Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search the noticeboard archives

List of archives

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

RfC - CoinDesk as a source[edit]

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

Survey (CoinDesk)[edit]

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

RSP Entry: CoinDesk RSP Entry

Please note: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies

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

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

So the question is,

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

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

Remove it - speaking as the editor in question, here's what my thinking was:
  • In general: cryptocurrency/blockchain articles are magnets for spam and advocacy. And crypto news sites are bad sources, per the previous discussion on this topic - they appear to be specialist press, but function as advocacy. You will see every possible thing being spun as good news for cryptos. We don't need crypto sites - there's plenty of mainstream coverage and peer-reviewed academic coverage to establish notability. Using crypto sites as sources in your article is a bad sign at AFD, and using mainstream RSes and peer-reviewed academic RSes is a good sign at AFD - so the observed working consensus of Wikipedia editors in practice is strongly in this direction.
  • In particular: Coindesk has a terrible habit of running articles on things that don't exist yet, barely-reskinned press releases and so on. There are plenty of refs that are entirely factual content! But you can say the same about blogs, wikis and other sources that aren't trustworthy in any practical sense. And this is even though Coindesk has an editor, I know a pile of the journalists and they're honestly trying to do a good job, etc. Quite a lot of the Coindesk refs I removed were to puffed-up nonsense articles, or in support of blatantly promotional article content. So the argument that editors will check the context doesn't work in practice - using the Coindesk articles that happen to be properly-made news coverage only encourages the use of their bad stuff, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is the most frequent AFD argument from crypto spammers.
  • I urge those thinking about this to reread WP:GS/Crypto. Just think what sort of editing would cause that harsh a community sanction to be put into place. Those conditions haven't changed. Letting just a waffer-thin crypto site in the door will invite the spammers back.
  • I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here - I make some money as a crypto journalist, often publishing in these very sites. I know my stuff is good and my editors are good! But I also know there's excellent reason it's not good for Wikipedia - when we have mainstream sources. If some subject or fact isn't notable enough to make it into mainstream or peer-reviewed sources, perhaps it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.
  • For a recent example that did make the crypto press, check this out. (I spoke to them with my Wikipedia editor hat on for once, not my crypto journalist hat.) That's about spammy interests trying to weasel their stuff into just one page. Repeat for a large swathe of the crypto articles on Wikipedia, 'cos that sort of thing is entirely usual. Mainstream-only is good in practice. (cc Retimuko and Ladislav Mecir, who are also mentioned in that piece.)
  • And, really - you think crypto sites should be used for BLPs? We have super-stringent BLP rules also for excellent reasons. I can't see how a crypto site would ever be acceptable as a source for a BLP, except maybe as an accepted subject-published link or similar - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@David Gerard: I'm skeptical of your claim "I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here", considering that you published Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, a book that is highly critical of cryptocurrencies. How would your !vote to remove all references to CoinDesk go against your own interests? Since you "make some money as a crypto journalist", wouldn't removing all references to CoinDesk effectively eliminate your biggest competitor and/or adversary from being mentioned on Wikipedia? — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean that my own work in the ones I write for (which include Coindesk) wouldn't be citable. If you think you have a substantiable claim of COI on my part, you know where WP:COIN is, else I'll file that with all the other unsubstantiated claims that not being an advocate means I should stop editing in the area - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Your statement makes more sense alongside the fact that you have contributed to CoinDesk. Ironically, the fact that CoinDesk published your opinion piece "2017: The ‘Butt’ of Bitcoin’s Joke" makes them less biased than I had previously assumed. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable source - beyond the issues that David Gerrard lays out above, crypto news sites also have had issues with content being gneerated for pay but not noted as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    • to be fair, Coindesk has never been credibly accused of pay-for-play, and there's no good reason to think they'd do that. However, their editorial line has long been basically boosterism for cryptos (IMO) - David Gerard (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      That is fair. However, beyond that for all the reasons you've mentioned, which I didn't bother to repeat since you'd laid them out in depth, I continue to believe it is an unreliable source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep (do not remove all references to CoinDesk - here's my thinking and take on the matter:
  • The previous RfC did a good job of getting consensus on how to treat CoinDesk articles. It clearly stated that CoinDesk shouldn't be used to establish notability but otherwise isn't barred from being used as a source. Why the sudden change in this policy by one editor deciding unilaterally that they no longer wish to adhere to this consensus?
  • Yes, we all know the usual criticisms of crypto press. That's already debated and known to editors. If there are individual instances to consider incorrect usage of CoinDesk, e.g. to establish notability, by all means they should be deleted. But as long as it isn't the policy, I don't support a blanket removal of all the material from literally hundreds of articles affected.
  • A lot of the material that's been removed is actually criticism of the projects. The bias is easy to understand - a lot of the overly promotional puffery has been removed by diligent editors already. This means removing all the CoinDesk references has made the problem of crypto-puffery much worse.
  • Several instances of purely encyclopedic content was removed for using CoinDesk as a purely descriptive secondary source (e.g. discussion on popular standards). This hurts the quality of the articles from an encyclopedic perspective.
  • This blanket removal of CoinDesk references already goes against the general consensus previously reached. There are literally hundreds (probably thousands?) of edits to go through, and I don't think it's feasible to go through them all to determine if the removal was justified. In many cases I've reviewed, I think the removal was unjustified, and in several other cases, it was totally justified. It's very hard to review now after these edits.
  • In conclusion, yes, there is a problem with crypto puff material entering the articles, but the solution isn't to ban crypto press. Crypto press both has the puffiest pieces and the most critical pieces on crypto projects. As editors, we want to see a balanced article, but that balance gets lost of we cannot cite the criticisms. One editor shouldn't decide to remove criticism and encyclopedic content especially going against previous consensus

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

  • Keep as a source per Molochmeditates. CoinDesk's role in promoting the use of cryptocurrencies is no different from PinkNews's role in promoting acceptance of LGBT communities worldwide. Recognise their bias, and use discretion when citing the source; but do not systemically reject an entire topic area from Wikipedia just because it is in some way problematic or difficult to write about. feminist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of them should be removed. But it should be done more carefully. A lot of them can be replaced by mainstream sources. Examples:
Andreessen Horowitz - http://en.turkcewiki.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761
Wall Street Journal "blog" about the same thing.
Initial coin offering - http://en.turkcewiki.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173
"The SEC ruled that celebrity ICO endorsements must disclose the amount of any compensation paid for the endorsement." Covered by Reuters.
BitLicense - http://en.turkcewiki.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899
"In July 2016, San Francisco-based Ripple was awarded the second BitLicense." Covered by Reuters.
There should be zero coin news references used in an article if possible. Like do you really need to use CoinDesk to write a good article about blockchain?
So if it's an important detail, look for a mainstream source. If it's only on a coin news site you should explain why it's needed on the talk page or edit summary. Blumpf (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all references from Coindesk and other cryptopropaganda I'd thought that this was already a settled matter. There are reliable references to cryptomatters, e.g. Bloomberg, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Financial Times, BBC, CBC and sometimes in Fortune and some of the cable news networks. There's no reason not to just use these sources. The cryptopropaganda network is all shills all the time as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not delete all references. There is not enough evidence to indict CoinDesk as a source that publishes false or fabricated information. While CoinDesk is a biased and non-independent source due to the cryptocurrency holdings of its parent company (Digital Currency Group), I don't consider the content in CoinDesk to be sponsored content, and I don't think a removal of "all references" to CoinDesk is justified. In my opinion, a source only crosses the line when it publishes calls to action that support its interests. CoinDesk's articles do not contain that type of promotional language. CoinDesk is much closer to TorrentFreak (RSP entry), which is another specialist publication that assumes the role of an advocacy organization, than The Points Guy's sponsored content (RSP entry), which contains actual sales pitches. However, CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability (per existing consensus), and editors should consider whether content from CoinDesk constitutes undue weight before including it into an article. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove all, but try to replace with mainstream sources when at all possible, per Blumpf and others. The FRS/Legobot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove all. Mainstream sources are fine. Coindesk is biased, and most editors don't have context to identify the cases where they might be able to be a neutral source. – SJ + 03:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (CoinDesk)[edit]

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

"sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concern" - but that's literally all the crypto news sites, though. Every single one. Is there an exception you had in mind? - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, I have not had any good chance to review them in any depth, their connections, and how others see those sources. For example, if we have non-crypto-based RSes routinely quoting facts from a crypto source, even if that source is not truly independent, that still suggests that that source would be seen as authorative. All the concerns related to WP:NORG obviously should be applied to any crypto-related article, but it still doesn't mean throwing the entire work out if others see part of it as reliable. But I have spent literally only like 10 minutes looking into this, nothing I would consider suitable to say such exist.
I do worry that this rush of mass removals without a clear consensus is into WP:FAIT territory, even though I suspect 95% of them removals would be proper, at the end of the day. --Masem (t) 14:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think your point about RS quoting something like CoinDesk is a fair point and I would hope that David Gerrard has stopped removing CoinDesk as a reference while this RfC is being conducted. However, because Crypto/blockchain is a substantial field we have non-industry sources covering notable organizations/developments regularly. We can rely on them without having to figure "Is CoinDesk acting as a booster of the industry here or is it reporting news of significance?" Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

RfC: LifeSiteNews[edit]

Which of the following best describes the reliability of LifeSiteNews?

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

--PluniaZ (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 4 LifeSiteNews is notorious as an ideology driven arm of the Campaign Life Coalition that routinely publishes false and misleading stories. Snopes describes it as "a known purveyor of misleading information", and carries three articles debunking LifeSiteNews. LifeSiteNews used a defamation lawsuit as a fundraising opportunity. No reputable publication relies on LifeSiteNews as a source for factual information. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - Pretty clear here that we're dealing with a partisan smear site on the order of (if not worse than) Breitbart. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 This website uses false information to promote its ideology. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 No way. LifeSiteNews is generally highly reliable for factual reporting. Moreover many high ranking prelates, including many Cardinals, trust it and have given interviews. You can't dismiss LifesiteNews because it is conservative, even on Wikipedia. Thucyd (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Which other independent reliable sources say that LifeSiteNews "is generally highly reliable"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agreed with NorthBySouthBaranof. We are not rejecting the source because it is conservative, but rather because there is barely any evidence that it is a website of decent journalists. We allow opinionated sources of all sorts, but here we are discussing their ability to report like a good journalist. It is a pro-life blog, but we would rather have a pro-life journal, and if LifeSiteNews were a journal, I would not object to allowing it. (By the way, I am absolutely pro-life, and you have no idea how much I personally hated to say that about a pro-life group.) Gamingforfun365 04:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 and possibly Option 4 - it's a nonsense site - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 4 actually reliable sources universally agree it's a shit site. Good enough for me.--Jayron32 16:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXT WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 17:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    Your quoted sentence is not from WP:V, and I don't think WP:CONTEXT is the link you're looking for. The policy on questionable sources is a part of the verifiability policy, and LifeSiteNews is highly questionable based on the types of content it publishes. Unretracted articles supporting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories taint the entire source's reputation, and reveal the source's "poor reputation for checking the facts" and tendency to publish "views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist". For example, the George Soros conspiracy theories are widely denounced by reliable sources as false and would violate the living persons policy if used at face value on Wikipedia, but a search on LifeSiteNews returns dozens of articles propagating them. WP:V also includes WP:ABOUTSELF, which maintains that questionable sources can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions (e.g. a guest column on LifeSiteNews can be used on the article about its author to describe their views). This RfC does not change WP:ABOUTSELF, which defines the only circumstance LifeSiteNews may be considered usable in a Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 19:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
All of those arguments can and should be made on a case-by-case basis. I do not think we're in a position to establish a one-size-fits-all, blanket rule about this outlet or most other outlets, nor is this noticeboard the appropriate place to establish such a rule. R2 (bleep) 23:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is significant precedent supporting the identification of sources that have a pattern of publishing highly questionable material. Editors who support option 4 here would generally oppose the inclusion of content sourced from LifeSiteNews in any situation due to its abysmal reputation for accuracy and fact-checking every time the source is raised on this noticeboard (with the exception of uses qualifying under WP:ABOUTSELF). — Newslinger talk 23:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - If we aim for Wikipedia to become anything close to an encyclopedia, we need to stop using these rubbish sites as sources for content. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - LifeSiteNews is a very conservatively-biased news source. However, there's a big difference between promoting viewpoints that many people disagree with, and deliberately peddling false information. (To quote from WP:BIASED: "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. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.") A tabloid, for example, doesn't care whether their information is true or not, as long as they get readers; but I get the impression that LifeSiteNews does care about what they consider to be "truth" and are trying to report actual news events through the lens of their worldview. You or I may not agree with the biases underlying its articles, but this does not by itself make it unreliable. The reason I say Opinion 2 instead of Opinion 1 is because LifeSiteNews does lean in a sensationalist direction. It strikes me as an ultra-conservative version of something like Slate.com or Salon.com: highly biased news source with a sensationalist approach. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue is not that the site is biased - the issue is that the site publishes and promotes known falsehoods and nonsensical conspiracy theories when convenient for its political worldview. When you choose to willfully publish lies about people (such as the Soros conspiracy theories cited above), you simply don't meet the standards of accuracy required for a reliable source. It doesn't matter that they consider such nonsense to be true - it factually and empirically is false.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • You say they "willfully publish lies" and yet they also "consider such nonsense to be true." It can't be both. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • What’s the difference? If they delusionally promote lies or maliciously do so makes little difference. They can’t be trusted as a source. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No. A lie is a lie, whether or not the person who utters it actually believes it. "Donald Trump lost the 2016 presidential election" is a falsehood, no matter how much a person might wish it to be so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Meh... A lot depends on how we phrase things. Writing: ”Trump lost the 2016 election” is an inaccurate statement, but writing “Notable commentator Ima Crackpot believes that Trump lost the 2016 election” can be an accurate statement, if Ima Crackpot actually says this. Attribution changes the statement from being “about” Trump to being “about” Crackpot. Once you attribute, the question isn’t a statement of fact (ie whether Trump won or lost), but one of opinion (what Crackpot believes). This is why you can never have a completely unreliable source... there is always at least one context in which the source is reliable (ie a direct quote). Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - More or less per PluniaZ. I had never heard of it, so spent some time on the site. To call it simply "biased" doesn't cut it. It's misleading and inaccurate all over the place in service of that bias. I cannot imagine a situation when this would be considered reliable or to have weight, outside of opinions about itself in its own article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 I think it has been carefully examined and found wanting. Time to be deprecated. scope_creepTalk 22:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 3 or 4, per Rhododendrites. -sche (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. As far as I can see, the website is full of fringe nonsense, and has been described by RS as unreliable (Snopes says it's "a known purveyor of misleading information", the Advocate says it's "One of the Most Anti-LGBTQ Online Outlets"[2]). I did a brief google search on how this website covered LGBT issues, evolution and climate change...
Here are some anti-LGBT LSN headlines (all marked "news"):
  • "Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children"[3]
  • "Ex-gay man: ‘Homosexuality is just another human brokenness’"[4]
  • "Expert Research Finds Homosexuality More Dangerous Than Smoking"[5]
  • "Expert: ‘Homo-tyranny is upon us’"[6]
  • According to the Advocate, LSN frames stories about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church as a problem of homosexuality.[7]
Here are a bunch of stories casting doubt on the theory of evolution (all marked "news"):
  • "Over 500 PhD Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory"[8]
  • "Ranks of Renowned Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise - 700 Now on Public List"[9]
  • "Astonishing 88% of Americans Believe in Creation or God-Directed Evolution"[10]
  • "Is Darwinian evolution an idea whose time has come and gone?"[11]
Climate change:
  • "More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"[12]
  • "Eminent geophysicist rejects global warming theory, says world on verge of ‘mini ice age’"[13]
  • "Former global warming scientist: Gov’ts seek ‘total control’ through climate theory"[14]
There seems to be a pattern of propping up fringe views and falsehoods. Even if the headlines are attributed to some idiot, the body of the articles usually contain straight-up falsehoods and incendiary language by the "reporter", as well as a complete failure to do the minimum fact-checking that shows that the idiots that they are quoting are saying false things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Clearly nonsense. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 I find them reliable for facts, but I always assess on a case-by-case basis, which should be done for all cites of scources. They also have a corrections policy and they do issue corrections. I may not always agree with their bias or views and like many, many sources, even mainstream news organizations/publications, you have to consider what is left out (intentional or not) or given undue weight. I don't rely on the headline for any news article (from any source) as they are too often intentionally provocative or, given their brevity, incomplete. If there is good faith controversy on assertions, I generally find it better to balance the presentation by citing sources that offer different and contrary, even if biased, analyses. Archer1234 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - This isn't about bias, or their weird beef with the Pope or their support for fringe political candidates worldwide, this is about actually publishing falsehoods. I'm saying this because some people are trying to move the discussion towards the reliability of biased sources, rather than talking about actual fake news. And RealLifeNews is a websites that publishes untruths on a regular basis. Snooganssnoogans's post above offers a wide range of examples and I find it difficult to believe that somebody can look over that list and still think this is about discrimination of right wing opinions. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or Option 4 An undeniably biased and intellectually slanted website. I don’t see it as falling into the Breitbart camp of complete deprecation, however: Media Bias/Fact Check finds its record to be mixed, not complete and total garbage. Basically I’m highly skeptical of using this source for factual reporting, and there’s no reason to use it in that area, if ever. Toa Nidhiki05 14:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is considered generally unreliable because of its questionable methodology. See the September 2018 and December 2018 discussions for details. It's not a good idea to rely on information from that site. — Newslinger talk 14:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Option 1. Its journalism has brought bombshells that can be compared to The Boston Globe's. Plenty of WP:USEBYOTHERS, see [15] [16] [17] [18] and even the failing pro-pedophilia New York Times [19]. There is also the policy WP:Child protection, which means that an anti-pedophilic bias is generally justified on Wikipedia. Let's look at the arguments for "option 4". Snopes's characterization of the website as "a known purveyor of misleading information" is the misleading thing here. Snopes only cites one incident for that vast overstatement so let's take a look at it. LifeNewsWire may have presented the strangling as factual even though there has never been a criminal conviction (this is a "he said–she said" situation). But every news outlet presents criminal allegations as factual! It's not a secret. I can't refute "option 4" !votes which do not provide any substantial rationale or evidence (these are mostly WP:IDLI non-arguments), so I am left with the argument that promoting conversion therapy is worse than promoting pedophilia (I won't comment on the veracity of this argument because I am not familiar enough), the WP:OR argument that the Soros story is false (it's actually true according to the magazine New York [20] and Haaretz cites it as fact [21] though stops short of calling the funding intentional on Soros's part; Breitbart does a lot of good stuff and most articles are correct, so one can't say their content is automatically a lie, especially when other sources corroborate the information, which is not an argument absolving Breitbart of any wrongdoing but merely the state of most Breitbart articles), the argument by Snooganssnoogans "According to the Advocate, LSN frames stories about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church as a problem of homosexuality" (the only valid argument IMO in this discussion, though WP:BIASED says that bias doesn't mean a source is unreliable if it has a track record of fact-checking, and that track record is always difficult to establish and belongs to the article Campaign Life Coalition as per WP:FRINGE, but the currently presented information there and here is scant) and Snooganssnoogans's list of LifeSiteNews articles without secondary coverage debunking them. wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The examples of USEBYOTHERS are: (1) quoting a statement made by Carson to LSN[22], (2) quoting a letter sent by ultraconservative bishops to LSN calling Pope Francis a heretic,[23], (3) quoting an anti-Pope Francis LSN story as an example of how ultraconservative Catholics have responded to Pope Francis,[24], (4) mentioning how LSN published an English translation of an Italian Archbishop's polemic against Pope Francis[25], and (5) quoting a LSN interview with an anti-Pope Francis bishop[26]. In none of these instances are other reliable sources citing this website as if it broke news and as if its content is factual. It's cited in the same way as RS would cite InfoWars or Breitbart News: as an organization that plays an active role in the culture wars and gives a platform to prominent fringe actors. I'd also like to note that this is not the first time that you've grossly misrepresented USEBYOTHERS: you also did it in the case of the Daily Wire on this noticeboard last year.[27] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, excuse my ignorance: in what way is the NY Times pro-pedophilia? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    That remark most likely refers to the NYT's publication of Margo Kaplan's controversial 2014 op-ed "Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime", which argued that US laws should be changed to disallow employers from discriminating against pedophiles, since pedophilia is a mental illness (and mentally disabled people, with the exception of pedophiles, are a protected class in the US). After publication, the NYT acknowledged the largely negative response to the op-ed. I would not consider the NYT "pro-pedophilia" since they describe Kaplan's op-ed as a minority viewpoint, and because the op-ed doesn't even portray pedophilia in positive terms. The NYT is not "failing" by any measure (commercial or critical). — Newslinger talk 17:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Your false and nonsensical rant about the newspaper of record in the United States should disqualify you from ever discussing reliable sources again. It's clear that you have neither an understanding of fact nor an understanding of policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
This, from someone who cited zero sources whatsoever. wumbolo ^^^ 11:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you just further proved their point. Gamingforfun365 04:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, and now I even further answered a question of theirs where they requested a reference. wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - if only because after reading Wumbolo's nonsense above, the complete opposite *must* be correct.... (Also because LSN prints rubbish, has a clear agenda that affects its factual reporting, and has no record of reliability from anyone else) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4, 3 being a distant second choice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per above. X-Editor (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Objection to RfC.. No evidence that a dispute made this RfC necessary, no good excuse for overriding Wikipedia policy that context matters, misleading wording since the effect is far more than deprecation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • RFCs don't require having a dispute before having them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. By definition, this is a highly biased news source and thus unsuitable for WP as a reliable source. Britishfinance (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Object to this RfC - I agree with R2 above. This RfC is noncompliant with our PAGs, particularly V policy and RS guidelines, and I certainly hope who closes this will take that into consideration. Yes, the publication has a POV and pro-life stance, but that is not a reason to declare it unreliable. It is no surprise that the political and commercial opposition forces have declared the info false and misleading - they are biased and have a COI. This RfC needs to be SNOW CLOSED. Atsme Talk 📧 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Nobody here has described LifeSiteNews's "POV and pro-life stance" as "false or misleading". The negative response here is based on the site's penchant for promoting conspiracy theories, fringe theories, and pseudoscience with misleading and poorly researched claims. If LifeSiteNews dropped the low-quality content while retaining its "POV and pro-life stance", there would be no issue with using the site as a reference with attribution. — Newslinger talk 19:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • option 4 as I've said elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment re list of options. This page's header suggested such a list as "a common format for writing the RfC question". That was a recent addition, which is being discussed in an RfC on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: As a fully pro-life person who finds the subject of abortion extremely sensitive, I can tell you that the website is an advocacy group and not much in the way of a news website. I will not cast my vote on this one, but I will say that the website is more of a political blog than a pro-life news journal (remember, journal is the keyword we're looking for). While I do dearly and wholeheartedly hold others highly for taking pro-life positions for granted—and I cannot stress that any further—here we are also talking about their ability to report on events like a good journalist. LifeSiteNews states their ideology, but that's it. Gamingforfun365 04:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Gamingforfun365: you do not seem to be taking this discussion seriously. In this entire discussion you cited zero sources and above you defended (I think you just further proved their point.) an editor who has cited zero sources in the entire discussion and who said "It's clear that you have neither an understanding of fact nor an understanding of policy" even though I cited seven very reliable sources. YET you managed to defend (Agreed with NorthBySouthBaranof.) the other editor's question "Which other independent reliable sources say that LifeSiteNews 'is generally highly reliable'?" which I have easily answered now. I can always give more WP:USEBYOTHERS references, but they will be ignored for ridiculous reasons such as "It's clear that you have neither an understanding of fact nor an understanding of policy". Here's journalist James Taranto praising "a fascinating report from LifeSiteNews.com" [28]. And if the standard for solid reporting is in-depth hit-pieces, LifeSiteNews have produced a disturbing one [29] (albeit about a public figure). wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    Those sources are only citing LifeSiteNews to report on what they said or what they interviewed. None of them said that the website was reliable. I think the problem is that you are misinterpreting what WP:USEBYOTHERS really is. It is a guideline that only applies to reliable sources that use other sources for facts, where "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." In this case, none of the sources you gave is even citing LifeSiteNews as a source of fact, but rather as a source of interviews and quotes. If they did comment on the veracity of statements by LifeSiteNews, the chances are that the sources, liberal or conservative, would generally find them false.
    If that makes me a "liberal," I will tell you what I personally think of abortion: it is homicide, and I find it disturbingly painful how a publication that leans pro-choice but has journalistic ethics and credentials could be more trustworthy than one that is pro-life but lacks the integrity of a journalist (implying that pro-lifers like me are knowingly deceiving others about the controversial—or morally questionable, as I would put it—procedure). Unfortunately, something like that happens all too often, which makes me wonder whether some of them are actually anti-conservative or at least pro-choice trolls. If that still makes me a liberal, here is one source that I am comfortable citing. It is a pro-life editorial from the pro-life-leaning National Review. Though it has the headline "California Shamelessly Persecutes Pro-Life Journalists", admittedly the source does say that it is not because the convicts are pro-life (which by the way very likely would have been taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and struck down as unconstitutional). It is because they were engaged in secretly producing undercover recordings of conversations without consent. What particularly disturbs me, based on my observation, is that it seems to be against people producing such undercover recordings exposing possible illegal activity, on the basis that they are recordings of "confidential conversations without knowledge or consent." I cannot prove the authenticity of those recordings, nor can I prove that California's unusual decision to prosecute the undercover agents instead is politically motivated, but I would not be surprised if in the case of the latter it is partly because California was politically motivated, due to the state's reputation of embracing Democratic and progressive values.
    Back on topic. Given that sources have used LifeSiteNews for its interviews, I would say that it is okay for interviews. Really, it is okay to use any source for interviews as long as we can prove that they are not fabricated. Frankly I would not be using LifeSiteNews as a source of facts; I would prefer using the National Review. I will drop this conversation, as I do not see how discussing this further is going to get us anywhere. Gamingforfun365 07:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Unreliable. Biased. Gerntrash (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. This website publishes false and misleading information in pursuit of its ideological agenda, as others have documented above. Medical misinformation about abortion is widespread (cf. Rowlands 2011; Bryant et al., 2012; Bryant et al., 2014; Wiebe et al., 2014; and Sisson et al., 2017). This misinformation is directly harmful, and we have a responsibility, as editors of a prominent online reference work, not to be complicit in its promulgation. Our responsibility to avoid amplifying medical misinformation is every bit as fundamental as our responsibilities regarding content on living people—perhaps even more so, because the potential for real-world harm is greater. Editors who use sources like this one, which is known to purvey false and misleading medical information, are violating basic ethical and editorial responsibilities. MastCell Talk 18:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4, as a peddler of fake news. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4, due to promotion of conspiracy theories and general unreliability. (via FRS) StudiesWorld (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: MintPress News[edit]

What is the best way to describe the reliability of MintPress News? --Jamez42 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Survey (MintPress News)[edit]

  • Option 4 (first choice) or option 3 (second choice). Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable:
Quotes about MintPress News from reliable sources
The pro-Russian networks are also injecting Russian propaganda about other countries into U.S. far-right circles. After Jones’ InfoWars (RSP entry) interviewed Stranahan on Aug. 15, Stranahan’s charge that the U.S. is hypocritical for supporting Nazis in Ukraine (a years-old Kremlin line) while condemning them at home appeared on fringe websites such as Mint Press News, TheLastAmericanVagabond.com, BBSNews and JewWorldOrder, Nimmo found.

"Pro-Russian Bots Take Up the Right-Wing Cause After Charlottesville", ProPublica

As detailed in a 2013 BuzzFeed News profile of Mint Press News, the site's sources of funding are unclear, and it pursues a reporting line that strongly backs the governments of Iran and Syria, and that is anti-Saudi and anti-Israel. The site has at times been the source of dubious claims, such as a 2013 story falsely claiming it had proof that Syrian rebels were responsible for a chemical attack. That story was published with the byline of an AP (RSP entry) stringer, who subsequently said she did not report the story and demanded that her name be removed.

Mint Press News also recently began reprinting articles from Sputnik (RSP entry) and RT (RSP entry), two of Russia's state-funded news outlets. The misleading story about the pilgrimage in Iraq was in fact a reprint — but not from a Russian outlet. It was sourced from the American Herald Tribune, a website edited by a Canadian professor and conspiracy theorist named Anthony Hall. He, for example, believes 9/11 was an inside job, and that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged. Hall was recently suspended from his job at an Alberta university over accusations of anti-Semitism.

"Facebook Trending Just Promoted Another False Story", Craig Silverman, BuzzFeed News (RSP entry)

While Burke was both accessible and forthcoming with a font of suspicious-­to-­damning details of MintPress’ editorial functions, MintPress was not only inaccessible by e­mails (which weren’t returned) and telephone (which was no longer connected) but even physically, as I found out on a fruitless three­-hour search mission for their Plymouth offices. Pursuit of comment from MintPress’ early and long-­since departed staff have proven equally unsatisfying.

"The mystery of MintPress News", MinnPost

GW: My favourite story for implicating the rebels was the Mint Press story that claimed that it was the fault of a Saudi prince, who had made the agent in Saudi Arabia, taken it to the front lines, and an artillery barrage set it off. It made no sense, but the media ran with it for two days.

AS: They are famous for 1001 Arabian Nights stories!

Interview with Åke Sellström, "Modern Warfare", CBRNe World

I read through MintPress News's most recent "inside story" ("Microsoft’s ElectionGuard a Trojan Horse for a Military-Industrial Takeover of US Elections"), and I was not impressed with the level of fact-checking done. The article accuses Microsoft of "price gouging for its OneCare security software", and links that text to "Microsoft accused of predatory pricing of security software", an article from The Guardian (RSP entry) that describes the exact opposite: "Incredibly, Microsoft has priced themselves almost 50% below the market leader". (See Predatory pricing for a definition of the practice.) The MintPress News article then uses its own false claim to assert that Microsoft's "offering of ElectionGuard software free of charge is tellingly out of step for the tech giant and suggests an ulterior motive behind Microsoft’s recent philanthropic interest in 'defending democracy.'"

MintPress News is biased or opinionated, and any use of the source should be attributed. Since it's associated with fringe theories, its content should be examined for due weight and parity of sources should be considered. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Quote from Mick West's Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect
Government Admissions

     There are two ways in which people claim the government has “admitted” to Chemtrails or covert geoengineering. The first is to point at weather modification (discussed earlier). In this case you’ve just got to explain to your friend what weather modification actually is: cloud seeding to make it rain or snow more, something that has been openly done for sixty-plus years.

     The second way is to point to people in government or academia discussing possible future geoengineering, and then claiming that’s an “admission” of current geoengineering. Here’s an example.

Chemtrails have long been regarded as “just another wacky conspiracy theory,” but what’s your excuse when a former CIA Director [John Brennan] himself admits that the government is spraying our skies? … Indeed, whereas the notion of secretive government programs spraying chemicals into the sky is often deemed a conspiracy, the government seems to be openly engaging in essentially the same practice now.41

Endnotes: Chapter 7

41. Agorist, Matt. “No Longer Conspiracy: CIA Admits Plans Of Aerosol Spraying For Geoengineering.” MintPress News, 7 Jul. 2016, http://www.mintpressnews.com/no-longer-conspiracy-cia-admits-plans-aerosol-spraying-geoengineering/218179/. Accessed 16 Jan. 2018.

As a source that pushes conspiracy theories, MintPress News is highly questionable. — Newslinger talk 06:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 is my impression, I noticed something was strange with this site after only reading a few of its articles, leading me to read on MintPress. When I found out about information confirming my suspicion, I also discovered that it includes reposts of Russian media that is often considered propaganda by other sources (and started a discussion thread about it here per WP:BRD when my edit to the lead was reverted). —PaleoNeonate – 01:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or option 3 at best. We can literally use SELFSOURCE to state that MintPress is widely considered unreliable. They have built an entire fundraising campaign around the fact that Google, Facebook, and the collective "Mainstream Media" denounce MintPress as fake news.(Cite: gofundme.com/fighting-social-media-censorship - which I can't directly link due to an edit filter blacklist on that website.) It's unclear whether MintPress is part of the Russian fake news engine or merely a bunch of "useful idiot" nutters participating in the same content-sharing web of alternative "news" sites, but for our purposes it doesn't matter. If a story runs on MintPress and it appears in a normally Reliable source, I would consider that good reason to consider whether the Reliable Source had a lapse in their quality checks. Alsee (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    The GoFundMe campaign uses the polemical article "Obama, Being Black, Was Perfectly Suited to Deliver the Racist Message", which asks, "Was Obama an avatar of white supremacy?", and states, "Obama clearly made a conscious effort to depict blacks as a thing apart, and the children of a lesser God, who were deserving of their material misfortune", as an example of the content MintPress News is producing. The site clearly has no ambition to be a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. MintPress News is closer to a fakenews site than journalism. No need to lower the RS bar. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or * Option 3 Clearly unreliable per presented evidence --Shrike (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 although I would settle for Option 3 if there is not a strong enough consensus for the former. MintPress is a cesspool of conspiracy theories and misinformation that should never be cited on an encyclopedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I have scanned some other articles on the site and followed the links. We will have to take each article on a case-by-case basis. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or * Option 3 Clearly unreliable as per evidence above. I don't think MediaBias/Factcheck or Newsguard are reliable in themselves but are useful starting points. The former rates MintPress as "biased", its factual reporting as "mixed" and notes two failed fact checks1, 2' while the latter gave it a "red" (i.e. fail) rating. FactCheck.org found it to have published a fake story in 2015[30] (see also AFP[31]), and Snopes found it to have published "mostly false" stories in 2015[32] and 2016[33] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 20:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    All four options in this RfC are fully compliant with the verifiability policy, especially in light of its section on questionable sources. The above evidence is more than enough to establish MintPress News as highly questionable. There is no need to go through additional motions when multiple discussions' worth of evidence is presented in this RfC. The inclusion criterion in WP:RSP § How to improve this list is one RfC or two significant discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    Comment MintPress News has been used several times as a source in articles about the Syrian Civil War and the Venezuelan crisis, among other controversial topics, which is the reason why I started this RfC. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Citation needed.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Objection to RfC per above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment re list of options. This page's header suggested such a list as "a common format for writing the RfC question". That was a recent addition, which is being discussed in an RfC on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4; not remotely reliable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: is "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" an RS?[edit]

Continuing the discussion from the previous RSN thread and Talk:History of the Jews in Poland: is the book "Golden Harvest Or Hearts of Gold?: Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews" (2012) an RS? François Robere (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Not an RS:
  • The book was originally published by The Facto, a popular press,[34] so no evidence of peer review.
  • The translation was published by Leopolis Press, the editor's own publishing house[35] - the very definition of WP:SPS.
  • Apparently the translation has so many errors that, according to one reviewer, "[it] has more errors in basic English than any other scholarly book I have read. When authors, editors, and proofreaders – those eyes that view a document before scholarly publication – can't use so rudimentary a tool as spellcheck... the reader begins to assume that the entire text is suspect."[36]
  • The book is not listed on Google Scholar, so it's impossible to tell how many citations it has. This is quite unusual; I could find this rare book (which I came upon by literally searching for "rare academic books"), but I can't find that one.
  • The first editor is Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, a controversial academic who's been frequently criticised for his ideologically-motivated writing, bias against minorities and association with far right politics. At risk of losing a $1m endowment earmarked for Chodakiewicz, the University of Virginia opted to "let him go", His positions seem to have played a part in the University of Virginia's decision not to appoint him to an endowed position (instead they suggested Jan T. Gross, a major scholar and a critic of Chodakiewicz), which effectively meant the withdrawal of the $1m endowment from the university and the termination of the position. Chodakiewicz managed to have the endowment passed to a small college in Washington, DC, where he now teaches.
  • The second editor, Wojciech Muszyński, was also criticised for his far right links.
  • The third editor, Paweł Styrna, is a research associate and former student of the first, but is otherwise unnotable.
  • The book includes such right-wing staples as Chodakiewicz, John Radzilowski (who used the book to coin the term "neo-Stalinists" in reference to his critics), Ryszard Tyndorf (who isn't an academic) and Mark Paul, a pseudonymic writer (again, highly unusual) which was previously deemed unreliable.[37][38]
  • Several of the other authors are either non-academic or unpublished: Bethany Paluk (grad student), Barbara Gorczycka-Muszynska (judge) and Tomasz Sommer (politician and publicist).
  • AFAIK the book was only reviewed twice, both negatively.[39][40]
  • The original proposer's response to the lack of positive criticisms was that "[the book] is nonetheless cited and engaged with by other scholars as part of an academic discourse".[41] While true, it only establishes notability, not reliability, so it's not enough to justify using the book for statements of fact.
  • The OP's other response was that "the reviews, while pointing out that bias, are themselves also likely biased." Unfortunately he did not present any evidence to support this conjecture.
  • Bias and politics are not reasons for something to not be RS, neither is lack of peer review for books. The translation issue is more problematic. I would say the English translation is not an RS the Polish original maybe. But I am sure we only discussed this a couple of months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not in a RfC. Being self-published in English and published in Polish by an obscure non-academic popular press (without a reputation for fact checking) is a RS issue - as is the reputation of the self-publisher / editor / authors. Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE books cannot be used to source such well researched academic field like Polish-Jewish relation.The source maybe reliable for Author own view when its WP:DUE -Shrike (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, in WP:FRINGE turf, and WP:UNDUE regardless. This is a well published field - with several manuscripts by established academics in academic presses. The work in question is self-published in English (the first named editor and author is also the publisher - [42] - Leopolis is published by the Kościuszko Chair who is Chodakiewicz - and hasn't published much of anything else). and published by an obscure and small publisher in Polish that is far from academic (see bookdepository). The publisher/first-editor/first-author works in academia are highly controversial,[43][44][45] and is furthermore a far-right activist,[46] profiled by the SPLC.[47][48] Another editor was a m.sc student at time of publication and is presently at SPLC-designated FAIR.[49][50] The book itself is not an academic work, but a collection of polemic essays. Some of the name authors are far-right figures, one is writing under a pseudo-name, and others are nearly unknown - including the author of the book chapter in question (Gorczycka-Muszyńska) - a journal article noting it's not a coincidence she shares a surname with the second editor of the volume. The scant attention this has received in academia - mainly due to many outlandish claims in the book (including a whole chapter devoted to describing American historical studies as "Neo-Stalinist") - has been entirely negative.[51][52][53] Academic coverage also noting factual errors as well as numerous errors in basic English - further calling the publisher's reputation into question (if the publisher is unable to spellcheck and proofread the book - are we to trust them with fact checking?). Finally, the existence of several academically published and well-cited academic works in the field make use of this work even for an attributed viewpoint as WP:UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the number of studies in this field, a work that doesn't make it onto Google Scholar isn't the best choice for using. It may be reliable for opinions of each essay's author, but that's going to depend on WP:DUE. At best, it's barely reliable, but given the only academic journal review it received here was scathing... and then an online review by Danusha Goska isn't much less scathing. Add in the non-academic publisher, and we have better choices to use. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (I was summoned by bot to the RFC further up this page, and I made the regrettable decision to investigate this one as well.) Not sufficiently Reliable for anything this source is likely to be cited for. To help other new arrivals with this wide-ranging mess: this Wikipedia search currently finds 18 articles or discussions mentioning this source. Note to avoid confusion, Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold is a response to Golden Harvest (book), so don't make the mistake of searching "Golden Harvest" as I initially did. This mess also involves a currently open Request to open an Arbcom case on Holocaust in Poland. One POV involved is that there are some rather unflattering events in Polish history, including slaughter of hundreds of Jews by Poles, in a city that was bypassed by the Nazi invasion. The other POV involves sources saying that any antisemitism that existed in Poland is because the Jews deserved it, and Jews are to blame because they collaborated with the Nazis via some convoluted chain of logic. The source we are discussing here was edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, who is indeed a Notable Historian. However he appears to have received substantial criticism from other Notable historians for a Pro-Polish-Nationalistic historical revisionism, and numerous accusations of hostile bias against Jews. He appears to have a rather dubious reputation in the field. He appears to be outside the mainstream at best, and perhaps Fringe. The book itself also appears to have a poor reputation. If we're going to cite any of Chodakiewicz's work I suggest we at least limit to something more substantial than a compilation of essays by a non-academic publisher. And if we cite a significant non-mainstream viewpoint, NPOV requires that it be appropriately contextualized with the mainstream viewpoint. Alsee (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not an RS per persuasive arguments by Icewhiz and Francois. WBGconverse 10:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, for the reasons given. Indeed, an excellent example of what is meant by lack of reliability in this sort of subject. I find it remarkable that this would be seriously proposed as a RS for anything imaginably controversial. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • RS. As follows from this discussion: (a) the original version of the book was not self-published, (b) it belongs to scholarship, and (c) it can also be regarded as an opinionated source. Because of (c), it should be used with appropriate attribution. This is a book collecting writings by several professional historians including Chodakiewicz, Piotr Gontarczyk, Peter Stachura, John Radzilowski, and Waldemar Chrostowski. It was published in Polish and translated to English. Do we have concerns that the publications in this book have indeed been written by these historians? No, if I understand correctly. Hence, the book can be used per WP:RS to provide their views with direct appropriate attribution. Are their views due and should be included on specific pages? This is an entirely different question. That depends on specific page and on consensus on the page. Given that at least some of the authors are experts in their fields, I do not see why not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Borderline RS. Can be used, but should be used with attribution in case there are any disagreements. To the best of my knowledge, no 'red flags' have been identified in the text, i.e. it makes no outlandish claims. Care should be taken to distinguish bwtween chapters by reliable scholars like John Radzilowski and more problematic ones like the ones by Mark Paul. a person that I was not able to find any biographical informatuon about. I'd suggest not using any content from the more problematic chapters if there is any disagreement about them. We should not silence voices by minor historians. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    Radzilowski authored a chapter devoted to labelling American social sciences, historical studies, and several historians as neo-Stalinists. Reception of which (probably the main reason this book received any notice) has been scathing. As noted in a review, he holds a position in a small campus in Alaska, while criticising fields and academics at major institutions. Is this chapter then a RS for "neo-Stalinism" of named BLPs and academic fields?Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The authors of the book can be wrong, reflect minority views, whatever. That does not make the source unreliable. It can only make their views "undue" on pages. Are they due on pages? I do not know. There are American historians who belong to the "revisionist school". But that's irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, ... should not silence voices by minor historians ... - they are not professional historians rather historical negation-ists, who suit the Polish side and I don't know about how editors can identify red flag from the texts claims w/o indulging in OR.
    The two reviews of the book are scathing and the publishing press does not provide any indication of peer review. No serious academic publisher entertains pseudonymous writers. Folks like Bethany Paluk, Barbara Gorczycka-Muszyńska, Paweł Styrna et al are not any minimally respected scholars in the field and some are not even scholars. Chodakiewicz's work around the locus of Holocaust is a proper example of a national-apologist scholarship, marred with blatant misrepresentations and selective cherry-pickings and whose works have been near-uniformly subject to scathing reviews. Radzilowski's scholarship in this area is controversial and despite the low volume of relevant work, the reviews have been unfavorable esp. w.r.t the Neo-Stalinism issues.
    All of the above are red-flags to me. WBGconverse 08:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • RS but should be attributed since it is BIASed (but BIAS is not RELIABILITY). At the very least the professional historians and scholars in the volume are RS. First, note that Icewhiz Francois Robere does not back up any of his assertions, past the third one, with diffs or links. In case of living people, making such claims without evidence constitutes a WP:BLPVIO (BLP applies to discussion pages). The authors for the most part are professional historians. One of them, Gorczycka-Muszynska is a judge, but then she's addressing legal questions (albeit in a historical context), hence that's still reliable. Some of Icewhiz Francois Robere's assertions about the authors are either false or absurd. I'm pretty sure that John Radzilowski didn't "coin" (sic) the term "neo-Stalinist" and as has already been pointed out to Icewhiz amd Francois Robere (edited), Radzilowski does NOT describe "American historical studies" as "neo-Stalinist". Rather he is referring to specific individuals, who do happen to be quite a bit to the left (whether the moniker is appropriate or not is kind of beside the point). Regarding Mark Paul, Icewhiz Francois Robere claims that this author "was previously deemed unreliable". This too is false. In the first RSN discussion Icewhiz Francois Robere links to [54] there is clearly no consensus regarding the reliability. You get the usual split with Icewhiz/FrancoisRobere vs. others. The second link, to an RfC on a specific page was indeed closed with "not included" but mostly for reasons that had to do with the fact that the source was being used for WP:LISTCRUFT. One last comment - User:Alsee, I would ask that you don't base your !vote on the basis of claims Icewhiz has made at the ArbCom Request for Case. Indeed, Icewhiz's tendency to misrepresent editors and sources is precisely why we're likely to have a case. For example, Icewhiz mentions, and you repeat, this AfD, regarding the article Szczuczyn pogrom. Please click on the history of that article (here). Please note that NONE of Icewhiz's edits to that article have been reverted. Please look at the talk page of that article (Talk:Szczuczyn_pogrom). Please note that there are NO objections to any of Icewhiz's edits. Icewhiz is PRETENDING that he is fighting against some POV on this article, pushed by some bad editors. Except these bad editors don't actually exist. Even the AfD nomination was withdrawn once actual sources were added to the article (at the time of the AfD sources were crap). The Szczuczyn Pogrom article is NOT controversial. Nobody's denying it, nobody's rewriting it, nobody's edit warring over it. Pretty much everything that Icewhiz says in that ArbCom Case Request is either false or a gross misrepresentation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • More generally, RSN or not, Icewhiz really needs to refrain from making WP:BLP vios on this page. For example, the statement "At risk of losing a $1m endowment earmarked for Chodakiewicz..." is unsupported and as such a pretty blatant violation of BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    Volunteer Marek I only skimmed a small bit of the Arbcom case, and all I know about Szczuczyn pogrom is that I skimmed the article and that there was a (failed) AFD. I merely considered that article one datapoint, that there was history that some people might consider inconvenient. Most of what you deny/defend above is things I never heard of (and therefore never believed).
    While Robere's and Icewhiz's posts above looked potentially persuasive, I saw this situation was more complex and I went digging. For what it's worth I mostly reached my conclusion while independently searching info on Chodakiewicz and Hearts of Gold. I can't begin to fully investigate the big mess around this subject, and it's possible I'm wrong. However everything I found about Chodakiewicz and Hearts of Gold set off all my redflags on the source.
    As another for-what-it's-worth, if this RSN discussion goes against you and the arbcom case ends in your favor, I would be willing to revisit this question to consider any clarity the arbcom case may (or may not) bring to the picture here. But from what I've seen so far this source doesn't seem trustworthy. Alsee (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    That was my statement, not Icewhiz's. The story is told in bits and pieces by Radziłowski in Glaukopis 19, p. 281; at the chair's website; in a paper by Thomas Anessi; and at the IWP's website. François Robere (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
My bad. I made the appropriate correction. All these claims are ones both you and Icewhiz have made, echoing each other, hence the source of my confusion. My entire comment still applies however.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Francois Robere, in your sentence beginning with "At risk of losing a $1m endowment ..." you make an outright claim that the BLP subject was fired from his job because he did something bad. You can't make that claim without sources. That is an extremely serious WP:BLPVIOlation. In fact this is like textbook BLP vio. If you do have sources you should've immediately provided them. Not only when you're called out on it. But ok, let's look at these source you mentioned: This one DOES NOT mention Chodakiewicz. This source says the chair was transferred to another institute for FINANCIAL REASONS. This source only says the chair was transferred from UoV to AIPC. In fact these two sources state that Chodakiewicz was only holding the chair temporarily while arrangements were made for it to be transferred.
You know what BLP is. You know this is a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. This book may or may not be RS. But you can't try to win this argument about reliability by trying to smear the BLP subject! Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There's very little to it - you just have to read the talk pages.
I didn't say Chodakiewicz was fired, I said he was "let go". However, to avoid ambiguity I've now changed that statement. As for the sources:
  • Radzilowski clearly states that despite Chodakiewicz's "considerable achievements and experience" (including being the chair's assistant professor) he wasn't even interviewed for the position, and a less qualified candidate - one whose main asset was that "they weren't Chodakiewicz nor had his views" - was chosen. The selection process resulted in the withdrawal of funds and the termination of the Kościuszko chair at UVA. This, per Radzilowski.
  • The chair's website describes Roszkowski and Chodakiewicz's strong ties and academic achievements, then makes the following note: "Apparently, some in academia found rather disturbing the dynamic growth of Polish studies outside of the politically correct and bigotedly Polonophobic academic mainstream. In June 2002, finding the ambiance at UVA increasingly less hospitable to his endeavors, Professor Roszkowski resigned his post and returned to Poland". Only then does it mention a problem with funds (despite "considerable increase" in income). The overall impression is that the funds weren't the main problem.
  • Anessi states that the initial donor, one Blanka Rosenstiel, withdrew her support in 2008 "after the university both attempted to appoint Jan Tomasz Gross (major scholar from UToronto, and Chodakiewicz's critic. -FR) to the position, and also failed to raise the matching funds needed to fully fund the Chair". Only then was the chair moved to the IWP, where the "conservative" Chodakiewicz accepted it, and it had remained there despite an ongoing shortage of funds several years later. Again, money doesn't seem to have been the main issue.
  • The IWP states that Chodakiewicz was "instrumental in the bid to bring the Chair [there]".
François Robere (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
You have not provide a link to Radzilowski. Considering that you misrepresented the three other sources, you'll forgive me if I ask you to provide such a link so that your claim can be WP:Verified, which is required for BLP. Your explanations for other sources STILL fail to document that he was "let go" (which DOES mean "fired" in an academic context), much less that "His positions seem to have played a part". It says SOMEONE ELSE (Roszkowski) resigned. Anessi sources still doesn't even mention Chodakiewicz. "Instrumental in the bid to bring the Chair there" in fact strongly suggests he left of his own accord. This is just you doubling down on your original BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course I did: Radziłowski in [http://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20091119_20091119_IWP_KChair_info.pdf Glaukopis 19], p. 281 Now, seeing as you opened an AE case against me,[55] there's no eason to continue this discussion here. François Robere (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This discussion is all over the place between RS, NPOV, FRINGE, SPS, USEBYOTHERS and BLP. This needs a more structured format to address these issues individually. If it is true, what is said in the two on-line English language reviews, the source is very problematic indeed, and we need more information on what the paywalled reveiw says. On the other hand, if there is a counter to those reviews (Piortr) mentions a counter but not what it says, and if is true that other scholarly works (not reveiws) have used this source, what do they use it for? I suggest a mediation occur to make a structured RfC, with multiple questions (Perhaps based around each policy or guideline) and laying out all the research in accessible fashion, where the participants in the mediation agree on presentation of the questions and on laying out the research (you will, no doubt, all conduct yourself in good faith in doing so). Also, please don't stop at buzz words like "neostalinist", meaningless to most people, look to the literature and layout what meaning is given to eg., that concept. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    Being a self published (in English) book by a SPLC profiled individual should be sufficient to preclude this (on RS grounds - SPS, and NPOV / UNDUE / FRINGE). The "Neo-Stalinism" chapter in the book is what tends to be most covered by reviews. As for the paywalled article (actually not a review - a full fledged article) - I have read it in full, and it is quite negative. That this book is receiving any support here is beyond shameful - and has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Needless to say - this is rarely cited by anyone other than the authors (and that includes those who analyze the book itself as a controvesy), and several other highly cited works (published by actual academic presses and journals) are available. Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
For RS and I can't think of another policy where it matters, what you consider"shameful" is neither here, nor there. It's also not actually relevant that there would be some kind of 'guilt by association'. We accept both foreign language sources and paywalled sources but when there is inquiry they need to be made accessible by quotes to other editors. As I have noted and your comment confirms again, this is not just RS it cuts across multiple policy/guidelines, beyond the competency and use of this noticeboard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker:,quote last two paras (conclusion): Of course, one could go deeper into some confessions of the authors. But why? There is something farcical about the conception of a crusade against the modern world professed by a few researchers from a marginal research centre,10 which is a recruitment pool of the CIA.11 But could this McCarthyism drenched in the East European “sauce” with the whole peculiar, local color; this “informationdepositary,” as Chodakiewicz and Muszyński state in the introduction, worthy of 1930s right-wing political leaϐlets and then slightly ϐiltered through the 2011 Poland political correctness, survive anywhere else abroad? This collection is more like the material for a seminar of linguists or even scholars of rhetoric and propaganda. The book will not be good nourishment for readers interested in the Holocaust and its third phase, i.e. the basic topics of the essays by Jan Tomasz Gross and Irena Grudzińska-Gross. So what else is left if one disregards the fact that Marek Jan Chodakiewicz and his colleagues have by the sheer keenness of their minds penetrated the laws of history and modern development, that they have read and diagnosed the fears of the contemporary world and even revealed another face of the veiled totalitarianism freely raging by the River Vistula, and if one were to spare oneself Gontarczyk’s technical fireworks? It does not change the fact that one will surely become involved with most of those authors and surely quite often. They are engaged in a persistent dialogue with a numerous group of people who see the world in a similar way and they do not care at all about anybody else.".Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Thus, in a structured discussion all that can be laid out, cross checked, all policies/guidelines engaged, and in respectful discussion even close the gaps between editorial positions. I am on the outside, and I am all for it being, as definitively settled, as possible. The usual form of a question of only RS is here is a Wiki-article statement, here is this source (and here we are dealing with multiple source articles by multiple authors), is it RS for this statement. Now multiply across NPOV, FRINGE, SPS, USEBYOTHERS and BLP, etc., and there is much to settle. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - with regard to the reliability of editor of the book, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, more generally, I put him in roughly the same category as the American National Review (for which Chodakiewicz writes occasionally) or the British historian Niall Ferguson. Both of these are right of center, they both have made some controversial statements but at the end of the day they're still reliable if BIASed (bias is not unreliability). And similarly to Chodakiewicz, Ferguson has been attacked and criticized by other commentators, with some of this criticism justified and some of it just being based on, well, basically smears. I'd like the people who are saying this is not an RS here, to indicate whether they would consider National Review or Niall Ferguson to be reliable, which would help us get a better handle on what "reliable" actually is suppose to mean here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable: no indication of meeting RS, due to negative reviews and an unreliable publication process. The opinions expressed in the book, even if attributed, would be undue, for the same reason. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Stormer[edit]

ALREADY BLACKLISTED
The Daily Stormer (dailystormer.name) is already on the spam blacklist, and no further action is needed. — Newslinger talk 23:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would ask for request for comment about the Daily Stormer, which is contain neo-Nazi and supremacist website, which is compared to a defunct Der Stürmer magazine, which is impact of hate, then I suppose that source is reliable, unreliable, depreciated or spam, as I gave the consensus on English Wikipedia, and I will suppose for help. --119.94.166.126 (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Blacklisted: The Daily Stormer is currently on the spam blacklist under the entry \bDailyStormer\.name\b (dailystormer.name). — Newslinger talk 00:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And quite rightly so, we don't need to be including nazi websites as sources on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This cannot be cited on wikipedia as a reliable source for a claim due to it WP:FRINGE nature. It does not have much peer review from what I can tell. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate – they have falsely claimed that a Muslim was part of ISIS and fabricated tweets that stated that he had committed terrorism. I don't understand the question here, but WP:RS doesn't have an absolute "not pro-genocide" requirement. For example, the article Hassan Ngeze contains a link to his personal website, which may have contained coded messages in support of genocide according to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. A self-published reference can both pass WP:ABOUTSELF and advocate for genocide. For example, Media of Rwanda contains references to genocidal radio stations and TV channels. Pretty much every news outlet has bullied those (including kids) who are ideologically opposed or are of a certain race, encouraging death threats, but The Daily Stormer does it on a very regular basis (are those who attack Trump for calling fake news the enemy of the people, going to defend the Nazis who run The Daily Stormer?). wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No need to depreciate, as it is already on the “spam blacklist” (a step up from “depreciated”). Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • HELL NO We don't need a site that has a section on "Jewish Problem".Adoring nanny (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Of all the discussions on this page, this seems to be the best example of 'we do not need to discuss every website that exists in the world'. To clarify, as per others, I don't see any reason to deprecate this source. It's already spam blacklisted. If anyone disputes it's unreliability because of the lack of a RSN discussion or appearance on perennial sources there is a simple solution for that. ANI and a topic or site ban. Assuming that some admin doesn't just save us the discussion and indef them. I.E. anyone proposing the use of Daily Stormer as an RS is either trolling or lacks the WP:Competence to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Close this discussion just noticed the OP was CU blocked and I don't think anyone else here feels it needs to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 19 June 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.

RfC: Quadrant Magazine[edit]

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

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

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

It is not a news source, I don't think the classifications are how it should be viewed. The publication has produced content that might be used with attribution to its author, sort of option 2, but after a certain period was shown to be unreliable in editorial selection and elementary checks (a Sokal-like article that was published, literally fabricated information). cygnis insignis 03:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Fabricated information is a serious concern. Do you have links to examples of these articles? — Newslinger talk 23:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The editor is named in an outline of the hoax this news item [in a Murdoch organ, if that matters, I can provide better] cygnis insignis 06:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed my position, although I note that the article still describes Quadrant as a "respected right-wing journal" despite the incident. For other interested editors, a more detailed description of the incident is at Keith Windschuttle § Hoax, but the incident is not yet mentioned in the Quadrant (magazine) article. If there are any other incidents that would establish a pattern of poor editorial controls, please share them. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Endorse RfC. See Special:Diff/901760684. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Quadrant publishes mostly opinions, which makes it a biased or opinionated source, and all of its statements should be properly attributed. The source consists of both online and magazine editions; in the past two decades, the magazine has released 10 issues per year. Quadrant has 10 listed authors on its editorial team, but most of its online content is submitted by non-staff contributors. On average, the online edition publishes 1–3 articles per day; the low volume allows the site to publish higher-quality content than Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry). Quadrant isn't a good source for facts; outlets that focus on factual reporting are better. — Newslinger talk 23:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Option 2 for articles written by staff, option 3 for articles written by non-staff contributors. The incident described in Keith Windschuttle § Hoax casts doubt on the quality of Quadrant's fact-checking process for contributed articles and reveals that the magazine does not properly verify the identity and credentials of its non-staff contributors. The editor-in-chief promised to be more careful in the future, but did not offer details on how the publication would do so. Contributed articles should be treated as self-published sources, with exceptions for established subject-matter experts. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. It is an opinion magazine, and might be quoted for notable opinions properly attributed to a notable contributor. It's articles are not a useful source for factual claims, and it's not prominent enough to make the opinions automatically notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Worth noting that even the "hoax" contained mostly true information, and that Windschuttle seems unhappy about the fact that he was tricked into accepting it. Looking at their website, I see opinionated statements, which leads me to be cautious with them for facts, but also no examples of anything clearly false. In general, their content ought to be treated like opinion pieces, without prejudice against deciding, on a case by case basis and using WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as a guide, that some pieces may be factual.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3, maybe Option 4. If this source were placed into Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I'm inclined to think it should be red. It has an entire section (w/ link in top header), Doomed Planet, dedicated to climate denialism. Therefore, the organization as a whole seems to lack interest in scientific credibility, which I suspect pervades their entire publication. II | (t - c) 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5 Rigorous application of WP:NOTNEWS and avoid use of media sources wherever possible. That said, media sources that are clearly opinion, are even more suspect and should be avoided except when a columnist in them has an independently notable opinion. Then, and only then, it could be used for citing that opinion, as an opinion, with the normal WP:DUE concerns that surround individual opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Quadrant publishes opinion, typically from little-known writers these days, and is not a RS for anything except the authors' views. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Opinion-focused source with no indication of fact-checking and no reputation to speak of. Regarding R2's objection, they are not entirely wrong, and it's true that the recent flood of broad WP:RFCs for sources is undesirable; however, these RFCs are still useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated. Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare), I don't think any outcome should be taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Every article in their current edition seems to be almost entirely ideologically-propelled opinion. I read one in its entirety, plus provided sources, by Mark Durie, regarding the New Zealand killer of 51 people at two mosques. The verifiable few facts I found were cherry picked from context. It's better than the Daily Mail, but what isn't? Activist (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh[edit]

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

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, may include gossip or other trivial tabloid content presented as factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, primarily publishes gossip, or does not guarantee the accuracy of information that it publishes as factual reporting
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Newspapers signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a difficult one. It is definitely a news site, and people rely on it for up to date and accurate news. According to Course Hero and Boamah, Mavis, Impact of online newsportals on the patronage of newspapers in Ghana, GRIN Verlag (2018), p. 7, ISBN 9783668719965:
As the political agenda of Gold Coast journalism radicalized, newspapers began reaching out beyond the circle of elites, appealing to rural leaders and the urban poor with a more accessible language and fiery oppositional outcry. In 1948, political activist Kwame Nkrumah started The Accra Evening News, a publication stating the views of the Convention People's Party (CPP). Largely written by party officials, this inflammatory newspaper incessantly repeated the popular demand for "Self-government Now!" while launching angry attacks against the colonial government. In contrast, the London Daily Mirror Group, headed by British newspaper magnate Cecil King, established The Daily Graphic in 1950. The Graphic sought to maintain a policy of political neutrality, emphasizing objective reporting by local African reporters. With its Western origin, The Graphic sought to position itself as the most professional newspaper in the Gold Coast at the time.

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

  • Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Ahrtoodeetoo, the purpose of my raising this RfC is to get a baseline assessment of reliability so that editors engaged in page reviewing (or other topic-hopping maintenance tasks) who are unfamiliar with a given region or topic (in this case Ghana) can more reliably make decisions that comply with community consensus. I agree that the result of this discussion should not be posted to RSP; I intend to summarize the results of this discussion at WP:NPPSG, which is supposed to centralize information from RSN that potentially reflects a weaker consensus than RSP. In hindsight, this makes option 4 an arguably inappropriate inclusion in the survey, although given the responses so far this is a non-issue. Moreover, looking at the comments in the discussion so far, this is hardly a popularity contest: so far we have two well-thought-out comments drawing on high quality sources. I'm open to criticisms that this should be handled through a different process (a differently worded RfC prompt is likely in order), but these sorts of discussions are a net positive to the project and will particularly help us cover subjects that are systemic-bias blind spots. signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is that context really does matter per WP:RS, and you can't assess context without discussing specific article content. Moreover, the community has to look at a lot of article content, not just one or two examples, or even worse none, before drawing any conclusions about an outlet's general reliability. That's the very premise behind RSP. Those are outlets that have come up again and again. Not never. R2 (bleep) 20:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    This isn't for RSP. My goal here is to establish a guide that allows editors to distinguish reputable sources from tabloids and self-published outlets at a glance, as well as to identify particularly relevant conflicts of interest for a given publication. The purpose of this is not to head off discussion about sources, it's to provide a starting point. Of course context matters, but there are also aspects of a publication that remain true in every (or almost every context) and that are worth discussing and recording. signed, Rosguill talk 20:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Ahrtoodeetoo, are you planning to insert this into more sections on this noticeboard? It doesn't seem directly related. cygnis insignis 09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I plan to keep objecting to these sorts of surveys, unless/until there's consensus that they're consistent with WP:RS. R2 (bleep) 15:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ahrtoodeetoo I move this query from the previous section: TDM is what, The Daily Mail? cygnis insignis 18:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Endorse RfC. See Special:Diff/901760684. — Newslinger talk 22:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ahrtoodeetoo If you "plan to keep objecting to these sorts of surveys" on principle, I suggest you open an RfC elsewhere on the merits of these kinds of discussions. Considering your objections are not very much related to the actual sources being discussed, to be posting the same message over and over here would come across as obstructionist. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing obstructionist about it. I have nothing against discussing the reliability of specific Daily Graphic sources in context. My objection is made in good faith and is as applicable to this noticeboard request as to other similar requests. R2 (bleep) 22:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment An excerpt from The Press and Political Culture in Ghana by Jennifer Hasty, published by Indiana University Press in 2005 (page 47): "Under President J. J. Rawlings, the premier state newspaper, the Daily Graphic, articulated and reinforced a specific logic of state hegemony: political legitimacy based on state accumulation, populist morality, and benevolent patronage. Participation in the hegemonic project of the state distinguishes the Daily Graphic as a strategic node in the larger "ideological state apparatus" (Althusser 1971) designed to construct and reinforce an official national imaginary...The style of journalism practiced at Graphic throughout the 1990s...was designed to explain government policies and illustrate the positive impact of development projects on grateful communities, generally ignoring political controversies and popular criticisms." I'd lean for option 1, but option 2 might be in order with the consideration of the fact that its reporting of government business might be non-neutral. It is a state-run newspaper, after all. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with two caveats, after having spent far too much time reviewing the sources.
First caveat, it is a partisan source with respect to the government (note that partisan sources can still be categorized as “generally reliable” at WP:RSP). Exactly how partisan is unclear to me, and evaluating that probably requires editors who are much more familiar with Ghana. The paper nominally has editorial independence and there appears to be little direct interference, but the board members are government-appointed and there are a number of additional issues, e.g. journalists tend to act favorably to the government from their own initiative.
Quotes
Nunoo 2016, on independence and journalistic standards:[1]
  • “Though a state-owned newspaper, the Daily Graphic still operates as an independent newspaper. Appointment of the Board Chairman and the Board Members is however provided for in the Constitution of Ghana and it is done by the National Media Commission in conjunction with the Civil Services Secretariat.”
  • “Both news gatherers and editors highly value the ability of the lead news to influence social change by holding the government accountable to its citizens”
Lewil 2017:[2]
  • “Ideologically, the editorial stance of the Daily Graphic...[is] much more accommodating and supportive of government policies.”
Shardow 2016, on the situation in practice:[3]
  • “journalists working in public media are prevented from exercising their watchdog role on top functionaries of the government.”
  • [referring to a group of newspapers including the Daily Graphic] “content analysis confirmed that the ownership structures of the media affected the media.”
  • “[These newspapers] fell short of meeting the objectivity criterion set up by this work, namely: the absence of decided views, expression or strong feelings; absence of personal or organizational interest and presenting all sides of an argument fairly. (emphasis in original)
  • “In the words of a journalist from Ghanaian Times [another state-owned newspaper]: 'depending on which government is in power, journalists who appear not to side with the government will not be active in editorial meetings or will not partake in (editorial) meetings at all...we report mostly in favor of the ruling government, either NDC or NPP...Because the presidency sponsors you, you are forced to speak for them without criticism.' The above assertion lends credence to Hasty’s observation...[that Daily Graphic journalists] were often 'under pressure to give favorable publicity to the state; but that pressure is exercised through a set of cultural understandings in such a way that journalists do not recognize themselves as mere puppets of propaganda'.”
Also a quote on the state of the media in general:
  • "[Ghana's current constitution] broke the “culture of silence” to some appreciable extent within the public sphere. Some shortfalls were identified and these were: the media lacks right to information, some archaic laws still exist in the statute books and huge court fines cripple media outlets."[4]

References

  1. ^ Nunoo, Isaac (2016). "Determinants of News Selection in the Ghanaian Print Media: A Study of the Daily Graphic" (PDF). Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies. 6 (3): 99–120.
  2. ^ Diedong, Africanus Lewil (22 October 2017). Responsible Journalism and Quest for Professional Standards in Ghana. Woeli Publishing Services. ISBN 978-9988-2-3604-5.
  3. ^ Shardow, Mohammed; Asare, Bossman (2016). "Media Ownership and Independence: Implications for Democratic Governance in the Fourth Republic of Ghana" (PDF). 9 (9): 179–198.
  4. ^ Nyarko, Jacob; Mensah, Eric Opoku; Owusu-Amoh, Stephen Kwame; Wade, Alex (2018). "Achieving media independence through legal and regulatory measures: A formality or reality?". Cogent Arts & Humanities. 5 (1). doi:10.1080/23311983.2018.1455625. ISSN 2331-1983.
I also observe that from their political news page they at least meet the minimum standard of reporting some criticism of the current ruling party (NPP) and some of the views of the opposition party (NDC), e.g. [56] [57]. I also checked the archives from 2014 (when the NDC was in power) and the situation was the same. From my own evaluation there are some signs that could indicate bias, but I can't say for sure, and most of it is relatively subtle. Certainly it doesn't look like it would be any worse than certain US news sources that we consider RS.
The second caveat is that historically, the paper’s degree of independence depended heavily on who was in power and the structure of the government at the time. During some periods, it appears to have been essentially propaganda. I would tentatively suggest 2006 as the year when it achieved its current level of reliability. First, I would note that Ghana's score on the Press Freedom Index is quite high, better than the United States (!), and that the score has been roughly constant since that year. Additionally, while the current protections for journalism have been in place since 1993, the pre-2006 press freedom score was much worse and the academic analysis of the Daily Graphic seems to reflect that. Before 1993, the situation changed regularly but it seems like usually the problems were much more severe.
Quotes
Hasty 2005:[1]
  • "Graphic journalists are reluctant to recognize their participation in the hegemonic project of the state. Rather, state journalists earnestly profess their commitments to the public as well as the state, identifying themselves as both 'watchdogs in the public interest' and responsible spokespersons of the benevolent state. [They focus] on their own professional intentions and their freedom from outright state censorship..."
  • "In reality, of course, the state media occupies a structurally partisan position..."
  • "throughout the 1990s the content of both Graphic and Times was dominated by the development rhetoric of government officials while editorials encouraged unity, loyalty, and popular initiative in the national quest for development."
Hasty 2006:[2]
  • “Journalists in Ghana recognize a distinctive style in the discursive practices that position state journalists and compel them to produce a certain redundant narrative of national news.”
  • “the Daily Graphic has [become] the premiere instrument of state news”
  • “No matter the story, Graphic journalists routinely skipped over the other basic elements of the story in order to open with what they term the ‘who-lead’, a rhetorical quote by the most senior official at the event.”
And for the situation pre-1993:
  • "Each time a new faction assumes power the editorial staff of the state newspapers is shuffled or replaced, and the editorial positions of the papers are transformed, sometimes overnight, to reflect the personal and ideological commitments of the new government"[1] (additional examples[3][4])
  • "for years [the Daily Graphic] thought more of how to blindly support state power rather than how to encourage democratic participation..."[5]

References

  1. ^ a b Jennifer Hasty (28 April 2005). The Press and Political Culture in Ghana. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-11135-8.
  2. ^ Hasty, Jennifer (2006). "Performing power, composing culture". Ethnography. 7 (1): 69–98. doi:10.1177/1466138106064591. ISSN 1466-1381.
  3. ^ Hachten, William A. (2016). "Ghana's Press under the N.R.C.: An Authoritarian Model for Africa". Journalism Quarterly. 52 (3): 458–464. doi:10.1177/107769907505200308. ISSN 0022-5533. The Daily Graphic and Ghanaian Times were dutifully supporting the Busia civilian government one day, and then after the 1972 coup, quickly denounced Busia and shifted their allegiance...
  4. ^ Kwame Boafo, S.T. (2016). "Ghana's Press Under the Pndc: Performance Under Confinement". Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands). 35 (2): 73–82. doi:10.1177/001654928503500201. ISSN 0016-5492. within a few days after [the 1982 coup]...The editors of the nation’s leading newspaper, Daily Graphic, and its sister weekly, The Mirror, were dismissed and three key members of the editorial staff of the Graphic Corporation (publishers of the two newspapers)...were ordered to proceed on 'indefinite leave'.
  5. ^ Africanus Diedong (2008). "Establishing Journalistic Standards in the Ghanaian Press" (PDF). Retrieved 14 June 2019.
The sources and quotes from other editors above should also fit into this analysis, as determined by when those sources were published. Sunrise (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Obituary headline for reportedly unknown date of death[edit]

At Talk:Deaths in 2019#Linda Collins' DoD, I've proposed qualifying Linda Collins-Smith's entry with a "(body found on this date)", since multiple sources say things like "It’s not clear when Collins-Smith died as her remains were decomposed", "It’s not known how long she had been dead when her body was discovered" and "It still remains unclear how, when, or why she was killed".

Three other editors contend this obituary's headline is sufficient to cancel out such widely-reported uncertainty. I say the source itself doesn't mention a death date, and believe the date they see is simply for organizational purposes.

The diff is just this. Or in reverse.

Any advice? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, June 12, 2019 (UTC)

I am Not sure this is an RS, this is (in effect a notice of a funeral).Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I am curious as to how they have a date of death of June 04, 2019 at the top of the obituary. The death is still being investigated but obituaries are usually collaborated with family so perhaps this is the best info so far. For sure she was dead by that date. I would think that attributing the date to the source would help out in the article for that claim. For example something like "According to the Funeral home that will be having the funeral service for the family, her date of death is reported as June 04, 2019 on the obituary." Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
But the obituary itself doesn't report this, only her birthdate, birthplace and deathplace. Headlines aren't sources, discussions above indicate. And there isn't room in the disputed article for all that, unless you're suggesting a footnote. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, June 15, 2019 (UTC)
June 4th was the date her body was found and therefore probably later than when she actually died but perhaps the last date on which she could possibly have died. TFD (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the news reports specifically call out the death date/time as unknown, the material in the obit is unreliable (given we know exactly when the body was found). Leave out the day and just list the month. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
To be clearer, the pertinent article is Deaths in 2019. Leaving out the day is not an option, only clarifying her entry or not. Your appraisal suggests we should note her body was discovered on June 4, when her entry currently signifies she died. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, June 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Why would leaving out the date not be an option? Surely this can’t be the first situation where we know someone notable died in a given year, but where the exact date of death is uncertain or unknown (I would think this would become quite common the further back in time one goes). So, wouldn’t it be logical for our Deaths in XXXX articles to have a separate sub-section at the end, just for listing these situations? Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
That was proposed recently. I forget which month or how it exactly went, but it was brief and locally unpopular. Many dead folks have died circa sometime or another over the years, and it's common enough to put them approximately when their death was announced or body was found (we even have shorthand abbreviations for such edit summaries). Helps readers find them where roughly expected. What's unusual this time is only everyone's sudden acceptance of a headline as even worth considering, and moreso its apparent superiority to a multitude of formerly trusted actual journalism (the stuff we read once the headlines bring it to our attention). It's almost unsettling, dammit! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, June 21, 2019 (UTC)

The Globe Post and Al Bawaba for Operation Forty Stars[edit]

Hi. I'm working on Operation Forty Stars. Are The Globepost and Albawaba reliable for having the following text: "When Iran-Iraq war began, Saddam started to supporting the MEK member and his goal was using from them against Iranian. In this case, the operation was supported by Iraqi Air Force. On 26 July 1988, Iranian forces launched an operation, which named Operation Mersad, and took back the Mehran city from MEK and Iraqi forces again." Thanks. Forest90 (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jordan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 00:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

ALB Articles[edit]

Real Estate Maven1 (talk · contribs) has, in the last few days, been adding citations to multiple different articles. Sometimes they add more than one source, but every single one of their edits, going back as far as March 2018 (their edits before that were revdelled as COPYVIO) adds at least one addition of ref to either ALB Articles or ALB law firm. I suspect that this is a case of WP:REFSPAM, since on the face of it the website looks like a blog - however, others with more knowledge of the topic area may want to look at this, perhaps they are adding something useful? Thought I'd raise it here before blindly reverting. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think your suspicion is likely correct - looks like a blog to me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello both, in complete transparency, I was a former law school intern at the firm these pages are run by and find that these articles are actually very informative toward the topic of real estate law. Each one is separately published through reliable sources (I.E. The New York Law Journal, New York's Apartment Law Insider, Law.com, etc.) and then re-posted to ALBarticles or ALBlawfirm. I wanted to use these in good faith to assist in creating reliable information on each wiki article by adding a reference from ALBarticles and then backing it up with another reliable and verifiable source, the intention of spamming didn't even cross my mind. I thought that linking to ALBarticles could be beneficial to readers as well do to the fact that it compiles a wide variety of real estate information that could be helpful to those clicking through. If necessary I could change the sources to the original article rather than the re-posted, canonical article on ALBArticles. Real Estate Maven1 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Real Estate Maven1 - thanks for taking the time to explain. If this material has been published separately in reliable sources, then yes, it would be better to refer to the relevant source, not this company's website. I'd advise you to go through each of the pages you've edited, and replace the ALB link with the independent source. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 16:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Got it, thank you Girth Summit. I will go through and replace the sources with the original articles. Cheers Real Estate Maven1 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I've now removed all the references linking to this website. If the material has been published elsewhere in reliable sources, please do go ahead and reinsert it, referencing those sources rather than this website. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Homesnacks[edit]

Source: Homesnacks

Article: Dunwoody, Georgia

Content: I think this is supporting the statement that this place is "affluent".

Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say not, it looks like two blokes write it and edit it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not a reliable source for anything. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Identity Theory an RS?[edit]

I'm looking to expand a song article from Identity Theory, but I'm not sure if it's an RS. It's wiki page says "Identity Theory is a non-profit website with substantial readership and a staff of over a dozen volunteers, including Robert Birnbaum. It offers author and band interviews, fiction writing, artwork, and reviews, with a moral slant shown by its commitment to social justice." so idk if that means it's reliable. Thanks for the help! – zmbro (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 09:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems like it's probably all right in general. It sounds like it's been active for a long time, has a credentialed editorial staff, and has conducted numerous interviews with noteworthy people. Its specific reliability probably depends on what statement(s) you want to support, and in which article; you've only provided the source. That said, I think it would probably be appropriate for most cultural topics, like a song. —BLZ · talk 17:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement as to whether or not a book is a source at Kaitlin Bennett[edit]

Another editor claims that the source I used was google books, however he is mistaken as google books is simply the medium I used to find a book that is a source here is the diff. Can someone please explain this to him?Ndołkah (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I was about to explain this to you on your talk page. This is the URL you cited: http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Kaitlin+Bennett%22+-wikipedia That's a Google search. If you want to link to the book, this is the URL to use: http://books.google.com/books?id=dZNJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158. Rather than simply adding a URL, you should consider using a template:cite book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talkcontribs) 19:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
That's not what you said you saidthe book was not a source but alas I don't know how to use this template I'm a simple girl! Help me help me?Ndołkah (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello User:Ndołkah. It seems you cited a "google books search" instead of a "book". Here is what you do to cite a book. When you edit in the article (or anywhere really) there is a "Templates" Tab that gives you other options. It is next to the "Named References" with the green clipboard symbol. Select "cite book" and it should give you many fields for you to fill in such as title, author, publisher, ISBN, etc. You can Preview to see how your reference will look and then select "Insert". That will insert your book citation into the article but you will still be in "edit" mode. Then you have to save your edit by hitting the "Publish changes" blue button and your citation edit will be saved. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
See Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Using_refToolbar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
ThankiesNdołkah (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Minnie Chan's reports on the Chinese military[edit]

Minnie Chan is a South China Morning Post reporter and frequently reports on the Chinese military. Her reports exhibits poor editorial oversights:

  1. Overuse or abuse of anonymous sources: Virtually every Minnie Chan's report uses opinions only attributes to a source that is close to the subject. The following are some examples. Additionally, many statements of the anonymous sources do not have corroborating Chinese sources before the publications of the report. Chinese sources reporting on the subject only appear after the publication and often are the translation of the SCMP report.
    1. [58]
    2. [59]
    3. [60]
  2. Some reports contain factual errors.
    1. [61]

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, the failure to cite sources reflects poorly on the reliability of those reports. As many of the anonymous claims are WP:EXTRAORDINARY, should those reports be considered reliable? -Mys_721tx (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 09:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I think USEBYOTHERS means how other reliable sources perceive the source in question (Minnie Chan's reports in this case). Is Minnie Chan's work used by other media as a basis for reporting (BBC, CNN etc.)? Are there concerns about their (reports) reliability or reliability of South China Morning Post in general (voiced in reliable sources)? Pavlor (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Using "site:cnn.com SCMP Military", "site:nytimes.com SCMP Military",and "site:bbc.co.uk SCMP Military" as search terms on Google, I checked 2 pages each and did not found any using her work.
There is a report on New York Times regarding the Alibaba purchase [62]. I don't think there are any on this subject in particular. -Mys_721tx (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Popping by to make my usual statement that Wikipedia should not depend on journalists for statements of fact with regard to political and military matters. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Anonymous sources are allowed and are sometimes the only way to report a story, according to the Society of Professional Journalists.[63] Quite often governments will brief the press on condition of the anonymity of a source. The only concern I would have is where one publication had a scoop and no other media picked up on it. That would indicate either they did not consider the story credible or they did not consider it significant, both of which would usually disqualify it from inclusion in a Wikiepdia article. One recent article by Chan called "How Tiananmen crackdown left a deep scar on China's military psyche", which quotes two unnamed former Chinese military officers. Obviously unless and until the Chinese army decides to make an official statement on the topic, we are only going to find out what they think through anonymous sources. But a good reporter will assess the credibility of these sources before publication. TFD (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
While the South China Morning Post is imperfect, my understanding is that it is generally considered an independent and reliable source, with good standards of accuracy (though there can be a tendency for it to take a 'safe' approach). As such, negative commentary from experts would be needed to rule that one of its reporters is systematically unreliable. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
SCMP's overall reliability is not in question here. Negative commentary is hard to come by as Minnie Chan's reports are not wildly used. Of the three articles on Jane's 360 citing SCMP, none uses Minnie Chan's. Of the seven reports on DefenseNews.com citing (searched by "site:defensenews.com SCMP"), three use Minnie Chan's reports and are more or less paraphrased from the original report. To me, this raises a red flag. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Jane's has its own fairly large network of correspondents including specialists on the Chinese military, so there's no reason to expect it would specifically reference stories in other works. You are engaging in WP:OR here - the only reason to be concerned about the SCMP's coverage of the Chinese military is if experts have raised concerns about it. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:OR governs the content of articles and does not apply to the assessment and evaluation of sources in discussion, which are routinely done on this noticeboard. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Frequently making WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that are not covered by other outlets is a valid concern on the reliability of the source. Indeed Jane's correspondents may not reference other stories specifically. However, it becomes a problem when the experts also do not cover the claims made in these stories. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Leaving aside the fact that you have not actually explained what your concerns with the accuracy of this journalist's reportage are, unless you are a expert in this field and can point to where your analysis has been published they are worthless for the purposes of judging whether this source is a WP:RS. We do not dismiss journalists published in reputable news sources on the say-so of individual editors. If a prominent news source is regularly publishing incorrect stories on an important topic, as you are claiming, there will be expert analysis pointing this out. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
As I explained before, the concern is the over-reliance of anonymous sources on very specific claims, which does not reflect well on SCMP's editorial oversights on military content. As per your request, the following are two authors on the Diplomats and the National Interests Blog concerning claims in five SCMP reports:
  1. [64]
    1. [65] (Liu Zhen)
  2. [66]
    1. [67] (Minnie Chan)
  3. [68]
    1. [69] (Minnie Chan)
    2. [70] (Minnie Chan)
    3. [71] (Minnie Chan)
  4. [72]
    1. [73] (Stephen Chen)
I will see if I can find more. I am in no way an expert so there will not be any of published analysis from me. -Mys_721tx (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The first of those Diplomat articles refers to " Multiple articles from multiple outlets" getting something fairly minor wrong, probably, with the SMCP article linked to as an example of this being written by Liu Zhen not Minnie Chan. The second Diplomat article's references to an article by Chan and other reportage states that "A number of articles in recent months have suggested that the PLA Navy is also interested in pursuing a next generation carrier-borne fighter. This is certainly true; however, it would be incorrect to characterize it as due to any recent or inherent deficiency in the existing J-15 platform, considering indications of a fifth generation carrier-borne fighter have been circulating for a number of years now", which hardly seems problematic - it's about interpretation of what the facts mean, rather than the accuracy of the reports. The third Diplomat article also discusses general over-exaggeration in the media about a Chinese fighter jet and doesn't single out the SCMP at all, much less Chan. None of those sources even comes close to criticism of this journalist or the SMCP. This looks like a vendetta, and I don't intend to waste further time on this. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Please give an example of what you consider to be a criticism of any journalist of a publication on military topics if you wish to. It would be shifting the goalpost to first demand "negative expert commentary" and then discounting them as irrelevant, especially when the three examples "on the general over-exaggeration in the media about a Chinese fighter jet" are all SCMP reports. Let me reiterate if I have not explained more clearly earlier: the concern is over the editorial oversight. Perhaps the title of the discussion should be moved to better reflect that. If I understand correctly, all three reporters in the examples above probably go through the same editors. I fail to see how the article was written by a different reporter make any difference on the editors' part. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Prabook[edit]

I have recently encountered the above-named site used as a ref by a newbie when removing citation needed. Any thoughts on this Prabook homepage? Very vague about us section. A WP search returns a few very recent uses in the last few days only. I'm thinking this is a recent US-based development, likely a crowd-sourced wiki needing login?

The content accessed by the newbie as a ref I believe to be essentially unacknowledged copy-paste plagiarism from WP. I've flagged it up at Inge Stoll and Talk. As a control, I checked William Dunlop at Prabook with the same results, including the image I uploaded to Wikipemedia from Flickr (no acknowledgements - our article William Dunlop (motorcyclist).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Obvious unacknowledged copy/paste from Wikipedia is a clear sign of unreliable source. This certainly should not be used as a reference for BLP (or other) articles. Pavlor (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an open-source project that accepts biographies by anonymous submission. Definitely not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean, otherwise we should treat Ash Williams as a WP:BLP [74]. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. 2016, and 2015 at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 191#Prabook.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be more clear: it is completely open editing. You can register an account and change anything you'd like. The site's disclaimer page notes "Prabook cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been created, changed or altered by someone, whose opinion does not correspond with the real facts about a person. Administrators have not necessarily reviewed information published in Prabook." This is a non-starter. I try to watch for these links, but fall behind sometimes. Kuru (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Then WP:USERGEN like Wikipedia, I agree it's not usable as a source. —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies[edit]

Recently, an editor has begun removing references to the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies all across English Wikipedia.

There does not seem to have been any centralized decision that this journal is unreliable. A search for the journal in the RS noticeboard archive returns one discussion from several years ago, which did not reach a conclusion either way. Now that an editor has decided to unilaterally remove all citations to this journal, it's important to determine whether or not these removals are justified. Is this the correct course of action? 2600:1004:B126:6FB3:10F5:9CC3:1068:E9D6 (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

From the linked article: It has been identified as one of two international journals which regularly publishes articles pertaining to race and intelligence with the goal of supporting the idea that white people are inherently superior I would not trust any media known for claims about superiority of some race (other than the one with pointed ears of course). However, putting my POV aside, I would judge any journal by following criteria: is this a peer reviewed journal with an impact factor? Are the people in the editorial staff renowned experts in this field of sudy? If the answers are negative, there are certainly better sources for above mentioned articles and this source should be used only with attribution where DUE. Pavlor (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Impact is practically nonexistent [81]. I can find no information, even on their own website, about who the editors are - actually, it seems like Roger Pearson may be the only editor, and the first sentence of his bio should tell you what you need to know about him. Further, the contact email for the journal is an AOL address... I know that's not in the reliable sources guideline or anything, but it just makes the whole operation look amateurish, and mostly I think suggests that the staff is probably approximately nonexistent. That aside, on a spot check the authors I looked up seem like completely ordinary academics - I actually have no idea what motivates them to publish here given the journal's reputation. I had been expecting either all notorious racists or otherwise people who can't get published anywhere else, but does not seem to be the case. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can make out, it's a nutter's journal financed by far-right sources, masking as an academic journal. It has published several more than questionable articles by more than questionable authors. It also does not even seem to be indexed by Google Scholar, which normally indexes even my wastepaper basket. Not reliable per se, although individual articles might be, based on the independent expertise of the authors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The journal's impact factor is given here as 0.29, but I'm not sure if that qualifies as an "official" impact factor. The sentence you quoted is cited to this book, which mentions the journal briefly on page 90. The book has only one sentence about this journal, so this does not appear to be a case like Mankind Quarterly, which has multiple sources devoted to criticizing that journal.
Is there any documentation showing that Pearson is the editor of this journal? He apparently was its founder, but it isn't clear whether he retains any present control over it. 2600:1004:B157:D6C:71FD:1EB8:1B4:93C1 (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is any "official" impact factor with how poorly this journal is indexed. However, Scimagojr allows a direct comparison to other journals in similar fields, and demonstrates that not only is this journal consistently in the bottom half (and usually in the bottom quartile), that region of the rankings is occupied by journals that are almost never cited. As in, literally, most articles in each issue have zero citations. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The Journal itself claims "General Editor, Professor Roger Pearson, and the Associate Editor, Professor Dwight D. Murphey, are assisted by an Editorial Advisory Committee comprising a variety of academics and experienced public figures." Murphey is now 85 and a long-retired former lawyer and professor of business law. The "Editorial Advisory Committee" seems to be invisible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
What is its reputation, not its bias, its reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This certainly looks like a fringe publication. The Roger Pearson link seems pretty much the only thing that is verifiable about this journal aside from its racist views (and possibly ties to Philippe Rushton). I'd suggest consulting WP:FRINGE/N for additional opinions but my initial reaction is that this source is not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It's "unrated" in WorldCat [82]. It's apparently not indexed by any major indexing service. Scimago lists it as "4th quartile" and shows between 2 and 25 citations per year to all papers published by the journal, with essentially all of them coming from papers published in the journal itself - i.e. it's a walled garden, and a very small one at that [83]. I think it's save to say that it's reputation is negligible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a big debate about ranking and impact and whatever. The journal can pretty much be rejected at face value for being a pseudoscientific peddler of racist nonsense, and the personal outlet of Pearson and close associates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes that does raise doubts it is a reputable journal.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to go through articles citing it, WP:CITEWATCH#13 entry "Pseudo-scholarship" (currently #13) has a list of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is unreliable considering that it does have peer-review. It seems to be a legitimate journal on all sorts of topics on a global scale. I do not see it as a racist journal prima facie. Are there examples of racists or white supremacists extensively using or citing this journal for their views? Like User:2600:1004:B157:D6C:71FD:1EB8:1B4:93C1|2600:1004:B157:D6C:71FD:1EB8:1B4:93C1 mentioned above there was only one discussion about its reliability many years ago. If it was clearly an unreliable journal it would have had more discussions with a clear consensus. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
As to the claim on the wiki article on the journal that says "It has been identified as one of two international journals which regularly publishes articles pertaining to race and intelligence with the goal of supporting the idea that white people are inherently superior" this is what the source (Stavenhagen, Rodolfo (2012-12-14). Pioneer on Indigenous Rights. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 90. ISBN 9783642341502 [84]) actually says "During the 1950s, anthropologists took an active part in drafting a number of UNESCO statements and declarations on race and racism, which underlined the hollowness, as well as the dangers, of attempts to justify racial rankings scientifically (UNESCO 1960). While it was thought that the demons had finally been laid to rest, it is more than worrying that some recent scholarship has tried to resuscitate them. Two international journals, Mankind Quarterly and the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, regularly carry articles on racial differences in intelligence and achievement, attempting to support the idea of a superior white race, and the publication of The Bell Curve (Herrenstein and Murray 1994) fueled numerous scholarly and media debates on the issues of race and intelligence. Similar controversies surround the discipline of sociobiology, often accused of providing support to racist interpretations of racial and ethnic differences (Montagu 1980)."
So this source seems to be criticizing the whole field of sociobiology, not just the journal and it shows some slant against claims on race or the study of race. For sure there is controversy in Race and intelligence, but I don't see how the whole journal is about this particular topic since there are numerous topics and regions it discusses [85], [86], [87], [88]. It looks like it may have a Western bias, but not necessarily a racial bias.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
If it discusses race and intelligence, then it would not be that different than journals like Intelligence_(journal) (2.609 Impact factor [89]) which seem to have more well known publishers (Elsevier), cited on wikipedia a bit, have quite a bit of articles studying race and intelligence [90]. What do you guys think?Ramos1990 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
We're talking about a journal whose editor/founder also founded the Northern League which operated a couple other journals, whose self-stated purpose was "to make Whites aware of their forgotten racial heritage, and cut through the Judaic fog of lies about our origin and the accomplishments of our race and our Western culture". In fact, having work reviewed by this guy diminishes the apparent reliability of any source. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus demonstrated by the discussion above, this journal has several issues (race and intelligence question aside): 1) there is no visible editorial staff; 2) there is next to no impact factor. The first issue affects general reliability of this source, but individual papers may be used per WP:SPS (work by an established expert on the subject matter). The second issue is more a question of WP:DUE (or even WP:FRINGE when voicing marginal views). Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

References with a lapsed domain[edit]

What should be done at List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipality? It is one of the list pages that gets edited by enthusiasts making massive changes (example). I tried checking that edit but the article uses wonderfulwaterloo.com as a reference 22 times, and that domain has lapsed and been taken over by hugedomains.com. I checked two references in the Internet Archive but the entries have been lost with IA apparently deleting its archive when it found the pages were being redirected (example). A simple response would be to add {{dead link}} to each bad ref, but that leaves many links to a dubious site (hugedomains.com). Or, the lost references could be replaced with {{citation needed}}, but that makes the list unsourced. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Geni.com[edit]

Is Geni.com a RS ~ thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the great answer Newslinger ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem! — Newslinger talk 22:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic[edit]

Is mayoclinic.org is a RS? Puduḫepa (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

For what?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: for topics like this one. Puduḫepa (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstand, it is not the topic that counts, its what they are specifically being sourced for. You seem to have a lot of sources there, so why do you want to use this one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I may not use all the sources I linked there—I have just gathered them as they seem relevant. It was a general question btw, not specific to the page I linked. I would like to know if Mayo Clinic is regarded as RS for the articles related to med. Puduḫepa (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
No more then any other hospital, which mean context matters. They may well be reliable for some stuff, but not for others.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 22:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Mayo Clinic is a reliable source in general for medical claims in general and its website is also reliable source in general for a wikipedia page on the hospital itself. But context matters on the claim being made. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:MEDSCI allows monographs. However, if systematic reviews or guidelines are available, they should take precedence. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
While it may meet rs, it's better to use medical text-books or peer-reviewed articles because they provide sources which readers might to look at and it makes it easier for editors to resolve any conflict of facts in various sources. If for example, Mayo provides one figure for the number of people who have contracted a certain type of illness while a similar source provides another, we cannot determine which is correct. But if we use academic sources, they will provide sources, such as a CDC study. We can then look at these sources and determine whether they have been correctly reported.
I have come across a number of cases where information originally reported turned out to be incorrect. In those cases, it was helpful to have citations in the sources used, so that I could determine which was correct.
TFD (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
agree w/ TFD--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting Snopes[edit]

This Forbes piece details why Wikipedia should reconsider how Snopes is used as a source (if at all).

In it, Leetaru refers to a piece from The Daily Mail "'Fact checking' website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn't told its readers THOSE facts)" and notes that the founder of Snopes, David Mikkelson, has made no attempt to refute the claims.

In a series of emails with Mikkelson, Leetaru attempts to suss out the reliability of Snopes. He finds that "when one tries to fact check the fact checker, the answer is the equivalent of "its secret"".

I have been working on the Sharyl Attkisson bio, where Snopes was used for a paragraph about her vaccine reporting. Attkisson has refuted the claims made in the Snopes piece, originally here and more recently in response to Wikipedia's mirroring of Snopes' claims here.

Snopes has been caught printing incorrect information, and as the Forbes piece points out, there is a troubling lack of transparency about their practices. Is it time to rethink our acceptance of Snopes as RS?

Should the following content be used at her bio based solely on Snopes? (Re-added in this edit after I removed it here using this rationale.

In a January 2019 episode of her television show Full Measure, Attkisson mischaracterized statements made in 2007 by a medical expert, Andrew Zimmerman, regarding a hypothetical relationship between vaccines and autism. Attkisson falsely said that the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), which refuted claims of a causal link between vaccines and autism, was based primarily on Zimmerman's testimony, and that Zimmerman's nuanced views on the subject were kept hidden from the public by the federal government until 2018; the program called it "one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history."[disputed ] In fact, the OAP's verdict that there is no causal link between vaccines and autism was based on testimony by nine expert witnesses, and the views that Attkisson said were kept secret had already been made public in 2006 and were noted in the OAP.

 :
  • 1)Snopes has been examined 12 times here and found reliable every time.
  • 2) Attkisson's claims have been disproven and she is not a reliable source to refute Snopes.
  • 3) The Daily Mail has deprecated since 2017.
  • I move for a speedy close on this subject. Toa Nidhiki05 21:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The complaint seems rather ridiculous on its face for several reasons: A) Snopes cites its damn sources, so you don't need access to their internal deliberations to fact check them; B) The Daily Mail has been deprecated as a source on Wikipedia for its tendency to completely invent stories; C) Kalev Leetaru was himself fired from his job over allegations of academic misconduct. None of these points are definitive refutations of concerns with regard to Snopes, but they certainly make it hard to take it seriously. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a tabloid that made serious claims against Snopes. It is expected that Snopes would have debunked them, but as Leetaru pints out, they did not. His piece is worth reading, and his points worth considering. To attack him instead seems a curious response. Further, do read the Attkisson pieces where she shows that Snopes got it wrong - she did the fact checking you suggest. petrarchan47คุ 21:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Forbes contributors are almost always not reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 21:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Snopes is a decent website but in general I do not consider them a reliable source worthy for citing on wikipedia. Are the authors of the Snopes article at hand experts in the field form which the claim is being made on Wikipedia? If not, then better sources should be found instead of Snopes. Snopes is not like other organizations like [92] which came from reliable news organizations which conduct some degree of independent or expert oversight. The main thing about reliable sources is that they should have some oversight by other experts (peer review) or that a blog or website article be written an expert in the field. Otherwise, who is to tell if a website is reliable or not? Plus it got started by some guy and his wife [93] I do not see credentials of expertise and I do not see journalistic sources using them as a source either. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
According to their wiki page, [[94]]
  • ...has been referenced by news media and other sites, including CNN, MSNBC, Fortune, Forbes, and The New York Times.
Great. But being cited in the news does not establish reliability of a source. Keep in mind that these same news sources also reference UFO witnesses, political conspirators, racists, historical revisionists, etc. In order to establish reliability for Snopes, you need to show that Snopes offers peer review of some kind and or that experts write on the stuff they are experts in. There appear to be better sources available than Snopes... I don't think that Daily Mail is that good either.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The standard for a reliable source is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". What you're describing is a good rubric for judging the likely reliability of a source, but it is not the be-all end-all. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I suppose the ifcn code of principles mentioned below is something to consider. Well, at least attribution should be used if Snopes is used on wikipedia per the Snopes entry in the Perennial sources list [95].Ramos1990 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course I'm attacking Leetaru. Your entire post relies on arguments from authority, and so I am responding with ad hominems against your authorities. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that Attkisson has also made unsubstantiated claims that COI editors have been altering her article. Rklawton (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes is fine, and using crap sources like The Daily Mail to attack Snopes is further proof that Snopes is fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Forbes "Contributor". Not a source even to start to talk about reliability. --Masem (t) 00:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Masem:The guy who wrote this Kalev Leetaru has an impressive resume [96]. It really isn't fair to dismiss him or Forbes so quickly.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Kalev's impressive resume leaves out something rather important that happened a few years back, and he has not had an academic appointment since, so I would not be so sure about that. See above. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The assessment by the IFCN is conclusive that it is reliable, as is its frequent citation in mainstream news media. In this case, it might make sense to mention that these are the conclusions of Alex Kasprak, writing in Snopes. TFD (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. The Forbes contributor piece (itself not a reliable source) is totally unavailing. There is more than ample evidence that Snopes has an excellent reputation for fact checking and accuracy. R2 (bleep) 06:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)