Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 247

SPLC: not a reliable source
The SPLC is a political advocacy group that has been often discredited. Its use on the UDC page is inappropriate and should be removed. Further discussion around the subject of using biased references can be found on the talk page. The sentence in the Current Status section of the page: "The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the UDC as a Neo-Confederate group with close ties to white supremacist groups such as the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens.[39]"historicaljohnny (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Find an RS that says it has been discredited. Daughters of the CONFEDERACY?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So perennial that it's also listed at WP:RSP. — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:PaleoNeonate - WP:Rsp is not valid; the essay of notes begun by what MrX thinks is not policy, consensus, nor really complete. Might be useful somewhat but a RS is judged in context of a specific item and may refer to RSN -- someone having a blacklist or whitelist does not supercede those.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:PaleoNeonate - there are numerous RS saying it has been discredited in various ways from the FBI to lawsuits to embarassing mistakes... but those are not applicable to the question here of whether it is RS for the context of this particular question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear: my point was to check the archives instead of constantly repeating the loop. For RSP it's now a community effort: feel free to try to improve it, of course.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:PaleoNeonate checking the RSN archives is valid; but Rsp is just a bad idea.  Can't say I'm well pleased with the notion that half the largest British papers were all summarily Redlined.   Fundamentally, making a faves list to help BESTSOUCES is one thing, but not if its going to wind up declaring something 'reliable' without context of a specific item and interferes with open RSN discussion.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Please review the discussions there. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SPLC is a reliable source for our purposed, but its use needs attribution. The problem with using SPLC as a source is usually one of undue weight - NPOV/n is probably the right noticeboard for that. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 13:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Claims that Daughters of the Confederacy are not neo-Confederate are officially the craziest things I've seen all day. And SPLC is definitely a WP:RS as per and  Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add that looking at the UDC page, the use it is not sourced to SPLC but to multiple historians. SPLC is only an RS for its own opinion like other advocacy sources, but that opinion has been given too much weight in some articles. However, the UDC article soes not seem to cite SPLC at all, and I don't think SPLC is needed since it's opinion wouldn't add much to the multiple book and encyclopedia references that are already in the article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 13:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article does cite the SPLC, . See United Daughters of the Confederacy. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but not as a fact, but for something they have said.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Noting that the OP is a WP:SPA who has accused editors of deliberately trying to slander the UDC, of being a cabal, etc. I doubt we can satisfy him unless we all agree with him. Doug Weller  talk 14:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with the above (SPLC is an RS, but the claim about being Neo-Confederates should be attributed, which it all is), but I would not leave its assessment standing by itself in the "Current Status" section. It's relevant to point out the SPLC's listing with the modern-day criticism of the group (and when searching, I'm surprised that there's no discussion on the connection to the monument takedown after the rally last year, SPLC, and the UDC which comes up when I was spot-checking news stories) It is not the case here, but if the only entity claiming a group is a hate group is the SPLC and there's not other discussion in that area, inclusion of that may be undue. But again, not the case here, just misplaced where it is used. --M asem  (t) 14:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks like it was added to the wrong section so I've moved it. It's now in United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy. Reading the article, I'm not sure that it verifies the content it is cited for. The article doesn't say they have close ties with LoS or the Council of Conservative Citizens, only that they "shared the podium". The SPLC is generally reliable for the groups included on their list as hate groups, but these opinion articles are different. They acknowledge that UDA is a "mainstream" group. Contrary to the content this is cited for in the article, I don't think they actually have a "Neo-Confederate" list. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right - they do have Neo-Confederate, but the UDC is not on it. . Also, the cited article was back in 2000, so perhaps they were on that list then, but they are definitely not now. Someone did a rather poor job in inserting that in there. --M asem  (t) 14:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've used a more recent source from the SPLC that places them with the neo-conf. movement (but not as a hate group) with a newer 2010 article they published. --M asem (t) 15:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The SPLC description belongs in the lead, not the criticism section. Neo-Confederate merely means that they have an alternative explanation of the Civil War, that it was about states rights and protecting liberty not about slavery, and support the preservation of monuments to Civil War leaders and battles. Saying neo-Confederate is a concise way of saying, "The stated purposes of the organization includes the commemoration of Confederate soldiers and the funding of the erection of memorials to these men. The organization's treatment of the Confederacy, along with its promotion of the Lost Cause movement, is viewed by historians as white supremacy. The UDC denies assertions that it promotes white supremacy." TFD (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. Is there criticism that the UDC is a Neo-Conf group? Sure. Is it significant criticism with the weight of the other aspects of the UDC? No, at least when I was spot-check searching through sources and over the history of the group to determine how the SPLC was classifying them. It's fair to say in the lead that some consider the group as part of the Neo-Conf movement. But I will stress again that the SPLC actually does not list the UDC within its list of Neo-Conf hate groups, only as part of the movement. --M asem (t) 20:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it a criticism? What specific aspect of neo-confederacy does the league reject? I agree that the SPLC does not describe the UDC as a hate group for the very good reason that they are not a hate group. No reason why the article should claim that they are. TFD (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources including the SPLC broadly seem to claim any group associated with Neo-Conf is tied with white natioanlist/white supremacy ideals. UDC doesn't seem to dispute that they are supporting values of the Confederacy, but they do dispute that they are supporting values of white supremacy. As we are in the realm of labeling, we recognize these are all statements of opinion/analysis, which all should be attributed (they are) and taken as criticism of the group that they dispute rather that non-contestable facts. --M asem (t) 21:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Masem, no, the SPLC says that neo-Confederacy "overlaps with the views of white nationalists and other more radical extremist groups." Very clearly not all or even most neo-Confederates are racist, although some are. Similarly there are religious radical extremist groups but calling a group religious is not labeling it as extremist. TFD (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From the same SPLC link "Neo-Confederacy also incorporates advocacy of traditional gender roles, is hostile toward democracy, strongly opposes homosexuality and exhibits an understanding of race that favors segregation and suggests white supremacy." That is, SPLC is broadly claiming any group they call Neo-Conf is connected to racism and white supremacy. I don't if the UDC objects to all parts of that, but they clearly denounce the racist/white supremacist views. That's the problem with labels, because the definition shifts based on speaker, which is why we use attribution and don't treat as fact. --M asem (t) 23:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is wrapped around "neo-confederate" axle so to speak. This has nothing to do with the UDC and all the bias lined up to oppose anything that sheds light on the truth of the UDC. This is about an attack. An attack so prejudiced against the UDC that an 18-yr old article from the SPLC has to be added in as an afterthought at the end. The fact is the entire UDC article itself is horrid. The SPLC as a source is used against the UDC is misplaced and incorrect in technical terms, (the UDC is not specifically listed as a "neo confed hate group", but that was not the point as other groups have been erroneously been placed on there for political reasons - tainted the entire org) as someone has pointed out, but at the core, it is a discredited and suspect cite. So why on earth would the editor(s) use it in the first place? I already know the answer but I'm looking for anyone that can do an honest drill down into the SPLC and find them to be even remotely unbiased. In this case, deeming them invalid and unbalanced so as to warrant their removal completely. historicaljohnny (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neo-Confederate means they interpret the Civil War as based on the issue of states' rights and individual liberty, rather than slavery, and seek to preserve Confederate monuments. Is there anything wrong with that assessment? Are you saying that they advocate removing these monuments or that they now villainize Lee, Davies, et al? TFD (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't really see your point TFD? Honestly, the term "neo-confederate" itself is a label thought up by, well, scholars looking to push through a dissertation and make a name for themselves. It's a load of horse dung. The South has always been consistent about their stance on the causes of the war, it's others who classify and make labels to fit their own agendas. Neo-confederate, or whatever name you want to conjure up, is not the point. It's the unbalanced sources used here which is why we're having this discussion, particularly, the use of the SPLC as a non reliable, discredited organization in which to source; aside from the fact it looks to have been added in just to find something to throw mud on the UDC as it exists today. If you wish we can look at James M. McPherson, too. He is also cited on the UDC page, a qoute from a radio program back in 1999, but what is really at issue is the fact that he is a full-on biased political advocate basically tilting his historical reputation, and denouncing anything "Confederate". To the victor goes the spoils, the historical narrative, but that's ridiculous. Not that he can't be used as a RS, but the editors should then balance his "opinion" with an alternate opinion of equal weight. They have chose to revert every attempt at refutiation and balance. You know the game here. Recall, even B. Obama turned down McPherson's request that The Pres. not lay down a wreath at the Confederate memorial at Arlington Cemetery in 2009. Can you truly think of anything so petty? See his pagehistoricaljohnny (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source for analysis and conclusions they have made, and these conclusions should be attributed. Certainly, this particular conclusion made by the SPLC has been cited by many respected scholars. But one of the larger questions here is whether the UDC can be called a neo-Confederate group in Wikipedia's voice. If scholars are in agreement on the point, then I think we can. Historian Irvin D.S. Winsboro of Florida Gulf Coast University writes that UDC is a neo-Confederate in his 2016 paper "The Confederate Monument Movement as a Policy Dilemma for Resource Managers of Parks, Cultural Sites, and Protected Places: Florida as a Case Study." Historian Jonathan Zimmerman writes that the UDC was founded in the belief of neo-Confederacy in his article "A Confederate Curriculum: How Miss Millie taught the Civil War", published in Latham's Quarterly. Historian Euan Hague of DePaul University writes that the UDC is neo-Confederate in the book Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction, with the SPLC's Heidi Beirich as one of two co-editors. The other co-editor is Edward H. Sebesta, an anti-neo-Confederacy activist and researcher who co-wrote with Euan Hague the scholarly paper "The Jefferson Davis Highway: Contesting the Confederacy in the Pacific Northwest", published in the Journal of American Studies. Sebesta appears again, teaming up behind sociologist and historian James W. Loewen, in the book The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause' , which describes the UDC as neo-Confederate. Loewen also says that the UDC is neo-Confederate in his book Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong (2010). Historian Francesca Morgan of Northeastern Illinois University wrote the 2005 book Women and Patriotism in Jim Crow America, which says that the UDC's mission was "to produce neo-Confederate nationalism", and describes this connection in detail. Morgan's book was reviewed favorably in scholarly journals. Dr. Faith Agostinone Wilson, EdD, of Aurora University, writes that the UDC is neo-Confederate in the paper "Neo-Confederate Ideology & History Textbooks – 1860 to 2010", which is reproduced as a chapter in the Springer book The New Politics of the Textbook: Problematizing the Portrayal of Marginalized Groups in Textbooks, edited by Heather Hickman and Brad J. Porfilio, ISBN 9789460919121. And of course there's Karen L. Cox, historian at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who describes the UDC as a neo-Confederate group in her book Dixie's Daughters, which is already cited in the article. So I think we must say in Wikipedia's voice that the UDC is indeed a neo-Confederate group. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * An issue with that - and predicating I can't see those sources (access-wise) and that this is probably getting off -topic, is that the term "neo-confederate", like most labels, appears to be a diffuse term that changes meaning depending on who is writing the article. Some definitions seem to focus mostly on the notion of how the South was fighting for states rights (aka the revisionism or "Great Truth" aspects) with hardly a mention of racism or white nationalism/supremacy. Some definitions (like SPLC's) directly link neo-confs to these matters. This appears why the UDC had to issue a statement to say we support this part of the neo-conf's cause but not this part others associate with it. I cannot see which version that is used in those sources above, but I still would argue that its a diffuse term even there. As such, we can't really accept the label as "fact", but certainly there's more than enough to make the state that the UDC are seen as neo-confs, providing those sources above as well as the SPLC (as I did earlier) with inline prose attribution, and ideally explaining why they can be called neo-confs. Until there is a more solid, non-diffuse meaning of Neo-Confs, we should just use caution in spelling it out. We still must include that they are labeled as such but just not in WP voice per WP:YESPOV. --M asem (t) 01:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Binky, that's just it. Every single source you bring into the equation regarding the attempts to paint the UDC as a "neo-conf org" is beside the point i'm trying to convey in the use of biased and non-neutral sources on the UDC page. Here you show your own bias, and the bias of those "authors" "scholars" and "historians" you cite above that you latch on to like groupthinking lemmings running off a cliff. Do any of these experts actually look into the STATED OBJECTIVES AND MISSION AND PURPOSE of the UDC? Probably not because they won't even allow those ojbectives on the page, like other organizations do. Anyone? The very edits I have tried to introduce to the page (as have others) are quickly reverted off the page. Does anyone realize that the organization is a non-profit charitable org., and therefore, must adhere and abide by the laws of the United States? Period. If the UDC adopted some kind of racist, white supremacist, KKK centric ethos, that it then acted upon or encouraged members to act upon, (even in words, not just deeds), it would cease to exist. No, the attempt here is to destroy the UDC and disparage it by an overwhelming inclusion of highly biased and activist references, with no recourse for balanced inputs.historicaljohnny (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that, like many people, you fundamentally misunderstand how our project works and what our mission is. Wikipedia, by basic foundational policy, based its content on what is published in mainstream reliable sources. Your complaint appears to be that mainstream reliable sources in the field of Civil War and postbellum American South history view the UDC as part of a Neo-Confederate paradigm. We can do nothing with this complaint. Your argument is with the sources, not with editors, and your only recourse is to change the mainstream historical viewpoint on the UDC and neo-Confederateism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * SPLC is a reliable source. The statement is appropriately attributed to SPLC and is also supported by several other RS. –dlthewave ☎ 01:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * SPLC is a self-declared advocacy group, e.g. https://www.splcenter.org/about so would be considered a part of this field valid as a WP:BIASED RS in the context as one of the POVs. The line attributes the opinion to them as directed by WP:BIASED, seems an accurate portrayal of their material, and does not look like UNDUE weight given to them.  A valid RS in this context for the line as stated.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing -- literally nothing -- to do with reliability, so it doesn't belong on this board. The question is notability and bias. I would say that incontrovertible statements of fact cannot have bias. "The moon is round" cannot be a biased statement; it's just flat true. "X said Y", if you can prove its true, cannot be a biased statement; it's just flat true (if proven).


 * Not OK: "The UDC is a Neo-Confederate group" [ref: SPLC] (Not OK because SPLC is not unbiased. It is notable (IMO; arguable), but is not a reliable source for this fact unless they prove it (which would be very difficult).
 * Not OK: "Joe Nobody, on his blog, lists the UDC as a Neo-Confederate group" [ref: the blog] (Not OK because it's not notable. Bias doesn't enter the picture ("X said Y"), and it is a reliable source for its own contents.)
 * OK in my opinion: "The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the UDC as a Neo-Confederate group". (OK because the SPLC is notable (IMO), bias not an issue ("X said Y"), and it is a reliable source for its own contents.

This belongs... somewhere else. Probably on the article talk page, with an RfC if necessary. A discussion over whether the SPLC is notable enough to inform the reader of what it thinks, and whether putting this fact in this place in the article is in and of itself sneaking in NPOV (different issue than whether the fact itself is biased, which obviously it can't be) could be fruitful. Not here. Reliability is not in play. Herostratus (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a reliable source. If there is another reliable source that says that the United Daughters of the Confederacy is "a part of the Neo-Confederate movement that began in the early 1980s" then we should use that source. If the only source is the SPLC we should omit the claim, based upon the SPLC being an unreliable source. On the same page where the SPLC makes the claim about the UDC, they say that the Ludwig von Mises Institute is part of the neo-Confederate movement. Other examples where the SPLC got it wrong and stood by their position -- often for years -- before caving in in the face of lawsuits or public outcry are Gurnee, Illinois Amana, Iowa, ) Maajid Nawaz, any many, many others.


 * "Ironically, the SPLC not only overlooks most of the real hate groups in operation today, along with overtly race-based organizations, such as the pro-Latino National Council of La Raza and MEChA, but also labels moderates with whom it disagrees “extremists” if they deviate from its rigid political agenda, which embraces open borders, LGBT rights, and other left-wing totems. The SPLC has branded Somali-born reformer Ayaan Hirsi Ali an “anti-Muslin extremist” for her opposition to female genital mutilation and other oppressive Islamic practices, and designated the respected Family Research Council as a “hate group” for its opposition to same-sex marriage. Likewise, the organization deems mainstream immigration-reform advocates such as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) as hate groups. British Muslim activist Maajid Nawaz—regarded by most observers as a human rights leader—is suing the SPLC for listing him as an extremist."


 * "Despite numerous exposés over the years in publications spanning the political spectrum—including Harper’s, The Progressive, The Weekly Standard, Reason, the Baltimore Sun, and even the SPLC’s hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser—the liberal establishment continues to treat the group as credible, largely because its preoccupation with right-wing bigotry aligns with the stereotypical view of liberals who dominate newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times. In our polarized culture, the epithet “hate group” is the ultimate slander of political opponents. The SPLC’s spurious imprimatur gives mere calumny gravitas, allowing liberal journalists to wield its highly charged judgments as a weapon, citing it as if it were a dispassionate authority. Many liberal (or merely lazy) journalists discredit conservative organizations by noting that they are “listed by the SPLC as a hate group,” treating its often dubious designations as gospel truth."

For the real hate groups, there are plenty of sources calling them hate groups, and we should use those sources instead of the SPLC. If the SPLC is the only source, then the "hate group" is very likely to be no such thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That you can find criticism of it (of which I find dubious, e.g per WaPo, "But it was Rothbard’s founding of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 1982 that enabled the fledgling political movement to establish affinity with the neo-Confederate Lost Cause movement.") - doesn't make SPLC not a reliable source. RS heavily use SPLC and often treat it as authoritative, so its labeling (attributed) should be included. If there is controversy over a certain labeling, criticisms of the labeling should also be included but that doesn't mean that SPLC should be exluded Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I am sure we an find any number of sources saying "X is wrong, they called me a newt, but I got better". That does not mean they are not an RS (if it was then no one would ever be RS).Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are focusing on the wrong policy. If the SPLC is the only source to apply a label... the potential problem is whether mentioning its opinion is UNDUE weight.  That is a WP:NPOV issue, not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, the issues raised, here, are at best undue and balance issues (NPOV), not RS -- the SPLC is RS for what the SPLC says it says, and where the issue is what it says about UDC is somewhere in (or not in) the mainstream is a due issue, and critique or response is a balance issue. We do not (are not suppose to) put things in articles only because they are RS. (Also, either hold a widely attended RfC on whether to bar the SPLC, ex omina, or follow non-disruptive ordinary application of policy/guideline where we take a proposed statement and we take a source in context because in the meantime CONTEXTMATTERS and it always will.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the reason we mention that the SPLC has determined it is neo-Confederate is that mainstream sources routinely phrase it that way. The opinion has weight because it is regularly mentioned. If you prefer, we can use a book such as Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction and flat out say it is neo-Confederate without in-text attribution. Since as another editor said there is unanimity in reliable sources on this point, it might be misleading to infer that it is merely the opinion of the SPLC. TFD (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This comes up often enough that we should probably consider putting a note somewhere on the page. The SPLC is broadly considered a reliable source, though since they're often covering controversial things it's normal to cite them with in-text attribution - and, of course, both reliability and WP:DUE always has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. (Certainly, while there's been a vocal minority repeatedly trying to accuse the SPLC of being broadly unreliable, they've always fallen short to the point where continued efforts to push that position should probably be considered WP:DEADHORSE unless something dramatic changes.) It's attracted criticism, but most of the criticism people keep reposting in these discussions is from op-eds, thinkpieces, and the like; and conversely, it's still widely treated as a sterling source in academia when discussing hate groups. --Aquillion (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * responding to the OP, the use of SPLC is fine on the United_Daughters of the Confederacy page; its attributed and noteworthy. This is just advocacy-driven unhappiness with a legitimate use of a source. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Destroyer History Foundation
The Destroyer History Foundation website was the website of the late Dave McComb about the history of U.S. Navy destroyers, was maintained only by him so had no editorial control; he also had no formal training as an historian (a bio of McComb is at The Post-Star ). However, his site has been cited by history.com, KBTC-TV, and at least one book by Robert Stern, who is a noted naval historian ; he authored a book on this topic for Osprey Publishing ; has given lectures to both museums and the US Navy itself on the subject of American destroyer history , and he was a member of the advisory group of the American Naval Records Society. Is the Destroyer History Foundation RS for the subject of US Navy destroyer history? Chetsford (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that the author of the website was professionally published in this field, I think it's entirely usable. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If a respected newspaper profiles a blog, can that newspaper article and the blog be cited to in a Wikipedia article?
The entry below for the law firm O'Melveny & Myers appears to be in dispute. Please advise. Should the link to the blog be removed, and only the link to the article included? The article is behind a paywall but I can verify its contents (access it through Google or Twitter to get around the paywall).AMDefforts (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

However, The American Lawyer profiled a blog written by a former attorney of the firm and winner of the Wall Street Journal Lawyer of the Year award in 2007, who claims the Vault rankings are manipulable, and who has written critically about the firm's handling of discrimination and sexual abuse matters.


 * Don't include inline external links, to blogs or any types of websites, and don't include citations when those citations are not sources specifically supporting the content. As for the citability of the blog itself: no, generally we shouldn't accept blogs by random employees of the companies under discussion (I'm assuming that's the topic of the article, lacking a link), and when it comes to BLP (which may be involved, again pending a link) blogs by anyone other than the living person in question, which is almost by definition going to be the case when there are multiple people, personal blogs are never citable. Anyway, being "profiled" in a newspaper doesn't make a blog any more or less reliable, although it might theoretically make the opinions/claims of its author more noteworthy; if a newspaper independently verified the content of a blog, then cite the newspaper, not the blog. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The OP is a new account and has only edited one article, O'Melveny & Myers, so it's a good bet that's the one being talked about. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much the blog is removed.AMDefforts (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Iran Review (iranreview.org)
In particular, [this page] as a source for the origin of rose water, but also reliability in general. It's cited about 30 times in various articles. Claims here to be "the leading independent, non-governmental and non-partisan website – organization representing scientific and professional approaches towards Iran’s political, economic, social, religious, and cultural affairs, its foreign policy, and regional and international issues within the framework of analysis and articles" but I can find little other information about it. --IamNotU (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable While it claims to have multiple staff and, therefore, a gatekeeping process, any website - not otherwise the subject of coverage about itself (which iranreview.org is not) - can do so to cultivate the appearance of legitimacy. A search on Google News and Google Books finds no RS in which its reporting has been cited other than a single footnote in this Routledge text . It also doesn't publish a physical address for itself on its website, nor is there one publicly registered on its WHOIS entry and even its registrar - apparently - couldn't be located when it was sued, ergo iranreview.org has no disincentive to publish defamatory content nor incentive to engage in rigorous fact-checking since it could never be held legally liable. It also has basic spelling errors on its website that are not indicative of a reputable operation (e.g. the first link I clicked on here misspelled the word "source"). Chetsford (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful info! --IamNotU (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Berghahn journals
I have never heard of this publisher before. Do they publish peer-reviewed journals? I found this paper, which could form the basis of a Wiki article about the San Barnabas Topo Chico neighborhood in Monterrey, Mexico. Topo Chico was a recent G11 deletion and was a 2010 G3 deletion. San Barnabas Topo Chico was an old settlement at the site of the mineral spring, became a tourist attraction, had a tramway built to it, and is now a part of Monterrey. Is the article I posted a reliable source? Does Berghahn publish reliable sources in general? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They claim to be .Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

When are Reliable Peer Reviewed Reviews Properly Deleted From the Bibliography in Favor of Just Two Preferred (but Older) Reviews?
I'm seeking input regarding my effort to include citations to reviews published in peer reviewed medical journals regarding Abortion_and_mental_health

As you will see on the history and talk page, a number of editors believe that only two reviews, a 2008 review by the APA and a 2011 review by the NCCMH should be discussed or cited in the article. In fact, numerous other peer reviewed reviews were published in the time frame and over a variety of conclusions and critiques of prior reviews. The most recent review, Fergusson (2013), was specifically designed to test a conclusion offered in the NCCMH review by means of a meta-analysis.

My efforts to simply cite these other reviews to identify their existence, even without discussion, have been reverted with the explanation that the dated APA and NCMHH reviews are the final word and that no other literature reviews should be cited or discussed until such time as the APA or NCMHH acknowledge them as superior.

Specifically, my edit here simply states:
 * Numerous systematic reviews on the associations between mental health and abortion have been conducted.[13][4][14][15][16][6][17][18][19] Each has also been the subject of criticism by other reviewers.[14][16][20].

All of the cited reviews are published in highly respected peer reviewed medical reviews. I believe anyone researching the issue would appreciate having a list of reviews included in the bibliography, but the other editors appear to want to include only those reviews which reflect their POV. Moreover, I believe that reviews subsequent to the APA and NCCMH review that critique those reviews are relevant and deserve not only citation but discussion which affords them due weight. Here is one example of my attempt to do so, discussing Fergusson as the most recent review. It was completely reverted, even though the stated objection was that I gave it undue weight...which implies my edit should at most be abbreviated, not deleted.

An additional frustration is that even my efforts to more fully report what the APA 2008 review stated, have also been reverted, apparently because other editors insist that their approval is required for including material even from their own preferred sources. If there is consensus that some reviews, like the APA review, are reliable sources, is it appropriate for editors to delete material from even these sources which include statements that limit and qualify their other statements? In this case, the APA report states that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that abortion is the sole cause of mental health problems but acknowledges that "some women" do have mental health problems, especially if they also have other risk factors, such as aborting a wanted pregnancy. Is it appropriate for editors to delete content from one of their own preferred sources simply because it would undermine the editors' overly broad claim, unqualified, assertion in the lead that "abortion does not result in mental health problems," a viewpoint that goes farther than the actual language of the APA's review much less Fergusson's meta-analysis and other subsequent reviews.-- Saranoon (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Commenting as an involved editor. The title of this thread is an indication of some of the problems here. The situation isn't that complex:
 * There are numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the subject of abortion and mental health.
 * The major expert bodies in the English-speaking world&mdash;the American Psychological Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists&mdash;have each reviewed the topic, synthesized the available information, and concluded that abortion does not increase the risk of mental-health problems.
 * is insistent on highlighting a single paper, by Fergusson et al., to downplay those conclusions.
 * So this is a clear issue of undue weight, rather than reliable sourcing. Reputable expert bodies are unanimous in saying X, and a single paper says Y. Saranoon wants to present X and Y on essentially equal footing. We generally give precedence to position statements and professional guidance from major medical expert bodies over the contents of a single paper, and all the more so when several major medical expert groups are unanimous. (If someone could get Saranoon to stop using what is obviously a sockpuppet account, that would be nice too). MastCell Talk 22:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Looking into this, that latest review has a few dozen citations. But as far as I can see, every subsequent publication that actually addressed the same question disputed the conclusion of that review, except for a couple of publications by the original authors. This definitely seems to be the viewpoint of a small minority. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't look like a problem for this noticeboard, as it is a matter of WP:NPOV (balance versus undue emphasis) rather than being a matter of WP:RS. But to give my opinion here, I should think that a single study disagreeing with the consensus should not collapse a continuing consensus. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not a question about objecting to a "single study disagreeing with the consensus should not collapse a continuing consensus." First, because none of my cited sources are studies, but rather each is a review which examine a large number of studies.


 * Secondly, there is not a "single" review which has reached different conclusions than the APA and NCCMH reviews, there are at least four, three of which have specifically criticized shortcomings in the APA and NCCMH reviews. These four reviews are: Thorp, et al, (2003) Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey; Coleman (2011), British Journal of Psychiatry; Bellieni et al, (2013) Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences; and Fergusson, et al (2013) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry.


 * None of the above four reviews are given any weight in the present article. (Fergusson was cited and discussed since about July 2017 but was only recently expunged)  Moreover the fact that the Royal College of Psychiatrists published a position statement 2008 acknowledging that abortion may post mental health risks to some women is also not reflected in the article, not even in the history section.


 * While a question of how much weight should be given to these various reviews and opinions is certainly relevant, the fact that ALL the reviews that critique the APA and NCCMH reviews are being suppressed in the article means that we first need to verify that they are indeed reliable secondary sources before we can then address the question of how much weight should be given to them.


 * As I stated at the beginning of this post, in my proposed edit I simply had two lines citing these four reviews (and others) as being reviews of the subject and noting that these (and others) disagreed with each other. My proposed sentences did not give any more or less weight to any of the cited reviews.  It merely created a bibliography of the relevant reviews from reliable secondary sources.  This is what MastCell and Binksternet have reverted...any citation to these reviews at all.


 * If it were just a question of there would be no objection to citing of these reviews, only an objection in regard to devoting too many paragraphs to them. The only rational objection to citing the reviews at all is if they are not reliable secondary sources.


 * I have yet to see MastCell or Binksternet articulate a clear argument as to why the sources I cite are not reliable secondary sources. Instead, they seem to argue that no matter how many other reviewers publish peer reviewed reviews in reliable sources, the discussion is over and the "consensus" is finalized by the APA (2008) and NCCMH (2011) reviews and that any subsequent reviews reaching different conclusions or articulating specific critiques of those earlier reviews should be completely suppressed.  Obviously, the peer reviewers and editors at several major medical journals disagree, since they supported publication of these subsequent reviews as a worthy contributions to the literature.  So whose opinion should matter more?  Wikipedia editors who favor one POV and the suppression of views that run counter to what they believe is a "consensus", or medical journal editors and peer reviewers?  Indeed, it would seem that with so many reviews taking different positions, the claimed "consensus" is not as complete some Wikipedia editors believe.


 * In short, the question of how much weight should be given to each review is different from the question of which reviews are published in a reliable secondary source. If we can all acknowledge that the ALL the sources I've cited above are indeed reliable secondary sources, and it is therefore time to move onto weight...fine.  Let's do that.  But in doing so, let's also acknowledge that these sources, because they are reliable secondary sources, at least deserve some weight, even so little as just being included in the list of citations of recent reviews.--Saranoon (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 5 (List of cryptids > Cryptozoology)
Hello, folks. I've posted about this at FTN, but the issue applies equally as well to this board, so I figured readers here should also give it a look. Basically, this boils down to WP:FRIND and its connection to WP:PROFRINGE: there are no sources out there that meet WP:FRIND for all but a handful fo these entries, leading to pro-fringe original research and synthesis on the part of editors who have constructed and added to list of cryptids over the years.

Until recently, we had a major problem with this stuff all over the platform. This list is something of a holdout, and is fiercely defended by fringe proponents, similarly to what some of you have encountered when editing on related pseudosciences like Young Earth creationism and ufology (I've personally been threatened and seen off-site lobbying now relating to the topic). You might want to check it out. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * NO it does not, using fringe sources is not OR or synth. OR is when you say something that you have worked out and Synth is when you use more then one source to draw a conclusion neither of them make.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor is this even an RS issues, this is a fringe and NPOV issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, this is indeed an RS issue that very much involves WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE, most specifically WP:FRIND's "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." No such reliable, independent sources can be found to date to place the the vast majority of items on the list, which we've now discussed repeatedly. I'm not sure where the disconnect for you here is but if you've got further comments on this matter, please do us all a favor and produce reliable sources backing these claims at either of the pages above. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ascription of motive by official of one nation to action by another nation
In an article about relations between two nations, can a statement by an official of one nation (quoted by a news agency) regarding the motives of the other nation with respect to some event/action be directly included or do certain conditions apply? Humanengr (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific with regard to the exact nature of the reliability dispute? Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please follow guidelines of this board to receive an answer --Shrike (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a RS question. A news agency in country X (even a despotic, non-free country) is typically reliable for statements of officials by country X. The officials of a country are usually not regards as RS for fact, but their attributed statements may be DUE for inclusion. As for whether they should be included - they often are if country X is a side to the event, otherwise often not - but it depends on coverage of the stmt in RS (to assess DUEness) - this is more of a NPOV/n question than RS/n.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Quote:"In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States. … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.”" Article and section: Russia–United States relations

Humanengr (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reuters is easily a RS for a quote by Alexei Pushkov - the question here is whether it is WP:DUE - which is a NPOV/n question, not a RS/n question.Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Concur. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thx, follow-up if I may re the RS aspect: Given that this statement is obviously expressing an opinion by a Russian politician and not offered as statement of fact, would any secondary RS be needed for any reason? Humanengr (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not for passing WP:V. For establishing it is WP:DUE to include this senator's opinion - then yes - the typical way to establish this on a well discussed topic (on an obscure topic - almost anything is DUE.... On something as well discussed as Russia–United States relations - you need to show that other sources relate to this) is showing a multitude of sources discussing this (either SECONDARY or TERTIARY - both are good for showing relevance) - but that's not a RS/n question.Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall this very question being asked here before.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Death Certificates
So I have a question about using a death certificate as a reference. The edit in question is this inclusion of someone's death certificate into the Oom Yung Doe article. To me it seems like there are obvious problems with the edit:


 * WP:PRIMARYCARE seems to say not to use public records in this way ("Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.")
 * Including the actual certificate seems like a clear instance of doxxing on the family in question (BLP policy states not to rely on any source that includes private information about any living persons, presumably including relatives of a deceased individual).

So one question I have is, does that sound accurate to everyone else? To me the policy is clear, but there's at least one editor who disagrees with my interpretation. This has been discussed before on the noticeboard, but when I looked over the archives I didn't find an overwhelmingly clear consensus. Here are the recent ones I found (about the acceptability of death certificates or more-or-less-identical primary sources based on public records):


 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_150: One editor noisily emphasizing that he thinks public records are reliable sources and a few different editors disagreeing with him and pointing to policy (i.e. consensus in my view is that it's an inappropriate primary source)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182: All agree the ME's report is reliable, with some extensive caveats (i.e. that it's confirmed by several secondary sources)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84: Some people say reliable, some say unreliable, no conclusion
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_157: Much discussion, no real conclusion

To me this is weird because the policy seems pretty clear... but at the same time the policy doesn't specifically list death certificates in among the other public records that are given as examples, so maybe I'm missing something?

-Subverdor (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * While the policy does not mention death certificates, it would seem to apply to them. Not every name is unique and there is the possibility of error when using this source. Also, if something has not been mentioned in secondary sources, there is no reason to add it to an article. TFD (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that WP:PRIMARYCARE is an explanatory supplement, it isn't policy. Policy is at WP:OR/WP:PRIMARY, and importantly at WP:BLPPRIMARY. An iPhone-photo of a document, uploaded by an anoymous user to Wikipedia, is not published for the purposes of Wikipedia and so fails the former. As it contains personal information about still-living persons (home address etc.), it fails the latter and is a serious violation of privacy. I've nominated it for deletion on its Wikimedia page. --IamNotU (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So technically speaking, if the document were published per Wikipedia's definition and personal information about living persons has been redacted from the published document, it would be considered a valid source, correct? --Squash1978 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In most of the US death certificates are part of the public record and are freely accessible to any member of the public (and in fact, there are websites that compile death certificate info). A death certificate is most certainly not DOXXing. It is definitely a PRIMARY document, and publication status varies (e.g. a photo of one would be one thing - availability on a website - another).Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue with "published" isn't availability, it's vetting from a supposed authority. A Wikipedia editor who's just digging up public records, and figuring out what happened, can make mistakes. An academic authority who digs up records and does research, and then publishes a book or an academic paper revealing the results of their research, can *still* make mistakes, but the theory is that it's a lot less likely because they're an expert. The idea behind Wikipedia is that it's supposed to be based largely on that type of expert academic research. Therefore it has a high level of accuracy and people who have differing viewpoints have to back up their viewpoint by showing an expert who agrees with them.


 * It doesn't always work out that way obviously, but that's the intent behind the policy: to ensure a high level of accuracy. A "secondary source" is the published expert opinion. A "primary source" is generally to be avoided (or used carefully) because relying on them too much can lead you to make mistakes. Redacting information and putting your primary source in redacted form on a web site doesn't do anything to address the fundmentals of the issue. -Subverdor (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Skabook
Is Skabook.com a reliable source? The site seems to be operated by a journalist and author. I read the about page covering her credentials and she seems legit and an expert in the relevant field as it relates to Draft:Stanley Motta and the early recording industry of Jamaica. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If fails rs per Self-published sources. The writer does not meet the definition of expert in this case. TFD (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sperling's BestPlaces
Several articles on cities (including Austin, Texas, Columbus, Ohio, and San Antonio, Texas) cite information on religion to Sperling's BestPlaces (link for Austin). Is this a reliable source that can be used for this information? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

White South African
This IP keeps claiming Middle Easterners were considered white in South Africa. This is fine if he can provide a source, but he can't. (The only source provided indicates that some people from the northern Levant, e.g. Lebanese and Syrians, were considered white; it does not follow from this that Egyptians, Yemeni, Sudanese, Kuwaitis, Saudis, and all people from the Middle East were considered white.)

Of course if he adds a source that's great, and he can re-add this content. But I am skeptical of his claims because anecdotally, I have read accounts of North Africans in South Africa who were classified as "coloured" (a broad category that included not only mixed-race black people, but various nonwhite groups).

A good compromise might be to add "Syrian and Lebanese" rather than "middle eastern" to the description of white south africans, since this is actually supported by a source. Steeletrap (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * should be at the NPOV notice board.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Huffington Post India
I noted that Huffington Post is listed as generally reliable in the perennial sources list. But does that pertain to Huffington Post India (dot-in not dot-com)? Is it under the same editorial "umbrella"? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the editorial practices of the various international editions, but take business-related news from Huffington Post with a grain of salt. The Post is fully owned by Verizon Communications. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

peer-reviewed articles and books by Stephen G. Wheatcroft
In Mass killings under communist regimes there is a concern that Wheatcroft's journal articles and books are not a "reliable source" for material on which Wheatcroft appears to be a major authority. Discussion at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes where some opine that " Either Wheatcroft (as he admits in the sourced material) is not an expert on one of the areas, and is making comparisons based on figures he doesn't understand, or that he is deliberately misleading people."

The issue appears to be Wheatcroft saying Stalin killed a heck of a lot of people, possibly hitting Hitler levels, though the claim is properly ascribed to Wheatcroft in the article. Many thanks for views on Wheatcroft as meeting WP:RS, as this is a reliable source issue only. Collect (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC) '


 * I think the problem is that the Wikipedia article incorrectly ascribes a claim to Wheatcroft when he mentions claims by other people. Wheatcroft wrote, "other scholars...have nevertheless accepted comparisons in which the Stalinist system is presumed to have killed two or three times as many people as Hitler's regime." This translates into "according to Stephen G. Wheatcroft," the number of people killed by Stalin "perhaps exceed Hitler's." TFD (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And as he is an acknowledged expert in the field, and the statement is made by him, then it is perfectly valid to give that claim ascribed and cited to the work by Wheatcroft. The sentence in the Wikipedia article therefore meets WP:RS.   That is how Wikipedia works, not by asserting what editors here "know" to be "truth."  Collect (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You realize that there is a difference between saying what "other scholars" believe and what oneself believes? If I say, according to some people, global warming is a hoax, it does not necessarily mean that I believe it is a hoax (that is I may or may not agree with them.) TFD (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What The Four Deuces said; The sentence currently there essentially say that Stephen G. Wheatcroft said that the deaths perhaps exceeded those caused by Hitler, which isn't the case per the quote above - he said that other scholars think they did. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus "Wheatcroft states that some scholars believe the death toll exceeded that of Hitler" is the edit you would support?  That appears to be what you are suggesting. Collect (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That sentence would actually be supported by the source and thus acceptable per WP:V, unlike the sentence currently in the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Wheatcroft does not say that. He says "It is only when we get into the broader categories of causing death by criminal neglect and ruthlessness that Stalin probably exceeds Hitler". He does not discuss comparisons made by other scholars, he admits that, if we define mass deaths very broadly (the idea he personally objects to) the total number of deaths caused by Stalin may exceed the deaths caused by Hitler. However, he immediately makes a number of reservations that make impossible to use this article as a source for this type statement.


 * In addition, whereas Wheatcroft does discuss opinia of other authors in his article, it would be totally incorrect tro use his summary of their opinia and ignore Wheatcroft's own position. Currently, the MKucR article uses some facts presented by Wheatcroft and his summary of opinia of some other authors, but it essentially ignores what he himself thinks of this account. Meanwhile, his major point is that it would be fundamentally incorrect to equate murders, executions, manslaughter as a result of criminal neglect etc into a single category, and that is especially important what we speak about Stalinis repressions that were much more complex phenomenon than people think. If we ignore this major idea, any attempt to use Wheatcroft as a source as cherry-picking, which is against our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay yeah, haven't really read the source so I probably shouldn't be making too many statements on what the source supports or not/what is cherry-picking or not. But it is clear that the statement currently being discussed is not supported Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Just checking, does Mass Killings under Capitalist Regimes exist yet? Because that article is currently the poster-child for Wikipedia failing WRT WP:NPOV and WP:DUE at such epic levels that I long ago stopped even trying. I'd assume any source cited primarily by that article and not elsewhere is, at best, of dubious reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-communist mass killings exists. Mass killings under colonial regimes redirects to "Genocide of indigenous people" . see also WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Capitalist_regimes  One issue is that "Communist regimes" tend to call every other regime "Capitalist" which rather makes a mockery of the title.   The first article fully covers your cavil, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Re "One issue is that "Communist regimes" tend to call every other regime "Capitalist" " The same argument works for "Capitalists" too, Western sources tend to call "communist regimes" every regime that reject free market, or has different policy towards freedoms, of accepts help from some communist states to resist neocolonialist expansion. "Communist regimes" is a veeery vague term too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alas for you, we go by what "reliable sources" call the regimes, and the article does not appear to include theocracies and other non-democratic regimes as being "communist" but only uses ones which generally have used the term "communist" or "Marxist" or "Maoist" to describe themselves. You may note that the word "communist" in the title is in lower case. Collect (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Some reliable sources. Even not a significant minority. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the reliability of The Verge as a source for use in articles relating to tech, science, culture, and cars
Is The Verge generally considered a reliable news source for use in articles relating to technology, science, culture, and cars? -- The SandDoctor Talk 20:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes for technology, science, and cars. A quick check on Google News confirms The Verge has been sourced by unambiguously RS outlets on these topics (including Forbes, TIME, and the AP) indicating existing RS are satisfied with its veracity. In addition, it has a gatekeeping process, a physical personality, and is not primarily involved in persuasive or advocacy communication. Culture is a broad topic that could encompass just about anything but I would generally say yes to that, as well with situational qualifications. Chetsford (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally yes is this RfC out of the blue? or is there prior discussion regarding this topic that we should be aware of? Their Ethics Statement page seems to indicate a good editorial policy, and media bias fact check indicates that they have good factual reporting but that they have a centre-left bias (like most media outlets). I'm not seeing any other outlets accusing them of 'fake news' either. Generally I'd consider them reliable for technology, science, and cars. As far as 'culture' goes, I would probably be careful to attribute anything they said that might be impacted by their political bias, though I would still consider them a reliable source (perhaps WP:RSOPINION when it comes to some political coverage). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  02:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct that this is out of the blue. This source isn't like The Washington Post (see above), so figured that an RfC would be the best way to (hopefully) gather wider community consensus either way. -- The SandDoctor Talk 06:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on context - they seem a tech pop culture site, with opinions and sensation. A bit light on facts rather than being biased, and it specific topics in these fields rather than generally informative -- so it may not be appropriate for a specific context, or may not be the WP:BESTSOURCE.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally yes for the topics of tech, science, culture, and cars, although I would qualify that as "pop" culture. They have a reasonably good editorial policy and reputation for fact-checking. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally yes as per ICPH and K.e.coffman. Established and relatively-reputable tech news source with clear editorial structure, fact-checking policies, no particular reputation for sensationalism or gossip-mongering... though as with many tech blog-type sites, we should be careful with posts that might seem overly promotional or based mostly or solely on press releases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes – Many technology articles I've come across on that site are regurgitated or corroborated in other reliable sources, such as AnandTech and Forbes. They are generally well written and highly accurate. I can't personally vouch for other topic areas such as culture, but I have no reason to be concerned. Throwing my hat into the 'yes' column doesn't mean I wouldn't suggest to an editor to bring any specific examples to RSN if they question one from Verge: all publishers/sites can have a few bad apples from time to time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments I don't believe this question is answerable as asked. And while it is debatable (and is being debated) how much prominence should be accorded to an essay that summarizes RSN's prior discussion of sources "that are frequent topics of discussion regarding their reliability and use on Wikipedia", starting discussions/RFC's solely to generate such discussion, goes against the purpose and capabilities of this noticeboard. Therefore I request that this RFC be withdrawn. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The question is mostly answerable, though it probably would have been better to ask "Is The Verge generally considered a reliable news source", and it seems that !voters have responded to this error by captioning their !vote with 'generally' instead. Having a list that summarises RSN discussions is useful, and having discussions to add to that list is also useful. A lot of users that frequent this noticeboard would have used the verge before, or seen it used, and have an opinion on it. This is the place where it is going to be best to ask a question like this. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarified per suggestion. -- The SandDoctor Talk 06:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Unanswerable and this should be withdrawn by the proposer. Some pieces might be reliable for some specific kinds of content. It is not reliable for any WP:Biomedical information per WP:MEDRS and is unlikely to be reliable for anything scientific.  Some pieces will be opinion and only reliable if attributed to the author.  This should be pulled as it is too general. (If the question was meant to be, "Is The Verge generally unreliable?" the answer would be "no", but that is not the question. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue that MEDRS overrides the reliable nature of any source when it comes to something doing directly with human health and medicine. So when people ask "is X generally reliable", this is not in any way implicit to override what MEDRS says. And of course, every source may have individual cases that make it unreliable, and we are presuming that that case-by-case basis is implicit when one asks "is X generally reliable". --M asem (t) 02:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, but people often read "science" broadly to include medical things. That's why I directly brought that up. :) In any case questions like this are a waste of time; as I noted we can sometimes say "generally unreliable; if used must be attributed and there needs to be some very good reason to use it" (a la Daily Mail) but it is impossible to answer the question posed. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See the top of this page. Article. Material to be included. Source. All three things are required to determine reliability. Any pop-culture source will be all over the reliability scale depending on what material it is being used for and where. I would also add that after long experience, when someone asks a general 'is source X reliable' it tends to turn out there is an article somewhere where someone is questioning that source. It makes it easier for everyone if editors just followed the damn instructions at the top. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not archive until added. Please remove the Do not archive until tag after the RfC is closed. (I am adding this because RfCs frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Their feature articles, long-form articles, and full-length reviews are almost always well-researched and written to high standards. I would consider any of their articles in these categories reliable. Their shorter articles should be treated similarly to most articles on Engadget and TechCrunch, generally reliable, as long as:
 * Coverage of products, companies, or people involves some investigative research beyond regurgitated press releases, and
 * Coverage of culture is written in a neutral journalistic tone, and not in the informal tone expected of an opinion piece.
 * —  Newslinger  talk   17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes - Both myself and the Video Games Wikiproject have evaluated and used it extensively in the past. There is a consensus there that it's generally a reliable source. Sergecross73   msg me  13:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources?
Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources provided they are properly attributed? E.g. Anti-hate organisation Hope not Hate report that... --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion thread
Doesn’t this discussion belong on the noticeboard? And don’t we normally discuss the reliability of a source within the context of its use? Work permit (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay done. I'm not sure what you mean by within the context of its use though, it's whenever it is used. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Scroll up to the instructions at the top of the page. Reliability always depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Please see my answer lower down diff. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Work permit regarding need to evaluate context. Hope not Hate is apparently an advocacy group, so it seems WP:BIASED would apply to potential use of this as a source.DynaGirl (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We can not give an opinion on reliability unless we know the specific context in which a source is being cited. For example, a source might be unreliable if cited to support a statistic, yet quite reliable if used to support a quote, or a paraphrase of the author's opinion.  Also, be aware that reliability might not be the only issue ... WP:UNDUE WEIGHT can be a factor (ie a source can be reliable for verifying the opinion of it's author, but that leaves open the question of whether the author's opinion is important enough be mentioned in the first place.) Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with DynaGirl. It's an advocacy group, so it's not going to be a good source for facts. It's a notable and influential one, that gets results, so may be useful as an opinion in some cases, but that's hardly the classic use of reliable sources. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, a political pressure group with an angle can't really be considered as RS, particularly when it is highly likely there is no editorial oversight.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Contra The C of E, the publications of a political pressure group might be RS for the views of their spokesperson, or the group as a whole, and may undertake and report on research. Conisertaion of possible bias or balance would depend on the context of use.Martinlc (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, in reply to the specific question at the start, which was "Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources provided they are properly attributed? E.g. 'Anti-hate organisation Hope not Hate report that...'". That is not "proper attribution" -- "report" makes it sound like they're passing on news rather than opinions, and "anti-hate organisation" is an assertion in Wikipedia voice that they are what they claim to be. Others say otherwise. Maajid Nawaz (who persuaded SPLC to withdraw similar stuff) called one of their reports a "witch-hunt that conflates Muslim reformers and critics of Islam, with bigots". And, since context has been brought up: coincidentally I tried to remove a not-attributed-in-text hopenothate.org.uk cite from a BLP yesterday but Newimpartial quickly re-inserted it. I assume though that The Vintage Feminist has a different case in mind. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Peter Gulutzan: that looks like a pretty good example of a case where a group like Hope Not Hate would be perfectly fine. It's a totally non-controversial statement of fact that can also be verified by looking at primary sources - better sources might exist, but they're certainly reliable enough for something like "such and such published this book". [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 15:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it can be verified by primary sources, and one is already cited, adding unreliable sources adds nothing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say notable for what they claim (many RS seem to use them in just this way "hope not hate said). But not RS for putting as if it is an irrefutable fact.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Vintage Feminist, please note the instructions for this page: Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available: I suggest/request that you delete the RFC template. Discussions here generally aren't tagged as RFCs, and you've already gotten about the best answers that you're going to get for a question that doesn't identify the Article or Content involved. Alsee (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Source. The book or web page being used as the source. If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc. If it's an online source, please link to it. For example:.
 * 2) Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: Article name.
 * 3) Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: "text" . Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
 * Hi, There now exists a list WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, the original idea for the list was mine and I was asked to contribute diff. I thought of adding Hope not Hate (the source mentioned in the RfC) but realized there was no discussion / consensus on the group. So I created this RfC to see what the community thinks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not archive until added. Please remove the Do not archive until tag after the RfC is closed. (I am adding this because RfCs frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question was there a specific article or discussion that brought this up? I couldn't find it. Simonm223 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IT DEPENDS.  Only with a specific article and edit can one tell if a source is RS.   An advocacy group would be a WP:BIASED RS type, good for their POV position and attributed items, but not for statements phrased as wiki voice.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As an advocacy group, publications from this source should be assessed in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline on biased and opinionated sources when used to support article content. However, this source should not be used to determine notability in an AfD discussion. —  Newslinger  talk   18:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of InfoWars
This RfC on the reliability of InfoWars asks editors: —  Newslinger  talk   07:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is InfoWars a generally unreliable source?
 * 2) Should the use of InfoWars as a reference be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist?
 * 3) Should InfoWars be used for determining notability?
 * 4) Should InfoWars be used as a secondary source in articles?
 * 5) Should an edit filter be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use InfoWars as a reference?


 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes in that order. Infowars is well known to be far right political propaganda. It does not have a reputation for responsible fact-checking or accuracy. Reyk YO! 07:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no HELL no, no, yes Is this really in dispute? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Modified since a number of commenters seem to find question 4 worse than 3, but using IW to establish notability (for BLP, for example...) honestly sounds much worse to my ear. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Yes, yes, no, no, yes. Obviously. Canonical fake news. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum: this has been on my list of "fuck, no" sources for a long time, I have purged easily a thousand inappropriate uses of InfoWars, Prisonplanet and other Jonescruft from articles. Yes we definitely need an edit filter. And honestly? Blacklist it. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , "infowars.com" is on the global blacklist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not seeing on m:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , global blacklist is Spam_blacklist Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Was just coming back to correct myself. Years since I was a meta admin. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, no, never, yes. I wonder that one can even raise these questions.--Lebob (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, not on your life, yes - it's nice to have another clear expression of community consensus on this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No Infowars is not an RS, thus should be considered generally unreliable. As such of course its use should be prohibited. As it is not reliable it should not (generally) be used as a source, secondary or otherwise. And yes a filter may well be useful so we do not have to revisit this. However as long as it is independent of the subject I see no reason why it cannot be used to establish notability. Like it or not Infowars is highly used and read (and that is what notability means, it has been noted), and thus what it says is clearly notable, thus what it covers is.Slatersteven (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability, please note that the general notability guideline requires reliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk   07:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but we were asked separate questions so I gave separate answers (without letting the preceding ones influence the answers).Slatersteven (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you even have to ask whether they are unreliable? Does the following seem like a reputation for fact-checking?: "the site has regularly published fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims. ... InfoWars, and in particular Jones, advocate numerous conspiracy theories particularly around purported domestic false flag operations by the U.S. Government (which they allege include the 9/11 attacks and Sandy Hook shootings)." We should avoid using this as a source, at all costs. Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I started this RfC because there is only one prior discussion on WP:RSN regarding InfoWars (here), and it's from 2011. Please see this discussion regarding WP:RS/P for context. —  Newslinger  talk   08:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, facepalm, not a prayer, oh my god!, good idea - in that order. Edaham (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes in that order. InfoWars must be the epitome of fake news. I'd prefer to add snark as Edaham, but won't on the infinitesimally small chance it would be misinterpreted. I first thought this was someone's idea of a joke. Jim1138 (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes Infowars needs a new level at WP:RSP for unreliability. This RfC seems to serve not too much purpose, except for establishing a consensus for an edit filter. Not sure the kind of people who think that it is appropriate to cite infowars would change their behaviour upon seeing an edit filter, but eh. Better if we added say Breitbart to this discussion, so one can get a consensus for an edit filter for that too Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already an edit filter. You didn't even try linking to InfoWars. w umbolo   ^^^  09:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't an edit filter, but it is on the global blacklist. Makes sense people wouldn't know though - only added in February 2018, and apparently due to spam on the beta cluster, not due to reliability Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, Obviously, Obviously not, Never In the name of all that is holy, It's on the blacklist. I hope that's clear? Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding the usual caveat that Infowars (like any source) can be reliable in certain specific situations... such as when quoting Alex Jones in the Infowars article itself. No source is ever 100% unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes - Now, a serious question: Should The Onion be considered a reliable source for facts? O3000 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Obvious answers are obvious - Bb above is correct, and Infowars is fine when treated as a SPS. Adding that this edit filter is super annoying in discussions where one is actually talking about Infowars itself, and it's probably superfluous to add a notification for a black listed site.  G M G  talk  10:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes' - Jee whiz! PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes (though reliable for Infowar's opinion or possibly for the topic being conspiracy theory related), Yes per WP:FRIND, very weak indication of notability (does show subject is a conspiracy theory), No, Yes - I take a wider view of notability - e.g. if lots of conspiracy nuts refer to something it is often an indication that that something is a notable conspiracy theory (though to write about it - one would need reliable sources). That being said, Infowars is a notorious conspiracy site and shouldn't be used for anything other than possibly as a PRIAMRY source for a conspiracy theory which is in itself problematic per WP:FRIND.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Yes, No, No, Yes 'nuff said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes yes nope nope yes Obviously not reliable. –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Yes, No, No, Yes  - essentially the only thing it could be considered a reliable source for would be "InfoWars said x" - even for statements Infowars has made about InfoWars its reliability seems highly questionable. --tronvillain (talk) 09:27, August 30, 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, No, No, Maybe A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Yes, Maybe, Maybe, No I am in full agreement it is not a reliable source, and should be replaced with more RSes. But it is not the case it should never be touched. If I want to know what the take is on a controversial topic that is from the side(s) that are not being presented in RSes, I would need to likely read InfoWars to figure that out, as in such cases InfoWars is more a polar opposite of Snopes in this type of documentation. Thus, if we are dealing with a controversial topic that must be covered now (keeping in mind recentism and not#news), and it is not a controversy that has been fully dismissed (eg we're not talking about disproven conspiracy theories), then InfoWars may be an appropriate source for describing the stance of one side of the controversy as an RSOPINION source (requiring immediate attribution in prose), if no other RSes are other describing the controversy from the same take as InfoWars. It may even be the case like PizzaGate where InfoWars had a significant role in it, so knowing the theory was debunked, we'd still referencing their articles that it published as a point of reference, as long as BLP and other factors are kept in mind. Such a use would be using InfoWars as a secondary source on the topic of the controversy, so as such, that's why I say "maybe" to it also being a factor towards notability - however, if InfoWars was the only place talking about a topic like this, then no, that doesn't make the topic notable. To that end, no, we can't blanket ban the site. I do expect this to be an extremely narrow use case (and if we were following not#news better, one that would likely never then come up), but definitely one that can exist. --M asem  (t) 13:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes per it's obvious; do we need an RFC for the Weekly World News too? Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes in that order. Is there a question somewhere in here, counselor? Striker force Talk 14:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Kill it. Kill it with fire. Lets see... Infowars claims that the government kidnaps children and makes then slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that Temple of Baal arches will be put in multiple large cities around the world, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government committed the largest act of terrorism its own citizens experienced, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell... Sounds legit to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes easiest RfC I can remember participating in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Laurel YYNNY - piling on. Maybe an RfC that doesn't need to run 30 days... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Could we get a speedy close per WP:SNOW? At most the only question is whether to make a filter; the rest seems settled. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes per everybody. I'm also wary of using it as a source for statements it has made about itself. They've literally made a business out of being an unreliable source, they should simply not be used at all. If it's an important detail that InfoWars said something about a thing, surely a better source can be found for that information. I'm also in favour of blacklisting and/or edit filtering - while it may be annoying in legitimate conversation, there's almost no instance where linking to the site from Wikipedia is valid, and any and all instances would require very careful scrutiny. The annoyance is net positive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Instance of valid linking to Infowars for context.  G M G  talk  17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Granted, but that's not an instance of valid use as a source. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * YYHHY Sad that we actually had to run this RFC, but I oppose closing it earlier than a week. We need to leave it open long enough that we can refer to it later, and 9 hours just isn't enough to establish a reliable consensus (some people may have been asleep or at work for the whole thing so far). -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes. No brainer. A la WP:DAILYMAIL but there is no valid use (unlike DM which is good for sports); can be used only with attribution and the use must have very good justification from other sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes. Saying that Infowars is an unreliable source is the understatement of 2018. Most unreliable sources are so-designated by virtue of lack of resources or good faith sloppiness. Infowars should be characterized as a disinformation organization.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * YYNNY. I would echo Ivanvector's concern about using it as a source even for things it has said about itself. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes. Echoing comments above, InfoWars is a business founded on the concept of disseminating falsities. In my opinion, we should not be linking to it under any circumstances, not even for its own claims, all of which require context and fact-checking from a reliable source. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes Late. It is a shame we have to run something like this to stop something so blatantly corrosive to the common good with the brutish monetisation of fake, and it stands out. 6 months has past, we need a quicker way to surface these. Inject it with a poison, like the lyric says. scope_creep (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no, no, yes Piling on per reasons above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, without a doubt, never, not on your life, absolutely - This is kind of like asking "should we declare that the sky is blue?" Of course! InfoWars sis not more suitable as an encyclopedic source than The Onion.- MrX 🖋 11:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * InfoWars is a completely and utterly unreliable source and anything to prohibit and prevent its use as a source or citation should be implemented. Why is this even in question? Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The same question had occurred to me and I considered requesting this be snow-closed immediately; but SarekOfVulcan answered that question pretty handily above. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
I know this is snowing to be treated like the Daily Mail, but I want to express my concern that we're at this point of even questioning the inclusion of Infowars due to the fact we are trying to cover highly controversial materials far too soon and with too much reliance on overly detailed 24/7 news sources. I know it looks bad for WP if we do not cover these types of controversies at all in the short term, but we often go into far too much detail on these events in the short term that begs why we aren't including InfoWars who propagates this stuff alongside the normal body of RSes. Part of the reason we're here is that we are simply far too detailed on controversies as they are happened, when we should be writing for these as if we had 20/20 hindsight. Try to imagine writing about Pizzagate 5 years from now and consider the state of the current article. I think it would be far different and treated much more as a blip for an encyclopedia rather than the level of coverage that we have now. In such a case, then Infowars as even a source for it wouldn't likely be necessary and we wouldnt be asking these questions. --M asem (t) 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not just controversy, it is why we have the concept of not news. We rush to headlong into creating articles before we even know what really happened. (you should have seen the mess that was 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting, practically is was a live news feed).Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's questioning InfoWars: this looks to be purely a formality so that we can implement a blanket ban like we did on the DM and point to this as community consensus.
 * Regarding WP:NOTNEWS: You know I'm on board with you on this one. Compare the articles in Category:2005 controversies to Category:2011 controversies to Category:2017 controversies and observe how they decline in quality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that infowars is actually already on the global blacklist so the blanket ban is technically already in effect Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've increasingly been of the opinion that Wikipedia has been far too lax about WP:NOTNEWS lately. And WP:SCANDAL too. We're supposed to be a repository for information of lasting relevance about our subjects, not the cut and thrust of the 24 hour news cycle, no matter how many clicks salacious details of sex scandals and political brinkmanship bring in for major media outlets. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is why I have argued that this needs to be tightened, not in enforcement but as a policy. But this is not the correct venue for such matters.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an argument for elsewhere, I'm just trying to point that we're here discussing if InfoWars is a reliable source due to the fact that our articles on stories where InfoWars may even be possible to use basically fail NOT#NEWS. How to fix that is beyond this discussion, but let's be aware of this RFC as a demonstration of the starting point for a larger discussion. --M asem (t) 18:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How to fix it is trivial. Make Wikipedia an encyclopedia instead of a breaking news website by disallowing all sources that are younger than 3 days as sources for including material. (I can live with a shorter period for removal of material). This would be accompanied by a prominent announcement so that the reader knows that his encyclopedia -- like all other encyclopedias -- is always slightly out of date and an encouragement to both read and post to Wikinews with for anything late-breaking.
 * The hard part is getting consensus for such a change. There are two many people addicted to making this something other than an encyclopedia by including breaking news. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyone interested in seeing just how unanimous this is can take a look at User:MPants at work/sandbox, where I standardized the bolded !votes. Seeing that many lines start the exact same way has a certain impact to it, I think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Was too obvious that I did not !vote.Face-smile.svg — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ...says the editor who recently started a thread about UFO-research.com... ;) Girth Summit  (blether)  17:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Opinion editorials used for reliably sourced opinions
It is my understanding that per WP:NEWSORG, it it inadvisable to use opinion editorials for statements of fact. Currently at Danny O'Connor, we have arguably promotional content that is being sourced to an opinion editorial endorsing him in the Columbus Dispatch. See this. These strike me as the types of claims that would require better or additional sourcing, but other editors have argued that because the content is in the Cleveland Dispatch, it's reliable. It's an op ed, though. Someone un-gaslight me, s'il vous plaît. Marquardtika (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No it does not say that it says we should use them with care. I am unable to view the source however, but note that the claim is sourced to another source anyway so all a bit academic.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the article. The other source used for much of the material is a primary source. It's from the "about us" section of the candidate's former employer. I've removed some of the material. I don't think this is a case where an opinion article and a primary source are adequate, even with attribution. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipolicy says the editorial is fine for attributed statements. Considering that the attribution is attributed to the very same people (The Editorial Staff of the Columbus Dispatch) responsible for making sure the news content is factual and accurate, it should be fine.  Can you explain why you think otherwise? Carter2020 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We should not use the source. Note that news articles would require better sourcing for the candidate's biography. TFD (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The original poster is correct that op-eds generally should not be used to support statements of fact in Wikipedia voice. That is not what we have here.  It is perfectly acceptable to cite editorials "for statements attributed to that editor or author", as we have here. Carter2020 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question for TFD: Policy says we can use the source for attributed statements. Why do you say we should not? Carter2020 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Partly because then it's a question of weight. If there are no sources about these parts of this man's career other than a single editorial and a primary source from an employer he worked for later, then it probably shouldn't be in wikipedia. Also, "according to the Columbus Dispatch" is awkward and incorrect. It would be "according to the Columbus Dispatch's editorial board", not the newspaper in its actual newsgathering role. Using such "attribution" is really an end-run around usual policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Red Rock Cannon's comments. Also, where someone worked is usually (and certainly in this case) a matter of fact not opinion. TFD (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * please stop re-adding this material against WP:CONSENSUS. When you write "According to the Columbus Dispatch..." that makes it seem as if it is according to the newspaper's news reporting, which it is not. It is according to an opinion editorial in the newspaper. Those are very different things, and it is misleading to attribute things as you have done. Please follow the advice of all of the other editors here and cease re-adding this material. Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Marquardtika's point is pretty subtle, but I do understand where s/he is coming from. It seems like an easy issue to solve. Why not write: This combines in-text attribution with a clear indication that the statement in question is part of a political endorsement rather than a news story. MastCell Talk 17:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Japanese-related articles
I would like to make a list of reliable sources for WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Hello! Project, and assessment on which sources are reliable would be appreciated. There may be some overlap with WikiProject Korea and WikiProject Anime and manga.

Reliable sources: These websites are generally accepted as reliable sources and post news, sales rankings, and press releases.


 * Asahi Shimbun (http://www.asahi.com)
 * Billboard Japan (http://www.billboardjapan.com)
 * Kotaku (http://www.kotaku.com)
 * Mainichi Shimbun (http://www.mainichi.jp)
 * ''Model Press
 * Natalie
 * NHK (https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/japan/)
 * Oricon (http://www.oricon.co.jp)
 * Sports Hochi (http://www.hochi.co.jp)
 * Sports Nippon (http://www.sponichi.co.jp)
 * Tokyo Sports (http://www.tokyo-sports.co.jp)

Situational (restrictions apply when using as a source)
 * Anime News Network (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com): news and reviews are reliable, but database information is user-submitted
 * Eiga: news is reliable, but movie ratings are user-submitted
 * Arama! Japan: occasionally conducts exclusive interviews with artists, and Ronald Taylor, the administrator, is a notable contributor to The Japan Times. However, guest articles/reviews are user-submitted and some articles have shown to be biased or use sensationalist wording. Arama! Japan also used to be a user-submitted collaborative gossip blog titled Arama They Didn't, a spin-off of Oh No They Didn't.
 * JPopAsia: occasionally conducts exclusive interviews with artists, but articles are fan translations
 * The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp): use for current events and interviews; known factual errors in some reviews

Unreliable sources
 * Asian Junkie: personal self-published gossip blog
 * Tokyohive: (discussed on WikiProject Anime and manga) Translates news from major media news outlets and they are part of 6Theory, who also owns Allkpop, which is considered an unreliable source on WikiProject Korea (discussed here).
 * Stage48 (for AKB48): Wiki
 * Hello!Online (for Hello! Project): Non-notable fan translation blog
 * New School Kaidan: Non-notable fan translation blog
 * Maji de 2ch and Minus Kakugo: Self-published fan translation blogs that translate comments from anonymous Japanese message boards, which are not notable enough to use as a means of general opinion or review
 * IMDb (http://www.imdb.com): All information is user-submitted

Not sure
 * Barks: music news and concert reviews
 * Friday (http://friday.kodansha.ne.jp): tabloid magazine
 * Josei Seven: tabloid magazine

Any input would be appreciated! lullabying (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a few others on WP:VG/S. --Izno (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'll keep that in mind. I noticed that WikiProject Japan has no list of acceptable sources like WikiProject Video games/Sources, WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, and WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, which is why I suggested to build one. lullabying (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you didn't list Asahi Shimbun ☆ Bri (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why you're here to remind me! I'll include that. Thank you! lullabying (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No A "list of reliable sources"? How about everything from a Japanese university press? Is this just English sources? I tried to bring Frédéric's Japan Encyclopedia here five years ago and had a dog of a time convincing folks it was unreliable, as a result of it being published by Harvard University Press (technically, it is only the English translation that was published by a university press, and the translator was not a Japanologist). I've seen outright crap being published in Japan Times, but you're not going to convince the majority of the community that it is "unreliable in general", while telling non-specialist editors that it is "reliable in general" will inevitably lead to us calling the Man'yōshū Japan's "oldest anthology of domestic poetry" and the like. I'm going to need some convincing that this is a useful idea. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any sources you'd like to include, feel free to share so we can discuss. The sources I listed here are mostly online and some of them are in Japanese. lullabying (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're never going to get a comprehensive list of all the "reliable sources", and it really depends on context. In general, Wikipedia is not the place for the kind of information that is found in a lot of the sources you listed (the anime and pop culture sources include a lot of information that would be more at home on fan wikis, and even general newspapers have their usability as "reliable sources in general" brought into question by WP:NOTNEWS); you can cite them, generally speaking, for encyclopedic information they happen to verify, but you can't "pillage" them like you can reputable print encyclopedias. As for online sources I think are generally usable, ".ac.jp" URLs are a pretty good indicator, but even there I don't want to add "web pages with a URL ending in .ac.jp" to any kind of "list of reliable sources, because such lists are not generally useful for Wikipedia's purposes. My personal favourite source, period, is the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten, which is a fairly authoritative encyclopedia on all aspects of the literature of Japan before 1868, and Keene's History of Japanese Literature would be a close second if it were technically a single work that had been written from start to finish and published as one work. But I don't think trying to create a list of "reliable sources" is useful; the best part of Keene's work (Seeds in the Heart) is so monumentally large that it was bound to include a fair number of misprints and errors, so telling editors who don't know better (can't read Japanese and access the sources that correct him) that it just "is" a "reliable source" is going to create more problems than it solves. Ditto NKBD, which is old enough that a lot of its information about who owns this or that manuscript is almost certainly out of date. Telling folks that certain sources are generally not reliable might be useful, but I don't think anyone who would use such a list is not already aware that IMDb (for example) is not reliable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Other WikiProjects like WikiProject Video games/Sources, WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, and WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources have a list of reliable sources and they seem to have no problem with it. It's also perfectly normal for people to revisit sources to see if they're still valid as personnel and accuracy changes, and none of these sources are chosen without reason. lullabying (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for video games, but honestly WP:KOREA need to get their shit together (virtually every article on pre-1948 Korean history violates MOS:KOREA, etc.), so they're not an example to be upheld. And you still haven't addressed my Japan Times and Japan Encyclopedia concerns above. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For Japan Encyclopedia, it's a controversial source because it's been criticized for being inaccurate (1, 2), and it also may be outdated since it was published at least a decade ago. However, if you don't trust my opinion on it, you can reopen a discussion on whether it should be considered valid. I don't see why The Japan Times would seem unreliable as there's plenty of vetting for the writers and it's been known to not be very biased. The purpose of having a reliable source list is to set a standard of what sources not to use, as I've seen a lot of articles that cite fan translations and non-notable blogs. lullabying (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Google the quote I provided (initially mangled, but have now corrected) above. I don't want to have to fight non-specialist editors over whether the MYS or the KFS is the "oldest anthology of domestic poetry" just because I can't find a "reliable source" that explicitly states that the latter is and the former isn't, as a result of scholarly sources generally not discussing Japanese poetry in terms of "domestic" and "foreign" but rather "Japanese" (which does not mean "domestic") and "Chinese" (which does not mean "foreign"). If you make sweeping statements like "Japan Times is reliable" you set us up for "Japan Times says X but Donald Keene says Y" messes. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's try to stay on topic on verifying which sources are reliable, and then we can compile a list from there. Can you provide examples of why The Japan Times should not be considered a reliable source? lullabying (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It published an article (technically a book review of an abridged kinda-translation of the MYS) calling the MYS Japan's "oldest anthology of domestic poetry", referring to the great MYS (etc.) scholar Susumu Nakanishi and "Susumu Nakahashi", using the phrase "in the eighth century during the Nara Period" (implying the author wasn't aware that Nara period took place entirely within the eighth century), etc. The dates given in this article for Hitomaro's birth and death look suspiciously like what our article on him said before I (largely) fixed it. These kind of errors are okay for a newspaper targeted at a general readership to make, but when you as a Wikipedian start telling other Wikipedians that JT simply "is reliable" you invite conflicts and people claiming that a "reliable source" in English is superior to an "obscure Japanese source" that "Hijiri88 says is reliable" per WP:NONENG. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see; then I will consider putting The Japan Times under "situational" regarding reviews. It looks like the review you posted doesn't have an author listed, so if possible, we can make it so that contributors to reviews need to be named. However, for the most, I've seen that they've been accurate about reporting other news such as entertainment and interviews. lullabying (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But you see, per my criticisms of Seeds in the Heart and the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten above, all sources are "situationally reliable". You can't just say "Source X is reliable", or even "Source X is an example of a reliable source". And the review I linked has been altered since I first checked it. I recall there being a Disqus comment giving similar criticisms to mine above, which has been removed, and one of the two instances of "Nakahashi" was subsequently corrected without comment; I also recall a reviewer's name being listed, but that might be my misremembering. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Without speculating on why the author's name was removed, or copying it onto Wikipedia, or linking the mirrors per WP:ELNEVER, a search for mirrors (Google the "oldest" quote I've given a few times) reveals the original author's name (first initial "E", just to prove that I did). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just did a more thorough check, and it seems that author's name has been taken off the online edition of every article he wrote for them before his current regular column began in 2016. Still no idea why, just thought I'd point out that the lack of an author's name attached says nothing about whether the review was an example of an entry that is unreliable and can be recognized by the lack of a credited writer, since it seems to have been removed for reasons entirely unrelated to accuracy. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will suggest having The Japan Times as a source for current events and interviews only then and leave it out of anything that has to do with historical/traditional/academic articles then. Thank you for your input. lullabying (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think that, regardless of any concessions, this idea is a bad one. Telling editors what sources "are reliable" is only going to cause fights, if it has any effect at all. And this is the wrong forum anyway: if you want to introduce a new subpage for WP:JAPAN, the discussion should take place at WT:JAPAN, not RSN. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already a list of "reliable sources" at WikiProject Japan/Reference library regardless of discussion. I still think it's possible to compile sources and separate them into categories such as historical, cultural, entertainment, economics, etc. I will also take your suggestion of discussing the situation at WP:JAPAN once this conversation gets archived. lullabying (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unclear why you put "reliable sources" in quotes given that those words don't appear anywhere on the page. At least some of them are indisputably reliable for almost everything one would want to cite them for, so if you meant to use scare-quotes to imply that you think they are not reliable, or somehow less reliable than the pop culture websites you list above, I would ask you not to take that dismissive tone anymore. Anyway, all or virtually all the entries on that list are books that have already been published; they are not attributing reliability or unreliability to everything that might appear at some point on this or that website, as you are doing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"For Japan Encyclopedia, it's a controversial source because it's been criticized for being inaccurate (1, 2), and it also may be outdated since it was published at least a decade ago." It seems to be useless. The encyclopedia was written by a single "expert" writer, who was not Japanese and who died back in 1996. The book has not been updated since (making it outdated), was never seriously edited, and attempts of fact-checking revealed errors and inaccuracies in hundreds of articles. The book (and its inaccuracies) were also republished by Harvard University Press. The publishing house was criticized for not fact-checking the material, even when it contained inaccuracies about former faculty of Harvard University.

Not only has this source no reputation for fact-checking, but it raises some questions about the editorial practices of its publishers. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That issue was discussed in excruciating detail on this board in September 2013. I opened the thread in response to some argumenting with, and (in my first interaction with him) was a major contributor. I forget if you were there, but I did ping someone who had already tried, and failed, to bring it to the community's attention. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just checked. It was here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would recommend against making a list of potential reliable publications for this project specifically. These kinds of lists are generally produced for topics that are both modern and niche, such as video games, animanga, and webcomics. I don't believe it is useful to have a list of potential reliable publications for a topic so old and diverse as an entire country. However, if people do go about making such a page, then go ahead, I suppose. I think it could create a separate space to discuss and archive discussions about a specific subject matter. I think it is more effort than it is worth, though. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, none of the above has the slightest relevance for anyone writing about historical Japanese art for example. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly - there are far better sources easily available, without having to battle with ads. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already a list of "reliable sources" at WikiProject Japan/Reference library. In this case, we can make separate list of sources for different categories such as historical, cultural, entertainment, economics, etc. lullabying (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unclear why you put "reliable sources" in quotes given that those words don't appear anywhere on the page. At least some of them are indisputably reliable for almost everything one would want to cite them for, so if you meant to use scare-quotes to imply that you think they are not reliable, or somehow less reliable than the pop culture websites you list above, I would ask you not to take that dismissive tone anymore. Anyway, all or virtually all the entries on that list are books that have already been published; they are not attributing reliability or unreliability to everything that might appear at some point on this or that website, as you are doing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In the case of Barks at least, from the looks of things, it does seem reliable: western sites like ANN and Japanese sites tend to cite them as well. They also do interviews and live reports, and they seem to be done by an actual company that's also JASRAC licensed. The only thing that might be a point against it is that its news articles don't seem to have bylines, though this is a common practice in many other Japanese websites (even reputable ones) as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

 * OwnLocal,
 * ,
 * 

Are they two any good. scope_creep (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to say which article this request relates to, and what content these sources would be used to support. We can't usually give a blanket 'reliable / unreliable' judgement until we know what they are going to be used for. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, too hasty - I see that you're talking about the OwnLocal article. Still, you should indicate what content these sources are/would be used to support. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Economist on changes in public trust in various US media enterprises 2016 -> 2018
This Economist article. The subtitle is "Trust in mainstream American newspapers has grown, even among conservatives". But the partisan divide is 'mind-blowing. Just something to keep in mind as we work. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder how the “Economist” would fair in that survey? 🤔 Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there an actual question attached to this? The economist is certainly a reliable source as far as journalistic sources go and is see no issue with using the linked article as source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not a question attached to this. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The Star (Malaysia)
Is The Star (Malaysia) RS for information about Maria Amor Torres? The last time this newspaper was discussed seems to be in 2008, at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20. At that time it was judged reliable, but it has since been taken over by the Malaysian government. This has come up at Talk:Maria Amor Torres. It's an important question because this is the only independent reliable source anyone has been able to find about this subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The specific reference is:
 * The information in dispute is labeling her a "beauty queen", which the reference supports with Some 2,000km away in the Philippines, Maria Amor, who grew up in a middle-class family, was crowned Miss Luzon. --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The information in dispute is labeling her a "beauty queen", which the reference supports with Some 2,000km away in the Philippines, Maria Amor, who grew up in a middle-class family, was crowned Miss Luzon. --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment What is a beauty queen - is it anyone who has ever won any beauty pageant, regardless of how minor and how long ago? This source indicates that she won Miss Luzon, so might be reliable for a claim that so is 'the former winner of the Miss Luzon beauty pageant', but I think using it to say in Wikipedia's voice that she is a beauty queen is a bit of a stretch. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Problem is, there's no evidence that a "Miss Luzon beauty pageant" existed when she claims she received it. Her websites, when they bother to mention it, say 2012 . Some earlier publicity shows she was claiming the title  before 2012 or earlier?. She was also running beauty pageants of her own at the time, as indicated in her bios on her websites. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes - those are some strange websites. (Good to know that, as well as being a princess, renowned diplomat and a doctor of divinity, she also has sound Microsoft Office Suite skills!) I've had another look, and I can't find any websites pertaining to a 'Miss Luzon' beauty pageant. I'd have thought that if it was a notable competition, it would have some form of coverage. The Star article is clearly a puff piece (actually giving information on how to donate to her charity), which ends with a paragraph canvassing for help for her charity (Those who wish to help can call...), so it's probably not critically fact checked. I don't think it looks reliable enough for this claim, since we can't find any evidence for it anywhere else.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The pageant does not need to be notable, itself, to be mentioned in a BLP. That The Star is now government owned does not affect reliability in itself.   Miss_Republic_of_the_Philippines titles the first runner-up as "RP Miss Luzon" which you ought have noted as it is in Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, she's not listed in Miss_Republic_of_the_Philippines, and that pageant was not held between 1978 and 2014. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Miss Luzon" was routinely used as a title in the pre-WW II era, by the way. And secondary contests appear to have occurred tween 1978 and 2014'' I think it quite possible that she did win such a title in that period. Mutya_ng_Pilipinas etc.   Very few beauty pageants disappear. they just change the name. Collect (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've looked at the history. I realize that there are many, many local beauty pageants in the Philippines.
 * So, do you think The Star fact-checked what Torres herself is inconsistent on (Torres says it is "Ms. Luzon", not "Miss Luzon"; and she was 42 when she won) or is it more likely they used the material that Torres provided at the time in this local interest story? --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ronz is right. The Star calls her a beauty queen. The question for us is not so much "is she a beauty queen" as "did the Star do a proper job of fact checking". I started out convinced The Star is a reliable source, but the more I pull at the threads of the "Princess" fairy tale, the more the story unravels. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's quite possible that she won such a title - I don't have any proof that she definitely didn't. I'm just not convinced that her own websites, and a single mention in an entirely uncritical article, isn't enough for us to say that she definitely did. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Morningstar - The People's Daily
RfC on Morning Star (British newspaper) which may interest the community at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this an RS?
Would Jimmy Wales himself answering a question on Quora be considered a reliable source? Here's a link to the source: The reason I want to use this as a source is because he said on Quora that he is a centrist and gradualist and there is no mention of him being either of those things on his Wikipedia article and I'm not sure if he has revealed that information anywhere else. 344917661X (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable as a secondary source for saying that Jimbo IS centerist and gradualist... but (assuming we can verify his Quara account) it might be reliable as a PRIMARY source for stating that he once SAID that he is centerist and gradualist (per WP:ABOUTSELF). Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The account is verified since the picture of him on his Quora account has a check next to it and Jimmy's user page links to his quora account in the see also section, which is the one I got my source from. 344917661X (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an RS for what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slatersteven and Blueboar. It can be used only for what Jimbo said. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is RS for the statement "he said he is a centrist and gradualist", but not for the statement "he is a centrist and gradualist". Tornado chaser (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I put this in his political views section on his article, is this okay? "In May 2017, he said on Quora that he is a Centrist and a Gradualist and believes "that slow step-by-step change is better and more sustainable and allows us to test new things with a minimum of difficult disruption in society."" I also put a citation next to the sentence in the article. 344917661X (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep looks good.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Should be "wrote on Quora" as being rather more clear. Collect (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

NICAP website as a source
Article in question: Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting Source in question: []

This article was raised at WP:FTN as being poorly cited. The main details of the event are sourced to the NICAP website; there are then two sources cited suggesting possible non-extra-terrestrial explanations for the event. I'm concerned about using NICAP as a source in the first place - it does have some sort of editorial team, but their | A-Team page doesn't fill me with confidence as to the level of critical editorial oversight. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 20:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * NICAP has been criticized for producing reports without scientific value. For instance, check this. NICAP was involved in conflicts with the CIA, and its goal was to "serve as a sober forum for UFO reporting, inquiry, investigation, and speculation". IMO, NICAP should not be used as a scientific source. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Islam
Are these two sources reliable for Islam-related information? – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 21:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IslamWeb
 * "In this site, there is a committee of specialists that is responsible for preparing, checking and approving the Fatwa. This committee comprises a group of licentiate graduates from the Islamic University, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Sa’oud Islamic University in Saudi Arabia, and graduates who studied Islamic sciences from scholars at Mosques and other Islamic educational institues in Yemen and Mauritania. This special committee is headed by Dr. ‘Abdullaah Al-Faqeeh, specialist in Jurisprudence and Arabic language." Source
 * MuslimMatters.org. Scholar Yasir Qadhi is part of the team and serves as an advisor. Source


 * It depends on what Islam-related information they are supposed to support and which articles in the sources are used. Bear in mind that - just like Christianity and Judaism - no group of scholars speaks for all adherents of the religion. Also, where possible you should use English-language sources, not that they are more reliable, but because it makes it easier for readers to follow the sources to learn more about the subject. TFD (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I intended to link to the English version of the first site. My main question is whether or not the two websites meet the conditions of WP:RS? – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 23:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But my answer is the same. It depends on what they are supposed to support and which articles are used. However I cannot see where that might be the case since these sources appear to be mostly opinion pieces and state religious views as facts. TFD (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be acceptable to mention a religious ruling and cite those sources? – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 03:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific example in mind? As the edit notice and the box at the top of the board say, this page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context, and you should include the article(s) in which the source is being used (or, in this case, the articles in which the source would be used). -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

University of Chicago Press


A number of editors have expressed concern over this source, published by the University of Chicago Press, cited as a reference for information added to University of Chicago Law School. The author, John Boyer, is six-term Dean of the College of the University of Chicago, a Distinguished Service Professor of History, and is a noted expert on the history of academic institutions; the book is based on 17 years of his own work and is also extensively footnoted and referenced. The information for which the source is used as a reference is basic details of the law school's history, facts such as "John D. Rockefeller financed the cost of the new building at $250,000, and its cornerstone was laid by President Theodore Roosevelt."

The argument against its use is essentially WP:SELFPUB - that a publisher associated with the University of Chicago cannot be considered independent of a law school affiliated with the same college, and also probably that its author, Dean of a separate school under the same banner, cannot be considered independent. Personally I believe that the Press should be considered editorially independent in general, and even if not then Boyer is certainly an expert on the subject to a degree that overrides self-publication.

But I'm not myself any kind of expert on source selection, so I'd appreciate some outside input. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable: author and publisher, have reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and are certainly not going to sacrifice it, here. It's not selfpub in the least. It is also "independent" of the subject (the subject is history, the author did not personally participate in history they are writing about, nor did the editors), but even if someone wanted to argue that, non-independent sources are allowed RS in articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur. Recognized expert, reputable press more than offset the fact that it's published by the university's own press.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree too. We consider most university presses (and University of Chicago Press would not be an exception) as reliable. We generally see them as independent from authors tenured at the same university (there might be an exception if the professor was also involved in the press in an extraordinary fashion - but that would be a very rare exception).Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost concur, this would pass the self published test, but I think there could be an issue with COI. If I were to write a history of the Slater family (but ended it the year before I was born) it would still not be independent of the subject. But (as I said) even taking that into account it passes all tests for being reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just fine for for simple facts without attribution. Please don't use it for any kind of extraordinary claim as that would be badly sourced PROMO.  If the content is about some controversy in which the school was involved, this source should be attributed. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable, as used. In a source of this type, there might be smoothing over or omissions of rows, difficulties and scandals from recent decades (especially if they never became public), but actual facts given are no doubt accurate. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The Anarchist Coloring Book
File:Elephantmary.jpg, used in Mary (elephant), is sourced to The Anarchist Coloring Book. The article makes a credible claim that photo was retouched, but it is unclear whether the ACB version was. Is The Anarchist Coloring Book a reliable source for the image? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect it is because many of us have not heard of it, and cannot find out much about it. So that makes me suspect it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Based on the web design alone, I'm gonna go with Nope. (Seriously; it's just a blog. Not an RS.)
 * I also want to point out that the source given at the end of the "retouched" claim in the article doesn't verify the claim that it was retouched. Even the "disputed by Argosy" claim is highly tenuous: it states merely that the photo was once rejected as a fake when submitted for publication. We have no idea the hows or why's of that, so we can't attribute it to a firmly help position on the authenticity of the photo as the article does. I advise removing that whole sentence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Discogs
Is this source reliable for citing albums and soundtracks? I think it is because it shows information directly as seen on the album covers (it even shows the scanned pictures of the front and back covers of albums). But was the first to say it is not RS, and I have no idea why. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  04:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC):It's not reliable, check Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_171. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So it's basically like saying not to cite a social media scanning of an official document, but I can still cite the document as it appears on that social media site without adding the social media link, right? Because now I'm at a state of dilemma regarding the use of this link in Mullum Malarum, a FAC. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  06:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can certainly cite the liner notes, but you don't need a link to Discogs - people can find it themselves if they need to verify. Information on Discogs that isn't in the liner notes would still need some kind of reliable source. --tronvillain (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Evolve Politics an unreliable/unsuitable source?
Several editors have removed references by Evolve Politics on pages such as Jeremy Corbyn and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party claiming that it is an unreliable source such as here. I regard this as groundless as the site is a member of IMPRESS, a UK government approved press regulator. I would be interested to hear opinions as to whether it is or is not an admissible as a source in these contexts. G-13114 (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being a member of IMPRESS is probably by itself an indication of non-reliability (just by looking at the list of publications that are members). The more notable regulator in the UK is Independent Press Standards Organisation - however being regulated by a UK press regulator is not an indication of reliability - The Sun, and Daily Mail are cases in point.Icewhiz (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But those publications have multiple IPSO rulings against them, the Daily Mail especially so . The fact that EP have submitted themselves to an independent arbiter with powers to sanction them for any inaccuracies shows that they take journalism seriously. G-13114 (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It shows evolvepolitics.com is purporting to be a newspaper (as opposed to a partisan blog which is what it appears to be from looking at the site and the editorial process) - which is a fairly easy claim. as for amount of complaints, nobody reads evolvepolitics - per Alexa's ranking it is ranked 213,498 globally and 8,477 in the UK. the Daily Mail, Alexa's ranking in contrast is 140 globally and 55 in the UK (and this is in additional to their print circulation, which evolvepolitics.com does not have). So with a nearly non-existent (and very partisan) readership, it is not surprising there aren't any complaints (or are there? didn't really check). It is easy to say evolvepolitics.com does not have much of a reputation (positive of negative) at all.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree, what we need is to see what their reputation is As far as I can tell no worse then most other press RS..Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, as they're only three years old, they're probably too young to have gained much of a reputation either way. G-13114 (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True, which means we have no valid reason to reject them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Evolve Politics looks like a WP:RS to me based on the evidence presented in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't presume sources are reliable - the assumption is the obverse - we require a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS - this website doesn't have such a reputation.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being member of IMPRESS is not a reason to consider that source is reliable also there is a issue of WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But on the other hand there's also the issue of WP:BIASED. G-13114 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Also I didn't found any proof of editorial control it seems too as every author is independent its kind of WP:SPS platform --Shrike (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that much different from many newspapers or journals where writers have a degree of independence in what they write really. G-13114 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Worth noting that Evolve Politics provides money based on how many clicks an article gets, like The Canary. Lends itself to issues regarding tabloidisation, clickbait and sensationalism. (All of this & more is mentioned here). I would argue this would make it unsuitable on Wikipedia, especially in BLPs. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of which are symptoms of organisations which are forced to operate with very limited resources. So wikipedia can only use sources which are well resourced? Well that would certainly limit the bredth of opinion allowable to be expressed on wikipedia articles wouldn't it? The fact that both have voluntarily signed up to a press regulator indicates that they take accuracy in journalism seriously, and cannot be dismissed as 'fake news' sites even if they sometimes make mistakes. G-13114 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. On the current frontpage, apart from the promoted ads that look like articles (typical of clickbait and fake news sites), all but 4 of the dozens of articles are by one author, Tom D Rogers, whose Twitter account describes him as the "Senior editor" but who has no other profile that I could see on the web apart from a couple of articles on the conspiracy website GlobalResearch.
 * Second, as it claims not to exercise editorial control over content, it is basically a platform for bloggers, of the same status as an SPS. I can't recall any other reliable source refering to Evolve as a source, which is a good sign of a RS, and a quick google search seems to confirm that. Here are what other sources say about it: Press Gazette: its founder, a university student, left to work in PR; Press Gazette: Impress fined it for making a false claim; Press Gazette: "Evolve writes its stories with an unashamedly left-wing bias" and "Left-wing news website Evolve Politics has joined press regulator Impress to silence critics who claimed it had been peddling fake news"; The Guardian: "run by just two people in Nottingham and Peterborough" and "Critics say [its business model] creates a strong incentive to exaggerate or even falsify stories, but Turner insisted the site’s editors were careful to fact-check contributions"; New Statesman: "fiercely partisan website" and The Canary's "payment method, also used by Evolve Politics – a slightly less sensational news site – is derided by some for creating a financial incentive to write “clickbait”" and "hyper-partisan". The Sun, though itself not a RS, highlighted the fact that it quoted a 9/11 Truther as a chemical weapons expert. So, all in all, I'd say no, not a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely most of the objections you're raising here could be said about many other sources like the Spectator etc, e.g. partisan, and operating as a collection of writers. It's certainly true to say that it is a fairly low budget operation, with very limited resources. But then it that is a reason for disqualifying it then we are biasing our coverage in favour of outfits which have resources, and therefore likely to have a slanted POV. The fact that EP has voluntarily signed up to a press regulator indicates that they take accuracy in journalism seriously, and cannot be dismissed as 'fake news' even if they make some mistakes, which is probably inevitable when they are a low budget operation. G-13114 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

As for the biased argument. Well in this context we could take on board what is said at WP:BIASED which is:
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

So in other words, in this context as the "mainstream" media is so overwhelmingly biased against Jeremy Corbyn and the left in general, and outlets like EP and The Canary are some of the few outlets which take a pro-Corbyn stance, we could argue that it is necessary to include their views in order to reliably present all of the viewpoints? Certainly it cannot be reasonably argued that a Corbynite viewpoint is a fringe point of view as the Labour Party under his leadership won 40% of the vote at last year's general election. It can however be argued that this vast swathe of pro-Corbyn opinion is not represented by the mainstream media, and in order to reliably represent the views of a large chunk of public opinion, we need to include outlets like EP.

We should also bear in mind WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which states:


 * The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

So in the the context of the particular claim being supported by EP which was disputed here I fail to see how this is an inaccurate source for the claim being made. It is a legitimate analysis of source material from a reputable polling company. So in this case what exactly is the objection to this particular claim being made apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? G-13114 (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I came back to see if anyone had put in any arguments against my points above, but nobody has. G-13114 (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Step 1 is to consider whether or not something is a reliable source. Step 2 is consider, in relation to NPOV (& BIASED, etc), whether or not to use a reliable source in a particular context. You've jumped to step 2 before an answer to step 1 has been determined. On reliability, if almost all of it is written by one person, who's also the 'editor', then self-published is a problem, as mentioned by others above. It looks like a blog (it even describes each piece as a "post") pretending to be a news source. On the specific point of a yougov poll: if it's of any importance, finding a proper source shouldn't be hard. EddieHugh (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This poll and the comparison between 2015 and 2017 is of considerable importance in the present political environment. However, YouGov sometimes merely publish streams of data that are subsequently analysed, presented and published by the client. In this case the Campaign against Anti-Semitism, a pro-Israeli, anti-Corbyn political lobbying group, notorious for pushing As claims. Presenting data favourable to Corbyn in such a manner would undermine their raison d'être. Now normally this would be picked up by a mainstream organisation, but like many positive stories about AS and Corbyn (he is also a prolific signer of Early Day motions on anti-semitism even before he became leader) it hasn't.  We are purely reliant on blogs such as Evolve Politics to inform us. So has anyone a practical suggestion other than endorsing Evolve Politics or similar blogs to solve this issue? (Andromedean (talk))


 * EddieHugh, unfortunately it is a problem as User:Andromedean has said, the mainstream media are overwhelmingly biased against Jeremy Corbyn and refuse to cover anything which might portray him in a positive light, left wing sites like Evolve are the only ones giving coverage to the other side of the story, so if we are not to include them as sources then it is more or less impossible for wikipedia to give impartial coverage to the issue. The fact that YouGov polls have found that rates of antisemitism among Labour supporters have fallen in the last few years is highly significant to the debate, and not to include it would skew the neutrality of the article. On your other point about being self published, the site says that it has around 20 writers contributing to the site, so it certainly isn't a one man band, and as has been stated it is a member of a government approved press regulator IMPRESS, which should under any normal circumstances qualify it. G-13114 (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't supposed to "give impartial coverage" to any issue. It's supposed to give an impartial account of what reliable sources state. In an ideal world, these would be the same thing. But here we are in the real world. And the Wikipedia world: one of the five pillars begins with, "We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence." And that's prominent in reliable sources. EddieHugh (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But no-one has demonstrated the case that it is unreliable. As for your claim that it is a blog not a news site, the Press Gazette refers to it as a "Left-wing news site", and I think their opinion counts for more than yours. Also as people above have said, what matters is its reputation. Well in the cases where Evolve Politics has been mentioned by outside sources,  I can find nearly all of them describing it as "partisan" but none of them have made any reference to it being unreliable. So barring the subjective opinion of certain wikipedia editors, is there any outside reliable source which states that EP has a reputation for being an unreliable source? If not then I cannot see that a case has been made for it not being considered a RS. G-13114 (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

PoliticsWeb.co.za
How reliable is this website for issues regarding South Africa? An article from here has recently been added to the page Racism in the UK Conservative Party to supposedly contextualise Thatcher's comments about the ANC being a "typical terrorist organisation". I have no idea about the reliability of the website; the particular source which was cited seemed to be a WP:BLOG or WP:SPS of some sort. Thoughts? --Bangalamania (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. there is some discussion on the talk page regarding the additions, if that's relevant here. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Incels' race
Bringing this here to get some outside opinions, since the talk page section doesn't seem to be getting many eyes and consensus isn't really forming. Thylacoop5 wishes to introduce an article from The Daily Telegraph:



My concern is that this article is challenging the other sources by quoting an informal, unscientific poll with 300 respondents on an incel forum called incels.me (NSFW: would not recommend visiting it—the discussions there are pretty extreme and the advertisements pornographic —separately discussing that it's probably not wise to mention this forum in-article ). The suggested addition (diff) would add and an internal survey on an incel website showing that 40% reside in Europe. and According to an internal survey of 300 on a leading incel website, incels are evenly divided between persons of color and whites.

Currently, the article on the Incel subculture refers to them as "mostly white". This has been the subject of some disagreement in the past from people who do not believe that is accurate, but with three sources supporting it it's stayed in the article for a while. Unfortunately the vast majority of sources available on incels are media articles, aside from one demographic study from 2001 with a small sample size (mentioned below), and another academic study published in the Journal of Sex that doesn't mention racial demographics. Aside from the Daily Telegraph article mentioned above, I haven't seen other reliable sources referring to the communities as anything other than mostly white.

The existing sources are:
 * Washington Post: "these are primarily heterosexual white men" (direct quote from associate professor of sociology Ross Haenfler) and "The respondents were mostly white, young men" (from a 2001 Georgia State University study surveying 82 people)
 * Houston Press: "mostly white, straight and cis men" (no clear source mentioned)
 * CityNews: "It is mostly young white men between the ages of 19 and 30" (direct quote from sociology professor Judith Taylor)

Any input would be appreciated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with GW; informal polls on private forums are not viable sources. Including this would degrade our quality; we might as well be a page on geocities.--Jorm (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * GW, I struck the suggested addition since that's not what I sought to add; that was a compromise edit. The edit I sought to add was this one. As a secondary choice, I'm also okay with this addition. Thylacoop5 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thylacoop5 I've edited my comment to show the correct diff. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Its worth noting that some sources describe incels as secretive. If they are so secretive, how would Taylor or Haenfler know their race? Which methodology did they use? Judith Taylor gets rebutted at CBC (4.20 min. mark). Also since visible minority concepts such as JBW (mentioned in incel article) are common, and since white equivalents to JBW don't exist, this high visible minority figure seems plausible to me. In fact, most other internal forum polls (easily searchable online) on racial figures show whites as a minority, usually ranging from 35% to 48% or so. It seems clear to me that the Haenfler/HoustonPress/CityNews figures were mere guesswork. Furthermore, internet demographics in 2001 and those in 2018 are very different. How are we going to cite figures dating to the internet's infancy to probe an online community in 2018? That makes zero sense.Thylacoop5 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's another poll going right now on the same site that (currently) says incels are 67.6% white. How do you not see that these polls are unreliable, compared to professors, etc.? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * whites 38.1%, whites 39%, whites 45.7%, whites 53.6%, whites 20%, whites 31.1%, whites 36.7%, 56.5%, 32% or 68.9%. The only polls I left out were those with unclear categories and those under 5 replies. I stopped looking after 6 page returns. Thylacoop5 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't possibly look at the sway in those numbers and think "oh, this is scientific and accurate, and should be touted!" I know you can't, because your IQ is clearly high enough to know how to write solid paragraphs.--Jorm (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So they're anywhere between 20% white and 68.9% white, depending on which poll you look at. How in hell is this supposed to be authoritative with a range like that? Not to mention that the options presented in these polls include "Curry", "Rice", "Kebab", "High tier white", and "Low tier white"? User-generated polls on an incel forum with racial slurs as poll options and a huge disparity in results depending on which one you look at is more accurate than sociologists with Ph.D.s or (admittedly outdated) academic research? That's insane. Hopefully with recent attention on incel communities, a quality demographic study will be published in the next year or two and we can use that. In the meantime, we need to go with the quality sources that are available rather than racist polls of whoever happened to be online at the time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You guys seem to be shifting towards a binary approach. That's not what I proposed. My proposal was adding the polling figure alongside the professor figure. Can't we mention both? Thylacoop5 (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The poll isn't reliable; the professor is. So, no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. We cannot.  "100% of doctors say that vaccines don't cause autism, but let's give column inches to this group of crackpots who think otherwise!" It is not our job to lie or distort the facts based on the desires of a subculture.--Jorm (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Judith Taylor's research focuses on feminist activism, neighbourhood community organizing, and social change making within public institutions. She is an associate professor of sociology and gave an assertion that most incels on incel forums were white. In the CBC video Thyacloops linked above with the 4:20 timestamp another expert on social movements, except as they intersect with race, disagreed that it was primarily a white phenomena.  There's nothing about being an associate professor that makes determining skin color easier, as if that could be compared to a doctor's opinion on the efficacy of vaccines.  I don't see any reason to think that with the polls from the incel forum that this is a mostly white phenomena unless someone here could give a reason as to why it would be in incels self-interest to identify as white or not as white to rig 10+ polls.  Rodger was half-asian.  Minassian was Armenian.  I'm sure everyone has their problems with incels, but insinuiating it's a neo-nazi or white nationalist or white entitlement thing is really only something a feminist would do. Willwill0415 (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I undid this edit because your comments about "something only a feminist would do" are serious fucking bullshit and express a great deal of bad faith on your part. GW reverted me, saying that we should allow people to see you as you want to express yourself. I'm going to go with that, but I'm also going to say: That's a chickenshit thing to say. That's just bad faith, and I'm calling you on it.--Jorm (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated this, since if you want to portray yourself as anti-feminist, so be it. You are asking how a professor of sociology, e.g. someone who studies culture, subculture, and social interaction, could possibly speak knowledgeably about... a subculture. That is, her area of study. If a Ph.D. studying subcultures and social phenomena isn't sufficient for you, what is?? You have named two incels who are people of color. The article is not claiming every single incel is white, it's claiming they are mostly white. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, to be clear to both Judith Taylor is not "rebutted" in that video. Jamil Jivani says, "I don't agree with the need to focus on white men in this case, because I think there's enough examples of men from other communities also exhibiting violence and rage that I'm not sure it's racially specific..." Him saying that there are sufficient examples of non-white male incels being violent is not the "gotcha" you two seem to think it is; it does not in any way rebut the overall demographic makeup of incel communities nor does it refute Taylor's assertion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, this isn't something I'm going to talk a whole bunch over, at least as far as the intro to the incel article, because the articles except the Telegraph favor the forums being mostly a white phenomenon. It's just not an accurate though. Maybe at some point there will be an updated Donnolly-type study for these younger age, more modern-internet-era, diverse (except for gender) forums.  It doesn't appear judith taylor or the other associate professor did anything but provide an unsubstantiated common buzzphrase.  There's also no self-interest for incels to rig a poll about their whiteness in my opinion, especially that many times.  My impression was that if there was a conflict between sources to include both sources to let the reader make up their minds.  The main argument against letting the reader make up their minds so far is so that users aren't redirect to incels.me...  Which seems like a political motive.  I don't care if the article mentions incels.me, it could just say a popular forum like the Telegraph article does.  But it's not really that important, I don't see why one thyacloop edit referencing a reliable source should spark this much backlash.  His edit has a bit of informative value. Willwill0415 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When you say "It's just not an accurate though," you are expressing your opinion on the racial makeup of incel forums. So far no reliable sources have been identified that dispute incel forums being mostly white. The NPOV policy states we handle conflicting sources by representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (emphasis mine). Since there appears to be consensus that this source is not reliable, it should not be included. Also, this is not "backlash", this is simply discussing whether a source is reliable or not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the commenters above me. That comment is incredibly ignorant and remarkably partisan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It should be obvious to anybody that a self-selected group of respondents to a poll on some website is more credible than the assessment of an academic who has studied the topic., just in case it's necessary. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. Informal polling on a private site is WP:UNDUE in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the part about Europe? Is that also undue? Thylacoop5 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * More reliable sources exist so UNDUE That said, if those sources did not exist, and only this RS reporting on the informal poll gave a population idea of the group, then that would be appropriate as long as it was attributed in prose properly, and that if a more reliable poll came up, that should then be removed. To further be clear, if we knew that informal poll existed but no RS even noted it, then that would be wholly unusable. Content from unreliable sources filtered through reliable sources is fine to use barring all other policy and content factors. --M asem (t) 02:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the part about Europe. Is that also undue? Thylacoop5 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, even if that's a facet that the other three sources don't discuss. The immediate availability of those other RSes make anything from that survey UNDUE. --M asem (t) 02:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are other sources in the article discussing nationality, we don't have to revert to a terrible source like this poll to get information on that either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. These are unbelievably Undue, because they're incredibly unreliable. This should be a complete non-starter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * An informal survey shouldn't be treated as a reliable source for statistical information regardless of the context around it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying. You can't take any sort of website poll and form a reasonable conclusion based on the results of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

just a reminder that half of the sources are using the 2001 Donnolly study as the source of incels being mostly white, and a good possibility everyone else is just piggy backing off that study if one were to email the writers and ask. It's the only academic study they can draw from anyway. The same study GorillaWarfare and others told me not to use for anything due to "small sample size" is the same study they are now using to defend this "mostly white" thing. Also @gorilla, how do you know a new demographic study is happening? Willwill0415 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is speculation on your part. As for the 2001 source, the article citing it is considerably more recent and also quotes a sociologist. I didn't say that a new demographic study is happening, just that I hope one is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When numerous reliable sources all cite a primary source we find questionable... Well, that answers the question for us. See WP:IRS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC on inclusion of cast template box
Should the article; Desperate Measures (musical) include a template box for the separate casts or is prose enough? Please help form a consensus at Talk:Desperate Measures (musical). Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you meant to advertise this at the reliable sources noticeboard? Your RFC doesn't seem to have anything to do with reliable sourcing. --Izno (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the dispute is the use of the template to push wording not found in the reliable sources, but it wasn't neutral to say that in the RFC statement. At issue is the use of the term "Original Off-Broadway" when there are two separate "original" Off-Broadway productions and the sources themselves seem to be avoiding the terms. However, please feel free to remove this thread if you still feel doesn't have enough relevance to the noticeboard. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

From the page notice:
 * Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:
 * 1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source.
 * If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc.
 * If it's an online source, please link to it. For example: .
 * 2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: Article name .
 * 3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: "text" . Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".

Literally the only thing you have provided from that list, even now, is the name of the article, along with the essentially the same vague text you used at three other unrelated noticeboards. It's clear that not only does this have nothing to do with reliable sources, you were well aware of that when you posted this. --Calton | Talk 06:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Is Excalibur a reliable source?
Excalibur is a university newspaper (York University). Would it be fine to use this source to cite groups and actions taken during the 2018 York University strike (which is the same university of topic)? SprayCanToothpick (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * what material do you propose to cite to it? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A student group and student actions during the university strike (https://excal.on.ca/new-group-gives-voice-to-students/), were removed under the claim that Excalibur wasn't a reliable source. A third opinion (WP:3O) was called in who analyzed the source and concluded that it was reliable, "...I do not find any WP:UNDUE problems here. They are a minor player, and the article says so. The source appears to be reliable..." Thus it was restored. Despite this, the group and all information citing Excalibur was removed from the article again, claiming that it was unreliable and coat-racking because it's a university newspaper rather than a large news corporation. What are your thoughts on Excalibur as a reliable source for citing groups and student actions during the York University strike article? SprayCanToothpick (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. I think this content would be fine to cite to the student paper:
 * On the Friday of March 2, the newly founded Students Against Strike organized a small walk-out demonstration and demanded that undergraduate students deserved their own platform in the conflict between York University Administration and CUPE 3903.[6]
 * But not add Students Against Strike[6] and Stephan Martin Chung (Founder)[6] to the infobox. This appears to be a minor element of the story, and the addition SAS to the infobox is not warranted. Please see this version of the page that includes SAS. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, thanks for your analysis of the source and your input! SprayCanToothpick (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

More input and analysis on Excalibur is welcome and encouraged, thanks. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

zapatopi.net
I find it concerning that this website—notorious for Internet hoaxes such as the Pacific Northwest tree octopus and dutifully informing us of the TRUTH about Black Helicopters (as loves to remind us)—is cited as a source  on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, it is, including in Featured articles such as Sun (cite note 185, permanent link). Yes, Zapato is Lord Kelvin's humble servant, being a devout Kelvinist with an "MA in Psychothermodynamics from Kelvinic University", but sourcing our citation of a work by Kelvin to a paper hosted by the owner of Zapato Productions Intradimensional seems problematic to me to say the least.

My immediate concern is whether the "papers" are even authentic, given how even the religious have been known to indulge in apocrypha. Beyond that is the fact that we are directing our readers to a source whose primary readership comprises dissidents of the Illuminati's rule, literal tinfoil hat proponents, those who have realized that Belgium doesn't exist, and. That is very concerning.

Should anything be done about this, such as by replacing all the current instances with better sources? My point in bring this up is not to seek permission to do so (I don't need it), but rather to discuss the propriety of citing anything sourced from this website outside of the exceptional case of information pertaining to it (such as in the article about hoax octo above). According to this noticeboard's archives, this source has never been discussed (except by ), so now's better than never. Afterward, perhaps add it to WP:RSP? Thanks. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that pretty much all of my citations to this source are to [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ] -- the reliability of which is obvious once you put on one of these: [ https://zapatopi.net/afdb/ ]. But now that it has been pointed out to me, I plan on citing [ https://zapatopi.net/belgium/ ] where appropriate. Also note that that pretty much all of my citations to [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ] are on the fringe theories noticeboard, used in the context of discussions about fringe theories. Finally, I have never cited zapatopi.net in any article or suggested that it should be cited in any article. Clearly Wikipedia isn't ready for the TRUTH about black helicopters...  :)


 * That being said, the reliability of [ https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/ ] for use as a citation in articles is worth discussing. That page clearly states "Note: I cannot verify that these copies are error free; use a primary source if accuracy is needed". That statement is reason enough to go through Wikipedia and replace all zapatopi citations to Lord Kelvin's papers with better sources. For example, doing a web search on "there is a universal tendency to its dissipation, which produces gradual augmentation and diffusion of heat" brings up several likely candidates for citations to On the Age of the Sun’s Heat.


 * Finally, please note that Identifying reliable sources uses the word "article" or "articles" 48 times, twice in the first sentence. In my opinion, that answers the question of whether zapatopi.net should be banned "as a source on Wikipedia" (emphasis in the original). Context matters. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification,, and I apologize if my initial statements suggested otherwise. I probably should have stated so myself. Beyond the levity of the situation, however, I also pinged you because you—as one of the propagators of THE TRUTH—are the only Wikimedian I know who is even familiar with this website and consequently you may know something I'm missing (such as these papers perhaps being a content mirror of elsewhere, though that still wouldn't resolve most of my concerns). Moreover, it has been your advocacy mentioning of that TRUTH which originally exposed me to it, which ultimately led me to check its usage in the mainspace (only to, surprisingly, find it used as a source) after suggesting that TRUTH to a friend to use as a source for any report they write in aviation class earlier today. On a related note, I advised them to author any aviation report strictly in ornithological terms and I firmly stand by that decision.I might as well clarify myself that my statement about it being used "as a source on Wikipedia" was with the implication that I was talking about the mainspace; I should have explicated that, however, since the context was probably insufficient to make that implication tacit. I have no interest in challenging your desire and dissemination of THE TRUTH, so I'm definitely not looking for any blanket ban of the site in all namespaces (or any, really), especially not when it's being used to bring some fun to the fringe. I tend to be the contextualist, anyway, so I have no complaints about considering the context.Somehow, there has been implicit consensus even in Featured articles that citing purported Kelvin papers hosted on the website is acceptable. Hopefully, explicit consensus can be reached here to document why that's not a good idea, if only to avoid THE TRUTH propagating any further beyond the talk pages. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC); added sentence at 03:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I rather like your idea of the ornithological aviation report. I think Wikipedia should switch to IP over Avian Carriers. "During the last 20 years, the information density of storage media and thus the bandwidth of an avian carrier has increased 3 times as fast as the bandwidth of the Internet. IPoAC may achieve bandwidth peaks of orders of magnitude more than the Internet..."


 * Getting back to the Kelvin papers I definitely think that all citations to them should be replaced with better sources. "...Collected from various sources, mostly on the Internet..." doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the documents being error-free. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait... The tree octopus was a hoax? FUCK YOU GUYS THAT'S MY SPIRIT ANIMAL!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I sometimes feel that many Wikipedians don't respect the FSNEP-community. That's Fairie, Sprite, Nymph, Elf and Pixie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I met a a nymph once. She made no effort to seduce me, beyond giving me a kiss on the cheek and a hug after signing an autograph for me. Mythology had apparently misled me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

sciencebasedmedicine.org
Is this an SPS for the purposes of WP:BLPSPS? Yes? No? Depends on the article and who wrote it? On one hand SBM has an editorial board, on the other hand SBM describes itself as a blog and says referencing is not alway required. What about articles written by Gorski himself? Here is an example from the article Ben Swann where an SBM article written by Gorski is used as the only source for potentially controversial material about a living person "Swann has propagated conspiracy theories about the discredited view that vaccines can cause autism.

I have recently seen different editors say SBM is not an SPS, that it is not an "ordinary" SPS and even an editor contradicting themselves

Searching noticeboards turns up more controversies about use of SBM as a source    but I am not aware of any consensus on weather SBM is an SPS.

Tornado chaser (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging editors whose diffs I cite. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Definitely RS. Gorski and Novella are impeccably credentialed, they have recruited other published experts in their fields to write for it, it's possessed of an editorial staff, has a reputation for fact-checking and correcting errors, and is widely cite by other publications as reliable. It's a generally reliable source in the most general sense, not even just an expert blog. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it really "potentially controversial" when his videos about that exact conspiracy theory still exist online? --tronvillain (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the relevant portion of WP:RS is probably "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." --tronvillain (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SBM may meet the requirements of WP:RS, but does it count as self-published under the stricter requirements of WP:BLPSPS, which prohibits ALL use of SPS, even expert SPS, as sources for information about living people? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an online magazine, with a full staff including editors and writers and an editorial board just like Time or Rolling Stone, so no. Just because the founders still frequently write for it doesn't make it self published, and even if you want to argue that their writings are, they're still inarguably qualified experts whose writings on the topic have been previously published, and thus still RSes for claims of fact.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You should probably read Science-Based Medicine and the sources there, if you want to understand what it is.
 * Yes there are a few discussions there where altmed POV pushers come to a board and moan. They have never found consensus to reject it, in the way that it is widely used. The Greger thread for example, is one of several filed by Greger fans at several boards, and was finally worked through via the very well attended RfC at the Greger article which found SBM, used as it was used, just fine. The same thing goes on with Quackwatch.
 * By the way Tornado chaser, please read Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_2 for an example of that SYN problem I mentioned to you - that is entirely typical when people do what you tried to recommend at WT:BLP (as they should do). Please note the actual sourcing and content at Vani_Hari.  This is a problem the community has already solved in practice many, many, many times.
 * This posting is frankly absurd, since as you know due to your participation there, we have been discussing a proposal to eventually post as an RfC to address BLPSPS. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your proposal at the BLP talk page has been controversial, there is no guaranty any RfC will pass, and we must follow current policy until/unless an RfC to change it passes. Current policy prohibits the use of self-published sources as sources of information about living people, at least when the content sourced to the SPS is stated in wikipedia's voice. You have used the fact that SBM is an SPS as an argument for changing BLP, but reverted me when I tried to remove it at Ben Swann per BLPSPS, saying that it's "not a blog per se", do you consider SBM an SPS or not? If SBM is not an SPS then it can't count as an example of a need to change policy, if it is an SPS, then why did you restore it at Ben Swann? Rather than making my post "absurd" the discussion at BLP is all the more reason to determine if SBM is an SPS or not, given that you have been using the fact that SBM is an SPS as an argument in that discussion.
 * As for the Greger article, the content cited to SBM there was ok because it was attributed to Gorski Hall, not stated in wikipedia's voice, like it is at Ben Swann. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know exactly how these sources are used. The source at Greger is Hall, not Gorski, btw. This is the living consensus of the community; the writing needs to catch up. That is what is under discussion at WT:BLP. There are people there (including you at some points diff, diff, diff, and i am now bored so will not find more)) saying that BLPSPS says that any use of not-by-the-subject SPS is not OK in with respect to a BLP. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * as to what it is, again read Science-Based Medicine. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * i have been describing the strange animal that SBM is. It is not "some blog"; it actually has peer review and a publishing process for some pieces. It has aspects of a blog so when people describe it as a SPS there is a "hook".  It is widely recognized in the real world as a strong source for what it covers. I think it should be used that way in WP for what it covers; I recognize that with BLPSPS as it is, some people will demand it be used only with attribution or try to remove it altogether. Use with attribution is good enough for me; what I want to eliminate is the timewasting arguments where people say "no not-by-the-subject-SPS ever" which is a dead letter in the actual life of the editing community, when it comes to this sort of thing. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * by the way we have the same boring argument about Quackwatch to the extent that a box has been created about it -- SBM is used the same way:


 * -- Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I get that SBM is reliable in general, but we have higher standards for BLP than normal RS, my question is about whether SBM is an SPS or not, "It is not "some blog"; it actually has peer review and a publishing process for some pieces." "some pieces" what about the other pieces? How does one determine what SBM articles are self-published, and what ones go through the publishing process.
 * I do not interpret BLPSPS in its current form to prohibit some use of attributed third-party SPS in BLP articles, so when I said "no third-party SPS ever in BLP" I was referring to third party SPS used as sources of things stated in wikipedia's voice, but I see how that was less than clear. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Little of what you have written about this has made sense to me and I am not interested in engaging with you further. You will !vote on the RfC when it comes, as you will. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because SBM is a generally reliable source, I would treat it exactly like any other generally reliable source for BLP claims. If it's a contentious claim that is disputed in other RSes, then it absolutely requires attribution, and must be weighed carefully. So for example, if they called Lee Smolin a crackpot for his work on Loop quantum gravity (I know it's outside their field, but it's my go-to example of a legitimate, academic fringe theory), I would not include that unless several other RSes also called him a crackpot, and even then, I would prefer one much more on point, and would even still absolutely attribute that claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Fans of pseudoscience have always hated SBM. We have consistently found it to be RS, because it has an editorial board, fact checking, credentialled writers, and these writers soecialise in the field of critiquing pseudoscience. Its partly a matter of WP:BALANCE, offsettign uncritical sources about bullshit with reality-based and generally fully referenced critique. Note also that most SBM writers have their own separate non-RS blogs and the distinction between the writing in both sources is obvious.
 * Quackery fans also hate Quackwatch. Again, this has repeatedly been found to pass RS based in part on the fact that RS also consider it RS. It is cired as a resource by respected third parties. Obviously fans of homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, chiropractic, antivax and the sundry other forms of health fraud will not rest until every reality-based critique is purged. Lets not be part of that. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of the responses to this thread say that SBM meets RS, which I always thought it did, the question I posted here was is SBM, or some of its articles, self-published? This question is distinct from whether it is RS, and has not been clearly answered. Are SBM or some of its articles SPS, or do they all undergo a sufficient publishing process to call them non-SPS? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether it's an SPS or not, it doesn't include the claim that appears in the WP article Swann has propagated conspiracy theories about the discredited view that vaccines can cause autism The SBM article isn't even about Swann. It mentions him only once in passing Indeed, antivaccinationists seemed most displeased when the “CDC whistleblower” documents were released to the public by Carey and other bloggers because examination failed to find evidence of a coverup, no matter how much antivaccine-sympathetic journalists like Ben Swann tried to make them. You can plainly see these two claims are very different. --38.122.25.42 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a separate issue, and should be discussed at Talk:Ben Swann. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO it does not count as self-published because there is an editorial board. Self-published means no independent review or scrutiny of content, basically, which is the problem with predatory journals and vanity presses. You can't "pay to play" on SBM, and posting even one false article without prompt correction or retraction would be a major deal. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So the articles written by Gorski himself still are not self published? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, any more than an article written by Fiona Godlee in the BMJ would be. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles by him on his own Respectful Insolence would be an expert SPS, but those on SBM wouldn't. --tronvillain (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Routledge Handbooks and Oxford Research Encyclopedias
I'm working on a new Spanish article for Democracy promotion (to be used later to improve the English one). At the moment, I'm building the bibliography and extracting the most important facts from them. However, I did not select yet the main sources that the article will rely more on. I have currently three groups of sources: So my question is, how reliable are Routledge Handbooks and Oxford Research Encyclopedias? When prioritizing my bibliography, does it make sense to use these as reference works that can guide and prioritize the main substance of the article, while using additional references to the first two groups, whenever they are often cited by the third group? Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Authors that are affiliated with democracy promotion organizations and have published articles in indexed journals (often journals run by the very same organizations, such as the Journal of Democracy) and have a high number of citations.
 * Authors that are fierce critics of the whole democracy promotion concept and have also published on indexed journals and have a high number of citations (usually less than the previous category, with few exceptions).
 * Chapters of Routledge Handbooks and entries of Oxford Research Encyclopedias, by authors that, apparently, might be more independent.
 * Encyclopedias that are not self-published or user-generated are generally good tertiary sources, which are useful to have a broad idea of the topic and its important aspects. Secondary sources are usually preferred but tertiary sources are often a good guide to find such sources and to determine the balance/weight of subtopics, etc. (WP:TERTIARY).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:TERTIARY for an explanation of how tertiary sources can be used. Note too that these sources probably also be used as secondary sources. Also, even biased sources can be helpful in establishing weight, if they are peer-reviewed, because the writers often summarize the weight of opinion in reliable sources. For example, an author may write, "While theory x is generally accepted, I will argue for theory y." Unlike in polemical writing, theory x must be accurately described. TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Routledge and Oxford University Press are both highly reputable academic publishers, which is of course no guarantee of total impartiality in controversial matters. But there ought to be at least a balance of opposing views in books of this "reference" type. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Routledge Handbooks are more like edited volumes rather than encyclopedias (example) and they are probably closer to top quality secondary sources rather than tertiary sources because they mostly assess (primary) academic research. Handbook style publications may eventually become out-of-date, but they are usually excellent reflections of the state-of-research at the time of publication. The Annual Review of Political Science is a similar potential source that might also be useful for this purpose. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 16:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * PaleoNeonate, TFD, Johnbod, Nblund: Thank you all for your input! --MarioGom (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)