Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220

Daily Mail RfC
NOTES:
 * This RfC was upheld in a second RfC at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 255 --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also see: Reliable sources/Perennial sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source? I envisage something just short of blacklisting, whereby its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources. --Hillbillyholiday talk 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support prohibition Looking through the archives and talkpages across WP reveals a clear consensus not to use it at all. Many, many editors (and Jimmy Wales) have said over the years that the Mail is not a relaible source in any area. A list of reasons why would be enormous, it doesn't need reiterating, the paper is trash, pure and simple. There may be rare exceptions where a reference may be useful, perhaps when a Mail story is itself the subject – cases could be presented here for discussion. There is little chance anything of encyclopedic value would be lost from such a move, and everything to be gained, not least an end to continual Mail-related arguments. --Hillbillyholiday talk 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no justification for the blanket banning of a mass-circulation newspaper as a source. There will be cases where it is a suitable rs source. The problem with the "Mail-related arguments" mentioned, if the latest example here is typical, is just with editors not knowing what appropriate sources to use. Should the Daily Mail be used to support a claim related to astronomy? Well duh, obviously not! The proposer seems to have a longterm pov agenda here, in an earlier comment he actually compared the Daily Mail to Völkischer Beobachter and has been busy compiling  . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We obviously shouldn't use it for anything science related, it is de facto prohibited from BLPs and BLP-related articles, and politics would seem out of bounds given their continual lies and misrepresentation in this area. Even their photography can't be relied upon (sorry, Martin). In what scenario would the Mail be an irreplaceable source? They regularly publish sexualized photos of children. A coroner blamed them in the death of a transexual they had hounded. How on earth is dailymail.co.uk (current front-page headline: "Patrick Swayze was a 'flirt' and Ariana Grande hung out with 'snobby entitled rich girls': Former classmates of A-listers reveal what they were REALLY like at school - but who were the meanest?") a suitable source for an encyclopedia? --Hillbillyholiday talk 16:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is anyone proposing to use those articles for Wikipedia citations and article content? Making over-the-top hypotheticals and comparisons and very dubious allegations are not convincing. 99.999% of the content on the Daily Mail that could be in some way be Wikipedia notable will also be source-able in more appropriate sources, so I do not see a problem that needs to be addressed in this way. The problem is editors not using appropriate sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Mail should be on the citation blacklist. There's no area of news where it is actually reliable. It can be relied on to accurately report celebrity gossip, but in that case the gossip itself is frequently false and the Mail doesn't check it. Their coverage of medical, science and political topics is a byword for deliberate inaccuracy. It is pretty close to a fake news source in some areas. Also: this: . Guy (Help!) 16:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That link is absolutely hilarious.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hipsters with access to a guitar, freshly-bought artisan-brown T-shirts, an A3 color laser printer, and a slightly lighter brown blank wall make formidable satirists (or at least they seem to think they do). I suggest we derail their brown revolution by providing a suitable framed poster to stick on that blank wall. Something hipster ironic - like a reprinted wood-cut on rice-paper Bolshevik propaganda poster perhaps? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very funny link, Guy! DrChrissy (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a gem. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A Grammy worthy example of songwriting if I've ever seen one. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  06:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a Grammy (it's weak musically) but certainly worthy of a Tubey. I say a 72-to-1 thumbs-up ratio with 2.2 million views constitutes a consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. And I notice that Tiptoethrutheminefield conspicuously says nothing about the actual content. --Calton | Talk 11:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to say about the actual content because two smug hipsters with a guitar and freshly-bought artisan-brown T-shirts do not a RS make. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Who said it was a reliable source? Also, that's only one hipster and some clever editing. And it's not smugness, but dry humor. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition As others have said it is a byword for the worst kinds of yellow journalism, it is (in effect) a fake news organ. Just because a lot of people buy it (or even by it) does not mean it is a reliable source for anything other then it's own views.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Only very limited circumstances. I've defended the use of the Mail in the past for uncontroversial stuff like sport news, but actually the paper has got much worse and I can't think of many circumstances when it would be the best source or even acceptable. Definitely never for international news or science. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that if we restrict it's use to anything uncontroversial we are (in effect) prohibiting it anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition It's just a mouthpiece for Paul Dacre & I remove it on sight. JRPG (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition unless directly relevant to the article - Anything found in the Daily Mail which can't be found in a more reliable, trustworthy source probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition (within reason) if it can't be found anywhere else reliable, then it probably isn't reliable anyway.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I find the Mail to be just as ok as other large outlet news/trendycr@p places, and anyway there are bigger outlets (read: Wired, TTAC) to fry than Mail.L3X1 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose prohibition, but there are very few circumstances in which we should rely on tabloid journalism. Exceptions include when BLP subjects have a byline in one of those newspapers, so long as they're not disparaging third parties. I can't see a reason to single out the Daily Mail; there are others just as bad and worse. SarahSV (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should put it on the reference revert list (so good-faith additions of refs are reverted and can be discussed individually) but not blacklist it, and we should strongly consider doing the same for other tabloids, especially the Express and the Sun. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd support that. I've come across a few BLPs at FAC that rely on these tabloids, and the nominators get upset when asked to remove them, so a broader solution would help. It would also be good to add something more detailed to WP:BLPSOURCES. SarahSV (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * where is this reference revert list, please? DrChrissy (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * e/c Comment I am totally fed up with seeing this subject come up. Many, many readers are not aware of the disdain with which the Mail is viewed by some editors and then when they try to use it as a source, they are treated as if they are stupid or deliberately trying to get around PAG's.  I know this from personal experience when in the distant past I tried to use the Daily Mail as a source - a sharp learning curve ensued.  I agree with comments that if it is not in other newspapers, then it should probably not be in Wikipedia at all.  However, I also agree with SlimVirgin above that there are others just as bad, and worse.  This means we need to be looking at a number of papers.  On occasions, I have been editing and used a website source.  However, when trying to save the article, Wikipedia automatically rejects it because it has been blacklisted.  Can we not set up a similar system for those newspapers we consider to be unreliable sources? DrChrissy (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow up: For those who wish to stop short of blacklisting, maybe we could flash up a warning message that the source is widely considered to be unreliable and the saving editor should reconsider its inclusion and use other sources instead. DrChrissy (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that there may be others as bad does not justify using the Mail. And my proposal, with which I think SV agrees, is to use the citation revert list, as we do for predatory journals. Guy (Help!) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think has a good idea. A warning message whenever anyone puts 'dailymail.co.uk' or 'The Daily Mail' between a pair of tags would be a great idea. I get uneasy about fully blacklisting any source (it's the sort of thing that adds fuel to the fire of every editor who whines about WP being censored), and would rather see a more educational than legalistic approach taken.
 * I also agree that there are many other sources just as bad, and possibly even worse. I think getting something going that would create a list of these sources and generate a message when folks try to use them is the way to go. Hell, I'm a coder myself, and I'd be happy to work on it. I don't think it's a big project, but I'm not sure where to get started with something like this, beyond maybe taking it to the village pump or the main page talk to get enough editors behind it to impress the WMF or the en.wp staff. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  06:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An edit filter could do that. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It honestly never occurred to me that we have edit filters. Sometimes I like to eat glue. Ooh! SHINY!!! MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition I thought it was considered unreliable before I saw this RfC. The worst kind of tabloid spam journalism. Laurdecl talk 10:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Editors are supposed to always use judgment when choosing sources. Usually the broadsheets are better than the tabloids but there are circumstances when tabloids provide better coverage such as sports and crime.  And if we exclude the Mail, there are a lot of other publications of lower quality that would still be considered reliable.  TFD (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Kill it. Kill it with fire. Under NO circumstances should the Daily Mail be used for anything, ever. They have proven themselves to be willing to make up fake quotes and to create doctored pictures, and nothing they say or do is to be trusted. Even in the cases that some of the editors in this discussion believe to be OK (sports scores, for example), if it really happened then the Daily Mail won't be the only source and if the Daily Mail is the only source, it probably didn't happen. Relevant links: --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with reasonable exceptions It should never ever be used for any support for factual content, but there are cases where the DM itself is part of the story, so referencing relevant articles by the DM that are a part of that story is reasonable. And there may be appropriate editorial content where we would attribute those opinions to the author that can be included. Outright blacklisting is probably not appropriate but its use absolutely must be kept away from any type of factual claims. --M ASEM (t) 20:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition with the usual reasonable exceptions as outlined or mentioned by Masem, NorthBySouthBaranof (these would be rare: i.e., IAR exceptions). Neutralitytalk 23:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition though noting that common sense also applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment By coincidence, I have just noted a recent edit to the Cheetah article used the Daily Mail as a source for the maximum speed of cheetahs. I tagged this with "Better source needed" and an editor replaced this with the scientific sources.  However, the problem here is that we have gone from a secondary source to a primary source.  Many editors object to this, but new or inexperienced editors will see this as good editing until they understand this secondary source is considered non-RS.  I am not for one second suggesting the Daily Mail should be allowed for this, but this is a matter of educating editors or simply prohibiting those sources considered non-RS. DrChrissy (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * support this RfC is kind of beating a dead horse as the community has rejected this source pretty much every time it comes here.  so much time has been wasted explaining people not to use this.  It has no place in WP where our mission it to summarize accepted knowledge. so yes kill it with fire Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with reasonable exceptions per Masem.  For news items if it isn't covered in a broadsheet newspaper then it probably isn't significant anyway, but for references to specific opinions or perspectives it may be useful.   Snowded  TALK 03:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * support It is unnecessary to allow for the unlikely scenario that the Daily Mail would both a trustworthy and the only available source. That other tabloids exist that are just as bad doesn't mean we should keep the Daily Mail: It means we should blacklist those too. Mduvekot (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bashing the Mail is fun, and it doesn't look as if anyone disagrees much that it is best avoided, but that there will possibly be rare occasions when it will be a good source, given the context (eg, as noted, something about the paper itself). But that's the point: identifying appropriate sources is all about context, and there are plenty of rubbish websites out there that should rarely or never be used, and plenty of occasions when even broadsheet reporting isn't worth much for an encyclopedia. And even if we accept the idea of effectively banning certain sources – which is fraught with problems itself – this is being done back to front by singling out one newspaper for blacklisting, rather than establishing the principle of a blacklist and then working out what to include in it. I don't see how existing general principles don't broadly deal with the problem – and are there really endless cases of people insisting on using it, such that we need this draconian intervention, aimed at this one paper?  N-HH   talk / edits  11:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately existing general principles don't deal with the problem. Questioning the use of DM regularly comes up; people argue it's not a tabloid, or refer to its status as the biggest online news service, etc. I can't tell you how much bullshit I've had to remove from articles, especially after searching for dailymail.co.uk incategory:"Living people",, who has done sterling work in this area, could elaborate.  Ideally, yes, each edit should be examined in context, and banning a source outright is something of a blunt instrument -- but in this case I think the benefits of something like an edit-filter will heavily outweigh the negatives, there are simply too many articles to keep an eye on (~800,000 BLPs!). I would support a filter for other unreliable sources too, and I agree that it is a somewhat back-to-front process, but I really think the DM is a special case. --Hillbillyholiday talk 21:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting when you talk about an edit filter. Does this prevent the entire edit, or does it just filter out the source? By the way, if this goes ahead (and I think it should) there are plenty of other sources that should be considered - the Daily Mail is just a precedent. DrChrissy (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really know which options are available or appropriate, I guess a separate discussion regarding this will be necessary pending the outcome of the RfC. --Hillbillyholiday talk 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The DM does occasionally get exclusive interviews with well-known people and gives direct quotes of what they say. It's hard to believe these stories and quotes would ever be fabricated or published without the express permission of the person concerned. So a full-on ban would deny this material. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be a natural assumption, but this is yet another area in which their standards are pretty low, eg. "Daily Mail Accused of Fake Interview by Paul Pogba, French Soccer Player, May Sue" and "The Inquisitr, Daily Mail Admit Roger Moore Quotes Fake" or "Andrea Pirlo slams Daily Mail on Instagram for making up interview trolling Man United" --Hillbillyholiday talk 01:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. That hardly inspires confidence. Maybe a price worth paying then. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another example, from Daily Mail censured for fictional story about Amanda Knox verdict in The Guardian:
 * "The Mail's website reported that Knox has lost her appeal against her conviction for murdering Meredith Kercher when, in fact, she had been successful. [...] These included quotes attributed to the prosecutors apparently reacting to the guilty verdict, and the description of the reaction in the courtroom to the news, stating that Knox 'sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears'. It further stated that the family of Meredith Kercher 'remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family'. The newspaper apologised for the mistake. It said that it was standard practice in such high-profile cases for two alternative stories (plus supporting quotes) to be prepared in advance"
 * So we now know that it is standard practice for The Daily Mail to fabricate direct quotes. Add that to the many examples of photoshopped images and the conclusion is inescapable; we cannot trust anything written in The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * Support more or less as per the terms in the opening statement, that it still (very occasionally) be allowed when there is some sort of need for that content. I have no clear idea what that might be, other than maybe a few useful celebrity interview exclusive comments, or matters regarding lawsuits, or something like that. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Request There has been talk here of a "blacklist" and a "reference revert list". Please could someone direct me to this/these. DrChrissy (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing, another indication of flaws inherent in this RfC. I think "support" opinions for an non-existent thing can safely be dismissed - they are not based on Wikipedia guidelines but on personal animosity towards the source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know about a "reference revert list," but Spam blacklist is I think the blacklist being referred to. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this John. It appears that this blacklist only applies to URLs.  I may be getting ahead of the subject here but I suspect what is needed is an easily accessible page which lists newspapers (perhaps also magazines) where consensus has been reached that they are generally considered unreliable and consensus should be sought (on here perhaps) if they are to be used.  Perhaps this could be called Grey-listed popular press sources? DrChrissy (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We have one for video games. --Izno (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this. It is interesting to note that in the table of Unreliable Sources toward the bottom - one of the sources is Wikipedia itself! DrChrissy (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that Wikipedia is an unreliable source because I looked it up on Wikipedia. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also a (less detailed) list at List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, many of which give no indication in their books that said book has been self-published. On academic subjects, we also refer to Beall's list. The Daily Mail, would belong, if anywhere, in a totally new kind of list. It actually wouldn't be a bad idea to make a well-annotated list like for videogames, and list the various publishers that have come up here with a note to their consensus outcome and links to every discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't even have a list that says The Onion isn't a reliable source. That being said, if you look at the recent "fake news" meme you will find that it has been used to label things that are not actually fake news (a fake news site is one that knowingly spreads fabricated content), but rather unpopular editorial content combined with low quality sourcing. See the RfC at Talk:List of fake news websites also see this: We need to strictly limit any such list to avoid it being used as a club to suppress unpopular opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Infowars is identified by reliable independent sources as a fake news site, based on its tendency to publish things with absolutely no care as to whether they are objectively true or not. It's not our job to second-guess the sources which call it fake news, see WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * '"You have yet to produce any quality sources, let alone a majority of reliable sources, which actually state that InfoWars intentionally publishes hoax stories. WP:SYNTH expressly forbids drawing conclusions based on an editor's own personal conclusions not actually stated by the sources." -- posted by User:A Quest For Knowledge on 12:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC) on Talk:List of fake news websites.
 * CNN is also identified as fake news sources by a reliable independent source Seriously, please read this editorial and give careful consideration to the possibility that the "fake news" label is being used to try to silence opposing views. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on, did you even read those first three sources? The first one doesn't go anywhere near an accusation that CNN is fake news. The second one only accuses CNN of "stooping to the same level as fake news sites" on one specific story, and the third is merely reporting that Trump has accused CNN of being fake news. Anyway, as for InfoWars, there are grades of fake news. There are obviously the purest of fake news sites that publish deliberately false stories for either clicks, luls, or godknowswhat. Then you have things like InfoWars and NaturalNews, which no one can prove are deliberately dishonest, but whose writers are utterly paranoid and have no bullshit filters. Plenty of reliable sources will refer to them as "fake news" all the same, just as publishing false and defamatory statements with malicious disregard for the truth is legally considered the same as intentionally lying, at least in the US. We should clarify these things where possible, but you know as well as everyone else here that "fakenews" on Wikipedia is what reliable sources say is "fakenews". Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Because the current position is that its not reliable for much (except itself) and for those things it could be used for, better sources are available, and if the only source is the daily mail, its not worth covering. An easy-to-direct discussion where we can point people who ask 'Should I use the Daily Mail' with the answer 'no' would make everything a lot simpler. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there are some things for which it's useful, despite all that's been said above. Occsaionally it accurately rakes muck that nobody else has turned over. If the proposer could be a little clearer about how we might demonstrate need to use it in those rare cases where the DM can be considered reliable, I might well change my mind. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors attempting to add DM as a ref (and any others deemed suitable for a "greylist") could be directed here, or if that runs the risk of swamping the RSN, a new board. Alternatively, any such edits could be flagged in a similar way to pending changes, needing the nod from a reviewer (if that's possible?) I'm afraid I don't know how the edit filters work, so am not sure exactly what options are available/feasible. --Hillbillyholiday talk 17:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Noting that this has been discussed a few dozen times now. Neither the DM nor any other news source is absolutely reliable on articles concerning celebrities. IMO, Wikipedia would be best off declining to republish "celebrity gossip" in the first place.  More to the point, the DM has not been shown to be unreliable in other matters, although its headlines may misstate the content of articles, this is also true of every single newspaper known to man. I suggest, in fact, that "headlines" not be allowed as a source for what an article states, and only be allowed to illustrate what the headline stated and cited as such.  Collect (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree about headlines, but the DM has been shown to be unreliable in other matters many, many times, far more than other publications. Remember the Amanda Knox guilty verdict? --Hillbillyholiday talk 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: The oft-repeated claim that the DM is specifically evil, read    for information about all major media and their use of press releases.  In fact, moreover, other than in the area of celebrity gossip (where no paper should be trusted in the first place), the DM's record is akin to the record of The Guardian and other broadsheets. Collect (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that's utter bollocks.
 * Press Complaints Commission records over a ten-year period: Successful complaints against Fleet Street publications: average = 43, Daily Mail = 153. Let us not forget that Paul Dacre was a member of the "toothless" PCC for a decade, and that they rejected over 90% of cases without investigation.
 * Independent Press Standards Organisation from 2014 to 2015: Mail 11 breaches, Guardian 0 breaches; reparations by Mail 34 times, Guardian 0 times. --Hillbillyholiday talk 04:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IPSO 2016: Daily Mail was the worst publication, with a total of 17 sanctions for inaccuracy. The Sun followed with 14, the Daily Express with 12. The Independent and Guardian had none. --Hillbillyholiday talk 09:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sweet. But I guess most readers of The Sun don't know how to complain. Or, if they did, just think it's 100% true. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so sweet. --Hillbillyholiday talk 10:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC) "the 2014 World Cup will always be remembered as the Milkybar penis"
 * I think Robin Jacobs, 31, should upload the image for the pareidolia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IPSO does not regulate the Independent or the Guardian. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or treat it like any other fake news site, how do we deal with those normally?17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)
 * as an example.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The problem isn't that it is wrong or even that they might have a rogue journalist from time to time (even the NY Times have been caught out this way), the problem is that their editorial decisions seemingly contribute to the deception. They had the Amanda Knox story ready to go with fake quotes and reactions, and there was also the time that George Clooney took them to task over fake quotes. It simply can't be trusted. Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Context matters, and that's up to the editors covering the particular issue. Whether it's a "well-established news outlet" matters, and it is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sort of support. As I've said previously, the problem with Daily Mail appears to be their habit of taking ludicrous sources at face value, often publishing entire articles based on a single anonymous tweet or blog post. They appear to be not as willfully gullible as say, the National Enquirer, but it doesn't come close to what we normally consider reliable. However, it's probably the case that much of their content is factually accurate, especially on non-controversial subjects. I suspect this is a case of, "what is good is not unique; what is unique is not good." Basically, if something is covered in the Daily Mail and is true, we can probably find a better source for it. If something is only covered by the Daily Mail, it's probably not true. So I would support a more complicated prohibition, that the Daily Mail should not be a source for anything controversial, and where it is a source for anything else, it should be replaced as soon as possible by a better source. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The time has come. It is already rightly unacceptable for BLPs. Lousy record for making things up, in some well-attested cases to the detriment of living people. In a world where fake news is a thing, we should avoid knowingly using material sourced from its proven purveyors. Opposers have highlighted that most of it is true, but that which is true and genuinely noteworthy will have been covered by better sources. Something only covered in the DM, which it is vital for us to cover on Wikipedia; other than its comments about itself I have not seen an example given and could not imagine such an example. I challenge opposers to come up with one. --John (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition There should always be a better source for anything than the Daily Mail. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The reliability of a Daily Mail should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Most material is uncontroversial and mistakes occur no more often than in other publications. A user should not have to hunt around for the same fact to be found in a different source because the Daily Mail is disliked by certain editors. &#161;Bozzio&#33; 05:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bozzio, do you have evidence that ? It doesn't match my information or the figures cited by Hillbillyholiday. --John (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition -- if a particular sources of content can only be cited to DM than it's not worth including in an encyclopedia anyway. If it were important, it would be covered by better sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support without hesitation. This is long overdue given how notorious Daily Mail is for inaccuracies, and I would also have no reservations on blacklisting it, especially after seeing flat out absurd claims like "using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer". Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is anyone suggesting using that piece? Everyone supporting the proposal is telling us what most of us already know: the Mail is generally not going to be a good source, either because it reports on things that would not be of interest to an encyclopedia in the first place or because much of what it reports is dubious, possibly to a greater degree than other papers. The actual question is whether a blanket ban on the Mail – and the Mail alone, as currently mooted – is needed to solve that problem, and whether it sets a dangerous precedent for people to push for "bans" on news sources they don't like for other reasons. Yes it's currently used quite a bit on WP, but I'm not aware of a widespread problem of people insisting on using it when it's removed or challenged. And, for example, are people suggesting it be banned from this page?  N-HH   talk / edits  15:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail should be banned from that page most of all. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources that describe the actions of TDM in that case, and we should use those sources rather than trusting what the known liars at TDM say happened. Again I say, kill it. Kill it with fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What, the Guardian editorial that commends the Mail's "bold journalism" (yes, in that instance)? Of course secondary sources on the Mail's role would be useful too, but my point was that a total ban would disallow even sourcing the Mail headline/front page directly to the Mail. It's a bit surreal to suggest that a Mail story is not good evidence for what that story said, or that the Mail would not accurately report what its own editor said about its actions in that case. And anyway that isn't the only such case, nor was that brief rhetorical question my main point, which was a broader one about efficacy, process and practical effect, which you haven't addressed at all. And I'm not sure constantly repeating "kill it with fire" helps rational debate.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We have many, many sources that are banned, and all of them are by nature of being banned banned from being sources for their own headlines. Your argument can be used to argue against banning any source, no matter how bad. There will always be some contrived situation where it would be convenient to use the banned source Just This Once, but that doesn't stop us from banning sources. Nor do we want to allow individual editors to decide whether maybe this time The Daily Mail isn't lying. You want us to allow a source that has been shown to fabricate direct quotes and photos, and your arguments can be used to argue against banning any source. I stand by my "kill it with fire" comment. Wikipedia editors are grown-ups and do not need to be protected from a colorful turn of phrase. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any sources which are specifically, by name, "banned" currently or any list detailing them. And I do think individual editors can make judgments in context, not about whether a newspaper is lying in any individual instance (although obvious errors can be demonstrated by reference to other sources), but about whether certain sources might sometimes be appropriate for the material in question. Indeed, that's the basis of current policy, which is again part of my point: what is being attempted here is a rewrite of that policy, but relying on people's – entirely legitimate – concerns about one paper, which is far from the worst one out there (National Enquirer? Daily Express?) to spearhead it. It's all back to front. And as I suggested, yes, let's have grown-up discourse.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose prohibition The paper carried useful material at the time of World War I (though even then considerable caution is required) and it would be very sad to lose pictures such in St Paul's Survives which require attribution. Maybe something about requiring need would work but I'd want to see the wording to decide. Don't we effectively require need for challenged material anyway? With historical newspapers very different considerations are needed always. Thincat (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a very important point, Thincat, and one so far wholly overlooked here, I think. Would it be feasible, or even possible, to provide some kind of year-based restriction/ regulation? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That "heavily retouched" photo wouldn't necessarily be affected as the DM is part of the story there. There will always be exceptional cases when using the DM is necessary/desirable -- editors can demonstrate need here, and as long as their edits gain approval by consensus in the usual way, there's no problem; I really don't think it will come up too often. An edit-filter would, I assume, look for any new additions to WP which contain dailymail.com and thus pick up the more recent "stories". These are a real problem, and given the immense online presence of the DM, something that regularly comes up. A default position of the DM is barred as an unreliable source with the onus on the editor to justify its use would prevent a great deal of misinformation/lies/inaccuracies from creeping in, and would benefit those editors who currently have to make the same old arguments on talkpages across the project. --Hillbillyholiday talk 22:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would save, or at least reduce, a lot of repetitive removal. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Be very careful: few newspapers of combatant countries are solid in wartime. For the DM in WWI, consider the effect and circumstances of William Beach Thomas. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Be very careful also: The photo was taken in December 1940 which was actually part of World War II (1939-45) not World War I (1914-18). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition per JzG. The Daily Mail is demonstrably unreliable in comparison to other publications. Obviously there are exceptions, as Thincat demonstrates, but the presumption should be that DM isn't a reliable source. An edit filter would be a good solution. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an elephant in the room here. Despite comments by some editors, it appears there is currently no blacklist, greylist or edit filter that would prevent an editor using the DM or warning them about its use.  I have no doubt whatsoever that if this precedent is set, editors will be suggesting other newspapers (nobody has mentioned the Daily Star yet!).  How will these be decided? An RFC for each newspaper suggested?  I have tried in the past to fathom how editors reach their decisions on deciding whether a newspaper is RS or not, but all I have been met with is "It depends on the case". I am not opposing the formation of grey/blacklist/edit filter, rather the opposite: I believe editors should be made aware immediately that consensus is that a source should not be used. Currently, this is opaque and has led to massive time sinks and a certain degree of animosity from some editors. DrChrissy (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The blacklist is at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and adding a new entry there is trivial. Creating an edit filter to look for the addition of Daily Mail references also wouldn't be difficult. Sam Walton (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this Sam, but this spam-list appears to only restrict URLs. As far as I know, there is no blacklist of physical newspapers, so, I could cite using the cite news template "The Daily Mail" but receive no feedback on this except from vigilant editors. DrChrissy (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Daily Mail gives coverage to many international news outside Europe and America. Daily Mail is not a good source in content dispute. But Daily Mail is good to prove notability of a subject. Daily Mail covers news stories which are not getting coverage in other English Media. We can use Daily Mail to establish notability of a politician, celebrity from Eastern Europe, Asia. Sometimes Daily Mail gives coverage to very ordinary things, but due to this they give coverage to many important Asian news, North African news and East-European news (where English is not official language). Marvellous Spider-Man  03:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Daily Mail is not a good source in content dispute" is just another way of saying "not a good source for content on Wikipedia", which is the whole point of this RfC. Sure, you can use it demonstrate notability, but that's usually only necessary at AfD. --Hillbillyholiday talk 03:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Daily Mail can be used for articles outside USA and UK as these two countries has many reliable sources in English. The RFC doesn't say that we can use it for Romanian/Algerian/Latvian/Ukrainian/Turkish/Russian/Chinese/Japanese/Brazilian articles. Marvellous Spider-Man  03:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the English Wikipedia, yes it does. The phrase "should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source?" is quite clear. If this RfC passes, The Daily Mail will not be allowed as a source on Russian or Japanese articles on the English Wikipedia. If you are talking about the Russian or Japanese Wikipedias, no decision made on the English Wikipedia is binding on those other Wikipedias. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then, I oppose this RFC, as per my first statement. Daily Mail is very inclusive and has no WP:GEOBIAS. Marvellous Spider-Man  05:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The Daily Mail, as hated as it is, is a very mixed bag. It can contain wonderful information such as accurate and informative interviews of highly respected people like Lord Puttnam (yes, I've seen that; can find the link if you need it), informative and detailed film and television articles, detailed information on various openings, galas, and so on. Many of these items are exclusives, so we can't blacklist the publication. It also has an excellent (theatre, film, etc.) review team. We just have to keep in mind that it often stoops to tabloid scandal-mongering (and ridiculous political opinions). I think any intelligent editor can tell the difference. So with this publication it has to always be on a case-by-case basis. It's a middle-market newspaper, so we cannot avoid it or blacklist it. I'd say it's not to be used as a source for politics, science, medicine. But as a source for entertainment updates it is often helpful and often contains accurate information that is not available anywhere else. If it is contradicted by a more reliable source, it should not be used. Nothing negative, contentious, or potentially libelous or in any way scandalous should be sourced to the DM (unless it is a direct quote from an interview). Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and educate Strong support not to use it for BLPs, but I see no issue on using it to report on "news". However, any editor who uses it as a source should be reminded that better sources can be found and those should be used instead (should, not must). I challenge anyone to find a notable news story in the DM that isn't covered in better sources elsewhere.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 08:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The DM falls on a spectrum of news quality and it is far from the worst; singling it out for prohibition is not the solution here.  It is hard not to suspect that it is being singled out because it combines a strong right-wing bias with a very large circulation.  I see several editors above citing statistics regarding complaints and corrections as though this was a reason for prohibiting its use; but WP:NEWSORG gives the very fact that a complaints process exists and corrections are published as a reason to consider the source reliable.  It should certainly be considered WP:BIASED, but then so should every news organisation that takes an editorial stance.  This is already policy.  Outright banning established, regulated, large-circulation newspapers from use on enwiki would be a terrible precedent to set, especially for having "ridiculous political opinions," as one editor has put it a few lines above.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And, for those citing statistics above, do we really think that, for a daily newspaper, averaging somewhere near 15 upheld complaints in a year is sufficient to ban the whole output of that organisation as a source? GoldenRing (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. The volume of upheld complaints is symptomatic of the Mail's deference to editorial ideology over factual accuracy. It is legendary for the inaccuracy of its articles on medicine and science, especially. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are more examples: 10 Egregiously False Stories In The ‘Daily Mail’.
 * Also, see this quote:
 * "You probably know the Daily Mail as a race-baiting tabloid that once supported the Nazis. But it has another, secret identity it tries to keep hidden at all costs. The Daily Mail is possibly the biggest news media troll in history. Thanks to American outlets thinking it’s a respectable news source, the Daily Mail has managed to get the media to print more hoax stories than everyone else on this list combined. In 2014, a New York–based correspondent simply made up a story about Beijing installing giant TV screens so smog-choked residents could watch fake sunrises. Time, CBS, and the Huffington Post all ran with it, despite it being clear nonsense. In 2012, the Daily Mail made up another story about a Polish dentist pulling all her boyfriend’s teeth after he cheated on her. That one fooled most of the Internet, plus MSNBC, the LA Times, and the Daily Telegraph. In 2015, the Daily Mail ran a story that was picked up by other tabloids about a guy on welfare who was too busy working out to get a job. The guy turned out to be an actor. Go digging, and you’ll find more examples of the Daily Mail flooding the media with more fake stories than we can comfortably list here. Like that time it convinced Fox News a transgender kid was harassing girls in a school bathroom. Or that time it totally made up a poll and the Huffington Post believed it. Okay, we’re calling it now: The Daily Mail is officially the greatest media troll in the world." (source)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Any sources that demonstrates a willingness to make shit up just to sell papers does not meet our definition of reliable source. If there are other newspapers that do this they should not be used either. Brad  v  14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A bunch of people have made "but sometimes there's no other source" comments; well, in those cases, then, there's no legitimate source at all, and the material shouldn't be believed, much less used in Wikipedia. We waste too much time on the DM, and we aren't going to lose anything worthwhile by utterly excluding it as a source. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support? "Prohibit" seems like an imprecise word in the context of wikiguidelines, especially when combined with "just short of blacklisting". In general I like the idea of making "formal" that there is consensus that one should almost never use a given source, to avoid having those discussions or pointing to a smattering of RSN threads, often with unclear outcomes. Like others, I would oppose blacklisting this, but support an edit filter and certainly support the notion that this should almost never be used in articles. That seems like it would largely support this? But I see people opposing who have the same opinion. This makes me think what probably needs to happen is a more specific question within technical parameters (e.g. once an edit filter is established, an RfC to add this [and others] to it). Fun fact: in 2014, as listed in User:Emijrp/External Links Ranking, Daily Mail was our 86th most used external link, with more than 26,000 uses just in the article space. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support its classification as a non-reliable source; it simply cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 18:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support except in the exceptional circumstance of where something appearing in the Mail is itself the topic ("after he was accused by the Daily Mail of…"). Any legitimate story will also be found in a genuine newspaper; anything only appearing in the Mail can usually safely be assumed to be made up. (FWIW, as I write this the Mail front page is currently informing the world that "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens".) &#8209; Iridescent 18:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the second sentence: "At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters ..." Context matters, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that too. It is repeated in the caption. So we are faced with the Daily Mail reporting that a group (easily debunked - ) is making a "wild claim", but it is not the newspaper itself making the claim.  Is the Daily Mail a RS for this statement? DrChrissy (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Never use for a BLP or anything contentious. A minority of the Mail's reporting (notably its sports, which is award winning) is absolutely fine, but its news reporting is on the level of the Sunday Sport (or for our American cousins, the National Enquirer); not only does it misrepresent stories, but it makes them up completely. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Tiptoethrutheminefield "There is no justification for the blanket banning of a mass-circulation newspaper as a source. There will be cases where it is a suitable rs source. " The Mail is editorially heavily biased, but that's not the same thing as unreliable for reporting of simple objective facts. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Pop us up a wee list, will you? Of things it is essential to cover on Wikipedia, for which there is no other source but the Mail. --John (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You've already seen one -- brought to BLPN, closed by admin User:Number_57 with the closing sentence "There was clearly no consensus to blacklist the Daily Mail, as consensus was that the DM was an acceptable source for the material in question." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I reread that and I am not seeing the list. Perhaps you could copy and paste it here when you do. Thanks. --John (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tumbleweed in motion.webm divaricata'')]]
 * I meant you'd already seen one case. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I note I see a consensus above from basically everyone (no matter their ivote) that there needs to be guidance or restriction on this source (I say guidance because it's not fair to expect the rest of the English speaking world to know much about DM), given that, given the evidenced problems with DM, and given the policy standard for using sources is information that is "challenged or likely to be challenged," then explicitly putting everyone on notice, that the default is never use this source, unless you can convince (and are convinced) a rare exception should be made is the way to go - the proposal says "demonstrable need" - so, ok. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose' does not mean 'Support', there's no such consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is - many of the people opposing a blanket ban on the source do say that there are some circumstances under which the source is not reliable and should not be used. And obviously the people who think it should be banned would agree. The lack of consensus at the moment appears to be the degree of guidance and/or restriction needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a dreadful source, and anyone who thinks otherwise should not be editing an encyclopedia. What we are arguing here is whether it should be outright banned or whether it can occasionally be used. --John (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andy Dingley above. Awful and biased as the Mail often is, there is also much that may be uncontentious.  For example, take e.g. an article that I did some editing on a long time ago, on Mary Marquis, a Scottish newsreader of the '70s and '80s, who is still a much cherished and remembered figure in Scotland.  The article contains multiple citations to an 1998 interview / profile piece from the Mail -- all of which, I would submit, are entirely uncontroversial; and (I submit) contribute valuably to giving a rounded-out account of her.  Of course there are reasons why one should very often be cautious of the Mail, but IMO a blanket ban is not the way.  I would add that, although people like to throw around the word "Tabloid", there can be a distinction between the connotations of that word on different sides of the Atlantic, and I wouldn't throw the Record or the Mirror or the Standard or Metro into the same class as eg the National Enquirer.  Jheald (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And you know that they didn't fabricate the entire interview (as they have done in other cases) ... how? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that I strongly suspect that this edit (diff) may well have been by her husband, I suspect the rest of the text is reasonably sound. It seems highly unlikely that such an interview would be fabricated -- she wasn't in the news at the time, nor particularly newsworthy, so why bother? Jheald (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why bother getting an actual interview? Surely it is easier and cheaper to simply make up some quotes rather than bothering to interview someone. It would seem reasonable to assume that The Daily Mail choose the cheaper, faster option. Once we have established that The Daily mail fabricates such material on a regular basis, the burden of proof is on the editor who decides that they aren't lying in one particular case, and "I suspect (but do not know for sure) that the quote is sound" isn't quite good enough. Was there any other source for the quotes, or were they only in The Daily Mail? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an interview, with somebody who had already been retired for 10 years. Not a press release, not a cuttings piece, not a news story. Why would you expect anybody else to have replicated the quotes of a random human-interest piece that happened to appear in the Mail ?
 * And, BTW, what's your evidence that the Mail routinely fakes interviews with random retired celebrities reflecting on their lives (ie not Amanda Knox, not crusading news stories, not shock stories from foreign websites), just people as human beings for the human interest? Jheald (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They regularly fabricate quotes and interviews -- one would think that would rule them out as a reliable source -- but if that's not specific enough, here's an entirely fake interview with a random retired celebrity reflecting on his life. (bonus points for also being a copyright violation.) --Hillbillyholiday talk 13:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone can get hoaxed, even the New York Times. It seems to me that there is a difference between what is gossipy or sensationalist, which eg WP:BLPSOURCES rightly warns against, and what is more mundane or routine.  Extraordinary claims rightly demand extraordinary sources (which the Mail definitely is not);  but less extraordinary claims rather less so.  For myself, I think User:softlavender wrote a lot of sense above, noting that the Mail can be quite a mixed bag, including (as they put it) a strong team of critics, "accurate and informative interviews of highly respected people like Lord Puttnam, informative and detailed film and television articles, detailed information on various openings, galas, and so on", and that many of these items are exclusives....  I think an intelligent editor can tell the difference. So with this publication it has to always be on a case-by-case basis." Jheald (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Andy Dingly. No need to blacklist a whole publication because of a few opinion pieces that may not be to some tastes.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces? Where did anyone mention opinion pieces? The problem is not opinion pieces, the problem is that they routinely make stuff up. --John (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The paper has been around since 1896. Its bad reputation in the first few years of the 21st century speak nothing about the reliability of more than a hundred years of volumes. Clearly a blanket ban is unjustified (per ). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Existing policy is enough. If it is worth adding to a Wikipedia article, it will have appeared in better sources than the Mail and other red top British tabloids. I am not an anti-tabloid snob like some of the people here, and the broadsheets are not perfect either. However, the Mail should be off limits for anything BLP related. This discussion is reminiscent of this tweet by Gavin Phillipson, who is also a member of IMPRESS. I can be hacked off by the Daily Mail sometimes, but not enough to want to ban it outright.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The Mail lacks sufficient editorial oversight. I regularly see spelling and grammatical errors on their front page, let alone the dubious content of the actual stories.LM2000 (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * God, no, not spelling and grammatical errors! Someone better start a new RfC about the Grauniad... GoldenRing (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When The Guardian starts printing patent BS on a regular basis, while also failing to check their spelling, an RfC may be appropriate.LM2000 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note The "bad examples" are all pretty much either "headline complaints" or "celebrity gossip" issues.  One should actually read the "actual complaints" made to press groups rather than use them as "paint by numbers" proof that the DM is unreliable.  I cited an actual research study above which showed that every single newspaper uses "press releases" instead of actual journalism on science articles, and, to that extent, not a single paper is actually "reliable."  As for "grammatical and spelling errors", note that even the New York Times has them, as it has no paid proof-readers whatsoever. And I iterate that I know of zero "reliable sources" for "celebrity gossip" at all. Collect (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition. To claim that "The "bad examples" are all pretty much either "headline complaints" or "celebrity gossip" issues" is not true, I'm afraid. These are the lies, damned lies and the even more damned lies from outside the "headline complaints" or "celebrity gossip" issues". It's a trashy paper that cannot and should not be trusted on too many subjects for us to allow any use on any subject. These DM-lies are from "actual complaints", by the way. Take a spin over a Google search of ("Daily Mail" "factual inaccuracy") and ignoring all the websites that we wouldn't generally regard as reliable, and there are still too many sources to justify the use of the DM. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition. This is a good example of the sort of thing the Daily Mail is currently publishing. I rest my case. -- The Anome (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the article above describes it as "the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters." Silly season stuff perhaps, but not in the same league as BLP violations, or "World War 2 Bomber Found On Moon" which the Sunday Sport really did expect its readers to take seriously.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition (...And I never thought I would say that!). I was leaning towards supporting with exceptions; but I am not convinced that there are any exceptions we could make that would not be available in more reliable sources. After all, if the DM was the only source for an item, we instinctively wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  10:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. If you have an actually reliable source confirming something in the Mail, why aren't you using that? If it's just the Mail, you're doing it wrong or it's probably too ridiculously trivial to include anyways. Maybe there are exceptions, but there had better be VERY strong arguments for ANY use of the Mail. Wikipedia isn't losing much, if anything at all, by a blanket jettisoning of this crappy source. --Calton | Talk 11:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment and note to closer Well said, Calton. Although the claim has been made repeatedly, in spite of asking several times I still haven't seen where any of the opposers have actually given examples of what a DM article could best be used for on Wikipedia, other than as a primary source on its own statements. If this is still the case at the time of closure, I recommend discounting those opposes. After all, we are here for facts, not opinions. --John (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Make no mistake, The Daily Mail is a bad source.  But in the realm of mass media, most sources of the junk food news variety seem very bad.  And these can be published by supposedly reliable news outlets.  I would much rather see this more firmly clarified in policy.  The Daily Mail is a bad source, and everybody knows it.  But other outlets, even "reliable" news outlets, are also guilty of publishing the same kind of churnalism as the DM.  (For example, I've seen the DM quoted in a broadsheet source, which editors really ought to know better than to do.)  So, if we find ourselves in a position of needing to ban the DM because it's so bad, the problem is not the DM as a source, the problem is our guidelines that are apparently lax enough to allow this to be used in the first place.  Also, from the discussion above it appears as thought DM is reliable for some things, and not others.  WP:CONTEXTMATTERS might require clarification; the vagueness of that guideline bothers me.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Each case has to be judged on its merits because all sources are prone to error. The Daily Mail seems fairly average as journalism goes and should not be singled out when there are many worse sources.  The following specific points demonstrate this. Andrew D. (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is somewhat unusual for a UK paper as it was the first newspaper specifically aimed at women and is read by more women than men. For example, the word suffragette was first coined in the pages of the Daily Mail and so is naturally cited by the Oxford English Dictionary.
 * When the singer Lynsey de Paul died, there was some confusion about her exact age. The Daily Mail was one of the few news sources which got this right.
 * I started our article about churnalism and this can be found in most news media now. One interesting case was a project which deliberately planted fake stories to see whether they would be circulated.  The Daily Mail didn't fall for this when many other news media did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs)
 * I am not sure that inventing a word over a century ago makes this a reliable source, nor do I think it germane what the target market was 120 years ago. - The Bounder (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a historical perspective and so recentism should be avoided. The Daily Mail has had some particular interests over the years which may make it a good source for certain periods.  For example, it started the Ideal Home Exhibition which was influential in changing households in the UK.  And it supported early aviation with prizes and coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an different point to the one you raised earlier, so thank you for your clarification. (Although starting a sales exhibition is, again, no guarantee of being a reliable source). - The Bounder (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does citing any of those require a link to the daily mail website? Because the daily mail website is what we are talking about banning here, not citations to material that was published long before computers existed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail was a newspaper for most of its history. Its website is a new thing with a different editorial team.  And there are other publications like Metro and the Mail on Sunday.  The proposal seems unclear. Andrew D. (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it clearer if we change it from "Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source?" to "Should we prohibit the use of DailyMail.com as a source?" --John (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be clearer but it's not clear if that was the original proposal. Some people here seem to be Americans who may only be familiar with the website but the orginal proposer seems to be British and so have meant the newspaper proper.  It's a muddle. Such issues are best sorted out on a case-by-case basis as is our usual practise. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And just in today .Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Related: Administrators' noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Support prohibition': Although Daily Mail isn't always incorrect, many of its stories are dubious, do not have proper journalistsic standards and are meant for sensationalization. Although not everything is false, it still cannot be regarded as trustworthy or reliabile because of what it does. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition with the exception mentioned in the proposal (and possibly with a restricted date range; I am sure it is a useful source for some things in the past). The Daily Mail of today contains too many (probably deliberate) factual errors to be used as a source. —Kusma (t·c) 11:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that many of the examples cited here and elsewhere on Wikipedia are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article  with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here.  The actual article  clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS.   In short, the DM is accurate on the topic.   When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. I suggest any closer deprecate !votes made with clearly errant "examples" or which are clearly based on political or other opinions, and not on the use of one of the world's most-read journals.  Collect (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * .... I suggest any closer deprecate !votes made with clearly errant "examples" or which are clearly based on political or other opinions Huh, you mean like the statement where you made the blatantly false statement the DM's record is akin to the record of The Guardian and other broadsheets? --Calton | Talk 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  And when you quote others, kindly quote them accurately.  As you elided the rest of my statement so cavalierly, I suggest you seek employment as a journalist.    lists the salient facts, and you manage to elide my clear statement
 *  In fact, moreover, other than in the area of celebrity gossip (where no paper should be trusted in the first place),
 * and the elision of that part of the sentence might appear to neutral parties to excise a key part of my position. Did you actually read the scholarly study about blind use of press releases, by the way? Collect (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...except that that by no means are the false stories all related to celebrity gossip. There's the slew of fiction about the hordes of Eastern European immigrants invading Britain (including a story with twenty-six falsehoods in it which was even discribed as nonsense by the Conservative government), the one where they said Israel was opening dams to flood the Gaza Strip and get rid of Palestinians (the Mail showing it hasn't dropped its WWII anti-semitism), the one that said women working full-time caused autism in their children, the one about semen being an anti-depressant, the one about the giant hedgehog ... etc.  You do realise that the Mail does this purely for clickbait for its website, don't you? Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Black Kite is right, Collect. As I said at AN, your mistake seems to be to buy in to the Mail's world-view in which any newsworthy person is treated as a "celebrity" about whom lies can be told, with the expectation that most will not sue. Wikipedia cannot afford to follow this line for ethical and possibly legal reasons. --John (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Black Kite gave no URLs but I think I see some of the articles. The "Gaza flood" story was corrected, now it's Gaza Floods: Dispelling the myth about Israeli 'dams'. The "autism" story is merely a report of what a theorist said. The "giant hedgehog" story is clearly about a sculpture. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

to reply to me 13:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 14:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition with edit filter, with exceptions for when it is actually indispensable. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Hope is today's featured article. I read through this just now as it is an interesting and topical article. At the end, notice that it cites the Daily Mail. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "according to an unverified report in the Daily Mail". In any case the DM is a primary source there and the statement is also supported by a secondary source, so it doesn't really matter if the DM citation is removed. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Support It's not a good source, and it won't be useful in the vast majority of cases, so it shouldn't be used. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - This publication has a poor reputation as many others have already shown. In the rare event that they are the only source that covers something of encyclopedia value, unrelated to living people, exceptions can be made. As a side note, I think we should have a subpage that lists sources that should be avoided such as The Daily Mail, Breitbart, and WND.- MrX 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, anything that actually cites it will probably be removed anyway, so banning the source itself is a easy solution. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support rational prohibition According to the Daily Mail, this is an oppose vote. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as it is not a reliable source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's worse sources out there!, On the whole DM is okay and should be used where necessary. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose total blacklisting References are used to verify facts, and perhaps the Mail is not reliable for this.  However, they are also used to demonstrate notability.  I would use a Mail reference as a second source for a fact that was also verified by another source.  For example: I work on a lot of articles about musical groups. Often quite a bit of information can be verified by articles in local press or online music magazines, but coverage in a national paper carries more weight when deciding if a band meets notability requirements.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anne Delong. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  03:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources should be verifiable, so if as you say, the facts in the daily mail are not verifiable, then they are not a reliable source. Only reliable sources can be used to establish notability, per WP:GNG. Therefore the daily mail is not a reliable source nor can it be used to establish notability, so this oppose seems to be misguided. I would also note that in practice I would never consider the daily mail to be a source that establishes GNG over at AfC, or when patrolling new pages.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't consider, but I consider it as a reliable source. We are opposing "total" blacklisting. Daily Mail is very reliable source for entertainment and sports. Daily Mail haters can keep Daily Mail out of Science, Religion, Race, Astronomy, Economics, British politics and American politics related articles. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  05:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily mail has printed a large number of factual inaccuracies, in some cases blatant lies in 'entertainment' articles, so I don't think they should ever be considered a reliable source there (a quick scan of this RfC will reveal several of the best examples). As for sports, while their reporting in this area seems relatively verifiable, very rarely does the Daily Mail ever report anything that is not also covered in other, more reliable, sports sources. Therefore they are not essential for this category, and it should not be the reason they are not blacklisted.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia also has many notable hoax articles. Do we need factual and scientific accuracy for tooth fairy, dragons, wizards, bigfoot articles? If Daily Mail is used in these articles about mythical and urban legends, what is so wrong about it? <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  05:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are asking here, factual and scientific accuracy is always essential for all articles, as is not applying undue WP:WEIGHT to extraordinary claims. I do not see how the Daily Mail's coverage can help anything with regards to fringe, pseudoscience, myth or hoax articles. On the contrary, as an editor in many fringe areas of the wiki I, and many others, delete Daily Mail citations on sight.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I edit a lot of articles about musicians, novelists, actors and other artists. Their notability is often determined by the amount of discussion and review of their work.  A lot of this is opinion.   Is there evidence that the professional reviewers at the Daily Mail don't write actual opinions?  If not, I don't see why, for instance, a review can't be cited to show positive or negative "reception", for example.  A blacklisting would mean that citations to the paper would be physically blocked; the even obvious facts such as "she was featured in a full page article in the Daily Mail" couldn't be cited.  These limited uses should be allowed.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support prohibition -- because this will improve the encyclopedia. Any losses are outweighed by gains.  It's more of a problem to include a crappy claim (sourced to the Mail) than it is to leave something out.  Moreover, the likelihood of leaving something out simply because of a probation on the Mail seems quite low -- if it's worth including, then we'll likely find other sources.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I share the opinion that the Daily Mail is not remotely trustworthy in many respects - certainly not in a lot of its news and politics coverage. But I think a blanket prohibition on citing it is overkill. For one thing, its financial coverage is often very good, and I'm also told it does sports just fine too (I never read about sports so I wouldn't know myself). Then there's the thing about notability - even if a DM story might not be good enough to support a factual claim on its own, it can be useful for adding to the sources that demonstrate notability. I think we do fine as we are, judging each use of a DM source in its own context, and I see no need to change that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, I'll say it again, how can the Daily Mail establish notability if it isn't considered a reliable source? The two are mutually exclusive. Moreover, if it is not trustworthy, then surely far less damage is done by banning it than by allowing it, especially as the areas you pointed out. Even where the DM are mostly reliable, we have plenty of good reliable coverage elsewhere and these areas are not even the primary areas of interest for the Daily Mail (they cannot be considered to be experts on financial matters, nor is this their primary focus).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re" "Even where the DM are mostly reliable, we have plenty of good reliable coverage elsewhere", I would add that those very few times when we have no reliable coverage elsewhere are almost always the times when The Daily Mail decided to simply make things up. If there is a better source, use that source. If there isn't a better source, then the rational assumption is that it didn't happen the way The Daily Mail said it happened. Remember, The Daily Mail doesn't just fabricate things to make a point. Sometimes they fabricate things because they are too lazy to get the facts and because to a Daily Mail reporter there are never any negative consequences to telling lies. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, I'll say it again, how can the Daily Mail establish notability if it isn't considered a reliable source? To be perfectly fair, I could point to a number of conspiracy theories that have never received much coverage in reliable sources, but their widespread attribution in popular-yet-unreliable sources demonstrates their notability. As a general rule, I would say an unreliable source can still be used to establish notability, though with far (FAR) less weight than a reliable source. And only when said unreliable source is fairly popular, like the Daily Mail. I'm not going to argue this point, though. I wouldn't hold it to be unreasonable for an editor to insist that only reliable sources can evince notability, it's just not my interpretation, and it's one to which there are exceptions on WP. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @MjolnirPants Far be it from me to insist that editorial judgement isn't necessary, I've seen plenty of AfD discussion similar to what you've been talking about, where a cobbled together group of -ish sources are used to demonstrate notability. I've even agreed in some cases. There is always room for a little WP:IAR. However I must point out that my comments above are in line with WP:GNG. According to WP policy, only reliable, independent, sources demonstrate notability. There are good reasons why these restrictions exist, and in the case of the Daily Mail, they apply rather aptly in my opinion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be exactly right about the policy pages. I've never spent much time reading those particular ones (on notability), because discussions of notability are so hairy anyways, and can go either way, with both sides accusing the other of clear policy violations. Generally, I've only ever read them to verify that what an editor put in quote marks as coming from that page actually did (it shocks me how often it doesn't...) MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. The Daily Mail is reliable for general news. They are under much tougher libel laws in the UK than US papers, so they do check their facts. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is exactly their reputation for not fact checking that is the problem. I don't know much about libel laws in Britain, but the consequences can't be that strict given the stuff that the DM has printed, and gotten away with (here are 10, with a surprisingly varied list of subject matter --note that i found this in 5 seconds, there are FAR, FAR more. ). I find this Oppose to be rather odd, as if he/she has not read the above section, as it is clear that the DM has the opposite reputation from the one implied in this comment.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly the more I look the more their behavior disgusts me. in this story they got sued, but they just keep continuing to print false made up shit. The libel laws might mean they get sued, but they make money from the carnage anyway so what do they care for the truth? Blacklist it already, at a certain point we need to have some professional integrity.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Tepid support. I do fully support the idea the the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for anything because it does not have a reputation for fact checking. If there is something that would maybe considered from the Daily Mail for sourcing, mention of that content should be found in a different source. Otherwise, it isn't of sufficient weight. Regardless of blacklist or not, this RfC should be closed with this idea either way. I'm hesitant to blacklist a source in general, especially since anyone should be able to link to this RfC's close to demonstrate it's not a reliable, end of story, but I haven't seen an example above that would indicate blacklisting would harm anything either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: Wire-service stories. As well as its own internally rewritten stories, Mail Online also carries a lot of wire stories verbatim, often  from AP, and often at greater, more complete length than other sites -- see eg its "wires" main page, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/index.html . Such stories can be distinguished by the "Wires" strap at the top, the lack of a comments section at the bottom, and perspectives that can often seem somewhat at variance to the Mail's usual obsessions / imposed editorial lines.  Is there any objection to continuing to use wire-service reports, identified as such, that happen to be being distributed via the Mail site -- since the reporting for such stories will be AP's, rather than the Mail's own?  Jheald (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wire stories are, by their very nature, generally available in other publications. It's back to the point of 'if it's a reliable and newsworthy piece of information, someone else will also have published it'. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Remember the Murder of Meredith Kercher? Remember the dramatic end to the court case? Let us recall with the aid of a Daily Mail article.
 * As Knox realized the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears.
 * A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family.
 * Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done' although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'.
 * Sources: PoliticalScrapbook, Guardian, Journalism.co.uk
 * What a colourful bit of reporting. Makes you feel like you are right there in the courtroom, watching Knox be carted off to jail. It makes you feel the stoic suffering of the Kercher family too. Exactly the sort of human interest one would wish to inject into a courtroom story.
 * Just one minor problem. It didn't happen. Knox wasn't found guilty. All that colour reporting was made up. The quotes were made up. This wasn't just a prepared background story they published by accident. This was an article purporting to present direct on-the-ground reporting and quotes from involved parties. With this record, why should anyone trust a word they say on anything? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Five years ago MailOnline had a false post re Knox for slightly over a minute before correcting, their explanation and apology is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job missing the point entirely. The point isn't that they accidentally published the wrong story or how fast they fixed the error. Lots of newspapers make mistakes, and the correction was very fast indeed. The point is that they admitted to making up direct quotes and eyewitness reports. The point is that the Press Complaints Commission upheld a complaint against the Daily Mail (and upheld it again in adjudication), saying "the article had sought to present contemporaneous reporting of events (describing, in colourful terms, how individuals had physically behaved) which simply had not taken place. This was clearly not acceptable.". and "it is vitally important that descriptions of events, especially trials, are published in a manner which complies with the Editors' Code. Describing reactions and behaviour that have not taken place, in a factual manner as if they had, must always raise a breach of Clause 1 of the Code." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. This is ridiculous that you even consider to ban such a large newspaper. It reminds me of a witch hunt or collective responsibility (good articles banned by default, because someone else did something wrong earlier). Someone reverted DM as a source, even though DM was the only source, which actually bothered to interview the authors of the paper, therefore it was a better source than all other sources. There was nothing wrong with that DM article the only reason for removal was actually this discussion here. That can't be right. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That removal was me, you've steadfastly ignored me in the past when I informed you that the DM is not appropriate for fringe articles. The problem is that the DM has outright fabricated interviews before, and it is impossible to verify if they have done so again. The issue is one of verifiablity; facts found only in the Daily Mail are not verifiable, therefore they can't be used as a sole source for content, especially contentious content like the instance you are talking about.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "impossible to verify if they have done so again". It is easily verifiable in this case, just ask the authors of the paper, if DM interviewed them and if they confirm that the quotes in DM are true. Their e-mail addresses are in the paper. Also, please note that other massmedia often quote DM, so if they do it why shouldn't we? They should know better after all. Journalism is their profession. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That would effectively be original research. The reason why we rely on published *reliable* sources is precisely to avoid doing that sort of leg-work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you cant trust a source to print truthfully, and have to contact the authors to verify that the haven't lied *this time*, then the source is of no use at all. Also, the act of verifying with the authors directly can't be used on wikipedia as it would constitute original research (and now we have to take your word for it--and so-on ad nauseum). Reliable sources must have a reputation for reliability (within reason, everybody makes small errors from time to time), if they don't, they are no use at all to an encyclopedia. The DM has shown a reckless disregard for truth.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides, I did ask the authors of the paper if DM interviewed them and if they confirm that the quotes in DM are true. They said no. Either that or I am lying through my teeth to make a point. What is Truth? If only we had some sort of policy where you didn't have to trust me to not tell lies... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As for other media outlets quoting the DM, many have been caught out by doing this, republishing false stories. As a result, the republishing of DM stories is now rare, except in cases where the other sources are either just as unscrupulous as the DM, or else where the other authors have done the legwork necessary to verify that the quotes are true themselves.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, but allow on a case-by-case basis. The default should be to exclude it instead of include it. Some people have argued that it is reliable for sports or entertainment reporting, and they can make their case on the article talk pages. For everything else, it appears to be wildly unreliable. Editors, including people on this page, shouldn't have to re-litigate the issue endlessly. Felsic2 (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Guilty until proven innocent. We should begin with a straightforward recognition of policy as codified in WP:V; i.e., the Mail does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Nevertheless it is possible for things to be true even if the Mail prints them. Thus while we should presume that the Mail is an inappropriate source, there may be specific circumstances where it would be appropriate to cite the Mail. The burden of proof will lie on editors wishing to use material cited to the Mail. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Time and time again the DM shows that it absolutely does not have a reputation for accuracy. If there is a demonstrable need to cite it, that can be argued on a case by case basis, but for the most part I think it's time we put our foot down and admitted that the DM simply isn't reliable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The DM has been caught misrepresenting and outright fabricating stories far too many times to be considered reliable for anything. Capeo (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support prohibition Editors are entrusted with the responsibility of uphold the integrity of Wikipedia by presenting appropriate trusted citations for article content.--Moxy (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The Daily Mail like the National Enquirer is not a source suitable for an encylopedia. It is the worst kind of sensationalist, gutter journalism imaginable. After the result in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union just last year the Mail infamously attacked the judges as enemies of the people and pejoratively referred to one of the judges as "openly gay". This is a publication that publishes hoaxes about solar panels made from human hair, falls for parody Steve Jobs Twitter accounts, falsely accused Nicholas Cage of tax evasion; had to apologise for lying about George Clooney and his in-laws, steals and republishes stories hours later under false by-lines and has a permanent obsession with Kim Kardashian's backside. It has no legitimate place here and it demeans our work. AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This should be obvious, so there is some dismay at seeing this discussed. Blacklist it. Anything that they accidentally get right can always be sourced from a reliable source. First Light (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very conditional support: if the implementation is an edit filter set on "warn", and as a temporary measure pending further discussion. (This is a next-best solution given that I am coming late to the battle.)
 * The DM, or at least its current editorial process, is crap and I see no circumstance whatsoever where they would be a reliable independent source. While this is IMO already covered by existing policy, it would make sense to adopt an automatic process to catch violations in new edits because it is easy to implement (match the URL string) and the false-positive rate will be extremely low. (Side note: the quality of the mainstream press is some areas (e.g. science news) is extremely low as well, but the key words are in some areas, whereas the DM is unreliable everywhere)
 * However, the technical implementation of the RfC will be either an edit filter or a spam blacklist entry, both of which are philosophically different from an "unreliable source" block. The former targets vandalism, the latter targets promotional edits / SEO attempts / etc.
 * What I would like to see is an RfC establishing the use of WP:EDITFILTER (or whatever other mechanism is chosen) as an "unreliable source filter", with details of how to add a source, how edits are logged/rejected etc.; then adding the DM to it (along with others, methinks). I doubt the second step will meet any opposition, but the first one could attract both opposition on philosophical grounds and technical remarks. Of course, it is far too late to debate that here, but technical questions will not go away - best-case scenario, they are debated in a second RfC where the focus on the DM obscures the full picture, worse-case a developer guesses what to do once asked by admins to "implement the RfC". Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 12:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support prohibition due to the long run of problems with it. The publisher lost its reputation as reliable source. I don't think encyclopedia will suffer without it. There are plenty of other sources around. It would be a very dangerous situation indeed if DM hold a monopoly on some piece of info. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's complicated. I oppose a blanket prohibition, because there are some realms where the Daily Mail is perfectly fine as a source. Non-tabloid reporting of sports, for instance; it tends to contain some good human interest type stories about sportspeople. Also, older articles from before the paper went to shit. It should never be used to source controversial claims, though. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 09:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Most of the stories about sportspeople I have seen in the Mail (admittedly this is coloured by the fact that I actively seek to avoid both sports and the Mail) appear to be salacious gossip. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I intended to go grab some example articles to show you, but I realized I've accidentally conflated the Daily Mail with the Daily News. The latter has very useful sports coverage (see, for instance, Ian Allen (gridiron football)). The former, I'm not too familiar with. I've struck my comment. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * support. If you had asked me before this, I would have said it was excluded as a tabloid, not a newspaper, and nowhere near being a reliable source. But if it needs clarifying with a formal prohibition and guideline then I support it.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 21:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for anything to do with current affairs. I have just had to correct a wild assertion at Brexit in which an editor cited a DM claim that a vote approving the first reading of a Bill means that the Bill has been passed. This is beyond incompetent journalism. [I have corrected the information in the article but let the DM citation stand, tagged with . Post-truth "journalism" is completely inimical to the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia and we should not collude with it.  . -John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Meet every aspect of WP:NEWSORG--Shrike (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, WP:NEWSORG is information about how to treat sources from news organizations. It doesn't define what a news organization is, let alone define what a reliable news organization is. You may want to read that link before you try to use it in this way again. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not every story DM publishes are unreliable, and a blanklet ban neglects undisputed articles on actual news stories, sports coverage, etc. Any DM article that is unreliable, disputed, etc should be dealt with on a case by case basis, as with other tabloid-style news outlets. Speaking as an Australian, the Australian version of the Daily Mail does contain junk, but it also publishes serious local news and sport stories as well and also runs exclusive stories, and in a relatively small media market like Australia, where DM is almost always in the top 5 most read news outlets, outright banning Daily Mail Australia as a source would lead to less verifiability available and ignores any good journalism they do. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support unconditionally, to say the DM is garbage is a vast understatement. It's a good read if you're looking for salacious libel or right-wing propaganda, but that's about as far as it goes. Laurdecl talk 03:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support right-wing tabloid trash BrandNewEditor2017 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Just thought I'd point out that this !vote is the 3rd edit from the editor above. I have my suspicions about either someone with a POV to push or a SOCK. I do not believe this !vote should be given serious consideration in the count.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The Daily Mail is untrustworthy even by tabloid standards. Revolting rag and not one that any entity claiming to be an encyclopaedia should be citing for anything other than what the DM says about itself. Spartaz Humbug! 09:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Impact assessment ?
It's increasingly common for real-world legislatures to be required to consider impact assessments when considering new regulations or legislation. In that spirit, do we have an idea of an impact assessment for the proposal under discussion? How many citations do we have in all to the Mail at the moment, and quantitatively what sort of things are those references for? Jheald (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are just under 12,000 links to the Daily Mail. Not all of them are links to footnotes but then not all footnotes for the DM are linked to the article.  So my guess it is in the thousands, and mostly source non-controversial facts.  I have no idea how much of this can be replaced.  The DM provides detailed coverage of crime, celebrities and sports which may not be in other sources.  Also, we need to establish what sources are acceptable.  It would be wasteful to change all the references to the Daily Express, which is almost identical to the DM and find it is banned as well.  TFD (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The DM should not be used for coverage of crime or celebrities, period, they have been known to outright fabricate facts/quotes/even whole interviews. As for sports, any coverage they have made will invariably also be covered in other sources, unless it is gossip claptrap which has no business being on wikipedia. There will be some adjustment, but almost all of it will be for the better.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you name any source at all which is reliable for "celebrity gossip" in the current universe?  Note also that most of the complaints are about the content of headlines, and not about the content of articles otherwise.   As I have iterated, on science and medical stories, every single newspaper studied relies on press releases, and errors are invariably found in those press releases.  No major newspapers even have proofreaders any more. Ruling out the DM for using those same press releases is thus inane.   Headlines are not part of an actual article, and the fact is that Guardian headlines are just as apt as DM headlines to be inaccurate.  And note finally that blacklisting one source will absolutely result in blacklisting many sources,   and one ought to anticipate the furor over dealing with politicized sources on the I-P conflicts, etc.   Better to not open that can of worms, in my considered opinion. Collect (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Note also that most of the complaints are about the content of headlines, and not about the content of articles otherwise." I'm afraid that is just not true. Many (most?) of the examples given in this thread are about the content, not their titles. You've made this claim more than once, and it's been dismissed more than once. – The Bounder (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And Collect is, again, confused about how newspaper jobs and how newspapers work. Daily newspapers don't employ proofreaders; that function is covered by copy editors. This confusion isn't as bad as his absolute howler, his breathless claim that the New York Times had laid off all of their factcheckers: daily newspapers don't have factcheckers. I ran that last B.S. claim past an actual New York Times reporter, and he agreed that it was, in fact, B.S. I have no idea what his hand-waving about "press releases" is supposed to mean, unless he's attempting to confuse reprinted press releases with actually reported stories. --Calton | Talk 11:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I assess the impact of The Daily Mail on Wikipedia to be 100% bad. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If I had the power to revoke someone's ability to publish, DailyMail would be it. It is entirely unreliable. Anything that isn't fake would be backed by other sources. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Mail's editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication. Yes, most outlets regularly aggregate other publications' work in the quest for readership and material, and yes, papers throughout history have strived for the grabbiest headlines facts will allow. But what DailyMail.com does goes beyond anything practiced by anything else calling itself a newspaper. In a little more than a year of working in the Mail's New York newsroom, I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications' work lifted wholesale. I watched editors at the most highly trafficked English-language online newspaper in the world publish information they knew to be inaccurate." ---Source: My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily to dispute what is said there, but Gawker is not exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity either.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Daily Mail's price for Gawker settlement: Words, not money "The lengthy statement to be added includes the Daily Mail's refutation of King's claim that the company depends on "dishonesty, theft of copyright material', and the publication of material we 'know to be inaccurate'." It goes on to say King worked "sporadic shifts at DailyMail.com" and "threatened a woman editor with violence and had to be repeatedly reminded about the need for proper attribution in his work.""   The reporter who emitted the scandalous claims turns out to have rather clayish feet. Collect (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously? If he didn't have "feet of clay" he would have quit in less than an hour. Only a sleazeball is able to say what it is like working for The Daily Mail because only a sleazeball is willing to work for The Daily Mail. Besides, I don't believe what The Daily Mail says about an ex-employee any more than I believe what they wrote about George Clooney or Melania Trump.
 * If you seriously doubt the truth of what he wrote, how do you explain this? What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine
 * We need to ban The daily Mail not just because it knowingly lies, but also because anything published by the daily mail has a good chance of being a copyright violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly it turns out that the Gawker story was so wrong that it had to be pulled--wait, it's still there, just with the addition of The Mail's "Letter to the Editor"-style response and the original writer's rebuttal. Gee, not as damning as you're trying to imply. --Calton | Talk 11:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you know that Gawker is kindasorta dead? "Gawker.com is shutting down today, Monday 22nd August, 2016, some 13 years after it began and two days before the end of my forties. It is the end of an era."   Few dead sites actually do much more than lie in Internet repose. Collect (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Further to "fake news" allegations: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38790254 Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Example (covering the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and Times)  '' In 2008, researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, UK, discovered that 60 percent of the articles in British newspapers the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent had been copied from wire reports and press announcements issued by various corporations, businesses and universities. Three out of four such stories had also gone to print without being fact-checked, a trend that seems widespread: in 2012, an audit sponsored by the European Observatory of Journalism found factual errors in approximately half of all news stories published in Switzerland, Italy and the United States '':60% - and including the "elite" newspapers (Guardian and Times) in the same group. Collect (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a very widespread problem. The effort to ban the Mail seems misplaced.  As I said in my comment, what we need is shoring up our guideline against the increasing problem of poor quality control in "reliable" sources.  The Mail is merely the lowest hanging fruit of an orchard of journalistic malfeasance.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The results so far
We are now 7 days away from the normal 30-day RfC closing.

So far it looks like we have 46 support !votes and 24 oppose !votes. (My rough count; a more careful count should be made checking for dupes)

There were 7 !votes in the last 5 days (all suppport) and zero !votes in the last 2 days.

(Crossposted to Administrators' noticeboard). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have any of the "supports" cited Wikipedia policy or precedent to support their proposed blanket ban of a major mass-circulation print and online newspaper? In contrast, many of the "oppose" opinions do cite policy to support their position. I think it would have been better for the proposer to have gone and had a private fume about the Daily Mail on their own time and not wasted everyone's time here (both supporters and opposers) by proposing something that is, basically, unenforceable and against Wikipedia policy. Reading the ridiculous tirades by those with an over-obsession about the Daily Mail has provided some amusement though: like the proposer comparing it to the house newspaper of the Nazi party and the above vote summarizer claiming "only a sleazeball is willing to work for The Daily Mail". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I stand by my assertion that only a sleazeball is willing to work for The Daily Mail. I also assert that only a sleazeball scientist is willing to become a house scientist for one of the tobacco companies and author studies about smoking being safe, and that only a sleazeball medical doctor (I am looking at you, Dr. Oz) touts homeopathic remedies. Res ipsa loquitur -- the thing speaks for itself.


 * As for Wikipedia policy, the policy that the supporters cite is Identifying reliable sources, specifically "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts", "Sources that publish fake news are not reliable for facts or opinion", "[A good source] engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy". this page is filled with dozens of specific examples of The Daily Mail failing these criteria. And many of the oppose !votes agree that TDM has a poor reputation for checking the facts.


 * You claim that "many of the 'oppose' opinions do cite policy to support their position". Please list those policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Point of order: It should be noted that the addition of Sources that publish fake news are not reliable for facts or opinion is recent and is currently being discussed on the relevant talk. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I didn't realize that. I struck that part of my response; I only want to cite long-established and non-contentious policies here. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Tiptoethrutheminefield I am a bit confused, I don't see Oppose vote!s citing policy above. I've just had a read through the entire section above and have not found a single instance of someone citing policy in an oppose vote above (I might have missed something of course). On the contrary, nearly everyone admits that the Mail's reputation for fact checking is terrible, admit that they often print false material and then go on to argue that we should somehow try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most say that while some of the Mail's publications are terrible, some are good and worthwhile. However, if we are going to be honest, nearly everyone here, (oppose or support) agrees that the reputation for fact checking is terrible, and there are many instances cited above that show blatant printing of known false information or outright fabrication of interviews that did not happen. Given these facts, how can we suppose that editors are to know if the DM is being honest this time? How do you know that the interview that was cited actually happened and that the DM didn't fabricate it as they have done before? The short answer is that we can't, that is why WP policy doesn't allow sources that have a reputation for printing false information, and have a reputation for not checking their facts before printing. If nearly everyone, oppose or support, is in agreement that they don't check their facts and are inaccurate, the answer is simple, they are not a reliable source and should not be used on Wikipedia.
 * How restricting the DM on wiki actually works is a different story. We can add it to the blacklist, so that sources containing their URL can't be added, or we could simply note it on one of the policy pages as being a non-reliable source, and then citations can be removed on a case by case basis. That's up to the closers, and likely a future RfC, but I think it is clear given the discussion above that nearly everyone is in agreement on the fact that the DM is not reliable in many cases, even most of those opposing an outright ban.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we will be seeing that list of policies cited by oppose !voters any time soon. They appear to be homeopathic policies... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I specifically cited policies, as well as actual studies of newspaper usage of press releases. That the people who call the DM the "Daily Heil" seem to feel personal animus is sufficient to ban a journal is, I fear, not supported by actual published studies.   I also note that the very same people who ask that it be banned have done so repeatedly in the past, and that the upshot has always been that no newspaper is a "reliable source" for celebrity gossip, and that the headlines for every newspaper are designed to get readers, and only the body of the article is what counts. I also note that actual data is superior to anecdotal hatred of any source, and that my position is the same for many other unpopular journals of all ilks.  Collect (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2017 UTC)
 * When I said "Oppose" I quoted the WP:IRS guideline. Now you're quoting a different section re reputation. I expect that any big entity has a bad reputation in some quarters; these are some reasons I say that The Daily Mail has a good reputation in some other quarters: according to peers, to other reliable sources, and to Wikipedia. (1) British Press Awards has declared it National Newspaper Of The Year at least six times; to take a recent year for an example (2014) its journalists were recognized as Young Journalist Of The Year, Sports Journalist Of The Year, Interviewer Of The Year Pop, Columnist Of The Year Pop. The Mail On Sunday and the web site have been winners too, but maybe the ban proposal isn't about them (there's some "muddle" about what the ban proposal is about). (2) I checked the Wikipedia entries of current Mail columnists -- Baz Bamigboye, Craig Brown, Alex Brummer, Stephen Glover, Max Hastings, Dominic Lawson, Quentin Letts, Richard Littlejohn, Jan Moir, Bel Mooney, Andrew Pierce, Amanda Platell, Martin Samuel, Tom Utley, Sarah Vine -- and saw a few had been accused of something (distasteful, hatchet job, hypocrisy, plagiarism) but not that their reputation in general was poor. As for op-ed columnists: reality-TV judge Simon Cowell + former communist Claire Fox + Google/Alphabet executive Eric Schmidt + politician David Cameron etc. are controversial, but to some of us that's still okay. This is relevant because the proposal would ban even attributed opinions, though of course there's some muddle about that too. (3) from a source with a better reputation than gawker (a New Yorker article): "The Mail pours money into its product, triple-commissioning features and flooding doorsteps with reporters when its competitors are content, or compelled, to rely on wire reports.", (and quoting a former editor of The Independent) "Even if a story has been somewhere else, you’ll find it the next day in the Mail, done bigger, very often done better ...". (4) Quoting WP:IRS again: "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." As we've seen above, the Mail does that, so some of the supporters' weak anecdotes are actually evidence for the opposers. (5) those 12,000 cites indicate what many editors think, maybe they'd rather outnumber the 46 !votes for "support". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not pretend that one side has clear policy on its side and the other doesn't. WP:RS contrasts mainstream publications with self-published blogs and wesbites, and WP:NEWSORG is quite clear in its current presumption:
 * "'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 issue is whether the Mail is an exception to that guideline, not one about policy or guidelines per se. Plenty of people, myself included, have argued that current RS and other rules re tabloid journalism, due weight, bias in sources, context etc and editorial common sense deal with the problem, such as it is (and I admit there's quite a big one with the Mail as a whole, but as there is, to an even greater degree sometimes, with plenty of media sources). And beyond that of course, what the proposers are asking for is a entirely new policy, based around a one-paper blacklist, possibly even enforced automatically so that this one paper literally cannot be cited. An entirely reasonable conclusion here that the Mail is pretty much best avoided, for various reasons, along perhaps with a slight rewrite of the main RS guidelines to stress the problems with using media sources, is a very different thing from an out-of-the-blue formal, outright ban on just one mid-market paper, enforced by technology, with no exceptions. There's a huge hurdle to get over to justify that.  N-HH   talk / edits  22:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Point of order: if those 12,000 citations are allowed to outnumber the 46 support !votes, then all the other citations to all the other sources should be allowed to outnumber the 24 oppose !votes. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Citations don't !vote.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ain't ya glad that shoes don't talk?" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Help is on the way. Can we all agree that, once several uninvolved administrators have evaluated the results of this RfC and posted a decision, everybody involved will accept the consensus and abide by that decision? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Prior discussions always allowed the DM as a source, and it appears a few did not "abide" by those discussions.   Did you not know how many times the "Ban the Daily Mail" proposal has been made in the past?   And "Ban Fox News" and the like?   As some did not accept prior consensus, I fear saying "but this consensus is different" is not likely to be a Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the discussions each time they come up have gotton more and more towards the 'The Daily Mail is awful' because in the meantime the Mail has printed more crap, been sued etc. Its been going on for years. At some point (absent a severe editorial policy change) it was always going to tip over to the default position of 'this is not a reliable source for anything, even things we previously would have given it a pass on' as it starts to fail the basic reliability tests. I dont think anyone above can seriously argue it has a track record (in the last 20 years anyway) for fact-checking and accuracy. If the default position as a result of this discussion is 'The Daily Mail should not be used without explicit justification' it would make the encyclopedia a better place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying you're not willing to abide by consensus if you don't agree with it? Don't take this the wrong way, but we generally indef block those types of editors (that's not a threat). I don't think that's what you meant, but you need to clarify if you want others to understand you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the sort, kind person. Note that I find zero sources usable at all for "celebrity gossip" which is what many others agree with.  As for using medical and scientific press releases, I provided a study pointing out that no newspaper really writes such articles on its own, and they all use press releases.  And that essentially no newspapers proofread or fact check any of their own articles.   Lastly, that the only egregious errors generally pointed out are in headlines, and we should bar headlines as being used to assert that any claim is made within an article from any source.  In short, that the proper finding should be "No Celebrity Gossip. No Headlines" in Wikipedia sourcing.  This answers all the issues about the Daily Mail, and a lot of other problematic claims. Collect (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Accurate or not, you know on a realistic level no proposal to ban celebrity gossip is going to pass. (The headlines one can probably be put in guidance however) Too many editors enjoy stalking updating their fave celeb. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the sort, kind person. Actually, you did. Guy asked if everyone will abide by consensus and you answered "No." That being said, I accept that you didn't mean you will not abide by consensus, though you still haven't explained your answer in a way that makes sense. I understand what your argument is above, though I find a few problems with it. For example, you said "no newspapers proofread or fact check any of their own articles." and that is just plainly false. One of the criteria for news sources is that the outlet have a reputation for proofreading and fact checking their articles. It's what an Editor's job is, in those places. Now, I understand this is true for press releases, but it's false for most news articles. I agree with what you are saying about celebrity gossip, unless the gossip is relevant and can be cited to something more reliable that "a good reporter's private source". I also agree with what you said about headlines, although again with the caveat that headlines can be used to inform questions of focus and tone we may have about the article, which is more of a meta-concern. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Um - I fear you have some level of comprehension difficulty. I never said I was not going to abide by consensus - I have abided by the slew of consensi in the past about the Daily Mail.   I pointed out that there is no history of those seeking once again to ban the DM of abiding by prior consensus. And the sad fact is that "proofreader" and "fact checker" positions have long departed in this era when over 60% of newspaper jobs have disappeared and their focus is on internet clickbait.  "Copy editors are being bought out or forced out; they are dying and not being replaced."  Not to mention major newspapers with articles about "amphibious baseball pitchers" and the like.   In 1912, the CSM reported that the Titanic passengers were all safe, and the ship "in tow."  In 1916, the New York Times reported that the new president would be Charles Evans Hughes.   In 2006, USAToday reported that all thirteen miners in the Sago Mine disaster wee safe. 12 died. On 2004, the NY Post reported that Kerry had chosen Gephardt as his running mate. But now computers with interesting ideas of their own are nothing compared to headline writers whose sole job is to attract readers. Total NYT employee count is only about 3,500. It was well over 5,000 only four years ago. More examples available on request. Collect (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can't engage without insulting other editors, you're going to end up blocked.
 * I pointed out that Guy asked a question. A question to which you responded "No." There's no level of comprehension difficulty that would allow me to operate a computer and yet still not understand that. If you weren't answering his question, but saying "no" in response to something else you should have made it clear what you were responding to, instead of the yes/no question that immediately preceded you stating "No". If you weren't responding to Guy at all, you should have indented your comment appropriately and done something (like quoting or summarizing whatever you were responding to) to indicate to what you were responding. Don't think for one second that the fact that your comment was poorly worded reflects poorly upon any other editor here, and don't think for one second that gives you license to hurl childish insults.
 * I'm not responding to the rest of your rant because I've responded to it below. But I will say that if you think that citing a handful of mistakes makes all news media inaccurate by definition, you probably have no business getting involved in discussions like these. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize if you feel I insulted you. Guy asked: "Can we all agree that, once several uninvolved administrators have evaluated the results of this RfC and posted a decision, everybody involved will accept the consensus and abide by that decision?"
 * I did not say "Collect will not abide by consensus" at all. I stated that experience here shows that such a prognostication about "everyone else" is not of much value.  I trust you see where the misreading might have occurred?
 * And the fact that a scientific study showed errors in 60% of articles including The Times and The Guardian does show that "fact checking" is not done even for those journals. And that study was on full articles, not headlines. Collect (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't "feel" insulted, I'd have to care what you think for that. But you blatantly obviously accused me of being stupid, so (unless you're once again meaning apparently the exact opposite of what you said) it's pretty damn clear you meant to.
 * I did not say "Collect will not abide by consensus" at all. That's right. You said "No." Directly after the question was asked. If you read the question, you might notice it's a yes or no question. I really don't understand what's so difficult about saying "Okay, I misspoke. I didn't mean that." I did it myself, just at the bottom of this thread.
 * As to the newspaper thing, unless you can prove that "60% don't fact check" is the same thing as "100% don't fact check" then once again: I've already addressed that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually there is fairly credible evidence that isnt the case anymore. A lot of print newspapers have eliminated their factchecking positions/staff. So while basic 'is this spelled correctly' proofreading is done, factual proofreading is not. Or at least, not by dedicated staff members. 'Editors' these days are not the editors of yore. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have been more specific: It was the "no newspapers" part that I was disagreeing with. If it said "most newspapers" I'd be in agreement. And yes, things were better back in the day. God, I'm old... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Marshall is touring with a talk on bad PR which identifies a lot of the reasons for this RfC, and why the situation has changed in recent years. Mail staffers have to turn out more stories per day than average for all newspapers, they tend to be young, in their first job in the industry, and they only stay a couple of years before moving on to a less awful job. The PR agencies know all of this so spoon feed them (and all journalists, but them especially) copy written in the house style. The rule of thumb is: if a company name is mentioned in the fourth paragraph, that company probably paid for the story. Mail staffers, especially, are harangued to meet targets, and pushing through a press release has pretty much no negative consequences, whereas not getting enough stories out, does. The Mail Online publishes more articles every day than any other newspaper website. It's clickbait farming, basically, and the fuel is PR (and of course the sidebar of shame). Guy (Help!) 17:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That appears to sum up your position - but how do you feel about the statistics that all of the newspapers use press releases, often with minor rewriting? Oughtn't we bar The Times and The Guardian for doing what is objectionable at the Daily Mail?  I fear I find the logic inherent in this RfC applies equally to all media, and any article which is likely to have come from any Press Release should be barred.    I still abide by my suggestion that zero sources are "reliable" for celebrity gossip, and that headlines be estopped from being used for claims of what an article itself claims.   This would keep out a lot of Daily Mail cites, and also cites from any media providing "celebrity gossip", stop the practice of using "multiple cites" which clearly derive from the same press release, and the use of headlines as supporting stronger claims than the body of an article supports. Fair enough? Collect (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The summary that Consensus has agreed to a ban does not really capture the views expressed.Martinlc (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why was this closed before even 24 hours passed from the start? Atleast you made it in the Guardian . I'll have to comment here then because the discussion was prematurely closed. Given how the tabloid's right-wing stance was referenced and mocked in several of the !votes, I'll just point out that the Daily Mail's reporting style has nothing specifically to do with right-wing ideas: it's a very British tabloid thing. There are plenty of Labour Party supporting tabloids with the same occasionally sensationalist and brute style such as Daily Record or the Daily Mirror. I can feel the Trump and Brexit angst in here. --Pudeo (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and, there's a discussion at AN about whether the close reflects consensus. SarahSV (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Pudeo (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Where one can find a list of other prohibited sources? I can't see it on spam blacklist, so I presume there's some other place where I can find sources like that? SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't one, as far as I know. That's precisely the problem with what's happened here. There should have been a general decision first to raise the bar on media-derived content and sourcing – or at least to be more explicit about what should be current practice – and then individual sources added to any such list if necessary, with clarity about when exceptions will apply. As opposed to one newspaper, which may be pretty shoddy in many respects but is not the worst offender at all, being zeroed in on out of the blue.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted on Administrators' noticeboard, and IMHO rest of the discussion should be kept there. SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Following my comment here whining against the lack of implementation discussion, I posted an RfC about the technical implementation of such source-bans here: Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 13:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Edward Tipper and List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans
Articles affected – Edward Tipper and List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans. The problem is that this person died on February 1, 2017, and the only source to justify it is this link. Of course, there's a user who claims that this is not reliable, but no other sources exist that can justify his death. What can be done about this? – Sabbatino (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems.
 * First, List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans is a page that's trying to go out of business. In spite of its title, it's a list of Easy Company survivors and gets shorter every year. Leo Matz, who's on the page, died (I think) a couple of years ago but I put him back on because the news about him didn't mention his service. The list, I think, started as an effort to include everyone but its focus shifted. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, we recently rejected a suggestion that a complete list of Easy Company personnel be created.
 * Second, Tipper does meet the criteria of WP:SOLDIER to even have a page. He no doubt served valiantly and faithfully, but if he had not been included in the book Band of Brothers and the subsequent HBO historical drama series we would never have heard of him. (Almost none of the men with pages qualify).
 * Third, Facebook is far from reliable. I Googled for an obituary and got no hits.
 * Although this exceeds the "charter" of this page, I would delete the list page and Tipper's page and almost all of the other Band of Brothers personal pages. -- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  19:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All is good with Tipper's source as The National WWII Museum posted about his death. As for Leo Matz – this page from 2016 indicates that he is well and alive. There is another article from 2013 that gives information about his current (well at least in 2010) affairs. And regarding the list – I agree that this particular page will be blank in the future and will be deleted. I would not have any problem if it was deleted now and I also agree that if not for the books and the TV series, nobody would even care about it. They were the same as every other soldier, but because of these two things they are treated as "gods". – Sabbatino (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found a valid source for Tipper. In passing, I suspect that the source of list for the 2016 article was Wikipedia. I've nominated the list for deletion. If someone here is familiar with AfD, please check my work.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of memoir written by the subject of the article but published in a peer-reviewed journal
Source:

Article: Draft:Roger Gosden

Content: The source will be used to cite reasons behind and inspiration for the research he conducted. Basically I want general advise on the use of Gosden's own memoir on article about him, taking into account it was peer-reviewed and published in scientific journal. If you click on the icon of the book on website link (the "look inside" thing) you can read part of it. &mdash; አቤል ዳዊት<span class="t nihongo icon" style="color:#00e;font:bold 80% sans-serif;text-decoration:none;padding:0 .1em;">?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have forgotten to declare your conflict of interest in relation to that person here,, though you quite correctly did so . Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You would treat it like one typically would handle a first party source about oneself. It could be used sparingly, for basic, objective facts, but not for anything remotely subjective or positive/negative about the subject. Using it to cite something like a birthdate? Sure. Using it to describe all their accomplishments. No way - you'd want to use third party accounts to figure out which accomplishments are deemed noteworthy of inclusion. You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to write an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Sergecross73   msg me  20:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both. And sorry, will do better about COI. So, basically only use for basic facts and dates that can be corroborated elsewhere. Got it. &mdash; አቤል ዳዊት<span class="t nihongo icon" style="color:#00e;font:bold 80% sans-serif;text-decoration:none;padding:0 .1em;">?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * it is a chapter in an edited book. almost every word of the header is incorrect. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Master list of "known to be very unreliable" sources?
Now that the DM has been banned as a source, is there a master list of banned sources? Rjljr2 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we drop this "ban" language? NPOV please. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Who are you, Sean Spicer?? Softlavender (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I just came by to give you an opportunity to apologize to me--NOT ACCEPTED. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * LOLz. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no such source. We could use such a list, but it would be more than just a list of "banned sources", since there are many nuances. It would be a list of sources that have been discussed at RSN, with a brief summary of consensus, and links to those discussions. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * E/c I raised this question in the thread (or another related one) and I think the answer is that no such list exists - at least not for newspapers. DrChrissy (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could have a WP:Index of Prohibited Sources :) It just is pretty crappy as a source of reliable facts and we have to acknowledge that. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed... Index of Known Unreliable Sources might be useful for people? The language should be something like a note to use extra caution when using these sites. Perhaps. Rjljr2 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * List of self-publishing companies is something along these lines, for identifying self-published (and likely unreliable) sources. Alcherin (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Something like WP:BEANS should apply here (and in the Daily Mail ban as well). For example, I think the following is typical of an inference that we're likely to start seeing: "Politicususa is not listed in the banned sites, so therefore it's reliable."   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The whole point of the current RS policy is about context and judgment. We shouldn't be in a position where some sources are always unreliable and hence banned while some are, by implication, always reliable. As for the accuracy of the term "ban", the RfC on the Mail was proposed as a "prohibition", which is pretty much the same thing.  N-HH   talk / edits  20:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * this came up so frequently with the Daily Mail, and the typical answer - not a great source but context matters - seemed fine. I didn't participate in this discussion because I was sure the answer would go the same as in all previous cases. It's not such a big deal for relatively experienced editors and intelligent people to parse sources like they always do. -Darouet (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There is an essay, Potentially_unreliable_sources, but of course it isn't policy. Generally speaking, while there are a few other sources we could probably stand to enact similar "general prohibitions" against, I'd be opposed to making these a general policy and introducing them in large numbers.  The logic behind why it is safe to prohibit a few clearly-unreliable sources ("if something were worth covering, it would be reported in a better source") starts to become weaker if you prohibit sources in large numbers.  It's also important to point out that the reason we had a big RFC on the Daily Mail was because it was exactly on the cusp where some people felt it was always unreliable and others disagreed - there are definitely worse sources out there (eg. Infowars), and it's not really possible to enumerate all of them.  Most of the time, simply applying the policy in WP:RS and having a casual discussion here when one or two people have a disagreement is enough to handle those situations. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, I'm afraid I can not agree with you here. A long time ago, I used the Daily Mail as a source (for some innocuous information on animal populations I think).  I have a certain set of detractors who came down on me like a ton of bricks for doing this.  Even today, several years later, this single use of the Daily Mail is raised by these detractors in attempts to prove that I am incompetent.  Whether or not the Daily Mail should be on a list, editors, especially new editors, should be informed that some sources are widely, widely disagreed with before they start editing and perhaps attract problems they don't wish to receive. DrChrissy (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:External links/Perennial websites covers a few extremely common websites, evaluating them both as external links and reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * discussion at RS: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Everybody in this discussion please take a look at WP:PUS perhaps an inadvertently appropriate acronym. It may not be necessary to create a new page for this purpose. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Friends of the Article V Convention
Source 

Article List of state applications for an Article V Convention

Content Any part of the page above that is reliant on this source.

I'm very troubled by the quality of this source. Also, the WP article seems almost as if it is an extension of their site! Please let me know what you think and correct me if I'm mistaken.Calexit (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no proof, but the referenced web page/site seems to be produced by one person. If there isn't at least one other reference for some of the claims made in the Wikipedia page, I'd consider cautiously trimming it to see what happens. Explain your actions on the Article's talk page. I'll put a watch on the article.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  00:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

radixjournal.com from Richard B. Spencer and National Policy Institute
I am at present attempting to expand the article on Julius Evola. A source that I think would be of value is JULIUS EVOLA, AN INTRODUCTION by E. Christian Kopff. Kopff is a notable academic, who has also provided introductions to English translations of Evola's works.

My reason for proposing the inclusion of this site as a reliable source is its inclusion of many notable writers. Kopff is one of them, also among them, according to its contributor list, are Alain de Benoist, Paul Gottfried, Guillaume Faye, James Howard Kunstler, Ricardo Duchesne, and Samuel T. Francis, as well as authors that editors might take more issue with, like Kevin MacDonald and Alexander Dugin.

Given the above, another question is - if the author is notable, can a writing of his hosted on the site of the NPI be cited? That is, some of the authors of articles might be rejected, but the articles of notable authors could be cited.

I seek editorial consensus prior to proceeding with a controversial decision.Gggtt (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Full text of the same thing is on archive.org here. Zero need to link or cite a WP:FRINGE site for this. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This article seems to come from The Occidental Quarterly - . If people think this is a better source, then I will use it. If not, I would like to enquire as to the possibility of using the work of authors from sites like this if they are notable, while rejecting non-notable authors from sites like this.Gggtt (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything a site like that posts is incredibly unlikely to be a reliable source for anything except "So-and-So accused Jewish people of eating gentile babies for breakfast" with a link to So-and-So's article "The Truth About Lox" at that site. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If we can be confident that the site really is publishing the work of those notable academics, then it is a reliable source for those authors' opinions only. And notable only because of the particular authors, as you are proposing. With such controversial opinions, the author should be attributed in the WP article. A higher quality source would be better if available. First Light (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Maxisciences
Is Maxisciences, a French website, a reliable source?. I am currently improving the article Breakout (video game), and I have found this source, whose contents are useful for verifying content in the gameplay section, but I need a confirmation that it is a reliable French source before I use it. Thank you. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 03:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it. It's run by the masculine lifestyle portal "Gentside", which provides info about "reach" and "brand", and how to advertise on the site, but nothing about editorial standards or identity. I've just randomly looked at a few of the "science" articles, and notice poor sourcing and a tendency to sensationalism ("mysteries", "amazing discoveries", etc.) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Milosevic trial
There's been a long-running dispute on the Slobodan Milosevic trial page, currently at the 3RR board, about including information from the ICTY ruling in a separate case, in which reference was made to the former Yugoslav presidents role in the Bosnian war. Basically one editor is insisting not only that the court judgment in the case of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic (a primary source) be included but that what it says justifies the Milosevic trial page, including the lead, stating that there is no evidence Milosevic committed war crimes. Per this section on the talk page, the judgment simply doesn't say that. The question is two-fold really: This could just as easily go to the NOR noticeboard I guess, but it seems to fit here too, as we do have a source.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the ICTY judgment a reliable source for the page at all? I guess it stands generally as reliable, but it is as noted about a different case.
 * Does the phrasing preferred by User:JamesJohnson2 accurately reflect the source material?
 * Court judgments is a primary source.--Shrike (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No and No. A primary source in itself is not forbidden, but it must be used with care, and it should relate directly to the subject, which is not the case here. Secondly, the ICTY document says there was not sufficient evidence presented in that case that Milosevic agreed with that specific plan. This falls far, far short of saying there was no evidence overall he committed war crimes overall during the war. --Dailycare (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the phrasing linked is not supported by the source. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not beyond the quote and 100% No. I suppose you could rephrase the quote to 'cleared in this specific case ', but it is complete misrepresentation to say that the findings were 'no evidence of war crimes'. Pincrete (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

On "fact-checking"
I commend editors who believe that major newspapers are paragons of accuracy to examine:
 * http://rrj.ca/a-checkered-present/  from 1999.
 * http://articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/newsweek  Newsweek dismantled its fact-checking staff in 1996.
 * https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/14/you-cant-have-a-healthy-democracy-without-well-informed-citizens-honderich.html Do not expect Google or Facebook to fact check anything.
 * https://www.chapman.edu/law/_files/publications/CLR-11-davidanderson-lillianbevier-caroldarr-eugenevolokh-johnleo.pdf "Nor is it helpful to try to distinguish blogs on the grounds that they aren’t  edited  or  fact-checked, and are thus more likely to be inaccurate. To begin with, many op-eds and newspaper columns are at most lightly edited and fact-checked, if that much.  Some magazines maintain professional fact-checking  staff,  but  most  newspapers  don’t."
 * http://www.designnine.com/news/content/news-downsizing-affects-reliability "The larger point made by Smerconish is that the pranksters behind the hoax got away with it in part because downsized news organization no longer have the staff to check this kind of stuff. In the "old days," newspapers particularly had a fact checking staff that made sure that what reporters put in their articles was actually true. "

In short, "fact checkers" other than the political ones who surface every four years, are almost extinct. Collect (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I commend editors who believe that major newspapers are paragons of accuracy If I ever meet any, I will let them know that you think highly of them.
 * To be clear: Are you contending (which may have been the word you were looking for, but still isn't quite the right word for that usage. I would suggest "challenge" as the most appropriate word.) that the mainstream media is unreliable, or that all media is unreliable? Neither contention is in line with WP policies and norms, but I want to be sure I understand what you're getting at. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Try Merriam-Webster "to recommend as worthy of confidence or notice".   I am pretty good at English after all these years.   Really.  Is there a reason you wished to interpolate a quite different word and meaning? Collect (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your syntax is still very unclear for usage in that sense (it would have been better to phrase it "To editors who believe that major newspapers are paragons of accuracy, I commend you to examine:"). But it doesn't really matter because I obviously understood what you meant. I asked you a question, do you intend to answer it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I trust my syntax was, in fact, both clear and correct. In fact, your odd suggestion of starting with a prepositional phrase is rather odd. I had a mom who was a Latin teacher, and went through four years of Latin, including a half year of Greek, as well as French and German. I stated, and iterate, that there exist absolutely no genuine "reliable sources" for "Celebrity Gossip" which I favour allowing for BLP article. Nor do I believe that headlines are an integral part of any newspaper article, reliably conveying the context of such article. Collect (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I have to agree that celebrity gossip material probably shouldn't ever be aloud in a BLP. The one exception I can imagine is if the subject of the gossip in some way draws attention to it by very publicly addressing it to such a degree that the whole matter becomes significant enough for inclusion. I'm thinking particularly here of maybe lawsuits or similar, when it might be reasonable to allow quotes from the gossip piece if those quotes are directly relevant to the lawsuit or whatever. I also tend to agree that, with maybe a few exceptions, like "Dewey defeats Truman" and others of that type which clearly summarize the content, headlines are often not the best sources. Also, I suppose, maybe, from what I remember, article writers don't always choose the headlines, so ascribing a headline to the writer of the article might be potentially problematic. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, your odd suggestion of starting with a prepositional phrase is rather odd. It was the only way to make your bizarre word choice make sense, syntactically. The way you phrased it, it's the editors you're commending, not the examination. Even though you clearly meant the examination. I think perhaps you should not rely on your mother's command of Latin, French and German syntax to inform your use of English syntax.
 * I stated, and iterate, that there exist absolutely no genuine "reliable sources" for "Celebrity Gossip" which I favour allowing for BLP article. You iterated, eh? I'd like to see where you repeated yourself even once, let alone enough to call it iteration. But that's beside the point. Could you quote the part where you mentioned celebrity gossip in the OP? I've read it a dozen times and the phrase (or any synonymous phrase) continues to elude me. It must be my comprehension difficulties. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (e-c) I think most of us know already major newspapers can be flawed, to put it mildly. Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair come to mind quite quickly. I've been involved in a few other "discussions" (again, being mild) here about some newspaper articles which facts indicate are flat out wrong as well. Unfortunately, except in a few cases where we know the sources are problematic, we here will have some difficulties in trying to determine exactly which generally reliable newspapers are and are not reliable in any particular instances. Except in those cases where the sources are discussed here or elsewhere at length, I think we do have to kind of "default" to accepting them for material of a breaking news type, and, unfortunately, we have to my eyes altogether too much of that here.
 * I remember that early editions of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include any articles on living people. I kind of wistfully wish we were able to do the same here, but I can't believe that will ever happen. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That pretty much sums up my thoughts. I have no doubt there are tons of factual errors in each day's news. But the news (specifically, the highly reputable, mainstream news) still remains the most trustworthy source for the news which we have. I'm not sure if I agree or not with your sentiments about BLPs, but it doesn't seem to be difficult to make a case for their exclusion. (I imagine the same could be said of current events.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Is Collect still pushing this garbage reframing? Daily newspapers don't have -- and, as far as I know, never really have had -- dedicated factcheckers. By the very nature of their publishing deadlines. it's not practical: a newspaper reporter is assumed responsible for the accuracy of reporting, backstopped by desk editors and copy editors. Awhile back, Collect made the breathlessly silly assertion that the New York Times "had laid off all of their factcheckers" -- something, again, they never had -- and just to confirm I ran it past an actual New York Times reporter I know. He agreed with me that the statement was, indeed, bullshit.
 * But then again, Collect has a history of playing games with sources when it suits him, for which he was sanctioned.
 * I assume that this is yet another |attempt around his topic ban, or at least stir up doubt around inconvenient political facts. --Calton | Talk 14:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you fail to understand what NO PERSONAL ATTACKS means? The New York Times, for example absolutely did have fact checkers - so your cavil that "'Daily newspapers don't have -- and, as far as I know, never really have had -- dedicated factcheckers" is absurd. In fact, we refer to having fact checkers as something which is good for a "reliable source."  Your "actual reporter" was likely not around in the 70s when the NYT still had them.  Was he there back then? Or is this aside pure BS.   Your commentary here has less than nothing whatsoever to do with actual discussion, and is purely an attack. Collect (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the commentary above constitutes a personal attack and should be struck. I also content that when one claims to represent what another has said or written and uses quotation marks to indicate this, that the bit enclosed in quotation marks actually be a quotation. The purported quote "No newspaper ever had fact checkers" does not appear in the comment above. Indeed, the version there is more nuanced and generalized: "Daily newspapers don't have -- and, as far as I know, never really have had -- dedicated factcheckers." and is not the explicit, unambiguous claim of fact which was responded to. It is both more specific ("Daily newspaper" vs "No newspapers") and left open as a heuristic (via the use of the adjective "really"). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the quote to be exact. The word "never" is in the original. Regret the Error should be read, by the way. The NYT and most dailies did in fact use proofreaders and fact checking, so "never" seems a reach indeed.  My uncle worked for newspapers, my grandfather owned a newspaper, my cousins owned several newspapers, and one cousin was an executive at the NYT.  Collect (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The word "never" is in the original.Yes, and it's part of the expression "never really" which we both damn well know means something very different than "never". But regardless, the thing you don't seem to understand is that your railings against the mainstream media are falling on deaf ears. I've asked you directly about this only for you to ignore the question, but I've noticed you have never said anything to indicate that you include the 'alternative media' in your assessment (indeed, you seem to specifically exclude it through your selection of examples), and despite all your railings, you have explicitly endorsed at least one (mainstream, in case you weren't aware) right wing bastion of yellow journalism. So I'm forced to look at what makes that outlet different, and can only conclude that it is the political leanings that make the difference for you.
 * So the one part of Calton's post that I don't take issue with is the suggestion that this is your way of pushing your political ideology without violating your topic ban. Which is fine enough, I suppose (I wouldn't argue that you should be sanctioned for it), except that you've -frankly- made quite a mockery of your own argument with your rhetoric and syntax. Of course, I'm open the possibility that we're currently experiencing a recession of news media reliability. Even ignoring the issue of fake news, it seems to me like it wouldn't be too hard to make the case that the media in general is unreliable now. Or at least is much less reliable than it used to be in the mid-to-late 20th century. It seems a viable hypothesis to me, though not one to which I currently subscribe.
 * But you're not making that case. Not even close. You're only making the case that people who believe that aren't good judges of reliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Is there a question here somewhere? Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, just railing about mainstream media, attempts to call out the failings in the logic and the odd personal attack. I think this thread needs to be closed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation via image & HTML comment alone
Does constitute an adequate citation? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If the link is to an image with the name therein quite clear, "cn" becomes a tad snarky. That template should only be used where the claim is not reasonably backed by a source. Collect (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no link to such an image. Please confirm which source you think "reasonably backs" the claim. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly you are being tenditious at this point. (For a link to the actual WP article, see here.) Firstly the article that was citing the sentence includes a picture of the front page of the newspaper with the editors name clearly visible. Unless you have a suggestion that the Guardian was mocking up (lying about) front pages of other newspapers this suffices. Secondly said front page of the newspaper *was already in the wikipedia article* as a picture, again with the editors name clearly visible. Thirdly the fucking newspaper itself is a valid primary source for the author of the article in the damn newspaper. If you are just complaining that the 'headline' was not necessarily written by the author, the diff above is just being pedantic given the mail online also publishes it with that title, article credit to Slack. Stop wasting peoples time with this shit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The "fucking newspaper itself" is not given as a citation in the article. Nor is the name legible in the image of it used in the Wikipedia article in question. The name is legible in the image shown in the Guardian article. My question is whether the edit I quoted in my diff - relying on an image on one source, in another - constitutes an adequate citation. It's troubling when an editor thinks a reasonable question about the quality of a citation (for the authorship of a newspaper article, not its headline, which issue was resolved in an earlier edit), here on the reliable sources noticeboard, is a waste of time; doubly so when they express that thought so abusively; even towards an editor who is not easily bullied into silence as some. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you see the picture of front page in the article yes/no? Did you read the source which included a picture of the front page yes/no? Does the front page include the editors name yes/no? Because you either a)didnt look at the reference used, or b)looked at it and decided that an article on the front page of needs an inline citation to say who its author is, despite it being available in a source referenced on the wikipedia article. Ask stupid questions and expect to be treated as such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, is an adequate citation for the sentence. It meets the policy WP:BURDEN. If an editor sees a problem with the sufficiency of the citation, then they could articulate the specific problem so that discussion could arrive at a consensus solution. Perhaps the citation could be improved by adding the |at= parameter to describe what portion of the page supports the statement. Or a second citation could be added. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've indicated that a second citation should be added, and have been reverted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Worldfolio
Is, which states "went on to study at both Harvard University and Dhaka University in Bangladesh", a reliable source for setting the infobox parameter alma mater in Samson H. Chowdhury to include the value University of Dhaka? (Dhaka University and University of Dhaka are synonyms, that is not the question.) An obituary in a well-respected newspaper says something similar, that he participated in "a Management Training Course jointly conducted by the University of Dhaka and Harvard University," but the nature of his participation is not stated. It could have been as a student or, for example, as a speaker.

Worldfolio (formerly IFC Reports) is a subsidiary of AFA Press. The "about us" and "careers" pages of the three stress being a "content provider", "delivering the content ... [for] reports that promote ...", and "our country reports, which are featured in leading newspapers around the world". Worldfolio supplements are inserted into well-known newspapers, but I haven't found Worldfolio cited in any reliable source.

I think their reports are advertorial. The older reports, such as and, are clearly labeled as advertising, but newer reports are not, merely stating that the newspaper with which they are bundled is not responsible for the supplement's content. Individual stories taken from the old and new reports are uniformly presented on Worldfolio's website as news, without any advertising disclosure.

Should this Worldfolio story be treated as reliable news reporting, opinion, something more like a press release, or what? --Worldbruce (talk)
 * It is not a good source. Use the obituary in the mainstream newspaper instead. I would read that as him participating in the course as a student - if he had been a lecturer that would have been notable enough to be specified. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of The Imperial Gazetteer of India (cont'd)
restoring the post, as there was no conclusion.

Hello all,

It seems the editor User:Sitush feels that the source The Imperial Gazetteer of India is biased, or as he says "unreliable". I have found a similar discussion with this editor from a few months ago, where the previous opposition made a few good points (albeit in a crude manner), and cannot find any valid rebuttals by Sitush in that thread before it was derailed. I note that at least one editor asked why the source was unreliable and did not get a reasonable response.

I also note that many of the sources discussed, including the one provided by Sitush himself in the discussion above, all are in general agreement with the text that is being cited in the article Phulkian sardars (Bhati Rao of Jaisalmar was a Rajput [forget the golden fort part for now], and this was the branch responsible for the Sidhu Jats). Since it does seem that Sitush is of a religious denomination that may have some conflict with the legitimate content that is supported by British sources, in no small part due to the history and evolution of British rule in India, I am asking if others can objectively contest whether the Imperial Gazetteer of India is unreliable.

It seems this is a good source used for many articles involving India, and provides us with some confidence that there is corroboration of claims from a non-ethnic source. Is this wrong? I note this source is also on wikisource. Surely the editor has erred? Also, it seems William Wilson Hunter (the visionary behind this compendium) isn't somebody whose life work we dismiss with blanket arguments like "Raj sources not reliable"? I have not seen anything from the opposition that provides strong counter claims to what is provided in the multitude of sources supporting the content he disputes.

Some articles I've found that this source is used in: (etc)
 * Richard Burn (indologist)
 * North≤western Provinces
 * Great Famine of 1876-78
 * Agra Province
 * Imperial Service Troops
 * Presidencies and provinces of British India
 * Saiyid Khurd

It really does seem this is a good quality source that the opposition does not like due to the content, and not the source.

edit: Hello everyone. It seems User:Sitush and User:Bishonen are ignoring Wikipedia ettiquette, where item (3) on What is Wikisource? article clearly states wikisource provides wp:RS, thus refuting alleged bias claimed by these editors. Can we please get some action on this matter? It seems Bishonen was involved previously as well, and as an administrator he is ignoring the established criteria of Wikisource. I also find it very curious that Bishonen called following protocol 'disruptive editing'. I will be posting htis on the administrator's noticeboard as wel. Thank you.
 * Wikisource identifies three categories of sources it holds. It says that, of the many things Wikisource contains, some are reliable sources. And if you head to the original full page of which that is just a summary, here, and from there to here, you'll see that Wikisource contains a lot of sources in various categories. So a source contained in Wikisource might be a (1), might be a (2) might be a (3), or might be something else which is not included in that brief summary. It does not say that everything held by Wikisource is a (3) and that everything held in Wikisource is a reliable source. Also, "reliable source" is not a yes/no option, and what are reliable sources for some things are not reliable for others - they need to be individually assessed in the context in which they are to be used. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, well, nothing stated in that source is disputed by the others in the previous RSN discussion. The source originally used by User:Sitush (given here) to argue that the original content was invalid (on the basis of "Raj source"), was self-contradicting because the "non-Raj" source said the same things as the sources used previously (which are now also supported by the Imperial Gazetteer of India, which was not used in the prior discussion).
 * I also find it curious that User:Bishonen attacked my english here, when he deemed the previous editor's concerns over Sitush's ethnicity as a personal attack even though it seemed more about conflicts of interest.
 * Such a conflict is apparent here, where User:Sitush and User:Bishonen claim the sources are not reliable, yet have been supported by a multitude of references.
 * User:SageRad suggested that criticising others' English comprehension was a personal attack, and the previous editor was banned as a result. As an administrator who was intimately involved in the previous situation, User:Bishonen should know better than to use the same tactics as the previous editor, especially when others deemed it as a personal attack (I do not, but a violation is a violation).
 * Is this not a double standard, where the perpetrators are now behaving in the same manner as their previous opposition? Sitush wastes no time attacking other authors, and I have yet to see any body of work that he has produced that validates his stance. He seemingly disregards any source that is British, even though for this specific tribe (Phulkian), the most reliable of sources would be British (given their alliance as early as 1803&endash;predating the cis-Sutlej states by two years)
 * I think what you need to decide is whether you want to use this noticeboard to try to get a consensus on the reliability of this source for the context in which you want to use it, or whether you want to use it to attack two other editors. The former is what this board is for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for engaging.
 * I disagree that I am attacking anyone. I think if anyone is being attacked, it was User:Bishonen attacking my english comprehension (as the other editor did towards Sitush, resulting in him being banned) instead of demonstrating the insufficiency of the source.
 * Now I will get back on point regarding reliability of the sources.
 * It is simple, really. One day, User:Sitush decided to delete legitimate content using "Raj sources unreliable" (a recurring theme if you inspect his edit history). Someone obviously took offense to that, as it is an attack on the reliability of the documentation of their family history.
 * As stated above, User:Sitush was originally challenged on this point (re: what made the cited content unreliable) by User:SageRad, and he did not muster an acceptable response, which presumably frustrated the (now banned) editor into asking about his english comprehension.
 * I think it is being charitable to say that Sitush's response to User:SageRad was arrogant, as it attacked prominent authors (among them James Mill, who fathered one of the greatest liberal philosophers of our time John Stuart Mill), but never answered the original question about what made the content of the source insufficient.
 * Was the (now banned) editor's response arrogant, as well? Sure, but it seems they correctly point out that the source Sitush provided to demonstrate the (removed) source's purported unreliability actually contradicted his point, as it contained support for the content that he removed
 * I find it hard to believe that the British would sacrifice the high quality of The Imperial Gazetteer of India (evidenced by its archival as a wikisource) by exercising bias (and thus being "unreliable") on this specific matter, especially after reading the source User:Sitush provides as evidence for the unreliability.


 * Secondly, I want to say, as the previous (now banned) editor also did, that this entire fiasco does feel like an embodiment of the history cited in The Imperial Gazetteer of India is on display here. Simply put, there were a select group of people who were fortunate enough to be allied with the British:

But the British Government, established at Delhi since 1803, intervened with an offer of protection to all the CIS-SUTLEJ STATES; and Dhanna Singh gladly availed himself of the promised aid, being one of the first chieftains to accept British protection and control.
 * To suggest that the Phulkian sardars' alliance with the British did not result in the majority of their history also being told by the British isn't reasonable. This alliance resulted in the Phulkians fighting Muslims, Hindus, and even Sikhs! (see below)
 * This clan did not like Maharaja Ranjit Singh (an alleged Sikh), and were suspicious of his plans after his friendliness with Muslims (whose history of griefing Gurus was still fresh at that time).
 * Thus, it is not a personal attack to show concern for removed content that is rigorously and multiply-sourced when the opposing editors are (likely) of faiths who are still sensitive about the events that occurred during the times documented by the The Imperial Gazetteer of India.


 * Lastly, and at the risk of belabouring the main point: the content unjustifiably removed by Sitush has multiple sources (the most recent of which is a wikisource).
 * After analysing the source provided by Sitush provided in the previous RSN, it is difficult to fathom that multiple "Raj sources" are all incorrect on this matter when they are consistent with what he originally provided.
 * In light of this, how can a reasonable person not infer the editing behaviour surrounding this content as a "Sitush knows [the] best [legitimate sources]" attitude? I feel I have taken a measured response that addresses the faulty criticism levelled by Sitush against The Imperial Gazzetteer of India.
 * This is not an attack on Sitush or Bishonen. Rather, it is an assessment of former & latter's behaviour on the earlier and current RSN respectively.
 * This response is simple Baconian induction of what they've provided.
 * I believe what was added originally was impartial and stuck to reliable sources, which are only disputed by those of religious denominations that were at conflict with the British (and consequently, the Phulkians) at the time.

I felt that what was added yesterday only emphasised the correctness of the content originally removed by Sitush and Bishonen approximately three months ago. Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.118.151 (talk) 16:36, January 22, 2017


 * In general 'historical' sources are unreliable in some areas due to the changing culture, further research, distance and time from events giving a more accurate and broader view, classified documents may have been released etc etc. For historical India, most contemporary sources have been superseded by newer ones. A historical source may be accurate for the opinion at the time, but not necessarily for facts (in fact more than likely to be not, given the historic bias in most publications). This is why RSN requires three things: Article, reference, content supported by reference. Please provide these three with a short explanation of why you think the source is reliable for the content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP has been blocked for three months. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They've been using a number of IPs, only one of which is blocked as a proxy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Only in death. I believe all three have been provided above, and while I respect your decision to not read it all (for whatever reason), I can only do so much I'm essentially repeating the above..
 * Article: Phulkian sardars
 * Reference: The Imperial Gazzetteer of India
 * Content supported by references, using the article modified by Sitush on December 2015 (commentary: if it was so "unreliable", why did Sitush not remove it all in December 2015, instead of inexplicably deleting it entirely in September 2016 when someone added a source?) :
 * Rawal Jaisal's descendents were of Sikh origin, and were Sidhu Brars: Here are four separate sources   (note, again, The Imperial Gazetteer of India is a wikisource).


 * I feel it is completely reasonable to hold User:Sitush and User:Bishonen accountable for their deliberate misinformation. I have shown four separate sources supporting the claims that Sitush left alone after his massive December 2015 edit, which he inexplicably deleted entirely in September 2015 after a single source was provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.109.239.64 (talk • contribs)
 * Accusing User:Sitush and User:Bishonen of deliberate misinformation is another personal attack, and I have already warned you about that. So you are now blocked, and you will be blocked for longer should you repeat it when your short block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would be highly unlikely to trust those sources for statements of fact about geneology, descent, or any other ethnic/race/caste/dynastic related facts - given the time period and biases (cultural as well as literal). Personally I would also exclude the information if they were the only sources available and look for better more modern ones to replace it with. If none are found, I would think a bit harder about if this material is worth including at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, it is your job to provide EVIDENCE that these claims are wrong. You clearly ignored the part above that clearly states that the family/genealogy in question would likely only be documented by a "raj source" given the alliance made. I've provided four solid sources that you, like Sitush and Bishonen, have claimed are biased without any basis.
 * Also want to add the fact that Sitush made the reversion no less than a minute after the revision was made, which I believe was insufficient time for him to process and analyse the sources rigorously. Even for the most initiated scholars on this matter, it would take them longer than a minute to interpret the claims before reverting. This further suggests that User:Sitush had no interest in doing that, as again it does not fit his narrative. I've now seen him refuse to participate in this discussion and use an abusive administrator User:Bishonen to avoid accountability for his actions.
 * Regarding User:Only in death's "support" for Sitush (if one wants to interpret it as that), I've answered this time and time again and it continues to be ignored due to the inconvenience. this "tribe" was allied with the "Raj" as early as the late 1700s, thereby making the documentation and discussion of their history almost exclusively Raj. The continued ignorance around this fact is astounding (as is User:Bishonen's personal attack that got the previous editor banned, and yet he goes unpunished [arguably "lifted" the idea from the original opposing editor]). --unsigned--
 * I have no comment on the particularly sourced involved, particularly since there seems to be little point looking into the source when others who are more trustworthy have said it isn't and you've made such a flawed claim that there's no reason to think you have any ability to gauge if a source is a reliable. To elaborate further, I agree with others that plenty of things in wikisource aren't going to be reliable sources. Your claim that the linked page claims all content there are reliable sources is a clear misreading. That page doesn't say all wikisource content are reliable sources, it simply says some stuff is, and one of the purposes of wikisource is to act as a repository for reliable sources where possible.  This is further reaffirmed if you follow the wikisource page Wikisource:Wikisource:For Wikipedians which says "Instead, professional publication is necessary for a work to be added to Wikisource. Wikisource also hosts source documents of historical importance, regardless of publication history". Neither of these criteria are enough to make something a reliable source, nor is there any other criterion which requires something is a reliable source for wikipedia.  (Which would mean they have to defer to discussions here on deciding whether something can be included. And makes no sense anyway since there are multiple wikipedias each with their own ultimately unique definition of reliable sources and while the en.wikisource is mostly likely to be used by en.wikipedia, it could also be used by simple or any other language wikipedia so if you they were to bar stuff based solely on it not being a reliable source on en.wikipedia, they might be excluding stuff which will be acceptable at other wikipedias. And as mentioned by others, even here 'reliable source' isn't a binary. Maybe a source or parts of a source are suitable for some things but not for others.)  Therefore wikisource itself is saying that not everything there is a reliable source. And while you can't necessarily trust them if they say that everything is a reliable source, it's definitely wise to trust them when they say, with good reasons, that not everything there is a reliable source.  Nil Einne (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine any way that the Imperial Gazetteer remotely qualifies as a neutral, third-party source, when you consider that the British had a very strong agenda and POV that they were pushing. First Light (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are questionable for a reason. A highly biased point of view is most likely present within British sources during this time period in that region of the world. I recommend using more modern academic journal articles and more modern academic books pertaining to this topic. Otherwise you have to gain consensus for using these sources, and so far that has not happened. Also, Wikisource is not generally a reliable source but is a repository for original published works of years past. If you could find other unbiased sources that say what is of value, or what is accurate, within the sources you presented- that might work. I suppose using Wikisource material is possible, if the information is not dated and no bias is present. There are probably other useful applications of Wikisource material, but it depends on the material and the reason for its use in an article. Why has it been accepted in other articles is WP:OTHERSTUFF by the way. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that WP:HISTRS still unfortunately only has the status of an essay, but quite a lot of work went into it from editors interested in history, including professional researchers and historians. All works of history written before 1945 have to be treated with great caution because they are often biased with nationalist and ethnic assumptions. That is not being disrespectful to their authors. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Reliable in principle, but on a case by case basis when applied to particular content. I think there have been far too many racial and cultural stereotypes and biases on open display here. The administrators of British India required accurate honest data and facts about those it ruled for it to function, it did not require propaganda or data massaged to fit alleged biases. It also had the self-confidence to feel it had no need for the production of such propaganda. In addition, the study of both contemporary and historical events from a viewpoint free from nationalistic or ethnic assumptions or biases was pioneered in Britain (though this standard has still not reached many corners of the world - in many countries, including India today, history is deemed to be subservient to national interests and requires rewriting and editing whenever it disagrees with that national interest). 19th-century British derived sources are likely to be more reliable than any other 19th-century sources. The kneejerk dismissal of this source as "Raj source" has no credible argument behind it - it is just editors expressing their political or cultural biases. However, it is always better to use more recent rs sources since they may have access to more source materials or new discoveries or be written in the light of newer writings. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But the information was not reliable. That's why they got into such a mess. For examples, see Census of India prior to independence, James Tod, H. H. Risley etc. The Brits were duped, usually by Brahmins and other high-caste groups (or groups claiming a high caste). They even believed tripe such as about Rani Padmini, which belief subsequently turned folklore into "truth" and has resonated in India with riots as late as this week. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Raj sources is endemic and indeed systematic. They got the wrong end of the stick in so many ways, right from the beginning, and persisted in their notions. The only way they can be deemed reliable is if a modern academic cites them for a specific point and in that event we wouldn't need the older source anyway. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, I think that for most of us who have been pointing out the non-neutrality and non-third-party relationship of the British in India, there is no "racial or cultural stereotype." We are simply pointing out an important Wikipedia policy and its application in this instance. In fact, some of my best friends are British :-). This WP policy would certainly explain one reason why the Imperial Gazetteer has been shown to be so unreliable — and thus why it's such an important policy for reliable sourcing. Sitush alludes to another RS policy explanation for why the Gazetteer is unreliable — not all of it was compiled and written by experts in history, race, and census-taking, so they were easily duped. First Light (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Are there people here who aren't signing their statements, or is half the above thread just really weirdly indented? It's hard to follow. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. Plus the OP has been blocked. And then it forked off into whether Wikisource is a Reliable Source, even though it's just "The Free Library." A bit like asking if a library is a reliable source. Now it's back to whether The Imperial Gazetteer is a reliable source, with a minor sidetrack of accusations of political and cultural bias. Just trying to save you some time and eyestrain. :-) First Light (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case no, its not reliable for statements of fact (which is what the IP wants to use it for) due to its historical bias given the circumstances at the time. This does not make it 'unreliable' in totality, it could be useful for current events (at the time) happening and so on, but any editorial content is hopelessly skewed by the historical situation. Its certainly not useful itself for historical (even to the 19th century) geneological/ethnic issues other than as a primary source 'this is what the people who wrote the Imperial Gazetter thought'. That itself may be useful to modern historians who want to analyse the mood/prevailing thought of the time, which is why we would cite a modern historian. Sitush has said it in deeper detail previously, so perhaps the history wikiprojects could get him to write a guideline specific to Raj-era source use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alleging "bias given the circumstances at the time" is just another example of the editor biases I am objecting to here. If you are going to allege this you need to be specific, cite sources that specify what "bias" and what "circumstances" and what "time", not just vague statements containing generalities based on your cultural stereotypes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, did you read the articles that I mentioned? Eg: Risley's obsession with scientific racism, Tod's obsession with Rajput fairytales, or Indian suspicion about British data gathering and their desire to manipulate such gathering to improve their position? I feel sure we have had this discussion before somewhere, Tiptoethrutheminefield - has anything changed? - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles you mentioned? All you did was make some wikilinks. Wikipeda articles do not count as sources or as sources for opinions on sources. Nor do your personal claims of "obsession" - a word beloved by tabloid-newspapers since it implies incorrect behavior or views without having to bother to detail any hard evidence. Rather like many of the opinions in this thread. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * More importantly, you have detailed NOTHING that would justify a blanket ban on this source. Where are your sources condemning the accuracy or veracity of The Imperial Gazetteer of India or of its editor William Wilson Hunter? I think what we have here so far are nothing more substantial than editors' personal prejudices and ideology. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles have the sources and plenty of people have weighed-in here. You just don't like it and, as Only In Death intimates in their comment of 16:58, 7 February 2017, it might be simpler just to ignore your opinion in future because it is so out of kilter as to be merely a time-sink. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, Articles for deletion/Dasti (tribe) was one such discussion, although I think there may be others. You were on the wrong side of consensus then and, seemingly, now. There comes a point when even you have to accept consensus, otherwise we'll just keep on reinventing this wheel. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Tiptoethrutheminefield, It's clear that this Gazetteer is not a reliable source for statements of fact, particularly regarding history, census numbers, and caste (geography, maybe, but I'm only guessing). Whatever the underlying reason for the problem — naiveté, written by non-experts, cultural/religious/racial bias, or the desire to present a POV to enforce government rule — is an interesting subject, but the bottom line is "not reliable." First Light (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly Tiptoe, to educate you on Indian & British Imperial history to explain the socio-political issues would take far too long and I highly doubt you would change your mind anyway. If you do not already by your own research understand why the Gazetter is not a reliable source for many statements of fact, there is little benefit to further discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see little in your editing history that qualifies you to be "educating" anyone on history-related subjects. Your editing reveals little interest in history in general - you seem to mainly frequent noticeboards. In contrast to you, most of my editing here concerns addressing problems associated with the manipulation and distortion of history for political aims. Contemporary India stinks of that problem. There, history is now required to do what contemporary Hindu extremist ideology dictates. I suspect that the desire to blanket-exclude this source is grounded in a desire to exclude all sources from an era that is off-message for the extremist ideologies that are now rampant in India. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Literally no one has suggested blanket-excluding the source. Are you having problem reading? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks I support "contemporary Hindu extremist ideology" needs to check my edit history and/or get a sanity check. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Only in death has pretty much said what I was thinking (not in the comment immediately preceding this, but much further above). Nevertheless, I would appreciate a link to a discussion or decision that establishes that existing consensus is indeed that "Raj sources" are not reliable. It seems remarkably broad-brush – I would imagine that some of them are reliable for some purposes --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically on the issue of the Imperial Gazetteer, I can see why it would not serve as a source of history or anthropology, but would imagine it reliable enough for Presidencies and provinces of British India, or for articles about postal services or railways or other infrastructure of its own time. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Blanket removal of sources just because they were written by British people about India between 1600 and 1947 is very unconstructive. So-called "Raj sources" would be more reliable than others in the administrative structure and the relations the British authorities had with other states, for example. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one has said that they're unreliable for everything. There are exceptions and you will note that I have edited articles and left them in (including, I think, the one that you link). Common sense is all it takes. Broadly speaking, I remove them for history and social issues but not, for example, for basic governance matters that were contemporaneous with their publication. You will note that my user page screed linked way, way above relates to "Caste sources". - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)