Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 276

Original historical documents and historians who ignore it
Question asked earlier so I ask it here too. If original historical document in a village mentioned Vlachs(15th, 16th, 17th century) and historian in the book states that in same village(15th, 16th, 17th century) live Germans, Croats or Serbs (it is not important), what do I do? Formally his claim is proof and the book is proof for Wikipedia article but according to original historical data in that village live Vlachs not Germans etc. It means that historian does not base his claim on original historical records. He could say that Chinese live in that village and this is proof for Wikipedia article. So i'm interested how to dispute that false quote and delete it from the article although this was said in the book by a historian who apparently liedMikola22 (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, historians should be trusted, and the original document should not. There is a special discipline, Source criticism, whose aim is to establish how each concrete source should be interpreted. In general, it would be correct to assume that by default every historical document is lying, for each document was written not for usage by future Wikipedians, but to meet some practical goals, or to convey some idea (which may be unknown to us). In addition, some terms may change, so literal interpretation of sources may lead to serious mistakes. Thus, taking into account that the concept of nations or nationality was not existing during that time, it is quite likely that what we currently see as Vlachs (ancestors of modern Romanians, if I understand correctly) has no relation to those time Vlachs, because in XV century, any subject of Wallachian monarch was considered a Vlach (independent on their ethnicity). Therefore, any interpretation of primary sources may be performed only by professionals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The first thing you should do is look to see what OTHER historians say. Do they discuss the Vlach in village?  If so, perhaps you can cite them.  If none of them mention the Vlach, you need to ask why they don’t? Ask the historians.  It may be that they are aware of your document, but consider it flawed for some reason.  Or it may be that you have discovered a document that no one was aware of before.  In which case you will have to wait for a historian to evaluate it and write a history of the village that incorporates that new document.  The one thing you can not do is cite the document in WP yourself, as that would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH... which is not allowed (see WP:No original research. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Friends this is a very serious situation. I give an example, in Croatia Vlachs are historically mentioned and today they are Serbs and to a lesser extent Croats. Ivic Aleksa, Serbian historian (Budjanovci, 23rd XII. 1881 - Belgrade, 23rd XI. 1948). In his book he does not notice these original Vlachs, and he writes about them as Serbs. Mirko Valentić; Institute for Contemporary History, Zagreb, Croatia, states in the book "On the Ethnic Root of Croatian Bosnian Serbs""Because archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only the Vlach name, A. lvic, retelling the archives, simply there where it says Vlachs reads a Serbs. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings for Catholics Vlachs ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he would also declare these as Vlachs Serbs by calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith. " Writing about the attempt to free Lika from which the Vlachs commit violence and crimes by Central Croatia, penetrating into the depths of Carniola, lvic suggests to his reader that the Austrian Archduke had ordered the“ expulsion of the Serbs from Lika. " The original document reads "[... ] Abtreibung der neu angesessnem Walachen in der Likha [...]. "24 The same procedure was applied by Gomirje Vlachs, which A. lvić reads as "Gomirje Serbs", although the archival file contains "Wallachen zu Goymerie" .25 He treats the well-known Vlachs villages of Dubrava and Ponikve in the Ogulin area as well. lvic writes: "The Serbian places of Dubrava and Ponikva, where the Serbs lived." In the original document reads • [...] die in dem Dorff Dubrau und Ponique wohnende Wallachen [...]. "26 The lawsuit of Žumberak Vlachs from Marindol in 1668 is presented by Ivic as a lawsuit by" Serbs from Marindol ", although the original file states: • [...] die Walachen zu Marienthall beclagen sich [...]. "27 Forgery of this kind is roped in every page of Ivic's book. Here are only some examples randomly selected" This is a quote from a Croatian historian. Therefore it is a forgery of history and how to delete those sources from Wikipedia?Mikola22 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing to keep in mind is that just because a document is old does not mean that the content is correct. Humans of the past were not significantly better than we are today, they did have their own views and biases, and they may have their own misconceptions or conventions. That why we don't typically use primary sources - it needs experts to evaluate and interpret them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It may be some kind of nationalism-biased (flawed) historiography (so common in this region). However, our "rules" for reliable sources are clear, using our own interpretation of this primary source would be an original research. As written above, we need another historian to balance this POV (preferably someone outside of this region). Pavlor (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I see the problamatic work is quite old (published before 1948). I would not take anything so old (and from this very region!!!) related to nationalism, ethnicity etc. as a reliable source. For start, you may tag this source as unreliable (which it is for this kind of content) and then replace it with better source (preferably NOT Croatian, but it may be a hard task to find a non-local source for such information). Pavlor (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This(old sources, books) is the basis for recent Serbian historiography or new books. Serbian new books generally have background in old writers. To be understood in the Balkans each country has its own history and Croats probably have some mythical historians(what I read mostly references to historical sources but there is probably some mythomania as well) but Serbian historians and books are twilight zone. When comparing their history to the original documents it is different as heaven and earth. But Wikipedia is being read all over the world therefore reference should be based on original historical documents. In this case Serbian false history is like created for Wikipedia. They just write(historians) the book and this is relevant proof for Wikipedia although the original data for some of the facts in that book says otherwise. Mikola22 (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't understand the problem, Serbian historians do not prove that Vlachs are Serbs. They consider Croatian Vlachs as Serbs without any major evidence. A good part of the Croatian population(Croats) are mentioned in the records as Vlachs. Proving something on Wikipedia with  claims of Serbian historians it actually proves that these Croats are actually of Serbian origin without any evidence. Vlachs are neither Serbs nor Croats(and it is undeniable) but for Serbian history Vlachs are Serbs because it is their national interest and they can claim it in their own country but this is Wikipedia which is read all over the world. Here is another example from an article on Stokavian Croatian dialect:"By far the most numerous, mobile and expansionist migrations were those of Ijekavian-Shtokavian speakers of eastern Herzegovina, who have spread into most of Western Serbia, many areas of eastern and western Bosnia, large swathes of Croatia (Banovina, Kordun, Lika, parts of Gorski kotar, continental parts of northern Dalmatia, some places north of Kupa, parts of Slavonia, southeastern Baranya etc.) We do not have any known historical document that says that someone is migrating from eastern Herzegovina to 60% of Croatian area but that claims ""Okuka, Miloš (2008), Srpski dijalekti, SDK Prosvjeta" linguist Okuka Milos (there is no evidence in his book either). That's exactly what I'm talking about, Serbian historians and linguists have their own history that is not in the historical documents but his book is proof on Wikipedia about some kind of famous migration. But that article is read by people in the world who do not know  situation on the ground and might think that really someone comes from eastern Herzegovina to Croatia. Did anyone migrate from eastern Herzegovina to Croatia probably yes but these are smaller groups of people who cannot inhabit 60% of Croatia(the only major migrations(historical records) are towards  Dubrovnik area and Venetian area along the Adriatic coast) Therefore we cannot allow someone's private history(Serbian historians and linguists) or allow their false history as relevant evidence on Wikipedia. And that is why I ask what concretely to do in that case?Mikola22 (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I have some experience with ethno-nationalistic POV-pushing in historiography (Czech-German). As I wrote, remove very old sources (worthless in this case) and if you can´t find a "neutral" source, simply add a reliable source from the Croatian side of the dispute to balance POV in the article(s). In best case, there would be a major scholarly research outside of this region, which could show us what is a fringe opinion in this field of study. Pavlor (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What are these documents, who owns and has access to them, and how old are they?Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * On which documents you think? If you think of original historical documents (16th, 17th, 18th centurie) that mention Vlachs there are many. If you think about the documents that prove migration of someone from eastern Herzegovina there is some information for Dubrovnik area and Venetian area along the Adriatic coast. It is a factual situation. However reading Serbian historians and linguists we have fictional situation. And that's the problem because Wikipedia doesn't deal with factual evidence for Wikipedia a statement by a historian from some  book is relevant evidence.Mikola22 (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So is every historian who has written about this Serbian? Are there literally no other historians who have covered this topic? Interpreting centuries old primary documents is really far outside the realm of what editors should be doing. The fact is, unless you're literally talking about a historian who has misquoted an easily verifiable document, this sort of thing is not trivial. Editors are assumed to be in no position to assess (unless he states explicitly) why a historian's account of something seems to differ from available primary documents. Perhaps those documents are misleading. Perhaps they need to be interpreted in a specific context. Perhaps there are other documents painting a different picture. Perhaps there is a sort of academic language barrier between what the historian is saying and what the editor thinks the historian means. Aside from the last one, insofar as we might discuss whether the historian himself has been misinterpreted by editors, these are questions we are supposed to avoid discussing. So for ways forward, I'd ask again, are there other historians who discuss these issues? Alternatively, are there reliable sources that cast doubt on whether these historians are reliable? Have they been called out by other historians for making things up? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Let’s go with logical thinking. Serbs allegedly are fleeing from the Turks in Turkish times. Croatian historian claims this "The second portion of the article deals with the Turkish conquests in Croatia and with the geography of the Balkan Vlachs enclaves from the Drava River to the Adriatic, since the Turkish colonization is followed by that of Austria which from the second part of the 16th to the end of the 17th centuries brought Vlachs from the Turkish Empire to the lands of the Croatian Kingdom." You don't need any historical document to understand that they are not the same people. If the Serbs are fleeing from the Turks then Turks cannot colonize them. Croatian historian claims and this "The Church had the most decisive role in the serbization process of Vlachs in the initial and middle phases; in the final phase, the most significant role was played by the newspaper Srbobran in the 80's and 90's of the 19th century. On the basis of the preceding analysis, the author concludes that present day Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia ethnically do not make part of the Serb nation." Why he established this in his scholarly work? Because we have no historical data that Serbs come to Croatia nor  we have data that someone migrates from Serbia to Croatia(western Slavonia to Dubrovnik area). This is factual truth of which I talking about. Serbs have their own national interests but with that interest they penetrate into the origin of the Croatian population which is referred  as Vlachs in the historical records and which speaks Stohkavian dialect same as today's  Serbs. That is the problem and that is why we must go from the source.Mikola22 (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking for modern language-based ethno/religious-identities in early modern sources is a recipe for disaster... Pavlor (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the biggest problem, on the bases of language or dialect some historian determine someone's origin and not based on  historical records who talk about these peoples. That's why I'm interested  what to do in that situations.Mikola22 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well using the OP as a starting point. I can say that in my Town live some English people, that does not mean they are the only people that live there. So I go back to my question, what are these sources, who owns them, and why have they be ignored up till now (and how come you have found them when 100's of historians have not?Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * These documents are constantly in existence but they are interpreted by Serbian historiography through their national interest. There are Serbs(Croats, Bulgarians,Albanians etc) among Vlachs but we cannot consider all Vlachs to be Serbs and write books about them which are proofs on Wikipedia, it's as if all Americans would be English because they speak English that's Serbian historian  logic. Unfortunately this is relevant evidence and how to challenge that evidence? These are books.Mikola22 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but we would need a source to say "they were not English", rather then us saying "they must not have been". I think it is clear form this your documents use the term Vlach which you are interpreting to include a specific group based upon no other evidence than assumption. Thus this is wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If I understand the OP correctly, mentioned source(s) are known, but their interpretation (who are "Vlachs") is disputed (Serbs vs Croats). There may be (I hope) reliable sources from outside of this region. Until these are found, I think best course of action would be to use only recent academic production (not nearly 100 years old works!) from both Serbia and Croatia to balance the article POV. Pavlor (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if that is the case, I agree. Given that a name does not tell us anything really unless there is a clear and unequivocal meaning to that name is fraught with OR risks.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Vlach would mean neither Serb nor Croats. Vlachs is an out of use term for Romance (Latin derived) speaking people: distinct from Germanic or Slavic (Serbo-Croatian).Eostrix (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The situation is even more complex. Thus, Eugene A. Hammel from University of California analyzed medieval Serbian censuses of 14th century and concluded: "The evidence suggests that subgroup differences were more ecological or situational than strictly ethnic and that the Vlachs were simply Serbs in a pastoral mode." And: "The dual meaning persists in modern usage, some Vlachs so-called because of their presumed Romanian origins, others because of their pastoral economy." --Nicoljaus (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You should not determine who the “Vlachs” are in the original historical document yourself, because this is not an easy task (see for example:Vlach law)--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The latest forgery. Here's an explanation for deleting that quote from the article I quote "Forgery, in the article is states I quote "A letter of Emperor Ferdinand, sent on 6 November 1538, to Croatian ban Petar Keglević, in which he wrote "Captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who are commonly called the Serbs." In the book(Povijest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX. stoljeća (History of the Croats, 1899–1922)) of Vjekoslav Klaić[9] Croatian historian is cited original document from year 1538. as follows "te in hoc, quod capitanei et woyvode Rasciani sive Servian! atque Valachi, quos vulgo Zytschy (Cici) vocant, cum eorum subditis et adherentibus fidem devotionemque erga nos amplexi iam nunc ad loca ditionemque nostram commigrarunt et bona eorum omnia mobilia salva transportaverint, sedulam promptamque operam una cum ceteris navasse ac non vulgare adiumentum, quo id facilius fieret, per te allatum fuisse [10]

This means that in the original document are mention "Rascians or Serbians and Vlachs" not as is quoted in the article by a Serbian historian "Rascians or Serbians or Vlachs" who are commonly called the Zytschy (ĆiĆi) not as Serbian historian states "who are commonly called the Serbs"  Since this is a lie and a forgery of history I suggest deleting it from the article What would you do if you noticed a forgery?Mikola22 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , please tell me, did we talk with you on this topic? There, the IP-user subscribed as "mikola".--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was me.Mikola22 (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, in a situation when the only available sources are (i) the historical document, and (ii) the old book published by some Serbian author, formally speaking, you cannot unilaterally decide that the book (a secondary source) is wrong, and the primary source is correct.
 * If you believe we are dealing with nationalistic falsification of history (which may be quite possible), it is possible to do the following: you can try to find sources that question the approach of Serbian historiography to the description of those times events in that region. That may serve as a ground for removal of that source.
 * A second opportunity is to explicitly attribute this statement to the source, something like: "according to 1940s Serbian sources .... ". That would clarify that the statement reflects not a generally accepted views, but some local (and, probably, outdated) viewpoint.
 * If you are not disputing a Serbian claim to support a Croatian claim, but your real desire is to combat local nationalistic views (which are, obviously, wrong, no matter who is pushing them), the most unbeatable approach would be to avoid a discussion of ethnonational issues as much as possible: in reality, no Serbian or Croatian nations existed during that time, so it would be more correct to speak about population, their language, religion, social structure etc. IMO, this is a universal approach to resolving this type problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that is not an original document, it is a book published in 1981, and claiming to be an accurate version of that document. It may not be a lie, the other source maybe, they both maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that those Rascians or Serbs who speak Ćići language mention and Romanian sources "istroromnii, atestai ncepnd din secolul al XVI-lea sub numele de Cici i ... sive Serviani atque Valachi quos vulgo Zytschy vocant).51 Oricum" Only Serbs historians have their own way of interpreting  original document, that's why I'm saying it's a forgery and that there is no place on Wikipedia for such evidenceMikola22 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly that is not what you said, you asked "If original historical document in a village mentioned Vlachs", that is clearly not what you are now what you are talking about. What you are now talking about is different (modern) interpretations of one document. Thus (again frankly) the whole basis of this question was flawed from the start (yes I am being generous). No your source does not trump the other or prove it is a fraud, as best we would have both claims in the article (which one?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand you? From Dubrovnik to western Slavonia or in 70% of Croatian teritory Vlachs are mentioned. There are hundreds of records that mention Vlachs and two or three that mention Serbs. That Vlachs(not Serbs or Croats) later became mostly Serbs and a lesser extent Croats. What does this(that today they are Serbs or Croats) have to do with their original origin. And Illyrians are Croats today because we probably assimilated them however we cannot claim that  Illyrians were originally Croatians. Serbs throughout national history ignore  fact that Vlachs were not originally Serbs, thus they clame that all Vlachs and even Croats that originating from Vlachs are Serbian origin. But Vlachs are not Serbs. Serbian historians  in historical sources where the Vlachs are mention they read as they are Serbs and that is proof on Wikipedia. So I ask for advice on what to do?  What Vlachs have to do with Serbia or Serbians. At that time when Vlachs are mentioned in Serbia they are also mentioned in Croatia, Romania, Albania, Greece etc. So they are not all Serbs because they are also mentioned in Serbia. Do you know who are Vlachs?Mikola22 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have given our advice... when two sources disagree, look for OTHER sources. Give more weight to those written by scholars from outside the Balkans (who are less likely to be emotionally involved in the ethno-political squabbles of the area). Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible COI & Sock puppet by user JIROT
The WP:COI page states to report possible COI cases here. I noticed that user:JIROT is a single-purpose editor involved in 2 articles: I placed a COI tag at the mentioned biography and at his Talk page. I do not know how to proceed further, so I'll leave this "on your desk". Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He created a biography on Richard M. Weiner - (I just cleaned up quite a bit of promotional language and Peacock terms in there.)
 * Persistent introduction & reverts of a non-peer-reviewed paper by Richard M. Weiner ‎at Dark matter. User JIROT fails to explain why this unpublished hypothesis is notable for inclusion.

I also noticed that he may have a possible sock puppet: User:Gigigogo that created the article Hot spot effect in subatomic physics within days of creating Richard M. Weiner, where he also promotes Richard M. Weiner. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've warned him about edit warring; otherwise I think this is currently a "monitor and see what happens" situation. -- Jayron 32 15:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, in the future, you might want to report conflict of interest issues to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (WP:COIN). The editors who frequent that noticeboard tend to be more familiar with COI and sockpuppetry in article editing. —  Newslinger  talk   03:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I thank you all. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A personal blog of a professional historian as a source for history articles
According to The Guardian, Nicolas Terry is a professional historian who studies modern Holocaust denial. He collaborated with the Holocaust memorial museum; currently he is a senior lecturer at University of Exeter, and he has a personal blog where history related materials are published. Is this blog a reliable source for WP articles devoted to various aspects of the Holocaust and its denial?

This question is a continuation of the previous discussion, but, since the previous discussion is becoming too convoluted, I decided to ask this question separately. Users are participants of this dispute, so I would be grateful to see the opinion of non-involved users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links to his blog (which you want to cite) and the previous discussion? feminist (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, forgot to add it. Added.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the previous discussion? feminist (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No, the blog is not an RS, only Nicolas Terry can be. For example, this blog post by this anonymous user is not an RS. But even if that were a post by Nicolas Terry, using the self-published source should be strongly discouraged. Anything significant by Nicolas Terry should be published in a better place, and especially on a controversial subject. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In general personal blogs are not reliable sources, irrespective of who the author is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But, in specific, we do allow blogs written by experts (when writing about things in their field of expertise) Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that general rule, however, I am asking because self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. In my opinion, there is a possibility that Terry fits those criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, a personal blog can be reliable for certain topics if it meets WP:SPS, although published sources are preferred. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not override SPS. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So it has been mentioned that this blog is not solely authored by Terry. There are several other contributors who seem to be pseudonymous. Is there a way to filter or search posts only by Terry? Can we have a reasonable level of confidence that Terry is the one using his named account? And does Terry share his byline or account with anyone else who might blog? I guess those criteria are WP:SPS 101. Yes, Terry's work might meet RS standards, but other contributors would need to be evaluated on their own merits, and since Blogger doesn't have blue check marks, we'll need to establish some way of knowing accounts actually belong to who they say they are. Elizium23 (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good questions. Let's try to answer. As Paul tells, it is a continuation of this discussion. Hence, this is an account in question who made this post. This is not Terry. What this blogger does? He cites Holocaust deniers  from the "The World's largest website for Historical Revisionism". He "forgets" about numerous reliable sources existing on this subject. He whitewashes crimes by the Stalinist regime. He has a Russian nickname. The bottom line: this is not Terry. My very best wishes (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We can assume that any unsigned articles are either written by Terry or or are as good as written by him. TFD (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We can? On what basis? Not trying to be argumentative I just don't see why anyone would make that assumption here. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes As per SPS his blog is an RS for his view, as long as they are attributed. But only his posts are RS, not anything else anyone posts there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We also need to factor WP:Due Weight into the mix... he may be reliable, but still not worth citing. (Not giving an opinion on this case... just reminding people that reliability is not the only issue to discuss). Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * True, buts its also a different issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." If we accept that Nicolas Terry is "an established expert on the subject matter" then his writing is considered reliable, however that only extends to writing he, himself authors, not writing by non-experts which happen to be published near his writing.  It is only writing where he is the clear author this applies to.  -- Jayron 32 14:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Limited: Only when "posted by" is Nicholas Terry, and where the contents is uncontroversial. Any controversial claim would require a peer- or editor-reviewed source. Guy (help!) 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends. The author seems to mix factual reporting and his own opinion quite liberally on his blog, so editors should be cautioned not to present his opinion as fact. He seems to have strong views on the topic (regardless of whether they are appropriate or not). I agree with JzG. feminist (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, as long as the author is an established expert as described above. As other editors have mentioned, posts written by other authors are not reliable, though I would add the caveat that if any other authors are themselves established experts, then their posts would also be acceptable. This isn't necessarily a strong source, but I also note that WP:PARITY is in effect with regards to Holocaust denial. As a result, without compelling reasons to the contrary (e.g. direct contradiction in the peer-reviewed literature), it can most likely be depended on to give the academic position on any claims related to Holocaust denial. Sunrise (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Here is a link to a previous discussion. In this case the blog is being used to discredit one sentence in an otherwise reliable source about a Jewish Communist alleged to have created gas vans in the USSR. The story is popular in anti=Semitic literature but, other than this one source, is not cited in any other academic book at all. The author used as his source a tabloid, Komsomolskaya Pravda originally for Young Communists that now publishes anti-Semitic articles. (The narrative is that Nazi Germany did not gas any Jews, but the Jews gassed Ukrainians.) I think that this is a good case for "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". TFD (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I can't imagine what it would be used for in a topic so thoroughly covered by scholarly sources. For anything contentious, we need a peer-reviewed source. For any uncontentious, there will surely already be a peer-reviewed source. Can someone post an example of how the blog would be used and a link to the previous discussion? SarahSV (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, it is not thoroughly covered, see my comments above. TFD (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, I perfectly understand limitations of this source. The problem is that the topic ("Soviet gas vans") is not covered in scholarly literature at all. The only sources that cover this topic are Holocaust deniers writings, and that is analyzed in Terry's blog. I failed to find better sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm having difficulty following this discussion. Can you link to the precise blog post you want to use as a source, and the edit it will support? SarahSV (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SarahSV I mean this source. I myself do not think it is really good, but other sources writing about that subject are even worse: they are based either on non-verifiable testimonies, or on some Russian tabloid article published in 1990. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks. You've linked to a blog post by Sergey Romanov. I don't know who that is. That's definitely not an RS unless you can show that he's an expert. It means this discussion is misleading, because you seemed to be asking whether Nicholas Terry was an RS if self-published, but in fact you're asking whether Sergey Romanov is. Which edit did you want to use that source to support? SarahSV (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, I know that the author of the post is not Terry, however, as far as understand, Terry is supposed to moderate his blog, so it seems the content of his blog is somewhat vetted by him.
 * I am going to use this blog to support the statement that the sensational claim about alleged invention and usage of has vans is cited by Holocaust deniers who question the fact of existence of Nazi gas vans (such as Alvarez). The fact that Alvarez questions the existence of German gas vans and cites the Soviet gas van story follows from his book, so this claim is not controversial, so it does not need an outstanding evidences. I do not think we should cite the Alvarez's book directly, because it is published by a publisher house that was established by a convicted Holocaust denier.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can be used for some things. If I understand the issue properly, this all relates to allegations that the Soviet Union used gas vans and some of the controversy surrounding that...? That entire aspect seems slightly WP:FRINGEy, in the sense that while sources exist, they're sharply lower-quality and lower-prominence than the ones discussing the usage by Nazis.  For more obscure subjects like this (where few high-profile mainstream scholars have weighed in), I feel it is appropriate to rely on what we can get - the opinion of an established scholar like Terry, even posted via WP:SPS, seems important to include if we're going to discuss such an obscure aspect at all. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends This blog not only deals with Holocaust denial, it even engages with deniers’ arguments. Not many historians do that, for obvious reasons: Holocaust denial is not to be taken seriously. Arguments with Holocaust deniers simply are not the kind of material which would be published as a book. Irving v Penguin Books Ltd is a rare exception. The blog (and a different post by Romanov) have been cited by RS (historical scholarship). I take notice that the one user who preaches that we simply do not know what other sources the historians could use is certain that Romanov "forgets" about numerous reliable sources existing on this subject. He whitewashes crimes by the Stalinist regime. That’s simply unfounded.--Assayer (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. OK, but who is author of the post in question ? Someone called "Sergey Romanov" . Is it even real name of the person? And even if it is real, what kind of expert he is?  My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on their last comment, Paul started this entire thread just to discredit a reliable primary source (the book by Petro Grigorenko, it was cited in a lot of other books and scholarly literature), along with claims by a number of other secondary RS, using another source, a blog by an unknown person that he knew was not an RS. And his logic is misleading. Whatever Holocaust deniers could cite is simply irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Welllll... I guess not. First of all, Nicholas Terry. As to notability, in the sense that we want to say "According to Nicholas Terry...", let's see... Nicholas Terry is not bluelinked and probably isn't eligible yet, having written only one book ("Auschwitz: The Practice of Extinction") which isn't published yet, and he's a lecturer rather than a professor. We don't give just anybody standing to be quoted that way... We don't quote just any random university lecturer. "Is a professional historian" (in the sense that he makes his living as a history teacher) also applies to the your 11th grade history teacher, and we have to have a line somewhere. Terry has a PhD and has written a book and has other markers of notability, so he might be sufficiently notable to quote, but he's on the bubble anyway.


 * As far his reliability for statements of fact, no, probably not. He doesn't appear to have a sufficient corpus that we can say "well, here is a guy with a sterling reputation for sufficient expertise, attention to detail, and lack of bias that we can take most anything he writes to the bank". For all I know his book will be reviewed in the manner of "Sparks gets many of his facts wrong...".


 * As far as what he himself writes in his blog, its pretty much as good as what he might write in his book: neither is independently fact checked (probably; when the book comes out we can see if he credits a fact checker (unlikely)). That's not a deal-killer necessarily, if Terry himself is sufficiently reliable. But he's not, IMO.


 * As to stuff written at that blog by anyone other than Terry, heck no. The third entry on the front page is titled "Yet another Holocaust-denying terrorist" and opens with "Meet a typical low-intelligence chan loser scum, Stephan Balliet...". We can't go near stuff like that of course, and really it colors the entire publication (blog or whatever you want to call it) and kind of implies that its editors are either biased or insufficiently in control. Terry's association with a publication like that is not a good marker that he can be securely trusted to not cherry-pick or even twist facts. (He probably doesn't, but "probably" is kind of a low bar for introducing statements of fact to the Wikipedia.)


 * Taken all together, no, I don't think we can consider Terry, by himself and publishing in a non-fact-checked venue, as a reliable source at this time. As and if his academic career advances, that may change. Herostratus (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Only with attribution; there is no scholarly editorial control that would be present in the journal process or from an academic press. It cannot be used as source for material in WP voice. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 22:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean with attribution to "Sergey Romanov" who authored this blog post (and possibly has a different name in real life) or to "Nicholas Terry" who possibly has no idea about this blog post? My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Paul asked this question about the blog in general, not a specific post. I replied on the same basis. Attribution means "ascribing a work or remark to a particular author" and I meant exactly what I wrote. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 22:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of the additional questions which have arisen, the question of notability of an individual to whom a text is attributed arises. Terry may be notable in whatever very specific specialism he has published in, and therefore his posts relating to that area worth inclusion. Whoever Sergey Romanov is, and if that is the real subject of this discussion, unless it can be shown otherwise he appears to be totally inconsequential, and therefore not sufficiently notable to include his views on any subject. Cambial Yellowing</i>(❧) 22:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! OK, but simply looking at the blog, I do not see a single post by Terry. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally no; unfortunately I think you've incorrectly assessed the nature of the blog. According to the blog's introductory post back in 2006 by Nicolas Terry, he was only one of the founding collaborators ("I hope to dedicate some of my postings to this collective blog to discussing", "The contributors here met online at the RODOH forum"). . Its also unclear to me how much involvement Terry still has with the blog; the most recent post he made seems to be from 2016 and he doesn't seem to have been contributing regularly even then (unfortunately I cant find a way to search by author). Posts that he personally made may be RSs, but I don't see any indication he exercises control over the other contributors' work. -RaiderAspect (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this the same noticeboard which just vetted an eyewitness account related through an interview by a third person published as a transcript ("novel of evidence") of a documentary in a literary quarterly? We don't quote just any random university lecturer. Why? Is his work too scholarly, maybe? Ok, he co-edited a volume on genocide denial for Routledge, which seems too make him less reliable than memoirs by former NKVD officers. He has published with Yad Vashem Studies, which is certainly less reliable than some Crimean local newspaper. The few times I consulted RSN before, amateur historians, i.e. authors with no professional expertise in history, who never studied history, let alone held a degree in history, and who published with the most specialist and small publishing houses, even indulged in self-publishing, were routinely considered to be perfect RS. You know, these authors provided information so special that it could not be found in mainstream historical scholarship, so it must have been reliable. In other words, there is anything but a standard by which RS are evaluated at RSN and that's a problem. If the reliability of the blog posts is to be assessed, these posts have to be compared to the findings of established historical scholarship. It can't be done by a simple thumbs up or down after superficially looking at the credentials of the author. And if the blog has been approvingly cited by historical scholarship, as it has been, that's a strong sign for reliability.--Assayer (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the publication by well known author Lipkov (although he wrote books in a different subject area) who cited other experts (like Golovkova) in Kontinent is a lot better source than a post by an anonymous account on a blog. It does not mean that Lipkov is telling The Truth. It only means the source can be used per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For those of us who have only just tuned into this saga, could you link to the approving citation Assayer? --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is meant by “approving citation”, but this was seen as clearance of the source. RSN discussions tend to focus on the credentials of the author of a source which should only be the starting point of the assessment process. That case was a case of oral history. Oral history is not per se unreliable, but historiography has developed a refined methodology of collecting, assessing and interpreting oral testimony. Even if we have testimony by a highly reputed historian with much experience in oral history, due to its form the source might not be completely reliable. Interviews a generally less reliable than written statements. Turning back to the case of the blog, it is important to note that it is dedicated to the refutation of Holocaust denial, something which historians usually don’t do, because such a discussion is pointless. The contributors to the blog, both amateurs and trained historians according to Terry’s own admission, wrote up a refutation of claims by Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf and Thomas Kues, all well-known deniers, which has been cited by historical scholarship. The Guardian named Terry “the UK’s foremost academic on the subject”. That said, the posts on this blog should be dealt with for their own merits. The posts I have read can be verified and corroborated by other sources (undoubtedly RS). Thus, it’s not an outright unreliable source. In general, I would not use this blog, however, except when dealing with Holocaust denial itself. The English Wikipedia routinely uses references and links to editions of Holocaust denier’s works. I do not see why a blog devoted to debunking Holocaust denial should not be reliable for debunking.--Assayer (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The story Assayer is talking about is described here, and its brief summary is as follows. Several secondary sources mention a story of a Soviet gas van that was used during the Great Purge. This story is based on one NKVD document that was published in Komsomolskaya Pravda in 1990. In addition to that, a couple of books exist where non-verifiable testimonies are reproduced, which tell about similar events in two Russian cities. In addition, we have an article in a local newspaper that was authored by a writer with unknown credentials. Of course, from the formal point of view, an newspaper article or a book are RS, according to our policy. However, as Assayer is correctly arguing, the article published in a local Ukrainian newspaper, which is authored by some unknown author seems much less trustworthy than the post in a personal blog of a professional historian who worked with Holocaust Memorial, and who is a history lecturer in a high rank British University. The same can be said about the book that uncritically reproduces some non-verifiable testimonies (actually, a memoir of a person who happened to hear a story told by a witness of alleged usage of Soviet gas van).
 * In general blog posts by an established expert can be reliable sources per WP:SPS, yes. But the specific source under discussion here seems to be this, and it is not written by an established expert, and is therefore emphatically not a RS. It's just a blog post written by... someone, who we don't seem to have any info on. Not sure why we're even talking about Nicholas Terry and SPS when there's no indication that he's the author of the piece in question. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, understand me correctly: I myself prefer not to use blogs of that type, the problem is that that blog, which seem to be maintained and moderated by a professional historian, looks much more trustworthy, in terms of fact checking and accuracy, than such "reliable sources" as non-verifiable testimonies or an obscure local newspaper. The fact that the first type source does not fit our RS criteria, whereas the second type sources do means that something is fundamentally wrong either with our policy or with the way it is being implemented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the story is not "based on one NKVD document that was published in Komsomolskaya Pravda in 1990". Not at all. This is WP:OR at best. "The article published in a local Ukrainian newspaper, which is authored by some unknown author seems much less trustworthy than the post in a personal blog of a professional historian". No, it is precisely another way around. An article published (not self-published) by well known Russian historian in newspaper is a lot more reliable source per WP:RS than a blog post by unknown person. I am really surprised that Paul continue arguing otherwise. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

As with too many of these discussions on this board, this discussion is spinning. Please follow the form set out at the top of this page; 1) What is the content you want in what article? 2) What is the source? If it is a blog post, post the exact url of the blog post. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The content is as follows:
 * "The Soviet gas van story, in particular, Grigirenko's memoirs and Berg's case, is used by Holocaust deniers".
 * The source is [this blog post.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh. The actual post is by one "Sergey Romanov". I can't find anything about "Sergey Romanov". So he could be a 12 year old kid for all I know. He could be an agent of the Mongolian government. He could be a squeegee guy in Naples, Florida. He could be my cat. How is this possibly a good source, and huge trout to the person who started the thread, and stop doing that, kthx.
 * Sure I suppose if you squint really hard, you could say that technically the publication is edited by a "professional history" (that is, a history lecturer, not a professor or published author), but come on. Who the writer of the piece is very very important.
 * If you've got info on Sergey Romanov, present it, and explain why the internet doesn't have it. If it's a pseudonym, tell us who's behind it, provide proof, explain why they are using a pseudonym, and point to the credentials showing his expertise, carefullness, and lack of bias.
 * In future maybe make it a lot more clearer, e.g. "A blog post by an anyonymous person, or at any rate a person who has no credentials that I know of". Then we could dispose of the question more quickly. Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not completely right (I am not saying you are not right). It seems that the blog is moderated by the owner, who is a professional historian. If any teenager can post an article in this blog, then you also can do that, right? However, I couldn't find how to do that. That means this blog is kind of "by invitation only", which means Terry is screening potential contributors.
 * In addition, Holocaust deniers Terry is writing about are beyond the scope of mainstream scholarly community, and Terry's blog is among few sources that write about them. Of course, had this topic been covered by better sources, I would never raised this question, but in a current situation I have no choice.
 * By the way, Sergei Romanov cannot be "a 12 year old kid" because he seems to be posting at this blog since 2006, so he belonged to the group that gave a start to this blog.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. So the question is not simply, who is the author, but is this an appropriate source for a certain context. I am ambivalent if Holocaust denial should be discussed in the specific article in question, because the reality of the gas chambers is nothing to be discussed. If you search for "gas van" on the Internet, however, a Holocaust denying publication is to be found among the top ten search results by google. Except for this blog I do not know any other source which tackles the problem and it does not help at all to make funny comments ad hominem to discard reliabity.--Assayer (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the context is completely irrelevant. This is a blog post by unknown person. This is just a garbage on the internet in terms of WP:RS, nothing more. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be using blogs at all, even in cases where they are written by a recognized expert. Policy doesn't necessarily agree with me on that. Obviously I think the policy should be changed. Blogs, even those written by experts, have zero editorial oversight and fact checking. Both these processes require multiple participants. If all you have, and what you are forced to use is merely a blog, then to my mind you've already conceded the DUEWEIGHT debate, even if the source is factually correct.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Is research by Amnesty International a valid source for Wikipedia?
Source: Amnesty International

Article: People's Mujahedin of Iran

Text in question: "Thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process."

What's the verdict on this? Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside from the grammatical problems with the first sentence, Amnesty is a good source for such topics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They're a respected advocacy group, and I would say they're a reasonable source for some basic information. However: there's inherent uncertainty in estimates of extrajudicial executions and other human rights violations, so in-text attribution is probably warranted here unless multiple sources say the same thing. Nblund talk 22:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... I mean the title of the piece is "Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Iran's Prison Massacres are Crimes Against Humanity". That indicates a pretty strong bias on the subject. Most sources like that, I wouldn't go anywhere near, no. If (say) it was ""Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Hillary's Child Sex Rackets were Crimes Against Humanity", that'd be kind of a red flag too.


 * For instance, your quote says
 * but
 * but


 * 1) What is "extrajudicially"? It doesn't sound like the executions were illegal, since apparently the Supreme Leader of Iran said to do it, and with a title like Supreme Leader I suppose he can do whatever he wants. If it was all done according to Iranian law, then throwing in worlds like "extrajudicially" is pretty polemical I'd think, since it leads the reader toward making a conclusion that these events were illegal under Iranian law.


 * 2) How confident can we be that its "thousands" and not just "hundreds"? Amnesty International is not Time magazine. At the end of the day, they are here to stop stuff like this from happening, not shuffle papers. If (for instance) saying "thousands" when it's really only "hundreds" makes for a punchier argument, then they'll say that. At least, I sure hope they would (if one's attitude is "Well, saying this will help our cause, but it would, technically, be inaccurate, so let's not", one should probably be working for the Los Angeles Times and not Amnesty International). They might be super vigilant about not making possible misstatements of fact for the business purpose of maintaining the integrity of their reputation for veracity. Might be. I don't know. Since I don't know, I'm suspicious. Herostratus (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, there's already a Wikipedia article about this massacre that the Amnesty International article describes (the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners), so this is about a well-established event. The question is whether the source can be used to add more details about the incident or not. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Amnesty is usually considered reliable but partisan, so it should be attributed. As an aside, "extrajudicial" means "outside the judicial system". For example, the Holocaust was ordered by Hitler and other Nazi leaders but is still extrajudicial because victims were not tried and convicted before being executed. I doubt that Amnesty is deliberately pushing false information because that would damage its credibility beyond the very short term. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In context there is a point at which the appearance of "a pretty strong bias" is actually nothing of the sort. Perhaps "a pretty strong emotional reaction", but those can be appropriate at times, like when all reliable sources agree that a mass murder took place. And to answer the question about "extrajudicial", in this case it means that though the killings were ordered by the government and de facto legal, these were not death penalties resulting from trial. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source routinely cited by news media. I don't see that their bias against mass murder is a major problem since no reliable sources take a contrary position. In cases where editors question their information, it can be compared with other reliable sources. But the same is true for any source. TFD (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable, but attribute to avoid any bias.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * They aren't a new source. They are a respected advocacy organization and should be handled as such (in text attribution). With such organizations I've seen a mix of how people establish weight.  It's clear when news sources cite something AI says.  I've seen similar cases where such organizations are cited when they have a view on a subject but they haven't been cited by others. Springee (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, Amnesty International is still an advocacy organization. They are not trying to be neutral and unbiased, they are trying to advocate. That the thing they advocate for enjoys pretty universal support in much of the world, still doesn't make then not an advocacy organization. If possible, we should prefer to use independent sources that reference or quote AI, and not AI themselves. Even if it is a given that the bare facts are accurate, there is liable to be substantial differences in presentation between an advocacy group vs a journalistic or scholarly source. If we must use AI directly as a source, the information should be attributed.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an excellent source on such subject. Even if someone considers it "biased" (I do not think it is really biased), such sources are perfectly fine per WP:RS, and especially with explicit attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to believe that claims sourced to an advocacy organization should be attributed to that organization. Amnesty International is a respected international organization that is commonly referred to by other sources, but they still exist for the sole purpose of pushing a particular point of view. Because of their prominence, that viewpoint is probably significant in most issues they opine on. But it'd be best to include something like, "According to Amnesty International" whenever using their resource as a source, instead of just treating their claims as fact. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually see it used with in-text attribution and I think that is the right thing to do. --MarioGom (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they are ultimately an advocacy group and may not always distinguish clearly between advocacy and research. I'd place them near (perhaps slightly above) SPLC regarding reliability. feminist (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes in this case. It's a weighty document that contains much material to allow cross-checking of its claims. The numbers might be open to dispute if it weren't for the fact that they actually list the names: the regime could have skewered the document just by producing the people, if this were a sloppy list. They are an advocacy organisation, sure, but this is a report not a pamphlet or exhortation, and it contains many indicia of reliability and enough hostages to fortune that if it were sloppy it could have been used to completely discredit Amnesty. Guy (help!) 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A number of editors have questioned the reliability of Amnesty International on the basis that it is an advocacy group. However there is no policy based reason for that view. "Biased or opinionated sources" says, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." In fact very few sources with the exception of tertiary sources such as review studies and encyclopedias are unbiased. Tertiary sources are unbiased in the sense that they seek to explain the biased views in secondary sources according their relative weight of acceptance. But health journals have a bias toward health, biology journals have a bias toward evolution, earth sciences have a bias toward the existence of climate change, etc. TFD (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote an essay on the kinds of bias you describe. It is at WP:YWAB. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

should addictivetips dot com and privacyaustralia dot net be considered reliable sources?
The websites seem to be native advertising and sponsored content, and are cited in NordVPN as citations 19 and 22. Would (oldosfan) 03:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * NO.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Rather obviously not. Guy (help!) 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * About these two sites:
 * AddictiveTips (addictivetips.com) is a group blog with a team of nine people. Most of their non-VPN content is of low quality, and AddictiveTips is at best marginally reliable for uncontroversial technology-related topics. AddictiveTips should not be used to establish notability. All of the content in AddictiveTips' VPN/Privacy section is sponsored content with calls to action, and should not be cited on Wikipedia. Everything under  should be blacklisted.
 * Privacy Australia (privacyaustralia.net) is operated by a team of two people, only one of whom appears to be responsible for the site content. This alone makes Privacy Australia a self-published source, but the fact that the site is almost entirely composed of sponsored content with calls to action means that it should be blacklisted.


 * Nice, though I've already removed the citations due to earlier consensus Would (oldosfan) 07:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The mystery of Street Fighter II: The World Warrior's release date
So here's something I found on Street Fighter II: The World Warrior to be questionable. (For clarification, this is about the very first version of Street Fighter II, not Champion Edition or later updated games.) For the longest time, this page has stated the arcade version was release on Feburary 1991 (some specifically claiming Feburary 6, 1991), and looking at every corner of the internet, this seems to be generally accepted as the correct date. Except, according to the official information from Capcom's side, this is not true; the company's history page for investors states the release date is actually March 1991. This date is also retained (4m 48s) in Street Fighter 30th Anniversary Collection released in 2018, so I came to conclusion that it's reasonable to assume this is the right one.

Based on this information, I updated the page in accordance to the one listed in Capcom's official record. The user named Steelermajor then changed it back to the original date, citing these sources:


 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278746/ (iMDB)
 * https://www.giantbomb.com/street-fighter-ii-the-world-warrior/3030-243/ (Giant Bomb)

These state Feburary 6, 1991 is indeed the correct one, but then again, they're both user-generated sites; I don't think they're enough proofs to disregard the date given by Capcom's products and websites. Currently I've reverted Steelermajor's edit because they didn't respond to my request on its talk page for a week, but I decided to came here for other editor's opinion about this. --Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * IMDb is user-generated content and should be avoided. The Giant Bomb game profile is an open wiki, which is user-generated and should also be avoided. Capcom's company history page is a reliable primary source in this context. From the sources provided, March 1991 would be the date to use. —  Newslinger   talk   12:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Attribution when facing square brackets in a quote
In a 2009 report by UK Home office's border agency we read:

"According to the USSD Background Note of March 2008: [...] “The Iranian Government has faced armed opposition from a number of groups, including the MEK [cult-like terrorist organisation Mujahedin-e Khalq, People’s Mojahedin of Iran] (which the U.S. Government added to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1999), the People’s Fedayeen, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), and the Baluchi opposition group Jundallah.” [4u] (Political conditions)"

Essentially, UK border agency is quoting a piece from US State Department Background Note in 2008, but is adding a sentence in square brackets. The question is whether the content in square brackets, i.e. "cult-like terrorist organisation Mujahedin-e Khalq" should be attributed to the UK border agency or to the US State Department? In other words, is the bracketed content an interjection?(p.s. The matter has been discussed here, but we need more opinions)--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The USSD, as the source is only being used as a source the the quote by the USSD, the UK boarder agency does not put it in their voice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Non peer-reviewed pre-print version of scientific paper
I have a question regarding this paper (linked below) by the geneticist Iosif Lazaridis. It seems to be a preprint, and I wondered whether this means it is not a reliable source (since that means it has not yet been peer-reviewed) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind; I changed the section title to a more descriptive one in hopes of attracting more participation. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , If the paper is eventually published in some form, the preprint can almost certainly be cited. Obviously, it's preferable to cite the published paper but most academics would be considered experts for the purpose of WP:SPS anyway. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. I do not think the paper is reviewed yet (I cannot find a non-preprint version), but I would assume it will be and will be published in that form eventually. And it is by (among others) a pretty prominent and well-regarded population geneticist - Iosif Lazaridis - (whose other papers are cited elsewhere here). So is it ok to cite it even if it has not yet been published in non-preprint form? (I have just added it as a ref on two pages, but if it is not acceptable, I will, of course, remove the new material.) Thank you again. Skllagyook (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , checking what you cited it for I'm not sure this is a good idea. This is a new scientific finding that hasn't been peer reviewed or confirmed. I would hold off until Lazaridis publishes it. What I would do is remove the content from the article and copy it to the talk page so that it can be re-added if/when it is confirmed. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , May I ask why it is not a good idea (since you had said earlier that sources from academics were acceptable)? Would it help if my additions to the pages summarized it in a somewhat shorter form with a bit less detail? Skllagyook (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I understand WP:SPS, it was more intended for general comments by experts on their subjects of expertise, rather than new findings. But it's possible that other editors have a different perspective on the guideline. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I see. Should I then wait for the opinions of other editors (to be added here) as well? Skllagyook (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As a non-reviewed paper, which is what it is in this form, I would treat it as the opinion of the author(s). Having been through this process, a submitted paper might be accepted without change (Yay!), accepted with revisions, rejected pending revisions or outright rejected.  If rejected the final paper that results from teh work may be significantly different than the pre-review work.  The correct thing to do is wait until the paper is released before using it.  Springee (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As its not been published or peer reviewed it is just his opinion, it may be RS if he is a recognized expert in the field (note, not just someone who works in it).Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NODEADLINE, if it has not yet been properly reviewed and published but will be at some point, then there's no rush to cite it or to add any text to Wikipedia yet which does cite it. Why the rush?  Wait until it's been reviewed and published, and then cite it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We ought to consider just how extraordinary the claims made in a pre-print scientific or scholarly jounal are when evaluating its reliability.The controversy surrouding Felisa Wolfe-Simon's announcement she and her group had found a bacterium that used arsenate instead of phosphate in its nucleotides shows the danger of relying on pre-prints and other non-peer reviewed reports for our articles.
 * "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". It's worth waiting for at the very least peer-review of such reports. Science, in fact, did publish Wolfe-Simon's paper, but then later carried reports by researchers who had been unable to duplicate the results she reported independently. The current consensus is that the work Wolfe-Simon reported was procedurally flawed, accounting for the lack of independent confirmation by other groups.  We're an encyclopedia, and our readers aren't looking for breaking news, but verifiable information.  --loupgarous (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , I assumed that it would be published eventually, but it has been at least a year now. Are all preprints eventually published in some form? I suppose I cannot be certain. Not being certain, is it okay to cite him since he is an expert in the field, or should I wait for the study to be published anyway? Thanks. Skllagyook (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Skllagyook (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , Iosif Lazaridis is an expert in the field and has published several important papers on population genetics, especially of ancient peoples of the Near East and Europe. Would this mean his source can be cited before it is published/reviewed (as I had cited it before), or is the general consensus here in this thread against that? Some links on Lazaridis for reference:
 * https://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/Profiles/display/Person/115264
 * https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eQmvmqQAAAAJ&hl=en
 * https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Iosif_Lazaridis
 * https://www.ellines.com/en/achievements/37774-sheds-light-on-the-genetic-history-of-europeans/
 * https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/people/iosif-lazaridis
 * Skllagyook (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, at best we might be able to use this based upon wp:sps, but as its a science paper that has not be accepted for publication or been peer reviewed wp:undue may also enter into it. A lot would depend on what it is being used as a source for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I understand regarding wp:sps; the link to wp:sps leads to information of self published sources and what they are not acceptable (Why might this be a reason it could be used? Would it be the reverse?). It was being used (by me) in the Iberomaurusian and Natufian pages regarding the ancestral makeup of the those two ancient peoples. Lazaridis, in the 2018 paper, suggests that the Iberomaurusians were made up of two kinds of ancestry; with one kind from paleolithic Western Eurasians derived from the Caucasus (a population also ancestral to other Western Eurasian peoples in Europe and the Middle East) and the other kind from an ancient now-extinct population indigenous to North Africa. The Iberomaurusuian population is considered, in that paper, to have contributed to the genetics of the Natufian peoples of the Levant (as Lazaridis says, rather than the reverse as the earlier paper by Loosdrecht had proposed). If WP:UNDUE applied, one would, of course, not want to give it's description too much length or detail. Skllagyook (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it is the closest I can think of policy wise "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter,". I was not clear about my other point. What I meant was what do you want to use it to say?Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I see. I understand now, thank you for explaining that re wp:sps (I guess I missed it). The guideline, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" does seem to (to me) apply to Lazaridis. What I wanted to use it to say was what I described above: something (on the Iberomaurusian page) along the lines of: that, the study suggests that the Iberomaurusians were made up of two kinds of ancestry; with one kind from paleolithic Western Eurasians derived from the Caucasus (a population also ancestral to other Western Eurasian peoples in Europe and the Middle East) and the other kind from an ancient now-extinct population indigenous to North Africa. And (on the Natufian page), something about the fact that the study suggests that, The Iberomaurusuian population (which may have had the above described origin) is suggested (by Lazaridis 2018) to have contributed to the genetics of the Natufian peoples of the Levant (both under the respective "genetics" sections of those pages). Skllagyook (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Problematic, as I understand it this is a copy of the paper that has not yet been submitted to peer review, but (I I read the what is pre-publication bit correctly) will be at some point. Thus it may be that once it has been peer reviewed its conclusions may change (or it may even be rejected). At the same time he is an expert and as such his self published opinions may be used in the way you wish ("according to..."). But (and here is the rub), he may well withdraw it after peer review, or significantly alter it. As such I would caution against using it, we are not a news paper and we can in fact wait until things become clear.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I suppose the proposed section(s) discussing the paper (if it/they were added to the aforememtioned articles) could later be altered, or removed, depending on/to follow the results of peer-review (whenever that occurs). Or is it better to simply hold off on adding it at all until (when/if) it is published? Skllagyook (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hold off, nothing is lost by waiting, and a lot can be by not waiting.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Ok, I will wait/hold off then. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Ros Barber
From the article: "Her 2008 poem "Material" appears in England's current school sixth-form syllabus.[2]" This is the ref. I know very little of England's educationsystem or Pearson, so my question is: does the ref support the claim? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's likely accurate, but it's a primary source so shouldn't be used anyway. Guy (help!) 12:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think this is a good use of a PRIMARY source. It's Due for inclusion because most poets are not on the syllabus and it's a simple verifiable fact not subject to interpretation. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 14:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , assuming this source supports "appears in England's ... school sixth-form syllabus", would you say it supports "current?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , No, I'd say "was on the syllabus in 2017-18". Fiamh (talk, contribs) 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Not so sure this is reliable
While I was gnoming today, I saw User:Autismfacts. I noticed his first contribution was using primary sources so I removed it and left him a polite note explaining why this was reverted. It looks like he read the note and then added this contribution in. I looked at the webpage, and it really looks like it too may be non reliable. I checked here and didn't see it mentioned, so I figured I see what you all thought. Is that website reliable ? Necromonger... We keep what we kill 14:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are perfectly acceptable so long as a person does not do any outside-of-the-source analysis. As near as I can tell, in your first diff, the source is only being used to verify a paraphrase and a quote, which is by definition is without analysis.  A primary source is reliable for directly stating what is printed in itself.  For example, if I said "The source XXXX states that "the Sky is blue", as long as those words are actually printed in that source, the statement is accurate and is correctly cited to the source that uses those words.  That's a fine use of a primary source.  It would not be a good source for stating in Wikipedia's voice, without direct attribution "The Sky is blue", and neither is it a source for stating "Because the Sky is blue, all of these other things must also be true".  But for the simple matter of providing an attribution for a quote, it's fine to cite a primary source. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * there is always the possibility of selective quotation. A group might publish a report, and not really liking the conclusions, then publish a summary or excerpt from it that is unfair or unrepresentative or presented in a biased context. We arre very carlessless in general in accepting quotations.  DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I pretty much always support only using quotes to point out very specific things that article is already talking about. For example, if an article has a section on a controversial tweet, quoting the tweet. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the first source primary?Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sort of? I think it is best considered that "the event" is the lawsuit, and this is a primary document from that event. It is true that it includes an analysis of other sources, and in that sense may be considered secondary. But citing court cases is generally questionable, for a number of reasons. To begin, this is the opinion of a lower court at the state level, and so does not create any binding precedent; next, while it includes a secondary analysis that was informed by expert witnesses, this is not considered an expert publication in medicine, but in law; further, lawsuits happen simply because someone filed one, not because an expert thought it was something significant worth writing about - as with cherry-picking quotes, it would be trivial to cherry-pick lawsuits. If this had been a major, precedent-setting case that received a hearing before a State Supreme Court, circuit court, or SCOTUS itself, maybe. Or if this was something special and unusual and subjected to scientific rigor, like the Autism Omnibus case. Or if a section of a Wikipedia article is about the lawsuit itself, citing sources secondary to the case, then quoting the ruling could provide useful context. Otherwise this seems like a bad idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it is a legal judgement on the admissibility of evidence. Now I agree that we should not cherry pick law suits, but that is not an RS issue as such. I do not see how this is really a primary source, and seems to be a perfectly reputable legal journal. As such it passes RS, wp:undue is a separate issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly reputable legal journal that seems to have as one of its missions to publish as many full-text opinions as they can from state and federal courts in Massachusetts. In this case they simply republished the opinion as is - there is zero added commentary. I don't see how the journal could be considered a publisher rather than a host. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The Problem here is one of context... A legal judgement is being used to balance a medical claim. A legal opinion can balance another legal opinion, and a medical opinion can be used to balance another medical opinion... but is it appropriate to mix law and medicine.  Does doing so create a false balance? Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is inherently unbalanced because only primary sources are used. A judicial ruling balancing an original research claim. Herbert's article cites only Herbert's own work to describe her research on the treatment of autism, and even though it is mentioned that there were three professional reviews of one of her books, the actual content of those reviews is not mentioned (in fact, two gave fawning praise, while the other was more circumspect). This is not an impossible task - Herbert's work is cited in literally dozens of medical review articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Litmus test for source reliability in the AmPol2 area
Litmus tests are a handy method for settling controversial issues. They have been used in chemistry, politics, and Wikipedia needs to use a good litmus test to help us determine the reliability of sources for certain topics.


 * Proposition:
 * That we adopt a litmus test for judging source reliability in the American politics 2 area and will let the best fact checkers make the judgments, not partisan editors. RS must be our guide star. Partisan editors do not trump RS and fact checkers.

This litmus test may be modified for use beyond politics, but for now, let us focus on those political topics because extremely partisan reporting tends to affect politics more than other mundane factual matters (and we can use generally RS for such matters). We know that media bias in the United States exists and that it is now more extreme than ever. The fringes of both left- and right-wing sources distort the facts, and those sources are thus unreliable for use here.

Source bias alone is not sufficient for answering these questions, because left- and right-wing bias, when closer to the center, doesn't have to distort or ignore the facts, but when one gets further from the center, that bias begins to distort the facts, often to the point of pushing deceptive talking points, labeling lies as truth, advancing conspiracy theories, and even fake news ("alternative facts"). Such media echo chambers feed their audiences misinformation so they end up in an isolating filter bubble of deception, leaving them ignorant of the facts. Such people edit here and come across as incompetent to edit in the AmPol2 area when they propose that both CNN and Fox News should be deprecated. There is a vast difference, and fact checkers document it.


 * Litmus test:
 * If a source regularly pawns off proven lies as truth to its audience, that makes it an unreliable source.


 * Application:
 * Because fact checkers and RS correctly and consistently label a myriad of Donald Trump's statements as lies or unfactual, and most partisan right-wing sources consistently push those lies and unfactual statements as if they were true, then we must not use those sources for AmPol2 subjects.
 * This pushing of Trump's falsehoods is not a bug, but a feature, for these sources. It's not an accident. They are not fact-checking their content, and thus fail our most basic requirement for all reliable sources. They are unreliable sources and should be deprecated for use on AmPol2 subjects. Sources on the extreme left-wing which consistently push falsehoods should suffer the same fate.
 * The litmus test should be used as part of our RS-determination process.


 * Specific application to Fox News (talk shows) and Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts. (added later)


 * Some questions to ask:


 * Does Fox News (talk shows) ever publish a Trump statement and point out it's a lie? Do they do this consistently, so that readers get the impression that most of what he says can't be trusted (because that's the case)? Or do Trump supporters find support for their delusional beliefs by reading content at Fox News? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Meet the fact checkers
Fact checkers should factor heavily into how we rate sources for factual accuracy. They are the gold standard, so use them often.


 * Washington Post fact checker team led by Glenn Kessler
 * Poynter Institute
 * Poynter International Fact Checking Network


 * PolitiFact - website


 * FactCheck.org - website
 * Snopes.com - website

Sources which should be deprecated for AmPol2 subjects
All the sources listed here are unreliable for the AmPol2 area. Some are just too biased, and most fail the litmus test and should be deprecated for that reason. Deprecations should be done on a case-by-case basis. The proposal is for the wording and use of the litmus test, not for deprecations here and now.


 * Hyper-Partisan Left - Most Extreme Left


 * Forward Progressives
 * Bipartisan Report
 * Occupy Democrats
 * Daily Kos
 * AlterNet
 * Palmer Report
 * Patribotics


 * Hyper-Partisan Right - Most Extreme Right


 * Fox News
 * New York Post
 * Daily Mail
 * The Federalist
 * OAN
 * Drudge Report
 * Breitbart News
 * The Epoch Times‎
 * Newsmax
 * RedState
 * InfoWars
 * The Daily Wire
 * The Daily Caller
 * Conservative Tribune
 * Townhall


 * Hyper-Partisan Right - Most Extreme Right (cont.)


 * TheBlaze
 * World Truth TV
 * WorldNetDaily (WND) (birther central)
 * The Gateway Pundit
 * LifeZette
 * The American Spectator
 * Real News Update (Trump TV)
 * Australian National Review
 * Political Insider
 * Liberty Headlines
 * Your Newswire
 * The Duran


 * Russian disinformation


 * RT
 * Sputnik
 * Zero Hedge

BullRangifer (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Litmus test discussion

 * I think this might be worthy of an essay, but I think we should be addressing these sources on a case-by-case basis. Some of the sources listed here are already deprecated, others (like Fox News) are reliable for some purposes and not for others. More importantly: news sources in general aren't necessarily all that great for writing encyclopedia entries.   Nblund talk 19:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that deprecations should be done on a case-by-case basis. The proposal is for the wording and of the litmus test. Any improvements would be welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nblund, and will add that few, if any, news sources would pass a litmus test because of RECENTISM, propagandizing by pundits, and errors and omissions. We already have PAGs that address how we should be using RS - see RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, and NEWSORG for starters. Then we have BLP, NPOV, OR and V.  RS become a concern when editors don't strictly adhere to our basic core content policies and guidelines for news sources.  We are not obligated to include everything the news publishes within days or even weeks of it being published. There's an obvious reason for the rush - the 2020 election - and I, like many others, oppose WP being used in that manner. Why not wait until a "hot-off-the-press" article is proven/disproven?  WP content should have lasting encyclopedic significance, and not serve as an archive for news/pundit articles.  Just sayin'....<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 📧 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, even if compromises need to be made to get wide consensus. It would be useful to identify which sources would be impacted. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would oppose a litmus test. Sources always need to be evaluated in context, and litmus tests don’t take context into account. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, yes, no disagreement about context, but many sources do "regularly pawn off proven lies as truth" in the context of AmPol2 subjects. We shouldn't have to constantly deal with newbies, drive-by editors, and editors who lack competence (I gave a very recent CNN/Fox incompetence example from a very experienced editor) who try to use these unreliable sources within the AmPol2 subject area. We should be able to point to the deprecation and quickly end the discussion. We already do that with many deprecated sources, but there are some sources that consistently "pawn off proven lies as truth" which are not deprecated for this topic area. Fox News "regularly pawns off proven lies as truth", and yet we don't deprecate it, even though fact checkers rate Fox News dead last for reliability. Defending such lies is their normal practice. On the rare occasions when it isn't pushing and defending Trump's lies, it's Shep Smith (no longer at Fox), Chris Wallace, or Neil Cavuto who dare to challenge all the other pundits at Fox and tell the truth. (Napolitano occasionally does that.) All the rest push and defend these lies, rendering Fox generally unreliable. Either we deprecate it, or we state clearly that it should be used with caution in this topic area, IOW generally only use it when it is those reporters who are telling the truth. Can we do that? The litmus test is pretty obviously useful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting proposal. I agree that reliable fact-checkers like the ones you listed should play a role in how editors evaluate source reliability, since they are a type of reliable source and should be taken into account under the "usage by other sources" guideline. However, since there are not that many fact-checkers, I don't think fact-checkers alone will provide the coverage we need to comprehensively determine whether a source is (un)reliable. Specifically, I don't think articles examined in fact checks form a representative sample of all articles published by a source – fact-checked articles tend to be more controversial. (Likewise, the number of times a source is discussed on this noticeboard is an indicator of how controversial it is, but not a strong indicator of how accurate it is. General reliability is determined by evaluating a source in its entirety, and is subject to a long list of context-related exceptions.) —  Newslinger  talk   22:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't so much about fact checkers, but about proven lies which are then pushed as truth on a consistent and daily basis by certain sources. In our current AmPol2 environment, these sources are known to be pro-Trump, and the only way to be pro-Trump when dealing with his falsehoods is to deny he said them, ignore them, or push them as truth. Fox News and other right-wing sources do this as a rule, not an exception. Here's where the litmus test comes into play. If we keep catching a source pushing lies, then they should be deprecated. They are not fact-checking their own reporting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We already deprecate sources for publishing false or fabricated information, but whether a source meets the threshold for deprecation is a community decision. Based on past discussions and RfCs, Fox News doesn't have anything close to the required amount of community support for deprecation, resulting in multiple aborted RfCs. In fact, no RfC on Fox News has survived the 30-day period on this noticeboard since, which concluded that Fox News is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG. If you don't think this is the correct designation for Fox News, perhaps you could work with  to craft a new RfC at User:François Robere/sandbox/Fox News that is phrased agreeably enough to last 30 days on this noticeboard. Ultimately, a re-evaluation of Fox News requires consensus from the community. Fact-checkers can inform the community's opinion, but they don't replace it. —  Newslinger   talk   00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am more concerned about the misinformation, conspiracy theories, anonymous sources, false reports by foreign agents and so on that a variety of MSM sources have been publishing over the past 2 years, not just FOXNews. The Trump-Russia collusion (conspiracy theory) was debunked by Mueller's 2 year investigation, and to say otherwise is wishful thinking or speculation at best. If we are going to evaluate FOXNews, then the same should apply to the NYTimes, WaPo, and others who perpetuated the collusion theory.  Granted, several prime time pundits on FOX rejected the collusion theory, but they aren't news anchors or journalists.  This proposal is a side door to noncompliance with OR.  <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 📧 01:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Atsme, "conspiracy" was not proven, but the Mueller Report contains numerous examples of collusion/cooperation with an enemy power, all lied about by the Trump campaign. Over a hundred secret meetings between Trump people and Russian assets. It is not a conspiracy theory. Fox News pushes that "conspiracy theory" angle, which is an example of them pushing falsehoods. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think it's highly unlikely that there is consensus for any of the sources you mentioned – Fox News, The New York Times, and The Washington Post – to be reclassified as anything other than generally reliable. But, I don't speak for the community at large. For any editor who seeks to challenge existing consensus, my message has been consistent: the community needs to show consensus for the proposed changes, and consensus is gauged through discussion. The past noticeboard discussions on these sources speak for themselves, and in the absence of new revelations that significantly impair the sources' reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, these sources will almost certainly still be considered generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG. —  Newslinger   talk   02:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's a pretty sad situation, of which have been acutely aware. One would think that this new angle (pushing of lies on a daily basis and failure to fact check) would be enough to change consensus, but I fear that we have far too many editors here who believe those lies (no need to look far for examples) to be able to get the desired result. The opinions of partisan editors still trump RS and fact checkers here. Is there any hope for Wikipedia? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the editor base of the English Wikipedia is diverse enough for any partisanship among individual editors to be cancelled out as editing disputes are resolved through consensus. Depending on how popular an article is, some articles will take longer than others to become neutral, but with enough attention, all articles will eventually meet all of our core content policies. Reliability is not the only standard for inclusion – if a source that is considered reliable publishes incorrect information, its claims can be countered by other reliable sources (including fact-checkers) and presented in a way that assigns due weight to each position. If the source publishes a specious superminority position that is not corroborated by other reliable sources, it can be completely excluded from the article under editorial discretion (and in many cases, under our policy on exceptional claims). If a source is unreliable enough, the community will reach a breaking point (e.g. ) and reclassify the source to save time on repetitive discussions. I hope that Fox News never becomes unreliable enough to reach that point, since it is beneficial for editors to have as many usable sources available as possible. But if it does get to that point, go ahead and submit an RfC – and that applies to any source. —  Newslinger   talk   02:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We have just been through a case where Glenn Kessler wrote a falsehood about The Daily Caller, then made a non-apologetic correction (which snopes.com has still not done. The falsehood was in Wikipedia's Daily Caller page for a short while without the correction. I think that shows not just how the proposed fact checkers can be unreliable, but also that they get more trust than they deserve. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there something in Snopes's "Did U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar Say ‘Our Country Should Be More Fearful of White Men’?" that should be corrected? The statements


 * The story is correct. It was just mistakenly attributed to a Daily Caller contributor, so it was a cse of misattribution. Yes, that was an error, but a rare one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post did make an error here, which they corrected, but I don't see any errors from Snopes in their fact check. —  Newslinger  talk   00:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's not about never making errors, but about making them rarely and correcting them, all versus making errors as a deliberate method of operation and not correcting them. Then falsehoods are a feature, and not a bug. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2019-07-24 Twitter post in question was identified as by Molly Prince "reporter@realDailyWire". As far as I can tell the last Daily Caller article by Molly Prince was 2019-07-12. More recent articles are by Molly Prince at Daily Wire. As for assertions about rarity, even if there was a way to evaluate that, it wouldn't matter because WP:RSCONTEXT says we have to look, not believe assertions about generalities. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On July 26, 2019, the day that the Snopes fact check was published, Molly Prince's Twitter bio was "Too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns", with no mention of The Daily Caller or The Daily Wire. Combined with the fact that her profile on The Daily Caller still describes her as "a politics reporter at the Daily Caller News Foundation", Snopes's description of her as "a writer for the right-leaning Daily Caller News Foundation" was reasonably accurate at the time of publication. Without an announcement from Prince, The Daily Caller, or The Daily Wire, we don't know the exact date Prince left the Daily Caller News Foundation, or if she is still with them. —  Newslinger  talk   02:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, calling that a "falsehood" is quite the stretch. She indisputably was a writer for the Daily Caller (having written an article for them only two weeks before the Snopes fact check was published), and the Daily Caller still says that she "is a politics reporter at the Daily Caller". Just because she more recently wrote for someone else doesn't make Snopes' statement a "falsehood". If she had never been associated with the Daily Caller, and especially if she had instead been a left-wing writer, things would be different. But to say this is a falsehood, and further that it is one so severe as to impact their reliability, is, in my opinion, beyond the pale. At worst it is an incredibly minor error, but even that is quite debatable. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have seen that Molly Prince identifies herself exclusively as a reporter for Daily Wire, and has been writing for Daily Wire since as early as July 18, after her last known writing for Daily Caller and before the Twitter post in question. And Kessler admitted she was not a Daily Caller reporter at the time of the Twitter post. Newslinger's new thing is something that links to a Russian translation of a Twitter page that says nothing about what she worked for, so it is worth nothing. Thus Newslinger's only evidence is: a Daily Caller page. So acepting Newslinger means accepting The Daily Caller regardless what Prince and Kessler and Daily Wire say. But a simpler explanation exists: The Daily Caller didn't update the page recently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is the Wayback Machine's July 26 archive of Molly Prince's tweet. For archival, the Wayback Machine rotates between servers in different geographic areas. Frequently, an archival is performed by a server in an area for which Twitter defaults to non-English pages; for these archivals, Twitter's interface is in the non-English language, but the content of the page (including the user's bio and tweets) are in the language they were originally posted, completely unchanged. However, the July 26 archive of Prince's tweet that I linked to is in English. On a desktop or laptop computer, you can see Prince's bio, "Too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns", on the left side of the page under the transparent gray overlay; the bio does not mention The Daily Caller or The Daily Wire. According to the archives, Prince changed her Twitter bio to "Reporter at @realDailyWire" some time between August 2 and August 8, well after Snopes published their July 26 fact check. It is The Daily Callers responsibility to identify their own staff and Molly Prince's responsibility to identify herself. If they can't do that properly, it's a stretch to shift the blame to Snopes. I agree with : "At worst it is an incredibly minor error, but even that is quite debatable." —  Newslinger '  talk   19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blame whom you like, snopes was wrong and so were you. I regret having to spend so much time establishing something that was so clear from the start, and will spend no more time on this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But they weren't wrong. Her writing for someone else later does not change the past, or negate her previous work. Without some sort of official statement of separation, there is no reason she cannot be considered a contributor to both publications other than your opinion and assumptions. They are not mutually exclusive. No reasonable person would say "She is only a writer for them in the moment she is published, immediately following that she is no longer a writer for them until the moment her next piece is published. Since she wrote in that publication two weeks ago, she definitely isn't a writer for them now." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a good start, although I feel that the absolute best sources for determining reliability are not fact-checker results on individual facts, but in-depth high-quality reporting on the source as a whole and its history. That sort of coverage can put individual controversies into a larger context that establishes the source's entire reputation, as well as establishing if these issues are the result of systemic problems (eg. management that prioritizes advancing a policy goal over fact-checking or accuracy.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Mmmmm, a newspaper as a fact checker? Sorry but we have to be 100% sure any fact checker has no bias.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fact checkers are usually employed as a distinct team within a newspaper, with the sole purpose (until today, anyway) of verifying reportage prior to publication. They do not write pieces, let alone opinion ones. François Robere (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Newslinger and others who support our current PAGs and how we treat RS, which appears to be the prevailing view here. If wider community input is required, close this discussion and open an RfC at VP. <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 📧 10:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't like this idea. Who is watching the watchers?  They aren't perfect either and it can be problematic when they get into the gray area of fact checking less black and white claims.  There is also a concern regarding bias based on outside articles [], [], [],[].  The fact check sites are useful but like so many things, especially in politics we are rarely dealing with black and white issues and which shade of gray you wish to view often depends personal views/interpretations.  So beyond that, where does this lead?  Would we have just a list of "acceptable" sources?  What happens if a new source comes on line?  Would it be off limits until blessed?  What if a story by a source that isn't blessed gets a lot of traction and is seen as both influential and reliable?  Really, I'm not sure what this proposal would solve.  Yes, many of the political articles are poorly written but I think that has more to do with issues with failing to summarize and writing as if we are trying to persuade in the present vs telling people in the future what happened in the past.  Springee (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Who's watching us? If you dismiss fact checkers' as un-authoritative, then you're just passing up the responsibility to us. Who says we're better equipped to judge statements then expert investigators? François Robere (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't with lack of data or with the ability to deprecate sources, it's with Wikipedians' willingness to admit some sources are worse then others. For example, we already have a plethora of sources on the unreliability of Fox News, including peer-reviewed studies (see here), yet some Wikipedians still insist FN is "as reliable as any other outlet". If Wikipedia can't transcend its own politics to follow RS, then by all means - outsource the decision to other RS. François Robere (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion... playing “gotcha” with the media is pointless. They ALL have twisted the news to fit narratives when it suits... and ALL have been criticized for it at one point or another. Not ONE is exempt. If we are going to call one out, we should call them ALL out. Declare ALL news outlets flawed. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All news outlets may be flawed, but they are not equally flawed. That is like saying "Who cares if one person stole a candy bar and one person murdered a thousand people, they are both criminals and we should treat them equally". A source that makes occasional errors and quickly corrects them is substantively different than a source that constantly, and knowingly, publishes falsehoods with no corrections. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with, and will add that the days of automatically considering news sources reliable based on their past reputations for fact checking and correcting mistakes may still hold true for print but what we’re dealing with today is the internet. Not all mistakes are automatically corrected as evidenced time and Times again. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of the mistakes were made purposely.  As editors, we must exercise caution, follow our PAGs and use good editorial judgment.  We’re dealing with fast news, clickbait headlines, and intense online competition unlike what we had back in the day of prepping articles with editorial oversight before the story hit the daily presses. <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 📧 04:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We know both you (Blueboar) and Atsme are of that opinion that all of outlets are equal, but can you actually back it with sources? I've a pageful of sources on Fox (including peer-reviewed studies, and quotes from over two dozen RS) that show that FN is unusually, and consistently biased. François Robere (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As a former independent CNN field producer many years ago, I don't take a position that I cannot back-up with facts, so I'll start by providing a bit of educational reading material that speaks to your question: Understanding bias, Don’t Blame The Election On Fake News. Blame It On The Media., and Why The Left Can't Stand The New York Times. <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 📧 01:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you need to read Network Propaganda by Robert Faris and Yochai Benkler. This documents in great detail the change in Fox News, specifically, but also other right-wing news sources, over the last few years. Fox News has effectively joined the right wing media bubble, it has stopped citing sources outside the bubble, and that has led to a rapid increase in bias. The right wing media bubble does not engage in normal journalistic self-correction, it responds to falsification by doubling down or airbrushing out. If Fox News was ever a reputable news source, that time has ended. The only way you can use Fox is if it's corroborated by a reliable source, in which case there's no need to cite Fox. Guy' (help!) 13:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for intros, I'm asking for something concrete, like Network Propaganda - the book Guy cites. Do you have something like that that makes a reasoned evaluation of how and why American media is "all equal", or not? François Robere (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Columbia Journalism Review speaks to some of the information in the source you cited, Guy, and the attempts some European countries have made in good faith in the name of democracy but end-up imposing on free speech. There is a big difference between European democracies and our US Republic, so I expect and welcome different POVs. I'm ok with letting consensus make the decisions here - and they already have, over and over again, regarding FoxNews as being generally reliable along with any other generally reliable news source per RECENTISM, NEWSORG and NOTNEWS.  We cannot rely solely on the single source you cited to rule out Fox News - we need specifics, and not from a single POV.  I cited more than one source because they are educational/professional and reach into what is at the core of journalism. I look forward to seeing an updated Harvard review on this topic.  I oppose state-run media because I am well aware of where it leads.  The internet has certainly changed the way we receive our news, and it is not always for the better.  There is clearly a trend toward a more slanted liberal bias in msm, perhaps it is more evident because of Trump's antics and the negativity surrounding his candidacy and the fact that so many people don't quite understand the workings of our electoral college and that it is actually part of the checks and balances that guard our elections against a mobocracy.  I want to hear all sides of an issue including views from the far left, left, liberal, center, right, far right and independents. I want to know the views of Europeans and their take on US politics. There have been instances when a particular issue seemed out of sorts from a European perspective but was legal and perfectly acceptable in the US under our Bill of Rights. It's a balancing act and requires strict adherence to NPOV.  It also exemplifies the need to stick to the facts and avoid speculation.  Of course there will be partisan opposition to Fox but there's a reason for their high ratings vs the ratings of other cable news networks. We don't have to like it, and I'm sure the opposition to Fox can come up with plenty of reasons to discredit their ratings, but we should at least take it into consideration - the same way we do polling. <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 📧 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The question of how society should fix is it independent of the question of whether (and why) sources in the right wing media bubble are unreliable. The evidence is very clear: Fox was a heavily-right-leaning source, and in recent years has effectively joined the bubble sources that weight "truth" by ideology not factual accuracy. Guy (help!) 18:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me weighing in here, here is what I am seeing, which of course is weighted by my biases. Guy, you know how strongly I agree with you on most things, but there is one area where our views differ. I have a pretty much equally low opinion of Team Blue and Team Red, while in my opinion to you every lie and every stupidity of Team Red -- great or small -- is glaringly obvious to you while -- again in my opinion -- to you the the lies and stupidity of Team Blue really hard for you to see. I have also seen many editors who have the exact same problem except with the teams reversed. None of you are stupid or obviously wrong, but you are biased (as am I). I personally see some good and a lot of bad on both teams. We are all biased in different ways and when I say that in my opinion my equal bias against both teams is correct, the obvious reply is "well he would say that, wouldn't he?", but I can say this with a fair dgree of confidence; it is the considered opinion of the Wikipedia community as a whole that we should not deprecate Fox News.
 * Look at this NYT story.
 * " 'The faster metabolism puts people who fact-check at a disadvantage,' said Ryan Grim, the Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post, which reposted the fictional airplane tweets, the letter to Santa and the poverty essay. 'If you throw something up without fact-checking it, and you’re the first one to put it up, and you get millions and millions of views, and later it’s proved false, you still got those views. That’s a problem. The incentives are all wrong.' But Mr. Cook says he thinks that readers can tell which content is serious and which is taken from the web without vetting. 'We assume a certain level of sophistication and skepticism of our readers,' he said."
 * While the paragraph I just quoted is about the left-leaning Huffington Post, I think it is fair to say that the same can be said about many right-leaning sources. We should use them, but with care. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , We do indeed agree on most things, and I would like you to understand why I consider the difference between left-partisan and right-partisan sources to be significant to their reliability. I presume we both agree that mainstream sources such as WSJ, WaPo, NYT and so on are generally reliable for claims of fact made in their factual, rather than editorial, pages.
 * I made a comment below about the asymmetric polarisation of partisan media. Do you accept that Maddow is more likely to be criticised by her audience for a factually incorrect but ideologically pleasing statement, than is Tucker Carlson? Because that's what the facts show. Fox was losing revenue when it pursued more mainstream narratives in relation to Trump, and gained that revenue back when they became more partisan, butt he same was not true of the left. Left-partisan sources and audiences were as likely to share stories about perceived scandals with Clinton as were right-partisans, but right-partisans shared virtually nothing critical of Trump. You could arrive in the polling booth in 2016 having consumed a diet of right-partisan media (especially Fox and Sinclair) and be unaware that Trump was a serial fraudster with a history of sexual assault. I think most Fox viewers even now don't accept that he violated campaign finance law with payments to women, or that he actively welcomed Russian overtures, as Mueller shows, or that he obstructed justice, as Mueller shows.
 * Do feel free to prove me wrong. Guy (help!) 18:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting questions! I don't think any "prove me wrong" proof is available. Neither you, I, or the thoughtful right wingers who are biased for team Red are provably/obviously wrong or stupid.
 * Is Maddow is more likely to be criticized by her audience for a factually incorrect but ideologically pleasing statement than Tucker Carlson? I think yes, but the key phrase is "by her audience". Right Left wing audiences tend to be far more critical and less accepting of total bullshit. There are batshit insane liberal websites, but none of them have anywhere near the audience that Infowars has.
 * On the other hand, the mainstream media is pretty much the opposite; they criticize factually incorrect claims from the right far more than they do when the left does it. Or they selectively separate the claims from Team Blue but not from Team Red. Every mainstream report about global warming conspiracy theories emphasizes that they are largely a right-wing phenomena, but mainstream reports on antivax and GMO conspiracy theories consistently fail to mention that they are largely a left-wing phenomena. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , you've got a typo above. You inadvertently wrote "Right wing audiences..." when you meant to write "Left wing...", at least that's what research and statistics show. Left-wing sources tend to self-correct, unlike right-wing sources. That's because left-wingers are generally higher educated, tend to use fact-checkers, consume a much wider variety of sources (right-wingers use Fox News and little else), and then their better critical thinking skills and knowledge of contrary evidence leads them to reject outright bullshit much quicker than right-wingers.
 * Yes. that was a typo. I just fixed it. Thanks! As I said, batshit insane left wing sources do exist, but have nowhere near the audience of something like (spit!) Infowars. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Both sides might initially believe something that confirms their biases, but left-wingers aren't in an isolating information bubble, so they self-correct fairly quickly. That's about the viewers and readers. The sources are very different too. Left-wing sources criticize each others mistakes brutally, whereas right-wing sources don't fact check well, and they pass on and amplify nonsense from each other. They rarely cricize other right-wing sources.
 * Trump has told his base to not trust fact checkers or believe the "fake news", thus isolating them in a right-wing bubble. They don't even realize they need to self-correct. Also, the left-wing doesn't have the equivalent of Conservapedia. I suspect they use Wikipedia, which requires RS and that both sides of the story is told.
 * Much of the research on this is found at the non-partisan Pew Research Center. Start at Political Polarization & Media Habits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump has told his base to not trust fact checkers or believe the "fake news", thus isolating them in a right-wing bubble. They don't even realize they need to self-correct. Also, the left-wing doesn't have the equivalent of Conservapedia. I suspect they use Wikipedia, which requires RS and that both sides of the story is told.
 * Much of the research on this is found at the non-partisan Pew Research Center. Start at Political Polarization & Media Habits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , There are indeed thoughtful right-wingers. George Will, for example. But if you look at them case by case, what you find is that they are mainly deserting the Republican Party, or at least deserting the hyper-partisan right wing media.
 * But that is an aside to the core question, which is as I outlined above: there is an asymmetric polarisation of partisan media, because left-partisan media suffers reputational and thus financial damage if it perpetuates falsehoods, whereas right-partisan media suffers damage if it publishes accurate stories that run counter to ideology. Do you see any parallels to this story in reporting by Maddow during the Obama presidency?
 * Want to bet five bucks that Chris Wallace follows Shep Smith soon? Guy (help!) 22:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone who is rooting for Team Red might respond that at Fox news there was disagreement about how to handle criticism of Trump but that at MSNBC criticism of Obama or Hillary never makes it on air. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about internal political battles at various media outlets, and have no intention of researching them, so I just go along with whatever the consensus is at RSN about what sources are reliable for a specific claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Want to bet five bucks that Chris Wallace follows Shep Smith soon? Guy (help!) 22:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone who is rooting for Team Red might respond that at Fox news there was disagreement about how to handle criticism of Trump but that at MSNBC criticism of Obama or Hillary never makes it on air. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about internal political battles at various media outlets, and have no intention of researching them, so I just go along with whatever the consensus is at RSN about what sources are reliable for a specific claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not looking for intros, I'm looking for something concrete. Do you have concrete comparatives, investigative pieces or peer-reviewed studies on this question, or not? François Robere (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, FR - I have said all I'm going to say about this subject. If you require more than the high quality diffs I've already provided, may I recommend searching the archives for former discussions about the topic? I believe you will find the concrete evidence you're looking for in the consensus that was obtained time and time again by the community.  Another friendly tip - it truly does help to conduct research from the perspective of the opposition. Happy editing! <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 📧 13:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Four days ago you said that as a former independent CNN field producer many years ago, I don't take a position that I cannot back-up with facts, and suggested a bit of educational reading material that speaks to your question: two general critiques of "mainstream media", an introductory piece on bias, a piece on European media, and later an item on Fox's financial success. Neither of these is a "concrete comparatives, investigative piece or peer-reviewed study" on the relative veracity, reliability and ideological or political slant of American media outlets. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be helpful by responding to your questions, but I am working on another topic now, and find myself pressed for time. A simple Google search may help you find the results you seek. Regarding 3 of the sources I cited above: Understanding bias was published by American Press Institute, a national 501(c)3 nonprofit educational organization, affiliated with News Media Alliance.  The Board of News Media Alliance.  CJR - Columbia Journalism Review - this link and and this one - CJR has been published by Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961. All are high quality RS, and they do address the issues you've brought up. Critical thinking required - you will find answers to your questions in each of the articles published by the sources. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 22:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got 80 sources on this, Atsme, I'm not looking to "Google" some more. I'm looking for you to show me some sources that support what you're claiming, and you're not delivering. Until you do, I can't take your claims seriously.
 * As for CJR - here's some more bits. The first and the third are particularly strong, based on scholars and on a good piece of investigative journalism, respectively; the second is based on research by an NGO, and the fourth gives you the general gist of how Fox is seen in media circles:
 * Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows)
It would have saved a lot of confusion above if I had been more specific and referred to Fox News (talk shows) as discussed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Sorry about that.

The specific news department does occasionally disagree with the talk show hosts and tell the truth. Unfortunately, some editors believe the talk show hosts and disbelieve the news department when the news department corrects them, and then those editors defend Fox News as a whole, as evidenced by their repetition and defense of the lies told by Trump which Fox News defends and pushes.

We need to completely deprecate the talk shows. THAT is what I want to see happen. Can anyone here seriously disagree that Hannity, Ingraham, Tucker, Beck, Levin, Dobbs, et al, never debunk Trump's lies, but push them as a rule, not as an exception? (If a specific talk show consistently tells the truth, we can make an exception for them.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about a different but related suggestion. Too often we are dealing with sources that blend news and commentary.  Some sources kindly say "this is an OpEd" while others, are far less clear where they are simply reporting the facts vs where they are offering interpretations.  Many of the sources that are considered to be moderate to far left or right are there not because they disagree with the basic facts but based on what they say the facts mean.  The talk shows are largely opinion based commentary but are given a handy "OpEd" label.  The same is true of many parts of stories from sources like The Huffington Post, Mother Jones and etc. Perhaps if we just acknowledge that the lines aren't clearly black and white we could start to treat the sources (from left to right) as commentary rather than fact more often and we could avoid some of the debates.  Springee (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We deal with opinions by attributing them, but when they are counterfactual, we give them less weight, often to the point of ignoring them. If those lies and conspiracy theories become notable, then we cover them. Sources that have a habit of repeating lies or treating them as facts should be deprecated because they are obviously not "reliable" in even the most basic sense. We do not use unreliable sources. Even lies must be sourced to RS.
 * Most of Fox News talking heads are engaging in disinformation, as Trump generally does. He has repeated some falsehoods so many times that he has effectively engaged in disinformation. Sources which do the same should be treated like we treat him. We do not cite Trump for facts for the following reason: "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) I couldn't have said it better, and editors who believe RS agree with those immortal words by MPants. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Which all takes me back to the idea of why dont we just treat all news media as fundamentally not reliable for any breaking news story.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The lesser reliability of breaking news stories is addressed at WP:RSBREAKING. I think it's unlikely for there to be consensus on a measurable definition of "breaking news" (e.g. number of days since the event). The Current template informs readers that "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable", and should be added to affected articles. —  Newslinger  talk   18:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We tend to wait a few days for things to settle down. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. François Robere (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Waiting a few days really isn't enough time for validation or verification of accuracy in subjective, politically motivated news reports. Investigations continue in the Russia conspiracy theory in an effort to determine exactly what led to the Mueller investigation and what role the Trump-Russia dossier played in the grand scheme. The only conclusion to date is that the Mueller investigation did not confirm what the Democrat's theorized about Trump-Russia collusion. Oh, and I linked to Rasmussen's "political commentary" because of what was suggested above. Non-broadcast sites appear to be more upfront about marking their op-eds, political commentary, etc. although a few still falsely present political commentary as news. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 02:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Investigations continue in the Russia conspiracy theory in an effort to determine exactly what led to the Mueller investigation and what role the Trump-Russia dossier played in the grand scheme." ???
 * Those investigations are part of a cover-up and distraction of the proven role of Russia in the election. It was Russia, not Ukraine, which interfered in the election. The Dossier's role is also well-known. We also know very clearly "what led to the Mueller investigation". The Dossier came after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation had started. Already in 2015, the CIA was receiving evidence of wrongdoing by Trump campaign people and other associates, but it wasn't until Papadopoulos role was told by the Australians that they could start the investigation. THAT is what led to the Russian investigation, which was subsumed into the Mueller investigation. Failure to believe this narrative is a failure to believe what RS tell us (read our articles and believe them!!) and, instead, believing what unreliable sources say. That is a serious deficiency, to put it mildly. There is a term for that here, but my sanction forbids me from saying it. Others may say it.
 * Current investigations are just part of the Trump/Russian attempts to smear the Dossier, and those who still consider this all a "Russia conspiracy theory" are refusing to accept what RS have told us in their crystal ball hope that future cover-up attempts will succeed in rewriting history and will whitewash Trump and his administration of their collusion with Russia. They won't accept the fact that the Russian election interference happened with Trump's full cooperation and desire, and that is not a "conspiracy theory".
 * Fortunately, we have honest public servants (some Trump appointees) who dare to tell the truth, and now Trump's false Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory is being exposed by the honest people who were in the middle of it. The testimony today was damning. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think there is anything we know "clearly" at this point in time. It is still under investigation. I think The Nation laid out the Mueller report clearly - they refer to the Trump-Russia collusion allegations as a "conspiracy theory" - we simply say what RS say: "As a result, Mueller’s report provides the opposite of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself."  As for the behind-closed-doors impeachment inquisition inquiry, it lacks transparency and credibility because of the partisanship behind it. The reporting by the same RS that pushed the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory proved nothing, much the same way nothing has been proven about the inquisition inquiry.  You even criticized the NYTimes for sloppy reporting in the recent past. I'm of the mind that we should continue exercising caution and more closely adhere to WP:RECENTISM in an effort to avoid POV speculation. It will all come out in the wash. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , you've conflated The Nation as a news outlet, with The Nation's opinion columnists: columnists for any media are not considered RS. You are quoting "opinion" as if it were "reliable journalism". From W:Reliable sources: "There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline." ToolmakerSteve (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, ToolmakerSteve. I think perhaps you misunderstood my comment. I simply shared an opinion about the article and quoted a statement they published while informally demonstrating the attribution process. This is a discussion forum, not an article so I don’t understand your criticism and if it’s not the latter, then I’m confused about the point you’re trying to make. The Nation is described on WP as “covering progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis.” If you disagree with that description, may I suggest raising the issue on the TP of that article? <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 📧 23:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I find your comment profoundly concerning. We absolutely do know some things. The Mueller report found evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia (i.e. offers the campaign "welcomed" and in some cases reciprocated, including providing internal polling data to Russians) and documented several instances of obstruction of justice, including all three elements of obstruction. Mueller confirmed this to the House during his own testimony. The "oranges" investigation is blatantly pretextual and is founded on the "deep state" conspiracy theory, its bastard child "spygate", and latterly the false claim that Joseph Mifsud was a deep state asset rather than a Russian one. If you genuinely believe the Fox News view of the "oranges" of the Mueller investigation then I have to question your competence to opine on sourcing in the area of politics. The claims have been investigated by the Senate and the Inspector-General and found to be bullshit: the FBI investigation started because Australia reported Papadopoulos' drunken ramblings to their Ambassador. We can be reasonably confident from current reporting that MI6 also reported suspicious links between Russia and Trump. It is not a surprise that this wasn't well handled, there has never been a situation before where a neck-and-neck candidate in a presidential race has suddenly shown evidence of being an asset of a hostile foreign power. Trump's campaign manager was an unregistered foreign agent. His National Security adviser was an unregistered foreign agent. Rick Gates was also acting on behalf of a foreign power. As was Sam Patten. Have you not read the articles on Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen, Kilimnik, the IRA? And of course Butina and Giuliani and Parnas and Fruman and Pecker and Stone and the rest? Even if Trump were innocent, the profound shadiness of his inner circle would be ample grounds for suspicion.
 * The Nation calls the Trump/Russia thing a "conspiracy theory". No reality-based source does. Mueller documented approaches to the Trump campaign from the GRU that were welcomed. It documents some responses. It shows that at no point did the campaign do what it should have done (and was required to do by law), which is to contact the FBI. The fact that Russia interfered with the US election is reliably established. With the exception of a fatuous "report" by Devin Nunes, every single investigation has backed that up. Mueller, the Senate, the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the House once not under Tea Party control, the DoJ, Jim Mattis, Mike Pompeo at State, and of course multiple foreign intelligence services including MI6. Nobody disputes this other than Team Trump.
 * The objective facts about the Steele dossier are: Christopher Steele was a long-time British intelligence operative, he ran the MI6 Russia desk from 2006-2009, and is respected by both British and US intelligence. His report was originally commissioned as opposition research by Republicans, then taken up by Democrats after Republicans dropped the contract. It's likely Steele sold it to the Dems because he saw that it contained some bad facts for Trump. The FBI used it in a cautious and appropriate way: their FISA warrant applications contained extensive footnotes informing the court of the nature of the report and its funding sources. The FISA warrants were not based solely on Steele. The FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was not started by the Steele dossier, it was prompted by reports from Australian and likely also British intelligence of unusual contacts between Papdopoulos and the Russians (and possibly other contacts). The fixation on Steele has worked well for the right, and they are repeating it again now with the "whistleblower", but in the real world this is exactly the same as a gang of bank robbers complaining that the person who reported overhearing them plotting worked for the bank or the police. Almost all FISA warrants are approved, and the FBI can investigate any report they deem credible. Pointing at the "oranges" to draw attention away form the extremely damning facts elucidated by the resulting investigation is a political gambit, and any competent Wikipedian should recognise it as such because the facts are by now so well known. Unless you only read right-wing media. But right-wing media are disconnected form the reality-based media these days (cf. Network Propaganda), and it is a massive problem if an editor lives in that bubble.
 * Trump (rightly) believes that the fact Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the fact Mueller discovered evidence of collusion and multiple counts of obstruction of justice, undermines the legitimacy of his presidency. Trump probably realises that he did indeed lose the popular vote by the largest margin of any elected president since the modern two-party system began, and that his electoral college victory depended on a total of 77,000 votes in three states that were heavily targeted by Russian social media influence campaigns using data stolen by Cambridge Analytica and internal polling provided to him by Manafort. Moscow Mitch certainly knows, and that's presumably why he is determined not to pass legislation to protect the 2020 election.
 * The Barr investigation is a terrifying abuse of executive power which would, on its own, have led to impeachment of any Democratic president who tried to pull a stunt like that. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch talked for a couple of minutes on the tarmac at an airport and the conservative media completely lost its shit, Trump has sent his attorney general to travel the world to pressure foreign allies into supporting a revisionist history to support his own reputation, and to pursue his political enemies. Guy (help!) 16:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict with JzG.

User:Atsme, so you continue to refuse to believe the RS we use in our articles, and instead are pushing Trump's counter-narrative/conspiracy theories?

Atsme, we DO know "what led to the Mueller investigation".


 * 1) It started when the intelligence agencies from eight European allies began to record very troubling conversations between Trump assets and Russian assets as they planned how to disrupt the election. They were just performing their routine surveillance of known Russian spies, and suddenly lots of Trump people were recorded talking to them and scheming. Those secret meetings were myriad, held all over Europe, and kept very secret. The Trump campaign has denied and lied about all of them. That's classic conspiratorial behavior.
 * 2) Those eight agencies started to report their findings to the CIA and FBI in 2015. (Even further back, in 2013 Trump was already discussing his plans with Russians, not Americans, to run for president in 2016, and we have evidence that already then the Russians told him very publicly (Facebook and Twitter) that they would support his candidacy. The illegal and unpatriotic plans to disrupt our democratic elections were in the works for a long time before 2016.)
 * 3) As this information from the secret meetings accumulated, the CIA and FBI were slow to respond. The CIA is not allowed to surveil Americans, and the FBI needed more proof. They were waiting for conclusive proof that these people were not acting on their own, but were informing the Trump campaign.
 * 4) That proof finally came when the Australian government reported about the Papadopoulos meetings which proved that he was reporting back to the campaign, acting on their behalf, and that the campaign had insider prior knowledge about the Russian hacking of the DNC and about how the Russians got the stolen mails to WikiLeaks and planned to release them at the most destructive time during the election. 5-6 days later the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the ongoing and widespread Russian interference.
 * 5) Much later the Dossier added some information, but the FBI only believed it because they had other sources which could independently confirm what the Dossier's sources reported.
 * 6) Later that Crossfire Hurricane investigation was subsumed into the Mueller investigation.
 * 7) Even Repuplican leaders and the Nunes Report confirm this narrative.
 * 8) THIS is the narrative which RS tell us.
 * 9) THIS is what we write in our articles.

Atsme, what part of this narrative do you not believe? (Feel free to use the numbers.) How can you edit here while holding such counter-RS views? Why do you keep pushing such views here? I thought you were sanctioned and warned about this path you're on. Pushing this narrative seems to violate your sanction. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * BR, what you know is what the media published, and that's all we're supposed to know, but keep in mind, we must adhere to NPOV when making our selections in whatever RS we cite. As for my concern about RECENTISM, John Durham is currently investigating the investigators regarding the Trump-Russia investigation, and it's not just Fox News reporting it. When Durham's report is finalized, that is when we will know what really happened, but RSN is not the forum for us to discuss politics. I'll repeat once more that I will honor whatever consensus says about the reliability of Fox News, so call your RfC.  Happy editing! <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 📧 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * NPOV is not the average between reality-based sources and bullshit. You say "what the media published", but that's not where we get these facts from, or at least not entirely. There are court transcripts and findings of fact, reports by US and other intelligence agencies, by the Senate and House committees, inspectors-general, and the Mueller report itself. The only holdouts are Team Trump, including Fox News. And Fox are pushing the manufactured counter-narrative (bluntly, propaganda) on most of this. That's a big reason why Fox is not reliable for anything other than ABOUTSELF at this point. I refer you again to Network Propaganda, an excellent book recommended to me by Mike Godwin. Guy (help!) 18:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * what you know is what the media published And what we know about the universe is what scientists publish. That's how it works. We summarize what was published, not argue with it and not conjecture on what might be published at some point in the future. Guy and BR's comments follow that principle; yours very much doesn't. And no, the Washington Examiner is not an RS. François Robere (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Atsme, the Washington Examiner is not a RS, but a purveyor and backer of the counterfactual narrative pushed by Trump, his allies, and Russia, the enemy of YOUR country, a narrative which you believe and push here. They are lying to you. It's not right that you read them or cite them. We should only use and support what RS say.
 * I have described the sequence of events which "led to the Mueller investigation" (your words). What part of that narrative don't you believe and why? You are evading. I suspect it's because you don't believe what RS say because you base your beliefs on what unreliable sources say, and you aren't allowed to use them in articles here. You shouldn't use them on talk pages either. If I have misrepresented things you've said, then please explain. I can only go by what you write and the sources you do use, and they are invariably unreliable sources.
 * The ideas you voice are only found in fringe and unreliable sources, and now you're defending them right here, on the "Reliable notices noticeboard", of all places, so this conversation is extremely relevant to discuss HERE. I fear you are being misled. We love you as a person, but we are concerned for your well-being and your influence as an editor. This is sad. Please clarify. Your defense of unreliable sources at the "Reliable sources Noticeboard" is sad and alarming.
 * Above, Guy pointed out the problematic nature of your "opine[ing] on sourcing in the area of politics", and that problem needs to be dealt with. It's a violation of your sanction. This must stop. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean Washington Examiner is a RS for certain things. Also the three of you really need to chill out. PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed." It's a tabloid owned by a cult, handle with extreme caution, and the statements referenced fall solidly with the area of unreliability. As to chill out, well, maybe. Someone we think is nice, is seriously advocating that Fox News is a RS based on references to right-wing propaganda. That's a concern, especially given her history of advocating John Birch Society fringe nonsense at G. Edward Griffin. Network Propaganda is a very detailed analysis of the influences on Fox content, that shows why our historical acceptance of Fox should not persist. As a data point, Shep Smith has left. He was the only reliably mainstream voice on Fox. Mainstream is not the opposite of conservative, mainstream is the group of sources that collectively share a commitment to empirical reality. Many of us who love America are terrified of the current situation, where the President freely mixes fact and fiction and a substantial proportion of the US population, according to the media they are tracked as watching and sharing, have minimal exposure to factual coverage of important issues of the day, and extensive exposure to distorted or outright false versions. Easily a third of the US is being told that literal conspiracy theories are the true explanation, when every form of evidence usually considered reliable (intelligence agencies, IG reports, court findings of fact etc) says the opposite. That cannot be allowed to creep into Wikipedia content. Guy (help!) 12:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In these post-truth Trumpian political times, "fringe editors" often have a strong Trump bias and point of view because they adopt Trump's open animosity toward RS,    and believe his untruths and the fake news stories circulated in his support and attacking those he does not like, especially Obama and Clinton.
 * These editors consider the RS we use to be fake news. Their bias and point of view are directly opposed to our RS guideline. Because these editors are so at odds with RS, which are the basis of all editing here, they should be monitored carefully. They cannot be trusted. They often create problems and disruption because they imbibe these unreliable sources. Note that not all Trump voters are like this, but the hardcore supporters are, and a few of them edit here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what RSP says no consensus, which is not the same as not a RS. This is not something that is being used in an article either so again no idea why you think reliability in general is an issue here. Finally for both of you, this is not a forum for your personal views. PackMecEng (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will agree that there are a lot of new editors or IPs that come in with "left-leaning sources are bad" and challenge established RSes, which we're never going to do; they are RSes for the reasons defined in WP:RS and having some bias is not a reason to dismiss these. But that said: I personally have zero love of Trump, and absolutely do not agree on the "fake news" claims made. But I will stand behind the fact that with Trump in office, many of the quality sources have slipped in a lot more bias towards the left which, when coupled with continued growth of opinionated journalism, makes distinguishing good news articles from op-eds disguised as news articles in some of these RSes tricky, and we should at least be aware of this matter. CNN is one of the worst offenders, but the WaPost is not too far behind in that they have blatant dislike of Trump across the board, at least when scanning through their headline articles. It doesn't make these RSes any worse in RSes but we should consider how a piece is framed on a case-by-case basis to determine if it is actually trying to just report impartially or throwing its media weight around. And this is something difficult to convince editors to consider: there's a lot of editors that go "If it is an RS and not labeled Op-Ed, everything said should be treated at face value." This is where things like RECENTISM needs to be kept in mind. Today is not the right time to try to be making encyclopedic articles that are based on judgement calls made by the media and instead should more closely stick to facts, and only well after Trump is out of office should we start really considering how media opinion of him comes about. These issues, which have been validly brought up in discussions, should not be swept into the same cries from the new/IP editors that want to make out left-leaning sources as "fake news".
 * At the same time, the Trump situation has made the bias in right-leaning RSes far more apparent (as in the case of Fox News here) who are often lock-step in with Trump's claims, so that's even more important to distinguish Fox's actual journalism (which is normally fine, they are an RS by definition) from anything with their talking-heads programs. --M asem (t) 15:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the NYTimes just published a bit of breaking news that aligns with some of the FoxNews predictions. IG will be publishing his report soon re: the FISA investigation, and it will be interesting to see how the media spins presents all this news as time progresses. I’m certainly in no hurry to rush to judgment, especially when all we have to go on is breaking news and/or news sources to build this encyclopedia. <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 📧 01:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , No, the NYT does not "align with Fox News predictions". Fox is promoting the fiction that the Russia inquiry was an inside job by Democrats. NYT is reporting that Trump has deployed the DoJ to pursue the people he accuses of being responsible for the investigation, using criminal charges.
 * This is in line with his widely-reported attempts to identify the Ukraine whistleblower, who he would undoubtedly target as he has done McCabe, Ohr and the rest.
 * But do feel free to show me examples where Fox has pointed out that using the DoJ to pursue perceived political enemies is wildly inappropriate, as identified by sources quoted by the NYT and others. Guy (help!) 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy, when you quote something i said, please quote it accurately (my bold) “... and the NYTimes just published a bit of breaking news that aligns with some of the FoxNews predictions.” <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 📧 19:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , But it doesn't. And even if it did, it would be a coincidence: Fox News' conspiracist bullshit predicting something that the reality of terrifying abuse of executive power also predicts. Guy (help!) 23:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Having a lot of headlines that look "anti-X" doesn't necessarily imply bias - it can just as well stem from "X" being a "bad" subject. That's why these things are measured comparatively and not by us. American media is well-studied, and according to RS Fox is aberrant in the media landscape. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Understanding shifting biases is important but as I said, bias alone does not enter into whether something is an RS or not. Nor do I disagree with the stance that any Fox News talking head problem should be avoided like the plague as a source here, and that if we can get coverage from beyond Fox News' news desk coverage (which still meets the requirements of a RS), that would be better. But on the talking head issue, the same problems in talking head works at other RSes (op-eds, analysis pieces, etc.) are also apparent with their bias, and we absolutely should not be using such pieces, at least when discussing a very recent thing, because of the bias they exhibit. The reason to avoid Fox News talking heads has several more problems atop the bias and RECENTISM (eg promotion of false or questionable info), but any talking head opinion show or piece is trouble within WP for an ongoing topic particularly in the current media landscape. --M asem (t) 14:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , You are correct, but you have missed an important point. I refer again to Network Propaganda. This details negative effects Fox was experiencing by pursuing mainstream narratives around Trump (e.g. reporting on his profoundly shady business career), the effect this had on shares, its loss of social media share - and hence click-based ad revenue - to Breitbart, and its switch during 2016 to uncritical Trump support, which then saw its social shares returning.
 * Compare the following:
 * Maddow is biased. She admits it. If she makes a factually incorrect statement and fails to correct is, she suffers reputational damage with her audience. Liberals consume a wider range of media than conservatives, and tend to value factual accuracy even wen it conflicts with preferred narratives.
 * Carlson is biased. He doesn't admit it. If he makes a factually correct but ideologically inconvenient statement, he suffers criticism from Fox's one-man Nielsen ratings. If he makes a factually incorrect but ideologically acceptable statement he suffers no penalty at all. He might be fact-checked by the mainstream media, but his audience, for the most part, never see that.
 * The evidence very clearly shows systematic and asymmetric polairisation and bias in the media. The Wall Street Journal is a right-leaning mainstream RS. Fos is not mainstream any more, it is part of the right wing media bubble and cannot be trusted unless corroborated by a mainstream source (in which case why use Fox?). Guy (help!) 17:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just carefully read the two comments above, each by someone who I respect and almost always agree with. Then I read them again, and really considered them. I have to go with Masem on this one, and I do not think he/she missed any important points. This may, of course simply be because of my unconscious bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * bias alone does not enter into whether something is an RS or not Of course it does. What is "bias"? It's the tendency of an outlet to sway from objective or meaningful coverage of real events. "Bias" taken to the extreme becomes "propaganda", at which point it's no longer useful for us. Fox has been dubbed "propaganda" by multiple RS. We cannot go counter to RS. François Robere (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bias is not a reason to reject a source, that is explicitly stated in policy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bias ALONE is not a reason, but extreme bias certainly is a factor. When it becomes propaganda, consistent failure to fact check, repetition and pushing of Trump's proven lies, and even providing him with false narratives which he immediately tweets, then we're dealing with a very unreliable source which fails our requirements for being considered a RS.
 * We are talking about Fox News talk show hosts, not the News division. Keep that in mind. We often think that Trump invents these lies, but there are numerous times where it is evident he is watching Fox and Friends or Hannity and they create a new lie and/or false narrative, and he then tweets it and starts using it, often before the show has even ended. Fox News is writing our foreign policy. These Fox News talk show hosts literally manufacture false narratives as a feature, not a bug. They should be deprecated. They do not fact check or self-correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the point made was that bias alone could be a reason, not it has to go beyond bias to inaccuracy. Whilst is may be that Fox news talk shows may well fit that I do not think it is clear cut enough (are all of them this bad, most?) to have a blanket ban.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, they are that bad. (See my response to Masem immediately below.) If there is an exceptional talk show host or show which doesn't fit this pattern, we can make a specific exception for them, as they are an exception which proves the rule.
 * I think we can agree that EXTREME bias alone, because it ignores, hides, or totally distorts facts, makes a source so unreliable that we must deprecate it, especially when they do this on a consistent basis. We should not use misinformation sources. In the current political climate, we see this manifested as a consistent pushing of Trump's lies, without fact-checking or pushing back, but rather serving as a bullhorn to magnify the deception. I can't think of any Fox News talk shows where this isn't the pattern, but correct me if I'm wrong. We'll make an exception for such a show or host. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Extreme bias should not be a reason to rule out a source, but it should be a consider to ask "are they fact-checking? are they in editorial control?" Those reasons are sufficient to say a source is not an RS, which comes as a result of extreme bias, but that bias is not the reason to block the source. --M asem (t) 16:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem. I fully agree. There are some very biased sources which stick close to the truth, but they are rare. It is only when their bias causes them to consistently subvert the truth that we should take action and deprecate them. The same principle applies to editors. Editors are free to believe whatever they want, but when their beliefs cause them to violate policy, push POV found in unreliable sources, use unreliable sources, and/or denigrate facts found in RS, it is THEN that we should start using topic bans. It is not the belief, in and of itself, that we censure, it is the actions which "come as a result of extreme bias" that cause us to take action. We're on the same page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would mention the news division as well - it's far from being the best source out there, and shouldn't be used where better sources are available. See for example here - 60 pages full of 4 months worth of errors and possible lies ("mistruths", if you'd prefer a euphemism) from Fox News news anchors. François Robere (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is still the exception when the news division pushes back against Trump's lies, and the last time that Shep Smith did it, Carlson criticized him and the leadership did not give Smith the backing he should have gotten, thus revealing the agenda of the Fox News network as a whole. That was the last straw for him and he left Fox News. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Others have pointed out, but there can be extremely biased sources that do do fact checking and do make announced error corrections, all fundamental parts of determining whether something is an RS, and thus would still be an RS. But at that point, now it does become an UNDUE factor. It is just that experience tells us that there actually very few works at these points as bias often tends towards extremism when it is that strong, so fact-checking goes out the door to support that bias. This is why it is important to stress that the Fox News journalism side, which is pro-Trump in general, does do all that, maybe not with the rigor of the Old Grey Mare, but its there. I'd opt to use another source if there's that option, but I would not reject a Fox News article (not op-ed) otherwise. --M asem (t) 14:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem, what you say does apply to the strictly News dept, but not at all to the opinions and talk shows. They are consistently pushing misinformation which they do not correct. Instead they double down on it. Therefore they, not the News dept., should be deprecated. If there is an exceptional talk show host or show which doesn't fit this pattern, we can make a specific exception for them, as they are an exception which proves the rule. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement on all of Fox's talking head shows on the general principle that they are known to push falsehoods. Never been a question. But I'm speaking in the general broad case to keep in mind beyond just Fox. --M asem  (t) 16:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's more than that. See my comments above. Fox suffers damage if it publishes reality that contradicts Trump, whereas mainstream sources suffer damage if they don't. Guy (help!) 00:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not like censorship ala China if that is what you are getting, nor a state-sponsored work subject to gov't review. Fox has decided to stick to its pro-Trump slate on its own volition, and would only be harming its image among its viewers if they went with a anti-Trump piece. That's the same with any biased source. What is harmed is public awareness when the media as individual entities "pick sides" and try to play as persuaders rather than reporters. This is 100% what the Fox talking heads do, but this is also what the op-ed pages of most mainstream sources do and what opinionated journalism does as well. They don't lose - we do as the consumers of news and in our cases, as people trying to write up articles of permanence for these topics. --M asem  (t) 01:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's more than that. See my comments above. Fox suffers damage if it publishes reality that contradicts Trump, whereas mainstream sources suffer damage if they don't. Guy (help!) 00:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not like censorship ala China if that is what you are getting, nor a state-sponsored work subject to gov't review. Fox has decided to stick to its pro-Trump slate on its own volition, and would only be harming its image among its viewers if they went with a anti-Trump piece. That's the same with any biased source. What is harmed is public awareness when the media as individual entities "pick sides" and try to play as persuaders rather than reporters. This is 100% what the Fox talking heads do, but this is also what the op-ed pages of most mainstream sources do and what opinionated journalism does as well. They don't lose - we do as the consumers of news and in our cases, as people trying to write up articles of permanence for these topics. --M asem  (t) 01:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that statements on opinion news shows, just as in newspaper op-ed pages, cannot be cited as facts. If nothing else, the commentators are presumably getting their facts from a journalistic, reportorial source, and that's what we should be citing instead. So the evening Fox News broadcast, like The CBS Evening News etc., would be WP:RS for facts, but not something like a Sean Hannity or a Rachel Maddow opinion/commentary show. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Republicans ‘Are Having Trouble With the Facts’ Says Fox News’ Chris Wallace:


 * "Fox News’ Chris Wallace was at it again on Friday, filling the void of truth-telling on a “news” network that defends President Donald Trump regardless of the facts....What Wallace is doing is important. Of course, he’s only stating obvious facts, but with Shep Smith gone from the “news” network viewers are mostly left with wall-to-wall Trump propaganda. So, although Wallace’s honesty should not stand out, unfortunately it does. He’s flying solo and because of that, he deserves credit."

Just sayin'... -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This is 100% what the Fox talking heads do, but this is also what the op-ed pages of most mainstream sources do and what opinionated journalism does as well No, it's not. FN is unfortonutely unique in the American media landscape: That's not comparable to any other outlet. See here for a brief discussion of how other outlets treat "opinion journalism". François Robere (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lauren Feldman, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University: “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.”
 * Andy Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics and Public affairs at Princeton University: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”
 * A.J. Bauer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, contrasts “esteemed outlets like the New York Times” with “an outlet (Fox) with dubious ethical standards and loose commitments to empirical reality.”
 * Daniel Kreiss, Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Media and Journalism: “Fox’s appeal lies in the network’s willingness to explicitly entwine reporting and opinion in the service of Republican, and white identity.” (emphasis mine)
 * Christopher Browning, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, refers to Fox as "privatized propaganda".
 * Nicole Hemmer, Assistant Professor of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia, refers to FN as “the closest we’ve come to having state TV.”
 * But again, focusing strictly on Fox News' journalism deck, not their talk shows or op-eds, there hasn't been any evidence of them not doing the job that we expect of an RS: FN's journalism has not made up facts (like Breitbart or Sun), they have editorial controls, and they have published corrections when wrong. Not to the rigor of the NYTimes, but for purposes of WP:RS, nothing else matters. I understand the appeal that FN's journalism desk sitting next to the hotbed of disinformation from their op-eds is a scary combination, and there are certainly signs that the news desk is locked into a pro-Trump appropriate to reporting, but as long as we are sticking to their journalism, there has been no sign of any inappropriate steps taken by them. Selective coverage and bias does not affect evaluation of RS directly. If FN journalism ever crosses that line, then we can rule them out as an RS. What is being made difficult here is trying to emphasis that we need to look and seperate the content generated by FN between its journalism and its op-ed/talk show areas. The broadcast network is near impossible to distinguish and I would never ever consider trying to use a video segment of FN for that (which to many of the articles you list out above, I would completely agree with how those sentiments apply. I've had to watch FN while at gyms and the like and I feel like it is outright propagada at times). But their website coverage is clearly split between news and op-en/etc, and when they are doing their journalism job, it's reasonably good journalism. --M asem (t) 14:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem, yes, there is a difference between the News desk and the talk shows, but this section is a "Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows). It would have saved a lot of confusion above if I had been more specific and referred to Fox News (talk shows) as discussed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Sorry about that. The specific news department does occasionally disagree with the talk show hosts and tell the truth." Now that Shep Smith is gone, there is even less justification to give any positive rating.
 * What we need to do is to deprecate the talk shows. We already have separate ratings at Reliable sources/Perennial sources:
 * "Fox News (news and website)" is rated "Generally_reliable", with this caveat: "Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion." The website should not be included. It is unreliable.
 * "Fox News (talk shows)" is rated "No consensus". That should be changed to "Deprecated", never use, even with atttribution". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliability vs UNDUE weight
We have been focused on the reliability of various news outlets, but perhaps we need to examine them from a different angle... that of undue weight. Specifically, does the way that Wikipedia uses news media give UNDUE weight to rumor and unsubstantiated opinion? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, Blueboar. Such decisions are based primarily on one’s perspective and how closely an editor adheres to NPOV when choosing the RS to cite. I tend to favor pragmatic journalism in RS that publish all views without opinion/speculation. Of course, responsible editing can make that happen in their summary of the event, (facts only please), and if they do see fit to include a particular POV, do it according to our PAGs with in-text attribution, but also include any rebuttal (if there is one) so our readers can make their own determinations. <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 📧 18:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To that, I would add the following. In my opinion, majority of POV disputes could be easily avoided if all sources used in some article are of the same level of reliability. Thus, if one viewpoint is supported by scholarly peer-reviewed publications, that means an article published in some local newspaper and authored by a person with zero credentials should not be accepted to support an alternative POV. That will easily deprive POV pushers of any tools to advance their POV: if one viewpoint is supported by the The American Historical Review article authored by a renown professor, it would be unacceptable to use the article from some local newspaper to support the opposite view.
 * In addition, I've just checked our policy, and it says that mainstream newspapers are considered reliable sources. It says nothing about newspapers in general, and that leads to some problems, because some users believe that, for example, any publication in any newspaper can be used, for example, in history related articles. Taking into account that many local newspapers have a tendency to publish questionable articles, we have a situation when Wikipedia de facto becomes a collection of various rumors. I suggest to move this discussion to the WP:V page, because it seems our policy needs some clarification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a real problem. I've been working on Michael Davitt, and a previous version of the article claimed, based on an article in the Scranton Times Tribune (Scranton, Pennsylvania) by a no-name, no-credential author, that Davitt had an influence on Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence. As far as I can tell, this is an apocryphal story that spread on the Internet, as it isn't mentioned in multiple Gandhi biographies. However, there are some editors who would argue that as long as the information isn't explicitly contradicted it ought to be in the article, because the Tribune is a RS, and you can't cite a negative. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 19:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , a good source will distinguish between fact and speculation. We should include fact, we should not include speculation - about living individuals especially - unless it is so overwhelmingly prominent that we can't ignore it. Guy (help!) 17:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel it should be pointed out that undue is about significant viewpoints, not accurate or qualified ones. Thus is 100 media RS say "X" we says X, unless better qualified sources say "X is not true".Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, if 100 RS news outlets are all discussing X, then X is probably important enough for us to mention. The question is... when only one or two are discussing X, is it UNDUE for us to mention X? Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Has to be case by case, hell we have whole articles based on 2 RS. Also what happens when you have 1 academic source and then 1 or 2 media sources reporting or discussing it? I think it is not black and white enough for some blanket rule.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it is best judged “case by case”... but I think we could use more guidance to help us make those case by case decisions.
 * At the moment, we seem to be operating on a purely WP:V/WP:RS basis (that if something is reported in an RS news outlet, we are allowed to mention it based on WP:V)... but, WP:V isn’t the only policy in play. we also need to examine content on a WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE basis.  Content can be verifiable (supported by RS Media) and yet still not worth mentioning based on UNDUE.  It is a grey zone, so we need more guidance to help us navigate that grey zone. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have made that point myself on a few articles. But this is a sub thread that has nothing really to do with that, but rather to use of wiki fact checkers to determine RS quality, undue is unrelated to RS and has its own forum.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of this goes back to RECENTISM. Our coverage of a breaking event should be on primarily facts and very little on opinion, even if that's a "significant" view, when the event is just happening. UNDUE is best applied well after the event to just what the more perennial coverage gives to a topic. And that is where it may be fine that only a few sources are supporting the UNDUE facets, as long as they high quality RSes looking back at the topic. A NYtimes long-form describing views of, say, the proceedings around Nixon's impeachment would be fine, but not sufficient today for those around Trump's. But that's unfortunately where editors love to dump tons of high-quality RS opinions and the like, and that's yet another problem. UNDUE really needs to consider the time factor. --M asem  (t) 15:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The opinion we avoid reporting is our own. The opinion of major commentators at the NYT or Fox are not only RSs for what they say, but can be just as important in the evaluation and significance of events as the events themselves--and sometimes, it seems of even more importance. The problem is including them in proportion, and the question that keeps being raised above is how to make the decision on proportion.  We every one of us have the tendency to believe what we want to believe. We each would very much like to believe that the overwhelming majority of people in our country feel the same way as we do on major political questions, and that here is consequently no real need to consider the other position.  Anyone realistic must admit that, whichever side we are on, at best a fairly slim majority do will agree with us, though people in the country are divided between which side the majority is. (The people here at WP who discuss US political articles do seem to have a great majority on one particular side, but if NPOV means anything, that should be irrelevant to how we write our articles). As for the country, a year from now we will have an actual vote on this, and can anyone really think that the vote for the side they favor will be 90% or even 70%? The most recent President to get even 60% was Nixon in 1972.  We should consider ourselves very fotunate if  our favored side gets a majority at all. Or shall we be like a certain political figure who keeps insisting that his side always is in a great majority despite the numbers?  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * More specifically. Let us say that I am convinced that one side are true patriots devoted to the truth, and the other side selfish scoundrels, trying to propagate lies. That does not entitle me on WP to label them accordingly,no matter how much I think it matters that people see it as I do. The most I will do on-wikito express my actual views is to give a hint of them on as talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We should never be including our opinion, but my point is that we should not be racing to include the seemingly DUE opinion of major sources related to some event/action while that event is still going on or just happened, unless that opinion is part of the event itself. RECENTISM is about waiting for the dust to settle, and then apply UNDUE and weight and determine what's the best way to present how opinions were for the permanency of a WP article. Maybe it ends up that while the media disliked how someone behaved during an event, academics come to believe it was for the better good. How'd we write such would be best done after enough time has passed to get that sense, which may take years depending. Unless the opinion is part of the event, it is impossible to judge UNDUE appropriately in the midst and immediate wake of an event - its a kind of Heisenberg principle for current events. We also need to consider worldwide views, not just, say, the US for US events. Phrases like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" are kind of valuable here to understand that as an impartial encyclopedia we should be looking to write from judging the world view where ever that is appropriate, and that again takes time to figure out, and not in the midst of an event. --M asem (t) 14:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Movie Chambers and One Guys Opinion
I came across this website while looking for film reviews for an article, and it seems that while the sole reviewer there, Paul Chambers, has been creating film reviews since '86 for different news orgamizations (CNN among them), it would appear to fail RS as there appears to be no editorial oversight. I also came across another film review site, "One Guy's Opinion" run by a professor History at the University of Dallas named Dr. Frank Sweitek. According to his bio on the site, "Under the initials FS, he’s been the film critic of the University News since 1988, has discussed movies on air at KRLD-AM (Dallas) and KOMO-AM (Seattle), and can now be heard talking about the week’s openings on KLIF-AM (Dallas) every Friday at 6:17am...He’s also the founding president of the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association, a group of print, broadcast and web journalists covering film in the Metroplex, and a member of the Online Film Critics Society. His reviews are also included on the Rotten Tomatoes website." Again, an apparently well-read reviewer, but a website without editorial oversight. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is allowed to write reviews for Rotten Tomatoes?Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion one way or another except to note that, per WP:SPS, self published sources are not entirely forbidden; in general self published sources by recognized experts in a particular field are generally thought carry the reputation of the expert and thus be reliable on their own without additional "editorial oversight". If a person were a recognized and well regarded expert in the field of film criticism, their own self-published works may be reliable.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, of note here, is the purpose of the citation you are looking to make from these sites. A self-published source is a perfectly reliable source for quoting itself.  Every source reliably quotes itself (self-evidently).  If the text you are quoting is actually in the work you are citing, the work is perfectly reliable for that purpose of providing the quote itself.  However, if you are asking if the person who wrote the quote you are reproducing is, themselves, worth quoting, that's a different question.  In the case of film reviews, it isn't reliability (after all, a person should be self-evidently reliable in correctly reporting their own personal feelings about a film), but rather things like WP:UNDUE; it isn't that we don't believe the person actually had the opinion of the film they themselves wrote on their own website, it is whether or not that opinion has widespread acceptance by mainstream sources to be considered due weight for us to quote it.  So, if you're citing the source because you want to quote or paraphrase those reviewers opinions about a movie, it isn't reliability that's the issue (we trust the people to reliably report their own opinions on their own websites) it's a question of whether or not they are even worth listening to on the matter.  However, if you are trying to cite facts about the film in question which are not in other sources, that's a completely different thing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand that it isn't forbidden to use SPS, but I don't recall ever seeing a GA- or FA-quality article with a SPS in the references. The movie I am developing is a foreign one, which means a lot of sources in English are going to be hard to Google on up. Additionally, a few sources have vanished due to one reviewer website (Film Journal Int'l getting gobbled up by BoxOfficePro). Its not leaving me with a lot of standard sources to draw upon. I hate using sources that will get snipped during a GA/FA eval. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's perfectly acceptable to use self-published sources for their reviews of films and books, provided, of course that the author has some reputation or expertise as a reviewer. I don't think editorial oversight is that important when you're using the source purely for the attributed opinion of a critic. The fact that this Paul Chambers has been published in multiple different reliable sources indicates that his opinion is noteworthy and might be worth including. Same thing with Frank Sweitek. They could even be okay for basic factual information about the film, especially if there's a lack of other English-language sources, though not for anything controversial or that has BLP implications. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except we only have his word he has been published on multiple rs, nor do we know context ("and tonight on WBKRKRNSP we talk to three members of the public about the new film by Bert Terrible".Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search confirms that he isn't an empty hat; Chambers has indeed worked for CNN (1) as well as everywhere else he claims. Sweitek also appears to be the real deal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was just the reference to Rotten Tomatoes that made me wary, normally people who are respected experts do not have on their CV "and Wikipedia".Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I get it, and understand. I just went a little deeper than just checking RT. Carry on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

http://utahrails.net and http://rrpicturearchives.net
As used in EMD MP15AC, but not limited to that article. These appear to be fan pages each curated by an individuals and they're extensively used in numerous train related Wikipedia articles. Are these good to remain as sources or external links? I am thinking that they might fall under WP:SPS or WP:ELNO. Graywalls (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * External links do not have to be reliable. Open wikis are OK as long as they are reasonably established. They should not be used as sources because of WP:UGC. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 02:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think fan sites belong as external sites either, per WP:ELNO "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Graywalls (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fan sites are not acceptable as reliable sources or external links in my opinion based on the policies referenced above. – Daybeers (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)