Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291

Rindermann, Intelligence
There is disagreement over at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard whether the following source is reliable as an assessment of the fringe nature of the opinion that there are "genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines".


 * Rindermann, Heiner. Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media Intelligence, 2020.

Some have said that Rindermann himself is inherently unreliable due to other sources he has written for in the past (e.g. Mankind Quarterly), though I have seen no reliable source directly criticising Rindermann or this paper, and the journal itself seems to meet WP:RS.

Could I please get some comments regarding the reliability of Rindermann in general as well as the reliability of the Journal itself? Thanks. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    22:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, there was a very similar discussion (about Rindermann in general, but not this particular paper) in February. 2600:1004:B151:58B1:9DDF:E91F:7217:39A7 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware. This particular source has a different publisher, and much of the previous discussion focused on Hunt. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    02:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment the paper has been subjected to peer review by a reputable journal. Wikipedians are not qualified to second guess the peer review process. Therefore I think it is a reliable source.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  16:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Is Intelligence really a reputable journal? They had two of the editors of Mankind Quarterly on their editorial board until quite recently. And, of course, Rindermann himself is currently on the board so this isn't really independently published. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Authors of journal papers are never allowed to review their own papers, so the fact that he's on the journal's editorial board isn't relevant here. If a paper's author being on the editorial board of its journal means that the paper is not independently published, we'd have to reject a huge number of journal papers as reliable sources - probably about a quarter of the journal papers that are cited at Wikipedia. 2600:1004:B120:B574:307B:E61E:9775:FA3B (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Do you have a reliable source saying that Intelligence is not a reputable journal or is this just OR? MQ has a bad reputation but I don't think that means that everyone ever associated with them caries guilt by association to any other place they work. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    19:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See the cites on Intelligence (journal). And we're not talking about 'everyone ever associated with them', we're talking about this guy. - MrOllie (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , well my comment above stands. Of the citations in the "criticism" section at the Intelligence (journal) article, The New Statesman article says "The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field." The Independent doesn't mention the journal at all and seems mainly a citation discussing Lynn and Meisenberg. The Guardian article is an opinion piece and the author seems rather critical of the entire research field, but it does specifically go into quite a lot of detail on the editorial process of the Journal itself, and it seems as rigorous as other high quality journals. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  (click me!)    20:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This source makes the point that despite questionable figures on its board, the journal Intelligence itself is respected. As to Rindermann, this posting fails to follow the noticeboard instructions - what content are we talking about?. He is obviously reliable for his own view, but whether that's due is more in the realm of WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , whether this particular journal article has any bearing on whether the opinion in the scientific community that there may be "genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines" is a fringe viewpoint or not (per the Linked RfC that is ongoing). Of particular note is the section in the discussion that discusses the experts' opinion on "the cause of past and current US Black-White differences in IQ test results"."In the current study, EQCA experts were asked what percentage of the US Black-White differences in IQ is, in their view, due to environment or genes. In general, EQCA experts gave a 50–50 (50% genes, 50% environment) response with a slight tilt to the environmental position (51% vs. 49%; Table 3). When EQCA experts were classified into discrete categories (genetic, environmental, or 50–50), 40% favored an environmental position, 43% a genetic position, and 17% assumed 50–50. The difference in the average versus discrete results may seem contradictory (average results tilted to the environment and discrete categories tilted to genes), except when extreme positions are considered. 16% of experts who favored an environmental perspective assumed a 100% environmental position, whereas only 6% of experts who favored a genetic perspective assumed a 100% genetic position (Fig. 3). That is, the opinion of “environmentalists” was more extreme than the opinion of “geneticists.”"
 * Some have stated in the RfC that Rindermann is not reliable, or that the journal is not reliable to be taken credibly when trying to assess what opinions are fringe in the intelligence research community. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether the views are fringe or not is a discussion at WP:FT/N, not here (and a tar pit I am avoiding). Whether this guy is reliable ... well he is obviously reliable for a report of what he states. But Wikipedia obviously isn't going to WP:ASSERT his views because they are not accepted knowledge, so how much exposure he gets is really a neutrality question. Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , What I'm asking, specifically, is whether this journal article is a reliable source to be cited in said RfC discussion (how much weight it is given is up to commenters there of course). It sounds like you are saying that, yes, it is. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    21:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alex said, two comments above, that yes according to a source, it is a respected journal and he said that Rindermann is reliable for his own view but you cannot assert in Wikipedia’s voice that his view is a fact or the truth.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  23:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not talking about his view. That's not what I'm citing here. I'm citing the results of his survey. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    00:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rindermann has been a frequent contributor (from his BLP) to a journal that has been described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment", a "white supremacist journal",[1] an "infamous racist journal", and "scientific racism's keepers of the flame"[2][3][4] (from the 1st sentence of the article Mankind Quarterly). His survey was published in the official journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research, which is described in New Statesman as an organization that promotes "racist pseudo-science". There are many ways someone with a strong POV can skew an opinion survey (biased sample selection, biased wording of questions, biased framing of results, etc.). Would we regard as reliable a survey of "expert" opinion on abortion conducted by someone with an extreme anti-abortion POV and published in an anti-abortion journal?  Would we regard as reliable a survey of "expert" opinion on homeopathy conducted by a homeopath and published in a homeopathy journal? NightHeron (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your broad-brush condemnation of the International Society for Intelligence Research, and its journal Intelligence, which you have done repeatedly, is not appropriate. First, academic sources take priority over journalistic ones per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You can't use a single article in the political and cultural magazine New Statesman to say a peer-reviewed journal and academic society are totally illegitimate. Now, there are supposed peer-reviewed journals and academic societies that are not legitimate, but this illegitimacy is established by actual academic sources. This is how it is with your example of homeopathy. Secondly, and more to the point, New Statesman does not say what you are claiming it does. It is nowhere therein described...as an organization that promotes "racist pseudo-science" as you claimed. Quite the opposite. It says that a certain person pointed out that the conference at which he actually spoke, that of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), was “super-respectable” and attended by “numerous world-renowned academics”. The article continues: He is entirely correct. The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. True, towards the end of the article, there is a vague statement that Journals and universities that allow their reputations to be used to launder or legitimate racist pseudo-science bear responsibility when that pseudo-science is used for political ends, but at most this could be taken to mean that ISIR has allowed itself to be used to launder/legitimate racist ideas. This doesn't negate the other statement I quoted, however. Instead of your current approach, I suggest making more use of sources that show that environment can cause group differences in IQ test performance, including those published by ISIR and in Intelligence. Disclaimer: this comment should not be taken as in favor of Rindermann or the survey in question, nor as a blanket endorsement of any particular paper or author. Some of these in this topic area are indeed fringe. Crossroads -talk- 06:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads -talk- 06:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC), Crossroads -talk- 06:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I urge you to immediately withdraw Rather than continuing to argue that all scientific research into intelligence is ipso facto racist, as it is an entirely baseless accusation made against another Wikipedia editor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, I see the issue; and I was still re-reading and adjusting the comment when you commented. But I ask that you also remove this comment and this reply I am writing to honor my rewrite, because it's not needed anymore, and so this isn't a distraction from the actual subject. Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC) tweaked Crossroads -talk- 06:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would have been more appropriate to strike out the comments rather than remove it, but I'm not concerned anymore. It's more a matter for whom the accusation was made against. I appreciate your withdrawal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You're splitting hairs. The sentence that contains the words "racist pseudo-science" refers to "journals and universities," and the journal that the article discusses in detail as promoting racist pseudo-science is Intelligence, which is the journal that published the article we're discussing. After the comment about "great scientists" the article says that when people such as Stephen Pinker speak at ISIR-sponsored events this "threatens the reputation of respectable scientists." The same paragraph that uses the phrase "great scientists" goes on to criticize ISIR by listing eugenicists and white supremacists who play important roles in ISIR: Richard Lynn, Gerhard Meisenberg, Linda Gottfredson -- and Heiner Rindermann: Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligence, helped to organise recent ISIR conferences. That is, Rindermann is one of the people specifically mentioned in the article as promoting racist pseudo-science.

My point was that someone who has an extreme POV on an issue is not a reliable surveyor of "expert" opinion on the same issue. That should apply whether Wikipedia regards the POV as fringe (homeopathy), regards it as not fringe (opposition to abortion), or is still debating whether it's fringe at WP:FTN, as in this case. NightHeron (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are making it sound like ISIR and Intelligence are unreliable sources, full stop. They're not. This is WP:RSN after all. Put another way, if it was attempted to put that statement with that source into an article, it would be reverted as original research. Now, the extreme flip side, that anything they put out is automatically reliable (or WP:Due) is not the case either, but this is true for many other academic societies and journals as well. Note, too, that the article says "journals and universities", talks about the "London Conference on Intelligence", and says this was hosted at University College London (which also supported Francis Galton and had a Galton Chair in National Eugenics until 1996 (!)). Is UCL now, as a whole, a "promoter of racist pseudo-science" as well? I still feel your characterization of ISIR is highly misleading. Instead, you could say that some of what has come from ISIR is pseudoscience, and therefore that being published by them is not an automatic stamp of reliability. Crossroads -talk- 16:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur with Crossroads, Alexbrn, and Literaturegeek . How many times, and how many different places, will this be discussed? YES, a peer-reviewed journal is an RS. Not only that, but this is a generally-respected journal with an above-average "impact factor", measuring how often its papers are cited by other academics: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence . Yes, Rindermann's papers published by RS outlets are also RS. He is also a reliable source regarding his own views. If the allegation is that he is "fringe", that should be discussed on the other board. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The issue being discussed here is not whether Rindermann is a reliable source for his own views, but rather whether he is a reliable source for other people's views. Both the author of the "survey" in question and the organization whose official journal published it have an extreme POV on race and intelligence. NightHeron (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether his particular paper would be a good summary of the views of those in the field really sounds like a question for the relevant talk page. As for the relevant question on this forum: yes, the official journal is an RS. I'm not aware of a single highly-cited academic journal that is considered by Wikipedia to have "extreme POV" on any issue. As long as this paper is still being run and cited by high-level academics, is it really not for Wikipedians to second guess the academics. And, the journal being an RS, therefore papers they published are also considered RS. Author vetting is to be left to the experts at the journal. If Wikipedia were to start trying to judge every journal and academic author's POV, it would lead to a big can of worms and one must worry that in some cases science would give way to what is popular. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Elsevier journal Intelligence is probably the largest and highest-impact journal in the world for intelligence research specifically. I would say that the vast majority of intelligence researchers in general have published it in or have cited it. It is no more or less reliable than the majority of Springer, Elsevier etc journals (some of the MOST mainstream of which have published literal hoax articles). Moreover, if you find yourself in the position of having to scrub the dozens and dozens of citations to Intelligence papers from Neuroscience and intelligence, Flynn Effect, and others, good luck replacing all of that information with citations you approve of.

This feels like a significant rehash of a very similar topic that arose recently, and, in fact, some identical arguments are being made here. Should we really reject a major scientific resource's reliability based on a single New Statesman opinion piece? I commented in February about the same tactic being used to axe research by ISIR members, and much of the same rebuttal applies here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Like the previous commenter, you're ignoring what the question under discussion is. It's whether or not a specific "survey" by Rindermann is reliable. No need to rehash your arguments about other matters that were/are being debated elsewhere. Rindermann is a frequent contributor to Mankind Quarterly. Would a reputable scholar publish repeatedly in a white-supremacist rag? Can such an author be relied upon to conduct an unbiased "survey of expert opinion" about a matter on which he holds an extreme opinion? NightHeron (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think he is saying the same thing that others have said, the journal that this article is published in is reliable. The article in question has been subjected to rigorous peer review. Unless we have other sources questioning the validity of the results, it's results should be regarded as reliable. You have one source that literally just says that the author contributed to MQ, and nothing else. Implying that his previous contributions to a MQ means he is unreliable is OR; unless you have a source that actually says so. There is no source that I have seen criticizing any of his work, even previous articles that he published in MQ. Your argument basically boils down to "The Daily Mail is bad, therefore everyone who ever wrote an article for the Daily Mail is unreliable". That is the association fallacy and neither WP:RS nor WP: SCHOLARSHIP supports this method of disqualifying sources. Ultimately, the Rindermann journal article presented here gives us insight into the academic consensus on whether experts believe to what degree environment or genetics play a role in group differences, and it seems that they believe that the impact is somewhat 50/50. It is far from a fringe view that genetics play some role. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    01:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I've spent quite a bit of time looking through Google Scholar search results, and the only article that I can find in which Rindermann was an author in Mankind Quarterly is this article published 8 years ago, for which he is not even the primary author (or the correspondence author). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    01:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not independently try to locate Rindermann's contributions to Mankind Quarterly, but rather cited the New Statesman (cited in his BLP) referring to him as a "frequent contributor." The article you found is from 2017, not 8 years ago, and I'm not sure where to find much earlier articles, since fringe journals are not always extensively catalogued.
 * You're misrepresenting my point. My point in this discussion relates only to his "survey." Remember, that's all you asked to be discussed here. My point is that a "`survey of expert opinion" on a certain question by someone with an extreme POV on that question is not reliable, especially if it's published in the official journal of a society that promotes that same POV. NightHeron (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure that it is established fact that he has an "Extreme POV". Do you have a source for that? I've struck the 8 years ago bit; I misread the date of publication on Google Scholar. Google Scholar does indeed index MQ, you can find the search I did here. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    05:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible to search specifically for papers authored by Rindermann that were published in the journal. I don't know why I didn't think to check this before. You're correct - he's only published a single paper there, of which he was the co-author.
 * The fact that the New Statesman article described being the co-author of a single paper as being "frequent contributor" does not speak well to that article's reliability. This was an easily researched fact that the New Statesman apparently got wrong, and we should discuss whether a source with that low a standard of fact-checking is appropriate to use for statements about living people. 2600:1004:B16A:B73E:5813:B854:6438:A623 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I knew there must be some way to search by author and journal... I tried looking that up but couldn't figure it out so I just ended up digging through 314 results lol. Well, your search is a bit cleaner to say the least. Not sure about the New Statesman, It's not listed at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, though it does cite them as a source about someone else, so it seems to be taken seriously. The note at the bottom of the page says "Ben van der Merwe is a student journalist." Maybe he and the editorial team just didn't fact check this particular comment as well as they should have. Even good sources slip up sometimes. While I can't find any page on their editorial policy, I saw plenty of references to the editorial team and various "senior editors" so they definitely have one. Reading their outside contributor guidelines indicates to me that van der Merwe might be one of these outside contributors (if he is a student journalist he obviously isn't staff). Still, the editorial team should be checking this sort of stuff. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    11:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is quite the finding! That is a pretty basic error, and should cast doubt on the use of this New Statesman article as the source for discrediting an academic author and journal. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

attending the London Conference on Intelligence, originally held secretively at the University College London and then moved after a scandal arose over UCL unknowingly hosting such a conference. NightHeron (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidence of extreme POV of Rindermann: (1) in 2016 speaking before the rightist Property and Freedom Society claiming cognitive and cultural inferiority of immigrants; (2) publishing in 2017 in the Mankind Quarterly; (3) being on the "review team" for OpenPsych (set up in 2014 by white supremacists Emil Kirkegaard and Davide Piffer, described as a "pseudojournal" by the Southern Poverty Law Center); (4)
 * , Again, do you have a reliable source saying that any of these are evidence of an "extreme POV" that discredits his research published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? Or is this just synthesis on your part? I get that you don't like him, but that isn't a policy based reason for excluding a source. If that's all you got, we are done here. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    12:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia articles on Mankind Quarterly, OpenPsych, the Property and Freedom Society, and the London Conference on Intelligence have much well-sourced evidence that they represent the extreme right of the spectrum of opinion on this issue. NightHeron (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's basically WP:SYNTH and guilt by association as your only arguments then. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a misapplication of WP:SYNTH to say that editors can't look at the evidence and conclude from it that a source is not reliable. We don't need to find an RS that says "this source is unreliable."NightHeron (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The journal is clearly suspect--as would any journal be that tried to publish primarily on the subject of "intelligence" which is so derided a backwater as to be essentially blocked out of most of the rest of the profession (compare phrenology). I've seen this sort of thing play out before. Elsevier, closest to a devil if there could be said to be one when it comes to academic publishing, will gladly host your pocket journal if it means they make a profit -- and it is clear the "intelligence academics", such as they are, have some money to throw around. (I'll let the SPLC explain where some of it comes from). Is there legitimate data that can be gleaned from some of the work published in Intelligence? No doubt. There are probably legitimate pieces of data that you can find in the ludicrous amounts of noise that were published by phrenologists as well. But to rely on this journal as some sort of standard of reliability would be to ignore the legitimate critiques that have been raised against it. That the people who believe in intelligence rally round the flag is not particularly surprising, but the sad fact is that independent evaluators almost entirely find fault with this journal. It should be used only with extreme care. jps (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the sad fact is that independent evaluators almost entirely find fault with this journal Do you have a source for that, aside from the (somewhat dubious) New Statesman article? You and NightHeron tend to make sweeping assertions like this without offering much in the way of support. The citations to this paper published in Intelligence (By Linda Gottfredson, no less) show about 1,700 results, including citations to the paper in the most prominent current textbook of Behavioral Genetics, as well as in papers published in Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This certainly does not look like the journal being "so derided a backwater as to be essentially blocked out of most of the rest of the profession". 2600:1004:B167:8D2A:68F1:5069:EA1A:D617 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think the New Statesman article is "somewhat dubious" is all I need to read. I stopped there. jps (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When you refuse to provide sources that support your statements, you shouldn't expect other people to listen to you. 2600:1004:B167:8D2A:68F1:5069:EA1A:D617 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When racist sockpuppets like you casually dismiss sources as "dubious", we don't need to pay attention to you at this website. jps (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , He is calling it dubious because a previous fact from that specific article was already found to be false. The source itself may be generally reliable, but this particular article's reliability seems in question. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Previous false facts, eh? If the writer had omitted the word "frequent" it would have been entirely accurate, right? I'm not impressed. jps (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , The implication made in the New Statesman article is that he often and repeatedly writes articles published in MQ; that simply isn't true. The fact is that a single article was published there, largely written by someone else and then critically reviewed by him (the author contributions are clearly stated in the article in question). In any case, having your name credited on one paper in a less-than-reputable place does not taint all of your work published in high quality journals. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That New Statesman article is in the education section and by a student journalist as was pointed out to 4 or 5 discussions ago, wish he would quit splashing it all over talk pages. fiveby(zero) 00:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Even RS sometimes have errors. The error (the only one found) in the New Statesman article was the word frequent. As soon as this error was found (by two other editors), I struck the word frequent from my earlier comments. The fact remains that recently, in 2017, Rindermann wrote an article for Mankind Quarterly, which is a disreputable white-supremacist journal. That's enough to call his reliability into question, since it shows that he has an extreme POV on the issue that was the subject of his "survey". NightHeron (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , You are just repeating yourself at this point without addressing any of my previous points. This method of disqualifying a source you just don't like is wildly inappropriate and not in keeping with our core policies on Reliable sources. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    00:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I'm strictly following policy, as stated in WP:RS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The question concerning the "survey" by Rindermann is whether it is an appropriate source for that content. Is a "survey of experts" on the race-and-intelligence question an appropriate source for that content if both the journal and the author have an extreme POV on that question? NightHeron (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Saying that everyone on the Intelligence editorial board has the same POV and that their opinions are "extreme" is not correct and not supported. There is no evidence that the entire board of Intelligence are radical right wing extremists or something. The best you have is one article in the New Statesman which also says "The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field.". What we are talking about is this journal with an impact factor of 2.6, and counts on its editorial board James Flynn. Is Flynn also one of those "extreme POV" people that is unreliable? You can't take a few examples and then expand it to apply to everyone associated. I've asked you repeatedly to stop using the association fallacy, but it appears that you don't understand how not to. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    01:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that everyone on the Intelligence editorial board has the same POV. Please stop distorting and caricaturing what I say. The journal Intelligence has an overall rightist orientation on race and intelligence, meaning that a strong POV dominates the editorial board, and hence the journal favors articles by authors with that POV.
 * It's unfortunate that you opened this parallel discussion on RSN to the one on FTN, since it means that you and I are carrying on an exchange at two places at once, which becomes repetitious, time-consuming, and tedious. NightHeron (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You said, quote, "Since the editorial board at Intelligence is dominated by the same extreme POV on race and intelligence, Rindermann did not have to somehow got past peer-review at Intelligence. The "peers" were biased in the same way that he was." —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    02:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't you see the difference between saying that "everyone" in a group has the same POV, and saying that the group is "dominated" by the POV? You were trying to make me look foolish by misquoting me as saying the former, when I really said the latter. (The US Supreme Court, Senate, and Executive branch are dominated by Republicans, but a large number of people in all three groups are Democrats.) NightHeron (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , And yet, you claim that his paper could not have been peer reviewed properly, based on this "dominated by" claim, with no evidence. I've pointed out that there are experts on the peer review panel that have essentially the opposite POV from him. In any case your claim of the Editorial board being dominated by the same POV is original research based on... I'm not sure. The New Statesman says there were a couple people that have a strong POV there (or at least, they were there, they are not any more). However, that can't be taken as evidence that the entire board is skewed towards one POV, or even that a majority are. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    19:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors of the journal Intelligence have been claiming that their POV is mainstream for a long time. In 1994, Linda Gottfredson (who was funded by the white supremacist Pioneer Fund) wrote a statement published in the Wall Street Journal titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence." Its purpose was to defend the book The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray, and it was signed by 52 university professors described as "experts in intelligence and allied fields," including around one third of the editorial board of the journal Intelligence[2] (from the Wikipedia article on the statement). The current editor-in-chief of Intelligence, Richard J. Haier, was one of the signatories.
 * Typically, when an author submits a paper, the editor-in-chief assigns it to someone on the editorial board, who chooses reviewers. If the editor-in-chief has a strong POV and the author is a crony who shares that POV, it will likely be assigned to someone on the board who shares the POV, and he'll choose likeminded reviewers. Thus, while from a naive standpoint it's theoretically possible that Rindermann's article was peer-reviewed by neutral or skeptical reviewers, there's no reason to think that that happened. NightHeron (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable - not really, but this thread is a couple layers of improper. First, it's explicitly started solely to influence an ongoing RFC. That's not cricket. It's not like if Rindermann is found to be "reliable", that means the RFC must close with a "no" result. "It can't be fringe because RSN found it reliable! Ha! Gotcha!" That's just not the way consensus works. We shouldn't use RSN to "trump" an RFC. This is an attempt at gaming consensus in my opinion and a misuse of this notice board. Secondly, "reliable"/"not reliable" is the wrong rubric. We shouldn't (and really can't) make these pronouncements in a void for an entire work. As mentioned above, the question is "reliable for what? Reliable to support what edit/language"? Rindermann is reliable for his own opinion, but his opinion is not the same thing as scientific consensus. His opinion about what consensus is, is still his opinion. Bottom line, Rindermann may believe people of certain races are somehow genetically inferior to or different from other people, but that doesn't mean we present his view as the mainstream. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 14:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Levivich, I believe Rindermann is reliable for his own opinion and probably many ancillary facts brought up to support his argument. However, that says nothing about whether his opinion is mainstream or how it should be weighted in articles. buidhe 18:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, Again, the material being cited was the results of his survey, as published in Intelligence, not his opinion. The source provided does not give Rindermann's opinion on this issue, but rather the opinions of the experts that were surveyed as they self reported them. What Rindermann believes is irrelevant and in fact was not cited by me anywhere. This source came up in the RfC and its reliability was in question, so I came to RSN to ask for comments. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    19:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rindermann conducted the survey, decided how questions would be worded, decided who the "experts" are, decided not to be bothered if most of the experts who opposed Rindermann's POV or disliked his wording of the questions threw the questionnaire in the trash, etc. That's why the article is unreliable for the purpose for which it was cited on Wikipedia, namely, to attempt to show that views on race and intelligence of Rindermann, Lynn, Rushton, Gottfredson, and likeminded authors are not fringe. NightHeron (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I get that, let me address the survey directly. I do not think that we should state, in wikivoice, the results of Rindermann 2020, for these reasons:
 * The survey was performed in 2013–2014, but published in 2020.
 * It's an internet survey.
 * It's an anonymous survey; we don't know who the respondents were.
 * The response rate was 20%, so the vast majority of invited "experts" didn't participate. This makes the above point all the more important. We don't know whether the 20% of "experts" who actually took the survey were simply Rindermann's fellow hereditarians. Call me crazy but I think that's pretty likely.
 * In the survey, Rindermann says the methodology is justified, citing to... Rindermann's own earlier work.
 * It's published by Intelligence, where Rindermann sits on the board
 * It was published like two months ago, so it's too soon to tell if this one survey is revered or ridiculed by the scientific community
 * Bottom line, I am not at all swayed by the fact that Rindermann conducted an anonymous internet survey seven years ago to see if people agreed with Rindermann, using methodology devised and approved by Rindermann, and the results were that half the people agreed with Rindermann. And then he published it not at the time, but only after Intelligence got into hot water for who it had on its Board... including Rindermann. I mean, come on. This isn't a scientific paper, it's propaganda. The "point" is to be able to say that, secretly, half of scientists agree with hereditarians. Well, I say, BS. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll address your points one by one.
 * 1. This is irrelevant, it is still the best data we have for that period. Other data from the survey was used in previous journal articles he wrote Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Causes of international differences in cognitive ability tests, and Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: The FLynn effect and the future of intelligence (2017). He hasn't been doing nothing with the data.
 * 2. It was sent to very specific individuals and open to members if ISIR, not open to anyone, so the fact that it is an internet survey is irrelevant.
 * 3. Yes. That was sort of the point. Anonymity gives them the freedom to actually say what they think without reprisal.
 * 4. This is a somewhat fair point, but the response rates of surveys are always low, even when people sign up beforehand. The self-reported liberal-conservative ratio was balanced towards the liberal end however. It is still the best we have. It also generally agrees with previous surveys done decades previously.
 * 5. He cites a previous paper because he has used other results of the same survey in previous papers. His methodology was outlined in the earlier articles so didn't feel the need to repeat himself.
 * 6. Irrelevant, authors on the editorial board of journals are not allowed to peer review their own work.
 * 7. His previous two reports using data from the EQCA survey (in 2016 and 2017) have been cited 33 and 27 times, respectively (not counting his own citations still gives a respectable number). I've looked at some of these citations and the work seems to be taken seriously. No criticism of his methodology could be found. Note in particular that the 2016 study also discusses expert's opinions on cross national differences in intelligence, and similarly, many experts believed that genes play some role. There has been plenty of time to discredit or write rebuttals of the previous surveys, yet no one has, instead choosing to cite their results.
 * Your paragraph at the bottom amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory. This is a scientific paper, published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Note that all three of the above reports on the results of this survey were published in different journals. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , one man's "conspiracy theory" is another man's "damn perceptive analysis", right? ;-) We're talking about a survey of 71 people, which Rindermann admits is actually more people than the total number of scientists in the world studying international differences in intelligence. Further, the entire pool was drawn from people who published in "specific journals" (Intelligence (journal), Cognitive Psychology (journal), Contemporary Educational Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and Learning and Individual Differences... none of these have impressive impact factors) or who were affiliated with the International Society for Intelligence Research. And it was publicly posted at the website of International Society for the Study of Individual Differences. Not exactly a randomized sample.
 * By the by, Rindermann's admission that there are less than 50 scientists in the world studying this sort of suggests it's fringe. (Because this field of study is definitely not cutting edge.)
 * Here's an excerpt from the 2016 paper, describing this survey's limitations:
 * Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 21:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , So now you are saying that the entire field of study is fringe? His point is that there are 50 or more people who actually publish research in this field. It was not posted publicly online for anyone to join, it was only open to members of the ISIR and people who published journal articles in those papers (and Cognitive Psychology has an IF of 4.5, how is this not impressive?). An announcement was published on the website and ISIR members were invited to participate. This is made clear in the methods section of the article. Yes there are less researchers in the field than there were 30 years ago, I thought that was pretty obvious. We are looking to see what the consensus is amongst experts in the field of intelligence research, this is still the best we have. All studies have limitations, but when 90% of your respondents say they agree that genetics plays some role, it is pretty obviously not a fringe view. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    21:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that the survey was only open to members of ISIR and those who published in those five journals is one of the top reasons why we should not state the conclusions of the survey in wikivoice. Yes, I think the entire field of "genetic differences in intelligence between races" is fringe. 4 isn't an impressive impact factor; 40 is. Also, when it came to the question of whether there were genetic-based differences in intelligence between whites and blacks, I thought the number of respondents who said yes was 40%, not 90%... and that's 40% of the hand-picked 71 ISIR members who volunteered to participate. Based on this, we can't say that it's the mainstream view. We can't say it in wikivoice. It's the opinion of less than 30 scientists apparently. All this says is that there is 30 hereditarians out there. And this is definitely, definitely not "the best available". We have consensus statements from AAPA and other organizations. We have stuff from Nature (impact factor 43). We have "cracking the Bell Curve", heck we have Cofnas 2019 in which he admits that hereditarianism isn't the mainstream view. We have Lynn 2019, in which he says the same thing. That's the one that ends with "Someday it will be accepted" or something like that. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence out there that the belief that black people are genetically stupider than white people, is fringe. It's not accepted by mainstream scientific consensus. And Rindermann's internet survey doesn't disprove that (though it tries). I mean, the only way he could get 30 scientists to say that genetics is the reason for differences in intelligence between whites and blacks is by hand-selecting them, AND promising anonymity, and then still going through their responses to select the final sample. And still less than half agreed with him! Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 21:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich, you're misunderstanding the results of the survey. When the survey found that 43% favored a genetic explanation, that means 43% thought genetics accounted for more than 50% of the black/white IQ gap. However, only 16% took the view that genetics play no role. These results are shown clearly in the diagram on the paper's fourth page. So that is 61 respondents who felt that genetics played some role in the gap, not 30, out of a sample of 71.


 * Also, saying that the hereditarian view can only be "fringe" or "accepted by mainstream scientific consensus" is a false dichotomy. There are many shades of gray between those two extremes, for theories that are not truly mainstream but still receive a significant amount of support. Papers like Cofnas 2019 acknowledge that the hereditarian view is not the mainstream view, but that is not the same as saying it's a fringe view. The view is one of those shades of gray. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree that hereditarianism is not the mainstream view. When I say "fringe", I mean WP:FRINGE, which begins: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field (emphasis in original). "Black people are genetically less intelligent than white people" is an example of an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. "There are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines" is another example. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 22:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral_point_of_view describes three categories of viewpoints: majority views, significant minority views, and views held by a small minority (that is, fringe views). What I'm saying is that the hereditarian view is a significant minority view, not a fringe view. The criterion mentioned there for identifying significant minority views is that it's possible to name prominent adherents, and that standard is easily met in this case. See the article quoted by Sinuthius's vote in the RFC, as well as my own comment here. 2600:1004:B105:E59:893E:5FA4:4B48:5668 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it absurd to ask in a questionnaire what percent of the IQ difference between blacks and whites do you think is due to blacks being genetically inferior in intelligence? Since there's no scientific evidence whatsoever for racial differences in genes for intelligence --- assuming the notion of races and the notion of genes for intelligence had biological definitions (which they don't) --- the question asks for pure speculation. An equivalent question would be: Give a percent figure for how superior you think you are to black people. Hopefully Wikipedia can reach a consensus that such bigotry is fringe. NightHeron (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to argue the RfC here, we are discussing the source specifically and its reliability. When they say the "hereditarian view" is not mainstream, they are referring to the view that "most of the difference is genetic". That may be a fringe view, and probably is. That's not what just what the RfC wanted to label fringe though. It also wants to say that the view that "some" of it is likely genetic is fringe. That simply isn't the case. In any case, lets not get off topic. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    22:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you agree that the viewpoint that 2/3 of the IQ difference is due to black genetic inferiority is fringe, right? How about 1/3? How about 3%? Note that there is no scientific evidence for any of these values. Nor is there any scientific evidence disproving the possibility that, if all past and present environmental conditions were equalized, blacks would have the genetic advantage in intelligence. Was the latter option even included in the survey? Of course not, since the POV of the survey was white superiority over blacks, not the reverse. Just to be clear -- despite the "circumstantial evidence" one would get by looking at the three most recent US presidents -- I do not believe that whites are genetically inferior to blacks in intelligence; and in fact, such a belief would be fringe as well, if the RfC passes. NightHeron (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , As I said, lets not get off topic. proving a negative isn't possible, either way, and in any case has no bearing on the opinions of researchers in the field (which is what this particular source addresses). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You (NightHeron) are, for at least the 4th time now, making things up and attributing them to Rindermann to find him "extreme POV", biased, or racist.  The survey didn't ask which group, if any, has a "genetic advantage", or any other kind of advantage, or superiority, in intelligence or anything else. The survey question on what percentage of the (US) black/white IQ test difference is from genetics or environment is a question of statistics that anyone getting the survey would immediately understand.  One can interpret it either as asking for percentage of "variance explained", in which case a person who believes blacks are of higher average genetic ability would have his view fully represented by answering 100 percent. Alternatively, it is asking about effect sizes, e.g. the same person might think blacks have a +3 IQ point genetic advantage and a minus 18 point environmental disadvantage, adding up to the 15 point difference.  In that case I think answering 100 percent environmental would adequately convey the person's viewpoint even if they feel it's higher than that. But if you disagree with that, and think the survey is artificially censoring those views, then obviously the survey is just as much censoring the viewpoint that the gap is more than 100 percent hereditary (genetic gap higher than 15 points), so it provides no evidence that Rindermann et al were trying to bias the results.  Their reported fraction of mostly-environmentalist versus mostly-hereditarians in the survey would not have changed since that was based on the number of responses saying it's lower or higher than 50 percent. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. Suppose a recipient of the survey believes that environment by itself would have caused an 18-point black/white gap, but that black genetic superiority over whites reduced this by 3 points. Then 120% of the white-minus-black difference is environment (and negative 20% is due to genes). It is not 100%. Of course, this point is purely theoretical. Rindermann was clearly interested in sampling the opinions of people who, in the absence of any scientific evidence whatsoever about genes for intelligence (whatever that's supposed to mean) being less prevalent in one race than in another race, nevertheless personally believe that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. NightHeron (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The argument was not only correct, but inescapable. It is mathematically impossible that the survey wording you are complaining about could have changed the result the survey is being cited for: that substantially-hereditarian positions are much too common to be considered fringe (in this sample). If you disagree, it is up to you to specify a level of support (e.g., under 5 percent) that counts as fringe, and the minimum number of votes that would have had to change (i.e., additional voters who if the question had been worded to your satisfaction, would have voted anti-hereditarian positions) to make the outcome consistent with fringe-ness.  An easy calculation for the very generous fringiness threshold of 10 percent shows that about 500 votes would be needed to move support below fringe, 400 votes to be within 2 standard deviations of fringe, and 300 to not reject the fringe hypothesis at 3 standard deviations.  These are wildly implausible for a survey of 1300 people of which 265 answered any of the questions and under 100 answered the one under discussion.   The survey question has a box for write-in answers as well as the 100 percent environmental option; if you think the lack of your preferred wording can make a large difference to the relevant output of the survey you will need to perform some calculations rather than just stating insinuations and wagging the finger of disapproval. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're confusing two very different points I've made about the "survey." First and foremost, the author and journal are biased in favor of one alternative, so the survey is unreliable. I won't rehash all the evidence for that here, except to remind you that Rindermann recently (2017) published an article in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. Second, one indication of white-supremacist thinking is that the surveyors never even considered the possibility that some respondents, if they wanted to speculate that genetic differences in intelligence exist between races, might think that blacks are the genetically favored race. (Respondents might think to themselves, "Gee, wouldn't the US have been more intelligently run in the 21st century if it had had more black presidents and fewer white ones?") For example, these respondents might think that environment alone would have caused 120% of the measured IQ difference, but that blacks' superior intelligence reduced that by 20%. The fact that the survey doesn't allow for that type of response is one indication of the black inferiority assumptions being made by Rindermann.
 * Survey authors' bias has many effects -- wording of questions, choice of whom to survey, and the decision of people who receive the survey about whether to respond or throw it in the waste basket (as is likely if they have a low opinion of the authors of the survey or of the way it's written). NightHeron (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , You are oversimplifying the situation by using a strawman. Many of these scientists believe that not all of the gap can be adequately explained using environmental variables; therefore they attribute any remainder to genetic variables. With this model they don't deem it necessary to have nailed down "genes for intelligence" to believe that it can't be explained 100% by environmental variables. Others dispute this, but both sides have some circumstantial evidence to support their view. Neither side has 'proof'; the hereditarian view that "some" of it must be genetic has no definitive proof, but neither does the view that "none" of it is genetic, or that "all" of the difference can be explained by environment. Stop trying to make implications to try some "gotcha" that Rindermann is "racist" or something. It is all original research and it is getting tiresome to have to point this out to you repeatedly. We don't have any reliable sources saying that Rindermann has any sort of extreme POV that would discredit his research. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    04:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Circumstantial evidence" is not a scientific term (although it is a term in criminal investigations). How can anyone claim "scientifically" that they can estimate the effect of environment on differences in test scores? What controlled experiment could possibly do that? What branch of science has the methodology to estimate the quantitative effect on test scores of centuries of colonialism, slavery, poverty, discrimination, cultural marginalization, inferior schooling, police harassment, etc.? Rindermann is not surveying scientific knowledge, but only speculation and prejudice. NightHeron (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , You clearly haven't read the literature and have no desire to but would rather speculate that they simply couldn't. I'm not going to entertain such a conversation. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the Rindermann survey that you're asking us to comment on? If so, you must have noticed Figure 3, which shows the distribution of "expert" opinions on the question of how much of the white-minus-black difference in IQ scores is due to environment and how much to genetics.  Please look at that bar graph if you haven't already. It's all over the map. 16% say it's zero genetics and all environment, 6% say it's zero environment and all genetics. 17% say 50-50. 15% say it's 80% genetics and 20% environment. 9% say it's 70% genetics and 30% environment, but 8% say it's 70% environment and 30% genetics. In the first paragraph of section 2, Rindermann claims that "expert surveys can ... yield accurate estimates of empirical matters." As if you could determine the causes of the difference in IQ scores by surveying the wild speculations of 102 self-selected respondents who had nothing better to do with their time, and then taking the average (which is what Rindermann does in his paper). But that's not how science works. That's how pseudoscience works. One could similarly take a survey of homeopathic "experts" concerning what percent of ailments can best be treated with modern medical cures and what percent with homeopathic cures, and then take the average of the responses. It's all a lot of hooey. NightHeron (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Both myself and IP have already drawn attention to that particular Figure from the journal article. Yes, respondents were very divided on this issue; that's what I've been saying all along. Rindermann doesn't just "take the average"; he discussed what can be drawn from the results but also presented the raw data. "Homeopathic experts", if such a thing could be said to exist, do not generally publish in reputable journals, and if they do, are almost universally derided and discredited. Your assessment represents 100% original research on your part. Let me make this clear: you are not qualified to assess the validity of Rindermann's methods, results, or conclusions. That is what peer review is for (which this article has been subjected to) and what reliable sources that comment on the results are for. If you have any RS that disputes the methods, results, or conclusions of this paper (or the two other papers that used the same data/methods and were published earlier), or otherwise discredits Rindermann directly, please present those reliable sources. Otherwise please cease and desist from trying to slander research using baseless accusations based on original research. I thought you asked to be finished with this discussion over on FTN? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    01:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When I initiated the RfC at FTN, I gave many reliable sources attesting to the fringe nature of claims that blacks are genetically inferior to whites in intelligence. You started this parallel discussion, which I don't think added much to the discussion at FTN. I agree with you that there's no reason to continue this discussion here. NightHeron (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "As if you could determine the causes of the difference in IQ scores by surveying ... 102 self-selected respondents ... then taking the average (which is what Rindermann does in his paper) ". 5th time: you (NightHeron) are making things up and attributing them to Rindermann. Certainly if Rindermann et al had done what you say, trying to use a survey to determine the science by vote, it would be staggering incompetence and disqualify them as RS.  But since they didn't do it, and everyone can see they didn't do it, the science-by-vote accusation is only slander on your part rather than an error on theirs.73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The New Statesman article is journalistic fraud, not RS.  Among other problems, student (pseudo)journalist Ben van der Merwe fabricates, alters or reverses the meaning of quotations from Charles Murray, Noah Carl, and Adam Perkins; quotes false accusations of "racial eugenics" made by Angela Saini; does not appear to have requested comment from the people whom he slanders; recycles false Richard Lynn quote from the SPLC on "phasing out" populations, a quote that vdMerwe and SPLC could easily check, as SPLC lists the source (Lynn was explaining someone else's position, not stating his own).  Get outta here using this fraudulent article against Rindermann or others.


 * Also, that New Statesman did not catch any of the false quotes or other easily discovered errors despite the article containing links to the sources, indicates they didn't fact check the article or that their usual level of fact checking is nonexistent. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Does everyone understand what the other IP is referring to by the New Statesman article recycling a false quote from Richard Lynn? I had been wondering if I ought to mention that here, because aside the claim that Rindermann is a "frequent contributor" to Mankind Quarterly, this is the most easily demonstrable falsehood in that article. 2600:1004:B125:ADE2:A589:8ADE:3EF3:6B4A (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not aware. Could you explain in more detail? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The New Statesman article says that Lynn "has called for the 'phasing out' of the 'populations of incompetent cultures'" This statement is cited to an article published by the SPLC. Here is the relevant quote from Lynn in the SPLC article:


 * If the evolutionary process is to bring its benefits, it has to be allowed to operate effectively. This means that incompetent societies have to be allowed to go to the wall… . What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples.


 * This quote from Lynn does make it sound as though he is calling for these cultures to be "phased out". But notice the "..." after the words "go to the wall" - why did the SPLC choose to omit part of this quote? The answer can be found by reading the complete quote, which is from a review of a book by Raymond Cattell. Here is the quote including the part that the SPLC omitted:


 * ''If the evolutionary process is to bring its benefits, it has to be allowed to operate effectively. This means that incompetent societies have to be allowed to go to the wall. This is something we in advanced societies do not at present face up to and the reason for this, according to Cattell, is that we have become too soft-hearted. For instance, the foreign aid which we give to the under-developed world is a mistake, akin to keeping going incompetent species like the dinosaurs which are not fit for the competitive struggle for existence. What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples."


 * When reading the complete quote in its original context, it's clear that when Lynn says "what is called for here", what he means is "what is called for in the book that I'm reviewing". The New Statesman article is one of several books and articles that have cited the SPLC's selective quotation of this book review in order to state that Lynn personally endorsed this action, rather than that he was describing the argument presented in Cattell's book.


 * When one digs deeply into the literature by anti-racist activists about intelligence researchers, one inevitably finds examples like this. There was a discussion here about a similar example discovered by user:Ferahgo the Assassin, in which another of these sources repeated a completely fictitious quote that originated from Wikipedia vandalism. These types of sources typically aren't fact-checked carefully, so this is par for the course. 2600:1004:B12E:AD49:147A:3CF7:7A6C:C92C (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's beyond that. At the SPLC page on Linda Gottfredson they say Lynn calls for "phasing out the global black population".  Another example is Angela Saini, another journalist-activist and the main source for the New Statesman article, calling Lynn and Meisenberg (in her criticism of Intelligence for having them on editorial board) advocates of "racial eugenics".  Online material by and about Meisenberg makes it clear this is a slanderous lie. In Lynn's case he wrote two long books on dysgenic and eugenics respectively, yet the SPLC's quote-mining and all the interns 440 million dollars can hire  did not find anything racial there worthy of quoting on his attack page.  They have investigated and found him clean of the charges!  Saini lied, because she (like the people supporting current RfC) instinctively conflates any two things in the race/HBD/eugenics/alt-right universe, as is common for people who get their information from the left-media information bubble including SPLC and much of Wikipedia.  This all gets laundered back into Wikipedia as "reliable sources" by citogenesis and the more daring fabrications of people like Ben van der Merwe who are comfortable making things up if it helps the Cause.  73.149.246.232 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. In that same review of Cattell's book, Lynn ends with the line, . Lynn is 100% endorsing Cattell's views in the book, and the rest of that paragraph you're quoting ends with: So, no, neither New Statesman nor SPLC got it wrong here. I don't know why you think pushing this racist crap is helpful to your argument that it's not racist crap. Without using these words, Cattell is advocating, and Lynn is approving of, social darwinism, eugenics and lebensraum. Anyway, this RSN thread is about Rindermann, not Lynn. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The SPLC and van der Merwe fabricated.  The juicy quotations from Lynn's review, that you are adducing as further evidence of Lynn's perfidy, are Cattell's exact words, or an infinitesimal deviation from Cattell's exact words, as is most of the content of the essay.  Phasing out, overcrowding, 98 percent extinction, "nature red in tooth and claw", the incompetent going under, eugenics and abortion of "defectives", and hundreds of pages of similar stuff -- all in Cattell's book.  The book is online as a searchable PDF, so you and Ben and the SPLC could have checked this exercise yourselves.  It isn't strictly necessary; reading the review is more than enough to understand that the SPLC fabricates things (e.g., nowhere does Lynn mention blacks or Africans, much less "phasing out the global black population") and that they manipulated the Lynn quote by omitting the words "according to Cattell".  But if you do look things up it turns out that seemingly outrageous language in the review is copied from Cattell, and Lynn is just dispensing with formalities like quotation marks, footnotes, page numbers, and writing "Cattell" in every sentence.  It is abundantly obvious from the review that Cattell was not operating on the same planet as everyone else and you cannot take the review as any indication of what Lynn himself thought in 1974.  Extraordinary defamation requires extraordinary evidence and no reliable reporter would pass along as fact a thirdhand claim that Lynn advocates genocide, without some minimal attempt to verify underlying sources. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lynn gives Cattell's book a totally positive review, paraphrasing Cattell's words (or plagiarizing them, what you call "dispensing with formalities like quotation marks") with not a word of disagreement or skepticism, and calling Cattell brilliant. The evidence for Lynn's white-supremacist views goes way beyond this book review; you can find plenty of other sources at the article Richard Lynn. Of course, I don't expect that to convince you, since presumably Wikipedia is grouped along with New Statesman and the Southern Poverty Law Center in the alt-right conspiracy theory about liberals out to "defame" Lynn. NightHeron (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Cosign the comments of Levivich and Buidhe. --JBL (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of Govind Sakharam Sardesai
Hi, i would like to know if Govind Sakharam Sardesai's work (that is cited in the linked edit) is considered as a reliable source for this edit. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources I have seen suggest that it was first published in 1928, which makes it a bit dated, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the source though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see to recall being informed that prior discussions has found any source published under the Raj was automatically not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Official meeting videos posted to YouTube
Hello, so me and other editors have been unsuccessful in deciding whether or not using a youtube video as a source for "car assignment changes" is a good source. I don't believe it is since we generally do not use youtube as sources, here is the link; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3AOsVFVOoo. This video somewhat references that the "r32 class subway car will be fully replaced by the R179's car class", however this is a Metro North & LIRR committee meeting (both companies have no involvement in this car class change), not a MTA NYC Subway meeting, which is why I think that the source is not good enough to use. Please advise. FlushingLocal (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * > Wait, that is what you're confused about? I'm sure that the right source was used, and even if it was not I'm sure the CPOC meeting or the NYCT meeting from January has that noted somewhere. Mtattrain (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * > Checked again, these are for all meetings. Scroll to time 8:01:40 when Andrew Albert asks about trains being replaced. Mtattrain (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * > Oh, but you see my point right? The meeting is full of errors. Normally when they have a meeting it should just say "MTA Board Meeting" like in this video, but this one doesn't, that's one of the reasons why I don't consider it reliable. FlushingLocal (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * > It's a minor technical goof, and it's still from the MTA, so I think it's still reliable. I don't think the fact that they mislabeled a meeting should super degrade its reliabiliy, but I defer to admins. Mtattrain (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So there's recently been a conflict at R179 (New York City Subway car) over the reliance on this video as a reference for which older model railcars are intended to be replaced by the R179s. The video is the recording of the January 2020 board meeting of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which oversees the subway. There is some conflict as to whether that constitutes a reliable source for the statement is supports in the article, and whether it being hosted on the MTA's official YouTube channel has any impact on its reliability and suitability as a source. Feedback is welcome. oknazevad (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd generally consider this source reliable (same for the thread above), considering this is the MTA's verified account. However, I would not consider the individual members' statements reliable by themselves, because they have historically made errors while speaking. I would suggest a print document or visual confirmation, if that is possible. epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * > I do too for MTA-based YouTube videos but I'm assuming I have no power to make that a policy. Mtattrain (talk)
 * > This was exactly the reason why I didnt want to use it as a reliable source, since the individual board members have made errors before in the past. I'm also confused as to why the video says it's a LIRR & Metro North meeting when it's a meeting for all the agencies. FlushingLocal (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * > It reads "MTA Board - 01/21/2020 Live Webcast" for me, which means everything probably. Mtattrain (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * > I was referring to the title cards in the video. FlushingLocal (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In addressing the issue of someone misspeaking, which can indeed be an issue at times, is that the statement that the R32s are to be retired by the R179s was based on a direct question, so statement strikes me as having particular weight. It wasn't just a passing mention, but a specific clarification, so the intent seems clearer to me. oknazevad (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I seem impatient I just have no clue how this works, are we suppose to mention a mod or do we just wait until they respond? FlushingLocal (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

> Kinda curious when an answer will be provided lol. Mtattrain (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable. It is a video from the official account of the MTA, and thus should be viewed as a government document. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem with this source is not about reliability, it’s about the fact that this is a primary source. —JBL (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Using The Washington Free Beacon in politically related BLPs - is it an RS?
I decided to raise my concerns about an edit at WP:BLPN but there are also RS issues, particularly about using it in BLPs. It's not mentioned at perennial sources. Doug Weller talk
 * For BLP information no. Its salacious and would need a top line source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Using the Washington Free Beacon as a source for anything is a bad idea. Using it for a BLP is a particularly bad idea. Guy (help!) 14:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source and should be marked as generally unreliable. They have made various false claims, such as "Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar held 'secret fundraisers with 'Islamic groups tied to terror'" and that "Europe Poised to Put Warning Labels on Jewish-Made Products". According to The Daily Beast, their reliability has decreased following the election of Donald Trump. Maybe we could do something similar to what happened to Newsweek?ZiaLater ( talk ) 09:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate These examples are not just getting the facts wrong, they show intention to mislead. Therefore, the source should be deprecated. b<b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate per . -- The SandDoctor Talk 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally not reliable. Do not deprecate. I looked at their site for a corrections policy or a corrections page. I couldn't find either. That's a baseline criterion for reliability, and they fail it. That said, mixing up Islamic Relief USA with Islamic Relief seems like an awfully thin reed for deprecation, which I think should be reserved for extreme cases regardless. The Free Beacon is nowhere near an extreme case, so I oppose deprecation. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable If they say it happened, it probably did, but there are a lot of better sources out there, so why would anyone use it anyway? TFD (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate a source that publishes islamophobic conspiracy theories such as the ones above with an additional intent to publish misleading and downright false information should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

World Health Organization
The World Health Organization has been operating as a propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak. 2.3 million people are sick, 160 thousand people are dead, and millions have lost their jobs, because the World Health Organization misled the world on behalf of China.

The WHO isn't on the list of reliable sources. As a scientific/health organization, this lack of statement implies that they are trustworthy by default.

I would like to request an explicit stance on the reliability of the World Health Organization. Amaroq64 (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there some sort of point to this, other than a backdoor attempt to slag the WHO? --Calton &#124; Talk 03:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would assume they are asking about the general reliability of them as a source. PackMecEng (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, then, you're saying it's a backdoor attempt to slag the WHO. Because this is a board for asking about how and where sources are actually used. --Calton &#124; Talk 08:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weird, that is not what I said nor what any reasonable person would think I said but sure. Whatever. PackMecEng (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Its RS, it is after all operated by experts.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a far more reliable source than almost any politician. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:GLOBAL, we should look at the international consensus, which is that the WHO is a reliable and vitally important organization. Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm of the Trump Administration, which has attacked and de-funded the WHO. Trump's action against the WHO has been condemned by virtually everyone internationally. NightHeron (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that WHO is an unreliable source.Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's actually quite a bit of it: . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this is not a formal request for comment, I have removed "Request for Comment on the" from the section heading to prevent possible confusion. Please see WP:RFC for instructions on filing a request for comment. — Newslinger  talk   12:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "quite a bit" usually means more than 1 tweet, and this tweet even said "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities", WHO attributed it, just as we do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This thread should be closed it is an obvious political troll. -  Green  C  15:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The WHO would fall under "respected authorities which are presumed reliable unless specifically shown otherwise." In the case of the coronavirus, the state of knowledge is changing so rapidly that the "unless specifically shown otherwise" clause is going to come into play a lot, with early reports being overtaken by later, better information. It's certainly reasonable to report criticism and notable outright errors, but a blanket dismissal of the WHO as a source is an overreaction, at least from what we know now. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the WHO misinformed the world regarding China's outbreak. It seems Director-General Tedros Adhanom advocated the Chinese position, promulgated its misinformation, and has been acting like a sycophant. But this doesn't seem to be the norm for the WHO as an organization, and hopefully it is a one-off. I don't think we need to discount the WHO as a reliable source because of this one instance (which went on for 1 or 2 months).


 * I think the Director-General should ultimately have to resign because he has shown himself to be unreliable.. Let's see if the disinformation campaign continues before entirely discounting the WHO. In any case, I don't think we can make a reasonable determination until we get past this first phase of the pandemic. Also, there are many other health related issues that will still be there after this passes. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is WHO has to accept what a nation tells it (which is why they attribute it), If they are lied to they have no way of knowing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the case- they uncritically report what they are told - why would they be considered reliable ? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, all UN agencies rely on data supplied by national governments, without independently evaluating their accuracy. That applies to stats concerning literacy, gender equity, labor, etc. The WHO is not unusual in this respect. NightHeron (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but it is also manned (and indeed run) by qualified experts who can (and do) issue communiques which have at least (as far as they can be) been vetted by experts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The question is valid. We base reliability on having a REPUTATION for fact checking and accuracy, and there is no doubt that the WHO’s reputation has taken a hit recently.
 * That said, I don’t think this decline in reputation has reached the level where we can deem it “generally unreliable“. If there is a question about a SPECIFIC statement by the WHO, or a specific report, we can always hedge by including in-text attribution, and phrasing the material as an opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is that much of the criticism of its "fact checking" is in fact coming from a very small number of (and politically motivated) critics. I am not sure its reputation has taken a huge hit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh... Reputation is often inspired by politics - people tend to Disparage sources that disagree with their preconceived views, and Applaud those that agree with those views. It is the “confirmation bubble” effect. Our job as editors is to pop our own “confirmation bubbles” and examine all of the views.
 * Regardless of whether it is politically motivated (or even justified)... I have seen LOTS criticism of the WHO in recent weeks. And that criticism is not just coming from a few cranks. Entire governmental agencies and mainstream media (in numerous countries) are criticizing how they have handled the COVID 19 crisis. The WHOs reputation HAS declined. The question is whether its reputation has declined ENOUGH for us to call it “unreliable“. I don’t think it has. I think we would agree on that. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with the above, but I think that in the specific topic area of COVID-19, its reputation has declined enough to warrant it unreliable. In that area it has acted as little more than a channel for other state-run outlets, which would not be considered reliable. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Clearly reliable. The international consensus is that the WHO is reliable. You might also think that the U.N. is not reliable because Saudi Arabia said so.- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is CNN in February already raising issues over WHO and China, so it's not just this past week. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * and here is the PM of Japan saying the WHO needs reform, so it's not just one source that says WHO has issues, nor is it just a tweet as someone up above said. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a conduit for Trump's incitement. The claim that WHO misled the world by a tweet on Jan 14 that only stated what was known at that point is insulting to health professionals worldwide. The tweet only says that human to human transmission hadn't been proved yet, not that it wouldn't happen. Everyone, including the American experts, knew that human to human transmission was very likely as soon as it was identified as a coronavirus similar to SARS. It always takes a while before something like that is proved by evidence, in this case about two weeks, and there is no evidence WHO suppressed the information when it became aware of such proof. The idea that CDC relies on tweets is a joke anyway. China's information release is another matter. Zerotalk 04:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable The WHO collates information provided by member nations, including China and the United States, and also publishes information on health. As an agency of the UN, they do not audit member provided information. But when they report figures they cite their sources. Like any other source, it depends on what it is supposed to support. TFD (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliability depends on context. WHO generally had a good reputation. However, in some cases it is highly reliant on reporting by national authorities. In COVID-19 reports from January-February 2020, WHO relied on Chinese authorities and data. If I recall correctly, they also said so explicitly at the time. In situations where WHO acts as a conduit for national health organizations (possibly collating several), the quality of the data is more dependent on the relevant national authorities than WHO itself.--Eostrix (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable WHO certainly reports reliably and are experts. Reliable does not mean there is absolute truth -- as with all reliable reports on novel matters, the reported data maybe incomplete, poor or wrong, or analysed differently later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)    Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable medically. Tedros' response to issues outside that scope are a very different story, such as his accusation of racism against Taiwan a few weeks back. The WHO does fairly fine in terms of being transparent with the statistics it provides, though reform is probably needed after how it dealt with preventative measures. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  11:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While reliable, the figures announced by WHO are no better than the state sources. State sources can have a lot of problems but WHO will report them anyway.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable. WHO assessments are based on reports of available evidence compiled by experts. I would favor including additional WP:MEDRS when relevant. The Lancet is a great source for that purpose. Note that the original report here opens with The World Health Organization has been operating as a propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, which is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. It can also be considered WP:FRINGE as it is a common place on conspiracy theory websites. From the three cited sources to back that claim, none of it appropriately support the statement and The Atlantic, which is the only non-WP:RSOPINION, clearly attributes the view to US Republican Senator Martha McSally. --MarioGom (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, sources claiming that WHO is a propaganda arm of China often omit that experts from the United States are part of the organization, including the Joint Mission in Wuhan. MarioGom (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly a reliable source per User:Zero0000. The opening claim that "The World Health Organization has been operating as a propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak" is absurd. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not terribly absurd considering they won't mention the name Taiwan and when asked how Taiwan is doing, will respond that China is doing well with Coronavirus response. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Taiwan has a special classification and sometimes an alternate designation (e.g. Chinese Taipei) in many international organizations and information sources. You might think that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's not anything special about the WHO. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to expand a bit on 's comment: the World Health Organization lack of explicit listing of Taiwan as a sovereign state is not WHO's call. It is because Taiwan is not a member state of the United Nations. --MarioGom (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand, but when a spokesperson during an interview was asked about Taiwan, they responded about China. I'm not talking about lack of a listing. This is WHO leaving out Taiwan during a pandemic, etc. It's clear that they tiptoe around China. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do they not list them or list them as part of china? as its not the same thing. WHO are trying to tread a tight rope between two nations who refuse to acknowledge each other, and expect others to do the same. This does not mean that what they say is incorrect, just not correct according to some nationalists in one nation or another.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily that. They won't deal with Taiwan. When there was a meeting last month China raised a stink when the world allowed Taiwan to listen in via videoconference. And again, the point is that they were asked specifically about Covid-19 in Taiwan and they responded about China (first hanging up on the interviewer). Here is a NYTimes piece on the issue. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As your source says it does deal with Taiwan, it just cannot admit it as a member because membership is granted by member states (of whom China is one). Both China and Taiwan are the issue here, WHO is forced to pick which nation to have as a member, that does not mean Taiwan cannot share data with them (or that that data is not included its WHO Chinese figures, after all Taiwan counts all of China as its territory, so all we are dealing with is the choice of name). That does not mean they are unreliable (WHO that is).Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So China has a veto on who gets in? If they make decisions based on politics, then they are unreliable. Simple example: as a result of counting Taiwan as part of the PRC, they made an unreliable travel recommendation the people avoid travel to Taiwan even though the situation there did not warrant such a restriction. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is membership, not medical information (and if that were the case every new paper in the world would not be an RS).Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Issuing travel warnings based on pandemic status is not "medical information"? That's an interesting perspective. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not issuing them might be an issue, no issuing them unfairly is not. Ironically one of the Taiwanese arguments is that they issued travel bans to and from China early, thus preventing the spread. In fact it could be pointed out that by advising against travel to Taiwan (De facto) they helped to prevent infections by stopping none Chinese who might be infected from travelling there. So no it was not bad advice.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is flat out historical revisionism, being performed less than 3 month after the event! The WHO did not issue any travel restrictions "early", and that is certainly not an argument made by Taiwan. As late as Jan 30, the WHO was still not advising any air travel restriction  . When they finally got around to it, they issued bad advice - lumping together a country with one the world's best responses to the pandemic  with one that had one of the worst outbreaks. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Err I said Taiwan did, not WHO. I said that once who had suggested a travel to and from China it may have helped Taiwan. And one of the reasons Taiwan had a good response was a travel ban.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are making my point: Taiwan issued a travel ban which was a good response, but that was THE OPPOSITE of what the WHO was recommending at the time. If countries were relying on the WHO in late January for informed medical advice as it relates to travel, they would have had poor response and faster spread- the WHO was simply unreliable in the advice it issued. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, if you think I have made your point that WHO is not an RS for medical advice relating to corona Virus I think we can close this. Personally it does not convince me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * meh. WHO should be responsible to coordonate the efforts for Covid-19. They do a miserable job at that. Go on their site today and try to tell me, what is the probable IFR ? rate of growth ? Who is vulnerable ? How many people is and have been infected ? Just one good back of the envelop approximation ? If you are lucky, you may find an outdated information left there since February. They do not lack of recommendation and misinformation, but when you search information, it's a black hole. They do horribly bad. They are not the peons of China by Hanlon's razor. I will definitively think twice when reading a source from WHO in the future. I had this opinion months before trump said anything about it, but I feel him, having to take life and death decisions with no information from WHO. Iluvalar (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No one really knows, there are differing models. But here is some useful info [].Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WHO should coordinate? WHO is not some super Public Health Authority. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Public Health Authorities, none of which are WHO.  And it is guaranteed that none of the Pubic Health Authorities want WHO to contradict them (for one thing such contradiction can be dangerous.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The probable IFR is 0.37 per cent to 2.9 per cent per WHO. But basically it is not clearly known. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)~
 * An estimate from Feb 4. Self proclamed as "preliminary". If that's the best you get, you kinda prove my point. Doc James. Iluvalar (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Clearly reliable when it comes to medicine. That was easy. Reliable like the CDC, NIH, Health Canada, European CDC. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well they sure screwed up pretty good saying that preliminary investigation by the Chinese authorities had found no clear evidence of person-to-person transmission of the novel Coronavirus. That's the key question about the virus, and their info was badly misleading at best. And sources are noticing The Atlantic WaPo. A genuine WP:RS would, at a very minimum, say "we screwed up bigtime". But not the WHO.. So I would not rely on them for anything related to Covid-19 or China. On other issues, yes, with caution. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you think they should have used their crystal ball and announced something that wasn't proven at the time. Zerotalk 08:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need for crystal ball to figure out that when you have ~150 new cases a day, total infections in the thousands (officially) and cases appearing in far away provinces, they can't all be the result of people eating infected bats in a Wuhan wet market. That's also not the only bit of mishandling - there's the refusal to call it pandemic long after it met the criteria, the call on countries NOT to close borders etc.. - all action that stem from self-admitted political motivations that run contrary to commonly accepted health best practices. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As accurate as ever. WHO's tweet was dated Jan 13, 6 days after the virus had been identified as a corona virus and 2 days after China had reported the first death. When they reported a second death on Jan 17, they claimed a total of 50 cases. You should cut your losses (but I know you won't). Zerotalk 15:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think people won't notice the slight of hand you're engaging in here, switching from talking about cases (which is what I wrote) to talking about deaths? Form our own artice :2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic "During the early stages of the outbreak, the number of cases doubled approximately every seven and a half days.[512] In early and mid-January 2020, the virus spread to other Chinese provinces, helped by the Chinese New Year migration and Wuhan being a transport hub and major rail interchange.[398] On 20 January, China reported nearly 140 new cases in one day, including two people in Beijing and one in Shenzhen.[513] Later official data shows 6,174 people had already developed symptoms by 20 January 2020.[514] ". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thought you would keep at it. I added some bold to my words to help you read better. It is what information WHO had at the time, not what was revealed by later analysis. That crystal ball again. And I did notice you gave information for Jan 20 to support a false claim about Jan 13. Incidentally despite all the bullshit about that tweet on Jan 13, WHO did warn of the likelihood of h-to-h transmission even earlier. However, they still haven't told everyone that a disinfectant injection is all they need, so it's fair to blame them for that. Zerotalk 17:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, according to the Guardian, the WHO warned some world leaders on Jan 10 and 11 that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission, but in their public tweet they said the opposite , and you think this makes the WHO look better? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and with such grave impact in actual world health . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. On the same day as the tweet which does not say what you claim, the WHO briefed international reporters telling them not to be surprised that there would be human-to-human transmission, whether medically or intergovernmental confirmed yet or not.  And their consistent advice since earlier to health professionals and others was to treat it as human-to-human.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Take the time to actually read the material presented. The Guardian article linked to by Zero and referenced by me says "The World Health Organization warned the US and other countries about the risk of human-to-human transmission of Covid-19 as early as 10 January", and on the public tweet on the 14th they said "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". The 14th is 4 days later than the 10th, and the tweet did not include any advice to treat it as human-to-human. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I read it, much better than you. It's as I said, they clearly told everyone to assume it's human-to-human before, the day of, and after the tweet. No sane or responsible person is going to expect all information in a tweet. And no sane or responsible person is going to take what is provisional preliminary from someone else as the final word on anything. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * On the 14th, the WHO tweeted this "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China". Anyone who reads that tweet and takes away from it that the WHO "clearly told everyone to assume it's human-to-human" does not have the required English competency to participate here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears you have disqualified yourself from participating here. Anyone who competently reads the Guardian article and what I wrote knows that the information the WHO was providing is not limited to one tweet, and no reasonable nor sane person would think that it is. As for the single tweet, it transparently and reliably relates the preliminary Chinese authorities, any competent person would know that it being preliminary Chinese authorities, it was far from definitive about anything. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * did that tweet clearly tell "everyone to assume it's human-to-human""? Yes or no? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. This is not the forum to argue political points like this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK simple question, when WHO said (on the 10th) in whose name did they say it?Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem here is that we shouldn't have to carefully parse WHO's words to see if they are outright false or merely true-but-misleading-because-they-ignored-the-elephant. When an organization that deals with health is tweeting about life-and-death matters, it needs to do better than that. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have to carefully parse WHO's output. We simply have to understand them without putting our political filters on. That's what Trump did. He didn't want shut the economy down so he ignored their clear advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What WHO advice are you referring to? Their advice to not curtail travel to and from China? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time, was there reason do doubt it? Stop reading Trump's press releases. He's not a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer my question please- What WHO advice are you referring to? With regard to their recommendation NOT to curtail travel, more than a dozen countries with leaders not named Trump decided ignore that horrible advice before the US did. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All WHO advice given was provided and based on existing evidence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not good enough for a preferenced position at WP:MEDRS. Government sources like the NIH, CDC, WHO, USPSTF have never risen to the level of reliability of peer-reviewed journals, and yet they have been given a preferenced position in many of our medical articles.  I have for years pointed out NIH and USPSTF errors, and now we have a clear example of how the same problems exist with the WHO. We would not accept this from non-medical content, and we certainly should not for medical content. In many cases, better sources are available, and we should stop preferencing these (often-biased) governmental sources.  WHO is often reliable for certain statements, but should not be preferenced to the extent it has been, and should be used with caution.  This has always been true; now the emperor's clothes are off.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What is the question? Are we talking about changing the text of WP:MEDRS? If so, I don't see any need to change it, as the current language seems to cover most of the concerns stated in this lil' ol' friendly discussion. Here's most of it (with a couple of sentences; the wikilinks; and the groovy graph omitted): "Guidelines and position statements provided by major medical and scientific organizations are important on Wikipedia because they present recommendations and opinions that many caregivers rely upon (or may even be legally obliged to follow). ¶ Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. ... ¶ Guidelines are important on Wikipedia because they present recommended practices and positions of major authorities. ¶ Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  08:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Since this is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I suggest we either discuss changing the text of WP:MEDRS or close this discussion (or move the discussion over to the WP:MEDRS talk page - whichever is the proper protocol). If folks want to discuss how to objectively describe the WHO's missteps vis-à-vis China, move on over to World Health Organization's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and have at it.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  08:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep. Sounds bout right to me. "Reform" is pretty much an annual agenda item for WHO.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The WHO is reliable for matters related to global health. Nobody is suggesting that we use the WHO as a source for Taiwan's relationship to China or other governments. -Darouet (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Kind of? It appears they take information from member countries and just uncritically repeat it. If that is the case why not use the original source? Also as pointed out about they appear to have issues with Taiwan and China, so it might be best to avoid them for information there as well. Also it sounds like they are not up to the challenge of meeting MEDRS standards either.PackMecEng (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are not familiar with all the things WHO does to improve public health around the world, I encourage you to read/scan the pages under the About Us tab or on the About page, such as: Our values, Who we are, and What we do.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  02:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that really has anything to do with the reliability of the source or the issues I mentioned. I understand why they are the way they are, but again that is different than how reliable they are in context of Wikipedia. Personally I have no issue with them, they do good work. Just not the most reliable source in certain situations. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I got a little carried away with my defense of WHO.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  03:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable per all of the previous statements of fact above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable as per discussion above. Samboy (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment May I suggest that we do not list this to WP:RSP? We usually use in-text attribution for the WHO, which is usually relevant to articles. Also, the opening thread here is essentially a WP:FRINGE accusation, and we may be overreacting to it by listing it at WP:RSP. --MarioGom (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As it has not been answered (and is germane to the issue) a question. The offending tweet is attributed to China, WHO do not say it is their view. When they issue advice or warnings to they take ownership of it or attribute it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the "offending tweet" you reference?  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  12:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This one [[].Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Logically, the claim that the WHO should be declared an unreliable source makes no sense. Even supposing that they did mishandle the early stage of the pandemic - and the argument for this is weak - would we declare the US's CDC to be an unreliable source because their policies, statements, and actions about testing for coronavirus were disastrous? NightHeron (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As reliable as national public health agencies, such as the US CDC. The WHO issues summaries of various international health issues (see here, for example), which I would expect to be very reliable. The WHO also runs a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed journal, Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Much of the questioning of the WHO's reliability comes across as politically motivated (Example: Nobody is seriously proposing using the WHO as a source on the sovereignty of Taiwan, so why is that even being discussed here? Another example: What does the question of whether or not travel bans are effective have to do with whether or not the WHO is a reliable source for facts? That's a recommendation about measures that countries should take, and is quite separate from the WHO's factual statements about what is scientifically known). -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It might be best if those of us who have responded shut up and allow others to express an opinion now. We are just arguing the same points over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail (on Sunday) by proxy.
On the Coronavirus misinformation page these two sources are being used. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/inside-the-the-viral-spread-of-a-coronavirus-origin-theory https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25214/20200406/uk-fears-coronavirus-actually-leaked-china-lab.htm to source this sentence, under a heading of british government misinformation:

"The member of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's emergency committee of senior officials, Cobra, stated that "There is a credible alternative view [to the zoonotic theory] based on the nature of the virus. Perhaps it is no coincidence that there is that laboratory in Wuhan. It is not discounted.""

I think that this is just a roundabout way of sourcing the (ludicrously unreliable) Mail on Sunday article. One merely quoting the Mail, the other holding it up as a spreader of shite. The Mail is proscribed on wikipedia, and even if it wasn't I'd argue that particular article would be an 'extraordinary' claim requiring incredible RS, and even if it wasn't I can't agree that the quote of the quote of the quote of what was mentioned in a classified meeting can be used to accuse Boris Johnson of spreading misinformation about corona. 81.140.215.189 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not clear if their source is the Daily Mail or if they had access to the original source. In any case, the quote says that the theory is not discounted which is very different from what other sources said, which twisted the declarations to claim that there was evidence backing that claim. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's fine for reliable sources to get their information from unreliable sources, because we expect journalists to be able to assess their weight. So for example a biographer may get information from the subject, their friends and colleagues, none of whom would count as rs for Wikipedia. But they have the judgment to determine what is reasonable. Were it otherwise, we could not have articles about Socrates or Caesar or Jesus since none of the primary sources are reliable. TFD (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the relevant section of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#British I've edited to show the quote is via the Mail on Sunday (as it is clear from the reporting that they sourced it from there and not via the original source), although Science Times inaccurately attributes it to the Daily Mail. The Mail on Sunday is technically a different paper from the Daily Mail, although it is published online on the same website, and this RSN has never fully been clear if proscriptions against the DM count against the MoS too (in my view they definitely should). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Live Science and Phys.org
Live Science and Phys.org frequently appear in science-related searches. Are these sites considered reliable sources? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To attract more responses, I've moved this discussion from WT:RSP to the noticeboard. — Newslinger  talk   11:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends for what. They're pop sci journalisms sites. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While I would agree with Headbomb's the assessment regarding Live Science, the one involving Phys.org is clearly wrong. All Phys.org does is aggregate press releases on new papers published by various sources, it therefore has no inherent reliability/unreliability as it is simply a content aggregator, and the reliability should be considered based on the source of the press release. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Phys.org also has their own content, even if it mostly aggregates. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case think it's worth asking whether Medical Xpress and Tech Xplore have separate reliability to Phys.org's original content, I would say no, as they are run by the same people. I'd have to imagine that most of the content that is cited in articles to Phys.org is aggregated, rather than their original writing. It's always very clear what content is by Phys.org and what isn't from the article byline, a list of their original content is at https://phys.org/editorials/ for future reference. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have only ever seen phys.org articles cited as reprints. The source is occasionally useful when the original content is hard to access, though it should certainly be evaluated on the basis of the original publisher, and articles should preferably be linked to the original source when possible. Jlevi (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ideally, we should look for articles that reference these sites and replace the citations with the original source when possible. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideally press releases shouldn't be cited at all, and it is the articles that the press releases are about that we should be citing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah! You make me realize one key detail: if I recall correctly, phys.org doesn't always make it clear whether they're reprinting a press release or an article. However, that just means that evaluating the original publisher is all the more important. In addition, is there a general recommendation/policy not to cite press releases? It seems that they'd at some times be useful for fleshing out details that connect to briefer comments from reliable sources. Jlevi (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For press releases about scientific publications, generally I find that there is no information that isn't contained in the article, though original news stories about the scientific paper covered by the press release often contain additional detail and comments from other experts Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Nolo.com
I think this might be a good time to ask again why we have blacklisted n o l o. c o m.

Take an article like this: https ://www.n o l o.com/legal-encyclopedia/emergency-bans-on-evictions-and-other-tenant-protections-related-to-coronavirus.html

It is filled with useful information that can be quite useful for people who can't pay rent. Is there any other source with comparable information? Is there anything unreliable about this article that warrants its being blacklisted?

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The log entry refers to . Pinging for comment. By the way, you can use the nowiki tag to disable blacklisted links, and disabled links are not affected by the blacklist. The domain name by itself (nolo.com) is also not affected by the blacklist when used in a discussion, unless it is linked. —  Newslinger   talk   11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , it was extensively spammed by a paid SEO operator and surrogates e.g. . But thanks for reminding me because I see Vipul is still active and now spamming different sites. The issue with a lot of the sites he spammed is that while they may contain some useful information (albeit often with no author attribution to verify credentials), most (including apparently nolo) are mainly there to sell. Guy (help!) 12:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. I think it is fine to stop the spammers, and I appreciate your efforts to remove WP:PROMO on Wikipedia. But I don't understand why established editors with legal credentials (I have B.A. paralegal) are prohibited from using it, when it is often the most readable and accessible source for laypeople.   It is often concise and on point.  Although I am not an attorney, I have taken multiple legal research courses.  In those legal issues where I compared what I found in properly researched legal issues with Nolo, I was almost always impressed with Nolo's concise and accurate summary of the key legal issues in a way that non-legal professions can read and digest.  I have never seen a case where the information in Nolo was clearly wrong.
 * The only "problem" with Nolo, if it is a problem, is that it is written for lay people and lacks the complexity, completeness and thorough documentation of every legal citation, every substantial variation, every relevant jurisdiction and primary & secondary authorities that you might find in a law review article, legal brief, legal memo, etc. For what it strives to do--helping laypeople with the key ideas of the law in the area--I think it is completely successful, not too short, not too long.
 * No. I would probably never use it in a legal brief, court filing, law review article, or anything written that is intended for attorneys to be briefed on the current state of the law. Just as I would never dream of citing a Wikipedia article for a similar purpose. These sources are for the public, not for attorneys and other legal professionals.
 * The other reason I would like to be able to use Nolo is because doing proper legal research requires either going to a law library or using LexisNexis, WestLaw or a similar very expensive online service. IMHO, few editors on wikipedia have that kind of access.  Most legal articles on Wikipedia are badly referenced in my opinion because of that and/or the bad reference is likely lack of familiarity on how to perform and cite legal research.  If our legal articles were properly referenced to the level expected of a legal brief or law review article, many of the references would be unavailable to be viewed by the public anyway, for the reason I mentioned.  Nolo doesn't have that problem.  Hence, when I want my lay friends to get a sense of the law on certain subjects, I often send them to the Nolo article rather than the law library, or ask them to read the appropriate statutes or controlling case(s) for their jurisdiction.
 * In this particular example, I would like to be able to use the Nolo article, since I am not aware of any other source with so much *current* information about renters rights regarding the COVID pandemic. It is certainly better than newspaper articles which I see being used as sources.
 * Is there a way that editors like myself can use Nolo without violating the blacklist? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WT:WHITELIST? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, we could consider a whitelist for /legal-encyclopedia if there's consensus it's actually reliable. There's precedent for that.
 * I'd like to see some evaluation of the reliability and authority. Maybe can dig up a page that describes the editorial process for that section? Guy (help!) 10:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Authors: https://www.nolo.com/about/law-authors
 * Editorial Staff: https://www.nolo.com/law-authors/nolo.html
 * Wikipedia article: Nolo (publisher)
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article: Nolo (publisher)
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The archive bot swept away the discussion on Nolo.com before I finished my fabulous contribution. (But I still like you Ms. Archive Bot.) Here's my two cents on Nolo.com, which doesn't seem to belong on the blacklist based on my experience. ¶ I am most familiar with Nolo's articles on Service-Connected Disability Compensation for Veterans ( https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-get-veterans-disability-compensation ) (that web page has a list of most articles on the topic. All the articles I've seen are written by an attorney, Margaret Wadsworth, who is a VA-accredited attorney and is admitted to the bar at the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The only fault I find with Ms. Wadsworth's articles on Nolo—and I do not consider this a major flaw—is that some of the information is dated, e.g., referring to DSM-IV when VA started using DSM-5 for psychological disability claims in 2014 (DSM-5 was published in 2013). I have read most of the veterans service-connected disability articles on Nolo over the years, and I have not come across any gross errors; biased, slanted, or unbalanced presentations; or misleading information. For example, in Ms. Wadsworth's article titled, "Hiring a VA-Certified Veterans Disability Lawyer", she could have pushed Nolo's attorney directory only, but she doesn't. In fact she lists a number of law school clinics and organizations that provide pro bono legal services for veterans. In summary, the articles are factual; succinct; well-written; and they offer sound advice for veterans, e.g., "How to Answer Questions at the Exam: Don’t exaggerate your symptoms, but don’t diminish them either. When the doctor asks you questions, be truthful. Explain to the doctor exactly how your symptoms impact your life. This can be uncomfortable, since this will be your first visit with the doctor, but it is important to your claim that you be as open and honest as possible." ¶ If there are a slew of articles on Nolo that merit blacklisting, I would be interested in seeing a list, as I have not encountered any. (I have also read articles in other topic areas, including a few because I wanted to learn more about an area of the law, and I found them helpful.)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  04:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the discussion and added your comment to the end, since you only missed the archive bot by 22 minutes. — Newslinger  talk   10:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment on your experiences that reflect my own. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Per above, I would say that this is reliable source for general principles of law, but less reliable than law review articles and other, more authoritative published sources. It certainly shouldn't be blacklisted if there is a less invasive method of stopping the abuse (i.e. blocking the perpetrators). <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right on, Buidhe. I assign substantial probative weight to your testimony. <|;^)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  21:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with as per what I have said previously in this discussion.  Well put.  --David Tornheim (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you. This makes a very good case for whitelisting /legal-encyclopedia (which would allow exactly that content). Guy (help!) 17:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Reason Magazine and reason.com
There have been some recent discussions about whether Reason Magazine is a generally reliable for news, facts, and as an attributed source about itself for commentary, analysis, and opinions. I would like to float the following to see if there is consensus for it. Suggestions for wording changes are invited.


 * Reason Magazine and the associated website reason.com are generally reliable for news and facts. Reason has a self-described libertarian bias and much of the content is commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should always be attributed and considered to only be reliable sources on themselves.

Is the above an accurate description?

Somewhat related:

Here is reason's editorial board of experts:

Here is mediabiasfactcheck.com's analysis:


 * "Editorially, Reason takes Libertarian positions such as low taxes, free markets, low regulations and socially liberal position such as Marijuana legalization and pro-abortion rights. Politically, Reason falls within the Right-Center category based on economic positions (right) and socially liberal positions (Left). These positions often put Reason Magazine at odds with President Trump’s agenda regarding tariffs and free trade."


 * "A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check."


 * "Overall, we rate Reason Magazine Right-Center biased based on story selection that favors Libertarian positions and High for factual reporting due to mostly proper sourcing and a clean fact check record."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To avoid having newsinger repeat themself, MBFC is a self published source that is considered unreliable on the perennial sources list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Dumb mistake. I should have checked. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable for facts though with the usual caveat that if they are publishing a claim that seems outlandish with no corroborating sourcing or sources that agree with them, carefully weight inclusion and attributed as necessary. --M asem  (t) 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And yes, I agree with the bolded wording as given. That matches my feelings, understanding of it. --M asem (t) 16:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable -I agree with Masem and Guy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable for facts, opinions are likely to be WP:UNDUE: The problem with Reason is that like many other online publications, virtually all the content is marked "commentary", "policy brief", or "working paper". Opinion pieces, by definition, aren't considered reliable for facts. Policy briefs, such as this one, are also just opinions. Their working papers eg appear to be original research and studies that were first published on Reason, not in an academic journal, and therefore non-peer reviewed primary sources which have quite limited application in terms of what they could be cited for. It's hard to find any content on Reason that would be considered generally reliable for facts. Libertarianism is a minority view in the US and almost every other country, so opinions are likely to be undue weight. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally not reliable The objective of Reason from the beginning was to present conservative opinions. It does not report news, but presents a conservative analysis of news. Since opinion pieces are rarely reliable, it cannot be rs. Also, it doesn't make sense to source facts to opinion pieces, when they merely repeat what has already been reported. TFD (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. First of all, Reason is a libertarian website and magazine, not Conservative. More importantly, we don't discount sources due to their ideological bent - MSNBC is left-leaning, but reliable, and Fox News is right leaning, but reliable. We consistently refer to 'analysis' provided by reputable, reliable sources, of all ideologies. There is no difference between quoting Politifact's analysis of various claims (of which there are hundreds of examples on Wikipedia), and this article by Reason, similarly analyzing claims made about Dr. Oz, for example. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Generally not reliable" is pretty strong when I already proposed wording that includes :much of the content is commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should always be attributed and considered to only be reliable sources on themselves."
 * Here are four factual claims made in Reason that might be useful to satisfy WP:V on Wikipedia: (sample limited to their main page to avoid cherry picking). There of course are other policies such as WP:WEIGHT that might exclude the citation and there may be better, unbiased sources, but "generally not reliable" means "factual claims not usable for verification as required by WP:V."
 * Four sheriffs in Michigan opposed the stay-at-home order issued by Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
 * Michigan's' updated stay-at-home order bans travel between Michigan residences such as vacation homes. Residents of other states who own such properties in Michigan are still allowed to visit them.
 * A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, who had tried to ban drive-in Easter services.
 * The World Health Organization regional office for Europe has encouraged governments to enforce measures which limit alcohol consumption during lockdowns due to the the COVID-19 pandemic.
 * These are all statements of fact, not opinion, and are counterexamples to the false claims that "It's hard to find any content on Reason that would be considered generally reliable for facts" and "[Reason] does not report news, but presents a conservative analysis of news". (Also, Libertarians are not conservatives. How many conservatives want to legalize all drugs, legalize prostitution, completely open our borders, and withdraw all US troops fighting wars overseas?) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." While I am sure you can find many cases where the policy has not been followed, that does not mean we should not follow policy. The article you link to is clearly an expression of opinion, in this case that the media incorrectly reported the intent of Dr. Oz's statements. TFD (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * +1 Exactly—we should follow our own policies. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 10:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable If you need a recent example of them being more reliable than other mainstream left and right sources look here: Pelirojopajaro (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your link is to ... a piece in Reason. --JBL (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is another great example:
 * Compare the following claims in various sources:
 * "The United States goes through over 500 million plastic straws every day, according to Eco-Cycle, a United States-based nonprofit recycling organization." Source The New York Times
 * "In the United States alone, 500 million plastic straws are used each day, according to campaigners." --Reuters
 * "We use 500 million plastic straws every day in the U.S. alone" --Time
 * "With Americans using 500 million straws a day, the National Geographic calls them 'one of the most insidious polluters' because of the harm they cause to sea life." --The Guardian
 * "Millions of straws are used once and then discarded in the United States each day, with some operations like the National Park Service saying some 500 million straws are discarded a day." --San Fransisco Chronicle
 * "Every day Americans use — and almost immediately discard — up to half a billion plastic beverage straws. At least, that’s the figure widely used by environmental activists to explain why people should embrace going straw-less. It’s not clear where that number came from, but it seems credible..." --Los Angeles Times
 * "Approximately 300-500 million plastic straws are used in the United States each day. " --Los Angeles Department of Sanitation (and they passed a law based on that number...)
 * "Every day, Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws" --CNN
 * "Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws every year, according to the National Park Service." --ABC News Los Angeles
 * "It is estimated that Americans use 500 million straws per day" --USA Today
 * "It is estimated that Americans use, and then dispose of, 500 million straws every day." --The Washington Post
 * "The National Park Service estimates 500 million straws are used by Americans each day." --Fox News
 * "The legislature finds that Americans use five hundred million disposable drinking straws daily, according to the National Park Service" --Hawaii State Legislature
 * Now let's look at what Reason said about it:
 * "The original bad-straw-stat sin was the claim that Americans use 500 million straws a day, a number that popped up in just about every news article, blog post, or government press release on the topic before Reason revealed that its source was a small phone survey by a nine-year-old... the kid who gave us that 500-million-straws-a-day figure told USA Today, 'Why I use this statistic is because it illustrates that we use too many straws. I think if it were another number, it still illustrates the fact that there is room for reduction. That's really my message.' "
 * "The bigger issue is that claim that Americans consume 500 million straws a day. This stat, we know now, was produced by a 9-year-old boy; more reliable estimates put straw consumption at 175 million per day."
 * "News outlets writing about this issue—from CNN to the San Francisco Chronicle—unfailingly state that Americans use 500 million plastic straws a day, many of them ending up in waterways and oceans. The 500 million figure is often attributed to the National Park Service; it in turn got it from the recycling company Eco-Cycle. Eco-Cycle is unable to provide any data to back up this number, telling Reason that it was relying on the research of one Milo Cress. Cress—whose Be Straw Free Campaign is hosted on Eco-Cycle's website—tells Reason that he arrived at the 500 million straws a day figure from phone surveys he conducted of straw manufacturers in 2011, when he was just 9 years old. Eco-Cycle skews a bit more radical, with their "Be Straw Free" campaign -- sponsored in part by reusable straw makers -- that urges the adoption of glass or steel straws. Because we all know how good steel smelting is for the environment."
 * Other news outlets have talked about the bogus 500 million figure, but only after Reason broke the story.
 * This did not require sophisticated investigative reporting either: many of the sources cite the National Park Service or Eco-Cycle, and both of those sources clearly state where the number came from. The news outlets simply did not bother checking, and either gave the number as if it was factual or attributed the number to the Park service / Eco-Cycle as if they came up with it instead of getting it from a 9-year-old.. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement in Reason that media "unfailingly state that Americans use 500 million plastic straws a day" is incorrect. As your examples show, they typically say something like "according to Eco-Cycle." Eco-Cycle got the number from 9 year old Milo Cress and still uses this figure. USA Today published an article about the statistic in 2018. The New York Times also published an article which says that since Cress' estimate, rigorous studies have been conducted that puts the figure between 170 million and 390 million straws per day. Turns out that Cress' estimate was accurate considering the publicly available information at the time. But note the Reason article attacks the estimate based solely on Cress' age and does not publish the more recent informed figures which were then available. That's clear propaganda. Reason wants us to think that plastic straws do not present a problem and does this by attacking the original source of the estimate without giving us the actual figure because it is inconvenient to the narrative they want us to believe.
 * The most we can say is that Reason was helpful in drawing attention to the questionability of the numbers. But we had no way of assessing what they said until reliable sources commented on it.
 * TFD (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable in context Reason is primarily a source of commentary and should be treated as such.  Much as we source basic facts from commentary material from sources like Washington Post, we should be OK doing the same from Reason.  But any interpretations or conclusions which the article reaches should not be treated as fact and should be attributed.  Springee (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable for facts I agree with the summary. A quality publication with a particular political bent (not traditionally left or right in the US context), which mostly publishes commentary but performs adequate fact-checking on their articles. Comparable to other political news/commentary magazines such as Mother Jones or The Nation. feminist Wear a mask to protect everyone 09:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Apply extreme caution - Reason Magazine used to be right into holocaust denial, for example, (archive), including a special issue dedicated to minimising and denying factual claims about the Holocaust and bringing on deniers to Just Ask Questions. (archive) It's a magazine and website that exists for the purpose of political advocacy on behalf of its backers. That doesn't preclude fact-checking or stopped-clock moments, but it does mean that it'd be a yellow-rated source at very best, in need of application with great caution and attribution. I wouldn't use it at all except where unavoidable. Your bolded statement is not supportable without a caveat about their Holocaust denial, at which point the statement is self-contradictory - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Who/what is Pando and are they reliable for the claims in question? I didn't see them discussed in the RSN archives.  Springee (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They're a news outlet with proper editorial and journalism and so forth, and certainly were at the time - PandoDaily. Are you making a claim about the veracity of the report that Reason was into holocaust denial? Are you questioning the veracity of the reprint of Reason's holocaust just-asking-questions edition, suggesting it might be a fake? Please be specific in your objection - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of them. They don't appear in any RSN discussion save this one.  The Wiki article on them doesn't offer much to go on and the articles you linked to started off with Koch conspiracy claims.  It's not exactly easy to read the images on my phone.  But I would say the burden is on you to show we should put weight on the claims of the Pando writer.  I certainly don't see enough evidence thus far to assume they are correct vs mischaracterizing articles printed nearly 5 decades back.  The claim you are making is a serious one.  It would require some rather substantial evidence.  Do we have additional sources making the same claims?  Springee (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your ignorance is not a measure of a source. But this discussion is about Reason. Did they run a Holocaust denial issue? Yes, they did. Is this a reason to not regard Reason as a reliable source? I'd say it is - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignorance is preferable to making claims that you know to be false. You clearly read the February 1976 issue (you quoted from it) and thus have seen the table of contents. It was not a "Holocaust denial issue" and you know it. It was a Revisionism issue, and the revisionism referred to was the position taken by William Appleman Williams and other left-wing critics of the Cold War. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My claims are about the actual content - as I quoted, showing that my description is accurate - and not about their claims about themselves - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the Feb 1976 "Special Revisionism Issue" of Reason. p. 39. North: "Probably the most far-out materials on World War II revisionism have been the seemingly scholarly studies of the supposed execution of 6 million Jews by Hitler. The anonymous author of The Myth of the Six Million [...] has presented a solid case against the Establishment’s favorite horror story - the supposed moral justification for our entry into the War." January 1976 on reason.com, p.6. James J. Martin: "The German concentration camps weren't health centers, but they appear to have been far smaller and much less lethal than the Russian ones." Unless you're going to try to claim that's a fake too - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't said anything is fake so please don't setup strawmen. I have said that you are making extraordinary claims about the entire body of work of magazine that has been in publication for many decades based on the claims of a single source of unknown reliability.  The fact that this source starts with the Koch brothers boogie man is not a good sign.  Springee (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on pando.com: PandoDaily.

Reason itself covered their own February 1976 "Revisionism issue" back in 2014. You can read that entire issue here:.

The 2014 Reason article is a bit of a long read, so I will give a few quotes from it -- but if anyone is serious about studying this accusation they should read the entire thing and at least skim the 1976 issue for context.


 * "Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing. Another of that issue's contributors, Gary North, would later be excoriated in this 1998 Reason article for arguing in favor of violent theocracy and the stoning of gays and others."
 * "The "revisionism" under discussion in the 1976 special issue refers to the movement that was popular especially among left-wing critics of the Cold War such as University of Wisconsin's William Appleman Williams." (We have an article on him: William Appleman Williams.)
 * "Much of the material from the issue doesn't hold up, which is hardly surprising for a magazine issue published almost 40 years ago. Even as the various writers warn explicitly against uncritically accepting revisionist accounts out of inborn contrarianism, there is a generally adolescent glee in being iconoclastic that I find both uninteresting and unconvincing. However, to characterize the issue as a "holocaust denial 'special issue,'" as Ames does, is an example of how quickly he can lose his always-already weak grasp on reality."
 * "Reason's Editor in Chief Matt Welch noted that Ames is "the anti-libertarian conspiracy theorist with a history of generating apology notes and speedy take-downs among those journalistic outlets still reckless enough to publish him."

Analyzing what they wrote 44 years ago is interesting, but does not change the fact that as as the year 2020 Reason Magazine and the associated website reason.com are politically biased but generally reliable for news and facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on the Pando aspect: CRJ seems to quote them (and Reason as well), so I'm going to say that Pando's a recognized voice, but when you look at the specific facets of Pando's claims towards Reason, it is as Guy says, something from 40 years ago, and only seems to be propagated by one writer at Pando. Looking at Pando's "process" it basically is a minimally reviewed blog, maybe one step away from a SPS, so basically the whole aspect boils down to "he said, she said" and one we'd not consider without other sources that have also evaluated it. As such, what one writer Pando has said about what some people involved with Reason had opined 40 years ago doesn't affect the use of Reason today for facts with a recognized bias. --M asem (t) 22:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I was sitting here thinking "now where did I hear about pando.com before?" then it hit me. They are the ones behind the conspiracy theory that the Tor (anonymity network) -- The one both I and Edward Snowden use -- is some sort of government conspiracy. See, , and . --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable per Guy Macon. One terrible article that was published 44 years ago and has since been disavowed isn't very convinced argument against reliability. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * General unreliable - There are not strictly a WP:NEWSORG, but even if they were, "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.". The purpose of their foundation is to promote libertarian ideas, which is obvious from their content and some of their donors like Charles Koch Institute. Their claim that their publications are editorial independent from their foundations seems dubious. They share similar audiences with Nation Review, Washington Examiner, The Federalist, Daily Caller, adn Daily Wire, all of which we tend to steer away from for references. There may be case where their opinion content is usable with attribution, but it's hard to imagine scenarios where something noteworthy would be sourced in Reason Magazine or website, but not in a far more credible publication. As far as I can tell, they are infrequently cited by other reliable sources, which suggest low WP:USEBYOTHERS. - MrX 🖋 15:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * it's hard to imagine scenarios where something noteworthy would be sourced in Reason Magazine or website, but not in a far more credible publication. As far as I can tell, they are infrequently cited by other reliable sources, which suggest low WP:USEBYOTHERS. yep, this is key. Anything good is not original, anything original is not good - they're not a newspaper, at all. And nobody else treats them as one - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They are not a newspaper, but reliable sources aren't limited to newspapers. and conversely, many newspapers are not reliable, so that bit of "argument" is a total non sequitur. They are a magazine, with both print and on-line versions, and your assertion that "Anything good is not original, anything original is not good" are just that, your assertions. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that Reason is a magazine, not a newspaper or other outlet that is primarily a source of news.
 * As for how often it is cited on Wikipedia or by other reliable sources, it is roughly consistent with other generally reliable magazines with a similar circulation:
 * Reason (magazine): 50,000
 * The New Republic: 50,000
 * Variety (magazine): 54,000
 * Wired UK: 58,000
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * it's hard to imagine scenarios where something noteworthy would be sourced in Reason Magazine or website, but not in a far more credible publication. As a practical example, the only non-trivial secondary coverage I've seen for Kimball Atwood's role on a naturopathy licensure commission (described in Kimball Atwood) is this 2003 Reason article. Does this indicate that his presence on the commission was not noteworthy? Cheers, gnu 57 22:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A major column in Reason is the Volokh Conspiracy, written by legal expert Eugene Volokh and a few others covering constitutional law. Other sources may have their own legal experts by Volokh's interpretation and analysis of cases is of high regards. --M asem (t) 22:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable absent any reason to think otherwise. I don't like a lot of what they write, but they probably don't like a lot of what The Guardian writes. Guy (help!) 20:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable. They do correct themselves when they make a mistake, which is a primary criterion for reliability. Per Reason (magazine), they have won several awards, which suggests they have a good reputation. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable based on the evidence given above, and actually demonstrated to be one of the most reliable, given that its perspective comes from outside the major ideological divide (and beholden to neither). A reputation for getting facts right early and often, being a news source other media takes lead from in some cases, as well as a robust history of self-correction. Opinions can be attributed to their authors, which are often well-regarded for their commentary. I'm actually surprised that there would be any thought that they are unreliable, given how prevalent its already used on Wikipedia. - Netoholic @ 16:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable but rather opinionated. While I disagree with them about a number of things, I feel they provide an important point of view, and their reporting comes off to me as well done, investigating facts and looking at both sides of an issue. Samboy (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that they don't do original reporting. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Except when they do, as shown above, repeatedly.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Use with caution and may require attribution They are outside of the green box and considered very partisan by the Ad Fontes media bias chart. — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

University Press of Mississippi
Is the University Press of Mississippi considered generally reliable or should consideration be used before it is used in an article? TheAwesome Hwyh  19:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a reputable publisher, sponsored by a network of accredited universities in the state. I don't think the word "reliable" applies to a publisher, since even the most reputable publishers sometimes publish highly unreliable material (an example: Elsevier publishes extensively on homeopathy, and presumably none of it satisfies WP:MEDRS). So reliability should be judged separately for each source. NightHeron (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Most university press material is reliable, but it never hurts to check a few book reviews before using extensively. You can access most academic book reviews at Sci-Hub or (legally) WP:RX. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist
Should generally reliable sources on the perennial sources list be added to CAPTCHA whitelist, so that new and anonymous users can cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA? —  Newslinger  talk   19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Background
Wikipedia uses the ConfirmEdit extension, which is an anti-spam feature that requires IP editors and newly registered users to solve a CAPTCHA before they can add a citation or external link, unless the linked website is on the CAPTCHA whitelist. The CAPTCHA whitelist makes it easier for new editors to add content that references "known good sites", which are likely to be appropriate citations or external links, and unlikely to be spammed.

There are currently 103 domains operated by 76 sources that have been designated as generally reliable on the perennial sources list after being reviewed on this noticeboard:

aljazeera.com aljazeera.net arstechnica.com arstechnica.co.uk ap.org apnews.com theatlantic.com avclub.com bbc.co.uk bbc.com bellingcat.com bloomberg.com buzzfeednews.com csmonitor.com climatefeedback.org cnet.com cnn.com theconversation.com thedailybeast.com dailydot.com telegraph.co.uk deadline.com deadlinehollywooddaily.com deseretnews.com digitalspy.co.uk digitalspy.com economist.com engadget.com ew.com ft.com foxnews.com theguardian.com guardian.co.uk theguardian.co.uk haaretz.com haaretz.co.il thehill.com hollywoodreporter.com idolator.com ign.com independent.co.uk ipsnews.net ipsnoticias.net ipscuba.net theintercept.com jamanetwork.com latimes.com metacritic.com gamerankings.com motherjones.com thenation.com nymag.com vulture.com thecut.com grubstreet.com nytimes.com newyorker.com newsweek.com people.com pewresearch.org people-press.org journalism.org pewsocialtrends.org pewforum.org pewinternet.org pewhispanic.org pewglobal.org playboy.com politico.com politifact.com propublica.org theregister.co.uk reuters.com rollingstone.com rottentomatoes.com sciencebasedmedicine.org slate.com slate.fr snopes.com splcenter.org spectator.co.uk spiegel.de thewrap.com time.com thetimes.co.uk thesundaytimes.co.uk timesonline.co.uk torrentfreak.com tvguide.com tvguidemagazine.com usatoday.com vanityfair.com variety.com venturebeat.com theverge.com vogue.com vox.com wsj.com washingtonpost.com weeklystandard.com wired.com wired.co.uk zdnet.com

The above excludes:
 * Forbes, which shares a domain with the generally unreliable Forbes.com contributors
 * buzzfeed.com, which is no longer used for BuzzFeed News after it moved to a separate domain

Some of these domains are already on the CAPTCHA whitelist, and would not be added again.

Another request concerning this whitelist was made just over a week ago at "". —  Newslinger  talk   19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CAPTCHA whitelist)

 * Support as proposer. The CAPTCHA whitelist improves accessibility for new and anonymous editors. The listed sources have already been vetted through this noticeboard. —  Newslinger  talk   19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support to improve accessibility and remove unnecessary red tape, these captcha processes are particularly difficult for visually impaired people, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support to improve the user experience and therefore editor retention. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but what's stopping users from editing WP:RSP to bypass this restriction? feminist (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK I see that this proposal doesn't actually add RSP links to the CAPTCHA whitelist in real time, but rather involves manually adding the links to the whitelist. Support. feminist (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - and I will consider to add this capability to User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-whitelist-Handler (well, I will likely copy-and-paste it to a next handler) to make it easier to handle these requests. IMHO, they should just be added with a rather low bar - as long as they are properly logged and tracked it should not impose many problems.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Adding my late support as well if it's still needed. I don't see any objections to this, so I'd go ahead and implement. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support no brainer that would make it much easier to cite good sources. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, it's a no-brainer really and just makes sense.  13:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per Newslinger's comments above. ~mitch~ (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the principle, oppose the list as given unless there's significant further pruning. A lot of those are "generally reliable" in a particular topic but I wouldn't trust them to give me the time of day outside their specialist area. (Do you really want the newspapers gleefully running "Wikiped:ia considers Playboy a more reliable source than most national newspapers" headlines? That's what all you supports above are voting for, and I guarantee that at minimum the Daily Mail is eagerly watching this discussion.) &#8209; Iridescent 13:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Should have been done a long time ago. I see 's point, but the CAPTCHA is there stop bots, not people. If there's a human editor who thinks that Playboy is a suitable source for magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, yes that's a problem, but having to type in a CAPTCHA won't stop them. Adding a site to this list isn't a declaration that it's "extra reliable", just that it's very unlikely to spammed by a bot. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (CAPTCHA whitelist)

 * If there should be a low bar for the whitelist, we could also add domains of sites classified as "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" to the list. Should I create a separate proposal in this RfC for the "no consensus..." domains? —  Newslinger  talk   13:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * that list is endless, especially when knowing that we have likely never discussed 99% of the reliable sources (we discuss for being perceived not reliable, not the other way around). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources listed as reliable on WP:VGRS and WP:A/S should be added as well. I'm currently compiling a list of potential additions on User:Feminist/CAPTCHA exemptions. Feel free to use it and work on it as you wish. feminist (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are also some lists over at WP:New pages patrol/Source guide discussions about reliable sources for specific regions/contexts. However, these pages are quite early in development and don't yet have much discussion. Might be useful in the future. Jlevi (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has elapsed, I've requested closure at . — Newslinger  talk   03:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Meltdown on 2020 Coronavirus epidemic in Sweden
There's been a discussion on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Sweden going on for two months. Discussion however appears meaningless, as there's a never-ending edit war going on in the background. Any and  usually gets silently removed within days, and WP:INACCURATE is foreign language. The sources for the text isn't a problem at all, but when it comes to the stats the article is a total train wreck. And there sure is a lot of stats on the page. We have a bunch of charts, a table, a case list, a time line and an infobox. But if you visit the article looking for a number of cases on a specific date, you can easily find five numbers all contradicting each other. Probably more. This has gotten out of hand long ago, and the problem is bigger than just a conflict about sources, but I don't know where to take this?

today's discussion, current talk page, archived talk page, archived talk page

To give you an idea of the absurdity of it all, I'll give an example of a "source" for 5(?) charts:

"Datasource of some of the following charts are Public Health Agency of Sweden official data compiled every day at noon, also presented by ECDC and WHO. Others are from databases that compile region reports later every day, showing slightly different numbers."

Any help would be much appreciated, and much needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittens n thugs (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)
Is the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) a reliable source for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations? —  Newslinger  talk   14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The IFCN's website (ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org) includes a list of signatories that have been certified by the IFCN. —  Newslinger  talk   14:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey (IFCN)

 * Yes. The IFCN evaluates sources for compliance with a code of principles (summarized here, detailed here ) that are in line with what is expected from reliable sources. The assessments (example: Snopes in 2018) are in-depth, and include examinations of the fact-checker's article quality, methodology, funding, staff, commitment to nonpartisanship, and track record of performing error corrections. Although the Poynter Institute has never been discussed in detail on this noticeboard, past discussions indicate that the Poynter Institute is not questioned as a reliable source when it is mentioned, similiarly to the Columbia Journalism Review. —  Newslinger  talk   14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Some of the financial backers are neutral but some appears to be for-profit and political influencers and have controversial backgrounds.


 * Here's what I have found. Poynter (IFCN) have had received major funding from some controversial entities as follows.


 * Facebook is a highly controversial entity that is alleged of stealing and selling the private user data to advertisement agencies and political parties and have also tried to influence the political views of users.
 * Open_Society_Foundations whose founder and chairman is George Soros, who according to the his Wikipedia page is "a well-known supporter of progressive and liberal political causes" and a controversial figure.
 * Charles Koch Foundation is another controversial entity backing IFCN. According to Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers, the Koch brothers have made significant financial contributions to libertarian and conservative think tanks and have donated primarily to Republican Party candidates running for office.
 * Google News Initiative is an entity created by a for-profit and controversial company, Google.
 * Open Society Foundations, Omidyar Network | Luminate Omidyar, Tides Foundation are funds managed by tycoon Luminate Omidyar who is alleged of having given large sums of money to causes that are active in left-wing politics


 * Looking at the past backgrounds of these investors/backers, the neutrality of the IFCN is in question since it is an entity that accredit news portals as verified news fact-checkers globally via some middlemen (who again are politically influenced by some means). This is a serious issue and some of the accredited fact-checkers in question (whose founders/associates are actually involved in publicly bashing out other-side political leaders or ideologically/religiously different groups of people) are involved in publishing targetted and one-side political write ups. Ironically, IFCN is also involved in rejecting requests from the sources which are politically/ideologically have different views than its existing verified fact-checker signatories. Because Wikipedia treats IFCN and its verified signatories as reliable sources, this is a serious threat which is deliberately being used as a powerful weapon whoever talks against them even with the valid evidences. Also, whatever is being published or circulated by such IFCN verified signatory fact-checker websites is considered as a final truth which is a dangerous thing, in my opinion. I would like to propose that IFCN (and its verified fact-checker signatories) should not be treated as reliable sources of the news. If this is not possible, then at least allow other news websites to be considered equally reliable which have been targettedly called as black-listed by these IFCN verified fact-checker websites. This decision can ensure that there is no monopoly of IFCN on judging the fact-checkers as it posses the power of being one today since Wikipedia (editors) trust all those IFCN-verified fact-checkers and doesn't trust at all those who are rejected or have been bashed out targettedly by the IFCN-verified ones. Vishal Telangre (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The Poynter Institute lists 22 major funders. The widely discredited George Soros conspiracy theory, which is often described as antisemitic, has no bearing on the reliability of the Poynter Institute or the IFCN. Additionally, you've listed funding from both liberal (e.g. George Soros) and conservative (e.g. Charles Koch) entities, showing support across the political spectrum. For-profit companies donate to nonprofit organizations all the time, and a nonprofit organization does not become a less reliable source by accepting funds from a for-profit company, especially when a vast number of commercial publications run by for-profit companies qualify under the reliable sources guideline. It is true that OpIndia has been rejected by the IFCN, and considering OpIndia's propensity to publish false or misleading information, the rejection is a positive indicator of the IFCN's reliability. —  Newslinger  talk   18:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Rejecting an applicant doesn't make IFCN reliable rather it make it more questionable. The IFCN's credibility becomes untrustworthy when the its verified signatories have one-sided idelogical views rather than fact-based neutral views. An example is AltNews who is owned by by Pratik Sinha who has anti-Modi, anti-BJP, anti-Hindutva and anti-right-wing, pro-leftist views and is a member of a political organisation (mentioned in his Twitter bio) that is involved in targetted bashing of current prime minister of India and is inclined towards left-wing political parties and individuals. Just makes all connections fishy. This is one of the examples of the specific-agenda views of the entities associated/verified by IFCN. Vishal Telangre (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So they're biased because they're funded by non-profits, and businesses, and progressives, and conservatives, and libertarians I guess. That's certainly a unique analysis.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your false allegation that Pratik Sinha is "anti-Hindu" is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy unless you can back that up with a reliable source. OpIndia, a site that is essentially the Indian version of The Gateway Pundit (which was deprecated in a ), is not reliable and the IFCN is correct to reject it. —  Newslinger   talk   06:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No false allegations. I have attached reference to the website (it redirects to altnews.com now) run by the same man which had published articles expressing similar views. Vishal Telangre (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The false "anti-Hindu" allegation is not the same thing as the term anti-Hindutva. —  Newslinger  talk   09:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like you missed my edits. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you've changed "anti-Hindu" to "anti-Hindutva" in Special:Diff/945975817. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   09:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pratik Sinha himself spread fake news amid COVID-19 pandemic to disturb the situation from his official Twitter account and later when authorities found out that it was indeed a fake news, he tweeted with an apology.


 * It is commendable that Sinha apologized for retweeting someone after he realized the original tweet was from an "imposter account", especially considering that the retweet was done on Sinha's personal Twitter account, not Alt News's Twitter account. Using Sinha's retweet correction as "evidence" against the IFCN-certified Alt News is a very long stretch of an argument; it is unsurprising that the IFCN-rejected OpIndia published an article along the same lines as your argument. Even if the retweet were done from Alt News's Twitter account, the correction would be a positive point: the IFCN expects its signatories to publish error corrections, as outlined in its code of principles. —  Newslinger  talk   07:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's... novel. In the real world, a body that never rejects any applicant is not thought to be terribly discerning. As to Sinha, I don't know if you've realised it, but critical analysis of the government of the day is a core function of journalism. Failure to do that is one reason why Fox News is not reliable. Guy (help!) 08:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding Pratik Sinha, as cited above, he do not have neutral idelogical and political views. He rather have published articles only targetting a specific person (to be specific, India's current PM, Narendra Modi), related ideology and that person's political party. That makes him and his organization (AltNews) an unreliable source since the published articles show the similar views. If someone is a hater of a specific ideology then how can his organization be trusted as a reliable source which published most news stories that majorly targets a specific community? Vishal Telangre (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not established that Alt News is biased, especially considering that Alt News was found to be compliant with the IFCN's nonpartisanship policy when it was accredited in 2019. Wikipedia articles are generally allowed to use biased or opinionated sources, but generally not allowed to use questionable sources. OpIndia is a questionable source because it regularly publishes false and misleading information, not because it is a far-right pro-Hindutva publication. —  Newslinger  talk   09:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , he doesn't have to have unbiased views. Alan Rusbridger is not a fan of the Tory Party, but he ran a highly respected newspaper that comments with some authority on what the Tory government does. Guy (help!) 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. IFCN is an authority widely used and cited by other reliable sources. Reuters, CJR and others cover it as a positive contribution to factual reporting. It's not for us to second-guess those sources, especially when the motivation is that we like a source it says is unreliable. Guy (help!) 08:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes as it is considered reliable by sources such as Reuters, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes they appear to have a good reputation for reliability and fairness. I view their broad base of donor support as a positive. Glendoremus (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, good reputation for reliability and fairness, strong WP:USEBYOTHERS. Neutralitytalk 19:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes agree with what Newslinger said.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Reliable sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The fact that the IFCN has given a positive assessment of a factchecker is evidence they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That does not mean that it is conclusive evidence, but that without evidence to the contrary we would accept their findings. I don't think it matters who funds the project. We should look at the reputation of the sponsor, which is a journalism school. TFD (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - I'd venture to say far more reliable than several of the fact checking sources we're using now, particularly those fact-checking sources founded by individuals whose backgrounds didn't provide one any comfort in knowing who was checking the facts. <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 📧 21:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per Newslinger, and the lack of credibility in the arguments against. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes they are reliable, IFCN is one of the best in the business. If they don’t meet the bar for WP:RS I don’t think anyone in the space does (which would be a problem for us). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes clearly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Yes, but with concerns. I've been skeptical (cough) about Poynter/IFCN for a while, and previously had some discussion in context of another "fact check" (blog) site. In my view, Poynter/IFCN is another "news" publisher, similar to many others. While they may be "non-profit," they still have to cover their expenses, and that creates obligations, and lack of independence, just like with other publishers. For context, I feel Wikipedia's blacklist approach should abandoned in favor of a more metric-based approach, used article by article. Unfortunately, objectively rating each individual article proposed as a source takes more effort. So, Poynter is a publisher, and IFCN is their "fact check" arm, to take advantage of a current trend, but it doesn't make everything they publish, or every rating by IFCN, a "gold standard." Some other comments:


 * Reuters is a "signatory." Thus Reuters citing IFCN is not independent, but more like conflict of interest. They have mutual interest in endorsing each other.


 * Snopes withdrew from both Facebook and Poynter/IFCN. According to Poynter/IFCN, this was due to "bandwidth" and using "a manual system." According to snopes, it was due to the compensation being inadequate. Poynter/IFCN published an article on Snopes. The point is Poynter/IFCN is not a disinterested party.


 * Poynter/IFCN published an article about DARPA disinformation efforts, and questioned their ability to use software for more automated fact-check type efforts. Could it be Poynter is concerned about competition with their business?


 * Poynter uses wordpress, as well as associated plugins and advert/tracking networks. This reflects poorly on their capabilities, and may indicate a conflict in some opinion publishing (see criticism of DARPA above).


 * Poynter re-publishes PolitiFact publications. It's with attribution, but it demonstrates lack of independence in operation.
 * -- Yae4 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC does not seek to make the IFCN the sole arbiter of whether a fact-checker is reliable; the RfC statement asks whether the IFCN's assessments are generally reliable (and should be used in conjunction with other available reliable sources) when determining whether a fact-checker is reliable. The IFCN is not independent from PolitiFact, since both are operated by the Poynter Institute; however, editors are free to assess the evidence presented in the assessment for PolitiFact on its own merits. Snopes was previously paid by Facebook (not the IFCN) to fact-check content on the social network; Snopes ended the partnership with Facebook because Snopes did not consider it to be the best use of resources. WordPress powers many reliable sources, including the websites for Time , Variety , and NiemanLab; a website's content management system is not related to its reliability. Most of the top million websites use web tracking, including the sites of many reliable sources, and the presence of web tracking has nothing to do with reliability. —  Newslinger   talk   07:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my "vote" to Yes, with concerns, because in balance they seem about as "good" as other "reliable" publishers, and better in some ways. It is predictable, however, when IFCN is on the RSPS list, they will become the default primary arbiter. It's also concerning there were zero "Not Compliant" issues in Opindia's archived review, but somehow they were "rejected" in the end, for being partisan. Everyone is partisan... I think they lack independence too much, and they have been misleading or contradictory, despite their transparency efforts. For example, in one place they say, "The IFCN does not publish fact checks and is therefore not eligible to be a signatory of its own code of principles..." However, in another place they acknowlege, "Poynter also houses the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact, which is the largest political fact-checking news organization in the United States." So, one side of the house does not fact check, but the other side does, and they don't hesitate to review and endorse their own fact check arm. The technology issue was raised to point out they (1) are comfortable with criticising DARPA, a potential creator of a competing technology for IFCN business, while they are criticized by Snopes for relying on manual methods (poor technology); (2) By being one of the million who use typical website monitizing methods, they are one of the million who are motivated to "drive" eyeballs to their site(s), rather than being unique and completely preventing those conflicts of interest. So, a site's CMS technology isn't the only indicator, but it is an indicator, and "advert infested" (which is implemented with site CMS technology) has been used as a criticism. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Poynter recently had to retract a list of fake news sites that included The Washington Examiner and other reliable outlets. Poynter took down their list after widespread backlash. Illustrates that Poynter is quite fallible and should not be taken as gospel: https://www.poynter.org/letter-from-the-editor/2019/letter-from-the-editor/ --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Examiner and other reliable outlets um ok: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel B. Lewis (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (IFCN)

 * The International Fact-Checking Network's evaluations are commonly used as a metric for determining whether fact-checking organizations (such as Snopes, Alt News, Boom, and OpIndia) are reliable. Recently, some editors who argue in favor of the reliability of certain pro-Hindutva publications (including Swarajya and the IFCN-rejected OpIndia, which are also being discussed in the "OpIndia and Swarajya" noticeboard discussion) have criticized the IFCN and IFCN-certified fact checkers on a variety of grounds. (See and  for details.) This RfC aims to resolve the question of whether the IFCN should be used to evaluate the reliability of fact-checkers, which are in turn used to source claims in articles. —  Newslinger   talk   14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there some serious debate about this source?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, see the following:
 * —  Newslinger  talk   15:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has elapsed, I've requested closure at . — Newslinger  talk   03:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —  Newslinger  talk   15:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has elapsed, I've requested closure at . — Newslinger  talk   03:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

booksfact.com
At Yuz Asaf I ran in to a cite from something called booksfact.com. Opinions on the RS-ness of this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of a source claiming spurious wakeups can occur without ever having been signaled
It's sourced to a quote from a popular programming how-to but I question the authority. Requesting discussion at Talk:Spurious wakeup Msnicki (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Trekmovie interviews
Can interviews from Trekmovie be cited in articles? They regularly publish exlusive interviews with members of Star Trek's cast and crew (i.e Kate Mulgrew, Armin Shimerman, Jonathan Frakes, Robert Sallin, Marc Scot Zicree) that could be quite useful in articles. I have no reason to doubt the interviews authenticity, but it's a fan blog. TheAwesome Hwyh  19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned this discussion at WikiProject Star Trek TheAwesome  Hwyh  21:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that they draw on outside sources themselves, they comment on interviews and videos given on other sites, and then offer their opinion. Probably best to go directly to the source for this information, as the line between what was said and their opinion could become muddled. StarHOG (Talk) 15:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the interviews are all conducted by them, so there is no outside source. TheAwesome  Hwyh  15:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This was the first article I clicked on, about Frakes talking about Discovery season three. The very first paragraph, "TrekMovie recently reported on Jonathan Frakes discussing how Burnham and the Discovery crew will be reunited in the third episode of season 3, which is one of three he directed. Speaking to ComicBook.com, Frakes offered more on where the new season is headed" and then gave the Frakes quote. So I think that is pretty apparent that they are getting their info from other sources. At least some of them, right? I mean, if you're looking for a source, and it says they interviewed someone, then use it. But if they say they pulled it from somewhere else, I would go to that someplace else first. Use your best judgement. You don't want your edit reverted down the line because of bad sourcing, that's all I'm saying. StarHOG (Talk) 13:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the Frakes one is an outlier; to be clear, you think it's fine to use if they really were the ones who interview them? TheAwesome  Hwyh  15:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Any of them could be fine to use, remember, sometimes there is value in a 3rd party source giving an analysis of something. As editors, we can't analyze, that's Original Research, so sometimes you need this stuff. My only point is if you can go to the source, I would do it. StarHOG (Talk) 13:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

AXS as a reputable music critic source
I am busy reviewing a song article for GA and came across an opinion from AXS which are a ticket merchant site that appears to have WP:USERG content where "contributors" write articles for their site. This rang several alarm bells for me, so I am asking for second opinions please?


 * The article in question
 * His bio says he's written for Medium, AXS, FanSided, Ranker, InfoWars, Bam Smack Pow, Guilty Eats - none of which are reputable music critic sources. In fact all of them are blogs or user contributed sites.

Is there any reliability in this source/site?  Cool Marc  15:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say not, I suppose it depends on what for, but overall no not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

FrontPage Magazine
Are FrontPage Magazine and other David Horowitz Freedom Center sources reliable for BLP articles? This article extensively uses them as a source for seriously contested material (Please see here). Pahlevun (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Front Page Magazine is definitely not a reliable source, a quick look at its website will tell you why. It should probably be listed at RSP. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Biased source? I don't agree with the latest trend of denigrating every source that is considered "right-wing" or "conservative" for no other reason than editors not agreeing with or abhorring a particular ideology, which appears to justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's the kind of behavior we'd expect from SPLC, but they're an advocacy, not an encyclopedia. Our job is to provide knowledge, not stoke fires or RGW.  We don't have to agree with a particular ideology, and in the US, we are free to be critical of things we don't approve. We are supposed to choose our sources from a NPOV, not pick sources that reflect our views, and when we're discussing radical ideologies/beliefs/opinions, we must keep in mind that we are still dealing with opinions....and it doesn't matter whether we agree with them or not.  We simply apply WEIGHT and context when determining if the material published in that particular source should be included, and if challenged, we discuss it on the article TP.  At least that is how I've always understood our purpose and PAGs.  <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 📧 17:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Biased sources tend to report most news even if they tend to report it with a spin towards their preferred demographic. Sources that are purely biased don't only post stuff which panders to a far-right demographic, and they also tend not to have hysterical quotes from their founders plastered across every single page.  Meanwhile, let's have a look at today's offerings; "A new book unveils the racist war against white people -- and what can be done to combat it."  Or how about "Kommunist Klux Klan" for a headline?  One of its columnists is Katie Hopkins (in other words, complete made-up nonsense). Any fact that it doesn't like is labelled "fake news".  Social distancing?  Nope, it's "Socialist distancing" I think you'll find.  This is not a reliable source and should be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An informative article in The Atlantic that addresses your comment. Both sides are guilty of sensational headlines, clickbait tactics, propaganda and whatever else drives traffic to their site. As editors, we need to distance ourselves from the fray and steer clear of favoring any political side - we leave our biases at login. We are not here to RGW and we certainly should not accept opinions as fact, regardless of origin. Editors should be looking at published information from a pragmatic POV, not an emotional one. A medical student who wanted to be a surgeon would not get very far if the sight of blood made them nauseous. <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 📧 21:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say exactly the same of a left-wing equivalent, if such a thing exists. The point is that I cannot think of any circumstances where the only source for something would be FPM.  If it hadn't been covered elsewhere, you have to think "why would that be"? Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the articles on the front page today is "Democrats’ Fascism Shines Through: Totalitarians expect their commands to be obeyed instantly - and without question." Inside the article, it says "In the case of Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, the totalitarian is not only out but goose-stepping toward the New Reich. Instead of “Sieg Heil,” it’s “Obey or Else.”" I think this sums up why this can't be used for BLP articles and actually should be deprecated. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's definitely biased; this doesn't mean it should deprecated. Better approach is "USE WITH CAUTION", as we do with Daily Beast and other left-biased and not-super-reliable sites. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Some sites marked green on WP:RSP and some articles from their front page:
 * The Daily Beast: Trump’s Bleach Bullshit Starts Viral Disinfo Campaign in Africa
 * The Intercept: Quack-in-Chief Donald Trump Asks If Bleach Injections or Tanning Could Cure Covid-19
 * Slate (magazine): This Is Still Happening: Stephen Miller ... the racist troll who designs Donald Trump’s violent and (often) unlawful immigration policies
 * Anyone who wants to compare Fascist, Totalitarian, Bullshit, Quack-in-Chief, and Racist Troll for sources for BLP articles, feel free. It's almost as if websites think stirring up "their side" gets them clicks. Surprise! --GRuban (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable While arguments could be made that the Democrats or Republicans are fascist, it is not an accepted fact in political science and any source that says without qualification that they are is not reliable. TFD (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Should be deprecated like Jihad Watch. Conspiracy theories, falsehoods, bigotry. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)