Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: [].
  • 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 this noticeboard & 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

RfC: Telesur[edit]

Being involved in Venezuelan articles for some time, I will often encounter Telesur as a source. My question is, is Telesur reliable? ----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

In past discussions, Telesur has been discussed as "propaganda" of the Venezuelan government and has been more recently described by a reliable source, Newsweek, as "routinely criticized as a biased media outlet that promotes unfair and incomplete reporting" and "has also been charged with being pushing favorable propaganda for its government sponsors, particularly Venezuela".[Newsweek] The founder Aram Aharonian initially predicted Telesur's "multinational backing will be reflected in its direction, which will make it impossible for one interest to dominate" though a decade later, Aharonian says "I think that this initiative was burned. Because instead of being a Latin American channel, as it had to be, it ended up being an external channel of Venezuela".

The Venezuela Conspiracy Theories monitor (yes, it has been cited by BBC) has endless amounts of conspiracy theories linked to Telesur, including several 9/11 conspiracies 12, how Obama created ISIS, links between "Masons" and "Zionists" with the Venezuelan protesters, Nutella bribery and that Hugo Chávez was assassinated. Telesur has also spread conspiracy theories about potential state bans of conspiracy theories. The Telesur page has been deleted twice by Facebook (Sputnik trying to defend Telesur) in a similar manner to that of Infowars and other conspiracy sites.

Hopefully some of these links are helpful and we can determine how reliable Telesur is. Thanks for your thoughts in advance!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have said not very reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I will add that RFCs are supposed to be neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Just noticed this after I performed the edit. Sorry!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I would also want to apologize if this RfC entry does not seem neutral (I just realized this upon this entry). This is information that was available and I am not familiar with RfC procedure, so again, sorry.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • As reliable as any other newsmedia outlet Either we accept that ownership of media implies a specific bias, in which case Telesur is biased, but so is the NYT or the BBC, or we don't accept that premise, in which case the ownership of Telesur is irrelevant. Now I'll preface this by saying, as always, that I feel we should not have as much dependence on newsmedia in general in current affairs issues, however the refusal to accept Venezuelan media sources as reliable while unquestioningly accepting American and British news sources as reliable is, in fact, a massive failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. So while my preference would be for us to slow the rate at which Wikipedia updates articles about recent events, any attempt to exclude a newsmedia communicated perspective on a political conflict on the basis of blanket reliability of a class of media (ex: state owned by states that we don't like (you'll note that few people are pointing out that the BBC is state-owned)) should be treated for the hegemonic propagandizing it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Valid point, is there any evidence they actually falsify stories, or are just biased?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of any evidence of falsification of stories, and that goes double for the specific context of this RfC - which challenges their use as a source for information regarding the evolving political situation in Venezuela. And again, I'm not suggesting that they aren't biased. I personally subscribe to the notion that all newsmedia has an implicit bias described by their ownership. CBC has a Canadian state bias, BBC a British one, China Daily has a Chinese state bias and Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, and all the rest of the corporate owned news organizations have a clear and pervasive pro-capital bias. This is why I feel, on a general note, that newsmedia has become too pervasive on Wikipedia as a source. It's true that sources don't have to be neutral but we depend far too much in general on news as a source of truth regarding disputed current events. Now with that said, I think that as long as we allow the treatment of capital owned newsmedia as reliable, we should also allow the treatment of state owned newsmedia as reliable, even when we, as wikipedia editors, are not aligned with or fond of those states. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like to point out here that BBC is actually public owned (yes, it does receive some state funds... but so do organizations that exist to investigate the UK government), and both CBC and BBC will frequently challenge their own country. And we can accept some state sources and not others - we can easily determine reliability and neutrality based on how a state source presents their own country. Does it ever challenge its government when something sketchy comes up? The amount of criticism the BBC gives British politicians and Brexit proves its NPOV and RS because of how it does not just unwaveringly promote the stance of its nation's leader. Comparatively, TeleSur will spin every report into making Maduro look good, including blatant lying. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I think they meant bias towards their country not the government specifically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The argument seems to be based on abstract generalizations. Telesur and the BBC or NYT are not similar, not if we compare their actual editorial behavior. Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable; they don't just bias, they lie to cover up the humans rights violations of the dictatorship. There is evidence of falsified stories on our own Wikipedia page. When even Rory Caroll and Nikolas Kozloff call it propaganda, that's pretty bad. And it's propaganda from a regime widely known and sanctioned for narcotrafficcing and other criminal activities and human rights abuses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I might be missing it, I can see a lot about not saying stuff, nothing about outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Security and intelligence officials have been afraid that Telesur may be used by Russia for "fake news" and electoral interference. (Spanish) Allegations of "fake news" about Ukraine (Spanish). Alleged cooperation between Russian media and Telesur to disseminate misinformation. (Center for International Media Assistance) Telesur began rumor that El Chapo had placed bounty on Donald Trump. (Snopes) Just some information regarding Telesur and alleged false stories.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Except Telesur did not start the El Chapo rumour, they repeated it as fact (but then so did others). The others are better, but I am not sure I trust government bodies or statements any more then government run news organs. Can you give an example of then making up a story?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Except they did. The original "story" was part of "a satirical article". Telesur either repurposed the "story" or had some issue with fact-checking a self-described website used for "satirical purposes only".----ZiaLater (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
That just makes then no worse then the other sources that repeated it blindly (as they did).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This from the last RSN discussion: "Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda")." Gregory Wilpert is an ardent chavista, and even he is calling it propaganda.

"Employees treated as if they work for a political party" (eg chavismo); is not a reflection of journalistic standards we expect from a reliable source. This is a pattern of not just mistakes, but intent.

Errors of omission when consistently contrasted with errors of commission show a deliberate pattern-- that is, lies. The difference in reporting a situation in Argentina vs in Venezuela (promoting peace) is a lie.

The incident with the Miami reporter was a propaganda designed to deceive: is that not called a "lie"?

Random google, first hit, here. Propaganda= they lie about something everyone who follows Venezuelan reporting knows: "shot by unidentified assailants on motorbikes", means shot by colectivos, which are the government's armed thugs. That entire article is a lie, to distort who is doing the killing. Here's another way they can lie in a report like that: saying someone is "under arrest for the murder". Under arrest has no meaning in Venezuela, where human rights violations, including throwing people in prison with no trial for crimes they didn't commit, are thoroughly documented by humans rights organizations. And, the person "under arrest", if they shot the right kind of person (anti-government) is released or never charged as soon as the hubbub dies down. "Possible paramilitary activity", well, yes, the paramilitary armed by the government: just another way of saying colectivo. Armed paramilitary thugs doing the government's enforcement.

Just some samples; I could read more articles and give you more if you want. Yes, they lie, but with relative ethics and morals, we call it something else. This is not just bias, like say the difference between National Review and The Nation. It is propaganda designed to further a criminal regime, human rights violations, and a dictatorship. IF you really want outright lies, then you don't understand the nature of propaganda, which is to take a less-than-half truth and twist it into something you can use to dupe people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This comment also touches on something that can be used as a comparative: I would, for the right info, use Venezuelanalysis as a RS. Yes, it's owned by a Chavista. But is it at least vaguely neutral and accurate on protest news for both sides? Yeah. Not trusting TeleSur isn't merely because it's a state source or because it supports Maduro. It's because it breaks all the rules of journalism to be Maduro's personal cheerleader, which any outlet could do, it just happens to be this one - and whether accurate or not (most likely not) we can't accept an outlet that we have no faith in to even try acknowledge the full picture. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. I knew the BBC comparison would be drawn, so I would like to quote an excellent book that I've read: La devastación chavista: Transporte y comunicaciones, by Antonio Pasquali [es] (ISBN 9788417014148). Pasquali precisely explains the difference between the state-owned/state-funded television networks in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela, explaining the concerns of bias that existed when it was founded, and that it could favor a government or another. He continues saying how currently the BBC is praised because of its journalist integrity and impartiality, quoting as one of the reasons that it relies on public resources and not advertisement. What's the point that Pasquali makes? The difference between a government and State, which at least in Venezuela are terms usually confused. The BBC was founded in 1922, 96 years ago, while both Russia Today and Telesur were founded in 2005, only 14 years ago; reading through Wikipedia:Perennial sources, it doesn't seem there are doubts about the reliability of the BBC. Telesur has not operated in Venezuela with a different funding other than from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, while I understand this is the same case with RT. I think it has also been discussed how former directors and journalists regret how Telesur has turned into an unreliable channel; when Argentina changed from government, the state retired its funding. Most important of all, I wanted to say this but not before explaining all of this: naming the CBC, the BBC, China Daily, Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, among others, only distracts from the main topic in question: Telesur, and it does not answer whatsoever on the question regarding its reliability.
Last but not least, I wanted to give my two cents on some of the lies and fake news published by Telesur: Progovernment protest in the Yaracuy state near a Metro station, where there isn't even a subway; quoting a White House official that doesn't exist (more information here); US military bases in Costa Rica; Student killed by security forces was killed because of antigovernment protests; Worker hit by tear gas cannister "fell" in a construction camp; Brazilian football team supports Lula da Silva. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
That note about the BBC had no relation to the rest of your argument, as well as misrepresenting the actual facts which were trying to exclude 'radicals' - they take people from across the political spectrum, but not extremists who might put their own bias into reporting. Damn, you must really not like the BBC to bring them up for no reason other than to shade. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • See the section Telesur (TV channel)#Political bias. They are not biased just in Venezuela's own politics, but also in foreign countries according to their political relation with Venezuela. Macri, president of Argentina, is a vocal critic of Maduro, and they do not treat him any less harshly than they would with Guaido, Capriles or López. Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. This is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet, as is widely acknowledged. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). This not the kind of thing to build an encyclopedia from. Neutralitytalk 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment Then by such standard we should't rely on BBC, VOA, F24, etc... Lets not forget that CNN, NYT, Fox News, etc... are too guilty of propaganda, if you want to remove TeleSUR then you should do the same for other media outlets or do you have double standards and want to force such onto Wikipedia? Its not that wasn't already enough for Sputnik and RT, say what you want, but hypocrisy is evident. Just look at media conduct for support of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, remember the Gulf War? TeleSUR is not reliable according to people who don't like their reporting regardless if its true or false, lies or facts. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet. News has bias. See my statement above. Unless we're going to blanket bar news sources as an RS (something I actually could get behind) having a bias should not preclude reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • This is so ludicrous I'm not even going to attempt to respond. Neutralitytalk 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Because you can't, that is the truth and you can deny it. Their coverage is biased and propagandish. Lets not mention other media outlets like CNN nor American government being selective about journalists to have some or all control of the narrative. Media coverage of the Gulf War RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
        It is certainly not a very convincing argument for his case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        User:Simonm223 So why did you oppose Epoch times? --Shrike (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Neutrality has it right; if you start from the place that the NYT is propaganda, there is no place else for the discussion to go. (And I'm no fan of the NYT.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
          • We can start from BBC of all, look at their disgraceful coverage of Corbyn from supposed neutral unbiased news outlet. [1] RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


  • Comment. The Economist and Reuters, two allegedly reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, doing some unbiased reporting on Venezuela. emijrp (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Now I wonder how will people in here that assert TeleSUR is unreliable source are going to explain why Reuters and others are neutral/unbiased despite having Guaido prominently on their page and lets not forget that in many many media the prevalence of Pro-Guaido articles shows extreme bias, let alone when anything neutral or "pro"-Maduro gets only published in opinion sections like Bloomberg when experts in law like Noah Feldman are brushed off which is like brushing off Stephen Hawking when it comes to physics. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
      Please see the False balance article (and the corresponding policy for Wikipedia articles at WP:FALSEBALANCE). Not all views deserve equal publishing space. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • They did not place an image of Guaido because they endorse him in some way, but just because he's in the news. There's no conspiracy. Cambalachero (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. Not only is it the fact that they are not reliable, this is not a debate of the likes of New York Times against Fox News, it's not that simple. Telesur is known for the fabrication of news for political gain or to divert attention to factual news, regarding the economic crisis (according to them, an economic war), the scarcity of public goods (a conspiracy of the few private companies left in the country with the help of the US), the murders of students during protest by the police (allegedly they were killed by "right wing" paramilitaries), and so on. Their job is the misinformation of the public, and to no matter what, present the Venezuelan government and their allies as the good guys fighting a long standing battle against bogus enemies. --Oscar_. (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics — Newslinger talk 02:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • The false analogy fallacy is a common trick of left-wing supporters. When someone points to them something that is wrong with their stuff, they select a reputable and superficially similar item, and claim that "if you say that about us, you should say the same about them". Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


As seen above in other RfCs and to keep my entry more neutral, which of the four options do you consider for Telesur's reliability?

  • 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

Pinging users previously involved: @Shrike: @Simonm223: @Neutrality: @Rosguill: @Jamez42: @Kingsif: @SandyGeorgia: @Slatersteven: @Newslinger: I expect these options will give a more definitive answer regarding Telesur's reliability. Choose an option and share it below. Thank you for the good discussion!----ZiaLater (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 2: Telesur seems fine to me for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its allies/supporters. I do not see what the issue with using it as a reliable source for those particular statements would be.Simon1811 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Option 3 Option 3 or 4 is the description that suits Telesur the best, given its history and the discussion above, specially on topics regarding Venezuelan politics and its allies. The arguments so far in favour of Telesur have addressed only bias or editorial line, but has not answered the concerns regarding its reliability. It has been established in the discussion that not only Telesur is biased, but usually misrepresents, omits or fabricates important information. However, it's also the case that Telesur has deleted erroneous news or corrected themselves in the past, which is why Option 3 is probably the most accurate. Pinging users involved in previous discussions: @Rsheptak: @Squidfryerchef: @SashiRolls: @E.M.Gregory: --Jamez42 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Telesur is generally reliable for coverage outside of Venezuela, and for statements of opinion from the PSUV. It's also worth noting that Telesur used to be more reliable on all issues (including Venezuela) in its earlier years, and that it has become less reliable as a consequence of changes to its board of directors and advisory council, as well as Argentina's exit from funding the network. However, I'm unaware of a strict cutoff date at which point Telesur became less reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Here is a clear example of Telesur, yes, lying. A photojournalist has charged that in the 23 February clashes, Telesur took her images and altered them to show the opposite of what she observed and photographed. She says that not only did they use her photos without permission; they altered the truth in those photos.[1] Changing to Option 4; Telesur is all over Wikipedia, and they lie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    Followup: here is an independent investigation of the photojournalist's claim that concluded she was right-- a clear example of Telesur's manipulation. AFP investigation and translation (which is not great, but good enough). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Honestly, TeleSur is by and far worse than the Daily Mail, though I think the description in 4 is inaccurate for both of them. The Daily Mail is somewhat reliable for factual information - it's when it reports things that other news doesn't that you know it's lying. The same can be said for TeleSur except that it's less reliable for facts and may publish lies about a story that is told correctly in other news, making it Generally Unreliable (3). Note that generally, of course, means in general/for most things. The verbatim reports of half of Venezuela politician's words is an exception, not the rule, here. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (first choice) or Option 3 (second choice). As I noted above, Telesur is widely acknowledged as a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). Neutralitytalk 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 We shouldn't use state media in countries that there is no freedom of press --10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talkcontribs)
  • Option 4 --Oscar_. (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for the reasons I've already stated in discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 If BBC, F24, VOA and other government news outlet are considered reliable so should TeleSUR. RBL2000 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Shrike (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. The numerous unfavorable descriptions of Telesur in established reliable sources (from the section above) show that Telesur is a state-owned propaganda outlet similar to Sputnik (RSP entry) and Press TV (RSP entry), and should be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or 4. In addition to my above comment: Telesur is unquestionably partisan, and all of its statements should be attributed. Editors should take care to avoid using Telesur to add content that constitutes undue weight, especially when more reliable sources are available. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Option 4 per SandyGeorgia's evidence that Telesur publishes false or fabricated information. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. This is akin to Press TV. Per RSF, in the very low ranked Venezuela - "Arbitrary arrests and violence against reporters by the police and intelligence services reached a record level in 2017." - which is extra-legal. In terms of legal framework - "A 2010 law provides for sanctions in the event of any content “calling the legitimately constituted authority into question.” This has led to arbitrary arrests and defamation prosecutions.". Any factual un-biased reporting from within Venezuela is close to impossible - and is surely impossible for this state-funded propaganda outlet. I will note one significant exception - Telesur is probably reliable (as Press TV and RT/Sputnik respectively) for the views of the current (and contested) Venezuelan regime. Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Propaganda arm of the government, notable for slanted and false reporting about Venezuela. (Note that option 4 as written is unfair to the Daily Mail, a for-profit British tabloid that is not the propaganda arm of a government and which operates in a country with a free press.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 It is correct that bias is not, in and of itself, a reason to consider a source unreliable. But when that source distorts info, makes up facts and slander people to serve that bias, then it's not reliable. Not because of the bias, but because of the things done to serve that bias. And Telesur has crossed that line and burnt the bridges several times. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I am still to see definitive proof they actually make up stories rather then repeat stupidity created by others. Until we decide (on a Wikipedia wide level) that biased alone if a valid reason to reject a source I cannot accept it as one to reject this source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Comment: I found this article explaining how Telesur's reporting of Argentina's problem has not been only ideology, but also plain false information, problem that worsened with Macri's decision to stop Telesur's funding. The examples of these news includes reporting that Mauricio Macri increased gas and tap water tariffs threefold, that his administration was releasing repressors from the military dictatorship and mistaking two important historic dates. This may not be precisely the proof you may look for, but I think it helps to show a pattern and that problem not only goes with Venezuela, but also Argentina possibly other countries; not only because of bias or omission, but also because of false information. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Seems pretty clear that they routinely publish misleading/false information. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Burrobert (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 emijrp (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Pamrel (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It would be a mistake to blacklist TeleSUR when the need for Venezuelan-sourced news is at an all time high. Given the crisis, I'm amazed that their reporting has suffered relatively little. The comparisons to BBC and CBC seem apt. Connor Behan (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • "the need for Venezuelan-sourced news" has zero bearing in determining reliability of a source. We assess a source's reliability on their reception/acceptance in the real world, and especially by whether they have a reputation for accuracy (or inaccuracy) and strong editorial controls (or lack thereof). We don't make decisions on the reliability of sources based on subjective/arbitrary considerations about our "need" for them. Neutralitytalk 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - It's the state media of a dictatorship. Not independent. Echoes state propaganda. Examples of this are legion, to choose one here's this piece on how food shortages are really the fault of "Venezuela's traditional elite". Infamously, when Venezuelan branches of McDonald's ran out of french fries they published an article accusing McDonald's of making "economic war" on Venezuela. The only reason I'm not proposing this as a Option 4 vote is that i don't think a special category for the Daily Mail should exist, but if you want to count this as an Option 4 vote, be my guest. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Richard Stallman left the TeleSUR advisory board in 2011 calling it a "boring propaganda machine"[2] and TeleSUR has only went more extreme after the current crisis in Venezuela. However, I don't think edit filters should be added that easily and the source might be useful in attributing the official Maduro position. --Pudeo (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: On the one hand, it used to be more reliable than it is now, before previous sponsors and board members withdrew and with previous staff members. For example, earlier reports from Ecaudor were good. And it is generally reliable for sourcing statements of the Maduro government. These facts point towards option 2, careful use with attribution, avoiding it for reporting on opposition, demonstrations and other aspects of the current crisis. On the other hand, numerous examples of actual fake news and disinformation rather than simply bias presented in this thread point more towards option 4. So I think the middle position of option 3 is best. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reading through StopFake, I found that they contacted UNICEF about Telesur claims surrounding the Donbas conflict, with the UN office in Ukraine criticizing Telesur saying that their statements in their work "do not correspond to reality".----ZiaLater (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Putting example of charge that Telesur not only plagiarized a photo, it altered it to lie. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 For the same reason as VA. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2'. A very large number of media sources present false information when the country they are most closely affiliated with is involved in a geopolitical conflict. Al Jazeeras coverage of Qatar is questionable; but their reporting elsewhere is often quite excellent. The Indian and Pakistani media have been parroting nonsense put out by both their governments for the past several weeks, during the military standoff between them. Even the New York Times, which has as good of a reputation for reliability as any media outlet, was caught up in the "let's go to war" fervor in the United States before the start of the Iraq War, a fact the NYT itself acknowledged. Considerable evidence has been presented here that TeleSur is dodgy when it comes to internal Venezuelan politics. I see no evidence of systematic falsification outside of that. Even within Venezuela, TeleSur needs to be used as a source, with proper in-text attribution, because the government's viewpoint is frequently a necessary one to include. Absent further evidence I see no reason to consider TeleSur unreliable for material unrelated to the government of Venezuela. Comparisons to the Daily Mail are nonsensical. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The New York Times opinion page's position on the Iraq War in 2003 has nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of Telsur in 2019. Neutralitytalk 01:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. Reporters Without Borders ranks Venezuela near the bottom of the Press Freedom Index. That alone is enough to cast serious doubt on any press the country. The fact that it's government-run in a country with a shit press freedom index almost automatically renders it unreliable for anything other than (A) Announcing the official position and claims of the government, and (B) uncontroversial reporting on utterly non-political matters. The fact that it's government run, with shit press freedom index, by a government in national crisis and near civil revolt, suggests that it would probably be wise to confirm the local weather report via external sources. Oh... and I think some people above might have noted Telsur's poor reputation for reporting. Yeah that might be relevant too. Alsee (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

To be checked[edit]

These need to be checked. It is particularly troubling that Telesur is used to source many BLPs. This is way too many, and suggest that we may need to blacklist Telesur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


RfC: National Enquirer[edit]

There is weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source on Wikipedia. However, after reviewing the arguments in favor of allowing the use of the National Enquirer, as well as the arguments specifically about the creation of an edit filter, I see no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors. There are a few specific reasons for this split: editors correctly point out that the National Enquirer is not widely used as a reference on Wikipedia, while also pointing out that the National Enquirer can be a useful source to cite in specific situations. If there are any questions about this close, feel free to ask me. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Amended: change "depreciate" to "deprecate" after a request on my talk page to match the established phrasing used to refer to the reliability of sources. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 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.

Should the National Enquirer be deprecated as a source, with an edit filter implemented to warn editors attempting to use it as a reference? — Newslinger talk 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. The National Enquirer (RSP entry) has a longstanding reputation for publishing false and fabricated information. The tabloid heavily focuses on living persons, and its editorial practices (which are currently receiving plenty of news coverage) show that its interests are not aligned with providing accurate reports. Earlier today, I removed inappropriate citations of this source from seven biographies. An edit filter would eliminate the possibility that a National Enquirer citation slips through undetected, as it would warn the editor who tries to add the citation and record a public log of every edit that triggers it. — Newslinger talk 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No (ec) While I feel all celebrity gossip should be deprecated, I also note that on medical issues and science articles based on press releases, for example, all media sources rely heavily on press releases, and thus the NatEnq is precisely as "reliable" as the New York Times. The deprecate every source one does not like business should cease, in my honest opinion. Collect (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    WP:MEDRS sets a higher threshold of reliability than WP:RS, but WP:MEDRS only applies to biomedical information in articles. Although both the National Enquirer and The New York Times generally fail WP:MEDRS, The New York Times generally meets WP:RS, while National Enquirer falls far short of this guideline. Reliability is a spectrum, not a binary metric, and the National Enquirer is far enough on the unreliable end of the spectrum to justify its deprecation. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I am not even sure it really pretends not to tell outright falsehoods.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It Depends - The problem is that, hidden away among all the sensationalism and outright fabrication, the Enquirer occasionally publishes quality journalism (probably the most well known example was it’s coverage of the John Edwards sex scandle... which was seriously considered for a Pulitzer). So... even if the consensus is to (generally) depreciate, we are going to have to allow for (specific) exceptions. Discourage, but NOT ban. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Eh...kinda I'm with Blueboar. The Enquirer has occasionally gotten the scoop on stories that later turned out to be generally true, and their novel investigations did turn up newsworthy stuff. However, absent verification from some other source, I would strongly discourage the use of the National Enquirer as a sole source of record for anything, even the stuff they accidentally get right, I would only use information from the Enquirer that was independently confirmed elsewhere. I don't find that they are terribly concerned with truth, but will publish true things if it serves their goals. I think the sort of outright ban is a bad idea here, but I would use them very sparingly, and only when other sources are also cited that confirm their findings. --Jayron32 20:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The current news cycle has provided us with a story of AMI, the company that owns the National Enquirer, attempting to blackmail Jeff Bezos over the Washington Post's coverage of the political biases (pro-Trump and pro-Saudi) of the National Enquirer. Ronan Farrow says they've also tried to blackmail him. The National Enquirer did get the John Edwards thing right, but I attribute that to a stopped clock being right twice a day more than good journalistic ethos. And remember, Edwards is (was?) a Democrat. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes If we have a similar filter for the UK's Daily Mail, we certainly need one for this "news publication." I never thought I'd have much sympathy for the worlds's richest man, but I do now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I've always thought it was barely two steps above Weekly World News, which we shouldn't have to depreciate because, well, it's Weekly World News. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but... - It's clearly not a generally reliable source and is already de facto deprecated. While the essay WP:PUS says "The more extreme tabloids such as the National Enquirer should never be used, as most stories in them are intentional hoaxes", I'm not convinced never is justified. While a warning would be reasonable, it should make it obvious that deprecation isn't an outright ban on use but that its use is generally discouraged. The note in the Daily Mail warning is pretty reasonable: Note: There may be occasional exceptions to this rule (such as when the Daily Mail itself is the topic being discussed). If you do believe that your edit is an exception, then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again. Sometimes one may want to be able to say "the National Enquirer said x" and reference the date, issue, page and so on, but the number of times one is going to justified in doing that is low. --tronvillain (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'll echo the comments above. At this point, if the National Enquirer somehow gets something right, we need another reliable source discussing it. This "source" simply cannot be trusted and this proposal is a wise move. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes they publish obvious and not so obvious hoaxes and have for years. A good hoax contains elements of truth which explains why some of what they wrote is true. They are entertainment and about as reliable as General Hospital would be for medical advice. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    At least General Hospital doesn't outright fabricate most of its stories or extort Jeff Bezos. Alexa, play Despacito — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes It's already deprecated as unreliable, no point not telling people that in a filter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's worse than Breitbart and the Daily Mail. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes: National Enquirer is entertainment, not news medium. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes Enquiring minds want to know why we wouldn't. (I was thinking about starting a deprecation RfC on The Sun (United Kingdom) (NA version) for some time, so I'm not surprised someone else did) SemiHypercube 03:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No. The National Enquirer is only used in 13 articles as of now (see Special:Search/insource:""). I see no evidence that editors are adding it to articles. A filter is unnecessary as it would rarely be triggered. feminist (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    I've removed or replaced the citations that are obviously inappropriate ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]). While I expect many National Enquirer citations to be reverted by recent changes patrollers, some do slip through, and the edit filter's logging feature would be useful for future maintenance. — Newslinger talk 06:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    And even if you included these uses, that's only 20 articles citing National Enquirer as a source. Hardly a number which warrants an exceptional filter. feminist (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The low current usage is not necessary a reason to stop the filter being applied, the filter works happily if its busy or not. I can see no harm adding another well known mostly always junk source to a pile of equally rubbish sources. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC) i just read Peter Gulutzan's comment below
I've published a query on Wikimedia's Quarry tool that returns all of the edit summaries mentioning the National Enquirer, which shows that the National Enquirer has been cited in many more articles, but most of the links have been removed by other editors. (Note: Don't rely on the number of rows in the results. Not every result is related to a citation of the National Enquirer, but many of them are. Also, this query doesn't include edits related to citations of the National Enquirer that have edit summaries like "Remove unreliable source" that don't mention the National Enquirer.) Ideally, I would have preferred to run a search on the actual contents of article edits, but the text table is not available on Quarry. A more precise query using the revision table also timed out after hitting the 30-minute execution time limit. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Paging through those results it is far from clear that the majority of them are related to NaEnq, still less to deleting NaEnq references. Many of them are simply using NaEnq as a derogatory ("this is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer"), or describing edits about NaEnq that are not clearly deletions ("Redirected page to National Enquirer"). Without evidence of a significant problem warranting the drastic solution of a filter, how does this ban pass WP:CREEP? FOARP (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Many of the results do indeed show removals of National Enquirer citations ("rv, this saga includes the naming of the alleged couple by the National Enquirer", "rm National Enquirer ref per wp:blp and wp:rl; ce", etc.). The query demonstrates that there were more citations of the National Enquirer than the ones that are currently present in articles. It is not comprehensive and not precisely scoped for reasons I mentioned above. This RfC does not propose a "ban" or any changes to the policies and guidelines, as I have explained in my response to your comment below. — Newslinger talk 11:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This RfC does propose overriding a guideline. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it does not. This RfC requests enforcement of Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Questionable sources through Wikipedia:Edit filter. — Newslinger talk 12:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
An automated filter is not required to enforce a guideline. FOARP (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Where else will I get quality sourced news such as "Lee Harvey Oswald’s Secret CIA Contact After Assassination"? 06:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Note to closer: This is a Wikipedia:Humor.. okay? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 06:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly No. The damn National Enquirer is a strange yellow bird. It indeed serves a diet of sensationalism sprinkled with doses of pure fantasy (so pure, that it's difficult to imagine someone that takes items such as Elvis sightings as true). But it occasionally serves up a dish of extraordinary journalistic investigation that scoops all the rest of the media and has wider and serious implications. Such finds include not just the John Edwards extramarital affair that effectively ended the senator's presidential aspirations or the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter that forced events in her campaign, but the discovery of O. J. Simpson lying about never owning Bruno Magli shoes, and many other similar finds. We must make a distinction here between the Enquirer and similar yellows, such as Weekly World News or The Sun in the UK which have yet to publish one single item worthy of reproduction except for humor or irony and the Enquirer. (I find it strange that there is no deprecation yet of The Sun.) It is sufficient and, of course, necessary to have the Enquirer placed under a formal warning about its unreliability in general but we should permit its use at the discretion and consensus of editors. To effectively ban it outright as a source would be like throwing out the proverbial baby along with the bath water. -The Gnome (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd support a a formal warning about the subject publication's unreliability in general, as I already said. If this is the only purpose of this RfC I'd support the proposal. Otherwise, no. And thanks for the heads up about The Sun. I was not aware of its deprecation with which, as it happens, I very much agree. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It is interesting to see people defending the National Enquirer by saying "it sometimes does useful work", whilst condemning newspapers which have also done about the same amount of useful work that they apparently just aren't aware of. It was the Mail that originally broke the story about Chris Huhne. It was the Sun that broke the Plebgate story. I get the feeling that North American editors are only vaguely aware that UK tabloids do actually have real journalists working for them and -shock- don't just make everything up, with the same issue vice-versa for UK-based editors and US-based tabloids. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Feminist. There are no convincing arguments that we should make an exception here, and there is no broad consensus on this "just in case" trend. I have opposed (and still oppose) deprecating Occupy Democrats for the same reason, as all the time spent on this RfC could've been spent removing references to these sources. I am also of the opinion that these edit filters ought to be temporary, and support repealing each ban when a source's usage (edit filter hits) becomes extremely rare. As new users become more and more aware of WP:RSP, these edit filters will become less and less useful. That's a good thing. wumbolo ^^^ 17:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Having edit filters be temporary sounds reasonable to me. If this proposed edit filter does not receive enough hits on a trial basis, I would support removing it. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    In WT:RSN § Option 1: One template for all sources, there is emerging support to handle all deprecated sources with a single edit filter, which would make the performance impact and maintenance overhead of each individual deprecation negligible. The only remaining question is on the National Enquirer's reliability. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No on reasoning of Feminist and Wumbolo. We should only be seeking blacklist/filters if we have a routine problem with editors trying to add that source repeatedly. We did (and still do) have that with Daily Mail, but I think even most IPs recognize the NE as pure tabloid and avoid it as a source. This is a solution seeking a problem. --Masem (t) 18:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:AF "Because edit filters check every edit in some way, filters that are tripped only rarely are discouraged." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that many editors don't consider the time and resource costs of an edit filter. Is there a way to quantify this?
The deprecation process could be refined to allow a filter for these sources on an as-needed basis instead of applying it permanently. In most cases the reliability of the source will not change but the need for a filter will come and go. –dlthewave 22:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
That "discouraged" wording is due to this edit by Samwalton9. I don't know whether it refers to costs. All I know is that essays or information pages or RfCs override guidelines more often than seems necessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes very subpar publication that we already should avoid citing in the first place. Dubious tabloids like this have no place here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Heck Yes - Do we give excuses to any rotten-rag tabloids any chance for being inserted into articles? The answer is No. Also, Don't worry about performance. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 01:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes -- articles should be built on quality sources, and the evidence shows that this source is far from quality. MPS1992 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Given the way this tabloid has been thrust into the limelight with recent events, there is a real possibility that attempts by editors (particularly new editors with little to no knowledge of RSP) to use it as a source will substantially increase. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Save the editors here some time and effort debating over the reliability of a tabloid...DN (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes – There are plenty of better sources available for "scoops". If a "scoop" by the National Enquirer amounts to anything, you can be sure that there will be a more reliable source to cover the story.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No They just demonstrated an ability to get stories that no one else would get and now you want to ban them? Complain about their allegedly unethical method all you want but CNN did the same thing. Connor Behan (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes the practice of deprecating perennially unreliable sources with an edit filter that produces a warning cannot possibly harm the project, and stands to improve it significantly. As with all such sources, exceptions may occur, and this proposal would not impact those cases where using the Enquirer as a source is permitted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No No WP:NEWSORG should be the target of blanket deprecation that functions essentially as a ban on using it. This also goes for the Sun and the Daily Mail. Are they great sources? No. Are they potentially useful sources in some cases? Yes. Editors protesting that the sources that have been blanket-deprecated can still be used need to see what happens if you try to use them (DS notices, apparently-automatic deletion without even bothering to read the article, etc.). Finally, all these deprecations brought lately fail WP:CREEP, which is an actually policy (or explanatory supplement to a policy) and therefore ought not to be ignored (but is again and again) - specifically it requires that the proposal be a solution to an actual existing problem ("not a hypothetical or perceived one") and that the proposal if implemented is "likely to make a real, positive difference", and neither of these have been shown. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    "News organization" is a very charitable description of a supermarket tabloid like the National Enquirer. WP:ABOUTSELF permits all deprecated sources to be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and in my experience, editors have honored this exception for questionable sources. Discretionary sanctions boxes were discussed in The Sun's RfC, but no such template for deprecated sources actually exists. This RfC does not propose any modifications to existing policies and guidelines, and every RfC seeks to establish some form of consensus that editors are expected to reference and follow in the future. — Newslinger talk 12:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
As was pointed out by User:The Gnome above, National Enquirer has uncovered stories that "include not just the John Edwards extramarital affair that effectively ended the senator's presidential aspirations or the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter that forced events in her campaign, but the discovery of O. J. Simpson lying about never owning Bruno Magli shoes". However, under this blanket deprecation, we should not cite the National Enquirer as sources for articles about these subjects. WP:ABOUTSELF is not a cure-all, not even nearly. And this still leaves the WP:CREEP issues (which, again, is an actual honest-to-god supplement to a policy) which everyone keeps ignoring in these deprecation proposals - what is the real problem that this ban is directed to addressing? How is this proposal "likely to make a real, positive difference"? We already have policies in place regarding reliable sources, why aren't those enough? FOARP (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
This RfC does not propose a "ban". In this discussion, you and other editors have made multiple comparisons between the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail. The community has decided in two separate RfCs (in 2017 and 2019) that the Daily Mail should be deprecated. This proposal seeks to apply the same treatment to a similarly unreliable source. WP:CREEP applies to text in policies and guidelines, and not to their application. — Newslinger talk 02:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:DUCK, this is a ban because the effect is to notify patrolling editors that a reference to the NaEnq has been made, and the response is almost universally to delete the reference - hence, a ban. The previous DM RfCs were wrongly decided in my view and per WP:KOOLAID I don't see any reason to stop saying so though I don't intend to belabour the point. Finally, stating "WP:CREEP applies to text in policies and guidelines, and not to their application" is practically the definition of a formalist argument - the text decides what the application will be. It's also wrong because WP:CREEP is about creating new instructions, and most definitely about whether a filter (i.e., a new instruction) should be put into place at all. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
From the opening paragraph of WP:CREEP: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to explain community norms for all readers, especially those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates. It is important that such pages remain easy to understand and in line with community consensus." Edit filter warnings don't elongate existing policy or guideline pages. They appear only when needed on the editing page to caution editors against making edits that violate existing policies and guidelines (including the reliable sources guideline), and they are targeted to the specific edit. This RfC doesn't propose any kind of change to the reliable sources guideline. To counter a point you've made before, explanatory supplements (such as WP:CREEP) have the "not been thoroughly vetted by the community" label, and are ranked lower than guidelines ("a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"). — Newslinger talk 21:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
FOARP is correct that the filter is an added instruction, no matter how many times you make the irrelevant response that your proposal does not "change" a guideline. It is (a) against WP:AF because more than one editor has pointed to how rare edits seem to be; (b) against WP:RS because it says we should base edits on context; (c) against WP:DR because RfCs are for dispute resolution and you didn't show that there had been a dispute (or WP:RFC is about "making changes" but you insist you're not proposing any changes); (d) confusingly explained because your claim that warnings will only be "targeted to the specific edit" will only be true if your own proposal (which makes all warnings point to your essay) fails; (e) confusingly proposed because you wrote "This proposal seeks to apply the same treatment [as what was done to the Daily Mail] ..." but that is not what you wrote in the proposal. But thanks for admitting that explanatory supplements have low status (in fact they have essay status), which means your multiple references on this thread to an explanatory supplement ("RSP entry") are equally worthless. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that edit filters don't change any guideline is absolutely relevant, because WP:CREEP advises against introducing instructions when they negatively impact the readability of existing policy and guideline pages. The proposed edit filter does not do that. "WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Instruction can be helpful, even if long – when clearly and accurately representing community consensus. Addressing your actual arguments:
  1. This proposal is not against WP:AF. There is considerable support for implementing edit filter warnings for all deprecated sources with a single edit filter at WT:RSN § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources. When implemented, that edit filter will certainly be triggered regularly.
  2. This proposal is not against WP:RS. The proposed edit filter warnings at WT:RSN § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources clearly indicate to editors who trigger the filter that deprecated sources may be used in certain situations. Editors who believe that the context justifies the use of the National Enquirer may click "Publish changes" one more time to submit their edits.
  3. This proposal is not against WP:DR, as I have no dispute with another editor. According to WP:RFC, "RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages." This RfC proposes changes to Wikipedia's edit filters.
  4. By "targeted to the specific edit", I meant that the edit filter warning would only be displayed when an editor attempts to submit an edit that adds a citation of the National Enquirer. These edits are "targeted" by the proposed edit filter. Editors who don't make such edits would not see the edit filter warning.
  5. The Daily Mail is recognized as a deprecated source. This RfC proposes the deprecation of the National Enquirer.
Links to WP:RSP in my comments add context to the sources I mention. Any entries on that page are backed by previous discussions on this noticeboard. If you object to the classification of any source I have mentioned, you may challenge the existing consensus with a new discussion or RfC on this noticeboard, which will be factored into WP:RSP. The WP:RSP list has been backed by two RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 59 § RfC: Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources? and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 60 § RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?, despite your opposition to both. — Newslinger talk 00:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe what I said shows this RfC is invalid, you don't, we could argue further if others care. By the way I forgot "(e) Against WP:RSN instruction 'This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.'" Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, not because I think the NaEnq is a worth while rag but instead because in general I am uncomfortable with the widespread deprecation of sources. It seems like as soon as the Dailmail was deprecated there has been a huge push to wholesale ban sources. We already have a process where editors can challenge particular RSs. One of the issues I see is that occasionally these sources might actually get something right but rather than letting the editors involved in an article decide we are going to use a generalized discussion that hasn't reviewed the particular article in question. Are we really solving a problem or risking throwing out babies in bath water. I would personally be very likely to challenge any controversial claim attributed to the NaEnq but because I'm uncomfortable with this deprecation process in general I oppose this one (and likely almost all other examples as well). Springee (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The DM should never have been deprecated in this way and proposals like this one were exactly what was warned about when the DM ban was proposed. There is no essential difference between the DM in the UK and NaEnq in the US. Both are trashy rags that also do real journalism occasionally. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, deprecate. Add filter if standard practice Newslinger, you ask the tough questions... The strongest argument against deprecating this source, made by The Gnome, is that the National Enquirer occasionally produces factual material, unlike other similar publications that almost exclusively produce non-factual/non-supported stories. That sounds like a very compelling reason to not trust this source because they have a temperamental disposition towards verifying correctness. As far as the edit filter, I support if it that's how other such deprecated sources are treated. Ender and Peter 20:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. For decades it has been a definitive example of an unreliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - Reasoning/caveats similar to tronvillain's. That it occasionally gets a journalistic scoop means we can wait until other, better publications pick up on that scoop and apply their standards that have a better track record. How are we to tell, except in hindsight, which are the good ones from among the garbage? It is the other sources that tell us which were good in hindsight, so let's just use those. Occasional use to supplement those other sources, sure, but that's within the very few uses acknowledged in this "deprecation" concept (or should be). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - no case or logic basis presented, just someone voicing personal and generic dislike into an official enemies list that has no policy or other controls is no way to run things. This weakens RS basis to consider specific cases in context by making a generality condemning or blessing whole organizations rather than individual instances. I’m with FOARP as well that UK papers seems already given short shrift — and Canadian and Australian and anything not from the United States northeast... and now “lesser” newspapers ... All of this seems to be endangering NPOV ability to present views in proportion to their true prominence and actual acceptance. At the very least, censorship nominations should be forced to be more than a trivial effort. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see any credible claims of bias against publications from the UK, Canada, and Australia. While the Daily Mail (RSP entry) and The Sun (RSP entry) are deprecated, editors consider BBC (RSP entry), The Guardian (RSP entry), and The Daily Telegraph (RSP entry) generally reliable. Canadian and Australian publications are not discussed on this noticeboard frequently enough to have entries on the perennial sources list. This means that they're uncontroversial, and doesn't suggest that they're unreliable. There are US sources not based in the Northeastern US area, including the Los Angeles Times (RSP entry), Deseret News (RSP entry), and many local publications, that are considered generally reliable. Many US-based publications (including the National Enquirer, which contradicts your point) are based in the Northeastern US because New York City and Washington, D.C. are the media and political capitals of the US, and publications from that area are not afforded any special consideration with respect to the WP:RS guideline. The proposed edit filter does not prevent any editor from adding citations of the National Enquirer into articles. — Newslinger talk 12:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
That broadsheet newspapers and the national broadcaster don't get deprecated doesn't prove anything. We're talking about borderline cases where North American editors have at least been accused of taking an extremely simplistic view of UK sources (i.e., all our tabloids are garbage) but insisting on nuance when it comes to e.g., Fox News. FOARP (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This particular RfC proposes the deprecation of a North American tabloid. — Newslinger talk 22:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm surprised this is a question. If NE is reliable, then what isn't? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecated? Yes. It's the worst tabloid in the U.S., full of lies. Blacklisted or absolutely 100% prohibited? I don't know about that; apparently according to some folks here it might have some use. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The Enquirer deliberately and unabashedly publishes falsehoods and is not generally considered "reliable" in virtually any instance. In those very rare instances that the Enquirer does score a true journalistic coup, it is quickly picked up by other reliable sources, so it is not needed.Jacona (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
So you think it's OK to cite sources citing the NaEnq, but not the NaEnq itself? FOARP (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. We don't need an RfC every time someone finds a dodgy source. There is no evidence that this source is being used widely (see discussion above) or that editors are fighting over it. Just apply WP:RS the normal way. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, since it is and always has been made up nonsense about celebrities, interspersed with just enough actual facts to get people to buy it when they're in line at the supermarket. It's one of the worst things in print in the United States. It's beyond tabloid journalism, though not quite as deep into fiction-as-news as Weekly World News is. That said, I agree with Finnusertop that we do not need an RfC about every un-source; just list them for banning and don't worry about it unless someone objects.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - This has never been an acceptable source, and only rarely has someone been foolish enough to attempt to use it, but we should formalize the depecration. Neutralitytalk 20:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)`
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Enquirer. — Newslinger talk 01:01, 11 March 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: Venezuelanalysis[edit]

While we are at it, is Venezuelanalysis a reliable source?

Again, I will suggest the four options:

  • 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

Thank you. ----ZiaLater (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)ZiaLater (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Option 1 My impression of this source is that it's a reliable left-wing source. It's sympathetic to the Bolivarian Revolution, but it is more than willing to publish stories that paint the government in a poor light,[11] and I don't see any evidence that they've ever intentionally published false information. I see that the Wikipedia page for them has claims that could imply that a significant amount of content on the site comes directly from the Venezuelan government, but the pages that the citations go to are pages on Venezuelanalysis that 1) in some cases don't appear to exist anymore 2) were clearly labeled links to specific pages on the equivalent of a FAQ page and are completely separate from its actual factual reporting. signed, Rosguill talk 07:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Bias or political leaning it not enough, does it have a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. As, per their about, much of the team is based in Venezula itself and since Venezula uses violence and legal intimidation against journalists operating inside Venezula to produce pro-regime pieces - RSF Venezuela - it is impossible for this site to accurately publish anything about the regime. Furthermore, the site itself does not appear to be much beyond a WP:SPS - it is a collection of pro-Chavez activists publishing their (+ pitches, which they state they accept) views on Venezula. There no indication that this little referenced website has a reputation for accuracy, and their openly stated aims (essentially - Chavez propaganda) would seem to be rather against such a reputation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 per similar reasons as Telesur. Venezuelanalysis consist mostly in opinion articles, like Aporrea, meaning it is mostly a blog. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Jamez42 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • NOTA See my TASS reasoning below. Collect (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3, unreliable except for reporting on positions taken by Maduro/chavismo, except that even there, the reporting is distorted or they lie. Here is an very recent example (very similar to Telesur tactics, also Venezuela-controlled propaganda) of a blatant distortion/lie.
    Distortion #1. On 6 February, Venezuelanalysis published this piece, which (among other distortions) includes a map claiming that most of the world supports Nicolas Maduro in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. That map includes all of Africa in support of Maduro (something claimed by Venezuelan officials on 31 January). That is not only not true, but the African Union was so troubled by the Venezuelan misrepresentation of their position that they held a protest in front of a Venezuelan embassy, well before the Venezuelanalysis piece was published.[12][13][14] Note that their map also includes countries like Norway, Switzerland and India which have most decidedly stated their neutrality. Contrast the Venezuelanalysis claim to the scrupulously maintained and well sourced map and country list on Wikipedia. Venezuelanalysis furthered this lie/distortion even after they must have known it contained falsehooods.
    I will add more as I find time-- this is merely the most recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per User:SandyGeorgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talkcontribs) 08:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 Clearly unreliable, per others. I am undecided whether a filter is necessary or not. 252 uses is not a lot, but not insignificant either. feminist (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2-3, pretty biased. Generally its "news" section reports are based on other published sources which it filters through its particular political lens, so far better to use the original sources. It fairly accurately reports the statements of the government and of foreign governments backing it, so could be used as a source for that, although for other things it should be used with caution and attribution. It also publishes a lot of opinion pieces under "opinion and analysis" which should definitely not be used for factual reporting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - more reliable than North American news sources I happen to know first hand that CTV (Canada) has falsified reports of Canadian pro-Maduro protests to frame them as pro-Guaido. If our yardstick is "never distorts facts about levels of support" North American news sources fail on that front. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment We should avoid whataboutism, reliability of other outlets doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of Venezuelanalysis. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment My point is that this is a double-standard. I have repeatedly said that I don't think Wikipedia should be using newsmedia sources for much of anything and that, especially in the case of unfolding political crises, we should be waiting until the crisis resolves to address what historians have to say about the situation. So Option 1 doesn't fit because I don't think any news source meets option 1. With that said, the other three options are problems in that they're implying that this source is less reliable than western news sources such as CTV, which I cited as an explicit example of Western media providing counterfactual and propagandistic reporting regarding Venezuela. So don't @ me with the tired trope of whataboutism when I point out that you're asking that we treat Canadian and American media's propagandistic slant as reliable but not that of Venezuela. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
But then, I sometimes think I'm the only person editing political articles on Wikipedia who really cares about WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
We already have editors trying to delete the source from non-controversial comments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, citing source POV entirely unrelated to the topic. This is a perfect example of why these attempts to vote a POV contrary to the American hegemonic one off the island cause actual problems for the project (removal of sources from statements of undisputed fact). Per WP:YESPOV a source having a POV does not disqualify it. Again, I dislike the use of media and media-like sources for current issues. That goes for Venezuelanalysis, Granma, Telesur and China Daily to precisely the same extent that it goes for Washington Post, New York Times, CBC, Huffington, etc. But if the consensus of Wikipedia is that media sources, with their biases and tendency to interpret the world through those biased lenses, are allowable as sources, then the systemic treatment of Leftist sources as "unreliable" and Centrist and Conservative sources as "reliable" is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4: As per the info provided by Icewhiz and Sandy Georgia. Having a POV is not a problem, but if accuracy is dismissed to serve that POV's agenda, then it is a problem. And I wouldn't bother about the fate of the articles about the Venezuelan crisis: it is a topic of international interest, and we have loads of reliable sources covering every new development in it. We don't need Venezuelanalysis to write a good and complete article about it (or even a featured one, once things come to an end and the article gets a bit less busy). Cambalachero (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per commented above. It is a propaganda site of the Venezuelan government, which, since the arrival of Nicolás Maduro to power, is engaged more and more in producing fake news to hide accurate data on the economic, political and social crisis. --Oscar_. (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

To be checked[edit]

Just like with Telesur above, articles that reference Venezuelanalysis should be reviewed, including in BLPs: --Jamez42 (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


RfC: TASS[edit]

There was a very divided RfC, so I'm going to write a slightly longer statement. Given that the options were laid out in a spectrum of most reliable (option 1) to least reliable (option 4), I took a look at the "average" response, which was roughly 2.8, suggesting that the consensus is somewhere between option 2 (unclear or additional considerations apply) and option 3 (generally unreliable for factuar reporting). However, I was struck by the argument that the reliability of Tass varies based on the content - editors generally agree that, for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, the source appears fairly reliable. On the other hand, they generally agree that, on other issues, there are deficiencies in the reliability of Tass' reporting. The option nearest to both of these views, and the one that has the support of a weak consensus, is option 2. Accordingly, I am closing this in favor of option 2: TASS's reliability is unclear or additional considerations apply. If you have any questions about this close, please don't hesitate to ask me. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:20, 17 March 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.

Sorry for the multiple posts. Came across TASS lately as well. Only a small comment; I've seen in past discussions that TASS has been used only when attribution is used.

  • 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

Again, thank you and this will be my final RfC for some time.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 3: But I am not sure bias alone is enough for deprecation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: They've promoted Russian spin during MH370MH17 and the conflict in Crimea and Donbass (as well as in other times). This is owned by the Russian federal government. They generally should be avoided as a source, with the sole exception that they are quite reliable for reporting Russian government views - which should be attributed of course. Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Corrected wrong MH flight.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This seriously needs to stop. A Russian government-owned news agency is more likely to present the Russian narrative on international crises involving Russia than your average non-Russian news agency. There's nothing particularly revealing about this.
I assume you meant MH17? If so, here are the first two TASS reports showing up on Google that have covered the affair: [15] and [16]. Do you see anything out of the ordinary in these? And by "ordinary" I'm referring to the mainstream news sources that are considered reliable on Wikipedia.
Here you'll find all the TASS reports on MH17 published between 16 July and 31 December 2014, and here is the Crimea-related material. The stuff that I've found, on my part, was well attributed to senior officials and people with a certain level of expertise on the subject. But I don't mind being proven wrong, so you (and anyone else here) are more than welcome to do so. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
TASS, for instance, spread the Carlos/SU-25 conspiracy theory regarding the MH17 shoot down.Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media, edited by Samuel C. Woolley, Philip N. Howard, page 55. Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. This appears to be the TASS report in question, at least according to RFE/RL.[17] First of all, does the TASS article have an English language version promoting this theory? I'm genuinely asking, because is probably not the same as, same way Al Jazeera's Arabic and English services are not the same in terms of content.
And secondly, this is how the article translates on Google: "Currently on the Internet, users are actively quoting a Twitter post that was made by a Spanish air traffic controller. From the profile of the author in the social network, it follows that he works at the Kiev airport Borispol." There appears to be no attempt in the article whatsoever to present the conspiracy theory as a statement of fact. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
My understanding (based on when I was really reading TASS quite a bit - which is dated - haven't done TASS real-time since 2015 or thereabouts - for the Donbass it was interesting, for Syria less so most of the time) is that the English TASS is a selective (not all items) and delayed translation (a few hours) of the Russian TASS. Back when I consumed TASS - I mainly did so for real-time releases and read the Russian original. Real-time obviously isn't a concern for Wikipedia (though the main reason I really see for looking at TASS is for real-time same-hour releases) - and the translation quality to English (of those pieces they translate) is (or was) pretty good.Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
As another example of 2014 Donbass reporting - most outlets viewed (and still view) the Russian "aid conveys" rather suspiciously - e.g. [18][19][20][21][22][23]. TASS, on the other hand, was reporting breathlessly on each stop the conveys made and on the humanitarian aspect - e.g. [24][25]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTA Tass has been an official arm of Russia in the past - thus is fully reliable for statements of fact as stated by that government, and usable for opinions presented, attributed and cited as opinions. Same as p[retty much every source. Collect (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per my above reply. I have yet to see evidence pointing to a clear pattern of wrongdoing by TASS. IMO it's far more tolerable than Sputnik and even RFE/RL (which is considered reliable here). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or Option 3: in my opinion sources that are not independent of government in countries with law rank in freedom of press should not be used --Shrike (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 TASS has been widely discussed -- by plenty of RS in fact-- as part of the Russian dezinformatsiya network, coordinating to spread malicious falsehoods in the West. Some sources:
    • here's Kruglak at U-Minnesota [[26]]: the two faces of TASS - one, that of a bona fide news enterprise and the other, that of a propaganda and espionage service.;
    • Watanabe from LSE's paper [here] : A longitudinal content analysis of over 35,000 English-language newswires on the Ukraine crisis published by ITAR-TASS and Interfax clearly showed that ITAR-TASS’s framing of Ukraine was reflecting desirability of pivotal events in the crisis to the Russian government. This result reveals Russia’s strategic use of the state-owned news agency for international propaganda in its ‘hybrid war’, demonstrating the effectiveness of the new approach to news bias.
    • ... I could list more. In summary the RS conclusion is pretty clear : TASS is not a news source, but a tool wielded by a state actor. We should not perpetuate propaganda. No TASS, until it cleans up its act. --Calthinus (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Seems to fall squarely under WP:BIASED. Prominent government-controlled news agency. Plenty of spin, but apparently not known for fabrication. Eperoton (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 This has been discussed a lot, it falls into the same bracket as other state-owned media of dictatorships (CGTN, Xinhua, PressTV, Granma etc.). It is not independent and thus not reliable. Particularly, the coverage by TASS of the invasion of Crimea echoed the Russian government line that the soldiers there, who we now know (not least because Putin admitted it) to have been Russian soldiers, were "local militia", and it has repeatedly carried the various contradictory conspiracy theories about the shooting down by Russian-backed rebels of MH17. The reason I'm choosing Option 3 here is because I don't think the special category for the Daily Mail should exist (there's no reason why anyone should regard the DM as worse than the state media of a dictatorship), but if you want to count this as a Option 4 vote you can. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Evidence shows that TASS has engaged in disinformation and thus must generally be avoided as a source. A filter does not prevent legitimate use (such as citing the official Russian position) as editors only need to click Save again. feminist (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 – Many editors use TASS as a factual and timely news source regarding information on the Russian space program. Just because, as a government agency, it reflects political views of the Russian government (properly attributed), does not mean it should be deprecated as a WP:RS. Indeed, it would be quite difficult (and biased) to cover events happening in Russia without allowing any reporting by Russian media. Is Agence France Presse next to get axed, because it reflects viewpoints of the French government? Xinhua, because it reflects viewpoints of the Chinese government? PAP because it reflects views of the Polish government? — JFG talk 08:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • User:JFG Do you think there is no difference between freedom of press in France and Russia?Also AFP have independent from government editorial board --Shrike (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Freedom of the press in country A or B is not the issue being debated here (although, if you're interested, France does not have a stellar reputation in this domain; ask any French person among your acquaintances). We are examining a particular news agency and trying to ascertain whether what it publishes can be accepted as RS per Wikipedia's own definition at WP:NEWSORG: News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). The policy even quotes the Russian Interfax as a typical reliable news agency. WP:BIASED states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, as long as editors attribute statements coming from ostensibly biased sources. I'd rank TASS as vastly more reliable than outlets like BuzzFeed News or The Daily Telegraph that get top billing in our WP:Perennial sources catalog. — JFG talk 21:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: Regarding your concern with sources like BuzzFeed being listed as green, I've previously suggested adding more levels of reliability assessment for RSP, see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Add more levels of reliability?. This proposal did not receive a lot of support. feminist (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. In addition to examples from Icewhiz (above), Forbes 2015: "authors of many articles and comments are unknown or publish under various pseudonyms", and "they tout fabricated claims from history, which they present as new sensational discoveries". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 as per JFG. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 RS describe TASS as being heavily used as a propaganda tool in Russia's "Hybrid War". Sort of par for the course when it comes to state media from countries with little to no freedom of press. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • OTHER - I’d not choose any of theses except to exclude #4. It’s a Russian POV, has a large prominence with long experience, good editorial performance, has a mild-right bias as far as word choices but bias is not so far as spot blindness, decent on factual material and special expertise on Russia or Russian government... but none of that info about them or looking at their website is leading me to such vague broad options as these, just to excluding #4. (Besides, seems BESTSOURCES in the vicinity, unless you prefer RT? :-) ) I’d tend to bin Tass with VOA or Al Jazeera for official lines and insights on international items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Your position sounds like Option 2, OK with additional considerations considering their inherent bias. Note that Al Jazzera is listed "green" in our source catalog, as generally reliable with considerations of bias on certain issues. VoA is currently not rated, but generally accepted as an RS, while bearing in mind it represents US policy views. — JFG talk 10:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (or Option 3 as second choice). The academic sources identified by Calthinus clearly establish that TASS is part of the Russian government's dezinformatsiya (disinformation) network. Encyclopedias must rely on better sources. Neutralitytalk 20:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: TASS. — Newslinger talk 04:54, 14 March 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: Gawker[edit]

Should be deprecated as a source to strongly discourage its use on articles? wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. Gawker (RSP entry) is a gossip blog that has no regard for factual reporting, while its opinion articles can still be cited if properly attributed. Even the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal cites only one Gawker article and contains 226 other references. Gawker Media have fired journalists for not being clickbait-y enough, and they have had numerous controversies. The worst of the worst "journalists" were ever employed by Gawker. Since the new owner, the Gawker website had controversies again and is doing very poorly. This gossip blog is cited on hundreds of articles, many of them biographies, making me support its deprecation. I've been through the RSN archives and Gawker was always viewed as generally unreliable, generally unusable for WP:DUE material, and especially inappropriate on biographies (if Gawker has any use, it's on biographies so it doesn't have any use). Some blogs previously operated by Gawker Media are considered thoroughly reliable, but that is not relevant here and's unreliability does not help them. If this proposal fails, I wouldn't be surprised if it generated consensus that Gawker should be identified as generally unreliable (red) at WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes It is just a gossip site that care little or nothing for fact checking.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Gawker even still a thing? As far as I know there hasn't been anything published on Gawker since 2016, am I missing something? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    See "Gawker 2.0 Implodes as Its Only Reporters Quit". wumbolo ^^^ 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Gawker is the Web 2.0 analogue to the tabloid journalism publishers that have recently been unfavorably scrutinized on this noticeboard. While Gawker is best known for Bollea v. Gawker, the publication has been sued numerous times for defamation, as shown in "Here are all the people suing Gawker" and "For Gawker, Legal Issues Beyond Hogan". As Gawker focuses on rumors related to living persons, deprecation is appropriate here. Editors should also consider whether an opinion piece from Gawker constitutes undue weight before citing it in an article. — Newslinger talk 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this is a blog then isn't it already covered by the WP:RSSELF? Do we really need to RfC every possible source regardless of whether there is a real problem to be dealt with? What about WP:CREEP, which tells us only to make instructions where there is a real problem? FOARP (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It (old is Deceased That is, it was a blog, and ventured into areas which forced its own closure. It is RS for nihil. "Gawker 2.0" is a legally different site, under Bustle Digital Group. which announced the "new Gawker" as an actual editorial project and no longer a "blog" thus we can not judge such future material as a blog. so, honestly, we do not know more than "the old Gawker is pretty much deprecated" but no solid basis to deprecate the "new Gawker." Clear? Collect (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No/Moot I can't really imagine many editors digging through Gawker's carcass for its dubious articles to be used as sources on Wikipedia. After all, it's dead, its brand is very tainted, Bryan Goldberg doesn't seem to have much success relaunching the site (good) – I don't see a need for a filter, but won't necessarily be opposed to one. feminist (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - As noted above, its a tabloid blog with little to no editorial oversight or fact checking. Meatsgains(talk) 03:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Let the dead be at peace. There is no use depreciating something long since made irrelevant (under dubious circumstances one might say). Regardless, such circumstances lead me to conclude that it most likely should be an important primary source for articles such as Peter Thiel. I don't see any sense in depreciating it to be honest since it's not like they are going to write new articles like they used to. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes – When a source is junk, we must mark it as junk. "Respect for the dead" has no bearing on Gawker's inappropriateness as a Wikipedia source. — JFG talk 08:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes: crap sources are crap and just because they're dead doesn't mean that archived versions of them are still crap. SITH (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No'. No evidence presented to put it in the same category as the Daily Mail and Caller. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, Gawker is not in the same category as DM and DC (which still report factual news most of the time, though without the consistency we need). As a gossip blog Gawker is in an entirely different league, and is much worse than either source. feminist (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - this is covered by WP:BLOG. There is no case made for a ‘deprecation’, which is without policy governance nor obvious effectiveness or benefit. Seems just empty posturing and adding cases increases any difficulty of discussion and further confusion about deprecation. Having a practice that looks like censorship by personal preference or local popularity or hidden reasoning needs a higher bar ... and part of that would be the nomination needs to do some work producing a case showing evidence and policy consideration. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - the DM isn't perfect sure but it's a thousand times better than this tripe!, Gawker is nothing but a blog site and as such IMHO it shouldn't be used here in any form. –Davey2010Talk 13:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No' Template:ABB per Markbassett, Collect and others. Gawker is not genereally RS, but deprecating it is unnecessary. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Markbassett and Gamaliel. Guettarda (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes ask Hulk Hogan why. Just a blog spouting nonsense in my opinion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No/Meaningless, unless you're talking about the reliability of Gawker's successor blogs, e.g. Kotaku, io9, Jezebel, etc.. Those needs to be separately assessed in individual RfCs, and Kotaku is quite a reputable Gaming media source, albeit it has to be properly attributed per policy. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 03:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning no on this, per much of the above. The domain name is someone else now, and I don't see any evidence that people are regularly trying to use the old gossip site as a source here. PS: "blog" is publication format, nothing else. There are plenty of blogs that are reliable sources. What we don't want to see is self-published or user-generated content being used as if secondary sourcing. The former has some limited uses under WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF, and the latter isn't really usable. The various click-bait content farms ("10 Celebs You Didn't Know Were Gay") are basically UGC. They are written by thousands of pittance-paid pseudonymous or anonymous schlock workers with nearly zero editorial oversight. The blogs of major newspapers are written by their journalists and subject to professional editorial review and are within the reputation sphere of their newspapers. That both a major newspaper's blog and a worthless click-bait site are published with blog software is irrelevant. (But being published by a newspaper doesn't magically make a primary opinion piece into a secondary material; this was true before blogs existed – editorials, op-eds, advice columns, and most movie and book reviews are primary sources, because they are opinion pieces not factual research. Same goes for "news" that is just regurgitation of a press release, or nothing but quotations of talking heads and witnesses with no actual WP:AEIS work by the publisher.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - It's better to draw the lines in the ground on this matter. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Gawker. — Newslinger talk 10:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the SPLC reliable? It is reliable[edit]

Is the Southern Poverty Law Center really a reliable source? The SPLC called Maajid Nawaz, who is not an anti-Muslim extremist, an anti-Muslim extremist in their "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists", despite the fact that he is a Muslim himself. Nawaz also won a lawsuit against the SPLC for the false claim that he is an "Anti-Muslim Extremist" and they had to publicly apologize because of the error. Also, The SPLC placed a conservative Christian advocacy group called the Family Research Council (FRC) on its "hate map" in 2010 because the FRC oppose same-sex marriage and abortion and as a result of this, a gunman walked into the FRC headquarters two years later and said he wanted to "kill as many as possible" because he saw them on the SPLC's hate map. That's right, the SPLC indirectly caused a shooting because they didn't agree with an advocacy group because of conflicting political views. Lastly, they have smeared many other people they have disagreed with such as Ben Carson and Charles Murray. Source:[27] X-Editor (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

They are an advocacy group as well as being biased and opinionated, but generally fit WP:RSOPINION. That is can be used but should be attributed to them. WP:RSP has a decent write up on them and their history on this board. PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: If the SPLC can only be used as a source for opinion when it comes to hate groups, then why does the Gab (social network) article use the SPLC source against gab as a source for the website's active user base when it cannot be used as fact and only as an opinion when it comes to them reporting on hate groups? X-Editor (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with the Gab (social network) page but looking it over every time they are used it is not in Wikipedia's voice. It is "The Southern Poverty Law Center characterized" or "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported" which is proper attribution. PackMecEng (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: In the infobox of the Gab article, it says there are 19,526 estimated monthly active users, which it gets from the SPLC source, which got those numbers from Storyful. However, Gab said in a January 2019 SEC filing that it has 200,000 active users and Gab has also said that the SPLC's numbers, which they got from Storyful, are wrong. X-Editor (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The body of the article explains where that info came from, attributing the sources there. If I had to guess why the SEC data is not use it is because that is generally self reported. Though the link you gave does not work so I cannot really check. I will say our article is a little misleading giving the active user number and comparing it to the claimed 850k total user number which can give an incorrect impression. PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: Here's the SEC filing, I don't know why the first link is a dead one: Also, if you think the Gab article is misleading, then fix the article so it is less misleading. X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

SPLC does good research and many RS report that research. I don't know about the specific piece of data you are asking about. I suggest chasing down the real source the info comes from. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I got the info from this source: X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Note the section that piece is in — "Opinion." Also note that the author is Marc Thiessen, a well-known partisan conservative who wrote speeches for George W. Bush. While we may consider his opinion relevant for inclusion, it is citable as nothing more than another (quite partisan) opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Well if that's the case, then I guess there was no reason bringing up those points in the first place. X-Editor (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC's research into hate groups is widely considered authoritative in reliable sources. Like all reliable sources, they have occasionally made mistakes. What we look for is, what happens when a mistake is made? In the SPLC's case, they have generally admitted the error and corrected it publicly. You misstate the Nawaz case — he did not "win" the lawsuit because the SPLC settled the case before trial, apologizing to Nawaz and publicly retracting the offending statement. The Family Research Council is, indeed, a hate group; terrorism is certainly never an acceptable response to hatred, but your suggestion that the SPLC is somehow "responsible" for the attack is ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, considered reliable and authoritative. The OP is not really asking a question but rather making a lot of opinionated POV claims. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Sorry if I am POV pushing. After hearing arguments from others, I have determined that the SPLC is reliable source. X-Editor (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The SPLC is reliable for their own opinion which should only be taken from what they say explicitly (their website is confusing, but e.g. maps are useful and easy to understand). Their classifications are widely disputed and it is one of the worst opposition research sources listed at WP:RSP. According to their own financial information, they accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars so they can prepare for lawsuits which they receive by their political opponents who have been slandered and defamed by the SPLC. While the SPLC has inspired an act of terrorism, I would ignore that as the New York Times have inspired 1,000,000+ murders of civilians. I recommend reading this and this before citing some BS from this hot garbage advocacy organization for factual information in an article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • When the SPLC places a group into one of its hate categories, that should be treated as RSOPINION, though they should be considered an authorative voice that is appropriate to include their opinion for on such pages with inline attribution. SPLC has also done other work not specifically calling out any group under any label, but broader examination (for example, a few years ago, the number and states of Confederate statues in the South US), and such reports can be considered as RS, as they show the appropriate diligence and fact-checkng and editorial oversight. --Masem (t) 15:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable, though consider WP:DUE. I broadly agree with Wumbolo and Masem. SPLC's classifications of living people can be relevant, but only if similar observations have been made by other reliable sources. In cases such as Maajid Nawaz, where the SPLC smear classification was widely disputed, including the SPLC classification would constitute undue weight. feminist (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is only a food-for-thought exercise. Today, SPLC released a report stating the number of groups that advocate hate has grown by 8%. SPLC report, USA Today. Now, the problem is here is that this report is based on what groups the SPLC themselves have deemed promoting hate, rather than any other tracker. This is a case where we know there's some skewing of the data due to how SLPC works and their bias, which is going to contain more false positives. As such, while this report certainly can be used, it should not be treated as uncontested fact, but as something with attribution "According the SPLC, the number of hate groups..." --Masem (t) 17:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Or perhaps something like "The number of groups that advocate hate, as designated by SPLC, has grown by 8%." feminist (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
While there is an all-you-can eat buffet of accusations and conspiracy theories that the SPLC is a financial racket, so what? When did we start caring about WP:FRINGE nonsense like that? Neither being well-funded, nor being an advocacy organization, make a source any less reliable. They are still experts for the subject of their advocacy. As I've said elsewhere a bunch of times, we do not expect doctors to be "impartial" when discussing cancer, or government agencies to be "impartial" when discussing crime, but for some reason this specific organization is treated as a special case outside of normal standards. Expecting sources to be neutral when discussing this kind of bigotry is false neutrality. As an encyclopedia, we should use direct language to describe these things, and if that means saying "the SPLC has labeled this group a hate group" so be it. Fussing about exactly how many independent sources cover it in exactly how much weight it has... it starts to look like we're trying to find an excuse to downplay important information just because it makes some people uncomfortable. Why are we making that the reader's problem? Grayfell (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
your comment is false. There was a lawsuit. There was even a court ruling. SPLC filed a motion to dismiss arguing that its designations were opinions. The court rejected that motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This IP has been blocked for edit warring, so will not be able to respond here. Perhaps they will take the time to more carefully read the sources they have been posting. If there was a court ruling, I haven't seen any source. Grayfell (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "considering" is not "starting to make their way through the court system", at least not in this universe. Oh, and these 60 different butthurt organizations were "considering" back in August: are they still thinking? And what's your source for "another 200 in preparation", since I don't see that anywhere in the stories -- from Pajamas Media, oh, quite the reliable source there -- that you link to? So, apparently, you're unclear on the meaning of "objectively". --Calton | Talk 09:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes it's reilable We've been over this so many times. Racists don't like the SPLC because it calls out racists without dissembling. That doesn't make it unreliable. It makes it honest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I"m sorry, but is this really WP:AGF? Dismissing the ideas of anyone who disagrees with you as "they're just racists" is just as biased as what you're claiming they are. Buffs (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, generally not a good RS reputation in the ‘hate group’ context being asked about. There was some embarrassing failures and backing away, and this just isn’t their area of long expertise. Something from them might be noted as an event, but any product would need extra scrutiny. In general they’re an advocacy group so might be taken as a WP:BIASED source, and have prominence in some topics so would be suitable RS in other areas for a POV statement and a reasonable but effort (but not great) on matters of fact — the bias is basically expressed in word choices and selection of approach or topics, but their fact-checking seems limited and I haven’t seen any good practice retractions printed where they were wrong. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exercise caution - Marc A. Thiessen, a columnist for WaPo, wrote this piece. Also of interesting note is Britannica's article by Kathleen Brown wherein it states: "In addition it has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising, of wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations, and of promoting a left-wing “politically correct” agenda under the guise of civil rights." I linked to the articles for reference. Oh, and there's also an interesting perspective in the Politico article. There are quite a few 3rd party sources that support a cautious approach. Atsme✍🏻📧 12:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
SPLC is the most widely cited authority on hate crime in the US. The issue is nott hat SPLC is unreliable, but that the Republican Party have embraced bigotry to such an extent that criticism of bigotry is now seen as political bias against them. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Citing the authority of a right-wing speechwriter who famously defended torturing people is... well, not convincing. Of course Marc Theissen opposes a civil rights group - he spent years working for white supremacist senator Jesse Helms and then publicly argued that waterboarding people to the point of drowning is just peachy. He hates civil rights so obviously he hates the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I am here to discuss RS, and I'm not the least bit interested in anyone's political views. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Then why are you bringing up Marc Theissen? He's a partisan columnist and thus his columns are a reliable source for nothing more than his own opinion. If you're going to cite his opinion as if it matters, you'd better be prepared to discuss why he might hold that opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
And the other columnists in WaPo aren't partisan? Where are the RS that back-up what you're saying? You might want to take a look at this discussion and weigh-in. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we can comfortably say that if they work for a media outlet, they have strong POVs. Which is why we should make sure we avoid editorials, attribute claims and endeavor to find non-journalistic sources, like the SPLC for statements Wikipedia makes whenever possible. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, the low-opinion of a columnist whose politics are opposite an organization, should not be given much WP:DUE weight in assessing the quality of a source. Of course Theissen doesn't like the SPLC. Of course we, at Wikipedia, should consider ourselves free to disregard him entirely. When Wikipedia started becoming a news aggregator is when Wikipedia began to fail being an encyclopedia.Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
WP is still an encyclopedia, but it still can serve some function as a news aggregator, as long as we are sticking to fundamental facts, and avoid all the talking head analysis and opinion that doesn't have the longevity to know if it surpasses RECENTISM. If there's enough discussion about a group /individual being a hate group beyond the SPLC (and likely referencing the SPLC), it can be included, but otherwise the SPLC's stance, without any other sources referring to it or collaborating it, should be kept out. --Masem (t) 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
SPLC is a primary source and WP:NOR policy is quite clear about how we are supposed to use them. WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. In my comment above I said Exercise caution whereas our policy reads "but only with care" - same difference. The responses following my contribution attempt to discredit a journalist over political differences, despite their position being corroborated by multiple other RS. Each case should be analysed on its merits and corroborating sources and not taken as blanket acceptance. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I feel the need to correct an error here. The SPLC is not a "primary source". Primary sources are things like court transcripts, raw scientific or technical data, etc., which require some degree of expert interpretation. The SPLC's products are secondary sources—they analyze, evaluate, and interpret available information on hate groups and bigotry. MastCell Talk 18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, when the SPLC discusses the theology and history of the Nation of Islam or the rhetoric of the living person Louis Farakhan, [28], it is most certainly not a primary source for the Nation of Islam (NOI) or Louis Farakhan articles -- the primary source is the historical documents, the statements of the NOI, or the statements of Louis Farrakhan, the SPLC is a secondary source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You might want to rethink your correction. According to our PAGs: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Litigators and investigators are part of what comprises SPLC - see the WaPo article "Is The Southern Poverty Law Center Judging Hate Fairly?" The original research faction of that organization is included in the article. They do the research and collect the material they use to litigate and make their lists. They are not unlike a news source doing investigative reporting in that regard - but they take it further and litigate so yes, they are considered primary. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Not at all. Every person who writes about something would then be primary. What lawsuit on the Nation of Islam or Louis Farakhan are you referring to, and what research are you claiming was used in that lawsuit or are you just making up both the lawsuit and that the research was used. And if it was used in the lawsuit did the trier of fact then decide SPLC, you're right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
SPLC's assessment of a group/person (whether it is contested or not) is definitely secondary w.r.t. to that group. SPLC researches the tenets of the group , what the group has done, and makes a conclusion. Transformative, and thus secondary. SPLC would be primary for discussing anything directly related to the SPLC's organization. --Masem (t) 19:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Masem - NEWSORG states: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. How is that different from what SPLC does? What they do is investigate a group or a person, and publish their analysis based on what the group/person says, how they act, what clubs they attend, what they publish, etc. Is it not an analysis of their own research and their opinion? Atsme✍🏻📧 19:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Read that again, specifically "primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author"; if the SPLC assesses a group as a hate group, that statement is a primary one in context of talking about the SPLC, but it is secondary in context of the group. The primary/secondary/tertiary distinction varies based on the context, so a work can be both primary and secondary at the same time, determined by the context of its use. --Masem (t) 19:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
And that explains why I'm primarily secondary. 🤔 Atsme✍🏻📧 01:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Fully reliable The only people who find it unreliable are those for whom their research exposes as bigots. They have all of the hallmarks of a reliable source otherwise. --Jayron32 14:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Given that SPLC has had to redact some of its classifications, SPLC cannot be considered 100%. Where they aren't categorizing groups, their work is generally fine as an RS, when they categorize groups or people, that becomes RSOPINION and must be attributed, but they are a recognized expert in such, and not excluded when there is discussion of a group or person considered as a hate group by other sources. --Masem (t) 14:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
      • There is no reliable source that doesn't make mistakes. The question is how they respond to mistake making. The SPLC has generally owned their mistakes and made corrections where evidence is clear, from other sources, that their initial research was in error. --Jayron32 15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Well they owned their mistakes after they got sued. Repeatedly. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Factually false. There was no lawsuit - only the *threat* of one, aka a demand letter, after which the SPLC reviewed their work, acknowledged fault and settled. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Well, let's not oversimplify things. SPLC published their list in 2016 to fairly widespread public outcry, and then eventually edited their statement the next year. Nawaz basically started crowd funding his legal representation, and after retaining counsel the SLPC eventually retracted the statement, issued an apology, and agreed to pay more than three million dollars two years after the fact before an imminent lawsuit landed. GMGtalk 15:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
          • And even with that, they are still applying labels which are inherently subjective and thus affected by their known bias. WP does not factually call groups or people by labels without attribution, so SPLC's classifications still must be taken as RSOPINION. Authoritative, absolutely, but not 100% reliable. --Masem (t) 15:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The SLPC is reliable the majority of the time and in most cases it won't be difficult to find other sources corroborating their classification. Because they get it right the majority of the time, the majority of people who vehemently oppose them tend to do so primarily for ideological reasons. Having said that, the SPLC is not infallible and has made some very high profile mistakes. Perhaps most notable is their disaster with labeling Maajid Nawaz as an anti-Muslim extremist, for which they paid out nearly four million dollars and issued a public apology. In that case the SPLC was not only rebuffed by Nawaz but also by a number of high profile media outlets. So if you do find a case of SPLC v. the world, then you should tread lightly. In cases where the SPLC is only the most unequivocal voice among a variety of sources that more or less agree with them, then they are perfectly fine the vast majority of the time. GMGtalk 14:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable - SPLC is a widely recognized, reliable authority, and they cite references for their work to boot. Our own article describes them as "the organization most widely associated with tracking hate groups in the United States", and "the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups [...] and extremists have often been described as authoritative". They skew left only because political discourse has skewed so far to the right. That being said, we do normally cite the SPLC's conclusions as that organization's words, not facts in Wikipedia's voice, but that is a long way off from being unreliable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable* *The same as multiple SPLC discussions previously, which are listed at perennial sources, we examine each statement and use in context because contextmatters. Issues of due and balance are other considerations, involving surveys of multiple RS, just because an RS exists does not mean any particular use is appropriate - so bring an article statement, bring the SPLC source, and bring other relevant RS, for any fruitful discussion. (Just to correct the record, although I am sure it is already in the prior discussions, the Nawaz settlement offer did come before the lawsuit was filed and the retraction came before that. And the settlement money was to be used: "to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism."[29] Moreover, the proposed suit and settlement themselves were criticized as anti-free speech [30] or free press [31]. So, YMMV.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Not to be trusted about anything outside the US. Their very foolish characterisation of Maajid Nawaz, active in Britain, shows this (since withdrawn). A Trump-like level of inaccuracy about the world outside US borders. No opinion on how accurate they are on inside-US matters. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable - Cited in academic and reliable media, often described as authoritative, retracts errors – what’s not to like? I suppose you can call them an advocacy group. But, they’re not advocating for a particular group. Basically, they’re advocating for anyone’s rights as anyone can be a victim of some hate group. If they’re the only source referring to a group as a hate group, attribute inline. O3000 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable: in addition to being an advocacy group, SPLC is a full-fledged media company with a known reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Only reliable within context They have often labeled individuals/organizations with whom they disagree politically as racist or "anti-<put your cause here>" categorizing them just as problematic as the KKK. There have been lawsuits on the matter. I see nothing wrong with including their opinion "The SPLC has labeled XYZ as a hate group/racist", but not "XYZ is a hate group/racist." They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes Buffs (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exercise caution & include context I agree with Buffs that anytime the SPLC is sourced regarding their "hate list" with an established political (read: not the KKK...) organization with whom they have political disagreements with, there has to be a disclaimer that it is really nothing more than an opinion piece. Please remember that the SPLC operates a functioning political action committee and is unabashedly political. That alone warrants context whenever they are used as a supposedly WP:RS. Darryl.jensen (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally Reliable. Per GMG. I seriously could not better articulated my thoughts on this matter. The whole Maajid Nawaz-thing blew up in their face, but many things we consider WP:RS get things wrong. We shouldn't have a higher standard just for them. –MJLTalk 23:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Crunchbase[edit]

There is consensus to deprecate its use as a source, but to continue allow it to be used as an external link in the manner of IMDb and other similar cites. If you have any questions about this close, please ask me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 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.

Should Crunchbase be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia as per previous discussions[32][33]? X-Editor (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies — Newslinger talk 12:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: I'd be okay with Crunchbase being allowed as an external link in the external link section of an article as per your argument above. That being said, i'm not okay with Crunchbase being used as a reference/citation in articles per previous discussions and per WP:USERGENERATED. X-Editor (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Would you be okay with adding Crunchbase to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList as an alternative? The list works differently than an edit filter does, but it would reduce the number of Crunchbase citations without interrupting editors who are trying to add it as an external link. This was the solution I suggested for Discogs at its current RfC. — Newslinger talk 11:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: I'd be okay with adding Crunchbase to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList instead of banning it as a source altogether as per my arguements above. X-Editor (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe. The article about Crunchbase says "Crunchbase sources their data in four ways: the venture program, machine learning, an in-house data team, and the Crunchbase community. Members of the public can submit information to the Crunchbase database. These submissions are subject to registration, social validation, and are often reviewed by a moderator before being accepted for publication." Now, this suggests that the content is subject to editorial review, which is a hallmark difference between an unreliable blogging / personal opinions site and a reliable source. Also, beyond the general-public available Crunchbase, there are several paid products, which suggests that this discussion / decision should be limited to the no-subscription Crunchbase and not necessarily things like Crunchbase Pro and Crunchbase Enterprise. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Crunchbase is not a reliable source as it is usergenerated. It would be like using Wikipedia as a reliable source. As far as the filter, it should be treated the same as IMDb and similar sites as it follows the same concept with the same reliability. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The source is used in totally inappropriate ways. feminist (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Discourage as ref and allow as external link I support any actions that encourages editors to treat it in this manner. We should handle Crunchbase in the similar manner as Discogs, IMDb, and similar user-generated sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - use when appropriate, likely for business interests and startups. And I’m not inclined to think such a broad/vague labeling is appropriate. Yah, a lot of start up or any tech info they’ll be good for is from press releases, but that’s true for anyone publishing on the topics ... Microsoft or Apple insights being whatever they will give out is a long-standing known item. It winds up usually reliable in technical facts but tending to overenthusiasm in judgement of ease or benefits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    Self-published sources are generally unacceptable as references. In addition to being self-published, press releases are also sponsored and promotional content. Sources that publish churnalism are considered less reliable than ones that don't, as seen in previous discussions for TechCrunch (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 13:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • YesWP:UGC, often inaccurate. — JFG talk 02:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes: WP:USERG; no editorial oversight. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but possibly with the alternative above to allow it as an external link per WP:USERG and some indication that people are citing it when they shouldn't, though it's worth noting that we may eventually have to revisit the question of what to do about content produced via machine learning. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - per the above, but I would look for potential RS that may be cited or referenced in their articles. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that we should not use it as a reference for all subjects, especially not for the controversial information. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Crunchbase. — Newslinger talk 07:59, 18 March 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: Bustle[edit]

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Bustle?

  • 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

feminist (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The article from The New Yorker explains that Bustle's writers are not "seasoned professionals", but "hundreds" of "writers from the group of young women that is Bustle’s intended readership, those aged eighteen to thirty-four" who "are paid, but only part-time rates. (Interns get fifty dollars a day, while more established freelancers receive a hundred.)" The article from The Business of Fashion shows that Bustle is based on a non-staff "contributor model" similar to the ones used by contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry). After acquiring Mic, Bustle Digital Group laid off Mic's "entire editorial staff" and replaced them with freelance contributors. Bustle emphasizes quantity over quality, and should be considered generally unreliable. Additionally, I would avoid using Bustle for contentious information related to living persons or for establishing notability. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. This is a source I consider "borderline" marginally reliable, which is a better fit for option 2 than option 3. It is good to see that Bustle makes error corrections, as noted in the editorial policies that Wumbolo linked below. More reliable sources should be preferred when available. — Newslinger talk 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Bustle Digital has editorial policies and Mic has editorial standards. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. It's not a great source, but see here - their reputation isn't great, but isn't terrible, either (and a lot of the complaints focus on stuff unrelated to the accuracy of their reporting, like underpaying their writers or heavy-handed editorial controls.) I'd decide on a case-by-case basis and would generally try to find a better source when possible, but it's not a kill-on-sight source or anything like that (except perhaps for potentially WP:BLP-violating material, where it's clearly not good enough.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4, without a larger consensus on this "deprecated" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (i.e. the default for all but the worst sources -- Bustle isn't top shelf journalism, but it's not of the sort that we need one of these blanket decisions on). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTA per my iterated position that opinions must always be cited and ascribed as opinions, that "celebrity gossip" should always be "deprecated" and that anything else should be specifically discussed. This RfC is too broad by half. Collect (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • OTHER - Reliability should be determined for something particular, in a specific case and context. While generally I can reflect they seem to have decent editorial control and extensive coverage of some topics (e.g. feminism, personal interviews, lifestyles, fashion, tech) and just a modest left bias by wording choice but not so far as spot blindness or cheerleading... that as evidence just doesn’t take me to any of these choices, and I’d say it only excludes option 4. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    So, Option 2 would be closest to your view, right? feminist (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 2. -sche (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - it's always best to corroborate the information. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Bustle. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Rfc:[edit] Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? Matthew hk (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I would treat this article similarly to, which was discussed in a recent RfC, and Reference for Business (, which is currently being discussed on this noticeboard. I'm adapting my comments from those discussions here:
    Cite the original reliable source, but say where you read it. is very similar to (RSP entry) in that it contains text from established tertiary sources. In this situation, most editors would reference the original publication in the citation, but link the citation to the page, and also include "– via" at the end. You can see an example of this at Hypnales § References ("– via"). If contains any pages that do not indicate that they were republished from established sources, then those pages would be self-published sources, which are questionable. Additionally, if you can prove that the content in is not properly licensed, then it's a copyright violation and all links to it should be removed under WP:ELNEVER. However, a cursory search did not find any pages on Reference for Business that weren't sourced from Gale publications and Gale is known to license their content to other websites.
— Newslinger talk 12:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I have viewed some link of fundinguniverse, which most of them are NOT using |via= and mis-citing fundinguniverse as source. Wikipedia should not encourage to cite pirate site which some academic journal web scrapper was black listed. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
None of the domains mentioned in this discussion are blacklisted (i.e. listed in the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist). Are you referring to something else? — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the different of some academic paper database (as re-publisher) what were blocked due to concern of copyrights? Certainly someone can written a code as web scrapper to rip-off the content of fundinguniverse, Reference for and, and made a new site and then other people by good faith insert the link to wikipedia. Among those three sites that "re-publish" International Directory of Company Histories, only the parent company of Reference for had somehow stated they had been licensed. So, if these sites keep on emerging AND most of them did not declare they are licensed (so far only one declared), how to tell which one did not have the copyrights problem. Or just make it stop, only one or two such mirror sites (what had somehow declared they have license) are white listed , and converted the existing links of other sites to those "declared". Or just have a lengthy project of verify them one by one with the offline hard copy and add back many missing information? All of those site seem originate from one copy, that somehow intentionally skip the author of the original entry in the books. Those entries most of the time are updated by different person as well as in the back of the book, they stated where the previous version are located, so it is odd that "licensed" content are not declaring the author as a minimum. Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Also for Reference for Business .com, the owner of the site had stated they are licensed some content from other sites, which presumably included St.James Press, the imprint of Gale for the International Directory of Company Histories. However, did not made such claim. Matthew hk (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if this noticeboard is the best place to ask about copyright infringement, since most of the discussions here focus on a source's reliability. There doesn't appear to be a noticeboard to discuss whether a source violates copyright, but Wikipedia:Copyright assistance lists Wikipedia talk:Copyrights ("Copyright discussion") and Wikipedia:Copyright problems ("General help/discussion") as two possible venues that might be more helpful. Since there appear to be numerous sites that republish Gale content, it would be useful to make a definite decision on all of these sites at once. If these sites are considered copyright violations, then you can directly request blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on Mediaite as reliable source?[edit]

Mediaite reports on what people are saying in the media. I find it to be a reliable source for quotes combined with video clips that support those quotes in context. Its basic modus operandi is "he said this, she said that, here's a video clip, see for yourself." Its reportage appears balanced with no evident partisan bias I can detect.

Granted, their headlines are sometimes kinda clickbaity ("Fox’s Wallace and CNN’s Tapper Both Call Trump-Kim Meeting a ‘Failed Summit’ to Bolton’s Face") and their prose is sometimes "breezy" (The New York Times it ain't) but it is a useful source for "nuggets" of quotes/videos that are not readily found elsewhere (with an exception being Twitter, which some editors frown upon, regardless of who made the tweet).

The site carries a smattering of opinion pieces, which are clearly identified as such in both the article body and in its URL so they can be challenged accordingly if used by an editor.

I suggest Mediaite be given a "green" rating here, with a qualification similar to that for The Hill (newspaper): The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.

Comments? soibangla (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion atm, but here is a discussion from 2017: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_225#Mediaite. It's certainly used as a source [34], I don't think there's anything wong with being WP:BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
"certainly usable for claims that are unlikely to be challenged" is what I'm driving at here: clips and quotes. That's the bulk of their reportage, and it's often otherwise hard to come by without resorting to primary sources. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The remaining question is whether the site should be marked as "Generally reliable" (green) or "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" (yellow) in WP:RSP. In my opinion, "marginally reliable" sources should be considered under "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". This isn't a bad classification. It just means that the source is "only reliable in certain circumstances" (in this case, uncontroversial statements), and that editors should "review each use of the source on a case-by-case basis".
I note that Feminist previously proposed more levels of reliability at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 1 § Add more levels of reliability?. This proposal would convey Mediaite's reliability more precisely, but would also be challenging to execute. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Marginally reliable, better sources such as The Hill are preferred where available. feminist (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem: Better sources are often not available, I'd use them if they were. Clips and quotes are Mediaite's meat and potatoes. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Soibangla, if Mediaite is the only source, it may be good to consider WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION. That we can relibly source something does not necessarily mean it should be in an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Aporrea[edit]

There is another main Venezuelan source I would like to propose to discuss, Aporrea.

As in previous discussions, I will suggest four options:

  • 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

Many thanks in avance. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 2 or 3: – While the website utilizes some user-generated content and has been accused of being a propaganda outlet,1 2 it has recently been more critical of the Chavista movement and censored for it.3 My main concern right now is that much of the website is user-generated and opinion-based, affecting its reliability. As the discussion progresses, I may clarify my position.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3:
    Their "About us" page has nothing to indicate journalistic credentials or editorial oversight (in fact, it reads like an advoacy org) [35]
    User-generated content: [36]
    Not to mention their propaganda history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Fox News redux[edit]

"Fox has long been a bane of liberals, but in the past two years many people who watch the network closely, including some Fox alumni, say that it has evolved into something that hasn’t existed before in the United States. Nicole Hemmer, an assistant professor of Presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center and the author of Messengers of the Right, a history of the conservative media's impact on American politics, says of Fox, 'It’s the closest we've come to having state TV.'"[1]

"[E]veryone ought to see it for what it is: Not a normal news organization with inevitable screw-ups, flaws and commercial interests, which sometimes fail to serve the public interest. But a shameless propaganda outfit, which makes billions of dollars a year as it chips away at the core democratic values we ought to hold dear: truth, accountability and the rule of law. Despite the skills of a few journalists who should have long ago left the network in protest, Fox News has become an American plague."[2]


Still it has its defenders here. I guess so does the flat earth. Go figure. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we please put a moratorium on reviews Fox News barring any clear evidenace that their routine news reporting has been broken to the point of unusability? Opinions are not sufficient for this, particularly in the current political climate. We just had this discussion in the last two months. --Masem (t) 03:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is ridiculous. If two opinion pieces in rival outfits was all it took to ban a news service, then we'd have to strip every single news source from Wikipeida. Maybe say no Fox News RFCs for a year. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
There has only been one uninterrupted Fox News RfC on this noticeboard (in 2010). To prevent these recurring discussions, I advise the editor who will start the next Fox News discussion to make it an RfC to definitively establish the reliability of Fox News. Due to editor fatigue, it would probably be better to wait at least a few months (or for a major new development) before starting this RfC. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Can someone just close this? There's already been more than enough discussions on the topic. Despite the outright hatred some editors have for Fox News, the consensus is not going to change and providing biased opinion pieces does not help to make a serious argument--Rusf10 (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC).
Whilst we do not have to discus this every 6 weeks consensus can change, and thus it is never final.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Characterising it as hatred is completely unacceptable. The idea that Fox's biased reporting is dangerous is completely mainstream and defensible even if it is completely repudiated by the right. The existence of Shep Smith does not offset the fact that Hannity is the station's most-watched show, and both it and Fox & Friends, recognizably opinion shows not news, are nonetheless interpreted as fact by white nationalists and other hatemongers. One hatemonger in particular. It is perfectly legitimate to question the effects of this on American political discourse, and in fact the late and unlamented Roger Ailes expressed exactly these concerns. Guy (Help!) 05:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Which is why we recognize that the only real reliable content on Fox is their regular news reporting, not their analysis pieces, and certainly not their opinion shows like Hannity. Where they are reporting on something neutral, Fox wors just as well as any other mainstream source. --Masem (t) 05:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The Jane Mayer article in the New Yorker is not an opinion piece. The Fox News defenders on this board insist again and again that the Fox News' news division is entirely reliable, yet this article documents how the news division spiked the Stormy Daniels story (after verifying it) in the lead-up to the 2016 election. That's not how a normal news division behaves. It's unclear to me why this doesn't alter their thinking about Fox News' news division. But this discussion is not going to go anywhere because these discussions always get side-tracked into completely irrelevant discussions about the RS status of Fox's opinion content (e.g. see Guy's comment and Masem's "that's opinion, not the news division" response), which has NEVER been disputed (Hannity is not considered RS anywhere on Wikipedia). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Fox defenders insist that it produces "news reporting" that is reliable. That's the news department that reported the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory as fact, reported the Pizzagate conspiracy theory as fact, and reported—until Election Day—that there was a caravan that included Middle Eastern terrorists marching toward the southern border of the United States. (Somehow, after Election Day, the caravan disappeared from Fox News' radar.) Tell us again why articles from the news department at Fox can be considered reliable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Every single news channel has made errors and later corrected them. It is that which is important - even the NYT has used misleading headlines and articles from time to time. You can hate the 'editorial commentary', but the repeated result here has been that Fox News is as reliable as its direct competitors. Raising this issue a hundred times does not affect the positions of editors here in the past. This is why corrections get made. It does not make the sources evil. Collect (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

When has Fox News issued corrections or apologies for pushing any of those lies? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • "Fox News corrections" brings up several instances of Fox correcting their news reporting that they mistaken. They aren't covering for their talking heads, which we don't consider RS, nor would we expect similar corrections from other talking heads from other networks or sources, since those are opinions and analysis, not factual. --Masem (t) 00:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree that a Fox News RfC has been long overdue, especially considering that its reputation has changed a lot since 2010, and I'd be in support of starting the RfC a reasonable amount of time after the current spate of RfCs ends, considering the amount of discussion Fox News generates here. Aside from political POV pushing, a major problem for Wikipedia is over-reliance on news sources in cases where non-news sources are readily available, e.g. news sources reporting on scientific discoveries and statistics. Finding and removing errors stemming from these news sources is arduous work, and some form of formal banning of sources prone to uncorrected errors would be a much better use of everyone's time. DaßWölf 00:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • We just had a well-participated discussion on Fox News less than 3 months ago [37]. It is well recognized that there are parts of Fox News, like Hannity and other talking-heads shows, that are so far from being anything close to an RS, but Fox's normal reporting, w/o opinion, is factual and fine as an RS. --Masem (t) 00:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • You can keep saying that until you turn blue, but it doesn't make it true. Fox News is always a shitty source. It has no editorial guidelines to speak of, it does not routinely correct mistaken news stories, but it does frequently peddle lies and conspiracy theories of the far right as if they were fact. Too frequently for anybody with a lick of sense to consider it a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Points Guy[edit]

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Points Guy?

  • 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

feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 4 or 3 for content involving credit cards, Option 2 for non-sponsored content. The Points Guy is a website with 20 full-time employees including 14 staff writers. They earn money via credit card referral links. Their Advertising Policy page lists out the companies they have a conflict of interest with, so we can assume that any articles that involve a company listed on that page are unreliable. As the website's disclaimer states that compensation from credit card companies may affect how these products appear on the website, we should consider any article containing mentions of such products to be default unreliable, and remove uses of such articles on sight. However, the site also covers news and reviews on airlines, travel and related topics, most of them written by staff writers. The Points Guy was added to the spam blacklist on 4 December 2018, following Newslinger's assertion that the site "consists solely of sponsored content". This is false: not all content on The Points Guy is sponsored. Taking the website's two most recent news articles, "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" and "US Citizens Will Soon Need a New Travel Registration To Enter Europe", the articles themselves do not appear to contain any affiliate links, and their quality appears to be on par with other travel websites (Time Out, Lonely Planet et al.) or newer Internet properties that also contain native advertising (BuzzFeed, PopSugar, etc.). At least some of the current citations to The Points Guy seem to be appropriate, such as those on Lufthansa and O'Hare International Airport. Considering the existence of usable content on the website, blacklisting the whole website on the spam blacklist is inappropriate, but since there is no way to only blacklist sponsored content, I consider an edit filter (a la Daily Mail) to be the best solution: prevent editors from making mass/spam additions easily, but allow legitimate uses of the source. The filter should warn editors to ensure that the article they cite does not contain any references to credit card products or any company they have a relationship with. feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: i would go for 4, except that being paid to write favourable material does not mean they have fabricated it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Not usable for sponsored material but reliable enough for straight reportage of fact. Collect (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 appears to be a reasonable compromise, considering that there are usable articles on The Points Guy, even though they are a small minority of the site's content and can be replaced with more independent sources in most instances. For example, the subject of "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" was covered by the Chicago Tribune, Business Insider, and a local ABC News site. (I'm selecting option 4 because The Points Guy publishes mostly sponsored content, not false or fabricated information.)
I note that the site's advertising policy doesn't reflect the full extent of sponsored posts on The Points Guy. The site receives affiliate commissions for promoting co-branded credit cards (e.g. a credit card jointly marketed by Barclays and American Airlines, or by American Express and Hilton Hotels & Resorts), but the page only discloses the relationships with the banks, not the airlines or hotel chains (except Marriott International). There are examples of The Points Guy articles that don't promote a partnered financial institution, airline company, hotel company, travel agency, or airport lounge, but these articles make up only a very small portion of the site's content. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, a better alternative to removing from the spam blacklist would be to add to the spam whitelist. The majority of the site's "News" section is still promotional, but it's better than the rest of the site (which is exclusively sponsored content). — Newslinger talk 21:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd note that their "Reviews" section ( seem reasonable as well. Flight and lounge reviews written by their staff should be usable as sources for "Services" sections of airline articles (e.g. Alaska Airlines#Services, Ethiopian Airlines#Services, WestJet Encore#Cabins and services). I would prefer sourcing a fact to The Points Guy instead of the airline's website. Note: Based on their website, credit card "reviews" are under the domain; these can remain blacklisted. feminist (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I've requested whitelisting of and at WT:WHITELIST § "News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (, Please comment there if you would like to extend or change the request.
While I have strong reservations about using The Points Guy's coverage of subjects that it has a close financial connection with, I don't think there has been a comprehensive discussion about what counts as sponsored content, and how it should be treated on Wikipedia. As ad blocking becomes more prevalent, more publishers are turning to native advertising as a source of revenue, and there are many cases where it is unclear whether an article is sponsored, or merely non-independent. Other examples of sources that promote the products they review include Wirecutter and Sleepopolis. This is something that should probably be discussed more broadly. — Newslinger talk 00:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't really know which option this counts as, but I would not normally use this website at all. Popular does not mean authoritative or reliable, this is basically just a heavily monetized blog. Guy (Help!) 05:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I have put the whitelisting discussion on hold, there seem to be some general reservations here (it is replaceable, it is reasonable, sponsored content). I prefer to wait to let this RfC run its course. We need to know now of the 'useable' information, how often it needs to be used, and whether we can handle that with individual whitelisting, or that blanket whitelisting is suitable.
(for tracking) --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for non-credit card content, Option 3 for credit card content: As noted by others, TPG has several credit card sponsorships and generally places the sponsorship disclaimer appropriately. The news section sometimes has factual reporting but one can usually find the reliable outlet from which TPG sourced its coverage. They sometimes use social media posts but not as egregiously as tabloids tend to do. The site probably should not be on the blacklist and the news section certainly should not be on the blacklist. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm with Collect on this one, Option 1 for non credit card-related facts looks fine to me, but avoid for anything having to do with credit cards, and they're clearly both conflicted and willing to bend the truth. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Bob Pitt at Medium sourced for Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

Medium blogs are not RS

This is a blog, my own general practice is to almost never use them, esp. since I don't read them. On the other hand, the removing editor left in place several sources on the same page which are blogs, leaving one with the impression that blogs in themselves are not objectionable.

The text is Bob Pitt, Antisemitism, the Brick Lane mural and the stitch-up of Jeremy Corbyn Medium 31 May 2018·

Pitt was a researcher for former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, so he definitely knows the insides of British politics. He edited the website Islamophobia Watch for a full decade, from 2005 to 2015. His work on the intricacies of infra-part factional fights (Bob Pitt, The Rise and Fall of Gerry Healy,)has been cited as insightful in Smith Evan, Worley Matthew (eds.),Against the grain: The British far left from 1956, Oxford University Press, 2014 978-1-847-79923-4 p.16

The Jeremy Corbyn page is replete with extensive attack sections on his putative attitudes to Israel and Jews written up by, yes, mainstream journos, who however merely jot down, hour by hour, who said what about whom. It needs some intelligent analysis and Pitt's article is just that: as a researcher he looked into the details of a muralists' background, accused of anti-Semitism, and confirmed that the evidence suggests his mural was (as Corbyn himself later admitted) was anti-Semitic. Pitt has a record of defending Jewish leftists who have been harshly treated for their views on Israel, and here, he challenges 'leftists' critical of Israel for defending what his research suggests is anti-Semitic. It is a fine piece of investigative work, and just happens to be printed on his blog at Medium. I think reading it will indicate this is not blogger's attitudinizing, but useful factual background research and therefore acceptable.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The removing editor, myself, spotted one blog and removed it. If others are there - they should be removed as well. WP:BLPSPS is quite clear on this. Being associated with Livingstone (Ken Livingstone to quit Labour amid anti-Semitism row, BBC, May 2018) rather indicates this is an inappropriate source for this subject matter - even if BLPSPS wasn't involved.Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Pitt is usable for what he says about the imagery behind a mural,-this is not a BLP issue therefore- as that is clarified by the fact the muralist explained his work on a website by a conspiracy theorist, who mentions Jews as part of a global conspiracy. This is crazy. Here is a leftwing researcher challenging leftist perceptions denying anti-Semitism, and providing precisely the documentary material which the rightwing groups failed to come up with to nail down that accusation. It's a leftie crediting the rightists as being correct. And saying that Bob Pitt is not RS because he worked for someone who is accused of anti-Semitism is execrable smearing by association (aside from the fact that any critic of Israel is (like Livingstone), in some quarters, anti-Semitic).Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems Livingstone waa suspended from Labour over comments relating to the 1930s. As for Pitt - I removed it since it is a SPS that was used on a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked you on several pages not to repeat your position without making any new reply. It just makes threads unreadable. So let's drop it and ask for independent neutral outside editors with no horse in the race to evaluate what is, I will admit, possibly borderline. Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nishidani and Icewhiz: Noticeboard stalker - I haven't read the above discussion, so I don't know what this is about, but if you would like an independent neutral outside editor I can try to help. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not asking for mediation. I am seeking neutral advice on a borderline issue re RS. My approach is to read for quality of analysis in sources, rather than to cleave to punctilious policy abstractions. I don't trust newspapers, that are written to a deadline, and tend to give leeway to anything, blog or otherwise, that exhibits signs of intelligent review of an issue. In this sense, with material like the text I asked about, its acceptability is within the logic of WP:IAR, since in this case, the strict rule re blogs etc., objectively favours newspaper reportage with its limited attention span, over diligently researched articles featured in respectable blogs. Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You may dislike wikipedia's position on the precedence of newspaper reporting over blogs, but WP:RS is clear:
"Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs"
This contributor content falls under the definition of user-generated content and should not be used in the article. SWL36 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't dislike wiki policy's preference for mainstream newspaper content over blogs. To the contrary I follow that rule. But we do recognize such facts as WP:Systemic bias, have room for WP:IAR, and, with regard to the wording of policy, we should not that when it states :

websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable

Boards such as this evaluate claims for or against RS use taking that 'generally' as indicative of a principle which is not iron-or hide-bound. It leaves a margin for an approving evaluation which, I think, in this case, would take the measure of the quality of the piece under consideration.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
SPS (even blogs on s=any service) are allowed if they are by a recognised expert in the field, who is Mr Pitt?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I thought that I'd argued this above in writing:

Pitt was a researcher for former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, so he definitely knows the insides of British politics. He edited the website Islamophobia Watch for a full decade, from 2005 to 2015. His work on the intricacies of infra-part factional fights (Bob Pitt, The Rise and Fall of Gerry Healy, 1994 )has been cited as insightful in Smith Evan, Worley Matthew (eds.), Against the grain: The British far left from 1956, Oxford University Press, 2014 978-1-847-79923-4 p.16

If a history of the British Far Left published by OUP cites Pitt's monograph on Gerry Healy for details and commends it as a useful source, I think that suggests we should consider him here.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
SPSes (when there is widely published material) are generally avoided for all topics. For WP:BLPs specifically, SPSes are prohibited entirely (unless written by the BLP subject) - see WP:BLPSPS. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
A small point. Policy indications are there for one reason, to ensure that Wikipedia aims restlessly to secure encyclopedic coverage by the best available sources. Most people don't have an academic background of the kind which tells one by instinct how to select and use sources. So we give them rules-of-thumb, many quite strict. But we also then provide boards here so that blind flagwaving of a given policy voice does not lend itself to POV abuse. When you see generally that word is there for a purpose. It means, 'if in doubt' seek a consensus and external input, because that is what must decide for inclusion or exclusion.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unusable. WP:BLPSPS is very clear on this: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person." If this article were published in a reliable secondary source, which exercises editorial control over Pitt, then it would probably be usable. But that's another matter. feminist (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

PR Newswire and SYZYGY for Millennials WP article[edit]

A SYZYGY study of the narcissism of millennials is cited in the "Traits" section and the "Date and age range definitions" section of the millennials article. Are the sources cited reliable? Relevant text:

SYZYGY, a digital service agency partially owned by WPP, uses 1981–1998,[1][2] [to define millennials].

A 2016 study by SYZYGY, a digital service agency, found millennials in the U.S. continue to exhibit elevated scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory as they age, finding millennials exhibited 16% more narcissism than older adults, with males scoring higher on average than females. The study examined two types of narcissism: grandiose narcissism, described as "the narcissism of extraverts, characterized by attention-seeking behavior, power and dominance", and vulnerable narcissism, described as "the narcissism of introverts, characterized by an acute sense of self-entitlement and defensiveness."[1][2][3]

Past discussion of PR Newsire: [38] The Des Moines Register is also cited above as a reference for the SYZYGY study. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b "Technology-Driven Millennials Remain Narcissistic as They Age". PR Newswire. 20 October 2016. Retrieved 24 October 2016.
  2. ^ a b "EGOTECH". SYZYGY. October 2016. Retrieved 24 October 2016.
  3. ^ Longman, Molly (22 October 2016). "Survey: Iowa millennials not as narcissistic as rest of U.S." The Des Moines Register. Retrieved 24 October 2016.
However, The Des Moines Register is a local affiliate of USA Today (generally reliable), and the author of the article contacted Syzygy for additional comment. The article is usable (as long as the study is attributed to Syzygy), since it focuses on the results of the study and does not promote Syzygy. Additionally, the article contains a link to the actual Syzygy study, which should also be usable. Whether this study is significant enough to belong in the Millennials article is a question of due weight, which is better addressed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 23:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, press releases should be treated as self-published sources, as indicated in Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-10. When a company puts out a press release promoting one of their publications, the publication should be used as the primary source, and the press release should be discarded as redundant (unless there is something significant in the press release that is absent from the publication and specifically mentioned in the article). — Newslinger talk 04:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • PR Newswire is an agency that published press release on behalf with that company, so it is primary source. Note the agency had public relations in its name. I sometimes without a source i may use PR Newswire, but ideally the citation should be replaced by a secondary or the same fact use PR Newswire and a secondary source. Since i usually find there is more information in a press release to act as a plain without judgment citation for a few fact of some acquisitions. Matthew hk (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
So, the question rather is, "is press release and "research" by Syzygy is a reliable source or not". I can't tell and may be not. Matthew hk (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Liberty University[edit]

In my view, the article on Liberty University makes excessive use of self-sourcing and obvious press releases published in the local press. Most of the material sourced from the website is promotional in nature, bigging up the facilities, student numbers, courses and such. I have been trying for some time to prune this down, but there is steadfast opposition especially from one editor who has twice reverted removal of content that is exclusively self-sourced. He does not accept that the material in question is promotional, and insists that because self-sourcing is permitted for "uncontroversial facts", so I may not remove self-sourcing without, basically, his approval.

Given the controversial nature of Liberty, I don't think it's a stretch to say that all content should be sourced from reliable independent secondary sources, many of which have an assessment of Liberty's merits which differs markedly from its own, even in fundamental matters such as the extent to which its policies follow truly Christian values as opposed tot he values of the extremist religious right. As I say, it's a controversial subject and I think self-sourcing is always going to be a problem - but in fact I routinely remove self-sourced marketing claims form all kinds of articles even on completely innocuous companies. Guy (Help!) 05:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

First, it's quite rude that you'd open a discussion about my actions on a noticeboard and not even provide me the courtesy of a notification. Second, it's shocking that an administrator is willing to edit war; you removed the material once, I reverted your edit, and you reverted my reversion. Do I really need to remind you of WP:BRD?
Let's get specific. You are claiming that this material is so controversial and the institution's website so unreliable that it must be removed from the article because they're "marketing:" "The school consists of 17 colleges, including a school of medicine and a school of law. It offers 297 bachelors, 319 masters, and 32 doctoral areas of study.[1] Liberty's athletic teams compete in Division I of the NCAA and are collectively known as the Liberty Flames. Their college football team is an NCAA Division I FBS Independent, while their other sports teams compete in either the Atlantic Sun Conference or Big East Conference. Liberty's athletes have won a total of six individual national championships.[2]"
Are you seriously claiming that the number of degree programs and the institution's athletic conference are "marketing claims" and the institution's own website is unreliable to source them? If so, on what basis are you making those claims? ElKevbo (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Do "truly Christian values" exist at all? I highly doubt that. Religion is open to interpretation, and nobody has the authority to claim that her flavor of religion is truer than any other. [39] I don't think it's a stretch to say that all content should be sourced from reliable independent secondary sources - I think that's a stretch. I don't see any issue with using primary sources for this article, as long as they are accompanied with secondary sources where appropriate. feminist (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No, not rude, I lost my session (I am in Bangalore on business right now so WiFi is carp and I have no mobile data plan).
Yes, there are authentic Christian values. Example: the New Testament is explicit about giving away what you have to help the poor, giving medical aid to those in need (Samaritans were a despised minority, remember), welcoming immigrants, not judging, not being vengeful. The religious right is against taxation to pay for social safety nets, strongly associated with aggressive accumulation of wealth at the expense of the poor (it exclusively supports the GOP, whose policy this is), is anti-immigrant - often to the extent of white nationalism, is judgmental as fuck about LGBT people and anyone else who does not follow their preferred beliefs, and of course strongly in favour of the death penalty. You can bet your life that at the stoning of the adulterous woman, Southern fundamentalists would have been at the front of the queue with the biggest rocks. The Biblical model the religious right follows most closely is that if the Pharisees, in fact.
And that's what the sources say. They point out that Falwell has led the religious right in completely embracing the most corrupt and amoral figure in American politics since Agnew, if not before. They claim that Trump, a serial adulterer who paid off porn stars to silence them before the election, and has proudly boasted of his sexual assaults, deliberate bankrupting of small suppliers and friendly relations with murderers, the man with the history of bankruptcies and fraudulent universities and all the rest, is somehow anointed by God, because he will rubber stamp far right activist judges chosen by the Federalist Society. As if a Republican President who was not an egregious fraudster would not dot he same. Well, actually probably only Trump would have nominated Kavanaugh, but you get the point.
They are not Christians because they do not give a damn about anyone other than their own.
All of which is an aside. Liberty's self-sourced advertorial is self-sourced advertorial for a creationist school, so more controversial than the should-also-be-removed self sourced advertorial on other university articles.
All self-sourced advertorial should be removed. Especially Liberty's. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
What in the world does the subject's religion have to do with our policies and practices around the use of their self-published materials to substantiate uncontroversial information? Are you claiming that the institution is lying or is otherwise untrustworthy when it comes to reporting the number of degree programs and the athletic conference to which it belongs? If so, that's an extraordinary claim that requires evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It is certainly a stretch to say that "Given the controversial nature of Liberty … all content should be sourced from reliable independent secondary sources". There is a clear and long-established policy on self-published sources at WP:ABOUTSELF that allows the use of an institution's website for exactly the sort of basic data ElKevbo mentions. For such data, the website is a reliable source. If the Liberty University article relies too heavily on the university's website in other areas, where self-published sources are not considered reliable, then that content can certainly be removed, but such use does not invalidate all use of the website. We have already have a policy, let's follow it and not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Robminchin (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really, no. WP:RS says sources should be reliable, independent and secondary. All three. Liberty's own website is not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable, at least in some areas. It's scarcely controversial, as a matter of Wikipedia practice, to require that disputed content be supported by independent sources, or that self-serving and promotional content be excluded altogether. Guy (Help!) 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article requires a great deal of rewrite and trimming to change it from a public relations piece to an encyclopedia article. Any section or paragraph without an independent reference should be trimmed or removed altogether. There are also many SOAP/NOTNEWS problems, where obviously promotional information has been added without regard to encyclopedic context or history. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
In that case a ton of the political stuff is not news and should be removed. How about we attempt to find sources before removing information, as it's really easy to find. Also removing common information found in every other university article is crazy.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
If it's "common information" of encyclopedic value, as demonstrated by clear consensus, especially in high-quality articles, then I'd certainly agree. --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There certainly is a lot of unnecessary information in the article that needs to be removed (most of it is sourced from the university itself, but some of it is just unnecessary and would be routine coverage even with independent reliable secondary sources). For example, information about internal requirements and courses (e.g. In the first year, students write a screenplay and produce and direct a short film, The requirements are much like internships for other programs with a religious aspect involved in the experience. Specifically, the CMT includes Ministry Impact and Supervised Field Ministry Experience (SFME). Ministry Impact asks a Ministry Specialist to speak on practical aspects of ministry in the world today.) should not be included, nor mentions of every new building construction and equipment purchase by the university. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pretty much as MarkH21 has said. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


  • First of all, even though I am not the least bit religious, I find Guy's comments about Christianity offensive. Based on his response above, Guy is at least as judgemental as he claims the people at Liberty University are. And the political rhetoric that follows is just to distract from the real issues here.
Now, to deal with the actual issue here. While, it is never great to rely solely on primary sources, they certainly can be used for certain simple factual information. The belief that an accredited university would lie about the number of majors it offers for marketing purposes is beyond absurd. A quick look at other university articles shows that Harvard, the University of Miami, the University of Michigan, and Penn State all have similar facts sourced to their respective websites. Since they are also accredited universities should these facts also be removed from their articles?--Rusf10 (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
My comments are not about Christianity. They are about the religious right. As the sources make clear, they do not espouse Christian values (if you find that triggering, I suggest you studiously avoid Luke 18:9-14, Matt:5-7, John 7:53–8:11, Luke 10:25–29, and basically any of the rest of the part of the Bible that deals with that hippie Palestinian guy). Christian values are admirable. This is really no different from supporting Muslims while critiquing fundamentalist Islam. Guy (Help!) 05:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Rusf10, particularly on the point about Liberty being an accredited university. Liberty is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, not some specialized accreditation body for only religious schools. In the SACS Principles of Accreditation, Standard 10.5 (page 24 in the linked document) states, "The institution publishes admissions policies consistent with its mission. Recruitment materials and presentations accurately represent the practices, policies, and accreditation status of the institution. The institution also ensures that independent contractors or agents used for recruiting purposes and for admission activities are governed by the same principles and policies as institutional employees." The web site is considered recruitment material, maybe the institution's primary recruitment material, in fact. There is no way SACS would grant and continue Liberty's accreditation if they were misrepresenting themselves in terms of the school's basic characteristics on their web site. And if they have demonstrated compliance to the satisfaction of SACS – through an extensive compliance report and on-site visit by their peers – then why should we question it? Further, if citing this material to the institution's own web site is common practice in similar articles that have been recognized among Wikipedia's very best, then to argue against it here is classic special pleading. Finally, given the various privacy laws applicable to higher education, how would we expect some independent third party to compile or verify information such as enrollment or degree programs offered short of taking the university's self-reported numbers? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The enrollment count is an interesting case which I also brought up on the article talk page. Somehow, Liberty has been self-reporting enrollment of 100,000+ while independent sources report an undergraduate population of 45,000-48,000 and a "student population" of 75,756.
Recruitment and marketing material is almost always written in a way that presents an institution in a positive light. Even if they meet accreditation standards for accuracy, they may not tell the whole story or reflect our WP:WEIGHT requirement which is based on secondary coverage. –dlthewave 15:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Well that figure of 100000+ appears by an accredited insituton. I think some of you are living way too much in Wikipedia land if you think that someone every University gets it's enrollment totals indepdently verified when it's not a requirement. The 100k figure is well known it takes a simple google to find countless examples. Enrollment is not something that even needs a source other than the university itself, what kind of source would even attempt to verify that, it's unneeded. See [40] [41] AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe some of us are trying to prevent this article from being used as a pr piece, regardless of policy. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

s::::: Here's a really simple generic question for you. A business reports a figure for the size of its customer base on its website: "We have more than 10 gazillion customers!". Reliable independent sources say the business has about four hundred customers. Under what Wikipedia policy would we report the company's claim as fact based on the primary self-published source, rather than the reliable independent secondary source? Myunderstanding of policy is that we not only should but must do the exact opposite. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia consider American universities to be businesses? Plus, the difference between the Liberty self-reported figure (100k) and the figure in secondary sources (76k) is much less extreme than your strawman comparison between "10 gazillion" and "four hundred". feminist (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Nor do all reliable sources give a lower figure than the university web site. The figure in the article is currently cited to InsideHigherEd, which actually gives a figure of 110,000, higher than the original claim. That article also gives the breakdown between on-campus and online. Given the nature of online education, I expect the number fluctuates quite a bit, which is probably why Liberty simply said "over 100,000". Regardless, that means at least some reliable, independent sources concur with Liberty's web site, and the attendance figure issue is insufficient to show that the Liberty web site was inflating the numbers as a PR ploy. We should treat Liberty just as we treat other universities with regard to citing basic facts to the institution's own web site. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times[edit]

Editors at Talk:Jewish Voice for Labour#Reliability of New York Times are asserting that Jewish News and The Jewish Chronicle are superior to The New York Times. Furthermore, they are asserting the NYT made a mistake. The NYT piece in question is For U.K.’s Labour, Anti-Semitism and Corbyn Are as Divisive as Brexit, New York Times, 21 February 2019. The content is question is: "Jeremy Corbyn set up JVL in 2017 in order to tackle allegations of antisemitism.". The NYT piece reads, in its own voice (not a quote, descriptive of JVL): "Jewish Voice for Labour, set up in 2017 by Mr. Corbyn to take on allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party". Seeking uninvolved editors. Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that's certainly special. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
That is a disingenuous way of framing your interlocutors views. Nobody has said as sources that Jewish News or Jewish Chronicle are superior to the New York Times. What they have said is that this line in the NYT is an extraordinary claim that no other source has backed up. And that this specific line is not the focus of the NYT piece, that it is an aside in a column with a different main topic, that topic not being who created Jewish Voice for Labour. You are taking a throwaway line in a source that is not focused on that subject and attempting to use it as though it were undisputed fact. The NYT is an excellent source. One that occasionally makes errors. When there are other sources disputing what they say it does not trump them all, especially when the line you are using is not the actual subject of its report. nableezy - 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Just as an example, some years back a user tried to use this NYT article, which contains the words "Katzrin, the largest town in the Golan", to claim in our article that Katzrin is the largest town in the Golan, not just the largest settlement. The problem there is that Katzrin is not the largest town in the Golan, Majdal Shams is (and was). The NYT was quite simply wrong on that, and the Israeli Census Bureau was a better source for the question of what place is larger, Majdal Shams or Katzrin than the NYT is. That does not mean that on all topics the Israeli Census Bureau is superior to the NYT, just that when a source is focused on a particular question they may well be more reliable than a throwaway line in a nominally reliable source that is covering a different subject. nableezy - 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Jodi Rudoren signed one of her New York Times articles, written during a visit to the Golan Heights,as written in Israel (naming the kibbutz as in Israel). She also repeatedly designated Syrian jets flying over the Golan Heights as being in Israeli airspace. That doesn't, per the NYTs RS status, turn these errors into facts.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The Golan is a question of POV spin, not fact. As for the NYT piece in question - its topic is antisemitism and Labour. JVL is covered in 6 full paragraphs - so no, this is not a throwaway line, and the source is in depth on the topic. Nor is the claim extraordinary - the JVL is routinely described as pro-Corbyn in independent RSes. Now - any serious objections to the NYT as a source? Icewhiz (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The NYT article is not an exploration in to who funded JVL. The line on Corbyn creating it is not the subject of the article, and you know it. That it is "pro-Corbyn" is very much not the same as founded by Corbyn, and you also know that. Anybody can click the link of the article and quickly see that it is in fact a throwaway line, and when other sources dive deeper into that actual topic they do not say anything of the sort. Yes, the NYT is reliable generally. Should this aside be used as though it were a fact? No. As far as the Golan, no that was not about POV spin. That was about a factually wrong statement appearing in an article on a different topic, with an editor, much like here, attempting to use that casual statement in an article not focused on the topic to source a contentious fact. nableezy - 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
As I pointed out here - other independent WP:RSes (not interviews with JVL members or items penned by JVL members) are quite lacking - even nonexistent - on the formation of JVL. Not only haven't contradicting sources been presented to NYT's reporting, independent coverage on the formation of JVL is lacking all together. Editors claiming a top-line WP:RS is in error should try and produce sources - not their personal opinions on the matter. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The burden is not on other editors to produce sources contradicting a unique statement. Policy says a unique claim whose veracity is suspect (because nowhere else have corroboratory sources for it appeared) requires multiple quality sourcing to pass muster, and this you have not supplied. Your tacit premise here is that one quality RS is enough to trump the silence in multiple sources on the claim it makes (in an article where at least one factual error has been demonstrated to exist). Were your approach correct, it would mean anything printed by the New York Times has to be ipso facto accepted on Wikipedia as fact, something that operatively works out to investing that source with Papal infallibility. C'mon. This is obvious. Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Generally reliable. Use attribution if necessary, such as if other sources are disputing the NYT claim. feminist (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Umm. No one has ever questioned the general reliability of the NYTs so this is strawman judgemental stuff. The issue is simple. If a statement that can only be sourced to the NYTs while deals with a topic the NYTs doesn't follow closely, cannot be corroborated in any of a dozen British mainstream newspapers which follow the topic with minute attention to every possible detail, should we cite the NYTs? Or should we, as is the usual practice, regard it as an exceptional claim requiring multiple quality sourcing corroborating the NYT assertion before the suggested edit is made.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The general reliability of a discussed source is always relevant because discussions on this noticeboard will be referenced by other editors after they are archived. Exceptional claims contradicted by other sources can be excluded as undue weight, but discussions on (un)due weight are better suited for the neutral point of view noticeboard. Fortunately, as NSH001 mentioned, The New York Times has issued a correction and there is no longer any conflict between the sources. — Newslinger talk 06:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The original question is now moot. The NYT has finally (after 3 weeks!) published a correction:

    Correction: March 14, 2019

    An earlier version of this article misstated Jeremy Corbyn’s connection to Jewish Voice for Labour. It is not the case that Mr. Corbyn played a role in setting up the group.

    --NSH001 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Which is a healthy reminder to exercise closer judgement than mere automatic endorsement of an RS newspaper when what it states is clearly odd since corroborated by no other mainstream source.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Is a reliable source for anything?[edit]

It's used in several articles - [42] It's based on our software and works the same way.[43] The answer seems obvious to me but before I remove it from Karam Singh (historian) I'd like to be able to point the editor towards a discussion. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No. I think SikhiWiki:General_disclaimer supports this view (the view being get it out yesterday), and of course WP:USERG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Probably not any good as EL either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. it is not a reliable source. I have edited extensively in Sikh and Punjab related topic area reviewing a lot of sikhism related sources. My conclusion is, is not a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. Anymention of the sikhwiki should be removed on sight. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content prohibits us from using it as a source. I have seen IP editors generally using Sikhwiki on wiki articles to further militant and fundamentalistic Sikh fringe view points.--DBigXray 09:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Catchy name, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

V question for Presidency lead ?[edit]

I am looking for some more inputs and policy clarification about a V and LEAD question.

Recently Presidency of Donald Trump copied a line from the lead of Donald Trump. (A proposer opened discussion a day before at the Presidency TALK here, and editor made an edit the next day here.))

That however means the lead at Presidency is based on content and cites in some another article. It is not based on cites in the Presidency article and about the article’s topic and body.

For V in Lead situations, please provide more inputs and policy clarification below about ‘the cites and content summarized are elsewhere’ question/situation. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Possibly put a cite in the Presidency article to the Donald Trump section would be the simplest way to show where the line came from ? Markbassett (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ledes are a summary of the article not a place to be adding new, sourced content. If it's not source in the article, remove it. If it is sourced, then include it. In this case, if it's not sourced, add an entire section to the article to support the clearly verifiable claim. If there's another article on all of Trump's lies, a {{main}} and summary in the main article are all that are needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz the Presidency article has a section talking about the fact checker counting ... not an overview and obviously not about the campaign. Would the Presidency body having a note 'Main article' pointing to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump suffice ? Markbassett (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a shame. Update the article to reflect the sources and then make sure it's in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • So the article reflects the sources and the sources support the statement. Why is it a problem to include in the lede? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Walter Görlitz No, not based on content of the Presidency article. Proposed here was to copy from BLP based on RFC at the BLP here as shown below.
I propose to add the following sentences to the lede. This mirrors the Donald Trump article, and is virtually identical to the version which achieved consensus in a recent RfC with the exception of the first wiki-link to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. starship.paint ~ KO 03:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.

  • It does not summarize the Presidency article body content, relative amount of content, or cites in Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements. But again, the question here is for inputs and policy clarification on the V and LEAD in this copied-line situation. The CWW mention from Marchjuly so far seems best fit to the events and situation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Markbassett - please don't write my signature when copying my quote. It's really weird to me, because I didn't write that here. Now, just because the lede sentence was copied from elsewhere doesn't mean that the body doesn't reflect it. The body, already had the relevant subsection on False and misleading statements, and it has been continually updated along with the information in the lede, and the lede does adequately reflect the most pertinent point of the subsection. starship.paint ~ KO 02:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Starship.paint The history trail is clear this was put forward as a copy, and TALK at Presidency was pretty clear not a focus to summarize content in the Presidency article. The question here is for inputs and policy clarification in the copied-lines situation. If you’re suggesting an alternative of rewrite the body to fit the lead instead of LEAD guidance to summarize from the body, I like that less than simply capturing that it is a copy per CWW. I doubt LEAD clarification would like an alternative of ‘or go the other way and expand from the lead into the body’ better than CWW or view it as truly complying with the intent of LEAD, but will see if any chime in that feels like better general policy or something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Markbassett Even if it was put forward as a copy, it does not mean it does not summarize content in the Presidency article. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can read the state of the article one month before I ever proposed that text in the lede, the relevant content to be summarized is all already there. starship.paint ~ KO 03:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint there is no “if” about it’s being ‘copy’, put forward that way and wording is simple fact. And no, for the purpose of guidelines I believe the two *are* exclusive because the handling is. Either the basis in effect is it’s a copy with fixed wording and hence this thread and maybe CWW marking, or else it shows it is not by discussions on wording not based on copy and actual changes in text. Being handled by a stance of copy excludes individual edits, and being handled by a stance of individual requires actual TALK and edits - it is what it does. If you now think the basis should not be copy, then like any change to these article’s lead that would require you to start a new TALK thread proposing that change, and see if folks concur. Meanwhile it was put in as a copy, accepted basis is copy, and the question here is inputs and policy clarification for the case of a copy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) One Wikipedia article cannot be cited as a source for another Wikipedia article per WP:WPNOTRS; so, I don't think a citation would help here. What it sounds like to me is something having to to do with WP:CWW. Article content from one article can be used in another article (within limit) as long as it's been properly attributed per WP:PATT. If the original content in the "Donald Trump" article was written by someone who then added it to the "Presidency of Donald Trump" article (i.e. the same person did both), then the edit itself is probably sufficient for attribution purposes; however, if there are two different people involved, then the original creator needs to be attributed. This can either be done by edit summary or by a template on the second article's talk page. Now, whether attribution is really required depends on the nature of the content and how much original thought went into writing it. A simple statement like "Donald Trump is president of the United States" probably is so simple and generic that it probably doesn't require attribution since there are really only so many ways to make the same statement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Marchjuly CWW looks promising to record the copy source. (WP:CHALLENGE not so much, but history is good...) The original source was created at Donald Trump lead by a RFC, not summary of that article content there or cites. So would the marking for this case be a hidden comment in Presidency of Donald Trump mentioning the line is copied and then the copied template at the Donald Trump article TALK page ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As a matter of practice, I copy text from article A to article B verbatim with edit summary copied from article (whatever), and I use version history to get the actual version number of the source article. Then, in one or more later edits, I make whatever changes make sense to integrate the copied text into the new article. Third, I read the entire changed text to make sure that Article B, standing on its own and in my opinion, is neutral and passes verification with good citations to RSs. Please do not use the copied template, because edit summaries are perfectly adequate, so why clutter up the page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • When there is an a well-sourced article about a related topic, that topic should be summarized in the main subject's article with a {{main}} pointing to article. Sources should be included. That section should then be summarized further in the lede. The lede itself does not need sources. The section in the article should have sources. The separate article should be well-sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Facebook Reliability[edit]


Is Facebook a reliable or unreliable source? or not? because, Facebook is a social networking site that contains user-generated content, including texts, videos or images, that the source is reliable on Wikipedia, even significant sources of people, including profiles of texts, that may contain appropriate sources, that follows on social media. --Macropedia (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Almost always no. See also WP:SOCIALMEDIA. GMGtalk 13:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Is is reliable source?[edit]

Facebook is a social networking site may contains texts that linked sources of containing media, the Facebook is reliable (nor unreliable) in this Wikipedia. Thanks! --Macropedia (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Macropedia: As you said, Facebook is a social networking site. If you're asking if "Facebook" is a reliable source, you are asking the wrong question. Facebook doesn't generate the content that is on Facebook. Ergo, it isn't the source of that content/information. Not only is it not a reliable source, it isn't a source at all. The content generators are the source. So, if Taylor Swift posts on Facebook that she is engaged, that could be a reliable source per WP:ABOUTSELF, however the source is not Facebook, it's Taylor Swift. You can link to the Facebook post in the article as verification that Swift says she's engaged, but that doesn't make Facebook itself the source. Likewise, if your friend shares a New York Times article on Facebook, and you see it there and want to use it as a source, the source is the New York Times, not Facebook. If Facebook, the company, issues a press release about something it's doing (like manipulating user's emotions, or selling data to the Russians, or launching a new product), then Facebook is the source, again per WP:ABOUTSELF, but that's about the only time Facebook would be a source at all.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Please note that, while Taylor Swift's Facebook posts are reliable sources for something like her being engaged, if she were to start posting about QAnon or something, she is not a reliable source for that information. She would only be a reliable source for statements about herself. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

World atlas + Arab news[edit]

Although the Horn of Africa article makes the claim that the peninsula borders the Arabian Sea, the above sources refute that by saying it borders the Guardafui Channel. Are these sources sufficient for me to remove "Arabian Sea" from the lede of the Horn of Africa article? (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, on WP Daily Mail isn't any good for this, and your first link doesn't mention Horn of Africa, haven't checked the others. Since Horn of Africa doesn't mention Guardafui Channel, perhaps you should start with that, not in the WP:LEAD though. Consider discussing at Talk:Horn of Africa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The domain actually refers to the Zambia Daily Mail, and not the UK's Daily Mail (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 11:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point, my mistake. Looking at that article, it's still not something I would choose as source for Horn of Africa, which doesn't say "borders the Arabian Sea" btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No there seem to be a lot of sources supporting world atlas news. And it does not seem that you have a problem only with world atlas and Arab news. Arab news is reliable but not in some certain cases like in the case of dealing with Israeli–Palestinian related topics or Iranian-Saudi related topics. World Atlas seems fine I couldn't find any criticism against it if you want to know more about it here are some informations about this web site it seems that it is based on Canada. I also found that world atlas has been used a lot in Wikipedia see here. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Eliane Glaser[edit]

Eliane Glaser, Labour and Antisemitism London Review of Books 8 March 2019

This is a blog, but to what degree does a blog like this differ from an op-ed. which we often accept. The writer is well published, an academic and did her PhD on anti-Semitism, and I would like input from neutral third parties as to whether her piece would qualify as RS for the Jeremy Corbyn, 18% of which (WP:Undue) obsesses on the basis of the strength/weakness of ephemeral newspaper reportage about his putative anti-Semitism?Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Her blog is extremely unlikely to ever be useable on an article of a living person unless it's specifically about material that isn't directly related to the subject. eg her general thoughts on anti-semitism vs her thoughts on Corbyn and anti-semitism. And her general comments would not be relevant on the BLP anyway, but would be on the article on the subject. And that's *if* she could qualify as a self published expert on the subject, which from a quick peruse she probably wouldn't be. Not having a relevant qualification in the subject, not being engaged in academic research on it etc. While she's been employed as a general opinion columnist, there is no indication her opinion is particular notable, especially the self published blog parts. So it would be a no from me for most uses I am afraid. (FYI I agree the biography of Corbyn is ridiculous when it comes to antisemitism, but I hesitate to touch it due to the issues.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your attention in this regard. I would make, however, the point that, in considering it, I thought of it not with regard to Corbyn personally, but with regard to her judgement about the merits of this ceaseless media campaign against Labour, and dealing with its putative attitude to Jews.
Someone who is, or has been, both a BBC radio broadcaster, Bath Spa University lecturer and a Senior Research fellow at Birkbeck, University of London,(where she gained her PdD) , is a well-published historian and regularly hosted in the London Review of Books, the Times Literary Supplement, The Guardian, New Statesman and The Independent, and who has written earlier specifically on Corbyn (Eliane Glasner, ‘The Authenticity of Hope’, in Mark Perryman (ed.) The Corbyn Effect, Lawrence and Wishart 978-1-912-06468-7 2017 pp.125-137) surely has qualifications stronger than any of the numerous journalists we cite, many of them without any wiki bio? Does the word 'blog' automatically cancel out any other consideration? The issue at the Corbyn page touches on English Jews and England’s relation to them and Glasner’s doctorate and 2007 book deals precisely with that nexus in historical depth.
The Corbyn antisemitism section, as several articles cited there note, deals with media campaigns to demonize him, and the demonizing tendencies of modern political reportage to secure populist consent in the US and Great Britain form the core of two of her books
She also edited an important volume on early religious tolerance and the threat to interfaith respect in recent times where ‘tolerance’ is now defined as a Christian virtue extended to Jews and Musli ms, and therefore somewhat ambiguous .
These things are at the core of the charges and counter-charges laid against or in defense of Corbyn and the Labour Party, and, in that case, my impression remains, despite your careful argumentation, that her overview of this controversy has some reasonable claim to utility, whatever the format adopted to print it (a good one). Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Two minds over this, she is an academic, but her field is creative writing, not antisemitism. But here books do also cover intolerance. I think this would pass SPS, but maybe no Due.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, with a slight difference. Her field is not creative writing, surely? She teaches that subject, but I can find no evidence that, as opposed to her journalistic and academic work (which at Birkberk is about media and cultural studies), she has a record of 'writing that goes outside the bounds of normal professional, journalistic, academic, or technical forms of literature, typically identified by an emphasis on narrative craft, character development, and the use of literary tropes or with various traditions of poetry and poetics.' If anything her academic and journalistic work analyses the styles of narrative spin used in modern press reportage of politics. It certainly is an interesting job for someone of her background but people who normally teach creative writing, at least in the USA, write fiction, and instruct people on its techniques. She does the latter, not the former, but is very well published as an analyst.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPSPS applies here probably - even if this is hosted by LRB - barring this outright. Furthermore, since there is no lack of published material on Corbyn (as well as Corbyn and antisemitism) - inclusion of self-published material would be WP:UNDUE regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
That refers to 'sources of material about a living person', and in that sense I would agree. You do not appear to have understood what I wrote above. I'll repeat it. I'm not proposing her article be used about Corbyn's private life (WP:BLP). I am proposing that when she writes (as an historian)

The populist right’s public enemy number one is the ‘liberal elite’. This phrase deliberately merges two very different entities: metropolitan intellectuals on the one hand, and global capitalism on the other. In her 2016 ‘citizens of nowhere’ speech, Theresa May declared that ‘liberalism and globalisation … have left people behind.’ The elision harnesses public anger at banks and multinational corporations and turns it onto members of the middle-class precariat: academics, journalists and left-wing MPs.This scapegoating of a relatively powerless ‘elite’ echoes the antisemitic fantasy of the rootless cosmopolitan who is also part of an international financial network. The notion that prejudice is festering among the ‘chattering classes’ of North London unwittingly invokes an antisemitic stereotype. It also undermines qualities that are both vital and under threat in an age of philistine oligopoly: intellectualism, expertise, rationality.

Attempts to reveal hidden hatred are a central feature of the asymmetrical identification of antisemitism with the left. Right-wing antisemitism is assumed to be more blatant, and therefore attracts less scrutiny. The left is held to a higher standard, and ‘gotcha’ moments trump statistical evidence

What is new is Corbyn’s indictment of the financial greed hollowing out our society. An analysis of broader social and economic power was missing from British politics through the decades of New Labour, and is still absent on the right of the Labour Party. Corbyn’s message has resonated profoundly with many people. But it is being muted and drowned out by the antisemitism row.

She cites evidence suggesting that many of the critics of Labour under Corbyn consider the party's critique of capitalism itself as intrinsically anti-Semitic,- which is bizarre - and criticism of Israel's occupation as anti-Semitic. However one might, in a line, summarize her argument, it reflects in no way on Corbyn's personal life: it contextualizes the debate on Labour and anti-Semitism in a theoretical framework, and does so with a quality of analytic insight into the strangeness of much of what is being said which you never get in newspaper sources (and a large number of mainstream newspaper sources we use, unlike Glaser's piece) are in a personal attack mode. So the problem is: do we seize on an ostensible technicality to privilege mainstream reporting (hysteria) and exclude meta-analyses of the structure of that media approach, written by an historian with expertise on the topic, as a self-identifying Jew, an historian of English Jewry, a record of reliably publishing her interpretations of Labour under Corbyn, and an professional interest in the techniques of modern politicized media spin? I would have thought the answer was, yes. Policy would not be militantly opposed to this kind of input simply because the op-ed in the London Review of Books is entitled 'blog'. Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The question is whether LRB exercises editorial control over the publication's blog. My guess is that this would fall under SPS, thus cannot be used for the Jeremy Corbyn article. feminist (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Accurate Information Missing from article titled: OPERATION TAYLOR COMMON[edit]

Bold text Please assist soon! Over the past several years I have added very important information to the important article titled: OPERATION TAYLOR COMMON(OTC). Every time I complete my additional information in the existing article I wait a few days. Every time I check the important, accurate information I've contributed, someone or something has erased everything I wrote. This is totally unacceptable! That's why I need your help. I am an extremely reliable source. I was intimately involved in OTC. I was a Marine Platoon Sergeant during OTC (later Platoon Commander). My platoon and I fought many battles during OTC. I had men killed or badly wounded during OTC. Our battalion suffered many casualties. Some were killed. One example was Marine Lt John Moore from Camp Lejeune, NC. John was killed a few days before Christmas 1968. The first thing I saw missing from the original article was our unit: 2nd Battalion, !st Marines. The U.S. and our allies, and enemy units are listed under a table of organization. Each time I added our organization, it is erased; each and every time. Then I write a few paragraphs that I believe are as pertinent as any of the other original write ups. This is erased every time! If I didn't know better I believe someone is jealous. They don't want our Marine units listed. Perhaps a high ranking Marine general officer believes my information is inaccurate. If true, he is mistaken. His rank does NOT give him the right to delete timely and accurate, historical information. Yes, I would be glad to meet him face to face. Whomever (whatever) is causing all of my repeated information to be deleted is totally disrespectful! "My" Marines died in this battle. "My" Marines were mangled in this battle. In the end, all participates were victorious. Hundreds of enemy were killed. Many more were badly injured. What are you going to do to help me? When are you going to help me? What is your plan of action and milestones? I'm sick and tired of my accurate, well-written, very important information being left out of this historical article. I want it corrected it soon. Every day that passes, more of our generation is dying. My time will come; perhaps sooner than later. Readers of this article are missing important information. If they are family members of Marines who participated, they are missing pertinent data. Please help soon! Thank you! Thomas (Tom) Michael Rutherford, Sr. Captain "Mustang" U.S. Marine Corps (Ret) Director, Special Security, Space & Defense (Ret)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tom, and welcome to Wikipedia! When you get the chance, please take some time to read through the tutorial. One of the core policies of Wikipedia (mentioned in the tutorial) is "No original research", which prohibits editors from adding their own knowledge into articles unless it is supported by an externally published reliable source. When you add information into the Operation Taylor Common article, you'll need to cite a reliable source that backs the added content.
Unfortunately, stating your personal experience is not enough to replace the need to have reliable sources. This is because anyone can claim to be someone else online, and there is no way for anyone else to verify such a claim. If you want to tell your story, the best way to do so is to have your writing published in a reliable newspaper, magazine, or website. Alternatively, you can write a book and get it published by a respected publishing house. After your writing is published, it will be an eligible source for Wikipedia. Hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 08:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The Heythrop Journal[edit]

Is The Heythrop Journal a reliable source for the rather dubious claims made in Shroud of Turin#Minimal Facts approach? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A specialist peer-reviewed journal is general considered a reliable source - so that journal is presumed to fall into the category of "reliable". If you wish to doubt the reliability of specific authors, try that route, but the journal itself is reliable for theological articles, which are ofttimes not "pure fact" - but otherwise we would have to rule that "no theological claims can be stated on Wikipedia" which seems wrong also. Collect (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. If the claim that the citation is being used to support was a theological claim, the only thing I would check is whether the source say what we claim it says. The problem is that the source in this case is being used to support a claim about the age of an artifact, and in doing so directly contradicts the carbon-14 dating of the same artifact. Is a theological journal reliable for such a claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Short answer, no. We probably wouldn't rely on Nature for theology, and scientists certainly don't rely on a theology journal for science. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
That is orthogonal to the point that an article in a theology journal is reliable on that topic, and we are not using the journal for the Theory of Relativity, but whether, to theologians, what the salient facts are. That a "scientist" knows that God does not exist, for example, is not an issue at all. Else we tread in uncertain waters. As long as it is clear what the nature of the claim is, and the source for that claim, we act in accord with policy. To dismiss it as "unreliable" because "we know it is wrong" is not in the area Wikipedia editors should work in. By the way, "carbon-14 dating" is not guaranteed as to "precision" yet. Nor is theology. Collect (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Radiocarbon dating is more than precise enough to establish a date in the range of 1260–1390 CE and to preclude a date in the range of 30-33 AD. See Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin If you refuse to accept the established science on this you should not be editing anything related to the shroud of Turin. I fail to see how a theology theology has anything to say about the dating of ancient artifacts. The two are completely unrelated. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not for us to make sure the truth is only allowed And that is the problem here - when one "knows personally that the source is false" is not how Wikipedia operates. The issue is "verifiability, not truth," remember? Once we start saying "editors who know the TRUTH are better than any other sources, then we should rewrite all our sourcing policies. Right? Collect (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Again you are making things up. I don't claim that the Shroud of Turin has been reliably dated through radiocarbon dating to have been created some time between 1260–1390 CE and not between 30-33 AD because I "know personally" that some source is false. I claim it because every single reliable source without exception says it. The view that the Shroud dates to the time of Jesus is pure pseudoscience with a dash of conspiracy theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not "make things up" here, and I request you accord my position the respect that all editor's opinions are entitled to, rather than engage in personal attacks. That you assume essentially anything one can label as pseudoscience should be treated as fantasy of some sort is not found in any Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Indeed, your point could apply to every single article which has any theological connection - including Christian Science, Jesus, Allah and several hundred articles which are primarily on religious topics. Most people understand the religion is not science, nor is science a religion to most folks. As long as the article clearly states that a material from a source is metaphysical or religious, and it is clearly cited and used as such, that should be quite enough.
Reliable for religious views, not for scientific data. feminist (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It was removed even when the theological nature of the claim was specifically included, so the issue now is that theology should or should not be allowed in any Wikipedia source. Collect (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Now you are just making stuff up. Here is the removal:[44] Noting that the claim was published in a theological journal does not change the fact that the claim "the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high" is a scientific claim, not a theological claim. Theological sources are just fine for claims regarding, say, the nature of God or the Filioque controversy, and indeed both of those articles have a boatload of theological sources. Good luck trying to use a theological source on our Cockcroft–Walton generator page, though. Theological sources are not reliable for supporting scientific claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The comparison between nature of God/Filioque controversy and Cockcroft–Walton generator is a strawman. Regarding that edit, I think it would be appropriate if placed in the Religious views section, but not as it were placed (i.e. in the Scientific analysis section). It is a theological claim and is suitable if presented as such, but not if it were presented as a scientific claim. feminist (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
On what planet is the age of an artifact a theological claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Um --- on what planet is a claim clearly stated to be metaphysical or theological in nature in the edit a "science" claim? Collect (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You can't just make a scientific claim and support it with a citation to a theological source and think that this is OK just because you labeled the source as being theological. Theology makes all sorts of claims. We don't cite creationists regarding the age of the earth. We don't cite Mormon theology regarding the details of how precolombian native Americans lived. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I hope we cite creations regarding the age of the earth in the article on creationism. Who else would we cite for their views. The same goes for an article on Mormon views on North American history. We offer competing sources, but we do use them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
"To implement this, a ‘Minimal Facts’ approach is followed that takes into account only physicochemical and historical data receiving the widest consensus among contemporary scientists." The article isn't simply making a theological claim, it's using pseudoscientific cherry-picking to try and back a theological claim. 06:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Reliable source verification[edit]

Hi I have made an article

Can yu tell the reference are reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Gilbert (talkcontribs)

Your only sources are from the subject of the article. I guess, to put it simply, Wikipedia is not so much interested in what a subject has to say for itself, than it is in what other sources have to say about the subject. The best thing to do is probably to first gather all of the reliable, secondary, independent sources you can find about the subject. Then see what you can write just using information from those sources, and try to limit self-references to filling in details of things already mentioned. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Patch Media[edit]

Multiple discussions of this in archives, but no consensus? It looks pretty shaky to me, every individual community has its own group, so who knows whether a given community group has any oversight. --valereee (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Patch also has a lot of blog-like content (including polls, open questions, and event listings) that is not in an article format. There is no evidence that any of this content is moderated for accuracy, and all of Patch's non-article content should be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 09:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Denuvo and cracks related sources[edit]

On the Denuvo wiki page are lists with information on games that use the said protection and whether they're cracked or not.

Considering the nature of game protection cracking, it's usually not easy to find reliable sources. Can the following sources (which are used as sources for the majority of the entries) be used for the mentioned purposes:

1. steam, steam's game EULAs or steamdb as sources for the presence of denuvo in a certain title? 2. websites like and as sources for the status of cracks?

If these are not considered acceptable sources, should the list be proposed or nominated for deletion? Some editors did try removing it in the past but other users brought it back.

P.S. how can I propose or nominate a section of a page for deletion but not the entire page? The PROD and XFD tools seem to apply to the entire page. Eddmanx (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eddmanx. Removing certain content from a page is technically not the same thing as deletion. Generally, if you feel that certain content needs to be removed because it's inclusion is clearly contrary to some Wikipedia policy and guideline and that the removal will actually be an improvement, then you can just remove it per WP:BOLD. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why. If nobody disputes the removal, then you can probably assume WP:SILENCE; if somebody challenges the removal by re-adding it (and it's just someone messing around or an obvious case of vandalism), then follow WP:BRD. In this case, however, it already sounds like what's happening is a content dispute between different people. Has there already been some article talk page discussion about this? If there has and a consensus has been established, then you should follow the consensus even if you might not agree with it. If there hasn't been any discussion, you should follow WP:DR and perhaps start one yourself to see if a consensus can be established one way or another. As for the specific sources you mentioned above, appears to be in German (so I can't read it) and appears to be some kind of download site for video games. Being in a language other that English doesn't mean a source cannot be cited per WP:NOENG, but linking to questionable websites which might be hosting copyrighted content in violation of the rights of the original copyright holder isn't allowed per WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER (even as part of a citation). I'm not very familiar with these types of websites, so perhaps someone else will provide you with more details below. You can also try looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and asking for help on that talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I didn't know a specific page regarding video game sources existed. I'd ask there. Eddmanx (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Question: Not Even Past ([edit]

I have a question about the source in this article. Is it invalid source or not? It is located in the "blog" category of the site. I think it is totally an invalid source because blog is a self-published source Scotchbourbon (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute[edit]

Hi, is Gatestone Institute a reliable source? I have removed it from the article of Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War because it was used to cite huge numbers in the article which I couldn't find any secondary independent source that support these numbers. I am thinking of improving these articles that are related to Syrian conflict but I might need to remove this source from each article I am going to start edit in since it is really difficult to edit while there are false informations that are based on unreliable sources. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

From our article: "The organization has attracted attention for publishing false articles and being a source of viral falsehoods." So, yeah, no, it's not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
And yet it's linked 220 times on en.wikipedia, with maybe 130 of them to articles. [45] --Calton | Talk 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Gatestone Institute is not reliable. Where its cited it should either removed or replaced with RS references.Resnjari (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Following Calton's link, I noted that several of those refs relate to his page. I removed them as they appear to be a coatrack to provide publicity for the Gatestone Institute, but left one in because it refers to the fact he works for that organization. Is this proper? Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Canb it be used to source details re its funder/founder Nina Rosenwald ?Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. I noticed that there was an edit war in her article and I think the article has a whitewashing issue. I read her article in Wikipedia and compare it to an article published by the nation here and I found a lot of things aren't mentioned in the article of Wikipedia. For sourcing that she is the founder of the institute we might need an independent source. Thank you all for help.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In addition to Calton's list there is also this [46] which is when the link is using Https and not Http.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nishidani and NorthBySouthBaranof: thank you both for your help. I have been deleting this source from en.wikipedia but something got my attention and I think I should note you for this in case any revert started this "survey" is made up by that unreliable source one of the things that it says "My father received a text-message from the Israeli army warning him that our area was going to be bombed, and Hamas prevented us from leaving." I have also removed it from here I find the fact that this massive lie was in wikipedia funny and sad at the same time.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
That was an exceptional claim, dealing with one individual, ostensibly 'cited' by a source hostile to Hamas. We have numerous sources dealing with claims that Hamas acted to use hostages in this way, most contested. So your elision was correct.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, some of the GI cites you deleted were perfectly valid. You can't just nilly-willy delete all GI cites just because they are Gatestone Institute cites. As a perfect example, you deleted the Elie Wiesel one. As I'm sure you're aware, an organization's site is allowed to be used as a source to say that someone is on the board of directors. You need to go back and either revert all your changes and go through them to make sure you are only reverting those that need to be reverted. In addition, I do hope those of you who are so eager to get rid of the GI cites, would rush to get rid of Maan News as well since we all know that Maan makes up news as well. I won't hold my breath, though. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • A shitty source is a shitty source. That you like what they say doesn't make them non-shitty. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That's lovely, but doesn't negate anything I said. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I think what Calton tried to say is that the source is not reliable at 99% of cases that this source is in contexts that are related to Muslims or Israeli-Palestianian articles the other cases is on its contributors take a look at these articles which says that the Gatestone is not reliable at all and that it spread fake news most of the time [47][48][49][50] regardless of this discussion this source should not be used again regardless of this discussion the only reason for this discussion is that I want to put it in the list of perennial sources that's it. it should be treated like daily mail where it is not used even in its own article. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Every piece or word in Gatestone Institute is unreliable and should not be trusted even if its about its own people also you said an organization's site is allowed to be used as a source to say that someone is on the board of directors; where dose it say that in wikipedia?(I hope you arent making things up) and if thats a legit wikipedian policy then I am self-reverting in the areas where I have deleted them and I am fine with that. "The organization has attracted attention for publishing false articles and being a source of viral falsehoods" also its a far-right-wing and anti-Muslim Institute. I think it is worse than infowars! this is an enough reason to delete it from wikipedia. Idk about maan news. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I want to note that Gatestone Institute has used different names like Hudson Institute New York" (not to be confused with the Hudson Institute) and it used this domain (if you actually click on it you will be transferred to Gatestone Institute also it has used the name Stonegate Institute for a short time and it used this domain (which also gonna transfer you to gatestone institute)--SharabSalam (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
In general, an organization can be relied upon to self source for their own information. The GI can say who the GI Board of Directors are. If you go to many Wikipedia company sites, you will find such citations. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
So this is a deductive reason not a real policy in Wikipedia?--SharabSalam (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know much about GI, but I know that one of the common tricks used by predatory journals is to list editors who have never agreed to such a role. I mention this to show that is a bad idea to have a rule that unreliable organizations are reliable for their personnel lists. Zerotalk 08:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

TV Fanatic[edit]

Is a review on TV Fanatic considered reliable for the purposes of determining notability of individual episodes it reviews? It's long-standing (since at least 2006), but was a one-man blog for awhile. They seem to have expanded to the point of having staff writers now, but I'm not sure how to judge its level of impact (vs something more obviously impactful like The A.V. Club, which is notable enough to have its own article). Thoughts? ♠PMC(talk) 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Marginally reliable. TV Fanatic is a Tomatometer approved publication, which means that the publication is reasonably popular or significant. However, from a Google search, I haven't been able to find much coverage about this website. feminist (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the experience I had too. The question is mostly relevant for TV episodes with marginal sources indicating notability (the usual pattern is one review from AV Club, one review from IGN, and one from TV Fanatic) - the question being whether the TV Fanatic review is significant enough to roll it over the line into notability. ♠PMC(talk) 17:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

FreeBMD as a source for BLPs[edit]

I found this page[51] being used at Katya Adler. See the disclaimer at the bottom, "We make no warranty whatsoever as to the accuracy or completeness of the FreeBMD data." We use it a lot,[52] including in some instances a link to empty search page.[53]

Having said that, it's had an award from the Society of Genealogists and the Guardian lists it as one of the best "family history" websites.[54] Sounds good until you look at the 50 and see a lot that clearly wouldn't pass WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Freebmd provides a copy of the original page provided by the general register office which is the primary source. It may be actually better to quote the original source rather than a site that has just added it to a database. For older records the GRO actually has its own website for looking up births and deaths. Note like all primary sources they should be used with care as it easy to make assumptions that the record relates to the right individual which may need addtional evidence. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[edit]

I briefly touched base on this particular domain in this discussion. One input I received was the same as mine, which is that it is on the same level as Indymedia, and Indymedia is discussed here

Source: Two example in which (Street paper which is distributed in the city by transients) is used as references.

Other examples of their use are mostly related to biography articles. Where do we stand on the validity of a source like this? Where, if any, use does it have on Wikipedia as references? Graywalls (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why isn’t CNN on the list?[edit]

Just wonderin’ soibangla (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

what list?--SharabSalam (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If you're referring to the list of perennial sources, it's probably because CNN doesn't meet the list's inclusion criteria (described at WP:RSP § How to improve this list). If you do find at least 2 significant discussions in the noticeboard archives, please feel free to add CNN to the list yourself, or ask for help at WT:RSP. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 08:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Rania Khalek[edit]

There is a AfD discussion at Rania Khalek that hinges on whether sources such as "Shadowproof", "Counterpunch" and "Stepfeed" constitute RS and whether coverage by these sources indicate notability.[55] Additional input would be helpful. A previous AfD ended without much participation, and it seems this one could end in the same way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Other simple sources are Salon (website) which has published 9 articles by the person, The Nation which has published three articles, which are both "reliable sources" even if every appearance for RT (TV network) and other articles for "non-reliable sources" is expunged. She has "interesting" views, but that does not make a person "non-notable" AFAICT. Collect (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Singles Jukebox[edit]

Is The Singles Jukebox a reliable source for musical reviews? The website looks pretty cheap from its interface and layout, and I’m seeing no real proof of credibility.—NØ 18:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Autobiographies as sources[edit]

A page I am currently working on, Dave Bautista, relies a lot of content on the subject's autobiography (Batista Unleashed). Is it considered a primary source and should I look for alternatives? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You have a add a dash of WP:SELFPUB with a pinch of WP:COMMONSENSE. It's not technically "self-published" in the sense that Twitter is, but you should still be cautious to use it for overly self-serving claims not otherwise covered in third-party sources. You should also be mindful that, as an autobiography, it's probably not going to include anything unflattering, and may go into a level of detail that may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. So you have to weigh than when using the source to gauge WP:DUEWEIGHT. Having said that, an autobiography can still be very useful, especially for comparatively run-of-the-mill information that might not be included in other sources, but may still be relevant to a thorough coverage of the subject. GMGtalk 18:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)