Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 264

Is WolframAlpha a reliable source?
I think it is. It's not a wiki and contains a bibliography with only peer-reviewed publications. It is also made as a better substitute for Google and Wikipedia for students. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:CCBC:262A:863E:CDB8 (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not too sure about it, it claims to have a "a world-class team and participation from top outside experts in countless fields", but without knowing who they are (and give that they "work to accept completely free-form input") I am not sure it can be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In what context? WolframAlpha is, lacking a better term, a search engine that is related to the company that created Mathematica.  In terms of mathematics and similar I would say yes.  So I would be comfortable citing WA for information like the equation of a gear ratio [] or a Bessel function [].  However, if we look at say the entry for Hillary Clinton [] it's clearly information aggregation and cites, in part, Wikipedia.  The site has deep knowledge but limited scope. Springee (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which then produces circular referencing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For Clinton, yes. For a Kalman filter, no.  WA does provide references and they are to papers on the subject, not to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And for how many other articles? Surely this is the whole point, we are going to have to judge each article separately. Thus it seems to me it is not generally reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is reliable in many contexts. When you say "we are going to have to judge each article separately", that is broadly true for literally every source in existence.  Is the New York Times reliable?  Well, it depends on what context.  Are we judging something cited to the an actual piece of journalism, or are we judging something cited to a guest Op-Ed piece?  How will we know unless we are asking how the source is being used and what part of the source is being cited for what purpose.  There is no contextless way to say "is this source reliable".  It should always be "reliable for which use."  Generally, for uncontroversial science and mathematics items like equations, constants, and raw data and the like, it's very reliable.  For other uses, maybe not.  Again, this is how the analysis of any source should go.  -- Jayron 32 16:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference (as I see it) is that sources generally regarded as RS do not have to be checked every time they are used. whereas this one will hAve to be, as it is clear it is only an information aggregation site, not one that exercises editorial or content control.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If by WolframAlpha we are refering to urls of the sort www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=, that is just a search-engine output that is likely to vary over time, and (possibly) the seacrher's location and search-history. It is even debatable whether to regard it as a published source, let alone a reliable source. As such, it is never directly citable as a source on wiipedia.
 * Now, of course, often enough the answer provided by the search engine will be correct, and it it cites a reliable source (per wikipedia standards), we can cite that source. For example, the search result for Bessel function draws information from Wolfram's Mathworld, which I would regard as a reliable source for the topics it covers. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would say that it can't generally be cited, since while it has a bibliography it's unclear whether it's exerting editorial control over any individual result in particular (and it does seem like they pull some data from Wikipedia.) Beyond that, the uncontroversial mathematical constants we might cite to it can be better-cited elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be okay to cite it, outside of Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap data. It's somewhat ephemeral but can be archived satisfactorily, and I could see this being useful for e.g. verifying that an article doesn't have any mathematical errors in it. Jc86035 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly with Abecedare: URLs like www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i= should never be used as references for anything, any more than the output of a Google search should be. --JBL (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think using a WolframAlpha search for its calculator output would be the same as using any arbitrary Google search. It's possible to archive the results, and many of the areas where the results would be useful are probably unlikely to be significantly different in the future. Jc86035 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trivial or basic calculator output does not require a source per WP:CALC. Nontrivial calculations done using WA are an elaborate form of OR. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, WA is an excellent source for uncontroversial facts, especially quantitative things. In an earthquake article I once used WA to get a great circle distance between a city in South America and an earthquake epicenter. The New York Times had botched it because they were using the driving distance to the epicenter...which in this case involved diverting through a pass in the Andes. I noticed their number was ridiculous and used a WA search to get the real one. I could have looked up the equation to get that distance between two sets of lat/lon coordinates, but this was easier and probably less controversial. (It's hard to get consensus on something when the NYT is wrong. Geogene (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This reads as an elaborate defense of inserting your own OR into Wikipedia -- not encouraging. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think geographic distances are OR, then you're doing something wrong. Geogene (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but it may be OR based upon what parameters you used, would a differnet person have got a different (all but by a small margin) a different result?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, for specific facts or data resulting from the "hard" and formal sciences; and for measurements, statistics or dates, or other similar quantitative facts. If possible, cite the source on which they rely. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That it may not be discernable what the actual source of information is, is another point against using it. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but if for a given set of data you're given a set sources that are RS for that data, then it's much less of a concern what originated where. François Robere (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do they have inline citation?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The sources for every query are aggregated in a footnote. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Financial section for company based on company's official government filings and financial reports
Can we use a company's financial data to justify publishing an entire section on the company as here: Jet_Airways (permalink)?

My take: This appears unacceptable on numerous grounds:  WP:PRIMARY, self-published, WP:OR, and fails  WP:INDEPENDENT. However, I can see the data as reliable for stating what the official filings say, assuming the data from those filings, annual reports and self-published financial statements are themselves of sufficient notability to justify sentences. I could see how that might be the case for an company as big as this airline. Yet, I still believe some WP:SECONDARY source(s) mentioning the filings would be necessary to put in this kind of information. I would like to hear what others have to say about this and whether this kind of data has been presented for other companies, large or small. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Much of the above, n]but mainly primary.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. So do you agree with me that the material should not be included if it is not sourced to WP:SECONDARY sources.  Specifically, would I be justified in either:
 * (1) deleting the section Jet_Airways
 * (2) tagging it with because of the issues I mentioned here?
 * An editor deleted my tag that it is poorly sourced. I would like to restore it because of the reasons I mentioned here, unless I am mistaken about how we handle sourcing of financial information. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not forbidden but in this case a companies own claims are too self serving to be usable. So yes (in the case) remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I cant see any reason why financial figures provided in official documents can not be used, primary sources like this are fine for facts about the company. Foo Airways carried 99 million passengers or the company said they made a loss of 22 million goolars. You need to look at other airline article where facts and financial figures from the company are used from primary sources without being a big issue. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

http://www.at149st.com
http://www.at149st.com/eric.html "Eric “DEAL” Felisbret, is a former graffiti artist, lecturer, and an acknowledged authority on graffiti history. He has spent several decades participating in the culture, observing and documenting it. " as used in Graffiti_in_New_York_City and other graffiti related articles. Self announced "graffiti expert" with significant coverage in reliable sources, but definitely a POV source with a pro vandalism bias. What are the things his page would be considered as appropriate reference? I can see it for cultural history.. but feel uncertain about their use to ascertain graffitists' notability. Graywalls (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some evidence he is an acknowledged authority, by people whose opinions we might value.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * that site is cited in articles including, but not limited to T Kid, Mike 171, Wildstyle, SJK 171, Bomb the System, Martha Cooper, Donald Baechler, Tracy 168, Adam Bhala Lough, Zephyr and DAIM (according to Google search..) I deleted two hits that didn't actually link.. By the way, is there an on-wiki way to audit a cited website to articles? Graywalls (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not really address my point.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Climate-data.org
Is anyone familiar with Climate-data.org? It was added as a source here, but all it says about its data source is:
 * "All of our climate data comes from a climate model. The model has more than 220 million data points and a resolution of 30 arc seconds. The model uses weather data from thousands of weather stations from all over the world. This weather data was collected between 1982 and 2012. This data will also be refreshed from time to time."

The person behind the website (per this) appears to be this person, who lists their profession as "Digital Marketing Expert". Am I missing something here? Guettarda (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see nothing to indicate this is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Breaking the Stalemate: The Case for Engaging the Iranian Opposition
Hello. Wondering if the book is considered reliable source for this edit. The article is "People's Mujahedin of Iran" (aka MEK) and the section name is "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK". Thank you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (was approached by Kazemita1 on my talk page) ., . The authors seem to be academics in the field associated with RAND Corporation. What gives me pause is the publisher - "Metis Analytics" - which I've never heard before. Googling the name, the homepage of a company with the same name - - seems unconnected to publishing. A search in Worldcat -  - doesn't bring much else that isn't this book ("Metis Analytics" is a co-author in a 1984 book involving the same authors). So - this has me suspecting this is a WP:SPS, all be it by authors who are published experts in the field (all 4 named authors have published in journals/academic publishers and have relevant expertise in the topic area). The book was reviewed - Schaffer, T. C., McMaster, H. R., Hassner, P., & Takeyh, R. (2015). Book Reviews. Survival, 57(5), 221–246.. The review notes various positive aspects, but strongly criticizes the treatment of MEK "One of the seeming purposes of this book is to convince a sceptical audience that Iranian dissident group the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) should be treated as a legitimate voice of Iranian opposition. This claim would be more credible ..." and concludes with "To simply dismiss such assertions as propaganda of the Iranian intelligence services does not enhance the credibility of an otherwise valuable book.". So there's definitely meat on the claim this is a WP:BIASED source in regards to MEK. I would say this should be used with attribution only, and may not merit inclusion (though I'll note the lack of modern reputable sources on MEK in general - if we had lots of high-quality unbiased sources - it would be much easier to chuck this one). If I'm wrong about "Metis Analytics" (e.g. it not being the publisher (databases often have such errors) or it having a reputation I am unaware of) - then my assessment would quite possibly change. Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Track listings
What are appropriate sources to add to track listings, if necessary? (Most articles don't have any sources attached to their track listings, so I'm a bit confused on the rules with this.) The Reliable sources article states: "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as...an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". Is the record company or artist official page considered reliable alongside e-commerce sites? Or should I go straight to Amazon? Bahiagrass (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They should be avoided when other alternative sources are available. as they carry the risk of promotion and marketing. Personally I favor something likely to have the lowest promotional potential for the subject as well as the reference. If you have no viable alternative than Amazon, make certain that you avoid or strip the affiliate tag ID. As said in the guideline, "e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." Graywalls (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bahiagrass (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a good question, one that I was about to ask at Wikiproject Albums. I see numerous music articles with NO sourcing for tracks.  I looked over WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice, and it is not clear.  However, for most of the examples given there, there is little or no WP:RS for the track listing. Strange.  WP:FUTUREALBUM has a sentence about a requirement for WP:RS confirming track listings are set.  WP:SINGER has a sentence mentioning tracks.  Have you looked through WP:RS/N or at Wikiproject albums for discussions of tracks.  It would be hard to believe this discussion has not already taken place.  Finding it is another challenge. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was told that WP:NOTRSMUSIC is what the WP:Albums prefers, which goes against what the general rules of the site are. On WP:RS, it states you're allowed to use e-commerce sites, but according to WP:A, you're not. When I added an Amazon source to a track listing, it was reverted according to said WP:A guideline, and I was told to use the liner notes instead as a source (meanwhile the same articles would have a bunch of unsourced track listings that wouldn't be reverted, removed, or tagged).
 * There needs to be one rule for this sort of thing, not multiple that conflict each other. Bahiagrass (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The source is the album. Just like how you don't need to cite the plot of a film: the plot is what the film is. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this include alternate versions (from various countries, different B-sides, re-recordings) or only the first release from the country of origin? Do those not need to be sourced either? Bahiagrass (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a rule: the liner notes suffice and if someone desperately needs a reference, Cite AV media notes can be used. However, if there is disagreement, there are other viable sources: AllMusic.com, discogs.com and other. As long as there is no WP:OR, this should be enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I figured that is what has been going on. I believe this should be spelled clearly in the guidelines rather than inferred by the mound of text that avoids saying it explicitly.  The guidelines for track listings and similar subjects in music and film are very difficult to read, where they often seem to focus on obscure exceptions rather than the most common situation.  I don't see how anyone could easily determine that the usual case is that the WP:PRIMARY liner notes from the album itself are to be used as the source.  I would have quoted it here if I had seen it, but I don't think it is anywhere in those voluminous guidelines.  Am I missing something?  Would there likely be opposition to spelling this out more clearly in the guidelines?  I understand that discussion should ultimately take place at those pages.  --David Tornheim (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree, this is no different from a film, its an RS. As to different versions, again just have "and in Freedonia" they added "Dance like a rabbi Hamster" to the tack list".Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Since albums are published works, it is not necessary to seek third-party sources (including commercial websites) to verify a track listing. This is catalog data akin to the publishing metadata for a book, and is very much WP:SKYISBLUE material in most cases, and I don't see the point in rigorously cite-bombing every line of a track listing unless there is some legitimate dispute. Chubbles (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead about put the information from this discussion in WP:ALBUMSTYLE here, so editors won't have to come here to ask this each time. Please feel free to revise as appropriate. If that is not the right place for the information, then where should it go?    I am seriously considering reorganizing the material at Track Listing so it is more readable.  --David Tornheim (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Watchin.today
I recently noticed a user adding this reference to update subscriber counts for the Top 100 most-subscribed YouTube channels (though not directly this article). The reliability of this source has been questioned by myself and several other users while it was making its way through the encyclopedia.

On first observation, I do not see an About page on the website, so it's unclear as to whether the people running the page have experience in Internet Culture.

Courtesy pinging, , , and as users that have previously reverted attempted additions of this source by this other user. Also pinging as the user that has been adding this source to give them a chance to make their case. Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  01:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As with most things, my approach is typically "unreliable until proven otherwise." The lack of transparency on the website about who runs it is a red flag for me. Also, some of these sites spring up as part of promotional campaigns. I first noticed this guy adding it, but he hasn't added it since we chatted, so I don't know if that was a promotional burst, or just an inexperienced editor trying in good faith to strengthen an article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have struck my mention of Justinmin09 as he went to my talk page today to apologize for the additions of the source. I am using this post to gladly accept this apology in the hopes that it doesn't keep happening. Jalen D. Folf   (talk)  03:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cannot find an about page, or how they come by their figures (or even what they mean), not an RS for any claim (especially as it does not tally with some other sources, but then this kind of trivia is going to change so often as to be a bit meaningless).Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No info on editors or who runs the website. Secondly, I do not think these kind of news aggregator sites are reliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted a handful of these additions, but there are still about 20 left. Can I impose upon you to scrub these from the articles when you get a chance, please? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed all known additions of the source and am marking this thread resolved as a result. Thank you for the confirmation of unreliability!  Jalen D. Folf   (talk)  17:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Huff Post UK
Hi Folks!! What is the lastest on the Huff Post at

I see several comment over the last couple of years. I thought this was user generated but this article seems to be by somebody called Curtis Wong who has wrote for Billboards, The National and so and is a staff writer. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  12:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Staff writers also can write opp-edds and other opinion pieces. This is not unusual.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi An opinion piece so not good?   scope_creep Talk  15:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends, they could be used for an attributed opinion of a noted expert (for example). Ids he?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so, more of the average person who likes listening to particular band.  scope_creep Talk  15:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems like a news article that includes the opinions/analysis of the reporter. It can be used as a source for facts, but any opinions should be attributed in text to the author. TFD (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Report
Is the Mueller Report a reliable secondary source for its investigative findings? It certainly seems that the news media is treating it that way. There are many, many reliable sources summarizing and analyzing Mueller's findings with little to no attribution. R2 (bleep) 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ideally we should be citing the report itself as little as possible for WEIGHT issues, regardless of reliability concerns. It is not for Wikipedia editors to sort through a 400 page report and decide what the important bits are. People who do this for a living should do that, and we should rely on their coverage to determine the appropriate weight given here.  G M G  talk  18:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly we should avoid cherry-picking from the report in order to skew an article's emphasis. Although those sorts of neutrality issues are very context-specific and really shouldn't be addressed here at RSN. I'd like to focus specifically on reliability. If we can obtain a consensus on that here then it will head off a whole bunch of acrimonious disputes in the AP space. R2 (bleep) 18:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d consider it reliable, but I’m pretty sure it’s a primary source, not a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaylockjam10 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliability is also context dependent, and there doesn't seem to be any current dispute over reliability.  G M G  talk  19:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. I mean generally. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well here's what I have a hard time understanding - how would reporting by NYT and WaPo, citing anonymous officials, be any more reliable than the Mueller Report? There's no way that RS resources or investigative abilities would be able to outdo the team of professionals that Mueller put together. If the Mueller Report is not reliable, then nothing is. Maggie Haberman, who wrote so much of the NYT pieces about the Russia thing was known to be a somewhat biased reported ("tee up" and "shaping" stories per Podesta emails), is considered a RS and even won the Pulitzer Prize! Mr Ernie (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't generally assess reliability that way, but point taken. It's well documented that the Mueller Report was subject to intensive fact checking from the Intelligence Community. R2 (bleep) 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. When the NYT or WaPo cite anonymous officials, we attribute whatever claims the officials make to those officials. It would be wrong to quote the claims of an anonymous official without attribution, as fact. The Mueller Report represents the views of a prosecutorial team. Among other things, it contains unproven accusations against various people. If reliable sources report a particular claim in the Mueller Report as fact, then we can treat it as a fact, but the Mueller Report itself is not a reliable source. If we accept the Mueller Report as a reliable source, then I'd like to know if we're going to start considering other reports by prosecutors as truth - and not just in the US, but in Western Europe, in Russia, in China, and so on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * By definition the report would have to be a reliable source about its own findings, but I think it probably would be considered a primary source. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No I don't mean its conclusions. I mean is it reliable as a secondary source to say that such-and-such happened during the 2016 presidential election? I think the answer is yes. R2 (bleep) 19:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, my gut reaction was that the report itself would be considered a primary source, but looking over our definitions of primary and secondary sources at No original research, I would say the report could be considered a secondary source for that purpose. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The report is a primary source for our purposes. We should not pull material from it, without secondary sources first establishing the importance of that material.- MrX 🖋 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , what's the basis for your statement that the Mueller Report is a primary source for "our purposes," by which I presume you mean for all purposes on Wikipedia? Is this based on the fact that it's a government report rather than a something published by the private sector? Based on WP:PSTS I'm pretty sure that the report would be considered a secondary source for most (but not all) of its content. R2 (bleep) 20:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it was written by the people involved in the investigation, as opposed to researchers independently analyzing and writing about the investigation. For the same reason that we should be careful about using court records or vital records, we should avoid using the report directly, especially since there is no shortage of secondary sources properly digesting it for our consumption.- MrX 🖋 21:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I would call it an extremely reliable, but primary source. We can cite it in limited circumstances, but the usual cautions apply... use it only with great care. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary? The evidence and law it relies on is primary, the report is secondary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that OR forbids us from independently (from RS) searching the Mueller Report, the Dossier, court documents, other primary sources, etc., for any content we think should be used here. It is not in our remit to determine the notability of content for inclusion in existing articles here. RS do that for us, and then we certainly can cite the (parts of) primary sources when RS have done so. (I am not speaking about the "notability" criteria used to judge whether a topic is worthy for creating an article here.) Please correct me if I'm wrong, and please ping me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding as well. - MrX 🖋 21:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not because it is primary or secondary but as the first responding post suggested above, WP:NPOV is a different inquiry then whether it is primary or secondary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It can be used, but only with attribution (ie. according to the Mueller Report...) After all, some of the things it says are still disputed by both sides.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliability isn't about whether things have been disputed by "both sides." Wikipedia community standards don't hinge on partisan politics. R2 (bleep) 04:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an reliable primary source. While I do not question the professional approach of the authors, the report is designed to assemble evidence of guilt or lack of guilt, but it is up to courts to determine the reliability of the evidence. All kinds of people are now digging into it and coming to widely divergent conclusions about what the report says. We can't summarize what is in the report without synthesis. That is best left to experts reported in reliable secondary sources, i.e., news media, whose writers will present the varying interpretations and the degree to which they are accepted. I don't look forward to disputes on talk pages about what the report actually says. TFD (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In a slightly more nuanced fashion, I believe we should treat the Mueller Report as a primary source for opinions by investigators, and as a secondary source for their reporting on testimony that they assembled. — JFG talk 08:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the testimony of individuals is a primary source. When the report summarizes it, it becomes secondary. But that's of limited value, since there is no reason to add this to articles if it has been ignored in mainstream media. It's use could only be to either bolster or mitigate charges against Trump beyond what has been reported in the media. TFD (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Primary source This is still a group of prosecutors writing a report on their own findings. Though it's much more notable, I think it should be treated the same as a federal criminal indictment. We would never use a criminal indictment as a secondary source for discussions of the crime or investigation. The entire document is definitely a primary source. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be reasonable to pull a direct quote or something for color, but a bunch of reliable sources have put together extensive summaries and annotated versions, so if we can't find outside commentary on some part of the report then it's probably undue and/or synth to cite it directly. I assume WP:BLPPRIMARY could apply here as well. Nblund talk 15:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No it is not a secondary sources, it would be used as a source for itself. Having said that I see no issue with this, it is not going to tell lies about what it says.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Although the Mueller report is obviously reliable as to the content of the Mueller Report, it is not up to us to determine which parts are more worthy of inclusion. Given the enormous secondary sources available, there is no need to use the primary source directly. O3000 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable Source - the Mueller Report is a summary review of researched material gathered by investigators not unlike the NYTimes publishing a summary review of information provided by anonymous sources. We are not the ones evaluating the original research - we are simply citing the reviews of original research; therefore, the report is a secondary source. The dosier, on the other hand, is a primary source as it is a compilation of actual memos, the majority of which are unverifiable. Citing material to a particular memo in the dossier would be OR; therefore, we should cite the RS that reported on the dossier and/or any of the memos in that compilation. Atsme  Talk 📧 13:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary source - In my view any prosecutorial report (in any country/period) is a PRIMARY legal document. The same applies to court verdicts. In both cases one can claim the prosecutor/judges made a secondary analysis of the evidence before them (however such evidence isn't always publicly available or at least not easily available) - however in almost all cases this will be an account by a person(s) directly tied to the event itself (e.g. in the case of Mueller (or Starr - Starr Report) - Mueller and the investigation itself were a political issue with various back and forth). The credibility of such reports and verdicts vary - at times - reliable sources will see the findings as credible and endorse them (and then, so do we). In other instances, we may have reliable sources that challenge the validity of the findings. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary source and thus should be discourages from being directly sourced, particularly anything BLP related. Its like a court transcript, but here, lacking yet any judicial oversight of its contents. Content discussed by reliable third-party sources is fine but through the lens of the 3rd party. --M asem (t) 14:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A reliable secondary source. This is not a set of original documents related to the investigation (which would be primary sources). This is a summary of the investigation (hence a secondary source), and it has an author, Robert Mueller. Moreover, this is a notable RS, we have a large page, specifically about it. As a note of caution, this is a censored RS. But it definitely can be used anywhere, with an attribution to the author or the source if needed. This is not a "legal document", but a published report, just as would be a report published by a team of reputable scientific researchers about their findings. The only difference: this research has large political implications. I understand that Mueller and his investigators have the highest credibility in their professional field. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the Policy (WP:RS),
 * That is exactly what this report is. The "primary sources" in this context are original legal documents (records of interrogations, etc.). The author who made this analysis is apparently Robert Mueller whose name is on the first page of the report. This is a reported analysis to summarize multiple investigations/studies by a large team during a long period of time. The appropriate analogy would be a scientific review. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read further, it says, "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context." Generally, statements of fact are considered secondary sources while statements of one's own opinions are considered primary. When a source is used as a secondary source, inline citation is used, whereas when it is used as a primary source, intext citation is used. In this case, Mueller has made a number of conclusions but we determine their veracity by how they are received in mainstream media and later academic sources. TFD (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read further, it says, "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context." Generally, statements of fact are considered secondary sources while statements of one's own opinions are considered primary. When a source is used as a secondary source, inline citation is used, whereas when it is used as a primary source, intext citation is used. In this case, Mueller has made a number of conclusions but we determine their veracity by how they are received in mainstream media and later academic sources. TFD (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable secondary source This is clearly a primary source document and should be utilized only in that context. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable secondary source As I read our guidelines, secondary sources must based on published primary sources. Mueller is based on unpublished material (and his own indictments and various unverifiable US government sources) so it is mostly a primary source. Also, I can't see how a government prosecutor can be an independent third party by any stretch. Keith McClary (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You've referred to two requirements that most definitely don't exist in WP:OR or anywhere else in our community standards. Secondary sources don't need to be based on published primary sources. (Maybe you're thinking of tertiary sources?) And secondary sources don't need to be written by independent third parties. (WP:OR: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources.") R2 (bleep) 21:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Investigative reports "The journalist goes undercover and reports his or her experiences. The journalist meets with people and reads documents to uncover corruption. (Defined as a primary source by policy.)"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Examples_of_news_reports_as_primary_sources
 * Mueller is not a "journalist", he is much less independent, so shouldn't this apply to his report?
 * The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
 * "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form" WP:SOURCE Can a "primary source" not be a (published) "source" in the WP definition? All the examples of primary sources I can find in WP policies are published material.


 * This is a primary source. I wasn't sure that was up for debate. I would be interested in any other example where we decided that a government report was not a primary source. Government evaluations of national parks are also summarizing often many other sources, often peer reviewed published sources. They're still a primary government report.  G M G  talk  22:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, I think a Human rights report by people from State Department would be a secondary source . As about Mueller report, simply having words "Department of Justice" on the top does not make it a primary source. Also, a report (as for the State Department) can be prepared by multiple people, but having multiple co-authors does not make a source "primary", rather the opposite. A secondary source can be created by an individual, by a group or by an organization - that does not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Individual or group authorship doesn't have any bearing on whether a source is primary or secondary. Here's an analogous case: a team of scientists carry out a study they've designed and write a paper reporting the findings. This is a primary source for any discussions of their findings, since they're writing about an investigation they themselves performed (see WP:MEDDEF). That's essentially what Mueller and his team did. They performed an investigation themselves and then wrote a report about their findings. Another comparison: court documents are a primary source. This report is even riskier to use directly than court documents, since it only presents the viewpoint of the prosecutors and investigators. If Mueller and co. had decided to press charges against the president, then this would be obvious: a prosecutor's recommendation to prosecute is obviously a primary source for discussions of the alleged crimes and their investigation. Just because they decided Justice Department policy forbids charging the president with crimes doesn't turn their report into an independent analysis of the situation. They're still prosecutors discussing the investigation they oversaw. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In this specific context, they are not prosecutors, but investigators, and they have published a summary of their own unpublished findings. I think the distinction "secondary" versus "primary" is actually simple. A "secondary" source provides a summary or interpretation of other, presumably primary sources - by definition. Those underlying primary sources/findings may be published or not, that is not so important. For example, a scientist could publish a review/summary/interpretation of his own results, some of which were previously published in other papers, but others were not published at all (yes, that frequently happens). That would be a secondary source. Furthermore, a sigificant part of original scientific reserch articles (the Introduction and Discussion) are "secondary". My very best wishes (talk)
 * P.S. Speaking of WP:MEDDEF (this is a guideline, not a policy, and it is only about medicine), it tells: "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research". What? This is nonsense. Almost every author of almost every good scientific review (a classic secondary source) did participate directly in some part of research cited and described in the review. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable, both primary and secondary: secondary source on findings and background material; primary source on conclusions and assertions by the investigative team (eg. on methodology or legal theory). Weight to be resolved by secondary/tertiary sources. François Robere (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we stop this, here
The usual mandate of this board is to take a Wiki text, take a source, and discuss wither it is RS for V purposes. Both primary and secondary sources can be RS, and primary/secondary is actually an inquiry under NOR. But even so, a single source can be both primary and secondary, and the usual inquiry is to take a wiki-text and take the source and decide if it is primary or secondary in that instance. This general discussion is not examining any wiki text, and really if people want NOR to read something like, 'if a government publishes it, it's always primary', what would be really helpful to all of us is go to WP:NOR and amend it to say something like that, so that it is settled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the idea about sources "by the government" is wrong. Consider a staff scientist (or a group of scientists) who work at the NIH and prepared a publication about the state of knowledge in certain area. Consider this brief popular review to appear on website by the Department of Health. That does not make such source primary. Same with reports prepared by experts for the State Department, and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be a bit complicated, in the sciences, it has generally been decided that a publication of original research is primary. In further rule of thumb you often see statements that 'government reports' are primary by simplified rule for college researchers.  Part of Wikipedia's unique problem is real researchers would also take contemporaneous news reports and say they are primary, but because we like to write about contemporaneous news, we, perhaps perversely, say they are secondary, even though historiographers would say contemporaneous news is primary.  Seems the simple thing to do is to have an explicit general rule. And all that is beside the point, 'so what if its secondary or primary, is it reliable.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the use of secondary here is that secondary sources provide context and interpretation whereas primary provides only raw information. Journalism is more than just raw information, the article is itself a secondary source (by our definition) of the journalist's raw notes (which are not usually published) would be a primary source.  In Wikipedia parlance, if a source is primary, it only answers the "what" question.  A secondary source answers "why is it important" and "what does it mean".  -- Jayron 32 16:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, what's the consistent application, did not the man, Robert Mueller (someone who is expert) contextualize and interpret 'raw information' - he was not just making a list of personally created information using his physical senses (and there can be similarly little doubt he went through revision of his notes and ideas not published deciding what was important and what it means). But again the usual inquiry is to take a wiki text and take the cited source and decide all these issues in that context. And my main point was that this is spinning wheels until we need/will grapple with that context, or just adopt a simplifying 'rule.'Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The consistent application is to say "In the Mueller Report, it was stated that..." followed by a short quote or longer paraphrase. When one source reports something exclusively, explicit citation (with full footnote) is best.  When something is widely and independently reported across a broad spectrum, we can leave off the explicit citation.  In this case, if the Mueller Report is the only actual source of the information, then put that name right there before the information.  We wouldn't, for example need to say "According to, George Washington was the first U.S. president" because that information is widely available in a plethora of independent sources.  The Mueller Report information is unique, and should thus be explicitly noted.  -- Jayron 32 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As I indicated before this turned into a zillion word thread, and as I have argued repeatedly in the past, we should not start threads here about discussion of sources in the abstract. This board is a part of the dispute resolution process. If there is no dispute, then there need be no resolution. This includes threads started for the purpose of astroturfing consensus for the primary purpose of adding sources to WP:RSPS.  G M G  talk  17:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with GMG - keep it case by case. Atsme Talk 📧 21:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: RN (journal)
This appears to be a hijacked journal: while it was indexed in MEDLINE until 2009, the website currently calling itself RN Journal seems barely deserving of the name "journal", having undated articles with basic spelling and grammar issues and no peer review. This isn't commonly cited (Journals Cited by Wikipedia lists only five articles citing it), but its scope is medicine, where verifiability is critical. For an example of its use in Wikipedia (before the apparent hijacking) see the first citation in Enema, backing up the statement "Equal parts of milk and molasses heated together to slightly above normal body temperature have been used."

I'm looking to build consensus for adding it to the hijacked sources list of WP:SOURCEWATCH. Is the assessment above accurate? Vahurzpu (talk)
 * I'm not sure that website corresponds with that MEDLINE entry. Per MEDLINE, the magazine was "absorbed" by HT; the publishers don't match, and there might be other "RN Journals" (eg. this). However, the website certainly isn't an RS, and we shouldn't cite anything attributed to the original journal (ISSN 0033-7021) past 2009. François Robere (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"The FWA"
The article Sacha Dean Biyan makes a lot of use of thefwa.com. But this page suggests that that website will publish anything if they like it and receive 70 quid.

WP:RSSELF would seem to rule out use of this website. Or do I misunderstand something? -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not happy with it as a source, all very dodgy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

marathi.tv
https://www.marathi.tv/write-for-us/ says, in part, "If you believe you are a good writer & contribute some great content to this website, we invite you to contact us." and "if you need to remove or suggest modifications in our content & are authorised to do so. We will be happy to accommodate your requests." and "Express your unique ideas in different forms from articles, poems, photos or even videos" and "College students, house wives etc are welcome to contribute. No prior experience necessary". These statements lead me to believe that their website cannot be considered reliable by our standards, as it is user-generated content. --Geniac (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree, also a danger of circular referencing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rfc: company-histories.com
It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC). Matthew hk (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would treat this article similarly to Fundinguniverse.com, which was discussed in a, and Reference for Business (referenceforbusiness.com), which is currently being discussed on this noticeboard. I'm adapting my comments from those discussions here:
 * Cite the original reliable source, but say where you read it . Company-Histories.com is very similar to Answers.com in that it contains text from established tertiary sources. In this situation, most editors would reference the original publication in the citation, but link the citation to the Company-Histories.com page, and also include "– via Company-Histories.com" at the end. You can see an example of this at  ("– via Answers.com"). If Company-Histories.com contains any pages that do not indicate that they were republished from established sources, then those pages would be self-published sources, which are questionable. Additionally, if you can prove that the content in Company-Histories.com is not properly licensed, then it's a copyright violation and all links to it should be removed under WP:ELNEVER. However, a cursory search did not find any pages on Reference for Business that weren't sourced from Gale publications and Gale is known to license their content to other websites.
 * —  Newslinger  talk   12:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have viewed some link of fundinguniverse, which most of them are NOT using via and mis-citing fundinguniverse as source. Wikipedia should not encourage to cite pirate site which some academic journal web scrapper was black listed. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the domains mentioned in this discussion are blacklisted (i.e. listed in the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist). Are you referring to something else? —  Newslinger  talk   23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the different of some academic paper database (as re-publisher) what were blocked due to concern of copyrights? Certainly someone can written a code as web scrapper to rip-off the content of fundinguniverse, Reference for Business.com  and company-histories.com, and made a new site and then other people by good faith insert the link to wikipedia. Among those three sites that "re-publish" International Directory of Company Histories, only the parent company of Reference for Business.com had somehow stated they had been licensed. So, if these sites keep on emerging AND most of them did not declare they are licensed (so far only one declared), how to tell which one did not have the copyrights problem. Or just make it stop, only one or two such mirror sites (what had somehow declared they have license) are white listed, and converted the existing links of other sites to those "declared". Or just have a lengthy project of verify them one by one with the offline hard copy and add back many missing information? All of those site seem originate from one copy, that somehow intentionally skip the author of the original entry in the books. Those entries most of the time are updated by different person as well as in the back of the book, they stated where the previous version are located, so it is odd that "licensed" content are not declaring the author as a minimum. Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also for  Reference for Business .com, the owner of the site had stated they are licensed some content from other sites, which presumably included St.James Press, the imprint of Gale for the International Directory of Company Histories. However, company-histories.com did not made such claim. Matthew hk (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure if this noticeboard is the best place to ask about copyright infringement, since most of the discussions here focus on a source's reliability. There doesn't appear to be a noticeboard to discuss whether a source violates copyright, but Copyright assistance lists Wikipedia talk:Copyrights ("Copyright discussion") and Copyright problems ("General help/discussion") as two possible venues that might be more helpful. Since there appear to be numerous sites that republish Gale content, it would be useful to make a definite decision on all of these sites at once. If these sites are considered copyright violations, then you can directly request blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —  Newslinger  talk   23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems —  Newslinger  talk   14:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Reject as a copyvio. WP:SOURCES requires a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and this site has essentially no external mentions as to its quality, no "about" section, no masthead information, and no other reason to believe that it might have such a reputation. It's tempting, but it has all the hallmarks of a massive copyvio to harvest ad revenue. By Googling randomly selected excerpts, I was able to confirm it is a massive copyvio of the 2006 International Directory of Company Histories from Thompson Gale. Sorry. The RFC bot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklist for consistency with Reference for Business (referenceforbusiness.com), which has recently been blacklisted at . —  Newslinger  talk   09:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklist per copyvio and similar sites blacklisted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Disinformation or no disinformation?
I'm probably not presenting this properly, but I'm struggling with this one.

The issue: there is evidence that the Islamic Republic of Iran recruits former MEK members (IRI’s main political opposition) to provide false testimonies against the MEK as part of a disinformation campaign against the group (some background here and here).

Should we include such allegations by ex-MEK members in Wikipedia if published on reliable sources such as the Guardian?

Requesting feedback from uninvolved editors please. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You want to be able to source the counter allegations if you can (this is one of the few places where an BLPSPS could be used.) But regardess if you can or not, the allegations made should be put with attribution. Eg "According to the Guardian, former MEK were recruited by the IRI to provide..."  With that, we are not factually stating that true, and implicit that it is a controversial statement so one can read into that that former MEK members may contest that, if there are sources lacking that directly include the counter statements --M asem  (t) 16:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an allegation, which is not evidence (I have to say this does not read like an RS issue really, but a NPOV one). So we would attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Masem and Slatersteven, except the Guardian isn't the one making the allegations, so the attribution should be to "former MEK members...". If the allegations are exceedingly contentious or inflammatory (which they don't seem to be to an outside observer, but it's your decision), you can add to the preceding statement "published in the Guardian". François Robere (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for the input. Attributing does helps distinguish allegation from fact, just that here it comes across as if we're starting to include disinformation on Wikipedia articles (even if attributed and explained). It's the first time I've come across something like this, so if this is how these circumstances are being presently dwelt with, then I'll go with that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiki has a complex relationship with the truth, the bottom line of which is we have not the tools nor the processes to evaluate the veracity of the claims, so we must rely on reliable sources to do that for us. In this case it's the Guardian (and a few others). François Robere (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Outono Fotografico
Trying to assess this source as reliable for information about a Spanish photojournalist, Delmi Alvarez, which needs a major overhaul as it's been heavily edited for years by the subject who doesn't understand Wikipedia, and I'm currently going through it source by source but don't have familiarity with Spanish-language sources. Outonofotographico.com seems to be an online photography magazine? I'd like to use it to provide detail about this photographer's work in Cuba. --valereee (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the product of a cultural collaboration, published by a non-profit and supported by state and local government. I'd give it a "yes" for this particular purpose if no other sources are available. François Robere (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

== Potentially unreliable sources claiming that a Right wing political party is Far-right wing, without providing evidence that explicitly/exclusively shows far-right wing activity or far-right wing ideology as a whole or majority. ==

Questions as to whether or not these individual pages (not the journalists or the hosting website, but the individual pages themselves) are sufficient as a Reliable Source to be used as a statement of fact and not just the opinion of the journalists that wrote them:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2019/mar/16/far-right-australian-senator-fraser-anning-attacks-boy-after-being-egged-video https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/peter-dutton-claims-greens-just-as-bad-as-fraser-anning-on-christchurch-attack/ar-BBUTrlf https://www.smh.com.au/national/fraser-anning-spent-most-taxpayers-money-on-family-travel-last-year-20190320-p515sm.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/australian-senator-fraser-anning-egg-incident/index.html https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/the-rise-and-rise-of-australias-right/

Relevant Wikipedia article: Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party. Relevant citations are 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Quality of evidence presented seems weak at best, and could easily point to other conclusions, as the current stated conclusions on the relevant Wikipedia article (The proposed statement of Fact that The Conservative National Party is Far-right ideologically) are mostly subjective and contradict relevant pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as Far right politics. The highly subjective nature of these claims and easily contradicted position of the claim that the Party is factually Far-right is a questionable issue. Example: citation 7, Asia Times article is being used as a citation to support the statement and seems to show that because Anning himself was at a public event that was also participated in by some elements of the Far-right, that may be used as flimsy evidence that he too is Far-right, despite the fact that it was a public event. If this is sufficient burden of proof, then the same burden of proof could be used to state that everyone at e.g OccupyWallStreet was an anarchist, because there were anarchists present. Given that all of the evidence required is weak, in my opinion I have no issue with these pages being linked as citations for claims of far-right ideology, and as such be stated as opinion, but not fact. The burden of proof is on the news articles themselves to provide the evidence to support their conclusion, which they provide, but given the highly charged and subjective nature of politics, the conclusions that the articles come to with the evidence they have presented (and some of them present no evidence at all) could easily lead one to assume that the Party is merely a less mainstream variation of plain "Right wing" and not Far-anything. There are very few similarities between actual Far-right ideologies, such as Fascism or Nazism, and the ideology of the Conservative National Party, while I freely admit there are a couple of similarities (in the same way that the not-far left wing ideology of Democratic Socialism, which is clearly Left-wing, has some similarities with Marxism-Leninism, but could not be considered to be Far-left wing because of those similarities, or at the very least it is an entirely subjective opinion based notion and should not be stated as fact).

Requesting analysis of the aforementioned news articles and determinations as to why they specifically could/couldn't be used to support the claim of Far-right wing ideology, as a whole or majority, as a statement of fact instead of being displayed as an opinion. Thanks. Sundeki (talk) 04:27 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * edit: It's become apparent to me that this may be the wrong section to post this, if that is the case, then please remove it. Sundeki (talk) 04:59 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They are RS, as to the issue of eight or POV, that is harder.
 * Other sources [], [], []. Thus (it seems to me) there is no weight issue here. Lots of RS call them far right.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is usually better to use an expert source, instead of news articles using journalese shorthand. To many if not most readers the term far right refers to neo-fascists. TFD (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Should AlterNet be deprecated?
AlterNet's unreliability has been discussed before, but is it worthy of a depreciation? X-Editor (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Why? And why the question now? --Calton &#124; Talk 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * AlterNet's quality is, according to this thread "Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion" and is also, according to that same thread, the most visited out of all the unreliable left wing sources. X-Editor (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No - While partisan sources always need attribution, it is nevertheless valuable for providing progressive viewpoints and reporting or interviews of progressive organizations. A deprecation might do more harm than good. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No - on principle. We don't need to nor should we go around creating an official, automatic list of bad sources.  Let local consensus or when needed larger community consensus do it's thing.  Deprecation is like the mandatory sentencing rules that keep a judge from applying common sense when needed.  My comment is not an endorsement of the source, just a principled stand on the issue.  Springee (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - while I like rummaging through past discussions just as much as the next fella, I'd rather discuss this based on aggregated evidence. Also, while my approach to deprecating sources is more lenient than some of our colleagues', Tsumikiria's concerns should be addressed by demonstrating that deprecating the source would not significantly harm the breadth of our coverage. François Robere (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed the title to "deprecated" to match Deprecated sources. Please note that deprecation and depreciation have different meanings. —  Newslinger  talk   09:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes but this would require an RfC. As JzG stated in the previous discussion; It is cited in around 900 articles, often for medical claims (it is an abject failure on WP:MEDRS and many of the claims are bogus alt-med nonsense). One particular favourite is punting homeopathy as a remedy for anthrax. Kids: don't try this at home. Following the content on this website can cause actual bodily harm. If this isn't enough of a reason to deprecate it, I don't know what is. Regarding Tsumikiria's concern, there are many other sources that cover progressive politics without this concern, such as HuffPost, Vice, ThinkProgress, etc. We deprecated the Daily Caller and WorldNetDaily anyway even though they may be valuable for providing conservative viewpoints and reporting or interviews of conservative organizations. Plus, an opinion only held by AlterNet will likely be considered WP:UNDUE to include anyway. feminist (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of sources that put affiliate links in their reviews
There's an ongoing AfD that has raised an interesting question (omitting link since it's ongoing and I've !voted there). Many web-based services have affiliate programs that give kickbacks to publications whose readers buy the service through links on the publication's website. VPNs are a common example, but also web hosts, domain registrars, antivirus software, etc. There are several otherwise reputable publications that use affiliate links, and which seem to take pains to ensure their coverage is neutral. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the whole reason these companies are getting reviews in the first place is because of the opportunity for kickbacks. That makes it hard to factor them into a determination of notability. It doesn't seem too far removed from an "everybody who reviews this, even negative reviews, gets [a few bucks or the product for free or whatever]." What are best practices for evaluating such publications? If they otherwise have a decent reputation (PC World and Mashable were two examples that gave reviews), how should affiliate kickbacks factor in? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So long as the reviews are not written for the sake of kickbacks and the reviewed product is not sold on the review, I don't think it should matter. A reasonable degree of separation is needed to not become a dependent coverage. Even on the Oregonian, it says on the bottom "Note to readers: If you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission." With declining subscription sales, news/magazines are going more and more readership purchase commission driven. This puts more challenge on Wikipedians editorial discretion. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends on how much it can be claimed they are being paid for reviews. On the subject of notability I would say this is an issue, the review is there to get money, therefore does not really establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all reviews are the same. See WP:PRODUCTREV Graywalls (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Never said they were.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as the affiliate links do not influence editorial decisions, I don't see any concerns. News websites have to survive in some way, unlike Wikipedia editors they can't do everything for free. Let's say you are a product reviewer at a tech news website. If you want to maintain visitors to your website, you have to keep producing content. If you have to link to a product anyway, why not use affiliate links? There's no harm in that, and you get kickbacks from Amazon/Newegg/other online retailer (note: not the product manufacturer). feminist (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Exit and support network as a source for Armstrongism + Bob Thiel's blog
Is this web page by John Kiesz a reliable source for the statement " It was in the fall of 1937 when Elder Armstrong's credentials were revoked by the Salem Church of God organization. The reason given by the Board of Twelve Oregon Conference of the Church of God, 7th Day (COG7) for this adverse action against Herbert W. Armstrong, was because he taught and kept the annual Feast days. But the real reason seems to have been because of his bad attitude" in  Doug Weller  talk 15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * While I'm at it, I see that a blog, Cogwriter.com by someone named Bob Thiel is being used for an Armstrong related article and for several other articles. This doesn't seem like an RS either. Doug Weller  talk 15:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea about the first point, but blogs are RS if they are by experts, who is Bob Thiel?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thiel says he has a doctorate in Naturopathy and is someone who does prophetic analysis.  Doug Weller  talk 14:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So not an expert then.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Two questions here: a) whether Kiesz's credentials pan out - if so, then usable with attribution; and b) whether the page reflects what he wrote. As the website's owner/s remain anonymous (and there's no suggestion that they're a registered NGO or a similar legal entity that we can follow up on), then no. François Robere (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

LMLK Research website as a source for biblical archaeology - run by a Creationist with a B.Sc.
This is used at Kingdom of Judah and LMLK seal and several other articlesas is the site owner, G.M. Grena. Grena is a creationist with a Bachelor of science degree working in engineering as a " Engineer/Programmer/Researcher/Writer" He is also used without the website in some articles. Doug Weller  talk 14:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See the footnote at : "The non-academic, and lamentably derisive, work of G M Grena, Lmlk—A Mystery Belonging to the King, Vol 1 (Redondo Beach, Cal: 4000 Years of Writing History, 2004), is nevertheless useful for its extensive inclusion of previous scholarship." I'm guessing that "derisive" should read "derivative": so possibly just about OK for facts but certainly not for interpretations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The publisher - Redondo Beach, CA : 4000 Years of Writing History, 2004- - with no other publications per worldcat - seems like a WP:SPS. It is however cited, somewhat, in an academic context - e.g. Bocher, Efrat, and Oded Lipschits. "The yršlm Stamp Impressions on Jar Handles: Distribution, Chronology, Iconography and Function." Tel Aviv 40.1 (2013): 99-116. credits Grena with "The division between “before Sennacherib” and “after-Sennacherib” lmlk stamp impressions had already been suggested by Grena (2004: 337), based on 13 lmlk jar handles from 7th century “Babylonian Attack” strata in Jerusalem, Arad, Lachish, Timna and Horvat Shilha. See Ussishkin 2011 contra this division, but see Lipschits 2012 in response, and cf. Finkelstein 2012. bringing up what appears to be the pre-cursor of "Lipschits, Sergi and Koch" whom they are citiing. I'd say very borderline for use at all (the possible saving grace here is citations/referrals by reputable sources) - definitely not for anything controversial. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a fringe source. If we have a reliable alternative, we should definitely be using that instead. If not, it’s worth questioning why, and simply leaving it out, IMO. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly academics sometimes don't do thorough checks on their sources. Doug Weller  talk 17:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Per the above, if it is only "useful for its extensive inclusion of previous scholarship" then use that scholarship instead. This source is not reliable.  -- Jayron 32 17:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Question - the author seems non-reliable of course (not an expert in history nor archaeology). What is currently sourced to him? (images, statements)?GreyShark (dibra) 14:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * LMLK seal uses it 4 times. Not an RSSlatersteven (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * here are the pages sourced to the website. A self-published book by him is used in these articles. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Undark and others for scientist BLP
Can this source:

...be cited for this passage in Draft:Clarice Phelps:
 * Phelps and fellow Oak Ridge scientists Rose Boll and Shelley van Cleve removed impurities from the berkelium sample using radiation-proof gloveboxes, losing less than a milligram in the process.

...and if so, does it need to be attributed, and if so, to whom? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 05:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment': Undark by itself is fine as a source for this as a factual claim, especially since the author specifies how she learned it. Two caveats not directly related to source-reliability: (1) saying "losing less than a milligram in the process" without mentioning the starting quantity and providing the reader any context of whether the loss is lower than, higher than or as expected, is useless; (2) the question of whether this is due and/or noteworthy (for wikipedia purposes) is a separate question. Abecedare (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Re #1: there are other RSes that report the quantity as something other than 27mg (22mg, and another one says something in between 22 and 27 but I forget exactly what), so I was going to suggest "less than 30mg" be worked in, probably in a preceding sentence. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember we are talking of a radioactive substance with a half-life of 330 days. So every two-weeks we would expect to "lose" about 3% of 249Bk in any case. So all these numbers will depend upon at what time and at what stage of processing the quantities are being measured. Experts writing for peers care about specifying all these technical details; that's not the mission for op-eds directed at a mass audience. That's another reason we should not throw around numbers in biographical wikipedia articles where we cannot provide (and in this case, do not have) sufficient context. Abecedare (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Op-ed - reliable only for the opinions of Claire L. Jarvis - has to be attributed (though probably correct - describing a fairly routine purification procedure). The original piece is clearly marked as an opinion. The opinion has been republished elsewhere - in each instance clearly stating it was originally published on Undark. When subsequent publishers republish a piece, they generally do not vet or fact-check the piece for accuracy (which, besides the copyright/attribution issue, is another reason they state this is a republished piece). Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I second Icewhiz's take that the republication doesn't add any "reliability" to the sourcing (consistent with its mission, Undark has extraordinarily generous republication guidelines). The place I differ is in that IMO the two particular paragraphs quoted by Levivich above are in effect factual reporting by Clair Jarvis, and (as Icewhiz says) the claims in those paragraphs are perfectly routine/believable. Therefore, in my editorial judgement it would be fine with just treating them as factual claims not requiring attribution but if needed they could also be attributed as "writing in Undark Magazine, Claire Jarvis reported that ...". Abecedare (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with Icewhiz, opinions are just that. But I am not sure this is likely to be fake. All in two minds over it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As argued above, the two paragraphs specifically quoted are factual reporting and can be used as such. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The Fastcompany ref is probably sufficient. I don't agree with the assertion above that they wouldn't bother to fact-check it merely because it was covered elsewhere - Fastcompany is a reputable publication, so if they're publishing an article where the writer says they spoke to a primary source, I feel we can trust that and report it as fact (and, in the absence of any reason to doubt either, I don't think it would require in-line attributions.) As an aside, this is also mentioned in this podcast with Chemical & Engineering News, which also seems usable as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's amazing that the original version is an op-ed, but somehow the re-publications are not. And no, these are not good sources. They are op-eds. Natureium (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Open Doors : Persecution of Christians
Can someone please tell me whether this site: Open Doors is a reliable source for our articles? It is being used in our Religious persecution article with the following text:
 * "Today, Christians are harshly persecuted in countries like North Korea, China, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan among others."Tamsier (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say no - this is per their about "community of Christians who come together to support persecuted believers". That being said - harsh persecution in North Korea, Iraq (mainly when ISIS controlled parts of Iraq), and Pakistan are relatively easy. China has very complex relationship with some churches and this may be correct. In regards to Iran - see - AFAIK the issue in Iran is mostly related to proselytizing (spreading the faith) and converts to Christianity. Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they seem to take any incident and blow it up out of all proportion, they are RS for their opinions, but that is all they casn be used for, not statements of facts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly an activist organisation with an agenda to push. Handle with care. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am having this discussion on the 'Persecution' talk page right now. It is a partisan source, no doubt. That being said, applying the WP standards on biased sources applies: . These are Open Doors has no independence from the topic at all. It is a charity that is run as a Christian ministry.  They are an activist organization with an agenda, (but all human rights organizations are) so that's against using it.


 * WP says, Fact checking with other sources indicates Open Doors facts are reliable, so that's in favor of using it.  The UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM  which describes itself as "an independent, bipartisan U.S. government advisory body, separate from the State Department, that monitors religious freedom abroad and makes policy recommendations to the president, secretary of state, and Congress" lists "Countries of particular concern"' as well as "SPECIAL WATCH LIST COUNTRIES"'' that are the same countries as those on Open Doors World Watch list. Open Doors' claims are the same claims made by PEW research: . They too list the same countries at the high end of persecution on their list. And it's the same in the State department reports:.


 * Open Door's facts are demonstrably accurate and supported by these, and other, third party independent sources. I don't think there is any foundation for the accusation that they exaggerate or blow things out of proportion. I don't think that can be shown. You can read the same stories - and more - in the State department reports if you take the time to go through them one country at a time, which is how they are posted. According to PEW, there are 144 countries in the world persecuting Christians, so plan on that taking awhile. I think I've made it through about 50 of them so far.


 * I would say this mixed bag means 's advice to 'Handle with care' is good advice: use it sparingly, with third party support, making sure to say it is a Christian organization, but with those caveats, using it is perfectly acceptable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Self-sacrifice: Life with the Iranian Mojahedin by Struan Stevenson
The author dedicates the book to Maryam Rajavi and other "brothers & sisters" in MEK:

'''This book is dedicated to Maryam Rajavi and countless other sisters and brothers of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran with whom I have had the privilege to work and campaign. Their self-sacrifice and the self-sacrifice of the PMOI over decades has been an inspiration. '''

The book is a series of interviews with MEK members. Am I right thinking the book is just a primary source (and not even a reliable one)? Can it serve as a source for the following assertion in this Wiki article:

"Other analysts state that MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions" --Kazemita1 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a primary source, he worked with them. As for the ext, no it is not RS for that (assuming it is even an RS). It would need full attribution to the source.Slatersteven (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * this is the book, and the author is Scottish politician Struan Stevenson. Yes, the book has interviews from MEK members (just like a Guardian piece we recently included in the Wiki article that claims to interview former MEK members), but it also has statements from the author, such as this one:


 * "The PMOI has never sought to achieve its goals using terror. It has never targeted civilians, nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of PMOI campaigns against the Iranian regime."


 * Can this statement not be included in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you have to attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * can you please confirm this is a proper attribution?:


 * "According to Struan Stevenson, the MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions"


 * Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Fox News - sources for future discussion
As some of you are aware, I've been preparing an RfC on Fox News for some time now. I don't intend on pursuing it at the moment, but I do want to make the material available for others to use as they see fit. Here's what I gathered so far (and I keep updating it with new sources); you may also review the attached discussion, and in particular this note on why the material is organized the way it is, and why I'm putting it aside for the time being. If anyone wants to try and draft a new proposal or essay based on this material, feel free - I'm available for questions, clarifications etc.

As always, comments are welcome. However, as the goal of this project was to allow a more informed discussion to take place, let's avoid turning this into another two-source discussion that won't lead anywhere. François Robere (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've put a lot of work into this but an obvious problem so far is point 6. Its main argument is asking people to accept a correlation as causation. Connor Behan (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Some of the studies controlled for that, for example by letting non-regular Fox viewers watch Fox as part of the study. One of the sources (I can't recall which at the moment) discusses the problem, and suggests that in that particular instance the causation is more likely one way than the other. François Robere (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. So are we going to list all the baseless things that CNN, NYT, SPLC, Vox, Buzzfeed News, and all the other RS have said and done. Just look what happened with the Covington kid fiasco, that hardly works in favor of any left-biased news sources. Also, if the Muller report verifies Trump's claim of "no collusion" then Mother Jones, Vox, Buzzfeed, SPLC, ect need to be blacklisted for peddling conspiracy theories. In that event, is one prepared to do so? If not, we should just PROD WP:NPOV, as it's "clearly the consensus of Wikipedians that this should be removed", at least, by your logic. Hence why we have these discussions and votes, as without a vote, you only can speak for what behavior you have seen. I'd venture to say that the reason people are cautious of citing Fox News for their edits, is that they know many other editors will revert them "because Faux News", even though the information given by Fox News is accurate. Furthermore, the talk shows are mentioned separately for every thing that is listed as a RS and has a talk show. Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RS (if it had that title)? Clearly, no. Hannity, Tucker, Laura, Judge Piero, etc, are right-wing, and do occasionally dabble in conspiracies. That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks do. Once again, citing the recent example of the Covington debacle, it is clear that "the talking heads" of all the RS listed are known for pushing the line between "reporting" and "commentary", and between "commentary" and "advocacy". Likewise, it seems that your work is simply a bad case of "I don't like it, and you shouldn't either". Especially since, all of your points apply to every single RS in the list. In other words, you have successfully written a hit piece that doesn't actually cite legitimate concerns other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moreover, I'm not even making the argument that Fox News is a reliable source. I'm just pointing out that your "seven deadly sins of..." clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox News. Personally, I don't care if Fox is depreciated at the end of the voting, I've never cited them anyway. However, I do care that people vote reliable vs unreliable based upon the reliability of their actual reporting, regardless of "public perception". After all, this webiste is called "Wikipedia" not "Whatever-is-perceived-as-popular-pedia". Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again" according to Neilson data, and "one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference between Francois Robere's proposal and your rant is that he's worked very hard to back up and present serious evidence in support of his claim, whereas you just strung together a series of barely coherent assertions. Unless you can present specific diffs and links to support these assertions, you need to drop this false equivalence (or as it's called these days Whataboutism).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * if the Muller report verifies Trump's claim of "no collusion" then Mother Jones, Vox, Buzzfeed, SPLC, ect need to be blacklisted for peddling conspiracy theories Three problems here: First, you're making a highly unlikely hypothetical assumption to reject a concrete problem. Second, you're assuming the correct and factual reporting amassed by these outlets (which are generally careful not to make accusations of criminal activity against anyone) can be dismissed if its conclusions are wrong. Put differently, you're assuming a factual report about Trump's Russian ties is false, because those ties don't amount to eg. spying. Third, there's a massive difference between the occasional good faith reporting of falsities, which is usually prevented by a proper editorial process and treated by retraction, correction and possible dismissal; and the repeated peddling of over the top lies with no consequences to those doing the reporting. I cite several cases where Fox has done the latter, as well as multiple RS that explicitly use the term "propaganda" to describe it.
 * I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't like. Don't be a WP:POVFIGHTER. Also, it is well known that the Obama administration misled the FISA court to obtain a search warrant against members of the Trump campaign. Call it what you like, but it wasn't Trump who was spying. (which are generally careful not to make accusations of criminal activity against anyone) is blatantly laughable. Do you even live in the United States? Have you not seen the mounting pile of falsehoods perpetuated by the media (both sides are guilty of it). Every "cops shot innocent man" story, of which the cop is later acquitted is one such example. If the media was accurately reporting criminal cases, the court verdicts wouldn't be so surprising. For example, did you know that Trayvone Martin was involved in gang activity and had recently robbed a 7/11 before he got shot? Did the media show anything other than "innocent little kid" photos of Trayvone? Fox News did, MSNBC and CNN did not. The entire #BelieveAllWomen failure during the Kavanagh hearings is another blatant example contradicting your view. At some point, not believing the information provided by the FBI and Police becomes WP:FRINGE. Also, there is a reason I said "If" in my statement on the Muller report. Clearly, if the report shows "no collusion" in spite of your firm belief that Trump colluded, then you will refuse to concede that CNN peddled a conspiracy theory. Also, even college students (not the most conservative demographic out there) believe that MSNBC has a liberal (left-wing) bias. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't like." Let's see these "multiple RS". And not in Opinion pieces but in news reporting. Otherwise, stop making baseless claims. "Don't be a WP:POVFIGHTER." - take your own advice bud.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * CNN, Buzzfeed News, Vox, The Atlantic, the Washington Post, the New York Times, MSNBC, ABC news, CBS. ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't like I assume you have a concrete idea on why Christopher Browning, Jay Rosen, Erik Wemple, Thomas Ricks, Bill Kristol, Ralph Peters or Andrew Sullivan would use that term in bad faith? If not, then you risk violating WP:BLPTALK. I suggest clarifying what you meant or striking it out.
 * I didn't mention names. In fact, I was referring to CNN (and others) as a whole. CNN is not a "living person", and thus most of the "BLP" guidelines don't apply to it. Out of good faith I will assume that this was a simple misunderstanding on your end, but I would ask that you not accuse people of violating bannable offenses willy-nilly. FWIW, the reason people label things "propaganda" is usually "It supports something that I don't like". ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were engaging on the sources (which are named and very much alive - hence WP:BLPTALK), but if you're just making general comments based on your own observations, then what's the point of this discussion? François Robere (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The rest of your statements are either irrelevant (asking about an editor's nationality, in particular, is off color) or not backed by sources. As an aside, and to demonstrate why providing sources is so important, note that your claims regarding the Kavanaugh case, for example, are false on their face: the FBI did not exonerate Kavanaugh (nor did they reach any other conclusion), and the police wasn't even involved. François Robere (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RS Can you cite sources stating that Maddow's reporting is so often incorrect and politically motivated (not just biased, but targeted to support specific parties or politicians), that it amounts to propaganda? Can you cite sources stating that other MSNBC hosts do the same, and that its "news" side is subsequently affected? For example, several Fox hosts routinely appear in Republican candidates' election events; is this something that, to the best of your knowledge, repeats in MSNBC?
 * You can't seriously believe that Rachel Maddow's show is not politically biased. I mean. Seriously. She literally cried when Trump won in 2016, and she cried when Muller recommended no new indictments. You can look up the news segments yourself. Also, she was pushing that Muller would "indict Trump jr. any day now, impeachment any day now". How'd that one pan out? ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The question isn't what anyone here believes, it's about whether you have source to back your claim. You claimed Maddow is comparable to Fox's hosts, which you admit spread conspiracy theories and other babble. I'm asking for proof that is indeed the case. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * [], [], [], and NYT even refuted one of her points []. Also, don't make a false comparison. "You claimed Maddow is comparable to Fox's hosts" no, I claimed the talk shows are mentioned separately for every thing that is listed as a RS and has a talk show. Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RS (if it had that title)? Clearly, no. Hannity, Tucker, Laura, Judge Piero, etc, are right-wing, and do occasionally dabble in conspiracies. That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks do. The talk show hosts on Fox are equally as biased as the talk show hosts on other networks, neither of which have anything to do with the realiabilty of the repective news network. ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks do Can you cite sources supporting this statement?
 * I can cite sources of this, but it's also common knowledge, I mean, you don't live in that much of an echo chamber, do you? ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can, then please do. That is not common knowledge. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ElectroChip123, cite the damn sources or quit wasting people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * citing the recent example of the Covington debacle Let's do that. I've ran a search in the four media outlets you mentioned earlier (along with the SPLC, but they made no statement on that on their website): in their initial reporting three of the outlets used the terms "taunt" and "mock" sporadically, but were otherwise neutral and thorough, including context and the usual caveats ; all but Vox (which does analysis rather than reporting) reported on the teens' responses in a neutral, uneditorializing fashion ; all reported on subsequent, contradictory videos ; all but Vox reported on the Diocese report ; and all published opinions criticizing previous reporting and trying to draw conclusions to prevent it from happening in the future . Does this sound like Fox News to you?
 * The fact that all except Fox had to later issue retractions of their original reporting shows that all of them, except for Fox, were biased/incorrect in their original reporting. If they had made "neutral assessments" of the video when they first reported on it, why would the have to issue follow up articles denouncing their undue bias and hateful rhetoric towards the kids? If it was reported on neutrally, why did the kids at Covington receive death threats? Nothing in the original video comes close to warranting the response it was given by "everyone except Fox" (your words, not mine). Also, Fox News does issue retractions, when they get the facts wrong. In the Covington case, they waited before jumping to conclusions, this meant they stuck to reporting just the facts of the incident and thus they had nothing to retract. He didn't "taunt" or "mock" in the original video, he just stood there. Those statements alone were incendiary, and led to death threats. Also, you don't retract or write articles criticizing your own work for bias if your own work was written from a NPOV the entire time. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * he fact that all except Fox had to later issue retractions of their original reporting shows that all of them, except for Fox, were biased/incorrect in their original reporting Yeah, but the two cases aren't even remotely close. There's nothing wrong in making an honest mistake - and that video was convincing. It says nothing of Fox's accuracy either, though the fact the fact that Fox diverges so much and so often from virtually everyone else does raise questions about Fox - questions to which we already have answers.
 * Nothing in the original video comes close to warranting the response it was given by "everyone except Fox" What exactly was that response? I just showed you that, overall, all four outlets provided balanced, and usually nuanced coverage of the affair; with the only so called "bias" being a sporadic use of 2-3 biasing terms in the initial report. This is hardly comparable to how Fox conspiracies: repeatedly, in multiple shows throughout the day, for anywhere from days to months, and without any critical outlook or balance.
 * Fox News does issue retractions, when they get the facts wrong As noted in my little essay, there's been cases when they failed to retract for months, and others where when they eventually retracted, they did so partially or replaced one biased phrase with another; and unlike virtually all other networks, they never fire anyone for falsifying information or intentionally introducing bias to reports. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * all of your points apply to every single RS in the list You're welcome to argue that if you have the sources to support it. At the moment you're dismissing legitimate and well-founded concerns (by which I mean they're supported by a plethora of sources arguing or leading to the same) based on opinion alone.
 * I'm just pointing out that your "seven deadly sins of..." clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox News First off, WP:NPOV only applies to article space. Second, I'm not to blame if the RS on the subject are as decisive as they are. We're not supposed to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE, and I'm not trying to.
 * We're not supposed to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE. Yes, and Fox News is the most watched cable network in the country. Excluding the most watched cable network in the United States would be violating WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even if you think they are hopelessly biased and that no one should be listening to them, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Furthermore, how can we ensure our artiles are written from a neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV? ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a severe misunderstanding of policy. First of all, the fact that it's the most watched network doesn't say anything about its truthfulness. The three most widely read newspapers in the UK are Metro, the Sun and the Daily Mail, and all three were deprecated. Second, question of majority and minority views isn't measured with respect to readership, but with respect to other sources. Fox is clearly in the minority on a whole slew of subjects with respect to most other sources, both liberal and conservative, meaning we're not actually obligated to represent it for balance.
 * Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs We're not righting wrongs, we're choosing reasonable sources. This is well within our mandate.
 * Furthermore, how can we ensure our articles are written from a neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV? Are we? We regularly cite a whole slew of conservative sources, from the Wall Street Journal to the National Review; I doubt Fox has anything to add on top of these in terms of breadth or depth. Also, this argument of yours could be used just as well in favor of de-deprecating AlterNet and Occupy Democrats, which I doubt you'll support. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again" according to Neilson data This isn't a counterpoint, just an ad populum.
 * Except that it counters your false balance claims. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. See explanation above. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is. Unfortunately Wikipedia is driven by WP:RS, so we're forced to consider that one study whatever the truth may be. In the case of Fox News we have not one study or critique but many, and we ought to consider all of them with respect to using Fox as a source. François Robere (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was directly referring to your so-called "study" that claims Fox News viewers are less intelligent than the general population. You were using that single study to call all Fox News viewers "dumb and uneducated". Again, I don't care what the result of the voting is, I just want it to be based on actual facts. Citing one study and claiming it as pure truth is a flagrant violation of WP:DUEWEIGHT. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No one said anything of the sort. What I said is that Fox's viewers are less informed than viewers of other networks, and that's backed by at least five studies, not one. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If your goal is to have us depreciate Fox, you have waisted a lot of time and effort. It ain’t going to happen. Every point you have raised has been discussed to death before, and rejected.  Each is true about EVERY news outlet.  However, if you shift goals and broaden your concern... and focus on drafting a clearer guideline as to what makes ANY news outlet reliable/unreliable, then a lot of what you have noted could be quite useful. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Each is true about EVERY news outlet" This is completely false to an extent that strongly suggests that you didn't even bother reading the points. As an obvious example, take #6. Is it the case that there are studies for "EVERY news outlet" which show the viewers are "less informed than other outlets"? I mean, that'd be kinda impossible since they can't all be less informed then each other. Do "EVERY news outlet" lack editorial control over their website content? Etc. The whole point is that Fox News is 'completely unlike "EVERY news outlet" and FR has provided ample evidence to support that. As such, it should be treated differently from "EVERY [other] news outlet". As not-RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point was that basically every news outlet has similar issues and singling out Fox News is obviously a politically-loaded decision. Providing half truths and distorting those views that have different political stances is true of every one of them (as a recent example, CNN and Washington Post actually fabricated a story about the MAGA hat kid). So we should just be aware of bias and know that, as far as informing goes, all of them are pretty reliable, and we should handle opinions as such.Aoszkar (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well the issue is not about certain issues being true in principal for each news outlet, but rather question of degree and frequency of those issues. There is possibly an argument to be made that Fox differs from other (mainstream) news outlets in that regard. The question is whether degree/frequency of issues with Fox have passed a threshold, that from a WP perspective we should advice normally not to use it as we do with other news outlets with a high degree/frequency of issues like for istance the Daily Mail.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources routinely refer to Fox News as "propaganda", noting its close ties to the Republican party and its frequent push of a political agenda of its own. This isn't something that repeats with any other outlet. And even if we managed to filter all of that out and only use its most pristine reporting (which would be problematic and might run counter to sources), then we'll inadvertently introduce problems stemming from everything else the network does (see §4.1 and §5.1 here). François Robere (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's certainly true that the morons who blindly support Fox News will continue to bleat their support, regardless of the facts. That doesn't mean that the rest of us have to accept its use as a source in an online reference work that pretends to be an encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We always go around and around on Fox News, so here is my current understanding on how consensus for this has worked in the past.
 * Fox News political opinion content is not a source of information, except as a direct quote or paraphrase directly attributed to the speaker, and not on the factual content of the speaker's statement. That is, we can cite Fox News's opinion and commentary to say "John Doe said 'Yada yada yada'" only, and NOT for anything else, such as to verify the veracity of John Doe's statement.  That is, we shouldn't use political commentary to speak in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Fox News actual news is reliable in the sense that they have editorial control and a desire to report true statements. Now, like many news sources (one could argue all sources), Fox News has a particular voice that it presents that news in, and that voice manifests itself in which things it chooses to report on and not report on, and on what tone to take while reporting, but insofar as Wikipedia has it's own voice (being WP:NPOV) and own tone, so long as we restrict ourselves to merely using the content (rather than miming the tone) of Fox News's legitimate news operation, it is not forbidden to use it as a source, as it meets the hallmarks of a reliable source.
 * That's my understanding of the current state of affairs. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding as well. There are several problems with this, though: a) Fox's news operation is not that distinct from it's "talk" operation - hosts casually move between shows and host other hosts with no critical checks, some express controversial political opinions etc. b) They're not actually that good. In terms of quality of reporting alone, except for a handful of reporters I wouldn't place them above tabloid level at the best of times. There's no "60 Minutes" there, there are no Watergate-style revelations etc. In theory they have the capacity to match CNN in terms of "breaking news" and straightforward reporting (Shep Smith leads their "break news" division, and he's frequently hailed as one of that handful of good reporters), but that's surrounded by so much cruft I don't think they should enjoy the benefit of the doubt as a network. c) There's no problem with having a "voice" per se; the problem is when that voice overrides general journalistic concerns, pushing unsubstantiated fallacies (the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, everything Clinton, manufactured controversies on climate change. etc.) or ignoring newsworthy items. For example, on one occasion Fox chose to completely ignore headline-making Muller revelations, and spent most of their airtime featuring a murder story involving immigrants (which is tragic and worthy of reporting, but the question of why they chose to focus on that one out of about fifty murders that take place in the US every day). If the bottom line of a network is that the viewers are less informed on current affairs than they should be - and there are studies on that - yet while their biases are aligned with the network's, then that "voice" is overwhelming and casts doubt on the very nature of the network as a news network (which is exactly what most sources do, BTW). This isn't the case with other networks' "voices", and anyone claiming otherwise has a burden of proof to satisfy. d) There is something to be said about the quality of information we present if allows sources this bad. To me this looks like a purely Wikipedian phenomenon: Fox News isn't used in academy, would never have been cited on Britannica, isn't referenced by governments - hell, it won't even pass the Sister Test™ - yet here people jump through hoops to allow it to pass as halfway decent. And heavens forbid if someone actually follows a source like that - Fox News mixes stuff all the time, and giving them the credence of a serious news organization is misleading for our readers in a very basic sense (see §4.1 here). François Robere (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me, I wouldn't let my sister in a room with MSNBC for half an hour. That said, it's not my decision what my older sibling spends her time on. Again you conflate its talk shows with its actual news reports in the name of tendentious editing. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I submit that the burden of proof is on you to provide sources showing they are not of the same nature, if I've provided sources that refuse to make that distinction. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Related to this, do we have a list of news organizations that didn't push the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump colluded with Russia or was a Russian agent for two years straight with no evidence, and didn't bother to apologize after Mueller confirmed that it was a conspiracy theory? So far I can only come up with one: Fox News. Galathadael (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indef banned WP:SPA user illustrating why reasonable, common sense proposals like this have so much trouble getting affirmed. We need to cut this Gordian Knot and get serious about our RS policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Uhm...I'm seeing alot of negative claims about Fox News that are not supported by RS - excluding their competitors. Let's see some sources otherwise we're looking at OR based on opposition research. Hmmm, why does that sound familiar? It's easy for other networks/media sources to spew hatred and spread disinformation about a top competitor, especially one that overshadows them in the ratings, and is capturing the bulk of available advertising $$. I am also not aware of any media outlets with a pundit line-up that doesn't have or hasn't had their share of blunders, conspiracy theories, or that don't use propaganda and sensationalism to increase ratings. Are we on the road to going nowhere fast? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 03:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you go. As of the most recent count, I have some 75 references there, from "tweets" to peer-reviewed papers.
 * We're citing tweets now? I didn't think twitter was a RS. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to check the actual citations and tell me yourself. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's easy for other networks/media sources to spew hatred and spread disinformation about a top competitor Just as it's easy for the top competitor to spread all sorts of disinformation to solidify its market share. Indeed, for Fox News it is part of the business model these days, having been born as a venture for more accessible - some would say lighter, or popular - right-leaning news, quickly turning to sensationalism and partisanship to grow its share. BTW, Fox's main revenue stream comes from subscribers, and its the NBC group that carries the advertising market.
 * I am also not aware of any media outlets with a pundit line-up that... I'm not aware of any network where those problems go beyond the occasional pundit to form the basis of the network's business model, as sources suggest is the case with Fox. François Robere (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you saying here? Also, CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc, rely on talk shows for viewership. Again, just look at the Nielson data. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm saying hypotheticals are not a substitute for sources. What's your point regarding talk shows? François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a list of news outlets that did (WP:BURDEN)? AFAIK there is and was plenty of evidence of such, and news outlets reported on it as is; and in case of opinion articles, gave proper analysis and the usual caveats. François Robere (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking that deprecating Fox News is probably never going to happen. It's been discussed many times before, so while consensus can change, it probably won't. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 16:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While it's true that previous discussions went in circles and lacked clear consensus, I don't think that previously anyone has taken the trouble to document so extensively why Fox News isn't reliable as Francois Robere has. This may be too optimistic but one would hope that the evidence compiled does change some reasonable minds.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My mind hasn’t changed. I continue to feel that Fox’s news division is reliable for basic facts, and that their opinion/analysis programs are reliable for attributed statements of opinion/analysis.  The same is true for ALL of the major news outlets.  Instead of depreciating news sources, we should focus on teaching editors how to use them... how to recognize and separate news reporting from opinion/analysis, and how to place each in proper context.  We need to recognize bias, and account for it (ie phrasing what we write appropriately)... but we also need to accept that ALL news outlets are biased, and (per WP:NPOV) we can not depreciate sources that have a bias we don’t like.  We have to include opinions we don’t personally agree with. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a much appreciated common sense reply. We should be able to move beyond the unproductive attitude of "this news source is unreliable since it has a different point of view from mine".Aoszkar (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone provided similar arguments related to CNN or Vox, would you handle them the same way? Could we expect "reasonable minds" to be changed based on facts? Because I've seen them misinform and even fabricate news to smear those on another side of the political spectrum. Aoszkar (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Blueboar that "ALL news outlets are biased" [to some degree], but that does not make them equal in terms of WP:RS. No, absolutely not. Some of them are known for rigorous fact checking, others are known for cooking disinformation. What WP:RS tells is this: always use the best quality sources available on the subject. So, one should generally recommend sources other than FOX on US politics. It does not mean FOX can not be used. Yes, it can, just like Russia RT, but only if the contributor is familiar with the subject and what other sources tell about it. This is not always the case. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity... which news outlets do you think have rigorous fact checking? Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That depends on subject area. For example, I think CNN would be OK on US politics. I do not usually check Fox News, but when I look there are frequently outright distortions. For example, just today, they claim that a presidential candidate admitted something ("Zelenskiy's image has been shadowed by his admission that he had..."), when he in fact denied it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The ones that use Wikipedia as their substitute for a fact checking department of course! On a wider note, all of the above discussion could have been avoided if only someone several years ago had stamped on that editor with his obsessive ideological bugbear about the Daily Mail. Having one pov-led blanket ban on one mainstream source lead to calls for more and more pov-led blanket bans on other mainstream sources is not an unintended consequence, it is an entirely predictable consequence. 89.242.251.96 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The fact that a Wikipedia editor thinks Fox has a news division makes me question their judgment, if not their sanity. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To ease others into the discussion, here are some extracts from the sources cited in the essay. François Robere (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Stuff only Fox does
Things you see across Fox (including its news division and website) that you don't see anywhere else. Claiming "others do it too" is perfectly legitimate, but please support it with evidence if you do:


 * 1) Network regularly engages in coverage bias
 * 2) Network regularly spreads conspiracy theories
 * 3) Shows repeatedly deny scientific consensus without justification
 * 4) Shows repeatedly present misleading graphics
 * 5) Anchors repeatedly present inflammatory or defamatory claims with no context, verification or request for comments; and when they retract the claim they often do so hastily, without apology or correction
 * 6) Network coordinates with the White House, with more than a dozen high ranking employees moving from one to the other
 * 7) Networks mixes advocacy with legitimate journalism in a manner that's indistinguishable to the casual observer
 * 8) Anchors substitute for hosts in questionable shows
 * 9) Reporters enable hosts who spread misinformation
 * 10) Reporters fail to challenge questionable and/or partisan sources
 * 11) Hosts refuse to allow criticism on their shows
 * 12) Network backs hosts who committed egregious violations of journalistic ethics
 * 13) Hosts regularly campaign with party nominees
 * 14) Head of News lies on air and pushes bias in reporting - and gets promoted
 * 15) Website downgrades front page stories because of traffic considerations
 * 16) Website "goes a little Breitbart"
 * 17) Network viewers end up being less informed than viewers of other networks, and even of non-viewers

Stuff experts say

 * A.J. Bauer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, contrasts “esteemed outlets like the New York Times” with “an outlet (Fox) with dubious ethical standards and loose commitments to empirical reality.”
 * Yochai Benkler, Law Professor at Harvard Law School and co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University: “Fox’s most important role since the election has been to keep Trump supporters in line,” offering narratives of the "deep state", "immigrant invastion" and "the media as the enemy of the people". On the supposed "symmetric polarization" in media, Benkler says: “It’s not the right versus the left, it’s the right versus the rest.”
 * Christopher Browning, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: “In Trump’s presidency, [propaganda has] effectively been privatized in the form of Fox News... Fox faithfully trumpets the “alternative facts” of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity. The result is the creation of a "Trump bubble" for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers of PBS, CNN, and MSNBC and readers of The Washington Post and The New York Times.”
 * Lauren Feldman, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University: “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.”
 * Andy Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics and Public affairs at Princeton University: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”
 * Nicole Hemmer, Assistant Professor of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia: “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV... Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature. It’s a radicalization model. [For both Trump and Fox] fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.”
 * Daniel Kreiss, Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Media and Journalism: “Fox’s appeal lies in the network’s willingness to explicitly entwine reporting and opinion in the service of Republican, and white identity.”
 * Patrick C. Meirick, director of the Political Communication Center at the University of Oklahoma, states in a study of the "death panel" myth that “...rather than polarize perceptions as predicted, Fox News exposure contributed to a mainstreaming of (mistaken) beliefs.”
 * Reece Peck, Assistant Professor at the College of Staten Island - City University of New York, characterizes Fox as political, "comedically ridiculous" and "unprofessional".
 * Joe Peyronnin, Associate Professor of Journalism, Media Studies, and Public Relations at Hofstra University: “I’ve never seen anything like it before... It’s as if the President had his own press organization. It’s not healthy.” “No news channel reported on Obama being from Kenya more than Fox, and not being an American. No news channel more went after Obama’s transcript from Harvard or Occidental College. Part of mobilizing a voting populace is to scare the hell out of them... I heard things on Fox that I would never hear on any other channel.”
 * Jay Rosen, Associate Professor of Journalism at NYU and former member of the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board: “We have to state it from both sides. There's been a merger between Fox News and the Trump government. The two objects have become one. It's true that Fox is a propaganda network. But it's also true that the Trump government is a cable channel. With nukes.”
 * Steven White, Assistant Prof. of Political Science at Syracuse University: “Political scientists are generally not massive Fox News fans, but in our efforts to come across as relatively unbiased, I actually think we downplay the extent to which it is a force for the absolute worst impulses of racism, illiberalism, and extremism in American society.”


 * Jen Psaki, former White House Communications Director: “The peddling of dangerous conspiracy theories is not just a Chris Farrell or a Lou Dobbs problem. This is a Fox in the age of President Donald Trump problem... And it is one that could not only do lasting damage to the legitimacy of media in the US, but could also spur more anger, division and even violence in the short term.”
 * Blair Levin, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former FCC chief of staff: “Fox’s great insight wasn’t necessarily that there was a great desire for a conservative point of view... The genius was seeing that there’s an attraction to fear-based, anger-based politics that has to do with class and race... Fox News’ fundamental business model is driving fear.”
 * Jerry Taylor, President of the Niskanen Center: “In a hypothetical world without Fox News, if President Trump were to be hit hard by the Mueller report, it would be the end of him. But, with Fox News covering his back with the Republican base, he has a fighting chance, because he has something no other President in American history has ever had at his disposal—a servile propaganda operation.”


 * Alisyn Camerota, former Fox News host: “When I worked at Fox, sharia law was one of their favorite bogeymen. Roger Ailes was very exercised about sharia law, and so we did a lot of segments on sharia law. None of them were fact-based or they didn’t – there was no emphasis on them being fact based.”
 * Bill Kristol, former editor of The Weekly Standard: “It’s changed a lot. Before, it was conservative, but it wasn’t crazy. Now it’s just propaganda.”
 * Ralph Peters, former Fox News analyst: “In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration...[Fox News anchors] dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller.”
 * Simon Rosenberg, former Fox News commentator: “It was always clear that this wasn’t just another news organization, but when Ailes departed, and Trump was elected, the network changed. They became more combative, and started treating me like an enemy, not an opponent... It’s as if the on-air talent at Fox now have two masters—the White House and the audience. [Because of this] Fox is no longer conservative—it’s anti-democratic.”
 * Jennifer Rubin, political commentator at the Washington Post: “[Fox is] simply a mouthpiece for the President, repeating what the President says, no matter how false or contradictory.”
 * Greg Sargent, political commentator at the Washington Post: “Fox News is fundamentally in the business of spreading disinformation, as opposed to conservative reportage.”
 * Andrew Sullivan, political commentator at The Atlantic: “The point is surely that the only "liberals" allowed on Fox News are the ones designed to buttress the "conservative" worldview... Just as important [and] what's needed on Fox - and what you'll never see - is solid conservative attacks on and critiques of other conservatives, on matters of principle or policy. That's the difference between an opinion channel and a propaganda channel.”
 * Margaret Sullivan, media columnist at the Washington Post: “Everyone ought to see [Fox News] for what it is: Not a normal news organization with inevitable screw-ups, flaws and commercial interests, which sometimes fail to serve the public interest. But a shameless propaganda outfit, which makes billions of dollars a year as it chips away at the core democratic values we ought to hold dear: truth, accountability and the rule of law.”


 * Charlie Black, conservative lobbyist: “I know Roger Ailes was reviled, but he did produce debates of both sides. Now Fox is just Trump, Trump, Trump.”

Stuff that you can play with yourself

 * I would actually argue at this point that WP should find every way it can possible to keep Fox News's news-reporting side as a reliable source (not its talk shows etc.) if we want to avoid creating even more external critical that WP runs liberal - it is basically the last mainstream RS source that is on the right side of the political spectrum (per the chart from Pew Research in this ). In that we can keep it and allow editors to use the news reporting side, but that no one is forced to use it. We want to show WP supports the use of a wide range of RSes that have political bias. Yes, media is inheriently liberal and there are very few conservative outlets to start, but the push to remove Fox, after we've gotten rid of Daily Mail and Breitbart, would be enough for those that are already critical of WP's bias to firm up their arguments. Unless we can really show beyond a doubt that Fox News' news reporting completely lacks journalistic integrity, then we should be looking for every reason to keep the news side as "tolerably" reliable. --M asem (t) 15:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish folks would stop stating that the Pew Research paper says anything about where news sources are on the political spectrum. It only looks at the viewers, not at what they are viewing. Indeed, it's conclusion is that news sources tend to focus on negative aspects of current politicians, whether right or left. O3000 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been shown that liberals are much more varied in their news consumption than conservatives, and its more common for them to watch Fox as well. This suggests Fox would naturally be drawn towards the middle in this kind of surveying vs. where it itself stands ideologically. Mind this is from early 2014, meaning it's dated given the changes Fox went through starting 2016. François Robere (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to raise the PR issue, but there's a flip side to what you're suggesting: what do we signal by including Fox News to everyone else? That we're willing to accept sources that virtually no serious academic or journalistic source accepts? Another question is whether allowing Fox's news side would actually achieve the desired effect: avid Fox viewers generally consider Hannity et al. just as reliable as Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith (the latter of which many of them supposedly despise due to his contrarian efforts); if we only allow half, or a third of their favored anchors, will it be enough to gain their trust? I do think we should allow a subset of their news department, but not all of it, and not the website. François Robere (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Rolling Stone contributor Matt Taibbi's online book Hate, Inc. explores significant slant and credibility issues with the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, Bloomberg on one side of political controversies in the news and National Review, Fox News, The Daily Caller, the Washington Times among others on the other side.
 * One of the book's chapters illustrates how those credibility issues became evident in reporting on the "Russian Collusion" controversy after the release of Robert Mueller's special counsel report on those allegations. Taibbi showed the degree to which the national beat press was unreliable and biased in their reporting on "Russian Collusion", with wide use of unreliable sources such as the Steele memo and unsupported reporting of other developments.
 * If we're rating news outlets like Fox News as WP:PUS for slanted reporting, we should do that to every other news agency reported in secondary sources as having done the same thing.
 * I have a simpler suggestion - accept the fact of reportorial slant among many news sources on juicy stories with a political angle, and use WP:BIASED as a guide to which statements to use in a wikipedia article, instead of trying to decide which news agencies to banish to WP:PUS.
 * Picking and choosing which news sources are too biased for us can be viewed can be seen as getting around our WP:NPOV ethic by unduly forbidding editors to use certain sources because of occasional arrors in their reporting. If we do that to one source, we must do that to every such source to maintain WP:NPOV. WP:BIASED allows wikipedia editors to use their own judgment on possibly contentious sources, especially on issues such as "Russian Collusion". loupgarous (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's an WP:SPS column published before the full report even became public, following the USAG's controversial - and, as we now know, partial - statements? Unconvincing, and wrong (among other things on the Steele dossier, but that's for another discussion).
 * Please examine the excerpts above. Do you have reliable secondary sources that suggest the same degree of bias and lack of editorial standards as Fox has in any other outlet? François Robere (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One whole part of tghe problem is the current broken nature of the rush to include talking head opinions on breaking news articles, particularly about Trump and figures on the right, given that without that type of opinion it would not be allowed per BLP; but we shouldnt' be rushing to inclde these opinions in the first place per NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. We create the external problem of apparent bias on WP because we appear to be eliminating voices from the right, when in fact that problem is is that we're rushing to include voices from the left without consdiering the long-term approach an encyclopedia should be. If we eliminate Fox News simply because they have a bias and their journalistic integrity is not as spotless as NYTimes but they do have them, we're going to get slammed with more complaints.
 * But stepping back away from anything controvserial -- Fox News is known to cover topics that are generally conservative and not so much liberal. Just as more of the rest of the mass media, given their druthers, would focus on liberal topics over conservative. As long as we're talking purely factual, non-contentious material, we want to include topics from both areas. We need Fox News more than ever so we are not simply cutting off topics that would be reasonably covered in whole with Fox News present but would be fail notability or other factors if it was only covered by the media on the left. (And I stress again, you have to consired the non-polticial stuff that Fox is covering here).
 * I have no qualm about putting anything from the talking heads from FOX at a far far distance from anything as a factual source because we know those exaggerate and propagation bad stories. But the proposed reason to cut off the legit news reporting from Fox is thinking too much in the near-term and not the long. --M asem (t) 05:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is or isn't a problem, but I agree commentary on ongoing events should be carefully curated.
 * I'm sure Fox has a different agenda in its "legitimate" coverage, but I'm not sure it's as important as you (and others) suggest in reflecting the conservative "world". It's certainly not important in reflecting conservative thought (where economic newspapers, weekly magazines and think tanks are dominant), so it's only for day-to-day affairs that it's relevant. I'm not sure removing Fox would put such a big dent in the scope of our coverage, but if you've examples of where you think their POV would be useful I'm open to that.
 * It must be recognized, however, that most of the time Fox is no better than a tabloid. If we were comparing it to the Daily Mirror (et al.) the comparison would be just slightly favorable to Fox. It's a bad outlet. If there's no "innocent" source for the day-to-day, non-political (and possibly non-a-few-other-things) affairs Fox covers, then such a limitation could also be acceptable. But again, need concrete examples. François Robere (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your conclusions are infinitely debatable, especially considering they come at a time when ratings for FOX News are soaring because of the general public's belief that the network's offerings are fair and balanced. Their coverage of the Russian collusion delusion (as some refer to it) proved to be accurate in that there was no collusion per the Mueller report. For 2+ years, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes and WaPo have been inundating audiences with false claims and conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion and to date, none have retracted anything they've written, so they fail on fact-checking and retractions. I'm also a bit concerned over some of the decisions/results of past discussions that have condemned nearly all conservative sources as unreliable except for a few. It's feasible to think some may need revisiting, especially in light of paid editing involvement and concerns over the whitewashing of certain WP articles about left-leaning networks like NBC. Jill Abramson, former executive of NYTimes, exposed their anti-Trump bias in her book and expressed concern over them losing all credibility. I could go on and on with each RS the same way FOX News has been criticized but I'm not here to write an article. My concern is attempts to silence conservative views when we should be looking at sources and material in those sources from a NPOV. An interesting study about cable news watchers sheds light on some of the things we also need to consider. We don't want to fall into the same traps we've seen at some universities where certain groups don't agree with a particular POV and attempt to silence rather than listen to opposing views. Sadly, some attempts have even resorted to violence. Censorship and POV pushing in any form is harmful to the project, as would be a declaration that a RS is unreliable based on the criticisms of biased competitors or because they don't validate our own beliefs. We need to adhere more closely to WP:PAG, exercise caution when choosing material to make sure it's compliant with NPOV, and pay closer attention to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NEWSORG, WP:LABELS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BALANCE when we're dealing with news sources, pundits, analysis, and various other forms of journalistic opinion VS easily recognizable statements of fact. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 12:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * soaring That's already been pointed out as an ad populum. All the rest of the arguments have similarly been repeated ad nauseam. They are false equivalencies. This is the type of thinking that Fox promotes, and why it's such a problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And the false equivalency argument has been pointed out ad nauseum - in summary, it's all part of the debate process. Your reference to "the type of thinking that Fox promotes" is what I find disconcerting. What exactly is the "type of thinking" you're referring to? It obviously doesn't align with your particular type of thinking (or POV), whatever that may be - I couldn't care less. Our job is to include all relevant views rather than a single POV. I could understand concern if FOX dropped in the ratings as drastically as CNN and MSNBC, or if credible journalists started jumping ship and writing books about how politically biased their reporting is - you would probably garner more attention but until then, we use what we have...Vox, WaPo, Politico, and on and on. We write what RS say. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 22:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And the false equivalency argument As long as such arguments are being made, expect them to be called out as such.
 * it's all part of the debate process It's not a debate any more than Fox is news. That's the problem.
 * What exactly... Propaganda.
 * It obviously doesn't align with your... Ad hominem.
 * Our job is No, it's to create a respectable encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding to what Ronz wrote:
 * 1) Their coverage of the Russian collusion delusion (as some refer to it) proved to be accurate in that there was no collusion per the Mueller report First off, Mueller wasn't out to prove "collusion" - that term originated with the media; the "no collusion" claim was then heartily adopted by Trump and Co., in one of their ever-changing stories. Insofar as Mueller was out to find connections between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, he found them. As for Fox's "accurate coverage", sources #6 #9, #14 and #18 in the excerpts above give you an idea of just how biased and inaccurate their coverage was compared with other outlets. Finally, I haven't seen a single source presented by any of the proponents of Fox News in this entire discussion, that supports any of their claims regarding Fox's accuracy or other networks lack thereof, and by extension their obligation to correct or retract any of those stories.
 * 2) Jill Abramson only worked at the NYT for three years, and was out by the time Trump rose to fame, so it's not the first-person-knowledge a naive presentation would suggest. In addition, her book includes plagiarized sections, so it's not an RS AFAWC.
 * 3) The rest of your claims are straw men that have nothing to do with this discussion. I would stress this: None of your claims contend that any of the 24 experts and 61 sources cited above are wrong. Rather, they mostly ignore them. This kind of takes the sting out of your POV claims. François Robere (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What percentage of the sources listed in support of your argument lean left, right or center, and/or would qualify as online clickbait competitors of Fox News, each with their own left/right leaning pundits, all of whom lag behind FOX in ratings? Even if we exclude all mention of political lean, the bottomline doesn't change in that no news source is infallible. There is a big difference between news reported by news commentators and current events reported by political pundits. I highly recommend reading the following UFL article, When MSNBC or Fox News airs in public spaces, how do people react?. The standards for TV news and newspaper journalism played out much differently in the late 80s/early 90s as the Britannica accurately explains. Our views are influenced by what we watch and read, and we watch and read material that tends to support/agree with our own POV. Sally Kohn wrote an interesting article in Time; well worth the read. Today there is a high level of entertainment value and/or opinion in some news reports, most of which are identified as such. Another important note: mistakes are no longer a rare exception in today's fast-paced internet environment. I remain skeptical about the benefits of retractions (the harm is done) and even more so when it's a recurring problem. We experienced 2+ years of misinformation (collusion/obstruction allegations), not to mention a year or so of poll-driven miscalculations about the 2016 presidential election. The Intercept published "Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story" which further supports strict adherence to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NEWSORG and NPOV when adding contentious material. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 15:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Read Knight Foundation - Gallup survey. It's also published in Business Insider. I'm done here. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 02:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Straw men. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you're well aware, neither reality nor Wikipedia hang on public opinion. We, at least, look for RS. François Robere (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be 'that guy', the "what about..." guy. What do you all think we should do about MS/NBC? Here *, * we have NBC using a photoshopped picture of a baby with supposed measles, and here *, * we have a left-leaning journalist, Yashir Ali, stating that the managing editor of NBC/MSNBC politics is apparently colluding with the DNC. I see nothing similar in the evidence against Fox News but admittedly, I've only skimmed.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Oh, NBC has swapped out the picture in question, many were talking about it, but here is a screengrab.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to be any guy you want, but please back it up with sources (doctor's notes accepted). You've only shown two sources pertaining to a single case (the NBC thing), which hangs on Ali's understanding of the conversation. The measles thing is OR. I suggest you do go through the excerpts, in the very least - you'd see far worse cases of collaboration between a news outlet - Fox News - and political powers. François Robere (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These things are all on Wikipedia. See e.g. 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, Operation Mockingbird etc. w umbolo   ^^^  20:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems like it is time to move on. Either start an RFC or let it go. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Russian apartment bombings
Hello- I wish someone with a background in Russian politics would give us a look at the claim made on the Russian apartment bombings page which reads, "According to historians, the bombings were coordinated by the Russian state security services to bring Putin into the presidency." I have tagged it as needing a better source. It's a sensitive topic, but I think that we need to get a clearer idea of where the academic community stands on the issue, so I'm making this request. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Elena Pokalova writes about it in Chechnya's Terrorist Network, Praeger (2015) (pp. 93-99). While she notes the suspicions that they were false flag operations by the FSB,she does not state how credible their conclusions were. The result was that the government was provided with powers to prosecute its war. There is no mention of the theory that it was carried out to make Putin the president. So I think it is fine to mention the theory but we cannot make any claims as to what historians think. TFD (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources:

Satter, David (17 August 2016). "The Unsolved Mystery Behind the Act of Terror That Brought Putin to Power". National Review.

"David Satter – House committee on Foreign Affairs" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 29 January 2012.

Felshtinsky & Pribylovsky 2008, pp. 105–111 Felshtinsky, Yuri; Pribylovsky, Vladimir (20 April 2008), The Age of Assassins. The Rise and Rise of Vladimir Putin, London: Gibson Square Books, ISBN 978-1-906142-07-0, retrieved 23 May 2010

Video on YouTubeIn Memoriam Aleksander Litvinenko, Jos de Putter, Tegenlicht documentary VPRO 2007, Moscow, 2004 Interview with Anna Politkovskaya

Evangelista 2002, p. 81 Evangelista, Matthew (2004), The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union?, Brookings Institution Press, ISBN 978-0-8157-2497-1

’’The consolidation of Dictatorship in Russia’’ by Joel M. Ostrow, Georgil Satarov, Irina Khakamada p.96

Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would rather it was attributed, by RS certainly seems to claim it is a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a scholar's opinion: "The evidence provided in The Moscow Bombings makes it abundantly clear that the FSB of the Russian Republic, headed by Patrushev, was responsible for carrying out the attacks." Amy Knight, "described by The New York Times as "the West's foremost scholar" of the KGB." This is probably one of the reasons why the statement we are talking about reads "According to historians,". She has a "PhD in Russian politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)". Sounds like she would know what's going on and wouldn't say something like this lightly. It's truly incredible stuff. That's why I'm bringing it here- I'm not an expert in the field and I don't want to be swayed by sources I don't realize are mistaken. I'm going to add this one to the citations used to support the statement unless there are any objections. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if she is the leading expert on the KGB, scholarly theories receive recognition from publication in academic journals, not in book reviews. Without academic publication, it is difficult to assess what degree of acceptance the theory has. I note too that the narrative in the book review differs from the theory the attacks were carried out to bring Putin to power. According to Knight, Yeltsin ordered the FSB to carry out false flags attack in order to secure his position. TFD (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This source by ABC-CLIO describes things differently and notes that there are quite a few conspiracy theories around this (it is also in this conspiracy theories guide, which may not be a RS). RSes are not infallible, and they may disagree - if there are conflicting theories here (I'm unsure of the legs the FSB theory has) - they should each be attributed (and not presented in WikiVoice). Probably a discussion for Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or possibly Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I added this topic to Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This conspiracy theory is quite popular in certain circles in Russia, and some people even say that "they are sure". However, it only shows up in opinion pieces as far as I know, not really in any reputable publications.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Geographyinitiative. You suppose to put the name of one specific source in question as the title of the thread. But instead you posted 7 of them (#7 is the publication by Amy Knight). I would say that sources #1,3,5 and 7 qualify as secondary RS. #2 and 4 are primary sources, #6 - I have no idea, did not see it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked into this particular article a while ago. I haven't looked closely at the claim it was done "to bring Putin into the presidency", however there is a comical abundance of evidence (and sources) in the article that the Russian intelligence set the bombs as a false-flag attack. Police caught the intelligence agents after they set one of the bombs, plus assorted other evidence. This was effectively admitted officially... with a desperate and piss-poor attempt to claim the intelligence agents the planted bomb as some sort of training exercise. If anyone believes that, I've got a bridge to sell. Alsee (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"First..." claims for scientist BLP
Can these sources:

...be cited for any of these passages in Draft:Clarice Phelps: If attributed, to whom: author(s), publication(s), weasels ("...is considered by some to be...")? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 05:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ...is the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of any element.
 * 2) ...is the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of a superheavy element.
 * 3) ...is considered the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of any element/superheavy element.
 * 4) ...is considered by [attribution] to be the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of any element/superheavy element.


 * Comment: All the sourcing for this claim are pretty low-quality, especially given that none of the authors are experts in history of science and none of the articles suggest that they have undertaken any systematic survey to ground their belief. Even attribution doesn't solve the flimsiness of the sourcing, since none of the sources/authors have acknowledged expertise in the area. Additionally, considering the risk of WP:CIRCULAR-sourcing, this redflag claim should be excluded unless much better sources are found. Abecedare (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment :, The Wire does not distinguish between op-eds and routine reporting and there's a consensus for using ATTRIBUTEPOV, very liberally whilst using sources from there. AFAIS, FC takes a same route, often failing to brand sheer op-eds. No comments about Slate due to non-awareness. And, what Abecedare says. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, it's probably prudential to add that the author of the Undark piece is a fellow-Wikipedian in the WIR cause. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a safe bet that the the number of people to have worked in a near-equivalent roles of Phelps or above; in discovering elements 106 through 116 exceeds 1000. The level of verification required to certify Phelps' achievement would be herculean and that's one of the reason why professional journalists don't go gaga over such low-level claims. These opinion articles written by Wikipedia editors (and then dispatched for being reprinted over quasi-mainstream publications) none of whom have any professional training in the field, is pathetic and seeks of leveraging social justice as a tool to win over Wikipedia's internal processes. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Citogenesis Please note that there are serious WP:CITOGEN issues here. The "firstness" claim originated in Wikipedia - 21:49, Phelps as of 31 August 2018 which read "is the first African-American woman to identify an element" and was propagated via twitter and other social media in 2018-9. This version contained other false claims - e.g. "She graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014." cited to this which does not contain the PHD claim (and Phelps hereself doesn't represent herself as a Dr.). The "dr." claims have CITOGENED as well - a search for "dr. Clarice Phelps" on twitter - comes up with all sorts of tweets by advocates of women in science referring to Phelps as a Dr. The citation for "firstness" - is ORNL PR which reads "Phelps was part of the team that discovered the superheavy element tennessine." - nothing in regards to "firstness". So yes - we can say, perhaps, that according to an op-ed (which is all we have!) that some people think she is the first African-American women involved in contributing to the discovery of a superheavy element. Given Wikipedia's role in advancing this rather hard to verify claim (which requires verifying no African American woman with a position of "Nuclear Operations Technician" (Phelps' position in 2009-11) or above was involved in discovering elements 106 through 116) - it is best to leave this out entirely. AFAICT, ORNL and Phelps haven't advanced the issue of African-American "firstness". Wikipedia has fallen into Wikipedia generated Citogenesis before - List of citogenesis incidents - and in this case the promotion of this piece outside of Wikipedia (e.g. on twitter) was not insignificant in 2018-9. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * e.g. if one searches for "Clarice Phelps"+element or "Clarice Phelps"+first prior to 27 August 2018 - one gets fairly few results - which either do not contain the claim (just random appearances of "element" of "first") or are marked with a date prior to 2018 (e.g. 2013) and contain a sidebar with newer news items (e.g. the one in undark) that got google cached. There's no online source making this claim on Phelps prior to the Wikipedia article on 31 August 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it turns out to be true that Wikipedia was the first website to make the claim that she's the first black woman to help discover an element, that would make a very interesting op-ed. Natureium (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think (here) we have an example of just why there is a gender imbalance on WP. I have tired to find decent RS about here, the best I have found (Chemical & Engineering News) make no mention of this claim. So (for me) alarms bells start to ring, is the claim true?Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost impossible to verify. You need to verify the ethnicity of a large number of relatively unknown (not even named in the discovery paper itself - just compiling the list of people (never mind ethnicity) which includes every lab tech would be difficult) people involved (in a similar role in terms of seniority) in elements 106 through 116/7 (117 for "ties". for 104&105 we have the verified James Andrew Harris - first African American). Disproving the claim (by counter-example if it exists) is probably much easier than proving it. Reporting in RSes, such as they are, on the "firstness" claim have qualified (e.g. "first we know about"). Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but if RS say it so can we, but when the vast bulk of RS do not make (what would be) a notable claim, I have to wonder if the claim is true. Its not as if this women is not active anymore. Maybe the real problem is the claim is just not all that notable (one member of a team who helped discover something the like of which 100's (1,000's, how many elements are there?) of people have done before and since).Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - all of these sources are poor, based on the opinions of Wikipedians and written after the event, ie: after some canvassing and a small uproar among the WiR community etc when numerous false claims were debunked and the original article deleted. I've written more extensive refutations elsewhere on the present new draft article talk and I'm trying not to waste yet more of my time dealing with the obvious: we cannot use these for anything related to Phelps and the activists etc have shot themselves in the foot, doing neither the project nor Phelps any favours. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I suspect the basic claim is true; if anyone were aware of a counterexample, it would have been shared across science Twitter and we'd be arguing about the deletion of the newly-created article on that person. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:VNT? I don't follow Twitter stuff and that wouldn't be reliable either, and especially not in the situation we have now where the citogenesis has kicked in. We need an academic, peer-reviewed source and since even ORNL are not making the claim, despite her appearing in numerous of their PR stuff, forget it. This was one of several mistakes made in the original article and it is all rather unfortunate because it has just made things more difficult for everyone. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If I thought the sources we have currently were good enough to establish the claim, I would have said so. I simply think that they're more likely right on this point than wrong. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Any extraordinary claim requires extraordinary sources. These are not good sources to begin with. Natureium (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Question: WaPo is a good source. Why don't we just ask them where they took that claim from? François Robere (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an op-ed in WaPo, co-authored by the Wikipedia article creator whom it would be easier to ask directly.Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and we should. The "citogenesis" discussion would have proved nothing if they can source the claim, and would have been redundant if they can't. So why discuss instead of just ask them? François Robere (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In one sense, none of the claims are true: "contributed "means "substantially contributed", and she did not do that.
 * But if we change "contributed" to the more justifiable "first to be part of a team that discovered ", this is a very broad claim, since the teams are normally quite large, and about half the transuranium elements were discovered elsewhere than the US. We do not have complete information about everyone who comprised these teams in some capacity--other groups may not have considered the sort of preparatory work she did suitable for including.
 * More generally, any claim to first is in my opinion the sort of extraordinary claims that needs very strong evidence. Even in very well defined fields like taxonomy, where most work is individual, such claims are invalidated on a regular basis as earlier discoveries are identified. And in many fields where the discovery is important, claims to first are usually a matter of controversy: first manned flight, first travel to the North Pole, first electric lamp....., and even the most expert opinion willl not reach the same conclusions. So even when there is academic work, we still have to say "considered by .." in many cases.   DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Kit Chapman wrote a 2016 feature for Chemistry World called "What it takes to make a new element" about the discovery of element 117 tennessine (and other superheavy elements), and wrote a book that is slated to be published this summer by Bloomsbury Publishing called "Superheavy: Making and Breaking the Period Table". A few hours ago, he posted on Twitter: "I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. She is the first African American woman." Note option #2 above refers specifically to superheavy elements. Can we say, "According to science journalist Kit Chapman, Clarice Phelps is the first African American woman to be part of a team to discover a superheavy element.", cited either to the book or the tweet or both? Pinging curious about your opinions. Thanks. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He does not say this in the book (where he does mention Phelps, saying Harris would not be the last - but does not say Phelps is first). Chapman per his own tweets (advocating against deletion) and the Undark piece (which says the Wikipedia article was written at his prompting) is deeply involved in the Wikipedia article. I think it is telling Chapman and/or the book publisher was unwilling to write "first" in a published setting. From a pure RS standpoint - yes you can attribute Chapman's tweet. However, if we were trying to contain CITOGEN (which we should) - we should not do that for now.Icewhiz (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will also note that Chapman's tweets are inaccurate in placing Phelps on the discovery team (she was not a named member, she was in a different group doing supporting work) - he then contrasts her to LLNL women which were on the discovery team (e.g. Dawn Shaughnessy being head of the LLNL group). If Chapman really wants to verify this - he needs to check every lab tech who may have helped in LLNL (over a long period - this ran a series with Dubna) + verify no African American Woman ended up in Dubna, Japan and Germany (less likely, but not impossible).Icewhiz (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet again with have the weirdness of every source before this not mentioning it (even his book), and now many sources mentioning it. Maybe (and ironically) she may not be notable as the first African American women to discover an element, but rather this debate is now what she is notable for. It has in fact got far more publicity then her actual work (and whoes fault is that?).Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Since some people have mentioned this above, I feel I should emphasize it: The fact that the author of the articles is a Wikipedia editor involved in this dispute has absolutely no inherent bearing on their reliability. Zero. None. This is really really straightforward. We care about what the editor does here (eg. citing themselves might have COI issues), and we would care if the author had a direct connection to the subject (since the source then wouldn't be independent), but "wrote a thing on Wikipedia" is never a reason to dismiss a source - it has no bearing and it's meaningless to bring it up. Cytogenesis concerns are worth considering, but if anything the fact that the author of the article is also the editor who wrote the page people are concerned about makes such concerns less credible, not more, since the author of the page, an experienced Wikipedia editor, would obviously know not to cite it (and would know what aspects are sourceable and which are not.) In other words, in order to allege WP:CITOGEN in that situation, you have to be accusing the author of doing so intentionally in order to falsify a source for a claim they know to be false (or unsourceable.)  That isn't a light accusation, and it's not something that can be danced around with vague concerns. If anyone has any actual evidence that that's the case, they should offer it, but otherwise they need to drop it; implying it without evidence goes far beyond the boundaries of WP:AGF. (As an aside, note that something written outside of Wikipedia obviously doesn't have to adhere to our policies on WP:PRIMARY or WP:INDEPENDENT, and can serve as the secondary source that allows us to use things we otherwise wouldn't at one step removed; obviously, again, the fact that the author was also a Wikipedia editor has no bearing on this, as long as it's published in reliable sources.) There's still room to discuss if the sources are reliable, but I feel most of the discussions above got badly off-track by fixating on who the author was, something that is, in most respects, irrelevant, beyond what I mentioned above about making accusations of cytogenesis both more dubious and, if nonetheless true, more serious. --Aquillion (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the concern is that the only real notability (and indeed source for this claim of her "firstness") is these articles. Thus there is a kind of circular referencing. The original claim appeared to be OR (it was based on private conversations, not RS). Now (as I said) it is based on articles the page creator (or an edd who may have edited the page) may have in fact wrote. You are right, so far no firm evidence for this has been presented, but it must raise concerns when the only (practically) sourcing is written by wiki edds who appear to have an interest in the subject of out article (especially when those articles themselves become the main thrust of the notability arguments).Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should raise anything. Someone who we know is an expert on the subject matter wrote something, which they then repeated in public (via Twitter). The only problem here is that we don't treat that expert's word as The Word (or just ask them for their source, which is as straightforward as can be), but rather speculate about everything and nothing. Anyone wondering why Wiki has a gender disparity should just take a look at this discussion. François Robere (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is the expert did not write this till after the controversy blew up. That is the problem here, it was not noteworthy enough to be published in a book about the subject, and only came to light after it was contested (and yes a private conversation with an expert is still OR). At this time all we can say is that "according to..." and that is not enough to establish a claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Or they had some other editorial concern, or it was a typist's error, or the sun didn't align the right way that day... it's all speculation. They said it, they said it in public, and we've no competing sources. If anyone still has doubts then just use with attribution. François Robere (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is what I just said, attribute it. You are correct it is not down to us to second guess why a claim was not made at first, but we can point out it was not made in (or by) an RS, and as such we had no RS to support a claim.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I second that wholeheartedly. François Robere (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that a Wikipedia editor makes an extraordinary claim does matter to how we can investigate it.  Ask them what the basis for the claim is, what research was done. We can also query them on any weasel words, and why weasel words are used. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Even Chapman's tweets seem a tad speculative, eg: this series. Knowing the names is not the same as knowing the ethnicities, for example. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The questions I have about Chapman (perhaps it's already answered above but I can't see that it has been) is is it in his book, is it in his article, does Chapman actually discuss the subject in any depth in RS? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The book has not been published yet, so I'm not sure where the info regarding that is coming from. may know as their comment of 03:18, 2 May above refers to it. Chapman is now also pissed that Sarah Tuttle is up for deletion. I think perhaps he is one of many who doesn't understand WP - we're not, for example, a database of research scientists. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you may be one of many who don't understand WP:NOTABILITY - when we see a person referenced by a dozen independent RS, that's usually good enough to include them in WP. François Robere (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Who has quoted form his book?Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Icewhiz mentions it here in a way that suggests they have seen it. has also done the same elsewhere. Chapman says probably there are some review copies out there. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Also who is Kit Chappman, he is such a noted expert we do not have an article on him, as far as I can tell he is just a science journalist (with a degree in pharmacology), not an expert in either physics (well nuclear chemistry) or ethnography.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, we have eliminated the Chapman Chem World article as a source for this claim? Can whomever has advance quotes from his separate Book provide them? And it appears the Book is the only RS for whatever "belief" there is, right? (Or, as there is no rush because we have all the time in the world (as this is a tertiary encyclopedia) we could revisit this after the book is published). 13:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * per Jesswade88 the section in the unpublished book by Chapman reads: "His name was James Harris. And he was the first African American to discover an element... He was not the last. In 2009 Clarice Phelps aided in the purification of berkelium, which led to the discovery of element 117 and conformation of element 115". - diff. This does not support first, but merely support Phelps is African American + "aided in...".Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Lets stop referencing to book, it has not been published yet, and until it has been may be subject to change.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite. In terms of Verfiability policy, the book is not a published source and cannot even begin to be RS until it is. And on a more prosaic level, we are not in the 'coming out soon' book promotion business. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Abbas Milani on describing a tie between MEK and KGB
I am wondering if Abbas Milani is a reliable source for describing a tie between MEK and KGB. Specifically, is this edit properly attributed for that matter. I am asking this, since some people find usage of "The National Interest" troubling.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is far from being properly presented here. The source Kazemita is referring to is a commentary piece, something we have discussed at length on the article's TP and concluded is not enough to sustain a whole subsection with this allegation, specially in a controversial topic of the article (and the vast amount of disinformation going around on the subject). On this basis, we concluded that opinion/commentary articles should be avoided in this article, so this commentary article is definitely not enough to support a whole subsection. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, most of the involved users agree to use Milani source, but our main discussions are about Shahram Chubin's source for supporting Sharam Chubin believes that Soviet choices for making "reliable basis for intervention" was not restricted to Tudeh party and that there were "sufficient evidence" to assume that an alliance between Soviet and Iranian Marxists including MEK was real and LSE for supporting " Fred Halliday says the arrest and execution of Sa'adati collapsed the links between the two" in People's Mujahedin of Iran article.Saff V. (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a misquote/very selective quote of Chubin, which actually reads - "There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country (including the Fedayin and parts of the Mujahedin, and Peykar and other offshoots) is a real and growing possibility.". No one is disputing Chubin is a RS - he is however simply irrelevant - this is a 1982 source making a (then) future prediction of a possible threat. This was interesting in 1982 (that Marxist groups in Iran might form an alliance with the Soviets) - from 1991 onwards (all the more so in 2019) - it is irrelevant - we need a source looking backwards and assessing that there was such an alliance - not a source from 1982 looking forwards and warning that there might be one forming. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. There are two Milani sources, one published in a book, and the other is a commentary piece. Because of the controversy and disinformation surrounding the subject, we concluded that commentary pieces should be avoided in this article. We used the (reliable) Milani source, with the other reliable sources discussing the incident with Russia, here. We also discussed the Chubin and Halliday sources at length on the article's TP, so presenting them here without this background seems disingenuous. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is indeed being misrepresented here. For starters we have a much better source by Milani - a Syracuse University Press book, by Milani, with more detail - so there's little reason to use a single paragraph from an op-ed by Milani when we have better published material with greater dispute. As for the content dispute here - the question is whether to tie KGB relations to Sa'adati (one MEK official) or MEK overall. The next sentence in the Milani op-ed - "Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran." - ties it to Sa'adati (as Milani also does in the book). Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Milani is not tying to Sa'dati only, rather he's making an example. In other words; he's saying MEK "adopted close ties with KGB" and names Sa'dati as an example. The wording is clear: ..."it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB." -- M h hossein   talk 13:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein, in your own words:"Same is true for this opinionated piece (see the "opinion" in the right hand corner of Khamenei) which you used to conclude a fact! ". You're doing just that, using an opinion piece to try to SYNTH that the MEK had ties with the KGB, whereas we have a much better sources (even from the same author) that treat this differently, making this not only a fringe claim but also one not supported by a single reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, can't blame Slatersteven for not being aware of the long talk page discussion about this. By not including the actual background of the long talk page discussion, this seems a dishonest attempt by Kazemita1 and Saff V. to change the consensus reached there. Alex-h (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Tasnimnews ?
This was added to the Hafte Tir bombing page:

"Another conspiracy theory maintains that only state-backed organizations could ever acquire such a powerful bomb and points the finger at Israel's Mossad".

This does not look like a RS to me, but thought I'd double check. Thanks for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say dodgy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Tasnim is linked to the IRGC. As other regime outlets from Iran (e.g. PressTV we recently discussed on RSN, or the Russian RT), it can only be used to source IR regime positions.Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

CelebMix
So, there is a history of editors on music topics removing the website CelebMix (https://celebmix.com/). Two editors I have seen remove this source include and. I agree with this, and have removed the source from articles myself, as it looks like a celebrity gossip blog with no editorial oversight, but rather, a team of "contributors". The article Boy Oh Boy (Alexandra Stan song) uses this source, as do other several other articles by the artist Alexandra Stan. There has been a discussion on this opened at Talk:Boy Oh Boy (Alexandra Stan song), and the creator of the article believes the writer for CelebMix whose piece is used on the article, Jonathan Currinn (https://celebmix.com/author/jonathan/), should be included because he has had work published by several other websites, and because he is not imparting "controversial information". His articles (there are numerous) are cited several times throughout the article, so it's difficult to select just one block of text to show what his quotes are being used for, as they are being used extensively.

I have said that we should not be using an unreliable website at all, and I don't believe the writer is an expert in the field enough to have his views be included at wherever he chooses to publish them per WP:SELFPUB. The article in question is a GA and the GA reviewer raised a concern in their review that this website might not be notable, but the creator said that they have used the website before without any fuss, which doesn't really strike me as a good reason, as GAs are usually reviewed by individual editors and not a formal process fact-checked by numerous. It just seems the creator has "gotten away" with using an unreliable source so to speak, and thinks because none of the editors reviewing their articles has insisted it not be included that this makes it okay. I'd like to know what editors here think.  Ss  112   20:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a publication I would call trustworthy. Definitely remove any use of CelebMix. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Currinn's page on Celebmix says that he has written for the following publications (Channillo, Outlet Magazine, SPECTRUMM, Fuzzable, Modern Magazine, and Electric Mode). None of these publications seem notable/reliable so I no longer believe they support a claim that Currinn is a reliable source/writer. He seems to be primarily a blogger. Given that, I am leaning more towards considering Celebmix and Currinn's work on there as unreliable. Aoba47 (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In case CelebMix is should be completely removed from all articles, please let me know before you start removing them by yourself. I would like to do that gradually. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been removing them when accompanied by clearly unreliable sources. Looks like a group blog, but I've been waiting for discussions about it.
 * I am noticing that, in at least their articles that I've looked over, that they're pretty good about identifying their sources. Anyone removing them should check to see if their sources could be used instead. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you determining unreliability? They mention that there is "editorial oversight" on their Write For Us page (https://celebmix.com/write-for-celebmix/) and according to plenty of end-of-year articles from 2016, 2017 and 2018, there's a team of editors (https://celebmix.com/celebmixs-top-albums-of-2017/). The articles published on-site stray away from gossipy headlines, and their latest posts are all news based. Please include links as to why you believe CelebMix is unreliable, before making your judgement. CriticJonni (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please include links as to why you believe it is reliable. --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the two links above. The fact that the website does have editors seems to suggest it has at least some editorial oversight that would separate it from a blog. I personally find it helpful for determining whether or not a source is reliable/credible or not. This message (CelebMix has strict editorial standards and all content is reviewed and verified by a team of trained entertainment journalists before publication.) is on the application page to become a writer so that makes me think of it as more credible/reliable. I am not sure how I missed that considering it is a bright blue banner at the top of the page. That is personally enough for me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They've come up before last year in archive 239 but the argument made there isn't very convincing as to the appropriate application context. I don't think that having been used in Good Articles in the past sets a precedent as acceptable for all future uses. Graywalls (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Celebmix is definitely not a reliable source in terms of content development and inclusion in Wikipedia. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 12:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Understandable. IndianBio and SMUGGUMs are definitely more experienced editors than myself so I defer to them on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sanjay Misra
I just reviewed Sanjay Misra at AfC. While moving it to mainspace, there was an error message about predatory open-access journals. Until just now, I was entirely naive and unexposed to the fact that this was a thing. Unfortunately, because of this, I am unable to tell which are the predatory open access journals, and which aren't (if, indeed, there are any of the latter). Obviously, I'm concerned about this, and need the communities help with resolving this. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems that the filter's being tripped by the reference to the International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals and Advances in IT Professionals and Project Management, published by IGI Global. They seem to be a predatory publisher, as described in this RSN post (and linked article) and this forum discussion. They conceivably could have cleaned up their act in the last few years, since those sources are pretty old, but that's doubtful. I think the journal's a good enough source for who its editor is (the only thing it's used for), but since the subject's only editor positions are predatory publications and one published by his own university, I doubt his notability. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)