Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 268

The Daily Stormer
I would ask for request for comment about the Daily Stormer, which is contain neo-Nazi and supremacist website, which is compared to a defunct Der Stürmer magazine, which is impact of hate, then I suppose that source is reliable, unreliable, depreciated or spam, as I gave the consensus on English Wikipedia, and I will suppose for help. --119.94.166.126 (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted: The Daily Stormer is currently on the spam blacklist under the entry  (dailystormer.name). —  Newslinger   talk   00:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And quite rightly so, we don't need to be including nazi websites as sources on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This cannot be cited on wikipedia as a reliable source for a claim due to it WP:FRINGE nature. It does not have much peer review from what I can tell. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Deprecate – they have falsely claimed that a Muslim was part of ISIS and fabricated tweets that stated that he had committed terrorism. I don't understand the question here, but WP:RS doesn't have an absolute "not pro-genocide" requirement. For example, the article Hassan Ngeze contains a link to his personal website, which may have contained coded messages in support of genocide according to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. A self-published reference can both pass WP:ABOUTSELF and advocate for genocide. For example, Media of Rwanda contains references to genocidal radio stations and TV channels. Pretty much every news outlet has bullied those (including kids) who are ideologically opposed or are of a certain race, encouraging death threats, but The Daily Stormer does it on a very regular basis (are those who attack Trump for calling fake news the enemy of the people, going to defend the Nazis who run The Daily Stormer?). w umbolo   ^^^  13:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to depreciate, as it is already on the “spam blacklist” (a step up from “depreciated”). Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * HELL NO We don't need a site that has a section on "Jewish Problem".Adoring nanny (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Of all the discussions on this page, this seems to be the best example of 'we do not need to discuss every website that exists in the world'. To clarify, as per others, I don't see any reason to deprecate this source. It's already spam blacklisted. If anyone disputes it's unreliability because of the lack of a RSN discussion or appearance on perennial sources there is a simple solution for that. ANI and a topic or site ban. Assuming that some admin doesn't just save us the discussion and indef them. I.E. anyone proposing the use of Daily Stormer as an RS is either trolling or lacks the WP:Competence to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Close this discussion just noticed the OP was CU blocked and I don't think anyone else here feels it needs to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement as to whether or not a book is a source at Kaitlin Bennett
Another editor claims that the source I used was google books, however he is mistaken as google books is simply the medium I used to find a book that is a source here is the diff. Can someone please explain this to him?Ndołkah (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was about to explain this to you on your talk page. This is the URL you cited: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Kaitlin+Bennett%22+-wikipedia That's a Google search. If you want to link to the book, this is the URL to use: https://books.google.com/books?id=dZNJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158. Rather than simply adding a URL, you should consider using a template:cite book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what you said you saidthe book was not a source but alas I don't know how to use this template I'm a simple girl! Help me help me?Ndołkah (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Ndołkah. It seems you cited a "google books search" instead of a "book". Here is what you do to cite a book. When you edit in the article (or anywhere really) there is a "Templates" Tab that gives you other options. It is next to the "Named References" with the green clipboard symbol. Select "cite book" and it should give you many fields for you to fill in such as title, author, publisher, ISBN, etc. You can Preview to see how your reference will look and then select "Insert". That will insert your book citation into the article but you will still be in "edit" mode. Then you have to save your edit by hitting the "Publish changes" blue button and your citation edit will be saved. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See Help:Referencing_for_beginners. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ThankiesNdołkah (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

References with a lapsed domain
What should be done at List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipality? It is one of the list pages that gets edited by enthusiasts making massive changes (example). I tried checking that edit but the article uses wonderfulwaterloo.com as a reference 22 times, and that domain has lapsed and been taken over by hugedomains.com. I checked two references in the Internet Archive but the entries have been lost with IA apparently deleting its archive when it found the pages were being redirected (example). A simple response would be to add dead link to each bad ref, but that leaves many links to a dubious site (hugedomains.com). Or, the lost references could be replaced with citation needed, but that makes the list unsourced. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * An earlier version of the archived page works as you would expect: . To see all of a page's archived versions in the Internet Archive, add  to the beginning of the URL. For example, for , adding the prefix results in  , which lists all of the archived versions of the page. Unfortunately, the source appears to be a forum, which is a self-published source with user-generated content, and is generally unreliable. —  Newslinger   talk   07:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No comment on the reliability, but if there is an actual reference and not just a bare url, you can use "deadurl=unfit" for reference templates, which hides the URL from showing, but will leave it categorized as having a dead link. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that  only works if   (which requires separate   and   parameters) is set. See  for details. —  Newslinger   talk   08:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, I forgot about that. There really should be an option for this specific situation, because it does happen pretty often. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. What a mess. It makes sense that a URL with "showthread" would be totally unsuitable as a reference and that was confirmed at an example I just viewed. A good guess would be that some of the participants in the forum are editing the article. There is no reasonable way to handle a page like that—I just checked a non-wonderfulwaterloo reference (for Sun Life Building is 78 m) and it also appears unsuitable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

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


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

Geni.com
Is Geni.com a RS ~ thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable. Geni.com contains user-generated content in the form of user contributions (like an open wiki), which should be avoided. WP:BLPPRIMARY allows limited use of Geni's primary source documents to support a reliable secondary source. Be careful not to interpret primary source documents through original research, and be aware that unauthenticated documents may be altered or forged. —  Newslinger   talk   22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great answer Newslinger  ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem! —  Newslinger  talk   22:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Prabook
I have recently encountered the above-named site used as a ref by a newbie when removing citation needed. Any thoughts on this Prabook homepage? Very vague about us section. A WP search returns a few very recent uses in the last few days only. I'm thinking this is a recent US-based development, likely a crowd-sourced wiki needing login? The content accessed by the newbie as a ref I believe to be essentially unacknowledged copy-paste plagiarism from WP. I've flagged it up at Inge Stoll and Talk. As a control, I checked William Dunlop at Prabook with the same results, including the image I uploaded to Wikipemedia from Flickr (no acknowledgements - our article William Dunlop (motorcyclist).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious unacknowledged copy/paste from Wikipedia is a clear sign of unreliable source. This certainly should not be used as a reference for BLP (or other) articles. Pavlor (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an open-source project that accepts biographies by anonymous submission. Definitely not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, otherwise we should treat Ash Williams as a WP:BLP . Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Previous discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211 --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 2016, and 2015 at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 191.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be more clear: it is completely open editing. You can register an account and change anything you'd like. The site's disclaimer page notes "Prabook cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been created, changed or altered by someone, whose opinion does not correspond with the real facts about a person. Administrators have not necessarily reviewed information published in Prabook." This is a non-starter. I try to watch for these links, but fall behind sometimes.  Kuru   (talk)  00:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then WP:USERGEN like Wikipedia, I agree it's not usable as a source. — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies
Recently, an editor has begun removing references to the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies all across English Wikipedia. There does not seem to have been any centralized decision that this journal is unreliable. A search for the journal in the RS noticeboard archive returns one discussion from several years ago, which did not reach a conclusion either way. Now that an editor has decided to unilaterally remove all citations to this journal, it's important to determine whether or not these removals are justified. Is this the correct course of action? 2600:1004:B126:6FB3:10F5:9CC3:1068:E9D6 (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wendell Phillips Garrison
 * John Eugene Osborne
 * American frontier
 * Social cycle theory
 * Dual-member proportional representation
 * Mixed electoral system
 * From the linked article: It has been identified as one of two international journals which regularly publishes articles pertaining to race and intelligence with the goal of supporting the idea that white people are inherently superior I would not trust any media known for claims about superiority of some race (other than the one with pointed ears of course). However, putting my POV aside, I would judge any journal by following criteria: is this a peer reviewed journal with an impact factor? Are the people in the editorial staff renowned experts in this field of sudy? If the answers are negative, there are certainly better sources for above mentioned articles and this source should be used only with attribution where DUE. Pavlor (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Impact is practically nonexistent . I can find no information, even on their own website, about who the editors are - actually, it seems like Roger Pearson may be the only editor, and the first sentence of his bio should tell you what you need to know about him. Further, the contact email for the journal is an AOL address... I know that's not in the reliable sources guideline or anything, but it just makes the whole operation look amateurish, and mostly I think suggests that the staff is probably approximately nonexistent. That aside, on a spot check the authors I looked up seem like completely ordinary academics - I actually have no idea what motivates them to publish here given the journal's reputation. I had been expecting either all notorious racists or otherwise people who can't get published anywhere else, but does not seem to be the case. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can make out, it's a nutter's journal financed by far-right sources, masking as an academic journal. It has published several more than questionable articles by more than questionable authors. It also does not even seem to be indexed by Google Scholar, which normally indexes even my wastepaper basket. Not reliable per se, although individual articles might be, based on the independent expertise of the authors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The journal's impact factor is given here as 0.29, but I'm not sure if that qualifies as an "official" impact factor. The sentence you quoted is cited to this book, which mentions the journal briefly on page 90. The book has only one sentence about this journal, so this does not appear to be a case like Mankind Quarterly, which has multiple sources devoted to criticizing that journal.


 * Is there any documentation showing that Pearson is the editor of this journal? He apparently was its founder, but it isn't clear whether he retains any present control over it. 2600:1004:B157:D6C:71FD:1EB8:1B4:93C1 (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is any "official" impact factor with how poorly this journal is indexed. However, Scimagojr allows a direct comparison to other journals in similar fields, and demonstrates that not only is this journal consistently in the bottom half (and usually in the bottom quartile), that region of the rankings is occupied by journals that are almost never cited. As in, literally, most articles in each issue have zero citations. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Journal itself claims "|The General Editor, Professor Roger Pearson, and the Associate Editor, Professor Dwight D. Murphey, are assisted by an Editorial Advisory Committee comprising a variety of academics and experienced public figures." Murphey is now 85 and a long-retired former lawyer and professor of business law. The "Editorial Advisory Committee" seems to be invisible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What is its reputation, not its bias, its reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This certainly looks like a fringe publication. The Roger Pearson link seems pretty much the only thing that is verifiable about this journal aside from its racist views (and possibly ties to Philippe Rushton). I'd suggest consulting WP:FRINGE/N for additional opinions but my initial reaction is that this source is not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's "unrated" in WorldCat . It's apparently not indexed by any major indexing service. Scimago lists it as "4th quartile" and shows between 2 and 25 citations per year to all papers published by the journal, with essentially all of them coming from papers published in the journal itself - i.e. it's a walled garden, and a very small one at that . I think it's save to say that it's reputation is negligible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There doesn't need to be a big debate about ranking and impact and whatever. The journal can pretty much be rejected at face value for being a pseudoscientific peddler of racist nonsense, and the personal outlet of Pearson and close associates. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that does raise doubts it is a reputable journal.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to go through articles citing it, WP:CITEWATCH entry "Pseudo-scholarship" (currently #13) has a list of them. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if it is unreliable considering that it does have peer-review. It seems to be a legitimate journal on all sorts of topics on a global scale. I do not see it as a racist journal prima facie. Are there examples of racists or white supremacists extensively using or citing this journal for their views? Like User:2600:1004:B157:D6C:71FD:1EB8:1B4:93C1|2600:1004:B157:D6C:71FD:1EB8:1B4:93C1 mentioned above there was only one discussion about its reliability many years ago. If it was clearly an unreliable journal it would have had more discussions with a clear consensus. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As to the claim on the wiki article on the journal that says "It has been identified as one of two international journals which regularly publishes articles pertaining to race and intelligence with the goal of supporting the idea that white people are inherently superior" this is what the source (Stavenhagen, Rodolfo (2012-12-14). Pioneer on Indigenous Rights. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 90. ISBN 9783642341502 )  actually says "During the 1950s, anthropologists took an active part in drafting a number of UNESCO statements and declarations on race and racism, which underlined the hollowness, as well as the dangers, of attempts to justify racial rankings scientifically (UNESCO 1960). While it was thought that the demons had finally been laid to rest, it is more than worrying that some recent scholarship has tried to resuscitate them. Two international journals, Mankind Quarterly and the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, regularly carry articles on racial differences in intelligence and achievement, attempting to support the idea of a superior white race, and the publication of The Bell Curve (Herrenstein and Murray 1994) fueled numerous scholarly and media debates on the issues of race and intelligence. Similar controversies surround the discipline of sociobiology, often accused of providing support to racist interpretations of racial and ethnic differences (Montagu 1980)."


 * So this source seems to be criticizing the whole field of sociobiology, not just the journal and it shows some slant against claims on race or the study of race. For sure there is controversy in Race and intelligence, but I don't see how the whole journal is about this particular topic since there are numerous topics and regions it discusses, , , . It looks like it may have a Western bias, but not necessarily a racial bias.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If it discusses race and intelligence, then it would not be that different than journals like Intelligence_(journal) (2.609 Impact factor ) which seem to have more well known publishers (Elsevier), cited on wikipedia a bit, have quite a bit of articles studying race and intelligence . What do you guys think?Ramos1990 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a journal whose editor/founder also founded the Northern League which operated a couple other journals, whose self-stated purpose was "to make Whites aware of their forgotten racial heritage, and cut through the Judaic fog of lies about our origin and the accomplishments of our race and our Western culture". In fact, having work reviewed by this guy diminishes the apparent reliability of any source. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a clear consensus demonstrated by the discussion above, this journal has several issues (race and intelligence question aside): 1) there is no visible editorial staff; 2) there is next to no impact factor. The first issue affects general reliability of this source, but individual papers may be used per WP:SPS (work by an established expert on the subject matter). The second issue is more a question of WP:DUE (or even WP:FRINGE when voicing marginal views). Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Aero Magazine
Found this source being used to support the extraordinary claim that the Intellectual Dark Web is "politically liberal." It appears to be a blog, and from the obvious HTML errors on it, not a very well managed one. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Example HTML error |on the about page - Test Text Box Test Test Test. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-Velvet Revolution Mladá fronta DNES
Could I get an assessment on whether Mladá fronta DNES is reliable for contemporary claims about political parties in the Czech Republic? Specifically, I came across this publication while reviewing the article Democratic Party of Greens. Looking through the references of our Wikipedia article for DNES, one of the sources listed says ‘Mladá fronta’ started out as a serious newspaper but has been slipping down into a zone somewhere between seriousness and tabloid with sensationalist stories. The source also calls it the second-largest print publication in the Czech Republic. However, it's not clear that this source is reliable in itself, and I would thus appreciate more opinions. Note that the paper shares the title of a socialist youth group publication from the socialist era, but it appears to have little-to-no connection to that publication. signed,Rosguill talk 17:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We should not depend on mass media for reliable sources on political articles, so I'd take it with a grain of salt and give due preference to academic sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , at this point I'm just trying to determine that we have enough coverage such that WP:NPOSSIBLE seems likely. While coverage in mass media should be taken with a grain of salt, as you said, I think that if DNES is even marginally reliable it's an indicator of the existence of other more reliable sources. signed,Rosguill talk 18:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be cautious with anything Mladá Fronta claims about Czech politics. It's owned by current PM Andrej Babiš' company Agrofert, thus cannot be relied on to be impartial. So probably best used in conjunction with other sources. I'd consider it reliable for routine facts, like when a party was founded (as in the DSZ article linked) or how many votes parties got in an election, and so on. But I would be careful using it for detailed descriptions of a party's ideology, for example. It's definitely not the worst source out there (we should be more worried about horseshit like "parlamentní listy" when it comes to Czech politics) but it's worth bearing in mind where its loyalties lie. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * MF Dnes is a major newspaper in the Czech Republic (along with Lidove noviny, Pravo and Hospodarske noviny). Note it is close to the current prime minister, who owned it along with Lidove noviny (in theory he has no direct control over both papers now, but this connection should be noted; certainly not "party newspaper" like Halo noviny though). It is generally reliable source (regular editorial staff, posting corrections). As always context matters - it may be useful for a simple statement of fact, but academic source would be better suited for a more thorough analysis. As of "tabloid" journalism, no, this is not Blesk or Aha (or even close to these). Quite good source for notability. Pavlor (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely concur with filelakeshoe and Pavlor. I would be cautious when it comes to some political analyses and reporting on Czech politics in MF Dnes, other than that it's a perfectly reliable source. As for the connection to the current PM of the Czech Republic - yes, the connection is obvious. We have to however bear in mind that the largest Czech newspapers and magazines belong to Czech oligarchs, so we shouldn't be singling out just MF Dnes. Also, as the users above correctly pointed out, it can't be even compared to tabloids like Blesk or Super, party newspaper like communist Haló noviny or fake news outlets like Parlamentní listy or Aeronet. - Darwinek (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Minnie Chan's reports on the Chinese military
Minnie Chan is a South China Morning Post reporter and frequently reports on the Chinese military. Her reports exhibits poor editorial oversights:
 * 1) Overuse or abuse of anonymous sources: Virtually every Minnie Chan's report uses opinions only attributes to a source that is close to the subject. The following are some examples. Additionally, many statements of the anonymous sources do not have corroborating Chinese sources before the publications of the report. Chinese sources reporting on the subject only appear after the publication and often are the translation of the SCMP report.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) Some reports contain factual errors.
 * 6)

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


 * I think USEBYOTHERS means how other reliable sources perceive the source in question (Minnie Chan's reports in this case). Is Minnie Chan's work used by other media as a basis for reporting (BBC, CNN etc.)? Are there concerns about their (reports) reliability or reliability of South China Morning Post in general (voiced in reliable sources)? Pavlor (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Using "site:cnn.com SCMP Military", "site:nytimes.com SCMP Military",and "site:bbc.co.uk SCMP Military" as search terms on Google, I checked 2 pages each and did not found any using her work.
 * There is a report on New York Times regarding the Alibaba purchase . I don't think there are any on this subject in particular. -Mys_721tx (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Popping by to make my usual statement that Wikipedia should not depend on journalists for statements of fact with regard to political and military matters. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Anonymous sources are allowed and are sometimes the only way to report a story, according to the Society of Professional Journalists. Quite often governments will brief the press on condition of the anonymity of a source. The only concern I would have is where one publication had a scoop and no other media picked up on it. That would indicate either they did not consider the story credible or they did not consider it significant, both of which would usually disqualify it from inclusion in a Wikiepdia article. One recent article by Chan called "How Tiananmen crackdown left a deep scar on China's military psyche", which quotes two unnamed former Chinese military officers. Obviously unless and until the Chinese army decides to make an official statement on the topic, we are only going to find out what they think through anonymous sources. But a good reporter will assess the credibility of these sources before publication. TFD (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * While the South China Morning Post is imperfect, my understanding is that it is generally considered an independent and reliable source, with good standards of accuracy (though there can be a tendency for it to take a 'safe' approach). As such, negative commentary from experts would be needed to rule that one of its reporters is systematically unreliable. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * SCMP's overall reliability is not in question here. Negative commentary is hard to come by as Minnie Chan's reports are not wildly used. Of the three articles on Jane's 360 citing SCMP, none uses Minnie Chan's. Of the seven reports on DefenseNews.com citing (searched by "site:defensenews.com SCMP"), three use Minnie Chan's reports and are more or less paraphrased from the original report. To me, this raises a red flag. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Jane's has its own fairly large network of correspondents including specialists on the Chinese military, so there's no reason to expect it would specifically reference stories in other works. You are engaging in WP:OR here - the only reason to be concerned about the SCMP's coverage of the Chinese military is if experts have raised concerns about it. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. WP:OR governs the content of articles and does not apply to the assessment and evaluation of sources in discussion, which are routinely done on this noticeboard. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Frequently making WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that are not covered by other outlets is a valid concern on the reliability of the source. Indeed Jane's correspondents may not reference other stories specifically. However, it becomes a problem when the experts also do not cover the claims made in these stories. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the fact that you have not actually explained what your concerns with the accuracy of this journalist's reportage are, unless you are a expert in this field and can point to where your analysis has been published they are worthless for the purposes of judging whether this source is a WP:RS. We do not dismiss journalists published in reputable news sources on the say-so of individual editors. If a prominent news source is regularly publishing incorrect stories on an important topic, as you are claiming, there will be expert analysis pointing this out. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I explained before, the concern is the over-reliance of anonymous sources on very specific claims, which does not reflect well on SCMP's editorial oversights on military content. As per your request, the following are two authors on the Diplomats and the National Interests Blog concerning claims in five SCMP reports:
 * 
 * (Liu Zhen)
 * 
 * (Minnie Chan)
 * 
 * (Minnie Chan)
 * (Minnie Chan)
 * (Minnie Chan)
 * 
 * (Stephen Chen)
 * I will see if I can find more. I am in no way an expert so there will not be any of published analysis from me. -Mys_721tx (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The first of those Diplomat articles refers to " Multiple articles from multiple outlets" getting something fairly minor wrong, probably, with the SMCP article linked to as an example of this being written by Liu Zhen not Minnie Chan. The second Diplomat article's references to an article by Chan and other reportage states that "A number of articles in recent months have suggested that the PLA Navy is also interested in pursuing a next generation carrier-borne fighter. This is certainly true; however, it would be incorrect to characterize it as due to any recent or inherent deficiency in the existing J-15 platform, considering indications of a fifth generation carrier-borne fighter have been circulating for a number of years now", which hardly seems problematic - it's about interpretation of what the facts mean, rather than the accuracy of the reports. The third Diplomat article also discusses general over-exaggeration in the media about a Chinese fighter jet and doesn't single out the SCMP at all, much less Chan. None of those sources even comes close to criticism of this journalist or the SMCP. This looks like a vendetta, and I don't intend to waste further time on this. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please give an example of what you consider to be a criticism of any journalist of a publication on military topics if you wish to. It would be shifting the goalpost to first demand "negative expert commentary" and then discounting them as irrelevant, especially when the three examples "on the general over-exaggeration in the media about a Chinese fighter jet" are all SCMP reports. Let me reiterate if I have not explained more clearly earlier: the concern is over the editorial oversight. Perhaps the title of the discussion should be moved to better reflect that. If I understand correctly, all three reporters in the examples above probably go through the same editors. I fail to see how the article was written by a different reporter make any difference on the editors' part. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would say other outlets are extremely interested in what the anonymous sources are delivering via Chan.... I would generally advocate using Chan (or SCMP in general in this topic area) in an attributed manner - particularly when Chan is asserting an anonymous source. Reporting what an anonymous (but high ranking) source wants to be written is quite interesting in its own right. SCMP, in this regard, is used for signalling and indeed it not a coincidence this signalling is done in English (as opposed to local non-English media). Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the signalling apply to all anonymous sources or some with qualifiers? "source close to the [subject]" and "source familiar with the [subject]" do not carry the same weight. Unless specified in the report itself, how do we know a particular source is a high ranking person? -Mys_721tx (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is more of an impact "thing" than a reliability "thing" - as in my mind you should be using SCMP attributed when they carry such reporting (or even better - use a source that analyzes their reporting - which may indeed be PRIMARYish in the sense that this is the "raw signal"). As someone who reads quite a bit of military content/news - SCMP is often cited by others (attributed) since others consider SCMP to be a signalling/channeling medium (on the same note - NYT and WaPo were (maybe not under Trump, he's had a bit of a tiff with WaPo) a signalling channel for US officials when they carried anonymous sourced stories on such matters... And English language newspapers of record in non-English speaking countries are often used for this - China is not unique here) - so yes - you are getting a message (in such content) of what someone high-up in China wants you to hear about their military capabilities/intents - however it is extremely interesting to know what someone high-up in China wants you to know about Chinese military capabilities/intents. Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that any anonymous claims from Chan should be clearly attributed in-text. I would argue, however, that any assertion on the interestingness of these claims in an article must be backed up by secondary source. -Mys_721tx (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that is article dependent - e.g. - Type 096 submarine (or to a lesser extent Type 095 submarine) - attributed SCMP would be an improvement/augmentation over the United States Office of the Secretary of Defense: Annual Report To Congress 2017 (what US intel is willing to tell publicly about what they allegedly know). For something like Chengdu J-10 I'd roll with you. Icewhiz (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The diff is just this. Or in reverse.

Any advice? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am Not sure this is an RS, this is (in effect a notice of a funeral).Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am curious as to how they have a date of death of June 04, 2019 at the top of the obituary. The death is still being investigated but obituaries are usually collaborated with family so perhaps this is the best info so far. For sure she was dead by that date. I would think that attributing the date to the source would help out in the article for that claim. For example something like "According to the Funeral home that will be having the funeral service for the family, her date of death is reported as June 04, 2019 on the obituary."&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But the obituary itself doesn't report this, only her birthdate, birthplace and deathplace. Headlines aren't sources, discussions above indicate. And there isn't room in the disputed article for all that, unless you're suggesting a footnote. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * June 4th was the date her body was found and therefore probably later than when she actually died but perhaps the last date on which she could possibly have died. TFD (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Given the news reports specifically call out the death date/time as unknown, the material in the obit is unreliable (given we know exactly when the body was found). Leave out the day and just list the month. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clearer, the pertinent article is Deaths in 2019. Leaving out the day is not an option, only clarifying her entry or not. Your appraisal suggests we should note her body was discovered on June 4, when her entry currently signifies she died. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why would leaving out the date not be an option? Surely this can’t be the first situation where we know someone notable died in a given year, but where the exact date of death is uncertain or unknown (I would think this would become quite common the further back in time one goes). So, wouldn’t it be logical for our Deaths in XXXX articles to have a separate sub-section at the end, just for listing these situations? Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That was proposed recently. I forget which month or how it exactly went, but it was brief and locally unpopular. Many dead folks have died circa sometime or another over the years, and it's common enough to put them approximately when their death was announced or body was found (we even have shorthand abbreviations for such edit summaries). Helps readers find them where roughly expected. What's unusual this time is only everyone's sudden acceptance of a headline as even worth considering, and moreso its apparent superiority to a multitude of formerly trusted actual journalism (the stuff we read once the headlines bring it to our attention). It's almost unsettling, dammit! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a RS issue (no, the funeral home can not be expected to be definitive). My 2 cents - leave the date unspecified (beyond year, possibly month). There might be a coroner report later with a better date at trial and/or other evidence leading to an actual date of shooting. If you really need a date somewhere (e.g. for Deaths in 2019) - use the date the body was found, until there is a more definitive death estimate. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Straightforward case of WP:WIKIVOICE. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

2019-06 Die Weltwoche
Hello,

According to Die Weltwoche, "On 12 May, 2010, the main title of the weekly edition of the Weltwoche was: "Must Islam be Banned? - The religion of the muslims is not compatible with the Swiss Constitution."[9] The front cover of the Weltwoche of 5 April 2012 published a photograph of a Roma child pointing a gun at a camera under the headline "The Roma are coming". The controversy sparked by this choice of illustration was reported internationally.[10]

On 26 June 2012, Die Weltwoche published an article which lamented the spread of the Irish gene pool and falsely claimed that the Irish Government requires pre-marital DNA testing in an effort to halt supposed widespread incest amongst the Irish who, it was further claimed, have rat-like anatomic features. The article was translated into English and caused controversy in the Irish media.[11][12][13]"

Is Die Weltwoche an unreliable source that Wikipedia must never use? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Were corrections (and/or apologies) posted by the magazine after the 2012 false claims about the Irish? (the other examples are disgusting of course, but manipulative extremist POV in titles and cover pictures is not in itself disqualifying - compare eg. with "tabloid like" headlines of many quite serious media). Other big issue is probably (rather lack of) editorial oversight, when owner and editor in chief is also national level politician, I would rather not use such magazine for anything about politics. Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where was it published, what was it (an opp-edd, a blog)? The above gives us no context.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

2019-06 Le Point
Hello,

The last # of Le Point feature an editorial by Franz-Olivier Giesbert talking about Eurabia, Bat Ye'or being a scholar and not a conspiracy theorist, the 500 no-go zones in France ruled by sharia, with no mention of Breivik or Utøya. Is Le Point an unreliable source that Wikipedia must never use? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the problem here? My French is not ideal, but there is nothing to raise a red flag for me. And this is only an opinion piece, which would not be in many cases useable as a RS anyway (other than for voicing an attributed point of view). Are there any real signs of unreliability of this media (reporting falsehoods, no corrections, "invisible" editorial staff etc.)? Pavlor (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As an editorial it might not be an RS, no.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting Snopes
This Forbes piece details why Wikipedia should reconsider how Snopes is used as a source (if at all). In it, Leetaru refers to a piece from The Daily Mail "'Fact checking' website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn't told its readers THOSE facts)" and notes that the founder of Snopes, David Mikkelson, has made no attempt to refute the claims.
 * The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers by Kalev Leetaru

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

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

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

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


 * Source: Snopes  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC) 21:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)Snopes has been examined 12 times here and found reliable every time.
 * 2) Attkisson's claims have been disproven and she is not a reliable source to refute Snopes.
 * 3) The Daily Mail has deprecated since 2017.
 * I move for a speedy close on this subject. Toa Nidhiki05 21:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The complaint seems rather ridiculous on its face for several reasons: A) Snopes cites its damn sources, so you don't need access to their internal deliberations to fact check them; B) The Daily Mail has been deprecated as a source on Wikipedia for its tendency to completely invent stories; C) Kalev Leetaru was himself fired from his job over allegations of academic misconduct. None of these points are definitive refutations of concerns with regard to Snopes, but they certainly make it hard to take it seriously. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is a tabloid that made serious claims against Snopes. It is expected that Snopes would have debunked them, but as Leetaru pints out, they did not. His piece is worth reading, and his points worth considering. To attack him instead seems a curious response. Further, do read the Attkisson pieces where she shows that Snopes got it wrong - she did the fact checking you suggest.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Forbes contributors are almost always not reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 21:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Snopes is a decent website but in general I do not consider them a reliable source worthy for citing on wikipedia. Are the authors of the Snopes article at hand experts in the field form which the claim is being made on Wikipedia? If not, then better sources should be found instead of Snopes. Snopes is not like other organizations like which came from reliable news organizations which conduct some degree of independent or expert oversight. The main thing about reliable sources is that they should have some oversight by other experts (peer review) or that a blog or website article be written an expert in the field. Otherwise, who is to tell if a website is reliable or not? Plus it got started by some guy and his wife  I do not see credentials of expertise and I do not see journalistic sources using them as a source either. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * According to their wiki page, [|Snopes]
 * ...has been referenced by news media and other sites, including CNN, MSNBC, Fortune, Forbes, and The New York Times.
 * Great. But being cited in the news does not establish reliability of a source. Keep in mind that these same news sources also reference UFO witnesses, political conspirators, racists, historical revisionists, etc. In order to establish reliability for Snopes, you need to show that Snopes offers peer review of some kind and or that experts write on the stuff they are experts in. There appear to be better sources available than Snopes... I don't think that Daily Mail is that good either.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The standard for a reliable source is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". What you're describing is a good rubric for judging the likely reliability of a source, but it is not the be-all end-all. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose the ifcn code of principles mentioned below is something to consider. Well, at least attribution should be used if Snopes is used on wikipedia per the Snopes entry in the Perennial sources list .Ramos1990 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm attacking Leetaru. Your entire post relies on arguments from authority, and so I am responding with ad hominems against your authorities. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that Attkisson has also made unsubstantiated claims that COI editors have been altering her article. Rklawton (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Snopes is fine, and using crap sources like The Daily Mail to attack Snopes is further proof that Snopes is fine. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Forbes "Contributor". Not a source even to start to talk about reliability. --M asem (t) 00:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The guy who wrote this Kalev Leetaru has an impressive resume . It really isn't fair to dismiss him or Forbes so quickly.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kalev's impressive resume leaves out something rather important that happened a few years back, and he has not had an academic appointment since, so I would not be so sure about that. See above. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable. Snopes is independently accredited by the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). See the full evaluation here. In contrast, the Daily Mail  is a deprecated source (confirmed through 2 highly attended RfCs in  and ), and the Forbes.com contributor platform  is equivalent to a self-published source. —  Newslinger   talk   00:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The assessment by the IFCN is conclusive that it is reliable, as is its frequent citation in mainstream news media. In this case, it might make sense to mention that these are the conclusions of Alex Kasprak, writing in Snopes. TFD (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable. The Forbes contributor piece (itself not a reliable source) is totally unavailing. There is more than ample evidence that Snopes has an excellent reputation for fact checking and accuracy. R2 (bleep) 06:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close A forbes contributor article is effectively a blog post, and this one is by someone with a history of academic malfeasance. As for the Daily Mail, that particular source competes with Donald Trump's toilet twitter musings for least reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It might be me, but when the evidence of secrecy is a legally binding divorce settlement I have to winder what the real story is. I am also suspicious when"one worker" morphs into "everyone who worked for..." to make a point. This is why we have separate rules for opp-edds (or whatever forbes sites is).Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it falls into the "Personal blog" category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is the "Personal blog" category - a Forbes contributor is somebody whose blog is at the forbes.com url. That's all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Blog, opp-ed...still means I do not think this is well written or reliable for anything more then this persons opinion, and that may not be relevant to anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Climate coverage, starting in September
There is a new initiative regarding media coverage of climate change. I'm not quite sure whether they've settled on a title — I've seen "Covering Climate Change in a 1.5-Degree World" as well as "Covering Climate Change: A New Playbook for a 1.5-Degree World".

I applaud any initiative to improve the coverage of this important issue.

The initiative was kicked off with a live streamed conference. I got the impression from the conference presentation that it was a joint venture of CJR, The Nation, and The Guardian, although some reports suggest that the initiative is led by CJR, The Nation, with the Guardian and WNYC as cosponsors. Some of the announcement materials, such as The Media Are Complacent While the World Burns, suggest this is "merely" a call for better journalism, although there are hints of a more ambitius initiative:

I've been very interested in climate issues for many years and look forward to seeing some of this coverage.

By now, you may be wondering why I'm writing here. I urge you to watch the conference (Warning it is over five hours, although they do take a lunch break).

The conference participants make it clear that they intend this initiative to be a seachange in the way climate issues are covered. At approximately the 1:21:34 Margaret Sullivan talks about the distinction between observers and advocates. Traditionally, the media specifically adopts the role of observer rather than advocates. She notes the example that when it comes to press rights, the media cannot simply be observers but they must be advocates. She uses that as a jumping off point to suggest that when it comes to climate change, it is okay for the media to be advocates for healthy planet. (It wasn't perfectly clear to me whether she was advocating for this change to apply to all media or only media outlets that join in this initiative).

At approximately 2:18:00 Katrina vanden Heuvel (Of The Nation) reiterates Margaret Sullivan's point and supports the notion that it's time to become advocates.

I'm not here to suggest that it is wrong for journalists to abandon journalism and become advocates. If an issue is truly as important as they believe it is, becoming advocates is a principled decision. However, Wikipedia treats sources differently depending on whether they are straight news organization or advocates. If this initiative gets off the ground (and Bill Moyers, on hehalf of an organization he heads, pledged $1 million to it in the closing speech), I think Wikipedia has to treat the organizations signing onto the initiative as advocates rather than news organizations, limited of course, to climate coverage.

We often wrestle here with sources who have blurred the line between pure reporting and advocacy. While this issue is a bigger deal, we don't have to read between the lines or infer anything — they openly state their support for becoming advocates.

I don't expect this to be a slamdunk proposal and I invite thoughtful commentary. I will ask that anyone responding identify how much of the conference they watched. I'll emphasize that the links to text I provided don't make the transition from journalism to advocacy as clear as the speakers at the conference. S Philbrick (Talk)  16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm very wary of your proposal, or of any proposal that seeks to downgrade reliable sources simply because they're committed to covering the science of climate change accurately. I don't see the sharp distinction between journalism and advocacy that you do in this case. When journalists cover HIV/AIDS, for instance, they do so from the perspective that it is a clear public-health threat; efforts to combat the disease are implicitly positive, while barriers to confronting the disease are implicitly negative. That's not "advocacy"; it's an assumption of a shared set of basic human interests. Since climate change is an even greater threat to public health and well-being than HIV/AIDS, I don't see the problem with acknowledging that in its media coverage. Having watched some (not all) of the links you provided, my sense is that the goal is for the media to move away from reflexive false equivalence and both-sidesism on the issue. That is, the goal is to re-set the Overton window to mirror reality. There is no serious scientific debate about whether human activity is causing drastic and dangerous climate change, and to the extent that journalists imply otherwise, they're misinforming the public. Addressing that false balance issue increases, rather than decreases, the reliability and encyclopedic value of these sources. (Likewise, over time, reputable media have done a better job with covering anti-vaccinationism and other harmful forms of nonsense. Again, not advocacy; more like a recognition of Okrent's Law&mdash;"The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true"). The bottom line is that, no, I don't agree at all that we should downgrade reliable sources on climate change. They are committing to cover the topic more accurately and appropriately, and in a manner more commensurate with its gravity and with the scientific and scholarly understanding of the topic. That's a good thing in terms of their reliability and suitability, not a bad thing. MastCell Talk 18:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let’s wait and see what happens. We need to see HOW these outlets change their reporting before we can decide how we should respond. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I completely agree. I believe this initiative is supposed to kick off in September, so we have some time but given the stature of the media outlets involved, I thought it would be good to to start the discussion now. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , With all due respect, I wouldn't be here if that was their goal. The text-based links leave that impression, but the conference leaves a different impression. Did you hear where they said:
 * ? That's a sign of straight-up advocacy, not responsible journalism.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks like the same practice as what we require in our undue weight policy. The organizations intend to treat climate change denial as a fringe theory that deserves reduced coverage, instead of creating a false balance between two sides that have vastly different levels of scientific support. —  Newslinger  talk   21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 2 cents - much of the media discourse on Climate change is advocacy - with almost religious undertones. I would advocate that Wikipedia, in general, avoid media sources for the subject - and use published scholarship which is more nuanced (and obviously supports climate change - however most academic writing (in the majority, or in the minority still disputing climate change) - gives at least a nod towards opposing arguments (as opposed to blanket dismissal)). For some topics - media sources aren't the best - e.g. WP:MEDPOP - "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[31] costs, and risks versus benefits,[32] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[33] - the situation with climate change (on the science, ignoring politics - which obviously is more a media issue) is similar. Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not on board with avoiding media sources generally. I I am quite aware that we take considerable care to use high-quality sources when talking about medical subjects, and I think we try to do the same when talking about the narrow subject of climate science, but we have a host of articles lumped into the arena of climate issues which specifically include the public's view of the issue in various attempts by advocacy groups to shape the discussion. It would be close to impossible and arguably irresponsible to limit those discussions to scholarly papers as sources. When making a scientific statement such as Arrhenius's rule, I totally agree that a peer-reviewed source is better than a mass media source, but there are other subjects where mass media sources make sense. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A related issue on this is recognizing that when the media starts to become an advocate for an issue, people that are opposed to that issue or the like start to become the subject of red-lettering, vilifying, or other negative press (since their ideas are not in line with the media's), and this ends up become the mode which WP treats these people because "it reflects what the media is stating". We need to be very careful of repeating without question media advocacy in our articles. WP should be amoral to most topics and should not blinding repeat what the media says but instead filter that impartially. We should not be treating "climate change denier" as a sign that a person is bad and thus influence us to write their article from a negative standpoint, just because many media sources do. --M asem (t) 13:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Journalists stopping to sit on the fence between science and lunatic charlatanery, and instead joining the science side, is a good thing. It actually makes them much more reliable than before. Wikipedia should applaud. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Right now the biggest problem with the way Climate Change is covered is that they try to provide 'balance" between well established scientific fact, and what are basically fringe views. If they're honestly going to eliminate their efforts to provide that false illusion of balance, then their coverage will become more reliable, not less. (And they would be bringing their own policies more in line with Wikipedia's, I might add.)  ApLundell (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the same scrutiny we apply to our medical articles should apply to articles about climate change. I check-in on the NASA website from time-to-time, and also read the sources they cite. Another issue I'm seeing is that we should focus more closely on verifiable facts and known effects that science has determined to be a direct result of climate change. We should be very cautious of clickbait sensationalism and speculation by news media, in much the same way we scrutinize them for medical articles. If we do decide to use the highest quality news sources, like NYTimes, we should also verify the sources they cited and make sure we include all relevant views per DUE. I think we should steer clear of fear mongering which is neither scientific nor encyclopedic. The NASA article published the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which "forecasts a 2.5 to 10F degree rise over the next century." Alot can happen over the next century. Atsme Talk 📧 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart as a source for criticism of Wikipedia
In, citations to Breitbart were added to Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation). My first thought was, "Wasn't that source added to the blacklist?" It turns out that the citations evade this problem by simply omiting a URL. So, I guess there are two questions here:
 * 1) is it OK to evade the blacklist by not using URLs?
 * 2) is Breitbart a reliable source for criticism of Wikipedia? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, if the criticism is valid, better sources may cover it. But generally unreliable sources can still be used with attribution to cite the opinion of the person who wrote it.  Resulting in the question: is that particular person's opinion considered important in the context?  Is the person qualified to say that?  Unless the article was anonymous, I would personally avoid using "according to Breitbart News", with more specific attribution to the author.  For the blacklist-evasion, requesting that specific links be whitelisted is possible. — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, are we going to cite Wikirev, Wiki in action and such for criticism of Wikipedia now? These sources are garbage-tier no matter what. Evading the blocklist is tantamount to spam. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No.
 * No.
 * François Robere (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and boldly removed it for now. Breitbart is considered completely and thoroughly unreliable for statements of fact, and since all of these statements are fact claims and so I have removed them. The fact it is blacklisted gives even more pause to including this. Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I support that, — Paleo Neonate  – 20:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If an editor wants to cite a page from a source that is on the spam blacklist, the correct way to handle this is to nominate the link to be added to the spam whitelist. Any blacklisted website page that doesn't qualify for the spam whitelist shouldn't be cited in a Wikipedia article, regardless of whether it is linked. —  Newslinger  talk   21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Short answer: remove BBN here as it is being used for claimed statements of fact (what various WMF ppl said). BBN is not a RS for any factual information and the blacklisting/spam filter addition is to prevent editors from trying to add it easily. BBN can still be used for RSOPINION statements, if BBN's opinion is adding something useful. --M asem  (t) 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The given reason for the addition to the blacklist was "to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a reliabe source. Not, usually, a notable opinion. And not even reliable enough to trust them on a third-party opinion. Burn it with fire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Any notable criticism or other opinion will either be published by a more reputable outlet or receive coverage by other independent, reliable secondary sources. Either way, I don't see any basis for citing Breitbart outside of the WP:ABOUTSELF context--and even then it should be handled with caution. R2 (bleep) 17:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic
Is mayoclinic.org is a RS? Puduḫepa ( talk ) 13:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For what?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * for topics like this one. Puduḫepa  ( talk ) 14:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, it is not the topic that counts, its what they are specifically being sourced for. You seem to have a lot of sources there, so why do you want to use this one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I may not use all the sources I linked there—I have just gathered them as they seem relevant. It was a general question btw, not specific to the page I linked. I would like to know if Mayo Clinic is regarded as RS for the articles related to med. Puduḫepa  ( talk ) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No more then any other hospital, which mean context matters. They may well be reliable for some stuff, but not for others.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Mayo Clinic is a reliable source in general for medical claims in general and its website is also reliable source in general for a wikipedia page on the hospital itself. But context matters on the claim being made. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDSCI allows monographs. However, if systematic reviews or guidelines are available, they should take precedence. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * While it may meet rs, it's better to use medical text-books or peer-reviewed articles because they provide sources which readers might to look at and it makes it easier for editors to resolve any conflict of facts in various sources. If for example, Mayo provides one figure for the number of people who have contracted a certain type of illness while a similar source provides another, we cannot determine which is correct. But if we use academic sources, they will provide sources, such as a CDC study. We can then look at these sources and determine whether they have been correctly reported.
 * I have come across a number of cases where information originally reported turned out to be incorrect. In those cases, it was helpful to have citations in the sources used, so that I could determine which was correct.
 * TFD (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * agree w/ TFD--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost none of our readers look at the sources we cite, much less at any footnotes that might be in the sources we cite, so I think that's a minor consideration.
 * Mayo Clinic and similar sites are okay sources for general, uncontested information. They're good for things like "People taking SSRIs sometimes experience side effects", but not things like "exactly this percent of people taking SSRIs will experience this specific side effect".
 * IMO it's reasonable (although not mandatory) to cite the occasional source that an average adult could read and understand (i.e., something that's not a medical textbook or an academic journal article). But you should build your article primarily from your highest quality sources, and this is only an "okay" source, not a great one.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Researching with Wikipedia advises, "Where articles have references to external sources (whether online or not) read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says." Furthermore, "In most academic institutions Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias and other tertiary sources, is unacceptable as a source for facts in a research paper." Therefore it is useful to have citable sources. For students, academic researchers and writers, the sources provided in Wikipedia articles are extremely helpful. These articles are often the first source consulted because they are accessible, easily understandable and footnoted. The University of Pittsburgh University Library System advises to "use Wikipedia to become familiar with a topic or as a starting point for research" but "don't cite Wikipedia articles in your bibliography."


 * Not a great source. Okay for basic non controversial stuff which this obviously is not. Would be better to use a systematic review in a major journal. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mayo Clinic was a provider of information for Google's Knowledge Graph for 3 years and might still be. I expect that Google partnered with them because they were trustworthy for collecting statements of fact. There might be documentation somewhere about where and how Google used their information, and if that documentation exists, then that could inform a decision in Wikipedia on how we use this content. So far as I know, Mayo Clinic's publications are consumer facing content more like Wikipedia articles, and not independent sources. I highly trust their simple statements of fact which are obvious to health care providers but might be difficult to source from medical literature. For information beyond that better to use WP:MEDRS content.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Are the sources purporting that Jeanne Calment was a fraud reliable?
Is this or this a reliable source for the claim that Jeanne Calment might be a fraud? They all appear to cite this paper. Rockstone  talk to me!   18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The paper is unpublished. So doubtful. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Rockstone  talk to me!   04:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful in developing consensus if you could elaborate on your reasons here. Rockstone   talk to me!   05:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Spartan Daily
Can Spartan Daily be considered a reliable source? It's been around since 1934, but it's a school newspaper for the San Jose State University produced by journalism and advertising students. // Liftarn (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide the specific source, and content.
 * Related RSN discussions concerning college newspapers: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_215, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_46, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_222 --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Related RSN discussions concerning college newspapers: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_215, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_46, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_222 --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's the article 21 Savage detained by ICE agents from https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartan_daily_2019/7/ about Web Sheriff providing a forged birth certificate. // Liftarn (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreliable for this use case, since the article covers a legal controversy involving 21 Savage, a living person that is unrelated to the school. I doubt the student journalists have the resources to properly fact-check the claims presented here. The article is more of a tertiary source than a secondary source, and much of the information is attributed to other sources including the Daily Mail, Complex, and XXL. The Daily Mail is deprecated, but if you find the original Complex and XXL articles, you can cite and use them. —  Newslinger   talk   08:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not used for anything about 21 Savage but about the company Web Sheriff. // Liftarn (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Taio Cruz, Web Sheriff, and MusicBrainz have nothing to do with San Jose State University or San Jose, California, so I wouldn't use The Spartan Daily for this. This article from TorrentFreak, "Web Sheriff Sent “Forged” Taio Cruz Birth Certificate to MusicBrainz", would be much better. —  Newslinger  talk   20:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've also responded at . —  Newslinger  talk   00:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The reliability of the TorrentFreak article is now being discussed at . —  Newslinger  talk   23:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, a student publication's circle of competence includes news related to the school and, to a lesser extent, news in the school's local area. In-text attribution is recommended, and the publication's articles don't necessarily contribute to a subject's notability. For anything other than school-related and local news, student publications should probably not be used as sources of facts. —  Newslinger  talk   08:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Orissapost.com
Can articles from OrissaPost be used as sources in Wikipedia? I was unable to find any info on the editors, etc. in the website's About Us section. One of its articles, was used to source content in the Ho people article, which I reverted because of it. Kindly advice. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a sister-publication of Dharitri (newspaper) (see this article). The latter has been in operation since 1974, while Orissa Post started publishing in April 2011 and from all appearances is a genuine (paper) broadsheet. So I would say that it is ok for facts that are subject of routine, non-controversial news reporting.
 * However, we should keep in mind its relatively small circulation of 35,000, niche target-market ("pro-people, youth-oriented approach") and ownership by a BJD MP (and son of an ex-CM of Odisha) Tathagata Satpathy and be careful when using it to establish notability of "youth-oriented" figures, or non-routine political news/analysis.
 * As for this edit in particular: statements by activists shouldn't be stated as facts in wikipedia's voice. Note though that West Bengal can be included in the list based on this ToI article that is already cited. That said, none of the existing sources for the sentence (ToI and Business Standard) is really high-quality. Surely we can find more scholarly sources or census-type reports for the claim? Abecedare (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that West Bengal is mentioned in the first line of this source, but few paras down, the source writes "Ho is a very old tribal language. In some areas, it is called by other names like Kol, Kolha and Munda" which makes it confusing since Kol, Kolha and Munda are separate ethno-linguistic groups. This is making me doubt the source. Secondly, the inclusion of West Bengal and Assam in a sentence which ends with "they constitute around 10.5% of the Scheduled Tribes" is plain wrong since only in Jharkhand and Odisha, the population is that high. Assam doesn't have a Ho population as per census year 2011 and West Bengal has 23000+ but that consititutes a negligible 0.4% of the toal ST population of the state. I believe only the TOI source above can be kept since it talks about "Ho people". The other sources this and this are more "Ho language" centric. And the lead needs to be reworded as per Census 2011 here. It is full of unsourced and original researches.


 * As for this, changes I believe I'll keep "orissapost" citation only when a piece of text is not supported by more reliable sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the "reliability" of Orissa Post is a side-issue as far as the lede of Ho people is concerned. I agree that the current lede is difficult to parse and we should be able to improve both the sourcing and the writing. Can continue at the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The Independent
This has been on here previously[1][2][3] and me and User:El komodos drago were wondering if anything had changed since it is now solely online and the last RFC was in 2013. &#91;Username Needed&#93; 17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would it have?Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is used as a source in thousands of articles and has not been challenged in the last six years is a pretty good indication that editors perceive it to be reliable. TFD (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is considered one of the most reliable press sources in the UK and less politically biased than many others, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked Username Needed about it was because I was attempting to use it to cite existing content about the Tesco date system debacle (on the Jullian Calendar page which another editor has explained is the wrong place) and dismissed it as a tabloid that is no longer printed. They also said that the article was a throwaway remark, Tescos was a random supermarket, and Britain a mid-sized European country (and thus what the largest supermarket chain in Britain uses is trivia) so I've got a feeling he was using hyperbole. The editor has however clarified that I wasn't challenging the Indo as a wp:RS. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also suggested listing it as there seemed to be a body of opinion that since it had gone online the headlines had become more clickbaity but I believe that Wikipedia does not allow the usage of headlines for citations, only body text. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I am named here, let me respond.
 * First, I did not and would not suggest that The Independent is anywhere near the depths to which the Daily Mail descended in terms of deliberate fabrication of stories. I do think that its journalistic standards have slipped and it is no longer it what used to be called the broadsheet category. But that is nowhere near enough to propose it be considered for 'better source needed' tagging. IMO, it is still an acceptable source, subject to appraisal.
 * But most important of all, hard cases make bad law: the storm in a teacup here is that one journalist on one occasion made one silly error of terminology on a trivial and incidental detail. is trying to drag that trivia into Julian calendar, despite a strong consensus that it not appropriate to include it, WP:RS or not.
 * That is the last I have to say on this matter. El komodos drago has already wasted more than enough of our time pursuing this obsession. Stop it here, stop it now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Right well that was interesting. I am actually no longer pursuing it at all, only curious as to whether Friedman thought that it needed complete removal. I personally am not bothered about whether or not it is included, I only wanted to understand the relevant policies. I am also sorry to hear that I have wasted Friedman's time although I was actually no longer attempting to add it in and had unanswered messages on the talk page when he messaged me. With regards to the clear consensus, a perusal of the articles history does lead me to point out that 4 inexperienced editors (excluding me as I never attempted to add it, only source and clarify it) attempted to add it while 3 editors attempted to remove with the later being more experienced and right. (as an interesting side note, many of those 4 editors now have sock puppet warnings although I wouldn't have thought that multiple people attempting to add a news item to an article was a case of sock puppetry.) El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fan created content on YouTube
Just wondering what is thought of fan created content on YouTube such as this and this. The videos are created by "The Grand Tour Fans" and consists of fan supplied images and videos with some official video which I assume has been copied from official program sources. Some of it is correct, but it is fan generated. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally no, per even WP:EL. I would guide using if there is reasonable attention given to fan-made content from reliable sources that suggest reliability. For example, in video games there's a channel Valve News Network that covers from the Valve Company in depth. Without other sources, it would not be usable. However, our set of RSes frequently call to this source and consider that source reasonable reliable, so we will use that source (but usually adding the name and using the third-party source alongside the video source to justify). --M asem (t) 02:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fan made content is exactly that: fan-made. It is not really easy to verify if the fan-made content used fact checking so its reliability can be questioned by anyone. Best to be on the safe side and not use it. I have seen fan-made content that has errors in their presentation too. So the problems can become compounded.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

New York Times: 5G reporting partnership with Verizon
Would the New York Times be considered to have a conflict of interest with regard to 5G reporting? In a partnership with Verizon, they have created a "5G Journalism Lab". Verizon stands to make billions from 5G, and are now the first carrier to offer it.

(Background: This issue came to my attention with this RfC, which uses a piece from the NYT. The article does not claim to be sponsored nor does it mention the partnership .)

How should WP handle any reporting coming from the NYT/Verizon "5G Journalism Lab"?  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable, but not WP:INDEPENDENT Not reliable on the topic of 5G but otherwise reliable until proven otherwise. What a fascinating question! After reading the first line of this thread my immediate thought was "of course not - a newspaper having an advertising, or even advertorial, arrangement does not presuppose the separation of church and state (sales and editorial)". However, as you rightly point out, this initiative is being composed by regular NYT staff writers and no disclosures of sponsored content are apparent, despite the fact Verizon - which we would otherwise characterize as having a COI - is receiving a quid pro quo. I would say, therefore, the New York Times does have a COI with regard to 5G reporting since its editorial operation presents the outward appearance of operating as an adjunct of the Verizon corporation's marketing department. (To be fair, I'm sure that's not the case, however, there is sufficient 5G reporting out there that I can't see any compelling reason why we shouldn't proceed with a preponderance of extra caution and avoid sourcing the NYT on this topic.) Chetsford (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As well, the primary owner of the NYT, Carlos Slim, stands to make billions from the successful launch of 5G, with his ownership of American Movil.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I find that unconvincing. Except for The Guardian, all newspapers have always had wealthy owners with a variety of investment interests. The case of the Verizon content partnership is of a different character entirely. Chetsford (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable. For participants' benefit, the source in question can be found here. I don't see the COI. There's no question that Verizon would be conflicted if it purported to engage in independent journalism about 5G, as Verizon is a participant in the 5G market. But just because The New York Times has partnered with Verizon doesn't make it conflicted as well. There is no evidence that the Times has anything to gain or lose by reporting on 5G one way or another. Sure Verizon could try to exert influence its stories, but that's no different than the influence sources try to exert over journalists every day. The New York Times has an excellent reputation for not being beholden to its sources. It literally wrote the go-to book on journalism ethics--and we even cite it in our verifiability policy (WP:QS). If the Times were to violate its own COI rules it would be a major public scandal. Since I don't see evidence of a scandal, I think we can feel fairly safe assessing that there was no COI. R2 (bleep) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We no longer live in an age where we can presume the separation between advertising and editorial exists because it has in the past, as Ira Basen writing at the University of Wisconsin's Center for Journalism Ethics (among many others) explains:
 * As newspapers are getting more desperate for revenue, advertisers are getting more demanding. They are no longer satisfied to simply buy some space in the newspaper – a half page here, a full page there. They want something different, something that will help them break through the advertising clutter... the real action for advertisers and newspapers these days lies not in advertorials, but in what has become known as “custom content.” To understand it you have to wrap your head around the idea that today, marketing is all about story-telling. Marketers insist that their brands have stories to tell, and they want to partner with people who know how to tell stories, who have credibility, and who can deliver those stories to large audiences. And newspapers are only too happy to oblige. They can leverage their credibility, and in some cases even their journalists, in order to meet the marketing objectives of advertisers.
 * "Sure Verizon could try to exert influence its stories, but that's no different than the influence sources try to exert over journalists every day." This is actually very different because it crosses the barrier between advertising and editorial, the type of content Basen notes. When Macy's takes out a display ad in the NYT they never interact with NYT journalists nor are they ever positioned as a co-equal partner in the process of creating content. In this case, the Times itself states "we’ve partnered with Verizon", this is not verbiage used to describe a Macy's display ad in the dead tree Times of yore. If the NYT has partnered with Verizon to create content on a specific subject (which it states it has) as opposed to simply accepting an ad that gets slapped wherever, and if Verizon has a COI on the subject, then by transitive relation the Times is also conflicted. Chetsford (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable, but just not necessary an independent source NYtimes not going to lose reliability due to having a potential COI, but that means that we should be wary of taking NYTimes stories on Verizon and/or G5 as independent. What that means for WP is 1) we can't just notability of an article dealing with G5 with only sources from the NYTimes and 2) it might come up in UNDUE discussions whether an opinion on 5G only sourced to NYTimes would be appropriate. But if we're using NYTimes to corroborate details of 5G with other sources, there should be no issue. --M asem (t) 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective. FWIW there are plenty of reliable outlets that thought the subject was notable enough to mention themselves. Examples: None of these sources take any issue with the Times' reporting (or raise any COI concerns). R2 (bleep) 20:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with this and "Reliable, Not Independent" is a more perfect summary of what I imperfectly tried to communicate. Chetsford (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be important to weigh in on R2's examples of sources that editors might suggest "corroborate", in this case, the NYTimes piece about Russia's 'anti-5G reporting'. Is a mere mention, sans criticism, considered corroboration? In my mind, it would entail an independent evaluation that came to the same conclusions. I don't immediately see anything resembling that in R2's sources (acknowledging R2 didn't claim outright to view the RS as corroborating). Making this clear for future editors would be helpful.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , sorry to ping you, but can you please strike "nor does it mention the partnership" from your initial comment here? The source in question says: In January, The Times announced a joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable but not independent As an actual journalist (or rather, a guy with a degree in journalism), the New York Times is basically the gold standard on journalism and journalistic integrity. They have an excellent reputation for having a solid, impartial, and comprehensive news department and routinely write groundbreaking stories on the important issues. I do not think this partnership changes their reliability or throws their reporting on 5G into question without any actual evidence - so they are clearly reliable. I would probably suggest, in this one instance and out of an abundance of caution, using another source alongside the NYT or even in place of the NYT on this issue, but there is no indication they are not reliable on this subject. Toa <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not independent and not to be used for extraordinary claims. So if they publish anything completely off the rails it shouldn't be used but I don't see that happening and I think it is reliable (for non-extraordinary claims). El komodos drago (talk to me) 09:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The original post is a bit misleading. There's no evidence that the source in question comes from the "NYT/Verizon '5G Journalism Lab'" According to the New York Times' annoucement, the lab isn't some sort of outlet for traditional print reporting about 5G; it's a program for the Times to develop new ways to use 5G in the newsroom and new formats for 5G devices. R2 (bleep) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that initially and it does not impact my view of the non independence of the Times on this topic. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaido
Two articles from Reuters report that Brazil recognized Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela, but they use two different dates. Which is correct?
 * "Brazil says it recognizes Venezuelan opposition leader as president" (Reuters, Jan. 12 2019)
 * "Brazil recognizes Guaido as Venezuela's interim president" (Reuters, Jan 23 2019)

The relevance is did Brazil recognize Guaido as Acting President of Venezuela before the United States. According to Alonso Gurmendi a professor of international law at Universidad del Pacífico, the original story was misreported., writing on Jan 14 2019, they supported Guaido as president (or speaker) of the National Assembly. He had not yet declared himself Acting President. In any case, all reliable sources now use the later date. For example: "Trump formally recognized Guaido minutes after the 35-year-old president of the Venezuela National Assembly declared himself the head of state. Countries including Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Panama quickly followed the U.S. lead." (Bloomberg, Jan 23 2019)

TFD (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No to January 12, yes to January 23, but then maybe also sorta-kinda January 10? Going by official government press releases, on Jan 10 Brazil's government issued it's support for Guaido to "assume the presidency" and declared Maduro to be illegitimate. But it was on the 23rd that they seem to have made it explicit that he is the president. They then made it super clear a couple days later. . Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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


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

Survey (MintPress News)

 * Option 4 (first choice) or option 3 (second choice) . Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable:


 * MintPress News has also republished 340 articles from Zero Hedge, a blog that propagates conspiracy theories. See the count on the 404 page (under "ZeroHedge.com"), and the list of articles. —  Newslinger  talk   23:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The site republishes articles from the Associated Press as well. Syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of the original publisher. Direct citations of the Associated Press are preferred over citations of the republisher. —  Newslinger  talk   04:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mick West's Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect uses the MintPress News article "No Longer Conspiracy: CIA Admits Plans Of Aerosol Spraying For Geoengineering" as an example of a fallacious argument defending the chemtrail conspiracy theory. West states:


 * As a source that pushes conspiracy theories, MintPress News is highly questionable. —  Newslinger  talk   06:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


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


 * Objection to RfC per above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment re list of options. This page's header suggested such a list as "a common format for writing the RfC question". That was a recent addition, which is being discussed in an RfC on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4; not remotely reliable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Not reliable, mainly known for propagating non-mainstream viewpoints (which are usually UNDUE). Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at . —  Newslinger  talk   11:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 3 I would never personally use MintPress News on WP and believe it is unreliable. However, this is based on my own analysis of MintPress which is essentially OR. When I try to locate RS that declare MintPress unreliable I can only find episodic coverage (such as that linked above), as well as this New York Times article, identifying that specific stories are unreliable as opposed to the entire organization. On the other hand, one of the standards for evaluating the reliability of a source is whether sources already known to be RS cite its reporting. I can only find one instance of that occurring (the Huffington Post, here ). Ultimately, while I won't be upset if it's deprecated, I don't believe we can yet prove it meets the high standard that would be required to do so. Chetsford (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: LifeSiteNews
Which of the following best describes the reliability of LifeSiteNews? --PluniaZ (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail
 * Option 4 LifeSiteNews is notorious as an ideology driven arm of the Campaign Life Coalition that routinely publishes false and misleading stories. Snopes describes it as "a known purveyor of misleading information", and carries three articles debunking LifeSiteNews. LifeSiteNews used a defamation lawsuit as a fundraising opportunity.  No reputable publication relies on LifeSiteNews as a source for factual information. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - Pretty clear here that we're dealing with a partisan smear site on the order of (if not worse than) Breitbart. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4 This website uses false information to promote its ideology. ― Susmuffin Talk 07:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 No way. LifeSiteNews is generally highly reliable for factual reporting. Moreover many high ranking prelates, including many Cardinals, trust it and have given interviews. You can't dismiss LifesiteNews because it is conservative, even on Wikipedia. Thucyd (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Which other independent reliable sources say that LifeSiteNews "is generally highly reliable"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this one (the oldest American weekly Catholic independent newspaper) says "LifeSiteNews.com is a very reliable and reputable source of pro-life news." w umbolo   ^^^  13:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agreed with NorthBySouthBaranof. We are not rejecting the source because it is conservative, but rather because there is barely any evidence that it is a website of decent journalists. We allow opinionated sources of all sorts, but here we are discussing their ability to report like a good journalist. It is a pro-life blog, but we would rather have a pro-life journal, and if LifeSiteNews were a journal, I would not object to allowing it. (By the way, I am absolutely pro-life, and you have no idea how much I personally hated to say that about a pro-life group.) Gamingforfun 3 6 5 04:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 4. LifeSiteNews repeatedly publishes articles that promote conversion therapy, a pseudoscientific practice. —  Newslinger  talk   09:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the site regularly sources content from Breitbart News, including conspiracy theories related to George Soros in "Breitbart reveals Soros groups registering felons to oppose Moore in Alabama election" and "How billionaire George Soros is trying to hijack the Catholic Church for his progressive agenda". —  Newslinger  talk   10:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - As noted above this is highly disreputable source. I’ve come across it in news searches and I’m surprised it’s there as it’s so bad. The only use I see it for is to find out what one sect of religious extremists think. But even then you would need to use reputable sources to actually cite facts. I would never trust this source to report accurately. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 5 - Reliable when used as a primary source for quotations and similar statements as to the opinions of those contributing to LifeSite, but NOT reliable when used as a secondary source to support the veracity of those opinions. Always use with in-text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Based on my reading of the rules, Option 4 would still allow LifeSiteNews to be used as a source about material that is published on the site: Verifiability. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 3 and possibly Option 4 - it's a nonsense site - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4 actually reliable sources universally agree it's a shit site. Good enough for me.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXT</S> WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 17:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your quoted sentence is not from WP:V, and I don't think WP:CONTEXT is the link you're looking for. The policy on questionable sources is a part of the verifiability policy, and LifeSiteNews is highly questionable based on the types of content it publishes. Unretracted articles supporting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories taint the entire source's reputation, and reveal the source's "poor reputation for checking the facts" and tendency to publish "views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist". For example, the George Soros conspiracy theories are widely denounced by reliable sources as false and would violate the living persons policy if used at face value on Wikipedia, but a search on LifeSiteNews returns dozens of articles propagating them. WP:V also includes WP:ABOUTSELF, which maintains that questionable sources can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions (e.g. a guest column on LifeSiteNews can be used on the article about its author to describe their views). This RfC does not change WP:ABOUTSELF, which defines the only circumstance LifeSiteNews may be considered usable in a Wikipedia article. —  Newslinger  talk   19:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All of those arguments can and should be made on a case-by-case basis. I do not think we're in a position to establish a one-size-fits-all, blanket rule about this outlet or most other outlets, nor is this noticeboard the appropriate place to establish such a rule. R2 (bleep) 23:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is significant precedent supporting the identification of sources that have a pattern of publishing highly questionable material. Editors who support option 4 here would generally oppose the inclusion of content sourced from LifeSiteNews in any situation due to its abysmal reputation for accuracy and fact-checking every time the source is raised on this noticeboard (with the exception of uses qualifying under WP:ABOUTSELF). —  Newslinger  talk   23:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 4 - If we aim for Wikipedia to become anything close to an encyclopedia, we need to stop using these rubbish sites as sources for content. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - LifeSiteNews is a very conservatively-biased news source. However, there's a big difference between promoting viewpoints that many people disagree with, and deliberately peddling false information. (To quote from WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.") A tabloid, for example, doesn't care whether their information is true or not, as long as they get readers; but I get the impression that LifeSiteNews does care about what they consider to be "truth" and are trying to report actual news events through the lens of their worldview. You or I may not agree with the biases underlying its articles, but this does not by itself make it unreliable. The reason I say Opinion 2 instead of Opinion 1 is because LifeSiteNews does lean in a sensationalist direction. It strikes me as an ultra-conservative version of something like Slate.com or Salon.com: highly biased news source with a sensationalist approach. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that the site is biased - the issue is that the site publishes and promotes known falsehoods and nonsensical conspiracy theories when convenient for its political worldview. When you choose to willfully publish lies about people (such as the Soros conspiracy theories cited above), you simply don't meet the standards of accuracy required for a reliable source. It doesn't matter that they consider such nonsense to be true - it factually and empirically is false.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You say they "willfully publish lies" and yet they also "consider such nonsense to be true." It can't be both. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What’s the difference? If they delusionally promote lies or maliciously do so makes little difference. They can’t be trusted as a source. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. A lie is a lie, whether or not the person who utters it actually believes it. "Donald Trump lost the 2016 presidential election" is a falsehood, no matter how much a person might wish it to be so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh... A lot depends on how we phrase things. Writing: ”Trump lost the 2016 election” is an inaccurate statement, but writing “Notable commentator Ima Crackpot believes that Trump lost the 2016 election” can be an accurate statement, if Ima Crackpot actually says this.  Attribution changes the statement from being “about” Trump to being “about” Crackpot. Once you attribute, the question isn’t a statement of fact (ie whether Trump won or lost), but one of opinion (what Crackpot believes). This is why you can never have a completely unreliable source... there is always at least one context in which the source is reliable (ie a direct quote). Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 4 - More or less per PluniaZ. I had never heard of it, so spent some time on the site. To call it simply "biased" doesn't cut it. It's misleading and inaccurate all over the place in service of that bias. I cannot imagine a situation when this would be considered reliable or to have weight, outside of opinions about itself in its own article. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4 I think it has been carefully examined and found wanting. Time to be deprecated.  scope_creep Talk  22:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3 or 4, per Rhododendrites. -sche (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4. As far as I can see, the website is full of fringe nonsense, and has been described by RS as unreliable (Snopes says it's "a known purveyor of misleading information", the Advocate says it's "One of the Most Anti-LGBTQ Online Outlets"). I did a brief google search on how this website covered LGBT issues, evolution and climate change...
 * Here are some anti-LGBT LSN headlines (all marked "news"):
 * "Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children"
 * "Ex-gay man: ‘Homosexuality is just another human brokenness’"
 * "Expert Research Finds Homosexuality More Dangerous Than Smoking"
 * "Expert: ‘Homo-tyranny is upon us’"
 * According to the Advocate, LSN frames stories about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church as a problem of homosexuality.
 * Here are a bunch of stories casting doubt on the theory of evolution (all marked "news"):
 * "Over 500 PhD Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory"
 * "Ranks of Renowned Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise - 700 Now on Public List"
 * "Astonishing 88% of Americans Believe in Creation or God-Directed Evolution"
 * "Is Darwinian evolution an idea whose time has come and gone?"
 * Climate change:
 * "More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"
 * "Eminent geophysicist rejects global warming theory, says world on verge of ‘mini ice age’"
 * "Former global warming scientist: Gov’ts seek ‘total control’ through climate theory"
 * There seems to be a pattern of propping up fringe views and falsehoods. Even if the headlines are attributed to some idiot, the body of the articles usually contain straight-up falsehoods and incendiary language by the "reporter", as well as a complete failure to do the minimum fact-checking that shows that the idiots that they are quoting are saying false things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 4. Clearly nonsense.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1/2 I find them reliable for facts, but I always assess on a case-by-case basis, which should be done for all cites of scources. They also have a corrections policy and they do issue corrections.  I may not always agree with their bias or views and like many, many sources, even mainstream news organizations/publications, you have to consider what is left out (intentional or not) or given undue weight.  I don't rely on the headline for any news article (from any source) as they are too often intentionally provocative or, given their brevity, incomplete.  If there is good faith controversy on assertions, I generally find it better to balance the presentation by citing sources that offer different and contrary, even if biased, analyses.  Archer1234 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - This isn't about bias, or their weird beef with the Pope or their support for fringe political candidates worldwide, this is about actually publishing falsehoods. I'm saying this because some people are trying to move the discussion towards the reliability of biased sources, rather than talking about actual fake news. And RealLifeNews is a websites that publishes untruths on a regular basis. Snooganssnoogans's post above offers a wide range of examples and I find it difficult to believe that somebody can look over that list and still think this is about discrimination of right wing opinions. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or Option 4 An undeniably biased and intellectually slanted website. I don’t see it as falling into the Breitbart camp of complete deprecation, however: Media Bias/Fact Check finds its record to be mixed, not complete and total garbage. Basically I’m highly skeptical of using this source for factual reporting, and there’s no reason to use it in that area, if ever. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Media Bias/Fact Check is considered generally unreliable because of its questionable methodology. See the  and  discussions for details. It's not a good idea to rely on information from that site. —  Newslinger   talk   14:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Option 1. Its journalism has brought bombshells that can be compared to The Boston Globe. Plenty of WP:USEBYOTHERS, see    and even the failing pro-pedophilia New York Times . There is also the policy WP:Child protection, which means that an anti-pedophilic bias is generally justified on Wikipedia. Let's look at the arguments for "option 4". Snopes's characterization of the website as "a known purveyor of misleading information" is the misleading thing here. Snopes only cites one incident for that vast overstatement so let's take a look at it. LifeNewsWire may have presented the strangling as factual even though there has never been a criminal conviction (this is a "he said–she said" situation). But every news outlet presents criminal allegations as factual! It's not a secret. I can't refute "option 4" !votes which do not provide any substantial rationale or evidence (these are mostly WP:IDLI non-arguments), so I am left with the argument that promoting conversion therapy is worse than promoting pedophilia (I won't comment on the veracity of this argument because I am not familiar enough), the WP:OR argument that the Soros story is false (it's actually true according to the magazine New York  and Haaretz cites it as fact  though stops short of calling the funding intentional on Soros's part; Breitbart does a lot of good stuff and most articles are correct, so one can't say their content is automatically a lie, especially when other sources corroborate the information, which is not an argument absolving Breitbart of any wrongdoing but merely the state of most Breitbart articles), the argument by  "According to the Advocate, LSN frames stories about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church as a problem of homosexuality" (the only valid argument IMO in this discussion, though WP:BIASED says that bias doesn't mean a source is unreliable if it has a track record of fact-checking, and that track record is always difficult to establish and belongs to the article Campaign Life Coalition as per WP:FRINGE, but the currently presented information there and here is scant) and Snooganssnoogans's list of LifeSiteNews articles without secondary coverage debunking them.  w umbolo   ^^^  16:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The examples of USEBYOTHERS are: (1) quoting a statement made by Carson to LSN, (2) quoting a letter sent by ultraconservative bishops to LSN calling Pope Francis a heretic,, (3) quoting an anti-Pope Francis LSN story as an example of how ultraconservative Catholics have responded to Pope Francis,, (4) mentioning how LSN published an English translation of an Italian Archbishop's polemic against Pope Francis, and (5) quoting a LSN interview with an anti-Pope Francis bishop. In none of these instances are other reliable sources citing this website as if it broke news and as if its content is factual. It's cited in the same way as RS would cite InfoWars or Breitbart News: as an organization that plays an active role in the culture wars and gives a platform to prominent fringe actors. I'd also like to note that this is not the first time that you've grossly misrepresented USEBYOTHERS: you also did it in the case of the Daily Wire on this noticeboard last year. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, excuse my ignorance: in what way is the NY Times pro-pedophilia? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That remark most likely refers to the NYT's publication of Margo Kaplan's controversial 2014 op-ed "Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime", which argued that US laws should be changed to disallow employers from discriminating against pedophiles, since pedophilia is a mental illness (and mentally disabled people, with the exception of pedophiles, are a protected class in the US). After publication, the NYT acknowledged the largely negative response to the op-ed. I would not consider the NYT "pro-pedophilia" since they describe Kaplan's op-ed as a minority viewpoint, and because the op-ed doesn't even portray pedophilia in positive terms. The NYT is not "failing" by any measure (commercial or critical). —  Newslinger  talk   17:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your false and nonsensical rant about the newspaper of record in the United States should disqualify you from ever discussing reliable sources again. It's clear that you have neither an understanding of fact nor an understanding of policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This, from someone who cited zero sources whatsoever. w umbolo   ^^^  11:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you just further proved their point. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 04:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, and now I even further answered a question of theirs where they requested a reference. w umbolo   ^^^  13:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 4 - if only because after reading Wumbolo's nonsense above, the complete opposite *must* be correct.... (Also because LSN prints rubbish, has a clear agenda that affects its factual reporting, and has no record of reliability from anyone else) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4, 3 being a distant second choice. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4 per above. X-Editor (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Objection to RfC.. No evidence that a dispute made this RfC necessary, no good excuse for overriding Wikipedia policy that context matters, misleading wording since the effect is far more than deprecation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * RFCs don't require having a dispute before having them. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4. By definition, this is a highly biased news source and thus unsuitable for WP as a reliable source. Britishfinance (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Object to this RfC - I agree with R2 above. This RfC is noncompliant with our PAGs, particularly V policy and RS guidelines, and I certainly hope who closes this will take that into consideration. Yes, the publication has a POV and pro-life stance, but that is not a reason to declare it unreliable. It is no surprise that the political and commercial opposition forces have declared the info false and misleading - they are biased and have a COI. This RfC needs to be SNOW CLOSED. <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 📧 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody here has described LifeSiteNews 's "POV and pro-life stance" as "false or misleading". The negative response here is based on the site's penchant for promoting conspiracy theories, fringe theories, and pseudoscience with misleading and poorly researched claims. If LifeSiteNews dropped the low-quality content while retaining its "POV and pro-life stance", there would be no issue with using the site as a reference with attribution. —  Newslinger  talk   19:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * option 4 as I've said elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment re list of options. This page's header suggested such a list as "a common format for writing the RfC question". That was a recent addition, which is being discussed in an RfC on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a fully pro-life person who finds the subject of abortion extremely sensitive, I can tell you that the website is an advocacy group and not much in the way of a news website. I will not cast my vote on this one, but I will say that the website is more of a political blog than a pro-life news journal (remember, journal is the keyword we're looking for). While I do dearly and wholeheartedly hold others highly for taking pro-life positions for granted—and I cannot stress that any further—here we are also talking about their ability to report on events like a good journalist. LifeSiteNews states their ideology, but that's it. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 04:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * you do not seem to be taking this discussion seriously. In this entire discussion you cited zero sources and above you defended (I think you just further proved their point.) an editor who has cited zero sources in the entire discussion and who said "It's clear that you have neither an understanding of fact nor an understanding of policy" even though I cited seven very reliable sources. YET you managed to defend (Agreed with NorthBySouthBaranof.) the other editor's question "Which other independent reliable sources say that LifeSiteNews 'is generally highly reliable'?" which I have easily answered now. I can always give more WP:USEBYOTHERS references, but they will be ignored for ridiculous reasons such as "It's clear that you have neither an understanding of fact nor an understanding of policy". Here's journalist James Taranto praising "a fascinating report from LifeSiteNews.com" . And if the standard for solid reporting is in-depth hit-pieces, LifeSiteNews have produced a disturbing one (albeit about a public figure).  w umbolo   ^^^  13:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources are only citing LifeSiteNews to report on what they said or what they interviewed. None of them said that the website was reliable. I think the problem is that you are misinterpreting what WP:USEBYOTHERS really is. It is a guideline that only applies to reliable sources that use other sources for facts, where "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." In this case, none of the sources you gave is even citingLifeSiteNews as a source of fact, but rather as a source of interviews and quotes. If they did comment on the veracity of statements by LifeSiteNews, the chances are that the sources, liberal or conservative, would generally find them false.
 * If that makes me a "liberal," I will tell you what I personally think of abortion: it is homicide, and I find it disturbingly painful how a publication that leans pro-choice but has journalistic ethics and credentials could be more trustworthy than one that is pro-life but lacks the integrity of a journalist (implying that pro-lifers like me are knowingly deceiving others about the controversial—or morally questionable, as I would put it—procedure). Unfortunately, something like that happens all too often, which makes me wonder whether some of them are actually anti-conservative or at least pro-choice trolls. If that still makes me a liberal, here is one source that I am comfortable citing. It is a pro-life editorial from the pro-life-leaning National Review. Though it has the headline "California Shamelessly Persecutes Pro-Life Journalists", admittedly the source does say that it is not because the convicts are pro-life (which by the way very likely would have been taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and struck down as unconstitutional). It is because they were engaged in secretly producing undercover recordings of conversations without consent. What particularly disturbs me, based on my observation, is that it seems to be against people producing such undercover recordings exposing possible illegal activity, on the basis that they are recordings of "confidential conversations without knowledge or consent." I cannot prove the authenticity of those recordings, nor can I prove that California's unusual decision to prosecute the undercover agents instead is politically motivated, but I would not be surprised if in the case of the latter it is partly because California was politically motivated, due to the state's reputation of embracing Democratic and progressive values.
 * Back on topic. Given that sources have used LifeSiteNews for its interviews, I would say that it is okay for interviews. Really, it is okay to use any source for interviews as long as we can prove that they are not fabricated. Frankly I would not be using LifeSiteNews as a source of facts; I would prefer using the National Review. I will drop this conversation, as I do not see how discussing this further is going to get us anywhere. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 07:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * None of them said that the website was reliable. Actually, this one did. It is from the oldest American weekly Catholic independent newspaper. And there's WP:USEBYOTHERS at NRO as well, .  w umbolo   ^^^  10:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Unreliable. Biased. Gerntrash (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4. This website publishes false and misleading information in pursuit of its ideological agenda, as others have documented above. Medical misinformation about abortion is widespread (cf. Rowlands 2011; Bryant et al., 2012; Bryant et al., 2014; Wiebe et al., 2014; and Sisson et al., 2017). This misinformation is directly harmful, and we have a responsibility, as editors of a prominent online reference work, not to be complicit in its promulgation. Our responsibility to avoid amplifying medical misinformation is every bit as fundamental as our responsibilities regarding content on living people&mdash;perhaps even more so, because the potential for real-world harm is greater. Editors who use sources like this one, which is known to purvey false and misleading medical information, are violating basic ethical and editorial responsibilities. MastCell Talk 18:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 4, as a peddler of fake news. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4, due to promotion of conspiracy theories and general unreliability. (via FRS) StudiesWorld (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at . —  Newslinger  talk   05:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2/3: I'm generally suspicious of LSN, but I don't think there's no use for it whatsoever. Looking through Snooganssnoogans's list of bad refs, most could be used in the articles of the corresponding crackpots (Paul Cameron, Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg, John G. West, Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, David Berlinski, etc.): I'd trust that the LSN articles give accurate-enough accounts of what those people think. Don't use it for anything scientific or medical, do use it for information on fringe-but-notable conservative or religious figures and conservative catholic initiatives. Looking at an arbitrary handful of uses on Wikipedia:


 * International Day of the Unborn Child uses : seems unremarkable, likely accurate.
 * Katholiek Nieuwsblad uses ; seems biased towards Rijkers, but generally ok.
 * Donny Pauling is a terrible article, heavily based on a LSN blog post of Pauling's:
 * George Edward Lynch uses : obituary for Lynch, a Catholic bishop.
 * Renato Giuseppe Bosisio uses : LSN confirmed with the Governor General's office that Bosisio had returned his Order of Canada.
 * Miller v. Jenkins uses for the start date of Miller's prison term.
 * Document on Human Fraternity uses a statement and an exclusive interview from Athanasius Schneider, a Catholic bishop.
 * Euthanasia Prevention Coalition uses : unremarkable, somewhat promotional
 * Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2013 uses : covers a statement by Nigerian bishops in support of the law.
 * José Tolentino Mendonça uses as a source for Mendonça's theological views: clearly biased against him.
 * Michael Pearse Lacey uses : a detailed obituary for a Catholic bishop.
 * Antonius Lambertus Maria Hurkmans uses, a news article on LGBT protests against Hurkmans, another bishop.

gnu 57 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These mostly seem to be cases where article subjects chose to publish information about themselves in LSN. I think that would be an acceptable use of LSN, but otherwise it should be deprecated. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Notable Alumni (schools, colleges, academies etc.)
It has always (How long?) been my understanding that Alumni should be notable and have an article that supports the Alumni claim. It isn't necessary to reference the claim at the institution, as long as the linked article is referenced.

Today I have discovered that sdome editors don't accept this, and have started decimating, and even entirely deleting well sourced lists, unless there is a direct citation for Alumniship in the School article.

Is it possible to clarify this for me? I'll have to apologise to the eds concerned if I'm incorrect. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 17:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its an interesting question, is a claim of being an Alumni valid if the institution doe not list the person as one. Any one can claim to be an alumni, I would assume RS would check. But is its an interview (say) rather then an in depth analysis they may not. I think this may be a case of attribution, say he made the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue here is inline citations vs. a level of indirection. asserts that if there is an inline citation in the BLP of the alleged alumnus, there is no need for an inline citation in the list of alumni in the school's article. This is a misinterpretation of WP:V and WP:ALUMNI, the latter of which specifically states that alumni status must be referenced. We never rely on indirect referencing here, as articles may be edited at-will, and therefore there is no guarantee that an indirect reference will remain available. Elizium23 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * " When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done in the biographical articles.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my question. - I'm asking to clarify if an Alum, properly sourced as such in their own article, needs a source at their Alma Mater article, as well as the individuals article. Nothing to do with interviews. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability - I have always supported this aspect of it - notability is implied when the subject has an article. You omitted the other requirement that their alumni status must be referenced, and this is not exempted by the existence of their article, nor by the existence of a reference inside that article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * e/c I'm not asking about notability. nobody is disputing that. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, if you read my quoted passage above, but I note that David Ellett contains no mention of any school. So that raises alarm bells about the rest. Before reinserting any alumni make sure they are properly sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. Im asking everybody but you. I know what you think. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am not sure why this thread is here to begin with: "Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Roxy the dog's question is somewhat outside the scope of this noticeboard. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its one reason I got the wrong end of the stick.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A fact should be cited in EVERY article in which it is stated. If the fact is “Person X is an alum of School Y”, and it appears in both the bio article on Person X and the article on School Y... it needs to be cited at both articles. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK then. That gives me something to do for the rest of my wikicareer. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding individual items to a list appears to require each name to be sourced in the school's article. If we think that is overkill or excessive duplication, then a change in the guideline is required. TFD (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a good reason for the duplication: let’s say that fact/statement “X” is currently in two articles, but only cited in one of them. What happens if this article is re-written at some point, and fact “X” ends up being omitted from the re-write (perhaps the editors decide that it is a trivial detail that is not really important enough to mention).  This would mean that, suddenly, fact “X” is not cited ANYWHERE. By repeating the citation in all articles where “X” is stated, we avoid that problem.  What happens at one article has no impact on the verifiability of the other. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Press releases
Where do we sit in regard to press releases? Can they be reliable sources, albeit primary, in regards to basic claims about the subject? For example, if an otherwise notable awards committee announces nominees or winners via a press release, is that press release a reliable source as to who won or was nominated? Alternatively, if a company opens an office, can we use a press release noting that the office exists? - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what you've outlined is just fine. Press releases can't be used to establish notability, however, to cite basic and otherwise undisputed facts (i.e. non WP:REDFLAG) that we would otherwise allow a company's own website as a source should be fine (e.g. identities of an organization's officers, location of offices, ticker symbol, etc.). Were the content of a press release ever to be contradicted by the content of a WP:RS, the RS should win out. Chetsford (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chetsford, and will add that the company distributing the PR will also include the ID of the person/company/university that released it. The latter makes it easier to verify. <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 📧 03:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with everyone. I would also note that there is a potential WEIGHT issue. As with a company's official website, I would use a press release to flesh out important details of something already discussed in a secondary source. I would not use it as the basis for new content unrelated to anything already in the article. In the case of the building, if an article already had a well-sourced section about "XYZ Corp. is deciding where to erect its new headquarters", I would be totally fine using a press release to update that section. In the case of awards, for sufficiently notable award programs, absolutely. I'd cut out the middleman even and prefer primary sources for the basic facts of who won what. This sort of belongs to Wikipedia's almanac-like aspect. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of the above. Also, I'd add — insofar as profitmaking companies are concerned — that we should consider a hierarchy of press releases. Press releases from publicly traded companies, at least in the United States, expose a company to significant liability if they misrepresent material facts, whereas those issued by individuals, non-publicly traded companies, and organizations have the full scope of protection of the first amendment. I can imagine a situation in which a sole proprietorship or non joint stock corporation, wanting to inflate its appearance, claimed offices in 10 cities when in fact it was a single person working out of his basement. A press release from a publicly traded company issued through a major wire service such as PRNewswire or Businesswire can presume the authenticity of basic, non-WP:REDFLAG facts (e.g. office locations, officer names, founding date, etc.) until proven otherwise by a RS. Other press releases should be approached with healthy skepticism. Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The example I had in mind was simply in a list of their three offices in an infobox, one of which is in city X, a press release showing that they are located there. To discuss the office in depth I agree that secondary sources would be needed for weight. - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Press releases have some limited uses, but they can be used effectively with attribution. Many times press releases are preliminary announcements and incomplete so better sources should be used if they are available. For your two contexts: new office opening up or announcements of nominees/winners, press releases should be ok. Might have to attribute to be transparent that the press release is from a legitimate source like a news organization or other fact checking organization and not a random organization or website.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Press releases typically fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF rubric. They're reliable about the publisher of the press release or its affiliates, as long as it's not unduly self-serving and there's no legitimate concern about its authenticity. However, press releases carry little to no weight, as their overt purpose is to promote the subject. Therefore, when it comes to things like awards, there there should generally be some additional showing of noteworthiness to get over the WP:NOTEVERYTHING hump. Otherwise our articles get larded up with obscure, meaningless awards. R2 (bleep) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The big problem I find is that they're a major flag for two forms of bad article:
 * corporate promotional puffery
 * BLP promotional puffery
 * - and usually with the telltales of undisclosed paid editing.
 * If you find an article with a pile of press release links, it's almost certain to be one of those two.
 * It's certainly possible to apply press release links judiciously with good judgement. In practice, I find that press releases as references are overwhelmingly indicators of one of those two things. But don't take my word for it - do a linksearch on prnewswire or businesswire and tell me what the article space results from that look like to you.
 * I tend to find that replacing a press release reference with a cn or just deleting the non-notable claim is pretty much always appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting approach, but apparently not the standard view. If you are leaving the claim but removing the source, it seems that you don't view the claim as puffery. If the source is independent of the subject and reliable, then it is better to have that press release than an unsourced claim. - Bilby (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Press releases aren't third-party RSes and just don't belong where a third-party RS should go, e.g. a BLP. Though as I stress, in almost all cases the claim is also puffery, and so quite removable - and I urge you to actually do linksearches on press release sites, and see if your estimation of the sort of articles they're used as references on is anywhere near mine - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you still miss the point. Let's take this revert on your part. Clearly being awarded the Japan Prize is notable, and presumably you felt so, as you didn't remove the prize. The reference used was a press release from the Japan Prize Foundation]. I can't see how the Japan Prize Foundation can be considered unreliable in regard to who they awarded the Japan Prize to. They would know. It is independent of the subject of the article - Jacques Miller - and clearly states that it was given to him. As such, it might be argued to be a primary source, but we can use those. By removing it we now have an unsourced claim that Miller won a major prize where we used to have a reliably sourced claim, and your only given reason for removing it was "rm claims cited only to press releases - not a WP:RS for Wikipedia" when it is, in fact, a reliable source, you didn't remove any claims, and we have no policy or even consensus (in spite of your claims to the contrary) insisting that we remove press releases. Overall, removing it has made the article worse, not better. There are inappropriate uses of press releases, but a unilateral decision to make blanket removals whether or not it is an inappropriate use isn't the correct approach. - Bilby (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What you meant by asking this general question was a specific example, then. Again - since you're asking a general question up the top there, without having brought up the example you were thinking of - we should be speaking in terms of the general issue.
 * You asked up there "can we use", and trying to claim that justifies "therefore they shouldn't mostly be removed", which is actually a different question and not at all the one you were asking. And I already answered you on my talk page that there were circumstances in which we could use press releases, and in which I had.
 * So - I urge you to actually do linksearches on press release sites, and see if your estimation of the sort of articles they're used as references on is anywhere near mine. Please do report back with your results - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have been deleting press releases with the effective rationale "because it is a press release". The question here was whether or not that was a valid reason. It was not. Individual instances may or may not be acceptable, but clearly you can't simply delete them because you have an issue with press releases in general.- Bilby (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're working really hard not to address why they might be - and, as far as I can tell, are - mostly a huge sourcing problem. For a third time: I urge you to actually do linksearches on press release sites, and see if your estimation of the sort of articles they're used as references on is anywhere near mine. Please do report back with your results, before making fresh statements. Please try to understand the actual problem. If you disagree, then please, by all means, report back accordingly with your numbers and examples! - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware with issues around press releases. The problem is not that there are issues - the problem is that you are reverting the good with the bad without (or even against) consensus. - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're claiming a consensus on a question you didn't ask, as I've noted. Given you clearly don't even want to examine the issue, it's not clear how to meaningfully respond to incoherent claims that you are literally refusing to do your homework on - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The question was - can press releases be regarded as reliable sources. The consensus is yes, with caveats. On those grounds they shouldn't be automatically removed as unreliable - you will need to make a case as to why a given press release is unreliable. I am very willing to accept that they will be unreliable in some or even many situations. - Bilby (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Press releases are sometimes useable for non-controversial statements to fill details not mentioned in higher quality sources. There is also usual question of due weight - if independent reliable sources don´t cover some information, is there any need to include it in the article? Myself, I would replace a press release with better source, once available. Trivial facts mentioned only in press releases probably have no place in encyclopedic articles. Pavlor (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IME, press releases are overwhelmingly a case of WP:NOTBROCHURE - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBROCHURE is about the content of articles and use of links. It doesn't say anything about sources. - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the objections here to press releases really don't make any sense to me. I think Bilby is right. If it has been decided that some fact belongs in an article, and that fact is essentially that a person or group announced something, cite the announcement. It's not like the announcement becomes more trustworthy by getting filtered through another outlet - it's true because someone said so, this situation is literally the exception to argument to authority. I completely understand the argument that secondary sources are desirable for demonstrating that this fact is significant (I would actually cite both). I also completely understand underlying concerns about interpreting primary sources. But if it's been agreed that the statement is true, and it's been agreed that it belongs in an article, removing the definitive source doesn't make sense. Tag it with a request for an independent source if you want. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is my view as well. One of the ones he removed was a citation to a legitimate journalism award at Sharyl Attkisson. We had already had an extensive discussion on the talk page as to what awards should be included and what sources would be acceptable - the indiscriminate removal of this citation, and the noted award, ran contrary to this consensus that had weeks of discussion. More importantly it made absolutely, no sense because if an award is notable, there is absolutely no reason a press release containing a list of all nominees and/or winners would be unacceptable. IMO it's actually the most reliable thing to source because the list will be completely accurate, while a list in a newspaper or another website might be wrong or omit some awards and nominations. There are purposes where primary sources like press releases can be notable. At the very least, indiscriminate removal of press releases is not the way to do things. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 04:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

academia.edu
Over at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland a post was made referring to this [], as an "academic" source. Now as far as I can tell [] is social networking site with no editorial control or peer review, they publish anything uploaded. As such I am unsure if this can be considered an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * academia.edu itself, "not reliable", for the reasons mentioned. However, papers on academia.edu may have also been published in reliable sources. In the case of the paper linked above, it asserts that it was included in Zagłada Żydów. Studia I materiały (Holocaust. Studies and materials) Issue 2 (2006), which may well be a reliable source. See also:, . - Ryk72 talk 12:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Academia.edu is a social networking platform for academics - where journal articles are often posted. It is not a source in and of itself. The link you are sharing - was published by Studia i materiały - ceeol link to this specific article - which probably counts as a reliable peer reviewed source (journal website). The academia.edu link - is just something available online without a paywall.... It is likely to be reliable for the fact this was published (particularly given external corroboration + that the person posting this on academia.edu is the author)... But it is not the publication itself, but a copy thereof. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with with an added note that Academia.edu is a particularly aggressive social networking site when it comes to demanding access to email and other personal data to read articles, so i would recommend changing references to reliable sources copied over to Academia.edu to the host reliable journal whenever possible. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not in itself. We have to treat each paper there separately for RS purposes. academia.edu is not a publisher. Doug Weller  talk 17:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Academia.edu is not a reliable source itself, but the articles you cite from there are usually from reliable sources like journals. Researchers often post their articles there so it is a good database for finding actual research papers that have been published elsewhere from reliable publishers. Therefore, if you find an article - cite it from the journal itself, not academia.eduRamos1990 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The Kingdom in the Closet by Nadya Labi
The Atlantic itself fits WP:RSP but this article is self-published under WP:RS ans WP:SELFSOURCE. It fits wp:cherrypicking and wp:bias since it is a one way article. In addition, Nadya Labi herself may have wp:bias herself and the source can't be verified going against wp:veribilty so unless her piece can be proven as correct and not exaggerated it could be wp:fakenews. Finally, it is not able to be compared and backed up by another source confirming what her claims are about secret homosexual activity in Saudi Arabia so it can be wp:1R as well. Moneyspender (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/
 * Your post does not make sense to me. Are you proposing that this article be used as a source for a Wikipedia article of some kind? Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to news articles, but to articles here on the project. Please clarify whether there is a dispute and/or a particular article here on Wikipedia which you intend to address. Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi this source is being cited in the article LGBT_rights_in_the_Middle_East but it don't think it applies because of the countless violations against Wikipedia standards. Moneyspender (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC) I want to know if this is considered a reliable source or not given its difficulty to be verified and trusted as a source talk. Can you please assist in clearing up the vagueness given all the issues I mentioned. Thanks. Moneyspender (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable. I don't think your arguments apply the mentioned policies and guidelines correctly. As you've mentioned, The Atlantic is considered a generally reliable source. This article is not self-published, becuase it was published in The Atlantic, not the author's own website. As an investigative journalism piece, it presents accounts of several Saudi Arabian people as case studies; it is common for journalists to give specific examples of a phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with WP:CHERRYPICKING, which tells Wikipedia editors not to cite information from articles out of context. You haven't presented any evidence that the author is biased, and opinionated articles are still allowed to be used with in-text attribution, which was done in Special:Diff/904829271. The Atlantic is an external source, which satisfies the verifiability policy, and WP:FAKENEWS is a baseless assertion, not a policy or guideline. Finally, the LGBT in the Middle East has more than one source, so WP:1R doesn't apply. Additional citations are required to substantiate extraordinary claims, but this particular article is reliable and adds support for these claims. —  Newslinger   talk   23:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable - basically, Newslinger covered it. The article is not self-published, as Labi is not the publisher of The Atlantic, but rather a freelance writer with a respectable list of clients (Atlantic, Wired, Mother Jones, etc.) WP:Bias is not a guide to using sources, it is an essay on Wikipedia editors. WP:Cherrypicking is meant to be a limitation on how we edit our articles, and is not about how sources are created. When we discuss verifiability, we are not discussing checking that what the source says is accurate, but rather that the sources says what we claim it is saying... and that source is very easy to verify, because it's available online without a paywall. (I at least assume that "verifiability" is what the OP meant by "veribility"; please correct me if I'm wrong.) Seeing that the Atlantic is a generally reliable source, there is no reason given to believe that this is a WP:Fake news situation. WP:1R is an essay about single-sourced articles lacking sufficient notability, but this is not a single-sourced article and your complaint is not about notability. I doubt that WP:REICHSTAG applies in this situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable until proven otherwise. Issues raised by OP don´t even make sense. If your main problem is some POV presented by RS, your only way to balance NPOV in the article is to find another high quality RS. Pavlor (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was directed to this discussion by Newslinger when they posted it on Wiki Project Africa. As stated therein, I think they were in the wrong project as this has nothing to do with Africa. In any case, I've read the article and did not find any issue with it. The source is reliable as per our policy. I don't know what the OP's issue is. Homosexuality is rampant in Saudi Arabia and the whole middle east so I don't know what the OP is objecting to.Tamsier (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Africa is listed as one of the projects at Talk:LGBT in the Middle East. I probably should not have notified this project since the article from The Atlantic focuses on Saudi Arabia. Sorry for the confusion. —  Newslinger  talk   11:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

selfgrowth.com
Recently noticed here (obvious SEO refspam). I then noticed 11 extant in main space, some pointing to dead pages there. The FAQ suggests that any user who signs up becomes an "expert account" and can submit articles (WP:USERGEN). There's a special trusted group that may be equivalent to Wikipedia's autopatrol group. When looking at a few articles, they are obviously promotional, like which seems to be an ad for tickets. Since no RSN entry existed for it, I'm adding one to the record. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 20:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidently WP:UGC - can this be blacklisted? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for the COIBot report, if that shows enough spamming, a request to blacklist it will be filed. It could still be filed without the report, but those reports are very helpful and convincing evidence.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Self publishing source. It does not really have peer review or show expertise so it is not good to cite on Wikipedia as a source.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No remaining use in mainspace, but still waiting for the COIBot report. — Paleo Neonate  – 18:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

National Interest Blog by Paul Pillar
Is a this a reliable source?:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/mek-and-bankrupt-us-policy-iran-35982

Article to be used in: People's Mujahedin of Iran

Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only with attribution to Paul Pillar. As the "fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution," his opinion on matters related to Iran are definitely due note but, they remain his opinions and should not be reported as fact. Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * as above, its a blog.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the opinion section of nationalinterest.org. Pillar is a notable academic and his opinion is WP:DUE as an opinion. But it's opinion and has to be situated as such. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that I was agreeing with you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, did you know that 33% of americans are in favour of dropping nuclear weapons on [a place], me either 'til I read The National Interest; could be a coincidence but I'm guessin' the sample size of the poll was n=3. cygnis insignis 16:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They report that n=3000 in the lede of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore they cite the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as the source. So your skepticism, while warranted, may be misplaced. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the source for the claim. As is often the case with science reporting, they cherrypicked the most sensational detail of something more nuanced, but they're not being misleading. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

TorrentFreak for Web Sheriff
Is the TorrentFreak article "Web Sheriff Sent “Forged” Taio Cruz Birth Certificate to MusicBrainz" a reliable source for the Web Sheriff article? The article is proposed as a source to support the claim in its title (that Web Sheriff sent a questionable birth certificate with inconsistencies to MusicBrainz in a demand for the database to change its information). —  Newslinger  talk   23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Also see Reliable sources/Perennial sources. // Liftarn (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it a huge stretch to say TorrentFreak is reliable for information about allegations of a forged birth certificate.
 * The TorrentFreak article was written the day after MusicBrainz' press on the topic, and simply relates information provided by MusicBrainz. This is churnalism. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So we should disqualify them because they are not a primary source? // Liftarn (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)l


 * Reliable with attribution. TorrentFreak contacted MusicBrains and Web Sheriff independently, and published their responses. This is original reporting, not churnalism. If there are issues with the terms "forged" or "allegedly forged", then stick with the facts (e.g. the spelling error in the hospital name). Since Web Sheriff claims that the image was provided by "the client / principal concerned", not produced by the company themselves, this portion of their response should be noted. —  Newslinger  talk   14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To me, it's quite obvious that the image provided by Web Sheriff is a modified version of this birth certificate of Naomi Leafe-Marie Dawson, down to the same image size (568 x 777 pixels) and identical signature. The Dawson certificate was published on this page in 2005, predating the Web Sheriff controversy by over a decade. That page also contains a birth certificate with a slightly different signature, showing that the signatures are not identical across different certificates. My original research can't be cited in the Web Sheriff article, of course, but it supports the validity of the TorrentFreak story. —  Newslinger  talk   14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Churnalism. Blogging. Contacting someone does not meet the requirements of RS, let alone BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted in previous discussions, TorrentFreak is a respected source of information related to file sharing (including anti-piracy controversies). Its content has been used by other reliable sources (e.g. CNN, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Variety, The Verge, The Daily Dot, PC Magazine, Ars Technica, Newsweek, Engadget, PC World, Fast Company, and more) and academic publications (e.g. Marquette Sports Law Rev., Carnegie Mellon, UC Hastings). The CNN story uses TorrentFreak's coverage of another action taken by Web Sheriff. Sites like Engadget are considered generally reliable despite being blogs; TorrentFreak is also well-regarded, although its topic coverage is much narrower. This particular TorrentFreak article goes well beyond the MetaBrainz blog post to include quotes from "correspondence seen by TorrentFreak" and interviews with both parties in the dispute. Although the TorrentFreak article quotes the MetaBrainz post, a significant portion of the article is derived from new research not found in the original post, and "churnalism" is not an appropriate descriptor for the piece. —  Newslinger   talk   01:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's general consensus that TorrentFreak is generally reliable for articles on the topic of file sharing. So how does this specific article fall under thee category of "file sharing"? --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This article covers an action taken by an anti-piracy company (which TorrentFreak has covered before) on behalf of one of their clients. —  Newslinger  talk   19:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're claiming that this is in line with the topic of file sharing?
 * Given all the undeniably unreliable sources that have been offered for this content, that this dispute has been going on for a long time, and the ongoing IDHT problems with the current dispute, it's difficult to look at as something other than a BATTLE (likely COI) situation. Let's look at the ref in detail:
 * It starts: Anti-piracy outfit Web Sheriff has found itself mired in controversy after asking a music metadata site to change information relating to the artist Taio Cruz. That's hype, and not factual. I don't see the article being reliable for anything related to this, and it's deep into BLP-violating territory.
 * Of the four sources the TorrentFreak article uses, two are primary and two wouldn't be considered reliable by Wikipedia criteria. As pointed out in the discussion above, TorrentFreak also received a response from WebSheriff, which was used by the author.
 * It ends: In all fairness MusicBrainz didn’t accuse Web Sheriff of forgery, only of passing a forged document on, but if the certificate is a fake, one has to wonder what the motivation behind it is. Is it a case of genuinely wanting to correct the facts and making a mess of it? Or is there something more sinister at play? In any event, faking a UK birth certificate is a criminal offense so Streisand Effect not withstanding, it better have been worth it.
 * I'm afraid that's not something that could be used for BLP info. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the TorrentFreak article's own sources make a difference here, since all secondary sources assimilate and interpret primary sources by definition. It is normal and expected for a publication to solicit input from both parties of a dispute that it's covering. It's true that the other sources cited in the article (including The Spartan Daily, ) have been ruled out as unusable sources for this claim, but each source should be evaluated on its own merits and not by the other sources a Wikipedia editor bundled it with. Editor conduct is best discussed at another venue, since this noticeboard focuses on content. Now, the crux of this dispute is whether the action covered by the article is in the scope of WP:BLP. A liberal interpretation of the facts treats the image of the birth certificate as an artifact transferred from Web Sheriff to MusicBrainz in a demand to change data in MusicBrainz's database; as there is no evidence that Taio Cruz is involved in this demand (only an unnamed "client / principal"), this interpretation does not see the situation in the scope of WP:BLP. A more conservative interpretation treats the controversy as a WP:BLP situation, since the demand that Web Sheriff made relates concerns information related to Taio Cruz. In this dispute, I am supporting the liberal interpretation and you appear to be supporting the conservative one. This claim is being considered for the Web Sheriff article, not the Taio Cruz article, because it is only pertinent to the company's business practices and because there is no confirmed association between Web Sheriff and Taio Cruz. We already have five sources for Cruz's birth name (the name that Web Sheriff demanded MusicBrainz to remove) in the Taio Cruz article. Note that Web Sheriff confirmed that they provided the questionable image, but they also said that they did not create the image themselves. If the claim is included, the Web Sheriff article should make this point clear.  It would be great to hear from some other editors to break the deadlock in this dispute. —  Newslinger   talk   08:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the TorrentFreak article's own sources make a difference here We disagree. Sources demonstrate the quality of the work.
 * We are evaluating this source on it's merits. Care to comment on what I've quoted it from it? It reads as a click-baity hit piece...
 * Yes, others' viewpoints would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the quoted sections, I don't think the tone used in the TorrentFreak article is uncommon for news articles related to controversies. The phrase "mired in controversy" is used by many reliable sources, including the Associated Press, The Atlantic, The Irish Times, The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail, and more, for a variety of subjects. CNN, The Register , and The Daily Dot, have also published articles on Web Sheriff's actions that contain excerpts written in a lighthearted tone: "Welcome to the meme jungle Axl Rose", "In yet another battle for control of his name, image, and funkadelic music catalog, the artist formerly known as The Artist Formerly Known As Prince has launched an attack on the internet", and "Welcome to the internet, Axl. It’s a jungle out there". If the tone of a source should be a determining factor of whether it is reliable, this needs to be written into a guideline and applied across all sources. —  Newslinger   talk   04:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about tone, and quoting usage of a phrase is meaningless if accuracy is ignored. In this case "mired in controversy" seems grossly inaccurate. Reliability is about accuracy, not tone. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this source peer-reviewed?
The source in question:. Puduḫepa 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is honestly really hard to find out anything about this journal. The official website is less-than-helpful, and it doesn't seem to be indexed anywhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is also primary and Mitochondrial-DNA and Y-chromosomal studies often controversial. It would be best to use reviews.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The author made WP:REDFLAG interpretations. That's why I have asked to the community to find out whether it is a peer-reviewed study or not. Puduḫepa 04:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am having issues verifying the journal site myself. It is pretty barren. But I did find another site for it . It looks like the author is from the National Academy of Sciences in Armenia, and the journal does say ""Biological Journal of Armenia" is functioning under the auspice of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia and publishes original papers in botany, zoology, physiology, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology, biotechnology, genetics and other fields of general and applied biology." On the author submission it looks like there is peer reviewing .Ramos1990 (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is apparently the sole source for the Kim Darroch memo leaks.
The leaked memos are not being decried as fakes by the UK government. See etc... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, CNN was able to confirm, it seems. UK government official confirmed Saturday to CNN. But either way, it doesn't seem like a big story. --SVTCobra 05:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We can use (with in-text attribution) the CNN article and the other reliable sources that cover the memo, even though it was first published in the Daily Mail . Reliable secondary sources are able to assimilate information from a variety of other sources in their research, including primary sources, self-published sources, questionable sources, and other sources that should usually not be directly cited in Wikipedia articles. See also, which discusses this type of situation in general. —  Newslinger   talk   05:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Black America web
I first noticed it here then saw that there were 100+ citations in WP. I couldn't find a WP article or previous RSN thread about it and for some reason can't access the site, but according to Google it would be a gossip and entertainment site. — Paleo Neonate  – 22:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like it is not a RS. In the "about us" section of the site it does not say that it does something like peer review . It is a generic online site, but their review process is not disclosed.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable. Black America Web's original content consists of gossip in the form of Media Take Out and BuzzFeed's entertainment content. However, the site is mainly a news aggregator, and most of its articles are syndicated from sources including Associated Press and other sites. If an editor wants to use one of the Associated Press articles, they should preferably cite the original source (apnews.com) or find a more reputable republisher. —  Newslinger   talk   23:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"Dice-rolling systems in RPGs"
Per a discussion at this AfD I was hoping to get some feedback as to whether or not "Dice-rolling systems in RPGs" is a WP:RS for information on privately held Canadian companies. (I'm afraid I have no further information on it other than the title, though there's a possibility it might have been written by someone whose surname, or possibly first name, is "Morgensen".) Thanks, kindly, in advance. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don´t think burden of proof is upon you. Editor proposing this book (?) as a source should provide at least a catalogue entry to prove this source exists. There is not much to discuss without knowing other details (eg. publisher). Pavlor (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The person who mentioned that is being weirdly evasive. I don't know why you didn't find it on Google Scholar, either, though: here. I can only imagine no link was provided because it says basically nothing about the subject of the AfD. I can't find any evidence it was actually published anywhere other than the web, which isn't a good start. More research could be done in that regard, otherwise it would come down to the extent to which the author makes it usable as a self-published source. Regardless, though, it doesn't support anything in the AfD anyway, so it's kind of moot. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know why anyone is having trouble finding the source; it is actually the one you found, a self-published article by Torben Mogensen within his field of expertise. The "silhouette system" discussed in the article is an intellectual property developed and used by the subject of the article and has no individual authorship.
 * As far as my being "evasive", please AGF, and perhaps this and the related diffs will give some context relevant to the current AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just saw someone ask for more information or a link regarding a source you mentioned, and it seemed like you edited many times while pointedly refusing to give that link. That read evasive to me, but there may indeed be additional context/backstory I'm unaware of (I don't have time to go through that ANI to look for clues at this time). Regardless, this doesn't really need to be a thread on RSN since even if it is a well-regarded author's SPS, it doesn't add anything to the AfD. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for locating it, Rhododendrites! It appears it is named "Dice-Rolling Mechanisms in RPGs." The commenter in the AfD modified the name and called it "Dice-Rolling Systems in RPGs" which is probably why I was unable to locate it. Coupled with them declining to provide a link or DOI number, it seemed suspect. (It still does, but now it can be critically evaluated at least so thank you, again.) Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC Announce : Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram regarding using Breitbart as a source. Your input would be a big help in reaching a consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems like the appropriate venue, rather than that page. No, it is not a reliable source. A good part of their income comes from hate views, so I don't even click through. cygnis insignis 06:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought about putting the RfC here -- or perhaps BLPNB -- but as I correctly predicted, certain misguided editors think that it is a good idea to post lists of shit sources that deliberately tell lies as long as it is done in Wikipedia space and not article space. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not only do they have a bad reputation for fact checking and reporting (which caused them to be considered generally unreliable), but since they have a conflict of interest (like the DailyMail), in that they are not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, their reporting is likely to be flawed and exaggerated. I'm sure that as usual, if there's something important and notable, papers with a better reputation have reported on it.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it might be for their view of it (but I am not sure why that would be of interest), but no not for any factual reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'll be really blunt here, Stormfront, Daily Stormer, info-wars, Brietbart etc are neo-Nazi/alt-right propaganda outlets. They are total and utter rubbish, barely an accurate word has ever been published by these disreputable and disgusting fraudsters. The debate has been had and the result was clear - these trash outlets must never be used to cite anything. Bacondrum (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)