" tag on Recent Changes is not quite right. It's picking up dailymail.co.uk (good - it's deprecated), it's picking up liveleak.com (not good - it's dubious, but not deprecated as such) and it's not picking up thesun.co.uk (bad - it's deprecated).

I can't see how to check what it's picking up, or how to edit it. Is this literally a MediaWiki code change to fix? (I asked on Wikipedia talk:Tags, but got no answer.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Edit filter. Looks like it's Filter 869, to be specific. Requesting a change to the filter can be done at the Edit filter/Requested noticeboard. AddWittyNameHere 01:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
David Gerard, I added liveleak based on discussion above. Actually it should just be blacklisted. Guy (help!) 12:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Help cleaning up 'remainder' of predatory journals cited on Wikipedia

I have gone through User:JzG/Predatory and purged just about every predatory source from Wikipedia in the past 5-7 days. However, a handful of sources were cited so often that doing this all alone would be nearly impossible. There following is what 'remains' to be tackled.

done

Help would be greatly appreciated in cleaning those instances. Note that in some cases, these citations are appropriate (e.g. In biographies, where so and so served on the editorial board of a certain journal). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If you mean we're citing predatory journals to say that people have served on their editorial boards, we absolutely should not, as predatory journals are notorious for falsely claiming that prestigious academics are on their boards. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Just saying that a scalpel approach on biographies might be warranted, because many of those academics will indeed serve on the editorial board of those journals and even publish in them. This is particular true of Indian and Pakistani scholars. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The question is whether we can believe the journal's own claims that those people are serving on their editorial boards. If we have independent confirmation, then use the independent source as the source. If we don't have independent confirmation, then we can't trust it, and shouldn't cite it. Either way such a citation is unneeded, and we shouldn't cite the unreliable source. --Jayron32 13:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That mostly depends on the publisher and just exactly how dodgy they are. OMICS Publishing Group would be a no. Frontiers Media would be a yes. It's a spectrum. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm really not sure I'd trust Frontiers enough to extend them a particular get-out on this one. I have qualms about "well, that probably isn't nonsense" as a criterion for allowing them in - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Frontiers is crap for a variety of reasons, but they never made up editors out of nowhere the way OMICS did AFAIK. Like I said, it's a spectrum. That said, let's get back to the important things, cleaning up articles. The above selection of journals and publishers is really bottom of the barrel stuff though, so nothing much will be lost even if it'll sometimes be true that these people sit on the boards of dodgy journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I will concede Frontiers isn't as bad as them, and that their badness is on a higher and more subtle plain - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb, agree, Frontiers is a hard fail for medical articles per WP:MEDRS but a borderline case elsewhere. Guy (help!) 11:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32, I think that is the correct approach. We don't include any connection with a predatory journal unless covered in a third-party RS. Guy (help!) 11:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
In clear cases, yes. However, in some cases, it's trickier. For example a journal which was fine until acquired by a predatory publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb, sure, and there we probably ought to clarify Guy (help!) 12:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
JzG here's an example of a cornercase that a needs a bit more brain than just mindless removals: Serhiy_Kozmenko. Sits on editorial boards of journals from businessperspectives.org, which is listed on Beall's list, but indexed in Scopus. Or articles related to Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology, which landed on Beall's list as well. Or Multidimensional empirical mode decomposition, which gives credit to an image (which could probably be transferred to the image documentation, but the image itself could also be problematic). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

BBC on some pro-MEK politicians getting paid by the group

Is this BBC article, considered reliable source for this edit? Essentially, am I to believe some American politicians are getting paid by People's Mujahedin of Iran.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bad URL here and on the Wikipedia page cited. The correct URL appears to be [ https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17615065 ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The part that appears to support the claim is:
"In the US in particular, an impressive array of public figures have spoken in defence of the MEK."
"There are more than 30 big names - people like Rudy Giuliani former mayor of New York, Howard Dean at one time the democratic presidential hopeful, a retired governor, a former head of the FBI."
"Many get paid. Of those who have declared their earnings, the going rate for a pro-MEK speech seems to be $20,000 (£12,500) for 10 minutes. But then many other prominent MEK supporters act without payment." --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
So, is it a reliable source? That's a pretty serious accusation. Do any other sources support the claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I found two other sources (independent.co.uk and the guardian) that explicitly state MEK paying former American politicians:

the MEK continues to pay former U.S. officials for their time

the MeK, which operates under a set of front groups, writes very large cheques to those speaking at their events. Estimates are in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 per speech. Bolton is estimated to have received upwards of $180,000 to speak at multiple events for MeK. His recent financial disclosure shows that he was paid $40,000 for one speech at an MeK event last year.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazemita1 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Massimo Introvigne and CESNUR

Generally unreliable, closing due to sockpuppetry and lack of credible cause to revisit the standing consensus. Guy (help!) 00:56, 7 December 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.

A user called Feoffer is going around Wikipedia and eliminating all references to articles by Massimo Introvigne and works published by CESNUR. He also claims I have a conflict of interest with respect to Introvigne and CESNUR. I deny this, but this is immaterial for the present discussion.

Feoffer is eliminating references to material written by Introvigne or published by CESNUR included by editors other than me as well.

He has quoted sources dating back to the “cult wars” describing Introvigne and CESNUR as defenders of “cults.” From this he derives the idea that everything past present or future written by Introvigne or other CESNUR scholars should disappear from Wikipedia.

I may agree that some pieces written during the cult controversies of the 1990s may be polemical rather than scholarly and that as for all authors, the quality of hundreds is articles and dozens of books by Introvigne is uneven. However, Feoffer’s actions are eliminating valid information on a massive scale. Eg he has eliminated here [26] a reference to an article by Introvigne in a primary Portuguese academic journal. Here [27] he has eliminated a reference to a CESNUR research project co-managed by University of Turin and published by the leading Italian academic press. And so on ad nauseam. Presumably he eliminated articles he didn’t even read.

I do not claim that every word Introvigne wrote or CESNUR published is RS. But a lot is. In the conclusions of the standard textbook on the history of the scholarly study of new religious movements, American academic W. Michael Ashcraft, not affiliated with CESNUR that I know of, writes that “the largest outlet currently supporting research on NRMs is the Center for Studies on New Religions...the CESNUR website is a cornucopia of information on hundreds of NRMs.” Professor Ashcraft also calls Introvigne “one of the most influential scholars on NRM studies today” due to his “endless capacity to produce quality scholarship” (W. Michael Ashcraft, “ A Historical Introduction to the Study of New Religious Movements,” London: Routledge 2018, 236 - the page is accessible through Google Books; for an example of reviews hailing Ashcraft’s as an authoritative book see [28]).

Another example of how Introvigne is assessed by scholars in the 21st century is Professor Per Faxneld’s review of his massive book on Satanism in the book review journal of the American Academy of Religion at [29]. Introvigne is described as “among the founding fathers of the field of Satanism studies. Introvigne is not only that, of course, but also one of the major names in the study of new religions in general.”

Introvigne’s book “The Plymouth Brethren” has been published by Oxford University Press in 2018 and again favorably reviewed (eg in [30] where Introvigne is defined as “widely known for his work on new religious movements and as the managing director of the influential Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR).” I can go on and on with quotes from academics but it is obvious that Introvigne and CESNUR are considered in general as RS (and one of the leading ones) in the academic community.

Feoffer has also eliminated all quotes from Bitter Winter, a bulletin on religion in China edited by Introvigne, as not RS. Interestingly, the US State Department’s last yearly report on religious liberty in its section on China quotes Bitter Winter 15 times. See [31]. It is obviously a RS for the US State Department. It is also often mentioned by mainline media.

Worse, Feoffer eliminated everything scholars published in “The Journal of CESNUR.” While as for any journal some articles are better than others, it is not yet indexed only because it started publication recently but its founders who formed its first board are well-known scholars [32] including Eileen Barker, Antoine Faivre and J. Gordon Melton. Feoffer has cancelled articles by university professors just because they were published by CESNUR. I do not want to argue about motivations but clearly this behavior should be stopped, and the fact that, possibly with the exception of some early pieces of controversy, CESNUR and Introvigne are RS in their field. Aidayoung (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

One question, who edits and writes CESNUR?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

CESNUR is an association. Articles both in its Web site [33] and its scholarly journal [34] are signed by their authors (with few exceptions). I understand a Board of Editors assume responsibility for their revision [35]. As mentioned here, some of this Board's members such as Eileen Barker and Antoine Faivre are regarded as very senior in their fields. A list of the journal's articles with their authors appear at [36]. Not all authors are tenured or associate university professors but many are, including J. Gordon Melton. James T. Richardson, Susan J. Palmer, Bernadette Rigal-Cellard, Boris Falikov, Luigi Berzano, Liselotte Frisk, Holly Folk, and several others.Aidayoung (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine. Doesn't seem much different than having as RS anything published by the Vatican or COE or any other religious org. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if I see it as fine, but I am not getting and SPS vibe, so usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
So here are two issues (i) Introvigne in bona fide books and scholarly articles and (ii) CESNUR itself and its publications. These issues are separate: Brill and OUP can be trusted as reliable, while CESNUR's own publication could be seen as WP:SPS/advocacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
CESNUR is cult apologetics, and should be treated as an advocacy source for such - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


Three points:

  • Going back over a decade or more, Wikipedians have held that CESNUR is not considered a Reliable Source; this discussion was just held last week, after all.
  • Additionally, Wikipedia has been beset by a promotion campaign of sockpuppet accounts widely inserting CESNUR material. I personally only learned about CESNUR after its material was widely inserted by a now-indefblocked sockpuppeteer Iamsnag12. Because CESNUR's advocacy material uses an academic writing style, another user had to inform me of the existing precedent held CESNUR does not have the trust of the community.
  • Finally, it bears mentioning that Aidayoung has been widely accused of a conflict interest with regards to CESNUR and may be a paid advocate engaged in promoting that group onwiki. Feoffer (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I hoped we were past name-calling. As I suggested elsewhere (sorry for repeating), your claim that CESNUR is not RS confuses different possible meanings of CESNUr. perhaps there is some confusion about what CESNUR means here. CESNUR may mean in fact different sources - perhaps this distinction may help us to come to an agreement.

1. An old discussion in Wikipedia referred to polemical articles published by CESNUR (mostly criticizing Stephen Kent) during the “cult wars.” Several users disputed that these articles were RS although a proper consensus was perhaps not really reached. This discussion referred to articles published in CESNUR’s Web site at cesnur.org, which appears to be a repository of very different material, some speeches given in CESNUR conferences and some simple updates and notes. I would agree that texts published there should be examined on a case by case basis. Some date back to more than twenty years ago and some are recent. Some are rough drafts of speeches given at conferences, some occasional notes, etc.

2. Recent, inconclusive discussions concern The Journal of CESNUR. It is a novel journal, which started its publication in 2017. It is not or perhaps not yet indexed and does not carry the authority of indexed journals. Waiting for possible indexing, it appears to me that eliminating all articles published there is abusive. The Journal has a peer review policy [37]. You can declare that anything coming from CESNUR is suspicious but I doubt the founders of the Journal, most of whom are quite well-known scholars [38] would risk their reputation by declaring peer reviewed something that isn’t. I can agree with you that some articles were worse than others but this happen with all journals, including the most famous ones. At any rate The Journal of CESNUR is a new journal, its board is different from CESNUR’s board, and any criticism referred to the CESNUR Web site (the more so to articles published ten or even twenty years ago) cannot apply to it automatically. As mentioned in the Eastern Lightning talk page, you eg deleted all references to articles by Professor Holly Folk, a credentialed academic, only because they were published in The Journal of CESNUR.

3. In 2018, CESNUR started publishing Bitter Winter. Again, apart from Introvigne, contributors to Bitter Winter (mostly Chinese) are different from contributors to the CESNUR Web site. As mentioning earlier, the U.S. Department of State considered Bitter Winter a RS on China and quoted it 15 times in its latest report on religious liberty in China [39]. I can go on and quote several mainline media using Bitter Winter as RS but do not want to be too long. You have eliminated many references to Bitter Winter articles just because they came from Bitter Winter. Again, comments on texts that appeared on CESNUR’s web site many years ago cannot automatically extend to Bitter Winter. Interestingly, you deleted all references to Bitter Winter, Introvigne and other CESNUR scholars in the Eastern Lightning article. I just came across a report by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, a government agency, at [40] on Eastern Lightning. While it duly notes that corroborating information could not be found due to the fact that many primary sources are inaccessible, you will note that the Board, looking for expert on Eastern Lightning sought the assistance of the “ Director, Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR)” - obviously Introvigne - and other scholars explicitly mentioned as associated with CESNUR. Here, we have authors considered as RS by a government on a very obscure and difficult matter but eliminated by you from Wikipedia as not RS just because of where they publish their articles.

4. Finally, “CESNUR” may mean the directors and board members of CESNUR, including its co-founder Massimo Introvigne. You have eliminated a number of texts by Massimo Introvigne claiming there is a consensus that everything he wrote or writes is not RS. There is no such a consensus, although I may agree that among a large number of articles some may be of lower quality. Also, scholars and organizations evolve and Introvigne has written its most acclaimed books in English in the last 4-5 years. You have cancelled references to texts by Massimo Introvigne en masse, even not published by CESNUR, including some published by undoubtedly peer-reviewed presses and indexed journals. The problem here is that the academic community may be divided on issues such as “cults” or Scientology, but a book reviewed as a crucial reference for the history of the study of new religious movements assesses Introvigne as “one of the most influential scholars on NRM studies today” due to his “endless capacity to produce quality scholarship,” as mentioned before, and other academics I have quoted agree. Not only RS but according to these scholarly sources, one of the most authoritative RS in his field! I believe that this is not necessarily contradicting the early negative judgement by Professor Kent, as they may refer to different works. Kent and Introvigne were barking a lot at each other back then, but the other sources I quote are assessing Introvigne as the mature scholar he is now, with two books published by leading academic publishers in English in his bibliography, not the “young Turk” described by Kent almost twenty years ago.

5. You have also cancelled several texts published in the encyclopedia World Religions and Spirituality Project, apparently because you and some other editors concluded that an article published by this encyclopedia by Introvigne on Oleg Maltsev was not reliable. I do not want to revisit that specific controversy. It may well be that some articles in WRSP are worse than others (or that Introvigne is so busy that as all “influential scholars” do he may sign texts written by research assistants), but if you look at the index of WRSP you will see that it includes several hundred entries, mostly by tenured professors, most of them without any relations with CESNUR. You have eliminated several articles by WRSP without the analysis you at least made for the Maltsev article, meaning that just because you found one article there you judged of inferior quality (among hundreds) you have decided that the whole huge encyclopedia is not a RS.

I and others here do not dispute that some texts written by Introvigne or his CESNUR colleagues are of lower quality and hence not RS. But given the current prevailing assessment of Introvigne in the academic community studying new religions as “one of the most influential scholars” in this field, solid reasons should be given before eliminating references to his texts, the more so when they are published in peer-reviewed journals and presses.

I hope this matter may be solved amicably but should invite Feoffer to revisit the edits he made and revert those where the only reason he cancelled valuable information was a connection to Introvigne, CESNUR, The Journal of CESNUR or Bitter Winter. Aidayoung (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The journal of CESNUR seems to be an RS. Of course, it should be, as for every source, used by knowing that most of the writers may be sympathetic to the movements they study. But actually this is the case for many sources. If you look for a source on Bonaparte, you will find very reliable sources written by scholars who are sympathetic to Bonaparte. Once you know it, you can balance sometimes with other sources. But the Journal of CESNUR has renowned scholars in its editorial board, as well as in the bunch of scholars who publish in it. Moreover, I did not see any RS which would account for the strong accusations against the Journal of CESNUR made by those who take away any mention of it in WP. Le Luxembourgeois (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 6 December 2019‎

Bias or agenda pushing its not one of our no's. Does it have a reputation for fact checking, is it an SPS. Those are the only two things that should concearn us.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

For future reference, note that that Aidayoung and Le luxembourgeois have been blocked for sock puppetry and for tendentious editing in promotion of Introvigne and CESNUR. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 6 December 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.

Is AccountingCoach a reliable source? Alternatives?

Hi All,

I tried to update the "Payroll" Wikipedia Page's "Net Pay" section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll). I was going to use AccountingCoach as a source, but it was flagged as unreliable (https://www.accountingcoach.com/terms/N/net-pay). Would Investopedia (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/take-home-pay.asp) be a better alternative? Thank you! New to the Wikipedia community and want to be sure I know how to properly cite reliable sources in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelwriting (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rachelwriting, the main issue with AccountingCoach is that it's written by one author, which makes it a self-published source. The "About the Author" footer on AccountingCoach's about page (and all of its other pages) states that Harold Averkamp "is the sole author of all the materials on AccountingCoach.com". To be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, the source generally needs to have an editorial process by which its published writings are reviewed by a separate editor. Investopedia (RSP entry) is a more reliable source, since it has an editorial team of 5 people and strong editorial standards. However, Investopedia is a tertiary source, and if you could find a reliable secondary source, that would be even better. — Newslinger talk 07:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you so much for getting back to me! Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelwriting (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Sharyl Attkisson

There is an RfC at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson § RfC on self-sourcing, an issue previously discussed here. Guy (help!) 09:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hotair and thepostmillennial

Out of the three citations, this diff removed thepostmillennial citing "non-WP:RS". But as far as I understand, neither hotair nor thepostmillennail is explicitly verified to be WP:RS (I checked this list). What am I misunderstanding (in regards to policy)? Also, I never heard of hotair; so if we are removing one reference shouldn't it be hotair (which sees much less notable than others)? (Please ping me when replying) —Srid🍁 20:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment: this article is a spectacular example of the problem with allowing "Criticism" and "Controversy" sections to grow unchecked and out-of-control. It's not an encyclopedic discussion and distillation of the special, more a compendium of just about everything anyone has ever said about it somewhere on the Internets, either positive or negative. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, Aye. For this we have Wikiquote, which is a genuinely superb repository of every turd ever shat. Guy (help!) 21:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
In this particlar case I'm also skeptical of the several reviewers speculated thing, which in this case was used to cite several highly partisan, low-quality outlets without revealing who they were with in-line cites (the other source is the Washington Examiner, which is likewise a heavily-partisan outlet.) I think that while WP:RS could in theory allow those sources to be cited with in-line citations if their bias was made clear, there would be WP:DUE issues - but citing them behind a vague "several sources" summary goes against the idea that WP:BIASED sources needs their biases made clear, and is at least a little bit WP:SYNTHy. It's something better cited to a reliable secondary source we can cite for statements of fact, summarizing coverage, rather than by using a bunch of opinion-pieces. And when no secondary coverage has summarized the opinion like that, it's probably not so relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is the only detailed coverage I could find of it, which describes it as [blurring the] line between journalism and conservative 'pamphleteering', notes that their investigation found poor transparency around its political ties — for one thing, many of its writers have openly campaigned for conservative politicians, and that, while it has an ethics policy, The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. At the end they quote a professor of journalism they contacted for the story, who says "They claim to be journalists, but they mostly aggregate stuff from other sources and then do op-eds on it," said Conter. "They're perfectly within their rights to be publishing what they're doing, of course. But I would say it's less journalism and more pamphleteering." This does not support the idea that they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires (the plagiarized journalistic ethics statement is particularly alarming.) Reliability is contextual to an extent, but this is not the sort of source we should be citing when we have alternatives, or for opinions without an in-line citation. And, of course, WP:RS/P is not an exhaustive list of non-WP:RS sources (such a list wouldn't be feasible to create in the first place.) I didn't notice that the remaining cite was Hot Air (which is, yes, scarcely better) or I would have removed the cited text entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Now that I look closer, that entire section has sourcing problems. We were citing Rotten Tomato user scores directly (which I believe WP:USERGENERATED prohibits); even the IMDB score only cites Newsweek as the secondary source. Other sources include "Legal Insurrection" (a blog) and Tim pool's show (self-published) alleging obviously WP:EXCEPTIONAL / WP:FRINGE claims of tampering, and 'reviews' cited to a Medium post, several more blogs, a twitter post, and numerous partisan outlets (often with no in-line citations making their bias clear.) I'll remove the worst of it, but it probably needs a closer eye. --Aquillion (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, since it came up, this edit added this opinion piece as a secondary source for the Rotten Tomatoes user score. I don't think we can use an opinion piece for a statement of fact; we could present the interpretation that that Rotten Tomatoes user score is accurate and represents universal acclaim as that person's opinion, but we can't use it to justify presenting that as factual that way. It'd be a better source for opinion than some stuff currently in that section, mind you; but we can't use it to say "this show was beloved by viewers" as a statement of fact --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
While that is generally the policy, in this specific context I'd argue otherwise. See the section below. —Srid🍁 17:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Both of these sources probably should be dropped from the article as WP:UNDUE. In general: Hotair is bad, but (as Aquillion's link illustrates)the Post Millennial is absolutely radioactive, especially for BLP issues. Several or their recent articles on Zoe Quinn looked like lightly-edited transcripts of Reddit threads. I've been trying to periodically do a linksearch to eliminate any citations of it on Wikipedia, and others might consider doing the same. Nblund talk 16:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not every bad source is a perennial source But if people keep trying to put that racist claptrap spam site the Postmillenial up as a source, we may need to add it to the list. It's not reliable in any way, shape or form, let alone for BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support proposer's edit reversion and Comment While The Post Millennial 's editorial review processes are unclear, I am also not in favour of relying, exclusively, on an explicit list of reliable sources. In an edit dispute, it should be taken to the applicable talk page or peer review should be engaged to evaluate a given source in a context-specific situation. In short, there can be good reasons for using non-explicitly mentioned reliable sources. Because of my reason, I would oppose including The Post Millennial for now, without prejudice to considering it in the future when they further delineate their editorial review processes. -DM

FN P90

Seeking a review of this addition of "sources" by Icemachine79. One is to a Youtube video of copyrighted material and the other attempts to cite a particular episode as if it is a source for the claim of usage...i.e a movie prop that you see is supposed to be a source. See the talk page thread as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Three sources in the Sireethorn Leearamwat article

Are conandaily.com, a Dân Việt article hosted on msn.com, and genpi.co reliable for supporting the listing of the subject's occupation as a "model" (or for supporting any factual information at all)?

These references[1][2][3] were identified by User:Migsmigss to support the statement in the Sireethorn Leearamwat article that the subject is a model. This has been objected to by User:Evrdkmkm, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet, but I agree with the objection and think it still stands. The mention of "model" in these sources (as far as I could determine, since two are not in English) is offhand, without any substantiation, and all of them seem to be derivative articles based on second-hand reporting from elsewhere. No other reliable news sources (e.g. Khaosod English) make any mention of a modelling career, and in fact make a point of explicitly discussing her being a pharmacist. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this concern, Paul_012, and for the tag. Also tagging BabbaQ.

Looking forward to this getting resolved, so we could get more informed procedure with sourcing/referencing in the future, as well as a more enlightened citation of sources not just on similar articles, but in general. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Altatis, Conan (12 November 2019). "Thailand's Sireethorn Leearamwat crowned Miss International 2019 by Venezuela's Mariem Velazco in Tokyo, Japan". CONAN Daily.
  2. ^ "Nhan sắc quyến rũ của người đẹp Thái Lan đầu tiên đăng quang Hoa hậu Quốc tế 2019". www.msn.com. Retrieved 2019-11-13.
  3. ^ "GenPI.co". GenPI.co (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2019-11-13.

Working paper submitted to the Independent Institute for Casting couch article

Is "Conflicts of Interest in the Hollywood Film Industry: Coming to America - Tales from the Casting Couch, Gross and Net, in a Risky Business", a working paper by Thomas Borcherding and Darren Filson submitted to the Independent Institute think tank in 2000, a reliable source for the Casting couch article? — Newslinger talk 02:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The published version is at {{cite book |author1=Thomas E. Borcherding |author2=Darren Filson |editor=Michael Davis; Andrew Stark |title=Conflict of Interest in the Professions |date=2001 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-512863-5 |pages=249–276 |chapter=Conflicts of Interest in the Hollywood Film Industry: Coming to America - Tales from the Casting Couch, Gross and Net, in a Risky Business}}. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, StarryGrandma! Oxford University Press is very reputable, so the published version looks reliable to me. — Newslinger talk 06:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Citing an unpublished freedom of information request

For the BLP Víctor Manuel Vázquez Mireles, there have been no public updates on him since 2013 but MX has an unpublished freedom of information request from the Mexican government giving more details. Is this a reliable source if attributed? And how would you cite such information, {{cite report}} or similar? Thanks! Fiamh (talk, contribs) 21:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is it being accessed from?Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@MX: Any chance of getting the FoI put on WikiSource? Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes audience score

Per WP:USERGENERATED Rotten Tomatoes' audience score cannot be used. So I added an article from Financial Times's Opinion section[41]. That was removed[42] (by User:Aquillion, FWIW) stating "That's another opinion piece, and we can't cite an opinion piece for statements of fact.". Is this source in fact unsuitable to cite audience score, just because it is in the opinion section of FT? (Please ping when responding) —Srid🍁 16:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I found another from CNBC[43] which states "viewers gave it a 99% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. ". —Srid🍁 17:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
But the source is ultimately still usergenerated content even if it is being quoted elsewhere. IIRC I think the main concern with Rottentomatoes is that the audience scores for controversial films are vulnerable to being manipulated. I'm not sure that just being cited elsewhere solves that problem. Nblund talk 17:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
So if I understand you correctly (and I re-read WP:USERGENERATED just to be sure), we never mention RT audience score ever in Wikipedia? —Srid🍁 18:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Correct. It’s not a reputable metric in any circumstance. User-generated scores aren’t reliable sources. Scientific polling like PostTrak or CinemaScore are, however. Toa Nidhiki05 21:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Sridc, I'd say you are correct. Tomatometer is fine though. Guy (help!) 19:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source for what critics thought. The user-generated parts should not be used. Removing it in this edit is wrong, because this part is not user-generated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Rotten Tomatoes is a usually reliable aggregator of the published opinions of professional movie critics, and that is encyclopedic information. On the other hand, user generated opinions by random ticket buyers expressed on Rotten Tomatoes are no more reliable than somebody shooting their mouth off on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram. In other words, not worthy of mention in an encylopedia, even if mentioned in another source. The potential for manipulation and gaming the system is very real. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
They're not even necessarily ticket buyers – anyone can leave a comment in the user-generated parts of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. This is addressed in MOS:FILM#Audience response, which discusses the potential for brigading. The MOS reccomends using companies like PostTrak and CinemaScore instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
User-generated scores are okay to use only if they are the subject of RSes: for example, that The Shawshank Redemption has been the #1 film on IMDB for the longest time is well documented in RSes. The entire review bomb article exists because RSes have noticed users negatively reviewing things to express outrage/etc. But key is the RSes that note that, at which point the question becomes one of UNDUE. Thus one has to consider in this case that we have an RS but also an opinion piece, so the question is whether this opinion is sufficient enough to include (FT is usually an RS, its that it is an opinion that begs the question). --Masem (t) 19:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
User-generated scores should only be cited in the very limited case of discussions of gaming the system where review bombing is specifically discussed, or similar situations. They should NEVER be cited in cases where the review is presented uncritically, even when the score itself is being cited to another source that used it. The laziness of other sources is not a reason for us to be lazy as well. We would not accept, as a source, a news article that uncritically took something like Wikia/FANDOM articles or IMDB user comments as reliable either. --Jayron32 17:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RTHK for List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests

Sorry for another discussion regarding source usage for the Hong Kong protests. But do these two RTHK articles support that anti-government and pro-government protesters hurled bricks at each other and injured a 70-year-old bystander? Cleaner, 70, dies after being hit by brick and Two fight for lives after day of violence]. Thanks. feminist (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong, Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard, Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. — Newslinger talk 11:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Usable seems unbiased coverage on this issue Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable – RTHK and HKFP are both reliable English-language Hong Kong media sources that I have referred to for many years. Citobun (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable and stop using RSN to remove source that against your POV. RTHK is only source that interviewed both police and protester. Yes sometimes they made mistake such as their documentary on "2019 Prince Edward station attack". Matthew hk (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, my position is that RTHK (and these two particular articles) is reliable for this statement. feminist (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct action when someone persistently adds back a deprecated source?

In this case it's the Daily Caller (on Boyfriend Loophole, see also Talk:Boyfriend Loophole), but what's the most appropriate action in the general case? (This is not intended as a user report, I'd be at WP:ANI if it were.) - David Gerard (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • In the general case, I'd say that the correct action is to escalate the dispute to this noticeboard, which you're doing now. — Newslinger talk 10:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • yeah, it's just unlikely to scale ... you would be unsurprised how vociferously some editors defend their Daily Mail and Sun refs, for example - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • David Gerard, Removed again and I escalated the warning. Guy (help!) 13:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And there's another edit-warring The Sun back in on John Wark, about biographical details of a living person. Sigh - David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it would help if you stopped using false claims in your edit summaries. And try flagging material for unreliable source rather than wholesale removing it first. Did you ever consider that? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
      • There is no circumstance in which leaving The Sun in an article as a reference for biographical detail on a living person is acceptable. Perhaps stop working so hard to keep sources in that literally can't be trusted - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Not usable. For this particular case, The Daily Caller (RSP entry) article "'Political Talking Points': Ernst Says Democrats Know Their Violence Against Women Bill Won’t Pass" (from Special:Diff/927050973) doesn't qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, since the article wasn't written by Joni Ernst herself. A number of legislators have commented on due process with regard to the legislation, including Collin Peterson and Doug Collins, as described in "House votes to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act, closing 'boyfriend loophole'" from The Hill (RSP entry). Since there are more reliable sources covering the topic, The Daily Caller is not preferred here.

There are also a couple of issues with the text added in the edit. First, it's unclear whether the phrase "Critics, such as senator Joni Ernst" refers to critics of the boyfriend loophole or critics of the proposed legislation against the loophole. Second, to maintain neutrality on controversial political topics, a summary of critics' views in the lead section should also be accompanied with a summary of supporters' views. — Newslinger talk 10:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Not reliable Since information is available elsewhere in a more reliable source, we should use those sources instead. The Daily Caller has a well-documented history of falsifying and misrepresenting information deliberately, and we should be using other sources. --Jayron32 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • If the information is available elsewhere in a more reliable source, then the citation can be replaced, but that is not what is happening. In fact, I have welcomed replacing the citation, despite my belief that the discussion leading to it being labeled a deprecated source is a farce to everyone but left-wing partisans, especially given that The Daily Beast and Huffington Post are not given the same treatment. It bears mentioning that plenty of mainstream sources have "a well-documented history of falsifying and misrepresenting information deliberately", while still being reliable sources of information. CNN's 2014 Journalist of the Year was recently stripped of the title after admitting to fabricating interviews and facts in over a dozen articles. I don't think this totally delegitimizes CNN or Der Spiegel's ability to be considered a reliable source, but it certainly contributes to a history of falsification and deliberate disinformation.
Directing me to a closed discussion is stonewalling and deliberately ignoring the arguments I've provided on the talk page.
As per the clarity of language, the legislation is cited as closing the loophole so criticizing the legislation, especially in this context is one in the same. This is mentioned explicitly in the Background section, but if you would like to add this to the header as well, that sounds good to me.
As per the the NPOV criticism, the first sentence and pretty much the entire article is a summary of the supporter's positions. I have gone to great lengths to clear up the very biased language and it is vastly improved from its original. The boyfriend loophole itself is a political position. Removing the line in question has turned a NPOV header into a strictly POV header which can only be read as advocating for the closing of the loophole. Again, if you would like to change the source, you are welcome to do so, but removing the line entirely makes it more biased, not less.Kphawkins (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
      • You could start another discussion of why the Daily Caller is a good source actually, and maybe you'll argue well enough to change consensus - but until then it's a deprecated source - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
        • However, Kphawkins has mad a grave error in describing WP:NPOV here; NPOV does NOT mean "all viewpoints are covered equally". Instead it means "All viewpoints are given coverage in Wikipedia commensurate to their coverage in reliable sources". If a particular viewpoint is ONLY covered in unreliable or sketchy sources, then Wikipedia should not then present such viewpoints as equally valid to those presented by reliable sources. That's a false equivalence and would be a violation of NPOV. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE for more information on why we DON'T include opposing viewpoints that have no coverage in reliable sources. So, simply put, if sources like the Daily Caller are the only source for a particular viewpoint, then Wikipedia shouldn't mention it. --Jayron32 16:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
          • You're being deliberately disingenuous and not engaging with what I said. Please address my central point, that removing the line makes the header more biased. Do you agree?Kphawkins (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
              • I'm not being disingenuous in any way; the header is only biased if it misrepresents what reliable sources say about the subject. You have said that the text you wish to add can only be cited to an unreliable source. If the text does not represent a significant viewpoint in reliable sources, removing it does not bias the article, but adding it in contravention of what reliable sources do say DOES bias the article by over-representing a viewpoint that is not reported by reliable sources. --Jayron32 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
            • If our only evidence is the Daily Caller, we don't have evidence. Did literally no other source even mention it? - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
              • The onus isn't on me, it's on you. I provided evidence, you removed it without reason.Kphawkins (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
                • It wasn't good evidence. The source is not usable, so it doesn't have any value as evidence. Find a better source. --Jayron32 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
                  • Again, please use common sense. The source is perfectly valid and you both know it is. You're gaming the system to remove a viewpoint instead of seeking to rectify the problem by adding a source you feel is reliable. I helped contribute to this article and you're doing nothing but make it worse. - Kphawkins (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
                    • (edit conflict) No, the source isn't valid; there have been multiple Wikipedia discussions about the Daily Caller, and it has been determined that it is not to be used at Wikipedia because it is not trustworthy in any way. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which states "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information." So no, common sense says "don't use source we cannot trust". Also, it isn't my job to find sources for text YOU want to add. If you want to add text to a Wikipedia article, find your own sources. See WP:BURDEN which states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (first bold in original, second bold mine). If you want to contribute text to Wikipedia, it isn't other people's responsibility to verify what you add. It is only yours. --Jayron32 18:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As others have explained, the principle of WP:DUE / WP:NPOV is that we neutrally report what reliable sources say about the topic, not that we cover it in a way that editors personally feel is fair (after all, everyone has their own personal opinions on topics like these.) If this criticism is noteworthy, WP:DUE, and significant, you should be able to find reliable sources covering. If you can't, then perhaps it simply isn't as widespread or noteworthy as you think, and, therefore, the lead more accurately summarizes mainstream coverage without it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
There are two issues at play here... one is whether the Daily Caller is reliable for stating Senator Ernst’s opinion on legislation to close the “Boyfriend loophole”. In this context, I happen to think that it is. It is the sort of thing they would report accurately on.
That said... the other (and to my mind FAR more important) issue is whether the article should mention Senator Ernst’s opinion in the first place. Given that anything related to the second amendment is usually the subject of intense debate and reporting, one would expect that if the an opinion was considered important, it would be covered by multiple sources (with conservative sources praising it, and liberal sources disparaging it). And given that the person in question is a US Senator, we SHOULD have multiple sources to choose from.
However, we apparently don’t. If an opinion (even a Senator’s opinion) is only covered by one source, I have to question whether that opinion is considered important enough to mention... EVEN IF that one source were considered highly reliable.
This is a DUE WEIGHT issue more than a Reliability issue, but it goes to the heart of the matter. The question of whether the Daily Caller is reliable is irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I would only consider the Daily Caller reliable for citing its OWN opinion and not reliably quoting the statements of others. As was noted above, the Daily Caller was deprecated for all uses for factual reporting at Wikipedia given its repeated and well-documented falsifications. On the very limited scope of citing an editorial (not factual reporting), that is on citing to its own self, that would be reliable per WP:SELFPUB only, but then the WP:UNDUE issue comes into play. --Jayron32 18:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And more The Sun fans at it - Rob Butler (rugby league)‎‎, Skibidi. More eyes welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Your attacks on those of us who are rejecting your censorship are, however, very much unwelcome. Time for you to stop, reflect and listen to what many editors are telling you about your mass edits. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    You're adding The Sun back as a source on a music video? How is that a permissible use for a deprecated source? - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    No David, I'm restoring the status quo and then finding RS which is what you should be doing rather than censoring articles based on an "information" page, i.e. not a guideline or a policy. And you should quit your attacks on other editors and your ongoing false edit summaries too. As you have been told numerous times now. And given WP:DEPS even has a section called "Acceptable uses of deprecated sources" (with which you should refamiliarise yourself), it's time for you to stop redefining Wikipedia's use of "deprecated" in this sense to your own "deprecated source, should not be used for anything" edit summary, which is absolutely untrue. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, a crappy source is a turd on the floor. Some people respond to a turd on the floor by simply cleaning it up, others by replacing it with a bunch of flowers. That's personal choice. If you feel so passionately that we should be leaving flowers instead, you have a really simple course of action open to you: take the list of turds at thesun.co.uk HTTPS links HTTP links and replace them with flowers. I am absolutely confident that if someone is putting serious focus on removing the crappy sources from biographies, David will be quite happy to leave them to it.
    WP:RS has been there since forever. We have never had a policy that places preserving content sourced to crappy sources over removing crappy sources. Of course we haven't, because that would be insane. Guy (help!) 16:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    I've go no issues with turds on the floor. But we don't just go through censoring Wikipedia of uncontroversial claims which are only cited to sources listed in an information page while make patently fake edit summary claims and attacks on other editors claiming they are somehow wed to The Sun as a source of information. That's what's happening here, and Gerard's absolute recalcitrance to accept that "decprecated" in this Wikipedia sense does not equate to his dicdef that he is waving around like some kind of threat in edit summaries. And he shouldn't be removing easily citable non-controversial material. I think we all know that, don't we? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Assuming everything that looks like a previous turd is a turd before sniffing it is bad policy. How does going around religiously removing every deprecated source actually help build an encyclopedia? There are an infinite number of positive things one can do here and arguing over a harmless sentence in a rugby player's bio isn't one of them. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Well indeed, and the irony is that in many of the article being purged of The Sun etc, other completely unverifiable material is being allowed to persist. Or worse, during the purge of a Sun-referenced claim, not all of the article is correctly updated, leaving fragments of unverifiable claims around which is actually creating more work for the rest of us and providing precisely zero benefit to our readers, all backed up with fake claims on edit summaries and a misrepresentation of the Wikipedia meaning of "deprecated" when it comes to deprecated sources. All by an admin. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, it's not "censorship". I wish you would not use that word, because it is almost exclusively used on Wikipedia by free-speech fundamentalists wanting to include content that large numbers of reasonable people think we should exclude.
    Deprecated means we have decided it's not appropriate without explicit consensus. And that consensus will normally be absent for biographies.
    As to removing content, I have been told, with equal force and conviction, that (a) I must remove the content supported by an unreliable source; (b) I must leave the content and add {{cn}}; (c) I must never remove the content but must instead assume responsibility for finding an alternate source. I consider the last absurd, and the other two mutually contradictory. Feel free to propose an RfC that agrees a common approach but I don't think it can fly because the answer will differ depending on the type of article and on the necessarily subjective judgment of what constitutes controversial. For example, some football fans think that names of wives and girlfriends and children are uncontroversial, whereas I tend to want a genuinely reliable source for them, due to the tendency for rumour mongering and prurient content among tabloids.
    Overall I think this is an area where reasonable people can and do differ, and it is not helped by working on the assumption that other people are not reasonable. Guy (help!) 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    I completely agree wholesale with your final point. It is utterly unworkable when editors (admins in particular) choose to perpetuate false claims in edit summaries and then accuse a number of reasonable editors of unreasonably bending over backwards to preserve The Sun citations, where in reality deprecation is not black-and-white as evidenced in the very "information" page being continually referenced, and that most if not all of us are here to preserve the information being censored arbitrarily removed simply because they are only referenced by The Sun with little or no consideration of the value of such an edit to our readers. It's disruptive and should be discouraged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but since many editors seem to forget it's policy, WP:ONUS is very clear (my bolding): While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. If someone is violating that policy, that is a form of edit warring and gaming WP:3RR, which should be reported to WP:AN3 if it becomes a persistent problem. Otherwise, anyone is free to clean up such edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    At this point, I've seen practically no evidence that the vast majority of information being removed could in any sense be considered "disputed content". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    This is a problem with your perceptions of evidence, not e.g. your edit-warring controversial information back into a BLP, that's sourced solely to The Sun, on the excuse that the guy played sports - and calling its removal "censorship". The Sun is not a source that can be treated as a source - it is equivalent to no source, or worse than no source, in that it makes material appear referenced when it's sourced to a source that literally cannot be trusted. You're fundamentally trying to relitigate the concept of deprecation of sources here, claiming "censorship" - David Gerard (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    How curious you'd never suggested in any sense at all that this was about controversial content, because you haven't addressed any of the other controversial unsourced content in any of the other articles you've torn through. And you keep making stuff up about The Sun which isn't backed up in any WP:GUIDELINE or WP:POLICY so I wish you'd stop doing that too. And you also are casting aspersions about the reasons behind why numerous editors are undoing your mass edits. That's plenty for you to stop and take stock of your approach. Particularly as you are currently an admin. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Something sourced to a deprecated source is not sourced. Feel free to address what I just said, though, instead of going off on an aggressive tangent - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    No, that's unfortunately a false claim as has been pointed out to you a number of times. Deprecated sources CAN be used, that's even mentioned. And I'm afraid there was no tangent. Your crusading approach, accusations and messy edits are cause for real concern, and would be from any editor, let alone an admin. We need a team of editors following your edits to restore removed material, to fix bare URLs, to fix inconsistent sourcing, etc. That's not helping Wikipedia or our readers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    You're throwing in yet another tangential non-answer here. To repeat what you didn't answer on: you edit-warred controversial information back into a BLP, that's sourced solely to The Sun, on the excuse that the guy played sports - and calling its removal "censorship". The Sun is not a source that can be treated as a source - it is equivalent to no source, or worse than no source, in that it makes material appear referenced when it's sourced to a source that literally cannot be trusted. You're fundamentally trying to relitigate the concept of deprecation of sources here, claiming "censorship". Let's start there, then once you've fully answered that we can go off on tangents - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you're the one trying to take this issue on a tangent. You are making stuff up, where in any guideline or policy does it say that The Sun "literally cannot be trusted"? Where in policy or guideline can I find it saying that when making direct quotes from people (for instance) or giving me scorelines or transfers of sportspeople from one club to another is "worse than no source"? We started way before I mentioned censorship, principally with your false edit summaries, removal of citable material, leaving articles half-arsed and then accusing other editors of somehow being "pro-The Sun". Let's start there, after all that's the problem here, not some misguided belief that removing well-known, easily citable facts from articles is a good idea. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    None of this recent subthread under my original post matters in the end. If consensus hasn't been gained for using the source in a particular manner, it stays out even before any decision on whether it is RS or not at this noticeboard. I haven't seen a link to such consensus on the talk page. Since there is a legitimate questioning of RS on a source, ONUS is perhaps the most relevant policy for guidance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Hey? Suddenly you're looking for a consensus to include a source rather than exclude a source? You have it completely arse-about-face. We have never looked for a consensus to include any specific source. Thanks for your opinion though. And there has been no "legitimate questioning", just a purge based on an "information" page and loads of false claims in edit summaries. Try again. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    We have never looked for a consensus to include any specific source If this wasn't literally false, we wouldn't have deprecation of sources. In any case, WP:ONUS is policy, whether you believe it is or not - David Gerard (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    No, it's not false. But in any case, all I'm hoping here is that you have learnt (a) to not make false claims in edit summaries (b) to not summarily remove information that is easily citable from other sources (c) not to leave articles in a complete mess when you continue your purge (d) that you finally understand the Wikipedia sense of deprecation and (e) stop yourself from casting aspersions about long-standing editors' motivations here. If that's been achieved, then this is a success story. Otherwise we'll all have to continue to follow up each and every one of your edits in the meantime while you continue your crusade, and that is a huge waste of time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    You're doing that "I'm suddenly going to talk about things other than what I was directly asked" thing again. I notice you still haven't addressed whether you're going to stop re-adding deprecated sources to articles, and trying to use them for controversial claims into biographies of living persons, as you in fact actually did, and edit-warred back in - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    Per WP:ADMINACCT, I hope you realise your responsibility here is to address the myriad concerns over your behaviour. I'll continue to use sources in accordance with policy and guideline and I won't be dissuaded by your false scare claims and attacks on my (and others') motivations. We'll just continue to clear up the mess you're making of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    I feel that acting opposite to the guy who literally thinks The Sun is a good source for controversial information on a BLP suggests I'm on the right track. That's one mess you're 100% personally responsible for and noticeably not going to clean up. You're throwing around TLAs, but you literally didn't understand WP:ONUS above - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    As a purported admin, you need to take a long hard look at yourself and your behaviour recently. Please provide diffs where I have said I "literally thinks The Sun is a good source for controversial information on a BLP" please. Please do that immediately. You're far from on the right track. Your disruption, accusations and dreadful editing mess your leaving all over Wikipedia is unwelcome. Not expected from a newbie, certainly not expected from a so-called admin. Stop creating a huge mess everywhere you go and stop making fake claims. Please, it's the least you can do having created so much extra work for reasonable editors. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    And by the way, at no point whatsoever have you ever made any claim that the material you are summarily removing is controversial or disputed. You are simply purging material in your own way. Trying to claim WP:ONUS applies when all you are doing is a thoughtless, messy and incorrectly summarised purge of sources, is incredible. Per WP:ADMINACCT you need to respond to questions about your actions, including the accusations about people's motivations. So, we're waiting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

And now I think this has reached new heights, e.g. this where an award given by The Sun is now being removed per Gerrard's purge on the newspaper. This clearly has nothing to do with the reliability of the source. It's obvious that a newspaper with a multi-million readership who confers a "best album" award should be able to be included in an article from the people giving that award. To lump it into the ongoing messy purge is absurd I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Good news, Andy has opened a thread at WP:AN to discuss this and the behaviour of some of those involved here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#UK newspaper sources and how to handle deprecated sources. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Is France 24 a reliable source?

It is interested to see about realible source wikiPedia used. As time progress, many international news taken from France 24. Is the editors ignore that france 24 is a realiable source? Hanafi455 (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

France 24 is a generally reliable source, I'd think - it's a proper news outlet with the editorial apparatus of one - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Hanafi455: I've moved this discussion from WT:RSP to the reliable sources noticeboard, which receives more attention from other editors. — Newslinger talk 10:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable My understanding of France 24 is that it is in the same league as the BBC News: while it is state-owned, it is also operationally independent of the government, and it does not have any record of government interference or editorial interference. It is an independently run news agency, and should be considered on par with the Beeb for reliability. --Jayron32 17:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable I've seen no problems with it.I've never seen an editor argue that it shouldn't be used. It is considered to be on par with the likes of CNN in the States. petrarchan47คุก 07:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable except for editorials. I agree it is in the same league as the BBC World News (in the UK) or ABC News platforms (in Australia) as a state-owned but editorially independent new service. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally Reliable as others have mentioned is in a similiar situation to BBC News and is independent of the French government.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Which dispute is this related to? If there is none, I'd suggest closing this, applying reliable sources guideline and common sense, and moving on. Politrukki (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiTribune

Is WikiTribune a reliable source? Example article which mentions No Platform. (Please ping when replying) —Srid🍁 22:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No, definitely not. It's WP:USERGENERATED. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable. WikiTribune is similar to Wikinews (RSP entry). Both are considered unreliable becuase they are open wikis, which consist of user-generated content. — Newslinger talk 02:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable Anyone can say almostwhatever they want and pass it off as real news. HAL333 19:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: comparing Fox News real-time coverage of the impeachment inquiry with other outlets'

In past discussions some editors claimed, despite a wealth of contradictory evidence (including peer-reviewed studies, books and other analyses),[44] that Fox News's news division and/or website should be considered "generally reliable". We now have the opportunity to examine this hypothesis in real time, with the ongoing Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump that is being broadcast live from the US Congress. You may use a website like News Compare, but you'd probably do better to just open some of these websites side by side in your browser. You'll notice major differences in coverage between Fox and virtually every other mainstream outlet (including "traditional" conservatives like the Wall Street Journal); it is certainly closer in tone (though unparalleled in breadth) to the Daily Caller, the Federalist and Newsmax. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Tone and bias are not elements to consider about reliability of the Fox News desk. I would expect nothing less from Fox News to downplay the hearings, but otherwise report on what is happening factually. --Masem (t) 22:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Masem, I have five dollars on Fox leading with Taylor reading the "perfect call" text. Guy (help!) 01:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: for your perusal: [45][46][47][48][49] (and more generally this). François Robere (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
François Robere, anyone who has the stomach for it is welcome, at least in project or user space. Guy (help!) 01:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Well shit. Lou Dobbs just had a guest who says the entire Ukraine thing is a set-up by George Soros, who controls the deep state. If this is truly where they are going with this impeachment then I think we have to look at a filter to exclude Fox from articles in any article under AP2. Guy (help!) 09:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lou Dobbs is an opinion and analysis show, and not one which we look to for factual reporting. We wouldn't use such a source under any other TV station. Fox News is not particularly special in that regard. --Jayron32 12:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Opinion and analysis shows" aren't supposed to be "fact-free". "It's only an opinion" isn't a license to lie.[50] François Robere (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Francois, you are missing the point... The outlet does not matter. We shouldn’t use opinion unless attributed. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • True. But, the site is mostly opinion. O3000 (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree - the outlet does matter (see WP:NEWSORG). Saying the outlet doesn't matter is like saying Astrologer's Daily is an accepted venue for medical advice, as long as the doctor is certified. It isn't. "Fox" can't be considered a serious news outlet when it's giving half (or more) of its airtime to conspiracy theorists. François Robere (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No, that's the exact opposite of what we are saying. What we are saying is that we wouldn't cite the Astrology column from ANY newspaper regardless of whether or not the rest of the newspaper was generally good or not. --Jayron32 17:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, near as I can figure looking at the main section of the Fox site this morning, Democrats are in trouble, there was no quid pro quo, a link between Biden and the whistleblower would be important, the hearings are ridiculous, government employees working against the president should resign, and a Democrat is embarrassed to be in the party and may switch parties. The only thing I can find about the actual testimony is a claim that it is wrong. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    Objective3000, also it's all hearsay and the Democrats aren't calling any witnesses with actual first hand knowledge. You know, like Bolton, Mulvaney and the rest... Guy (help!) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Gee willikers - it's beginning to sound like the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. Well, at least we have the transcript of the phone conversation and don't have to depend on what only the news outlets report and if needed, we can collaborate the testimony, such as: I didn't actually hear the discussion, but so-and-so said which is 2nd hand speculation riddled with potential misinterpretations and wishful thinking by Fox news anchors and other outlets. The key people who actually participated in the discussion deny there was pressure or a quid-pro-quo, and they should know, right? Points back to entertainment news - higher ratings - that all news outlets seek, including Fox and that's why we have WP:RECENTISM. It's good to listen to more than one POV not just Fox News to see what they have to say and even better to actually hear what they're saying in order to process the info accurately. Atsme Talk 📧 15:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC) <:sup>16:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Please be mindful of NOTFORUM, Atsme, Nothing I see in your post is about Fox's coverage or its appropriateness as a source for Wikipedia. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reminder, Drmies - when I attempt brevity, inadvertent omission is sometimes the result - I added clarity to avoid further confusion. Wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm a forumest. Atsme Talk 📧 16:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Your post contains several incorrect statements and suggestions parroting Fox -- which I shall not correct as it is still forumy. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Atsme, By "Russian collusion conspiracy theory" I presume you mean the conspiracy theory that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election, as every single US and allied intelligence agency says, but instead it was Ukraine in the library with the lead pipe, colluding with the DNC so that Hillary would, er, lose and then Tryump could be impeached using the majority in Congress they would get in 2018 and presumably 2020? Guy (help!) 19:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Guy, no - please don't presume. Atsme Talk 📧 19:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    Atsme, Please do enlighten us. There are so many. Only yesterday, Devin Nunes was pushing one about Joe Biden having the corrupt prosecutor who wasn't investigating Burisma fired in order to protect Hunter by making it more likely that Burisma would be investigated. Guy (help!) 21:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Any criticism of Devin Nunes is racist. It is like saying that Mexico is not sending its best. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
That is a categorically absurd argument. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Wait, cows are a protected class now? Guy (help!) 13:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, depends who you ask... François Robere (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There is nothing unique about the impeachment hearings. If you wish to compare coverage, you can compare literally any story covered by Fox and also covered by other outlets. It's not as if most or all of the major news outlets don't routinely cover exactly the same stories. This is the 19th listed discussion about Fox at RSP, with the most recent taking place not even a month ago. That WP:RECENTISM entices you to believe that what happens to be on your television at the moment is somehow special, doesn't mean it is. GMGtalk 15:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • GreenMeansGo, Oh I am well aware of the issues with Fox, it's just that this particular event offers an opportunity to compare coverage on an item where the facts are by now very well known - it's clear that Fox is not operating on the same fact base as the international or mainstream US media. Guy (help!) 19:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not unique, no, but their prominence, length and focus will force outlets to hone in on specific narratives, allowing us to judge their approaches to reporting in a concentrated manner. The usual news cycle only gets you a handful of stories that you can easily compare across outlets (and by "easy" I mean "that are suitable for these fora"); the hearings would net us twenty such stories every day. François Robere (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • To do what with? Start a 20th discussion, because despite having peer-reviewed studies, books and other analyses, the RECENTISM of the impeachment debate is so especially super-saiyan RECENTISM that it will single-handedly overturn the discussion we had all of two weeks ago? GMGtalk 22:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nope. I'm just suggesting to those who are interested to follow this coverage, on their own or on record. I trust that some of our colleagues here are receptive to evidence; this could be it for them. François Robere (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it is completely fair to suggest that an entire outlet could be rendered unreliable-by-association for a topic if it not only routinely, but overwhelmingly, publishes utter garbage conspiracy nonsense about that topic. Even admitting that much of the nonsense is labeled opinion, and some of the content is accurate, this becomes a situation much like The Daily Mail where the only way we know that the outlet is accurate is by comparing to sources not totally compromised by blind partisanship. And therefore it's reasonable to propose that this source simply not be used for this topic (what's good ain't unique and what's unique ain't good), unless we're quoting someone we have decided has a significant opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Good luck finding ANY news sources that aren’t partisan. That said, I too encourage editors to read a wide variety of sources. It is only by reading sources from a wide spectrum of viewpoints that one can begin to see what is fact and what is opinion. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The key phrase here is not only routinely, but overwhelmingly, publishes utter garbage conspiracy nonsense about that topic. No other mainstream outlet does even remotely close. François Robere (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, Bloomberg, AP, Reuters, Financial Times. Also ABC, BusinessInsider and NPR are pretty good. Guy (help!) 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • GreenMeansGo, Recentism or not: it is clear that Fox's news reporting on this issue is substantially out of step with the mainstream. I would never cite Fox at all, but it seems to me that we should at least be blacklisting it in the context of contemporary US politics, because Fox was founded as a conservative propaganda outlet by Ailes and the evidence very clearly shows that it is fulfilling that goal right now. Guy (help!) 00:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we really need a moratorium on questioning the reliability of the news desk of Fox. We've established several times over now: Fox's op-eds and talk shows (very much its talk shows) are crap and can't be trusted for anything, but the news side, while biased, has shown the qualities we ask for in an RS (editorial control, fact-checking) and thus is reliable, but with the cavaet that we'd like to see corroborating or other coverage used instead. Until there is clear evidence that Fox News is clearly falsifying its news (as was done in the case of Daily Mail and Breitbart) or losing its editorial control, there seems to be no reason to continue to express doubt on its use. --Masem (t) 17:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: I've left you some links upstairs ([51][52][53][54][55], and more generally this). Haven't heard from you since... François Robere (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll second Masem's analysis here. We've already noted before that FoxNews's factual news-reporting wing meets the requirements of a reliable source. The notion that they choose to focus their fact-gathering and reporting on different stories than other sources do (which, AFAICT, is the main focus of the OPs discussion) is not an issue. News organizations are free to choose which stories to put resources into, so long as the news they actually produce has the hallmarks of a reliable source, we shouldn't keep trying to ban them. We've long established that for the narrow scope of bona fide news, FoxNews is not unreliable (as opposed to their political rants, talk shows, etc. which are excrement). The repeated, over-and-over again attempts to put them in the same category as DM and the like is growing wearisome, it's an attempt at "death by a thousand cuts" and has long bridged over into the WP:DTS territory. I would also support a moratorium on any discussion of FoxNews's news-reporting unless and until someone can present an actual case of widespread falsification or lack of editorial control. --Jayron32 17:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The main thrust of consensus opinion seems to be that while Fox's news is reliable, it's opinion pieces are biased. Why then is there no argument about New York Times masquerading opinion pieces as "news" and the SPLC self publishing nothing but opinion pieces? They are both deemed reliable sources for the purposes of editing Wikipedia articles. I have reservations with Fox News too, but why are they in the crosshairs, rather than NYT and SPLC? 47.137.185.72 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Why? Because their bias is not so extreme that they become counterfactual. Fox News opinions aren't just extremely partisan, they push falsehoods and lie to us ALL THE TIME! Fox News (the whole network) was created by Roger Ailes for one purpose (pure history here) to push the GOP party line, and they push it very hard, facts be damned. The others remain connected to facts, regardless of their biases. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought this discussion was about the FoxNews. Please stay on topic. If you wish to discuss the reliability of the New York Times or other sources, please start new discussions about those. --Jayron32 20:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
That is a clever bit of deflection Jayron32. This noticeboard is about reliable sources. The proximate section is about Fox News. NYT and SPLC are by consensus considered reliable sources by thw Wikipedia community, and hence are eligible for comparison against other potentially reliable sources, like Fox News. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
What aspect of the NYT factual news reporting do you find to be inadequate then? (and I'm still not sure why we're discussing it here, but OK, if you insist)? --Jayron32 21:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Given that neither the NYT nor the SPLC actually does “real time coverage” of the hearings, we can’t compare them with Fox (who has). We would need to compare Fox with other continuous news outlets ... like CNN or MSNBC. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Might be a bit off topic, but at least in the NYT, they will routine post stories throughout the day and update existing ones when the situation changes. This is fine and acceptable for an RS, but I would actually consider this as close to "real-time" compared to something like either Fox or CNN. Just airing the hearings/debates live are not "reporting" but it is the analysis/meaning/interpretation by the talking heads right after the headings that is real-time, and that's the stuff we should be careful of using hot off the press per RECENTING. But this applies across the board, not just FOX, but NYTimes, CNN, etc. --Masem (t) 05:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
That is a fair analysis, but it avoids the meta-category under discussion, whether or not Fox News is reliable. Their coverage of the impeachment inquiry is a subset of that larger question. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Their basic coverage of the actual hearings is reliable. Their analysis and opinion segments about the hearings are not reliable. The same is true for all the other outlets. The problem is that our editors can’t seem to tell the difference between news reporting, and news analysis or opinion. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Some bits from the last two weeks: [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] (and more generally that). I also must wonder, again, what does it say of a news organization that half of its airtime is, by your definition, "excrement". François Robere (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. The first link is about FoxNews's website choosing certain words to describe the tone of a respondent. Such matters speak to tone of writing, but there is nothing there about FoxNews misrepresenting the words used. The second link describes a contributor to America's Newsroom, which is not a factual newsreporting show, but as described in our article as a political analysis show; we would never use statements made in political analysis shows from ANY news source, Fox is not special there. So it isn't relevant discussions about using FoxNews's news reporting. The others similarly are problems with shows on Fox that are not, strictly speaking, news shows. Yes, shows outside of news reporting are not reliable sources. This is true of other places. For example, CBS broadcasts the show Survivor. I would not use thing said by contestants on that show as reliable statements of news facts, though I would use the CBS Evening News as a reliable source. Similarly, I would not use America's Newsroom as a source of news information, but I would use, for example, reports on Fox Report, which is a hard news program without analysis. --Jayron32 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32, Tone matters. One of the problems with the Daily Mail is its tendency to focus on misogynist labels when describing women ("shrill" and so on).
Reliability and bias matter too. Reviewing Fox News scores at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ and trying to filter out opinion, you notice two things: first, the vast majority of Fox content is opinion, and second, that the news content still scores low for quality and high for bias. Bias scores of well over 10 on their scale are common in Fox's supposed straight news reporting. Bias skews heavily with the political impact of the story.
For a general article I look for Quality of >40 and Bias of <20 (their "green box"). For politics and political BLPs my benchmark is Washington Post (bias L5.1, quality 44.6). There are limited exceptions, such as WSJ opinion on climate change, but for the most part this works for me. Fox's score is R18.5 bias and 30.1 quality.
That's just one ranking system, of course, but every one I have looked at rates Fox as low for reliability and high for bias. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings only looks at bias, not quality, and rates Fox's non-opinion content as "lean right" not "right" (and WaPo as "lean left"), it's unclear how old this is as Fox is moving further right especially during the impeachment hearings. Reading Fox's non-opinion reporting on this is almost indistinguishable from the opinion reporting, it uncritically references talking points like the Ukraine election interference conspiracy theory. Guy (help!) 14:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Tone of Wikipedia articles does matter, which is why we don't mime sources, but use information from sources and write using our own house tone (WP:NPOV). We neither mime overly praiseworthy tone (purple prose) nor overly critical tone, but aim to write in a neutral encyclopedic tone. That another source uses a different tone doesn't mean we don't use the information in it, it means we use the information in our own house tone. On the balance, I will note that I have never used FoxNews as a source, because I have found better sources out there; reliability here is not a binary state, but a continuum, on which there is a point where we shouldn't use a source. I find FoxNews to be just barely on the correct side of that point, meaning that I don't think we should ban it (as we do with Daily Mail, et. al.) but I do find that it is rare that there isn't a higher quality source we could use. On the matter of "should we ban the use of FoxNews's news reporting", no, I don't think we should. However, saying that doesn't mean I would actually use it myself as a reference. --Jayron32 14:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. there is nothing there about FoxNews misrepresenting the words used In American jargon, "snap" suggests a loss of control.[64] Vindman, objectively, did not "snap". That's very much a factual issue.
  2. America's Newsroom, which is not a factual newsreporting show You must be kidding. Hosts Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith, and former hosts Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCallum and Shannon Bream are all considered journalists, and work for Fox's news division. The very same article you quote states that "[America's Newsroom] is one of FNC's eight current straight news programs" (emphasis mine).
  3. CBS broadcasts the show Survivor Are you seriously equating between "Survivor" and "America's Newsroom"? CBS is a network, where CBS News is just one channel. Fox News, in the past, was just one channel within 20th Century Fox; today it is both a dedicated news network and the leading channel within that network. It is not supposed to broadcast entertainment anymore than CBS News is supposed to broadcast "Survivor" - which it doesn't. Per your logic we should treat Fox as an entertainment channel, discard 95% of its broadcasts (295%, counting its sister channels), and assume the "News" in the name of the network is a self-aware sham, which itself raises reliability issues. Is that correct? François Robere (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Any "news" show where the format is structured around talking head interviews touching on current news, which would include Fox's American Newsroom as well as programs like NBC's Meet the Press, should always be considered as a starting point, under RSOPINION, even if they have anchors factually reporting on events. It is very unlikely that some factual elements will only be reported by one of these shows and not in any other more "pure" news source (eg America's News Headquarters, NBC Nightly News, or the like). This is true for any network that considers themselves 24/7 "news coverage", because we all know you cannot fill 24/7 fully with relevant news - that's where the talking head shows come into play to fill the time slots. These networks (Fox included) love events like the impeachment hearings because it gives them news to show and then build on for their analysts and opinion makers. This is the same situation at any respected print source - NYTimes, etc.; the news desks does the journalism, and their editorial staff jump on that to provide commentary. We have the same distinction in print as we have in television, and just as I would discuss all Fox News talking head shows as an RS, I would do the same for NBC's, CNN's, talking head shows.
Once that point is made, then a key distinction is that if we were looking to include appropriate DUE analysis and opinion (within the context of RECENTISM), I would keep any Fox News talking head program at a distance while would reasonably use any talking head program from NBC, CNN, etc. as a possible starting point, because of the incredible bias and misinformation that the Fox shows make, something that has not really been seen in the other networks. They might have biases but they are so not far out from central to be considered extreme or fringe views. --Masem (t) 20:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
First of all, in your first statement you suggest we're past the "Fox's News vs Opinions" division (or, quite literally, divisions) and down to the level of individual shows (as "America's Newsroom" is part of the News division, but you still don't trust it); then you're back to "Fox shows have incredible bias and misinformation", so you don't trust them. So what level are we judging this - show level? Division level? Network level? And if you insist that we shouldn't judge it at the network level, doesn't the prominence of unreliable shows in both divisions suggest there's a problem at the network-level? Remember we're supposed to judge outlets on editorial standards, and that's not something you judge solely on the basis of individual shows.
Second, do you have sources that support this statement? it is very unlikely that some factual elements will only be reported by one of these shows This isn't how this works from my experience, and I have provided sources to the contrary. François Robere (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I am specifically speaking only to Fox's talking head/interview/analysis/opinion shows that can't be used for fact and that I would stay far away from for using opinion. Not the actual news shows that give zero personal opinion or analysis, which are fine for factual reporting. In the interview style shows, their talking points are things already featured in the news in some way (otherwise, why are they talking points). --Masem (t) 21:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
So, again, are you suggesting Bret Baier et al. are comparable to Sean Hannity & Co. in their capacity of talking head/interview/analysis shows? If so, what exactly is left of Fox News that we can use - about an hour a day?
Also, again, opinion journalists do do reporting, and can provide you with new information. Where do you stand on that? François Robere (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Even a blind dog can still piss on the tree sometimes. It doesn't mean I have to accept wet trousers the rest of the time. --Jayron32 16:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
First, I'm of the opinion (no pun intended) that we should avoid any opinionated reporting from any source for any current event per RECENTISM, or at least making sure only the factual elements from such are only used.
Second, if you do the same "subtraction" of the talking-head and interview shows from any other news network like CNN or MSNBC, you'd have the same situation, only maybe a few hours per day of straight up news reporting without any inserted opinion or analysis. This is what happens when you have 24/7 news coverage, it is not all content that is appropriate for the encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 17:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm asking about Fox. Are you of the opinion that Fox is "generally crap", regardless of whether it's reporters or anchors, except for the three-o'clock news (which was Shepard Smith's show)? Also, can you please help Jayron32 out of his metaphor? François Robere (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


        Reliability continuum
<------------------|------------------->
     never use          OK to use
 ^                   ^                ^
 |                   |                |
worst possible      Fox              best possible source
source ever         News             ever
@Jayron32: FoxNews is not unreliable (as opposed to their political rants, talk shows, etc. which are excrement). Their news shows must be really exquisite if they manage to balance that out. François Robere (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Their news reporting currently repeats conspiracy theories as fact. Guy (help!) 11:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak to the live reporting or news videos, but their written articles are fine. For example, in this recent article [65], they make sure to state that this theory about Ukrainian interference is only something being pushed by Trump, Nunes, and other Republican members of Congress. In their summary at the top, they say this, The inquiry, at its core, has focused on how Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations related to the Bidens, as well as alleged actions taken by Ukraine in the 2016 election, as military aid was withheld. They say "Trump pressured Ukraine" as a fact, while describing the conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference as "alleged". It's not the greatest article I've ever read (they take the "A said X, but then B said Y" approach far too often), but it certainly isn't condoning conspiracy theories, and all the factual claims are basically equivalent to other major news sources. Having been reading Fox quite a bit over the past week, I haven't noticed any factual discrepancies between them and other news sources. The headlines are often sensationalist bullshit that isn't supported by the text of the article, but basically every newspaper has that same problem.
Oh, and if we're discussing Fox News as a whole, we have to acknowledge that their polling is some of the best in American politics, and generally considered very reliable. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
See §4 in the "first formulation" here. François Robere (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

While Fox News may exhibit a bias it has been shown time and time again that it is still a generally reliable source. Yes its talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight do not have this reliability the overall coverage like from its website is still generally reliable.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: [66]. François Robere (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Carl Bernstein on Fox

There's a great interview between Preet Bharara and Carl Bernstein which discusses Fox at some length. Bernstein knew Roger Ailes in the Nixon White House. He refers to Fox as the most powerful actor in "the cold civil war" and fundamentally uninterested in the pursuit of a shared body of fact - that is not what Fox is for. As I think he shows, it's a legitimate purpose, or at least a permissible one, but it's not news, it fundamentally is propaganda (though he does not explicitly say this). [67].

Check for yourself, I am sure my biases colour my interpretation. Guy (help!) 11:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That was an excellent interview. Thanks for that. François Robere (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A Fox “News” story that somehow fails to identify any of th3 liberals calling for thanksgiving to be renamed. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-thanksgiving-name-change-sunrise-florida-rally-liberal-left Guy (help!) 14:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Given the story is written "This is what Trump has said", rather than covering this "war on thanksgiving" broadly, I fail to see a problem in considering an RS. RS identification has never included whether the RS is writing completely about the story at hand. That Trump might be running on misconceptions (reading other news sources on it across the board) may be part of the story, but completeness is never a criteria to judge RS -- though that said, this is why I'd prefer to use NYTimes or BBC over Fox for the same story because the former are known for thorough coverage. --Masem (t) 14:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
      • What is interesting is that the BBC is currently coming under fire in the UK for its (supposedly biased) coverage of UK politics. Yet, when it comes to its coverage of US politics, it gets no criticism. I would be interested to hear what people in the UK think about Fox’s coverage of UK politics. Perhaps that would be a useful check on our own confirmation bubbles... look to the BBC (and other non-US based sources) when covering the US, and to Fox (and other non-UK based media) when covering the UK. Just a thought. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278&oldid=1145528866"