Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295

CleanTechnica, again
Some days ago I created an article stub on CleanTechnica. Its talk page now has a question from whether the article should be deleted as unreliable, with reference to an earlier discussion on this Noticeboard. We certainly have articles on news media that is non-reliable, so the talk page question is easily answered. However, I noticed that the discussion of CleanTechnica as reliable source was very brief, started by the aforementioned and with just two comments, from  and. Among the points raised by the previous discussion is that the source favours one technology over another (to the detriment of hydrogen as an energy carrier) and that the source "content appears to summaries of reports and press releases". While there objectively are challenges with hydrogen, it was easy to find an article South Windsor High School, where the CleanTechnica writer is themselves interviewing the person cited and where Fuel Cells "save the day". (It's not explicitly stated that the Fuel Cells are using hydrogen, but hydrogen is basically only usable with fuel cells, so it is as a minimum supporting the main hydrogen use case). This specific source citation was validated by.

,, , , , , , : Wikipedia has 200+ articles that cite CleanTechnica and the editors of each of these citations has made the determination to quote CleanTechnica in support for the added information. While we can not ask the opinion of everyone who previously made such a determination I am now asking a few of you for your opinion regarding the reliability of this source. Lklundin (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * We can have articles on notable sources that are not reliable for being used on WP. (That said, what's on CT's article right not isn't going to pass the GNG....) The problem with the site is not so much a specific focus on a type of clean energy but that generally it looks like a industry-promotional site. The writers there may seek out stories but it looks more like they are tipped to stories from companies that want them to be written up, which are the types of sites we generally avoid. As i noted, they will provide links to actual reports of use which should be the sources to be used instead. --M asem  (t) 13:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My feeling is might be able pass WP:NOTE but the number of reliable sources about CT are going to be very limited. My concern with CT as a RS is largely based on what I've read from sources that don't pass WP:RS criteria but none the less make strong arguments.  I generally feel CT is very promotional and is likely feed select bits of information from companies.  Conflicts of interest are not clearly identified.  In general I would be wary of using CT as a source for much of anything and would generally assume any reliable fact reported in CT could be sourced elsewhere. Still, I think the site is often cited by mainstream reliable sources as sort of the opinion of an industry watcher.  I would be reluctant to remove any citation to CT without some reason to be suspicious of it.  I suspect most of the material cited to CT is going to be non-controversial claims.  Springee (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to the 8 articles where the above mentioned (8) editors chose to cite CleanTechnica as a source, I have looked at another 50 articles that cite CleanTechnica - out of currently 822 articles in main that mention it (although some not as a source), and have made these observations:
 * In these 58 articles 50 different (43 named + 7 IP) contributors have made the determination to cite CleanTechnica,
 * The information added has not been reverted or significantly modified by subsequent editors, suggesting that the content is non-controversial and that a larger number of editors see it as useful.
 * Occasionally other editors have reviewed these source citations (updating the access-date, introducing citation template, etc.), again suggesting a wider acceptance of the source among editors.
 * Larger articles typically cite more than one CleanTechnica source, typically by different editors suggesting an even wider use of the source than the search suggests.
 * Give some extra days I (or someone else) could review another 50 articles that cite CleanTechnica, but I see no indication that additional sampling among the about 800 CleanTechnica uses would change these observations.
 * With a wide range of Wikipedians who have deemed to cite CleanTechnica as a reliable source, there is nothing concrete to suggest that this source should be the contrary. Given this overwhelming body of existing material, we would need concrete, compelling reasons to consider it an unreliable source, rather than the so far provided comments that are more speculative. Lklundin (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think one generally assumes reliability of a source until proven unreliable. Usage by other editors also doesn’t really mean anything.A more useful barometer: what do independent reliable sources say about CleanTechnica? I’ve only found this Mashable profile so far, which describes it as a blog. However, their about page mentions that Finding these examples and seeing the extent to which they reference CleanTechnica may demonstrate a solid claim for reliability. — MarkH21talk 08:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, we certainly do not assume reliability until proven otherwise. Every editor is supposed to quote a reliable source and while some may fail to do so, wide usage by a range of editors is a strong if implicit indication that the source is indeed reliable. Be that as it may, an Internet search for CleanTechnica that excludes the site itself yields plenty of examples of other news media that cite CleanTechnica as a source. In a few days I expect we will see examples among the above mentioned news media citing CleanTechnica for their stories. Such examples could fittingly provide some content and indication of notability to the related CleanTechnica article. Lklundin (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just ran into this discussion. It seems pretty obvious to me that CleanTechnica is frequently cited as a reliable source by other news sources -     etc, and features op-eds by famous people (for example, here's one from Gavin Newsom).  If sites like Business Insider, Forbes, Bloomberg, the NY Times, etc consider CleanTechnica worth citing, it'd be pretty ridiculous if Wikipedia didn't. 157.157.83.50 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is an IP address opining here? The above doesn't really make them reliable so much as just a blog like site that is happy to published content for others.  I would be happy to use CT as a source to say something like "Ford said that Ford will release such and such an EV".  That's just regurgitating a press release.  I wouldn't trust CT to be critical when reporting something like "Tesla to have 1 million robotaxies on the road this year!"  Same when "sources leak" an "internal" email at Tesla that causes the share price to move up.  Springee (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we please avoid WP:ABP arguments? Lklundin (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to the suggestions from (and partly with the suggestions from the IP-editor) I have gone ahead and upgraded CleanTechnica from stub to start-class, citing a quite wide range of WP:RS. There are plenty more examples that can be added from any willing editor, but with the examples currently provided we are clearly able to close this discussion.
 * On a related note, I will follow up on my above presented idea that a massive body of already cited material from a wide range of editors constitutes a large number of small but specific WP:RS validations performed by the editors who decide to cite the source - who in this case probably number in the hundreds. It should be quite possible to write a bot that for a given search string (e.g. cleantechnica.com) will identify all edits that have introduced that string in a source citation all over Wikipedia - and by whom (and whether such an edit was reverted) and present this list to e.g. reviewers on this board. This could help in several ways, e.g. identifying a small group of editors who introduce a large number of citations of a possibly unrealible source or (as my sampling indicates for this case) a large number of editors who each introduce one or a few citations of that source. Lklundin (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * CT should only be used as a limited RS and with great caution. As a source of statements of others perhaps but not as a source of reliable, independent commentary.  The chief editor has been accused of bias/conflict of interest in his coverage, especially as it relates to Tesla Inc vs other companies/competing technologies [], [], []. Articles like this are pretty egregious [] in their pro-Tesla bias.  Articles such as this one are pure op-ed yet the site does not indicate as such.  This is more troubling given the fiscal ties between CT and Tesla both in terms of may editors being share holders and the way Tesla effectively trades access for favorable coverage.  Springee (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By basing their argument on Tesla-bias user has tainted their contribution to this discussion and has indeed called into question whether they argue in good faith, since they themselves have an (anti-)Tesla-bias. Also while discussing here I noticed their puzzling use of the loaded 'ugly' in connection with Tesla as a company. In searching for my own (potentially years-old) CleanTechnica contributions, I discovered that  and  (see above) have been coordinating their efforts against CleanTechnica. While mentioning but not tagging me they discuss how to remove the CleanTechnica article I started (see below) - and this right after user  had to remind  that it is good practice to involve the page creator when discussing (formally) the deletion of an article. Ironic since I had offered assistance to  for when they want to create their next anti-company-article. This makes it difficult to assume good faith on their part. Further,  has been noted (by ) as a WP:SPA, with an (anti-)Tesla focus.
 * The bias of these two, coordinating editors is reflected in the sources cite to support their claims against CleanTechnica:
 * respectmyplanet.org is a web-site that is itself unknown to Wikipedia, so hardly suitable for determining whether a highly cited source on Wikipedia is biased or reliable.
 * The cited book and thedrive.com article are by none other than 'Edward Niedermeyer' who already 10 years ago was predicting Tesla's imminent collapse and as an apparent epitome of anti-Tesla-bias is central to our self-described anti-Tesla-article TSLAQ, where has argued at length - with support of  - to use Niedermeyer as source. This writer who is so deeply entrenched in Tesla-criticism is clearly unsuitable for determining whether something is in fact biased in regard to Tesla.
 * The above mentioned CleanTechnica article is indeed special, as it details a sequence of Tesla-related mudslinging on social media. The writer is a 'Johnna Crider' who in 2020 started writing stories on CleanTechnica that seem to be mostly concerned with social media and COVID19. Wikipedia does not appear to cite any articles by this writer. Since Wikipedia is not news, I can easily see how articles of that nature would remain uncited here at Wikipedia, not necessarily because of claims of bias but just because their content appears unencyclopedic in nature.
 * As for the actual, ca. 800 (!) CleanTechnica citations we have on Wikipedia, they have been added over many years by a wide range of editors some of which are highly experienced (see above for a few) and the citations themselves have typically generated no controversy. Apart from a single, technically focused editor who has cited CleanTechnica for a range of (non-controversial) contributions, (e.g. ) the typical editor who cites CleanTechnica does so only once or a couple of times (see above). So there is no indication of an editor-Cabal to introduce bias to Wikipedia via repeated citations of (purportedly biased) CleanTechnica stories. Based on these observations, I cannot accept the claim regarding bias - and I cannot see how these many editors who have in fact cited CleanTechnica on Wikipedia could, either. As this stage I feel I should explain my own interest in CleanTechnica. As an engineer/scientist and amateur historian I feel strongly not only that Wikipedia should cite reliable sources, but also that when possible we should have articles on these sources. This way our readers can follow a source citation to our article on the source and then better form their own opinion of that source and as well easily see where else we cite that source. Technically, since these articles can have many links to them, they increase the interconnectivity of Wikipedia (which is a good thing). As such I have over the years started source-related articles as different as De frie Danske (2014), Europe at War 1939–1945: No Simple Victory (2015), Technisch Weekblad (2017), Electrek (2018), Bovrup-kartoteket (2019) and CleanTechnica (2020) as well as upgraded from stub Ingeniøren (2017). To return to the direct discussion of CleanTechnica, it could well be appropriate to mention on the CleanTechnica article the critical claims of Niedermeyer (as clearly attributed to him). This could help our readers form a more nuanced opinion on CleanTechnica.
 * It's possible we cannot reach a unanimous consensus regarding CleanTechnica. Over the years dozens (if not hundreds) of Wikipedians (including some very experienced ones) have chosen to cite CleanTechnica. While editors who just want to add what they self-evidently consider to be notable, technical content to our articles may not themselves want to engage in a meta-discussion such as this one, I think their opinions should be solicited if we are to change how CleanTechnica should be cited at Wikipedia. Lklundin (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , what the hell is that load of BS? Are you just making things up?  I've never said the CT article should be removed and I've never accused those who have cited CT of doing so in bad faith.  That is total BS.
 * OK, let's think about this for a moment. CT is typically cited for low level claims that have little significance, basically industry to reader via CT.  I don't have a big issue with such claims.  However, what should we make of their in depth reporting?  Well we have sources that have questioned them.  You do understand that sourcing rules and OR apply to material that makes into articles.  It does not apply to discussions regarding the quality of a source.  I've presented material showing that one of CT's top editors has shown COI with regards to his reporting, in particular on material related to Tesla.  Rather than address the concerns propperly (ie focus on the arguments) you attack the sources as not reliable per WP:RS... which would only matter if we were putting the material in the CT article.   Let's hit on a few other claims of bad faith you are making.  You claim I want to remove the CT article.  Where did I say that?  Where have I supported removal of the CT article?  Where did you get the BS idea that I'm accusing editors who have used CT of somehow doing so in bad faith?  These are the claims you are making.
 * I stand by my statements that CT is a source that has shown bias when doing original reporting and has a COI when reporting on Tesla material, especially when reporting on "leaked" emails or production numbers which later impact the company's stock price. It is a tainted source.  Springee (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My focus here is verified high-profile frauds (Enron, Worldcom) and groups who claim they've discovered a high-profile company committing fraud (at the moment TSLAQ and WeQ, albeit the latter hasn't been referenced in published material as of yet so I haven't published an article). My history reflects that focus so please stop trying to distort the picture, Lklundin; by the way, didn't you just complain about WP:ABP? That nastiness aside, CT is so obviously biased in favor of Tesla I can't imagine how anyone can argue otherwise. It is not a reliable, independent source. QRep2020 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I got a notification about this discussion. I like to write about energy matters and I think CleanTechnica is a good source for information. I would like to be able to cite CleanTechnica in the future. TGCP (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Three Australian theme park industry sites - Parkz, OurWorlds and Australasian Entertainment Management
I am currently engaged in a rewrite of the Warner Bros. Movie World article and would like to establish reliability for three sites that are used in the article: Parkz, OurWorlds and Australasian Entertainment Management. I am hopeful that we can establish a consensus that all sites—particularly Parkz—are reliable. I have conducted plenty of research and hunted for sources from the 90s and 00s, and Parkz is consistently one of the only sources useful for information from this period. I strongly endorse these sites as being reliable, but nevertheless the dialogue should be had. Here's some background for all three:

Parkz (https://www.parkz.com.au/)

Parkz (About, YouTube) is a theme park news site with a ride database (similar to RCDB), community forum and photo archive. The site has been operating since June 2002 with Richard Wilson as its main editor. Parkz publishes news articles about the theme park industry, ride/coaster updates and financial/performance analyses. They are often used by Village Roadshow Theme Parks and Ardent Leisure as an official channel to distribute press releases. Their YouTube channel distributes official ride POV videos and animations.. There is an extensive archive of press releases and articles dating back to the 1990s. They do publish editorials/opinion pieces (written by Wilson) about the industry/specific parks and attractions, although claims are typically backed up with references to events and facts.

The site has an extensive (admittedly incomplete) database similar to RCDB, although it encompasses rides and attractions, not just coasters. Although registered users may edit the database, any changes made are not published until they have been verified and fact-checked by staff. I've spot-checked several entries and believe they're highly accountable. As a matter of fact, there are occasional minute discrepancies between Parkz and RCDB entries, but I believe Parkz may actually be more accurate in these cases. A good example is DC Rivals HyperCoaster; Parkz lists its total length as 1,380m whereas RCDB has it at 1,400m (written in ft). The ride was promoted as a 1.4km coaster, which is likely a rounded-off figure that RCDB runs with. Parkz entries typically have more information about a ride's history, construction cost, changes over time etc.

From Parkz' "Contribute" page: "To ensure that the Parkz database remains reliable and useful, our editorial staff reviews all edits and submissions to the database. We reserve the right to accept or reject your submissions on the basis of your [sic] quality guidelines: Accuracy – we fact-check all submissions and will delete or edit any incorrect submissions; Quality – Parkz is about visually stunning and eloquently written content; Copyright – Parkz will reject any submissions that we believe breach copyright; Duplicate content".

A Parkz member, "docoaster", created a digital animation of DC Rivals in March 2017; VRTP themselves took notice and consulted "docoaster" for their official animated trailer a couple of months later.

OurWorlds (https://ourworlds.co/)

OurWorlds (About, YouTube) is a professional media production company. They have existed at their current domain since 2012 and publish news articles, park/ride reviews and (frankly stunning) ride photography/media. Their news updates are similar in quality to those of Parkz: non-speculative news and industry updates, editorials and reviews. They also publish interviews and features with notable park industry alumni, such as Dreamworld's original designer, John Longhurst. They have been hired to produce official promotional material for VRTP and produce official ride POV videos, often in 4K.

Australasian Leisure Management (ALM) (https://www.ausleisure.com.au/)

ALM (Editorial Guidelines, Content Policy) is a leisure industry magazine, which has been published since 1997. Their stated editorial policy outlines a commitment to fair, reliable and accurate reporting. Their online site has a much broader scope than the former two (they publish articles on leisure/entertainment activities and attractions, not just theme parks). Articles specific to the theme park industry cover attraction updates as well as industry/financial news.

TL;DR

I endorse all three sites (Parkz, OurWorlds and ALM) as reliable for news articles, database entries etc. Editorials and reviews should be given with appropriate ATT. Forum posts and user reviews should obviously not be considered reliable (which are, shockingly, cited on some of our articles). Several GA-reviewed articles (1, 2, 3, 4 etc) cite Parkz articles/DB entries, although the other two sites appear to not be cited very much here. I appreciate if any concerns are raised, but hope to reach an agreeable consensus. Thank you! —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  09:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

parkz.com has a faint whiff of SPS as its editor also write news articles for it, and many more are anonymous (by the staff, of 2 one of whome is the editor). ourworlds.co seems to admit they (in effect) generate income through paid content, and that is all I can find out. ALM is harder as I cannot even find an about page. But I would say the first two are nor RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, . I don't know that Parkz meets the criteria for SPS; I have a feeling the Staff page lists the senior editorial team, but there are likely other contributors not listed (they have 35 people on payroll). Even so, from SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". We'll ignore the fact that he's edited the site for nearly 18 years, but at the very least Richard Wilson has been quoted by RS (UBO) and Parkz is archived in Google News. I don't know if this means much but thought it would be worth mentioning. I'm trying to find more background on him, but I at least located an online profile on Zoominfo (can't post URL - /p/Richard-Wilson/1614284654). In any case, the question I'm asking—do Parkz news articles have any history of unreliable or unsubstantiated claims published as "news"? In my research, the answer is a clear no. I've dove a lot into their articles and I just don't see any red flags with what they publish. OurWorlds have been paid to produce media, yes, but I can't see evidence they're paid to produce articles. Clear distinction there, which their About page seems to make. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  11:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I said "parkz.com has a faint whiff of SPS" is because its editor also writes for it, this there is no clear line between authorship and editorial oversight. IN essence anything he writes for the site is SPS. Anything that is not attributed might has similar issues.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still digging. I don't echo your concerns, but I'm trying in good faith to respond to them. It appears Wilson is credited for editorials whereas news is attributed to staff. There must be editorial oversight for the latter. I suggested above that Wilson's pieces should be given with attribution, so I don't think it would be an issue. Also, does the fact that VRTP/Ardent have a direct feed with Parkz mean anything? I'm saying, these are large, public companies that could use any channel they like for distribution of news, and they are all in good standing with Parkz. (I can link articles where they communicate directly with Parkz if you like). Re ALM, what else would you typically expect to see besides stated editorial/content policies? They have admin teams and editor oversight (see links attached above, also their contact pages). —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  12:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Their news page [] third article (and first one with a by line) []. Nothing says this is an Op-edd or an editorial.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, what's your point? It's credited to a specific author, not site staff. A news article doesn't need to be specifically labelled as such to be news, likewise for op-eds. It's possible they simply left the editorial header off (for whatever reason—perhaps an oversight, perhaps not?) Other content by Wilson is labelled as such. Even so, I don't see alarm bells with Wilson specifically; as stated above, he's been quoted by RS before. Mind you, I have dug deep and haven't unearthed much else about him. (Would he not have standing for hosting one of Australia's top theme park sites for nearly 20 years? If not, no matter). I'll happily meet you in the middle and say that Wilson-authored pieces (if reused here) should be attributed as opinion only. Appreciate your insight, keep it coming. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  14:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Or it could be...that is the point. It could be any number of reasons, and thus I need to see they have a reputation for fact checking. I want to be confidant this is not just one blokes opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, let's take Wilson specifically out of the picture. Would it at all assuage your concerns if I cross-referenced Parkz news articles with vetted RS? Here's some examples: Parkz vs Guardian; Parkz vs SMH; Parkz vs myGC; Parkz vs GCB. I can feed you quotes from the Gold Coast Bulletin (you need a subscription to see some of them)—they have a plethora of relevant articles to compare against Parkz. I only used one example, but could cite many. I hope this establishes that Parkz do have quality reporting and don't just tread on the rumour mill. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  15:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even the Daily mail has been known to say something true, that does not make it an RS. Now I will let others respond if they wish.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliability isn't always a hard line. Situational/discretionary use exists. That's what I'll advocate for here. Thanks for your comments. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  04:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if we could continue this dialogue. Further insight from others on these sites would be welcomed. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  04:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Catholic News & Herald
At Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, and I disagree about whether The Catholic News & Herald, the newspaper of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, is a reliable source for: "In 2001, in an effort to fight discrimination against AIDS patients, the bishops of South Africa declared that "AIDS must never be considered as a punishment from God."" I contend that while it is certainly a WP:BIASED source, there's nothing extraordinary about it. The South African bishops are repeating something the Church has been teaching for decades, and a Catholic newspaper is an entirely reasonable place to find news and information about the Catholic Church. AlmostFrancis believes "a Catholic diocese is not a reliable publisher of facts." I would appreciate additional thoughts. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure why slugger isn't linking to the actual website but here is the about page.  Some quotes "the Catholic News Herald is the official news outlet for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, N.C." and "The Catholic News Herald is a tool of evangelization and communication".  The publisher is the Diocese and there is not even a claim of independence.  The author of the piece is also the "editor" so that would also be an issue.  The "editor" in question and other reporters publishes under CNS when they doing so professionaly.  Its a well produced church newsletter and RS for activities at the church.  I do also want to point out that the biggest issue is putting the content in wikipedias voice.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, I am not sure I follow. This isn’t some guy with a blog. It’s a professionally run newspaper. Can you elaborate? —Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If The "editor" in charge of the newsletter had written the article there would not any independent editorial judgement.  Therefore a self-published source.  What makes you believe it is professionally run and not run by the Bishop?  As far as I can tell it is a twice monthly newsletter.  Turns out I was wrong about the SPS issue as I was looking at a different article.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Not generally reliable, it appears to operate as a non-independent arm of the Diocese of Charlotte. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The quote is not stating anything extraordinary or biased and the source is perfectly acceptable for confirming what the Church declared. If the church actually followed through on it etc.. is a different matter. To counter the quote for example sources that say the Catholic Church said AIDS is a punishment from God, include a following sentence w/ multiple POVs. Or show this quote has counter-evidence, then make a WEIGHT case for its removal. But pedantically lawyering RS without taking into context what is actually said is a blunt approach. -- Green  C  20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem is actually that the article is basically how in actuality the situation is exactly the opposite and priests in Africa are discriminating against AIDS victims. I could NPOV the content in the article by adding this but I honestly don't think this article is RS for content about the AIDS situation in Africa.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * AlmostFrancis honestly the article titled Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS seems like the right place to NPOV/multi-POV how the Church sees its response and how others see it. -- Green  C  19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The question isn't whether the bishop actually said the thing, the question is whether or not Wikipedia should care about it if no reliable sources picked it up. You can say anything on your personal blog/diocesan newspaper/whatever and it's verifiable that you said it, but Wikipedia and that blog serve very different functions, and Wikipedia's function is not to amplify anyone's voice. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm with GreenC here. This is a perfectly adequate source for the claim that is being made, and it's not required for major news agencies (which often have a bit of blindspot on religion) to report on such a statement for it to meet the bar of verifiability. The task of editors on this article is to try to present the diversity of views on this topic in a neutral and balanced manner. That the sentiment behind this statement may not always prevail on the ground is a separate question from whether this is a reliable source. The Blue Canoe  19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

steelonthenet
It seem this website was spammed everywhere with canned content like "See history of "X Iron and Steel" as inline external link.

But it seem that website look like a partial clone of timeline from International Directory of Company Histories or other content. So, steelonthenet is a reliable source? Or did it need the same treatment likes the online clone of International Directory of Company Histories?

Matthew hk (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda pieces are not WP:RS
Sources are book of Philip J. Cohen, 1996, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Information from this book is I quote: "Harald Turner declared Serbia as first European country Judenfrei in August of 1942." And same information from book of Jeanne M. Haskin, 2006, Bosnia and Beyond: The "quiet" Revolution that Wouldn't Go Quietly Edit was made in article Judenfrei and this information is confirmed by other two sources which exist there. Whether these two books and information from them can be used as reliable sources or not. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * already provided a better source for these statements which do not seem controversial. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a book of "Philip J. Cohen, 1996, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History" has information concerning Milan Nedić, Banjica concentration camp etc, and editors must know if it is RS or not. Mikola22 (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Judging from the summary at Philip J. Cohen I would say that its conclusions may be questionable. He is not a historian but Texas A&M University Press is a generally reliable publisher so that's a tossup. Due to his points of view being potentially in the minority or controversial this is more a question of DUE weight and whether the statements should be attributed. A number of expert historians were critical of the book's statements. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not use his conclusions, I use his information which some of them are confirmed by other sources. He in the book cites many sources. His book is used as a source of information by historians.  If this source is not RS then we have to determine this in order to  know this fact in the future. Mikola22 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually a number of historians have said his book is accurate and fair when discussing the topic of WWII and aligns with other historians’ views about the era. So seems overall the book is RS. In fact the Philip J. Cohen wiki page lists multiple professors that deem his book valid and factual about WWII Occupied Serbia.OyMosby (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have this Croatian review I quote: "Prevede li se Cohenova knjiga, zacijelo neće bitno pridonijeti hrvatskoj historiografiji. O svim zbivanjima i povijesnim činjenicama koje nalazimo kod Cohena već je mnogo pisano i raspravljano. Dovoljno je samo prisjetiti se izdanja Ljubice Štefan, Vladimira Žerjavića, Ljube Bobana, Bogdana Krizmana, Ivana Jelića. Za američku je širu javnost ovo povijesno štivo ipak prvorazredno otkriće. Ono bi trebalo promijeniti iskrivljeno tumačenje o zbivanjima u Hrvatskoj tijekom Drugog svjetskog rata, a pružiti istinitu sliku o Srbima i njihovim povijesnim krivotvorinama." "If Cohen's book is translated, it will certainly not significantly contribute to Croatian historiography. It is already known about all events and historical facts that we find in Cohen and it is much written and debated. It is enough to remember the edition of Ljubica Štefan, Vladimir Žerjavić, Ljubo Boban, Bogdan Krizman, Ivan Jelić. For American wider public this historical reading is nevertheless a first-class discovery. This book should change distorted interpretation of events in Croatia during the Second World War, and providea true picture of Serbs and their historical forgeries." Mikola22 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming here with this "I am just trying to provide the true story of the evil Serbs from a Croat perspective" is probably not going to work out well. Same goes for anyone doing the opposite. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I found online from Croatia, I hope it doesn't offend you that I'm from Croatia. I cannot choose the country of my birth and origin. We are all here together to make wikipedia better and not to look who is from where. These historians from review worked in Yugoslavia and Yugoslavian times, therefore the point is that informations from book are already known in the Yugoslavian era and if you think that there is propaganda information in it, feel free to expose it to all see what's this all about. If he presents propagandistic information, then all the literature he uses is also propagandistic. We must concretize the propaganda information and sources which he uses in order to label those sources as propagandistic. We are editors from wikipedia and we need to know which books and historians have been used to promote propaganda through his book. We have to keep some order here. Mikola22 (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems he was providing a quote not his own words. However a biased a partisan quote of which I don’t see what it has to do with the discussion here. I don’t think he himself is calling anyone “evil”. And when starting a section about Rs, stick to the reliability or credibility of the source. He was not talking about you being Croatian but the quote you stated. OyMosby (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "True story of the evil Serbs from a Croat perspective" What I have to do with the evil Serbs. I spent my time editing wikipedia and someone deletes one source with the claim that it is a propaganda source and it is not RS. I have no problem with that but it must be officially established. The informations from book which I used has its sources in the footnote and if this source in not RS I will start using those sources from footnote but problem is because and these sources ie informations are also propagandistic if this book and informations from her are propagandistic. I can't edit wikipedia for weeks and then again look for RS sources and after that again someone can say that these sources are also propagandistic because they are used in this book. Therefore please allow me to work, is this source RS or not? I spend my days here and because of that and  because of future editors, I ask that this be finally clarified. If this book is not RS it doesn't matter let's move on. Mikola22 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said at the beginning, because it is controversial this is more a question of attribution and WP:DUE than WP:RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m slightly confused by the section title. A book that is about historical propaganda isn’t necessarily propaganda itself. It sounds like that’s the basis of challenging the reliability of the books? — MarkH21talk 05:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Section title is reason for removing this source from the Judenfrei article of some editor. These information(from this book) have been confirmed by other sources in Judenfrei article but this book supposedly is not RS. Mikola22 (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Turner's statement about Serbia being the first Judenfrei or Judenrein country in Europe (despite the inaccuracy that is was actually an occupied territory, not a country) is completely uncontroversial and is in many reliable sources, including Prusin (which I added), Cohen and Haskin (which repeats what Cohen says) amongst others. Not sure what the basis is of a claim that any of these sources are propaganda, the first two are published by university presses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cohen is and was a war propagandist, this book is the prime example. A number of historians and other uni. professors have raped his propagandistic little books and there is no consensus among historians that it's reliable, not by a long shot. Sometimes, getting a good publisher is not always about having a great work, as we are not living in a perfect world. He is sometimes used but with obligatory "According to". For serious statements such as that one, his work should be the last in line to be used, as there are far better sources.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  11:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sadko feel free to quote all the data from his book which are propaganda and which have no source in some RS in the footnote. You can made a separate chapter in this discussion where you will expose all propaganda informations without confirmation that everyone see what it is all about. Mikola22 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Cohen should not be used as a lone source due to the controversy. But to say his book was “raped” by historians is problematic in a number of ways. You left out the numerous professors that gave positive response to his book. As for Cohen’s book, Professor Brendan Simms, Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge and Professor Charles W. Ingrao of Purdue University's History Department in Nationalities Papers and Professor Raphael Israeli Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern, Islamic and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem published his book The Death Camps of Croatia: Visions and Revisions, 1941-1945, validated his book. As well as other professors, about his writings about Nedic’s regime. Were all these professors part of the propaganda push? Again no doubt his work is controversial but definitely not just one-sided as multiple historians deemed his work on WWII era to be "well-written, heavily footnoted narration" which "details the degree to which the Serbs of what is today Rump-Yugoslavia collaborated with the Nazis, both before and immediately after the April 1941 German invasion". Simms noted that "in places Cohen gives the Croats the benefit of the doubt", but states that "[N]one of this affects Cohen's central argument: "Serbia" and many Serbs collaborated with Nazi Germany". Israeli stated that Cohen had "copiously documented" the large amount of anti-Semitic press in the German-occupied territory of Serbia.[20] He also observed that Cohen had "definitively demonstrated" that the head of the German-appointed puppet regime, Milan Nedić, along with other members of the Serbian Orthodox Church, "were aware and supportive of the German extermination plan and execution [of Jews], and were not loath to lend a hand when asked". Again, there were negative and positive criticism of Cohen’s works. For that reason despite the book being RS, it should be accompanied by other cited sources as well for heavy claims in edits. But to disregard the book entirely as some “little propaganda book” seems more “I Don’t Like it and want it gone”. OyMosby (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say he is RS for his views, not for them being facts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cohen is a very controversial and questioningly relevant source. Many relevant scholars and observers dispute him. His claims can be cited as one of the views, but we should never cite them as a fact or a final conclusion.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @WEBDuB same proposal which I gave to Sadko, expose all informations from book which are propaganda without source in some book etc. Mikola22 (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK a question, can we have some examples of the historians (non partisan) who have slammed this book? Also I am sure we have been here before.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Philip J. Cohen provides a good summary of the extensive controversy. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, as I stated before the Wiki article gives a decent overview. OyMosby (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So overall a bit of a mixed bag, but certifiably not universally reviled. This does not change my view, it may be an RS for his views, and is thus more of a weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically. Cohen is not a historian but a lawyer. However he does heavily cite his writings from books and articles written by historians and professors. But his wording is not neutral in the book. And seems more reactionary to Serbian slanted books than simply a neutral history textbook . OyMosby (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hence why I say this is more of a weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I edit article The Holocaust in Serbia and put this information from Cohen book " Gendarmes of Milan Nedić, Dimitrije Ljotić and Chetniks by Semptember of 1944 capture about 455 remaining Jews in Serbia who were handed over to the Banjica camp where they were killed immediately." (page 83), the footnote in the book is this "Lowenthal (1957), pp. 42-43; Romano (1980), p. 75; Hilberg (1985), p. 692; Browning (1983), p. 90" and it is this bibliography:
 * Example
 * Romano, Jasa. 1980. Jevreji Jugoslavije(Jews of Yugoslavia), 1941-1945. Zrtve genocida i ucesnici NOR [Jews of Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Victims of Genocide and Freedom Fighters.] Belgrade: Federation of Jewish Communities in Yugoslavia.
 * Lowenthal, Zdenko, ed. 1957. The Crimes of the Fascist Occupants and Their Collaborators against Jews in Yugoslavia. Belgrade: Federation of Jewish Communities of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. -. 1972. ‘‘Yugoslavia.” In Geoffrey Wigoder (editor-in-chief). Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Macmillan Company, vol. 16.
 * Hilberg, Raul. 1985. The Destruction of the European Jews. Vol. 2. New York: Holmes and Meier.
 * Browning, Christopher R. 1983. “The Final Solution in Serbia: The Semlin Judenlager — A Case Study.” Pp. 55-90 in Yad Vashem Studies. Vol 15. Edited by Livia Rothkirchen. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority. 1985. Fateful Months: Essays on the Emergence of the Final Solu¬ tion. New York: Holmes and Meier


 * I find one source, Lowenthal, Zdenko, ed. 1957. The Crimes of the Fascist Occupants and Their Collaborators against Jews in Yugoslavia and on page 42-43 writes this:


 * Okupatorovi pomagači progone Jevreje. Po raznim mestima Srbije još se krilo nekoliko stotina Jevreja, većinom žena i dece. Nedićevi i Ljotićevi agenti tragali su za takvim licima, iznuđivali od njih novac, a kad bi izvukli i poslednju paru, prijavljivali su ih nemačkim vlastima, koje su ih hapsile i ubijale.(Svjedočanstvo.. Ali su zato četnici Draže Mihajlovića koji su se nalazili u tom kraju gonili Jevreje bez milosti. U tome su se naročito isticali četnički odredi koji su dolazili sa Ravne Gore, od kojih smo se morali kriti kao od Nemaca...Naš život nije bio lak. Sredinom 1942 godine otpočele su da lutaju po šumi u tom kraju četničke bande Draže Mihajlovića, koje su, saznavši da se Jevreji kriju u tom kraju, počele da ih progone i ubijaju) Iz knjiga zatvorenika Banjičkog logora vidi se da je u vremenu posle likvidacije Jevrejki sa decom na Sajmištu maja 1942 pa do oktobra 1944 kroz logor prošlo i iz njega odvedeno na streljanje 455 Jevreja. To su bili većinom žene i deca, među njima i deca od nepunih godinu dana. page 44,  Od preko 93.000 ljudi koliko je tokom 1942/44 prošlo kroz logor na Sajmištu pobijeno je ili umrlo u logoru preko 47.000 lica, a ostatak najvećim delom ubijen ili umro od gladi i iscrpljenosti po raznim logorima u Norveškoj i Nemačkoj. Oktobra 1943 dovedeno je oko 200 Jevreja koje je Gestapo uhapsio u Splitu(Hrvatska), među njima dvadesetak žena. itd itd..


 * The occupier's helpers persecuted the Jews. They were still hiding in various places in Serbia several hundred Jews, mostly women and children. Nedić's and Ljotić's agents searched for such people, extorted money from them, and when they extract the last penny, they reported them to the German authorities, who arrested and killed them. (Testimony ... "But Chetniks of Draža Mihajlović who were in that area persecuted the Jews without mercy. The Chetnik detachments that came from Ravna Gora stood out in that, from which we had to hide as if from the Germans ... Our life was not easy. In the middle of 1942, the Chetnik gangs of Draža Mihajlović started wandering in the woods in that area, they found out that the Jews were hiding in that area, began to persecute and kill them"). From the books of the prisoners of the Banjica camp, it can be seen that in the period after the liquidation of the Jewish woman with children at the Sajmište from May 1942 to October 1944, 455 Jews passed through the camp and were taken there to be shot. They were mostly women and children, among them are and children under the age of one... page 44, Of the 93,000 people who passed through the Sajmište camp during 1942/44, over 47,000 were killed or died in the camp, and the rest were mostly killed or died of starvation and exhaustion in various camps in Norway and Germany. In October 1943, about 200 Jews were arrested by the Gestapo in Split (Croatia) and brought in, among them about twenty women. etc. etc.


 * This is Yugoslavian source from 1957(Published by Federation of Jewish Communities of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia Belgrade 1957) one of four which are listed for the information which I enter to The Holocaust in Serbia article. As far as I can see the Cohen  book has a lot of Yugoslav sources. Such sources are certainly not propaganda, and  whether someone doesn't like that informations is another matter.  Mikola22 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not analyse sources, that is wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How then do we know that some information or the book itself is propagandistic? I guess we analyze information from the book and check if this informations are true or have confirmation in some source. What is propaganda? Mikola22 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we could look at what the original sources used by Cohen say and see if they individually are reliable sources as a separate question. There's nothing stopping you from using Cohen as a lead to undisputed sources and using those sources instead. I'm not sure how reliable something published in a Communist block country is (surely has been discussed before on this noticeboard) but it's a start. The Cohen book itself is controversial though. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know about the history of the Croatian Nazis, Camps, crimes, foreign historians mostly use these "Yugoslavian Communist block" sources so I don't know how to do that if we stopped using these sources, we would probably have a couple of independent sources as far as the former Yugoslavia is concerned, which means that about 80% of the articles would be left without text. I don't think that this is solution. Mikola22 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WE do not RS do. If RS say it is propaganda so can we (but note bias is not an exclusion criteria). But if other RS say its a great bit of work we have to accept that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinions of RS are divided but we as editors need to know if it's RS or not. I can't edit wikipedia for days and someone say that I use source which is not RS. Where it is officially stated? If it is not mentioned anywhere and it was probably discussed here earlier, let's finish it here officially. Young editors are coming but also because of us. Mikola22 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that, and that is the point. Our key is a "reputation for fact checking", plenty of expert opinion says "this is well researched", thus is has that reputation, this its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This information or book of Cohen was removed with note that it is "Propaganda pieces are not WP:RS" which would mean that Raul Hilberg is propagandist because it is data from his book. Mikola22 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Judenfrei for this information Cohen probably uses as a source book of Raul Hilberg and book "The Destruction of the European Jews" (1985) . This is a multi-edition book so this information is in my source on the page 737-738. second edition but from year 2003. I quote: "Dr. Schafer reported that apart from Jews in mixed marriages there was no longer any Jewish problem in Serbia (keine Judenfrqpe mehr).47 At the same time he returned to Berlin the gas van, which was to see further service in White Russia.47 48 When Generaloberst Lohr took over as Oberbefehlshaber Siidost in August 1942, Staatsrat Turner jotted down a few notes for a personal report to his new chief. In this report Turner itemized all the achievements of the  Widi considerable satisfaction he wrote down a unique accomplishment: “Serbia only country in which Jewish question and Gypsy question solved [Serbien einzipes Land in dem JudenJrqge und Zigeunerfrapfepelost] ,”49.
 * footnote:
 * 47. Report by Hauptmann Lccb (OB Siidost/Id), June 1942, NOKW-926. 49 Note by Turner for personal report to Lohr, August 29, 1942, NOKVV-1486. To Ncdic he expressed a similar sentiment. Memorandum by Turner, March 28, 1942, Südost 75000/2.
 * You don't seem to listen. Whether Cohen's book is controversial has no bearing on whether his sources are reliable or controversial. The thing to do is take his sources and look at whether they are published by experts under publishers that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and if there is no competing RS or expert POV (unlike in the Cohen case) by all means use his sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable The source is not propaganda, it was published by a US academic publisher and got some favorable reviews. Yes, it does not have pro-Serb POV and should be used alongside other sources for WP:NPOV. buidhe 23:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

http://puna.gob.ar/tolar-grande/
I am wondering about the reliability of this source for tourism-related information, as it might be useful on Ojos de Mar. On the one hand, afaik gob. domains are not issued freely. On the other hand, I am not really finding any information on who operates the site. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is probably the local tourist board. The website has a contact number phone available Mon-Fri 09:00-17:00, but doesn't state its affiliation clearly. The domain itself (puna.gob.ar) is registered to "MINISTERIO DE CULTURA Y TURISMO" (ministry of culture and tourism).--Eostrix (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So likely rather self serving, and promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To whit, I was looking to use the list of animals & plants and the distance to Tolar Grande from that source. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 12:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, sorry reading that all I could see was "Well, may I suggest that you consider moving to a hotel closer to the sea? ...or preferably in it.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hah, funny one. Anyhow, I take that this kind of source is only good for strictly factual information that isn't promotional. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it would depend, as I suggest above not all "facts" are "unpromotional", or "facts".Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd think it might be reliable for the distance between the place and Tolar Grande. Maaaybe for the animals&plants as it's rough information. For tourist numbers (there'd be a conflict of interest) or more complex assertions (not recognized experts) probably not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Encyklopedia II wojny światowej
I removed this because it is a communist-era picture book propaganda published by colitmmunist ministry of defense, at the height of nationalist hate whipping by the communists in 1975. In Wydawnictwo MON: "The books of the publishing house are characterized by large amount of socialist propaganda and therefore should not be treated as a completely objective source.". A user put it back saying I should take it here. So here I am.Zofia Branicka (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry a bit hard to take referencing that article seriously, and unsourced stub. Now what is the issue, how is it being used?Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First, anyone participating in this discussion should be aware that topic areas related to Poland have recently seen an avalanche of socks (see Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment). This RSN report is the account's 4th edit, and in its second edit it removed the reference I added to a stub I created just a few hours ago; same day another new account has been disrupting another article I have been expanding. So AGF/WP:BITE, but keep the above in mind per WP:DUCK (and toss a coin - about half of those new accounts I noticed recently making similar edits in this topic area get CU blocked within ~48h...).
 * Anyway, pl:Encyklopedia II wojny światowej has been published by a publishing house at a government level and it was edited by professional Polish military historians of its era (ex. pl:Kazimierz Sobczak). Granted, that government was communist, and said historians were sometimes even officers in the communist army. It is always good to be cautious if we were going to use sources from that time and period on issues which have been affected by censorship/propaganda, but overall, such areas are relatively few (I'd expect to find some glorification of the USSR's contribution to the war, some pro format criticism of the US imperialists, a strong bias towards stressing contributions of the communist-affiliated Polish forces and towards minimizing those of the Polish gov't in exile, it probably omits or would be very unreliable on issues such as the Soviet invasion of Poland or the Katyn massacre which were effectively censored out of existence until 1989 etc.). But for most other issues it should be reliable, setting aside that it is now ~45 years old as well. There is no reason to assume the censorship/propaganda would affect the information on German casualties in 1939 (but again it the data presented may be just obsolete) or that it would somehow affect the definition of the term used for railway sabotage operations in WWII (which is what I used it for). Lastly, it is a professional, specialized encyclopedia, a bit old and with a POV, but hardly warranting being called a "picture book propaganda". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Socking" or no "socking", this is an old source published by the Ministry of Defense of a Communist state - organizations which aren't, AFAIK, noted for their honest and reliable public communications. WP:APL applies with full force. François Robere (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Say, Francis, how did you find this discussion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I follow the board. Why haven't you directed the same question at MMA, below? François Robere (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A new account using same naming pattern as previous socks and instantly jumping to fight issues that other accounts were debating with Piotrus? Nothing suspicious at all. Anyway this is a highly reliable source that fulfils sourcing expectations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know you are familiar with many Polish WWII sources, so I appreciate your input. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable I am very hesitant about using sources even a few decades ago on WWII because the historiography has changed a lot. I think that we can do a lot better than this source for articles like Invasion of Poland. If this is the only source with some information, I would wonder why it can't be found in some better source. buidhe 23:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I overall agree per my comments above, but I don't think old means the same as automatically unreliable. I would recommend avoiding the source for anything that's a WP:REDFLAG, and I'd fully support updating the source with new one (if used by itself, better source needed can be used - I don't see the necessity of removing it). For example, at the battle for railloads article, the source doesn't say anything new - I just added it there to show that the term has been used decades ago (I think it is the oldest source I found that uses this term and such dating is useful in historiography as well, suggesting when and where the term might have originated - in Polish historiography at least, the real origins may be in Russian, though perhaps in that French movie? But that's speculation, I can't find any sources really so the best we can do to avoid OR is to link and reference the oldest source found); anyway newer sources provide more details and don't contradict it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to cite the source for that, but you should ideally be more clear about exactly what information is being supported by it—in if neccessary. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a quotation, I think this should help. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Somewhat concurr with Piotrus. Use with caution (eg. it is fine for a name of a battle in Polish historiography), but I would use newer/less biased source for enemy causalties. Pavlor (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pioturs is using it in Invasion of Poland to write "In the first few days, Germany sustained very heavy losses: Poland cost the Germans 993 tanks and armored vehicles as campaign losses of which 300 tanks were never recovered". LMAO, this is a picture book, half the pages are pictures. The publisher is the People's Republic Ministry of Military Affairs. The government was known for suppressing information (Censorship in Communist Poland) and spreading lies (Propaganda in the Polish People's Republic).
 * From my own experience, propaganda in this later era was rather subtle (eg. "lie by omission", using too neutral words for own crimes etc.). Is there any evidence author of said book published open falsehoods? Sure, he was military historian of the regime, but this alone doesn´t discount his work as a RS. However, for this very kind of information, more recent and neutral source is needed. Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you consider military maps "a picture book", well... Anyway, I am not "using" the numbers for anything, I just reverted your removal of the referenced content per WP:BRD (FYI we are now at the D-step). The number was added (without a ref) on March 8 2017 by User:Kolakowski ( - at that point the sentence had a citation needed tag and a few weeks later an anon added the refs: ). Anyway, the simplest solution is to verify the numbers, and preferably replace older refs with newer ones. I think this is a better ref (English, newer, CUP: ). Ping User:Buidhe and User:Pavlor. Note that the number 993 is often repeated by numerous sources (here's another English RS from the same year), although it would be nice to find an even newer estimate (also found it in this 1993 book . PS. If anyone cares I also found an estimate for 675 tanks lost in but I am too tired right now to check if it is reliable.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The numbers for tank losses don't seem too out there - Forczyk's Case White 2019 gives 236 total losses and 457 damaged of which 180 were repaired and the rest scrapped - i.e. 513 destroyed or scrapped, which is itself sourced to Jentz's Panzertroopen Vol. I (1996). - this looks like the sort of thing were it would be helpful to give a range of sourced values anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor, Sobczak was on a joint Polish-Soviet commission that downplayed Katyn and other crimes. He was a loyal communist party historian, a "quintessential establishment figure" criticized by real historians.
 * Nobody is suggesting we use him as a source for the Katyn massacre. In fact, I explicitly said above he would not be a reliable source for such content. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally unreliable, honestly I wouldn’t use it anywhere except its own page. Neither the system or the institution which produced was known for their credibility and academic rigor. Heck I’m not even sure I’d trust something published by the Polish military last week, there is still a long way to go in terms of professionalism etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Two genealogy sites


Most of List of current pretenders seems to be drawn from two web 1.0 sites: Royal Ark and World Statesmen.

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103 showed consensus against using Royal Ark in respect of living individuals (all entries on the pretenders list are living). Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171 predicated much of its argument on the assumption that this consensus holds. If anything, World Statesmen looks worse.

There are nearly 2,000 citations to royalark.net and over 3,750 to worldstatesmen.org.

It looks to me as if these should be deprecated and added to the unreliable sources filter, as this is functionally indistinguishable from spam at this point. Guy (help!) 18:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we can also add to this list, which has nearly 10,000 citations and appears to be a self published source. What's your opinion on the reliability of Burke's Peerage and the Almanach de Gotha? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , ech. Burke's used to be worthwhile but it's hard to say now. That said, both are storied institutions so don't fall into the same bracket as these self-published nobility fansites. Guy (help!) 11:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Three genealogy sites
Deprecate the following self-published sources: Despite being widely used, these do not meet the tests for reliable sources. Guy (help!) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all  as proposer. Guy (help!) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all per Guy ~  HAL  333  21:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This feels like mission creep in terms of the source deprecation process. It was originally created for fake news sites / sites that routinely publish fabricated information, such as the Daily Mail, and not self-published sources like these ones. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 14:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand your point but when a bad source is used thousands of times, as is the case here, you need some kind of consensus before fixing the problem, and this is as much of a process as we have. The fact that the first deprecated sources were fabricators of "news" is not really relevant. The point is to form an explicit centralised consensus as to whether these are appropriate sources or not (there are self-published sources that are agreed to be reliable and others that are asserted to be so by advocates but appear to fail on objective criteria). Drama always ensues when removing sources even when there's broad consensus that they should not be used. I've had people revert removal of WorldNetDaily, even! So we need some sort of review, and, for better or worse, this is all we got.


 * Support deprecation. These sites are routinely used to confer (or infer) noble titles to people based on hypothetical extrapolations of primogeniture. See this discussion where several editors like SMcCandlish and Smeat75 note they've been fighting this issue for like a decade. The articles that wholly rely on these sources should likely just be deleted, too. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per proposal. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 10:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Deprecation is needed because they are used so extensively. Creating these genealogies is an amiable hobby for royalists, but the standards for Wikipedia are higher. Milpack (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support These sources are extensively used in BLP articles, so their use as unverifiable self published sources must be curtailed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Listverse as a reliable source
I personally believe it's about time we count Listverse as a reliable source as they have a strict reliable sources policy that blacklists Wikipedia and those British tabloids. What do you think? 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:8881:4E66:524D:FD70 (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Per I'm leaning no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia itself has a strict reliable sources policy that blacklists Wikipedia and problematic British papers, and yet Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so no, that is not a winning argument. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Unreliable for facts, no due weight for attributed opinion Listverse is another top 10 listicle site like WatchMojo, Whatculture and Ranker, though Listverse has a broader less pop-culture focused scope than those. I would consider a lowest common denominator listicle site like listverse to be unreliable for facts, and not have any due weight for ranking, and should avoid being cited for attributed opinion. I don't see why listverse ranking Ruhollah Khomeini as #8 in "Top 10 Most Evil Men" or any other ranking on their website should ever be cited in a wikipedia article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Listverse is currently being used as a source in articles, christ. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect source for completyely unencyclopaedic content on a site that has no reliability standards. Fanmdom, for example. But not here. Guy (help!) 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillenbrand Books
At Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, there is a dispute about Hillenbrand Books, an imprint of Liturgy Training Publications and the University of Saint Mary of the Lake. Specifically, we are talking about the book Understanding Sacramental Healing: Anointing and Viaticum by John C. Kasza, pages 169-173. Hillenbrand describes itself as being "focused on contemporary and classical theological thought concerning the liturgy of the Catholic Church. St. Mary of the Lake is a seminary associated with the Archdiocese of Chicago. Is it a reliable source for information relating to care the Catholic Church provides to AIDS patients, and specifically this content? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * To elaborate, the issue, as with further up the board, is not "does this verifiably convey the beliefs of the Catholic Church," but "does content sourced to an official arm of the Catholic Church, whose explicit aim is promoting a POV, fall foul of WP:SPS or other sourcing policies as far as what to include or not to include in an article." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That suggests to me a misreading of WP:SPS, as well as what counts as "an official arm of the Catholic Church" (this press is run by an American university, not a Vatican office). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a seminary rather than a university that happens to have a Catholic affiliation. Seminaries are very much a part of the church in a way that Catholic universities and colleges aren't. I would not consider them to be a reliable academic publisher. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not independent of the Catholic Church and doesn't grant due weight. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a Liturgical and practical manual published by a Chicago dioscese seminary. Slugger you haven't even sourced that the manual is in use anywhere, let alone that it is prescripts are being followed in any actual churches.  Yet you are using it to say that the entire church is performing what it says in Wikipedia voice.  You are also using it to say in wikipedia's voice that it reconnects people to god.  No source in the world is RS for that statement in wikipedias voice.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * More attempts to assert CPOV instead of NPOV, I think. Guy (help!) 10:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Jewish Virtual Library
Is Jewish Virtual Library a generally reliable source, across all the areas it covers? It is currently used on 985 pages throughout Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The summary at WP:RSPS states that "The Jewish Virtual Library is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and has no warnings about it being run by the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, a lobby group run by a former AIPAC media editor. It is also misrepresentative of the discussions in the WP:RSN archive and at Talk:Jewish Virtual Library, which point out both the propaganda-connections and that many of its articles were sourced originally from Wikipedia.
 * The entry at WP:RSPS has the "Stale discussions" label, as there has not been a discussion about this topic for a number of years. It was added here, four months ago, without discussion. I have deleted the entry for now subject to this discussion. Pinging who added the entry, for their comments.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikiproject notifications: ,,, on 16 April. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The source's organizational affiliations aside, I remember having some concerns about its accuracy when working on articles related to Jewish history a while back due to contradictions between it and more academic sources. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact examples, and I wasn't able to find them in a five minute search of likely parts of my editing history. signed,Rosguill talk 18:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was able to find this evaluation of the source in Religious Studies Review written in 2006: Second, the    Jewish      Virtual      Library      (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org),   managed   by   the   American–IsraeliCooperative  Enterprise,  has  an  excellent  range  of  articles  andsources on Jewish history, Israel, Zionism, the Holocaust, Jewish religion,  and  a  number  of  other  topics.  As  its  sponsor’s  nameimplies, the Jewish Virtual Library represents a Zionist viewpoint.However,  the  vast  majority  of  its  secondary  sources  are  reliableand  written  from  a  scholarly  standpoint.  The  Jewish  VirtualLibrary  offers  one  of  the  best  single  sites  on  the  Internet  forJewish historical and cultural information. That's older than I'd like for evaluating an online source, but I think that based on this praise I would say generally reliable for Jewish history outside Israel/Palestine, evaluate case-by-case and use with attribution for claims related to Israel/Palestine while still maintaining our preference for secondary sources over tertiary sources. signed,Rosguill talk 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The "Myths and Facts" section of the Jewish Virtual Library is a list of strawmen and "rebuttals", entirely one-sided in a highly complex and disputed topic area. It reads like a set of AIPAC talking points. Most of the answers link to sections of Mitchell Bard's version of the book "Myths and Facts" (Bard heads the organization which runs the JVL). That book was reviewed in 2002 by Donald Neff as follows:
 * The Arab-Israeli conflict is littered with propaganda masquerading as information. Both sides are active in this black art, where distorting the facts to one side’s favor is considered success. In general, Israel and its supporters have been more adept in this poisonous pursuit, mainly because of their wide media access in the United States. The latest edition of Myths and Facts, however, is not one of the better efforts by the pro-Israel side, mainly because it is less adroit than usual at twisting the facts to the benefit of Israel... The original Myths and Facts was published as a byproduct of the Near East Report, a pro-Israel newsletter begun in the 1950s by Si Kenen, a tireless propagandist for Israel. Out of Kenen’s propaganda work grew the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), today the most powerful Israeli lobby... The current version of Myths and Facts is curiously without specific mention of its debt to AIPAC, although it acknowledges the pioneering role of the Near East Report. This is hardly encouraging since the latter is a reliable source of myths but hardly of facts. Author Mitchell G. Bard is a former editor of the Near East Report and a coauthor of the 1992 edition of Myths and Facts... Bard is now executive director of yet another pro-Israel group, the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), founded in 1993. Among its seven board members are Bard, Arthur Bard, and Eli E. Hertz. Hertz left the Israel Defense Forces as a captain after seven years and moved to New York to found a technology company. He is listed as sponsor of the latest Myths and Facts and chairman of the board of AICE.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable they cite Wikipedia and iMDB as sources and may copy directly from Wikipedia. That said I don't think that pro-Israel slant is a good reason to disqualify a source, accuracy is. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch, changing my assessment. If they're citing us then we can't use them. signed,Rosguill talk 23:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable: I've used the Jewish Virtual Library in the past for sources for topics unrelated (or not directly related) to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it just seems that it isn't a good source. It is not completely accurate and mostly cites other sources that can or should be accessed by Wikipedians who follow Wikipedia's policies. I stopped using it when I realized it cites Wikipedia sometimes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable. The only occasion where I'd consider citing this source is when there is an article written by a named author who is an acknowledged expert. Even then I'd be super-careful since JVL is perfectly willing to alter the text. Once there was a discussion about using an article in JVL cited to Encyclopedia Judaica (a reliable source), but some of it I knew to be nonsense. So I consulted the original EJ article and found that JVL had silently inserted some rubbish sentences of their own into EJ's verbatim text. Regarding Myths and Facts, which is part of JVL, a review of an early edition in an academic journal (Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 16, No 3, p165) includes the lovely sentence "The reason this book is undocumented is because one cannot document lies." It is nearly always possible to consult the sources JVL cites directly, so we don't need the unreliable filtering. In the case that triggered this discussion, JVL provided 19th-century demographic figures but when I looked at the source I found that the information came from the Israeli government Press Office and the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. Zerotalk 01:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable given the above comments. And of course if we can't find another source, then WP:UNDUE comes into play. Doug Weller  talk 09:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable for IP area One has to wonder about "pre-state Israel (1517-1948)" which takes it a step further than mere bias, parroting propaganda. Imagine if WP everywhere changed Israel to "post-Palestine".Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable If they use us verbatim for even one article that means (to my mind) they are not an RS, as how does that demonstrate a reputation for fact checking? There are better sources they use, so lets use those.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The last RSN discussion I can remember concluded that, as JVL articles were of variable quality, some unsigned, some written by reputable authors, whether to cite them or not should be decided on a case-by-case basis. That seemed sensible. Contrary to the entry on RSPS, the JVL has no obvious process, such as peer review, for fact-checking. My guess is that there's not much evidence for objectively measuring its reputation for accuracy. The decision to remove the RSPS entry looks reasonable to me. Do we actually need a new RSN discussion on the JVL?  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the JVL articles cited by four Wikipedia articles from among the first returned search results, they all have similar problems: no author is given; the contents don't cite sources; better sources for those articles should have been available. The Wikipedia articles were: Nazi human experimenting (which cites the JVL Nazi Medical Experiments: Freezing Experiments article [also the Documents regarding Nazi medical experiments article, which may be regarded as a collection of copies of primary sources]); Jesus (which cites the JVL Jesus article); Timeline of the Holocause (which cites the JVL Wilhelm Marr and History and overview of Aushwitz-Birkenau articles, among many others); Sweden (which cites the JVL Raoul Wallenberg article).   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  17:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This does look problematic, per the information above. We should move it to a no-consensus statement ASAP, I think, and perhaps review it more thoroughly. Guy (help!) 11:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Reliable I don't (and won't) edit in the IP area since it is all just politics. I wouldn't (and have not) use JVL in my Jewish history area editing. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 15:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Contextual reliability The New York Times used the site in a 2019 discussion on settlements in the West Bank and to source biographical details based on an interview with the site for a 2016 obituary. These are some of the most sensitive areas discussed here (bios and IP), so WP:USEBYOTHERS seems to imply at least some use based on authorship and article quality. Similarly, CNN used JVL to source biographical statements about Israeli officials in a 2002 article, Slate recommends this page as a good source of information on postwar interstate agreements, and Reuters cites it in a 2008 article on a Jewish ambassador to Bahrain. The source seems to be used infrequently, but widely. I agree that lots of its pages are terrible, of course, but it seems like a blanket statement is a step too far based upon its support in other contexts. Jlevi (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. How is WP:USEBYOTHERS measured? I could bring multiple equivalent references from reputable news agencies linking to Breitbart, Daily Mail, and even Wikipedia itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Use by other reliable sources is one factor that is considered when evaluating a source's reliability. This factor carries more weight for less popular sources (e.g. a non-notable publication with a small editorial team), and less weight for major publications (whose articles receive comment from reliable sources due to the publication's popularity). The context of the use is also important: coverage of the publication's content (e.g. this article on InfoWarss media bias chart) does not count as WP:UBO. I consider WP:UBO a minor factor compared to what reliable sources say about the publication's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. However, for smaller or less controversial publications with little to no direct coverage in reliable sources, WP:UBO may be the only data points available, and that would be sufficient to justify the publication's use on Wikipedia. Self-published sources and user-generated content (including Wikipedia) are unacceptable in most cases regardless of WP:UBO. Looking at the provided links, "A Look at the West Bank Area Netanyahu Vowed to Annex" is a weak case of WP:UBO, since the article frames the statment as something the JVL said: "The Jewish Virtual Library, a website run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, said that...". "Doris Roberts, Mother on ‘Everybody Loves Raymond,’ Dies at 90" does not count as WP:UBO, since the article treats the JVL as a primary source: "She made this plain in a Jewish Virtual Library interview". But, "Sources: Sharon taps new defense minister" and "Bahrain picks Jew as U.S. envoy, local media critical" do count, because they use "according to the Jewish Virtual Library"; "according to [publication]" is the one of the best indicators of WP:UBO if used as an attribution of a straightforward assertion, and not in a context that portrays the publication negatively. —  Newslinger ' talk   00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the current language of the RfC, I agree that this source is Not reliable in general. I add these uses above in large part because I have not seen this point included yet, and it seems worthwhile to consider. Jlevi (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable. JVL is a propaganda tool with a clear agenda to falsify history and reality. It was created by the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise: . JVL has several maps showing the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as being "Israel", see pages 65, 74 and 77: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One man band: despite our puff-piece articles on the Jewish Virtual Library and the grandly named "American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise", both of which are replete with WP:ABOUTSELF references, I have found no detailed information on this organization from third party sources. So I looked up the AICE tax filings (here for 2018 and 2017). In 2018 they had revenues of $196 thousand dollars (p.1), of which $164 thousand went straight to pay Mitchell Bard (p7) and $23 thousand went to "occupancy" (p.10, which presumably is for the usage of his home-office). The Vice President/Secretary is Mitchell Bard's son, Arthur (last page). The 2017 report also includes a section explaining the Jewish Virtual Library, which states: "THE JVL ALSO INCORPORATES OUR PUBLICATION, MYTHS AND FACTS: A GUIDE TO THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT, AN ESSENTIAL RESOURCE FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THE DISPUTE, KNOWN AS THE PRO-ISRAEL ACTIVIST'S "BIBLE". THE JVL ALSO INCLUDES MATERIAL FROM OUR STOPBDS.COM SITE THAT PROVIDES VITAL INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND, RESPOND AND COMBAT THE CAMPAIGN TO BOYCOTT AND DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A bit of a digression, but looking at WP's article on the JVL, there's a fairly horrible bit of original research in the Reception section, where it's claimed that the JVL is "regularly cited" by various sources. To try to justify the claim, it links to webpages in some of the listed sources. The one for the BBC appears to be from a member of the BBC Club in the Compton Road Library section of that part of the website. The information taken from the JVL is in a 'Facts' sidebox above which is a warning that, "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites." It then goes on to make the same kind of claim for its being "listed as reference" by a number of universities. The "reference" listed by Purdue University is an inclusion of a virtual tour of Prague in an Internet Resources section.
 * Returning to the main point, there are probably many articles in the JVL whose contents are not touched by the controversies of the the IP conflict. For those that are, there is an underlying problem of how to edit neutrally in Wikipedia when much of the source material is politicised, sectarian and affected by denialism, falsification, omission, misrepresentation and distortion. The problem then is that you're dealing with different narratives of which the JVL is transmitting one.
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I would be hesitant to delist something that is being used in a content dispute in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area and note that delisting it would add more bias to articles in that area. I would also ask people to note that many people here have no problems with using Applied_Research_Institute–Jerusalem in the same IP area. People are also conflating subjects in the general Jewish area and in the IP area. I think a distinction can be made. We should not remove this resource from the encyclopedia merely because people don't like it in one area. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have an image in my head of this one guy behind AICE/JVL sitting at his home-office in his pajamas occasionally updating an entry or writing a new one. It seems to, in practice, be a glorified blog. Sure he occasionally gets credible writers to write attributed articles, but even then who fact-checks them? This guy is an expert in public relations advocacy and nothing else. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Self published in addition to there being no fact-checking process (since it is a one-man website), it turns out that JVL is also an WP:RS/SPS. The book that is incorporated into the JVL, "Myths and Facts", is published by CreateSpace. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly false. - JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I also found that impressive at first. But the "Board of Directors" are paid zero (per the tax return) so likely don't do much (that may be ok for a real charity, but given the amount Bard is paying himself it seems unlikely they would do meaningful work pro bono), the "Advisory Board" are wealthy people who donated, and the "Honorary Committee" look like a list of political types that Bard knew from his time at AIPAC. In summary it is clear that none of these people do any work, there is no office or similar – i.e. as mentioned above this is just a glorified blog. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see that you've converted this discussion into a request for comment. RfCs are more restrictive than ordinary discussions on how the initial comment should be worded. Could you please add a signed "neutral and brief" statement immediately below the rfc template to meet WP:RFCBRIEF? —  Newslinger  talk   12:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks I have done so. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I oppose this people when commented didn't now this an RFC.If someone want to start an RFC it should start a new discussion Shrike (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think this is an issue since an RfC extends the discussion to a minimum of 30 days, and neutrally publicizes it through the feedback request service. In the past, discussions on this noticeboard have been upgraded to RfCs once they turned out to be more controversial than initially expected, to attract participation from a wider section of the community. If there is consensus here to downgrade the RfC back to an ordinary discussion, it can be done. —  Newslinger  talk   01:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Sir Joseph.The JVL is valuable source but like any source that may have some slant should be used with care..No one yet proved any proof of unreliablity. And the fact it used by multiple scholarly papers as source and this our sign of reliability as per WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable in large parts, though some things it can be used as a convenience link for when they have copies of hard to find documents. But things like Myths and Facts is straight up propaganda and the articles that cite and or duplicate Wikipedia show the generally low quality of much of the material on the website. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable - Per nableezy 's rationale. NickCT (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: frequently uses Wikipedia as a source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: If they are (whomever "they" are) citing Wikipedia, there's clearly an issue with the reliability of such a source, regardless of use by others. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 01:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly not reliable. Using Wikipedia ss a source is a red flag. Not seeing it cited much n my quick glance at Scholar/Books. I think in some cases it may be used with due care as a PRIMARY source, and I think it may host copies(?) of some possibly, and I stress, poissbly (I need to look into this further) reliable articles, but those uses would be an exception to the rule. PS. On second thought, I am not sure JVL has permission to even reprint that article, so even its use as a mirror might be problematic due to a possible copyvio angle.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, at least not for anything concerning Palestine/Palestinians (It might be reliable for things concerning Judaism.) Take the Deir Yassin massacre, which becomes "The capture of Deir Yassin": a total white-wash which ends with: "References to Deir Yassin have remained a staple of anti-Israel propaganda for decades because the incident was unique." (My bolding)
 * That is simply complete bulls..t. There were several other massacres, some larger that Deir Yassin (see eg Al-Dawayima massacre); what was unique about the Deir Yassin massacre was that it was the most publicised of the massacres, Huldra (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable any site that duplicates content from Wikipedia can't be considered reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck comments by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   14:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: many articles at JVL come from Encyclopedia Judaica.  (On a talk page, I recently mentioned their page on arenda which is much better than anything on *.wp on the subject).  I have trouble seeing why using that link would be a problem. As with most of these blanket pronouncements, I fear that "we" are tossing the baby out of the pram with the toys sometimes. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 12:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable and deprecate per above. Daask (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I find it alarming that neither the articles for Jewish Virtual Library nor American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise mention any negative reception for the JVL, such as the review by Donald Neff linked earlier in the discussion above. The JVL article at least has many positive sources in the "Reception" section, I don't see why it can't have criticism as well, but unfortunately I don't have access to JSTOR nor any other repositories for journals and articles of the sort, which makes finding sources challenging. Sorry if this doesn't belong in this discussion, FWIW I also support the view that it's not generally reliable and any current articles citing the domain should be reviewed and/or removed. Nanophosis (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable I went through a random sampling of articles linked to JVL and all of them had sources and bibliography. I reiterate my concern that this is a push to get rid of a source that may be pro-Israel from Wikipedia. This source is used on almost 1,000 articles the supermajority of them not in the IP conflict. Those claiming not reliable haven't really brought a policy reason. Further down, we're told if a source is regularly used by CNN or NYTIMES then it's a valid RS, well, JVL is regularly used. It is also a RS because it cites its sources. It is also in a niche market when you are in the Jewish article area, and getting rid of 1000 article sources is a bad idea. As always, you should use sources with commonsense but to just depreciate a source is not the right way to go. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * See my comment of 17:28, 21 April 2020 above for my findings when examining the results of a Google search. Policy reasons for not regarding the JVL as a fully reliable secondary source: authors not always given; sources not always cited; published by an organisation with a mixed reputation for bias; strictly speaking it is a tertiary source. You argue that the JVL should be regarded as reliable because CNN and the NY Times cite it. News organisations cite all kinds of organisations; it can serve as a way of shifting the responsibility for the accuracy of information. Should, for instance, the US government be regarded as a reliable source because of the frequency with which it is cited? Having said that, within the JVL there exists articles written to a high standard, whose authors are named and are reputable and for which full citations are given. Those articles should not really be objectionable. Sometimes it has looked, though, like the contents of the JVL were being transcribed indiscriminately into Wikipedia, which wasn't desirable.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  17:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi it looks like this thread will be auto-archived shortly. Should I go to WP:RFCL to request a close or could someone here do so? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make the request yourself. Any editor can request closure of any discussion, and it makes no difference who the requester is. Please note that discussions on this noticeboard are automatically archived just over five days after the most recent signed comment. Due to my comment, the archival will take place at least five days from today. I prefer to request closure after archival to ensure that no editor gets cut off when the RfC is closed. —  Newslinger  talk   20:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Media Research Center and its arms (CNS, Newsbusters, MRCTV)
Which of the following best describes the reliability of the Media Research Center and its various arms (CNSNews, Newsbusters, MRCTV)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Survey (MRC)

 * Option 3 or Option 4. The organization (and its arms) has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, MRC is "propaganda clothed as critique". The MRC rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and has been characterized as part of a movement that seeks to obscure the scientific evidence on climate change. CNSNews falsehoods: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * MRC content on climate change:
 * Claiming that the real threat is not global warming, but global cooling: "ABC, CBS, NBC news programs ignore scientists and studies warning of potential cooling threat."
 * "There's no more clear religion in the mainstream media than the religion of global warming"
 * Pushing the discredited Climategate faux controversy long after it was debunked: "Five Years Since ClimateGate: Ten Credibility-Killing Quotes from the Data Files the Media Ignored"
 * "ClimateGate 1 Year Later: Networks Barely Cover Scandal, But Defend and 'Exonerate' Accused Scientists"
 * "Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming All 92 Times"
 * Uncritically citing prominent non-scientist climate change deniers
 * "Media Myth: Networks Stick to Warming Theme Despite Avalanche of Chilling News". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 3 or Option 4. Is there a legitimate use for this source at all? - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC) - nah, let's go straight Option 4 - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or Option 4. Some of the arms, at least CNSNews and Newsbusters, should probably be deprecated regardless of what we do with core MRC content. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Commenting with additional information.
 * *Newsbusters and MRCTV were proponents of the fringe idea birtherism a few years back, and they were criticized by The Atlantic for this behavior in 2009 : "Conservative media watch group Newsbusters argued, 'Anti-Bush 9-11 'Truthers' get a fair hearing from the New York Times, but anti-Obama 'Birthers' are harshly criticized.'" In a NYT blog, conservative commentator Ross Douthat notes in 2009: "Mark Finkelstein of the ever-vigilant Newsbusters pounced on this last comment, accusing me of pandering to liberals by suggesting that conservatives who 'question Barack Obama’s place of birth are too dense to realize that Hawaii is a state of the union.' I’m not entirely clear on why Newsbusters feels compelled to defend the honor of the birther movement, but no, I don’t..."
 * *On the other hand, The Daily Dot describes them in 2020 as one of the best partisan fact-checking sites, as well as: "a website that devotes itself to 'combating liberal media bias.' NewsBusters was launched by the Media Research Center in 2005, the same group behind CNSNews.com. It has been criticized by Media Matters and others for its questionable fact-checking techniques."
 * *AP News seems to include perspectives from Newsbusters as an example of a conservative viewpoint:   This only seems to have been done in a handful (<10) articles, and the coverage is minimal (a sentence or two). The AP does not comment on the quality of Newsbusters. Bloomberg does something similar occasionally.
 * *Adding to 's collection of factcheck failures, here is a piece of evidence showing a lack of actual fact-checking: : "We contacted Newsbusters and indeed, their executive editor Tim Graham told us they had regurgitated the story from another source without trying to contact Nance before posting". In addition:
 * Jlevi (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4. Bad enough that there is no legitimate use. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or Option 2 - as with all news media, we proceed with caution and stick to the facts, unless we're citing the opinion of a renowned expert and using intext attribution. I challenge what appears to be partisan criticism as the reason to downgrade these sources. In today's polarized media environment, we can expect to see media being critical of each other because they're typically agreeing with different sets of facts based on their POV. Our job is to maintain neutrality, and we cannot accomplish that if we discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them. Also, keep in mind that fact-checkers may have to be critical of the sources they're fact-checking, which means they're not making friends. As editors, we look at the facts and corroborate the material we intend to add or remove in our articles. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This editor has provided nothing to indicate that MRC and its arms have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Bizarrely enough, the editor's sole argument for the reliability of MRC is that actual reliable sources have found MRC to be unreliable (!). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What gives you that impression? I made no mention of it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's a statement of principle based on repudiation of (e.g.) https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud, but is not specific to this particular source, which is clearly inaccurate. CJR rejects this source entirely, and its statements on things like climate change clearly indicate that it can'ty be relied on.
 * I understand that you want conservative sources to be considered reliable. The problem is that mainstream sources are reliable first and political second (e.g WSJ, WaPo) whereas a considerable body of academic research shows that conservative sources are conservative first, last and all points in between. There used to be a time when conservative-leaning media behaved like liberal-leaning media, but that is pretty much over. The conservative media bubble is unmoored from fact. Guy (help!) 23:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the two arguments presented directly above that are aimed at discrediting my iVote. With regards to the gentlemen's opinions as to what is or isn't a RS, I remain openminded and responsive to constructive criticism - no one is perfect - and I probably would be more inclined to pay attention to your opinions as to what is or isn't a RS after I see the NYTimes and WaPo return the coveted Pulitzers they were awarded for what the Pulitzer Board described in USA Today as: "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration." Until then, I choose to trust my instincts and experience as a WP editor, coupled with what I've learned after a very successful 30+ year career as a media professional. Happy editing! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 00:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You realize you just sunk everyone who had built there argument on yours by going full WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS right? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see a right great wrongs argument above. Please explain. PackMecEng (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe they’re saying they disagree with the entire way wikipedia defines reliability and that they do not consider NTY and WaPo to be reliable sources. Such an argument would be well beyond the bounds of this discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said or what I meant. There is no RGW on my end - the focus is and should be on using sources in context not deprecating everything and anything, or labeling it unreliable because it doesn't align with a one's political POV - such an argument presented is an argument lost. WP:RS - that's our guideline...WP:NEWSORG, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS...that is what we follow and use to make our determinations about what sources we cite, depending on context.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 01:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, what did you mean then? It seems like you’re suggesting that they did inaccurate reporting RE Trump and Russia and as such would be inappropriate to use in that context, did you mean to suggest something else entirely? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What you said, and presumably meant, was that you saw the problem as being that we discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them - so yeah, that is what you appeared to say and mean. If you seriously claim the NYT or WaPo is "left-leaning", then words have stopped meaning things - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * David, CJR is a trusted source - read the linked article if you haven't already seen it. My thoughts about your presumptions and analogy would probably put you to sleep, so with a bit of levity, I invite you to read this article but scroll down to the list #1 - #12.  I think Walden may be onto something. 😂   <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, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They are left of say the AP, NPR, BBC, and such. Being left of sources that are closer to the center is what left-leaving means. Though I suspect you already knew that and your comment was just hyperbolic. PackMecEng (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your source there says they’re centrist (*slightly* left of center) and are in the same narrow range as the AP, NPR, and BBC. Also just FYI Wikipedia doesn't "discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them," you seem to be operating as if that were a statement of fact and not hyperbole. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize then, thats my mistake. On the core issue I’m still struggling to see Atsme’s point here and I’m pretty sure we share a party affiliation. The MRC family of outlets may be conservative but they have some serious reliability problems, in particular related to misinformation and fact checking. I’ve voted to deprecate RT and CGTN on the exact same grounds elsewhere on this page so the argument that there is no meat on the bones here and its all a liberal charade just doesn't fly with me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 or Option 2 per . Too much eagerness on this noticeboard to make use of powerful tools like deprecation, which should be used in a highly sparing matter. Loksmythe (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or Option 2. Many RS outlets refer to MRC as, for instance, a "conservative media watchdog". https://www.google.com/search?biw=2048&bih=1062&sxsrf=ALeKk01xy2gcdRAiOirM0ysvsYKhhdRkbA%3A1589073340798&ei=vFW3XrexMIaoytMP1OK6sA4&q=%22media+research+center%22+site%3Ausatoday.com&oq=%22media+research+center%22+site%3Ausatoday.com&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQA1DMC1iUEGCmEWgAcAB4AIABOogBtAKSAQE2mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi3__-_j6jpAhUGlHIEHVSxDuYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5  Wikipedia should follow the lead of the typical RS, not the lead of a handful of critical stories.  Bigger picture, Wikipedia is increasingly in danger of deprecating any voices that disagree with the dominant cultural narrative in the United States.  If someone has done a study or analysis showing MRC to be less factually reliable than other outlets, we should look at that.  Otherwise, options 3 or 4 would merely make Wikipedia less neutral.  When there is a factual dispute between MRC and another fact checker, editors on a given page should look at the respective arguments (and potentially present the two viewpoints to readers, if appropriate.) --MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the "typical" appearance in reliable sources is a superficial mention, like a three-word description with no deeper analysis, then Wikipedia should not rely upon that, but instead focus on the analyses which have looked more carefully. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 or Option 2 as per Atsme, let us not try to get rid of all conservative media on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First, nobody is trying to do that, and second, this argument does nothing to establish the reliability of MRC specifically. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 3 or Option 4. Has none of the indications of a reliable source; it's a partisan media criticism website that promotes, e.g., climate change denial. Mann 2012 at page 64 describes "Web sites like Newsbusters" as "willing accomplices in the campaign of deceit ... that often propagate climate change disinformation." On extremely rare occasions it might be cited for its own opinion with in-text attribution, but in most cases that would be undue weight. Neutralitytalk 17:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 2 per above. ~ HAL  333  21:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per what above? MRC organizations' confirmed history of pushing falsehoods and fringe rhetoric? Does that make it generally reliable in your opinion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 3 or maybe 4. This is a parody of fact-checking. Guy (help!) 23:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3–4 The organization promotes fringe disinformation and conspiracy theories including global warming denial and birtherism. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 00:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4, especially Newsbusters. Partisanship trumps facts. -- Valjean (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or Option 2 largely per Atsme. The sweeping generalizations posed in the RFC are not always applicable, especially when examining the context. If there are issues with sourcing affecting a certain claim, it can be discussed and handled specifically. Is this even really a big problem here or a solution in search of one? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3. While I would stay away from this source due to its skewed and contrarian fact-checking, I see that it is fairly relevant to the conservative media, and it could be used to cite opinions of prominent conservatives, but that is all anyone can use it for. Everything from MRC needs to be attributed.  Free Media  Kid ! 20:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 because they are awful. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or Option 4 per Neutrality, et al. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 (first choice) or 3, seems to be extremely skewed and occasionally crossing the line into conspiracy-theory promotion. Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4, since this is a source that supports clearly false information like climate change denial, it cannot be used to cite facts. Some of its affiliates should absolutely be blacklisted, but the main org could still conceivably be useful to cite opinions with attribution. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or Option 2. Media Research Center has been cited by a range of RSs for facts. For instance, The Hill, Fox News , The Washington Post , CNBC , USA Today . Though MRC should be used sparingly when sourcing content related to global warming. Regards   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 00:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The USA Today and Hill articles are opinion pieces. The CNBC link is broken. The WaPo piece gets a comment from Tim Graham who works for Media Research Center but does not use them as a source and does not comment on their reliability and in fact the article suggests the Graham’s comment contained a significant inaccuracy. That appears to leave only Fox and that lacks an explicit endorsement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the non-broken link for CNBC . Just becuase they are opinion pieces that does not discount them from being used. The USA Today and The Hill used a fact from MRC's findings related to Trump's media coverage. The author's may provide their opinions about Trump's media coverage later on but that does not exclude from the fact MRC is being used to supply facts for these RSs. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 00:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Just becuase they are opinion pieces that does not discount them from being used.” yes, yes it does actually... They havent gone through the paper’s editorial process and thus using them for the RS’s position on a source’s reliability rather than the author’s personal opinion on a sources reliability is inappropriate per WP:NEWSORG. Jeezy petes that CNBS article is another opinion piece. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the specific policy that supports your POV here? The RS policy talks about using opinion articles as citations for Wikipedia articles.  Where does it talk about using them to establish reliability? Springee (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 As with any source, my first check is whether or not they have a corrections policy. They do.. Moving on to the objections above, I notice that a lot of them have to do with predictions of the direction of future climate change. Because we don't know what will happen, that is not factual information. Even in the event that their predictions turn out to be wrong, they will be no more disqualifying than any of the absurdly wrong predictions about covid, climate change , elections , or any other future event that have appeared in sources we accept as a matter of course. That said, articles that are about future predictions of events that can't be known for certain should be treated as opinion pieces, and it would be equally wise to do the same with other sources, too. Similarly, some rate of arguable factual errors does not disqualify them, unless one wants to disqualify the NYT for The New York Times controversies, which was typically debunked on the same day on a widely-read blog by an expert on the case , yet continued for over a year anyway. More recently, we have The 1619 Project. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 3 or option 4. It's clear that it starts with its conclusions, then seeks "evidence" to support them.  Exactly the wrong way to do journalism.  There are quality, reliable news sources whose editorial board leans towards the American political right, such as the Wall Street Journal or The Weekly Standard.  It would be more helpful if people stopped trying to defend the crap ones like this, as it tends to give the impression that conservative-leaning media is by default bad media, and that people who defend these sources are more interested in their political leanings than the factualness of their reporting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mainstream" sources do precisely that all the time. For example, take the proposition "Reade Seligmann is a rapist." Now everyone acknowledges this is proven false, but "mainstream" sources ran with the opposite conclusion for months after it was proven false. The same thing is still going on with the proposition "Daniel Holtzclaw is a rapist." If you follow the "garbage" sources and actually look at their evidence, it's obvious that he isn't. But Wikipedia sourcing rules don't allow that, run into WP:RGW, and so forth. A third example is the proposition "Ilhan Omar married her brother." Again if you really dig into the evidence, you reach the opposite conclusion from what the "mainstream" sources say. They could see reality easily enough if they chose to, which they don't, and it's a repeating pattern. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting the contention in quotes doesnt protect you from a WP:BLP violation if you then directly endorse the conspiracy theory... Please retract. This is also not the appropriate place to be posting your general musings about the mainstream media. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A fine illustration of what a crock of shit we get ourselves into by our various policies. The article Daniel Holtzclaw all but says that its subject is a rapist, even though overwhelming evidence says he is not. Meanwhile, I get warned about sanctions for having the audacity to even mention a proposition supported by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Because reliability and truth! Adoring nanny (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the old "Someone did something wrong once too, so there is no way to judge anyone else wrong ever" argument. Take your false equivalences elsewhere.  We're all filled up here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2: This is controversial, but I agree with that reliable sources describe it as a "conservative media watchdog", or something along those lines. It does appear to do some fact-checking regarding inaccuracies targeting conservativess. Overall, the reliability can be conflicted according to who you ask, so additional considerations should be applied, such as attribution.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 05:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Perhaps the difficulty in finding reliable alt/far-right US sources is just intrinsic to how that ideology treats verifiability and objectivity on the whole? If their methods of reporting are so disconnected from what Wikipedia and the majority of news media consider trustworthy, then maybe what they provide is just fundamentally not a news service. We shouldn't be citing them just to appear balanced or to find attribution for someone's awful opinions. Why should we even include a statement that was revealed exclusively to one of these sources? If it was actually relevant/noteworthy, actual RSs would pick up on it (WP:NOTNEWS?), and if it's not, then maybe that statement doesn't deserve encyclopedic attention in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as I demonstrate above, the issue is that sins which will get a right-wing source banned are routinely ignored when left-wing sources do it. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4 per Snooganssnoogans, David Gerard, Neutrality, JoelleJay, and others.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - This has been amply demonstrated above. This is not merely about bad predictions or lazy opinion columns (otherwise the comparison to the NYT would make sense). Instead, this is about misrepresentation of facts to push a specific agenda, which is falsely presented as neutral. Reliability is a spectrum, and this is on the far end of that spectrum Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be more convincing with an example that is as well-documented as the NYT's endless deceptions in the Duke lacrosse case, which was, after all, done in order to push their general leftist agenda. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is simultaneously incorrect, misleading, and textbook whataboutism. The New York Times controversies directly cites Newsbusters, which suggests this argument comes from the same walled-garden. The other two sources are an obscure interview in The Big Lead which barely discusses the "controversy" at all, and a much longer article which provides real substance, but is only used by the article to prop up a cherry-picked quote. Sources don't show that this is a killer comparison, for a lot of reasons. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What, precisely, is incorrect? That the NYT coverage was deceptive? The worst example of that is this. Right there in the headline, they say that the files give "details but no answers." They then write a 6,000 word article without mentioning that there was an ATM videotape of one of the "suspects" a mile away from the alleged scene of the "crime", with a timestamp during the time when the "crime" was supposedly occurring. That gives a rather clear answer, and the ABC news story about the video was dated four months prior to the NYT publishing its story. So there was an answer, it had been clear publicly for months, but the NYT claimed there wasn't one. The same point is made by KC Johnson, who wrote a well-received book about the case. The deceptive ones in this instance are the NYT, not NewsBusters, which is precisely why we need the latter. And if you don't think this was all done in the name of pushing the NYT's leftist agenda, well, their own public editor said pretty much that. . Adoring nanny (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My point, which I admit I didn't make very clear, was that this comparison to the NYT's handling of the Duke case is not compelling. In other words, this has almost nothing at all to do with MRC, so this is a distraction. National Review opinions and Amazon links to books published over a decade ago, about some completely different issue, are even farther off-topic, and are not productive to this discussion. Claiming that a liberal paper like the NYT has a leftist agenda is inflammatory to liberals, insulting to leftists, and irrelevant to Wikipedia editors just trying to discuss sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It has to do with it in the following sense. If we depro right-wing (or "conservative", to me the words are interchangeable) sources for allegedly changing facts to suit their agenda, but accept the same from left-wing (or liberal) sources, we have a double standard. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4: Clearly contributes to spreading falsehoods. NightHeron (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4: Per sources presented by Snoogans and others AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Looking at their news website it's far worse than the Daily Mail.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 The site purposefully disseminates fake news. Not "fake news" in the pejorative sense of the term, but in that it publishes literal disinformation to advance a far-right agenda. Not suitable for use in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (MRC)

 * I've upgraded this discussion to an RfC, as it potentially conflicts with consensus established in two prior RfCs:
 * (2010): No consensus on Media Research Center
 * (2019): Consensus that CNSNews.com is generally unreliable


 * Interesting note from SPLC here: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/03/24/hate-group-leaders-antigovernment-extremists-push-anti-china-coronavirus-rhetoric Guy (help!) 08:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: RT (Russia Today)
Which of the following best describes the reliability of the RT (TV network)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


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

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Per the WP:RSP, there is "no consensus on the reliability of RT" on general topics but a consensus that "RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics." This strikes me as a strange status, given that RT pushes disinformation, conspiracy theories and falsehoods (per the citations in the RSP list). RT also pushes constant climate change denial content in its "news" section. In 2009, the news section of RT uncritically quoted renowned conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as if he were an authority on climate science. In 2011, the news section of RT uncritically quoted two prominent non-scientist climate change deniers without any pushback or additional context. This leads me to wonder whether there isn't sufficient reason to deprecate RT?

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That indicates a need for the typical ‘what is it now’ option:
 * Option 5: No need to change existing guidance “RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics.” And for general topics, no consensus although “Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact.”

After all, unless RSP has been wrong on this despite several previous checks, the Red is on topics related to Russian interests... and outside of that, seems meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (RT)

 * Option 4 per "wait, we haven't done that already? it's a propaganda machine, for crying out loud". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4: State sponsored propaganda machine without any independent editorial oversight --Shrike (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - how heavily used is it? Also, would this include SputnikNews? - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's around articles Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * gawd, one to kill with fire - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, that's amazingly bad. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4, but... I want to say on non-political stories of news events within Russia, like natural or man-made disasters, RT tends to have more coverage than we'd get out of other international sources and they have little reason to mask this information. But this is more where I'd see a carve out for when only RT can be used and nix the rest if that's a reasonable approach. --M asem (t) 15:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - See RT_America (last 3 paragraphs), other reliable sources do not consider it a reliable source. However it can have an important place on Wikipedia for demonstrating the official views and positions of Russia, even if those views are blatant denialism so long as they are framed correctly. Unfortunately, #4 is supporting a complete and total wipe of every RT sources on Wikipedia regardless of its context and content (see what is happening to DM). --  Green  C  15:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The way you talk about wiping every Daily Mail source from Wikipedia regardless of its context and content you make it sound like a bad thing. Alas, there exists no context or content that makes The Daily Mail trustworthy in some situations. They are never to be trusted. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard for detailed reasons why we can never trust The Daily Mail. RT is another matter. They are completely unreliable on many topics, but take a look at . That's the sort of thing RT covers in more detail than other sources. So I choose Option 4 but I also hope that we can find wording to allow limited use for things like the death of Yevgeny Mikrin. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my stance too, where the topic is fully apolitical, RT usually is not doing anything weird and is the most detailed source. --M asem (t) 16:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats kind of the catch-22 with state sponsored propaganda outfit like these, if it wasn’t somehow political they wouldn’t produce/run the story by definition. *Nothing* they publish is “fully apolitical.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Having some proportion of the content be seemingly unobjectionable is a means of veiling the misinformation behind superficial respectability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4: per XOR&#39;easter and Shrike. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck comment by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 A quick google search brought up multiple lies. Nor am In sure it can be even used as an "official" Russian moth piece as it pretends its not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 for a while it was argued that RT would get better or is useful in some circumstances. I don’t think those arguments hold water anymore. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Not sure why anyone would want to censor On Contact. ^^  Here they are interviewing Siddharth Varadarajan, editor of The Wire (India).  https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/482554-right-wing-populism-india/ --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I !voted before this became an RfC and am withdrawing my vote as I am uncomfortable defending RT as a general rule, since I myself have never cited it. I don't believe in giving blanket passes or making blanket bans, but I am in the minority on that and don't have to deal with one of the hotspots in which it might be (ab)used. Apologies but the change to an RfC convinced me to stay out of this. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4 - well established that RT is a propaganda/disinformation outlet of the Russian government. Neutralitytalk 17:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Aside from the problems I identified in OP, RT promotes 9/11 Trutherism ("911 Reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job"), birther conspiracy theories ("Obama’s birthplace mystery raises doubts"), coronavirus disinformation ("Russia Today... broadcast that hand-washing was ineffective against coronavirus", Seth Rich conspiracy theories, Hillary Clinton health conspiracy theories, Bilderberg conspiracy theories, and random-ass 4chan conspiracy theories. RT has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Rather, it has a reputation for falsehoods, conspiracy theories and disinfo. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate for any factual information (per above—that's too much disinfo to trust for much of anything), but can be used for the views of the Russian government where WP:DUE. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4 - Is propaganda. Even if some of its articles are not propaganda, that others are propaganda, is why we should not use it for anything. We don't need to cite to RT to show the positions of Putin. We can cite to reliable sources discussing Putin's positions and/or how RT is propaganda. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 very biased Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2/3 Agree with some of the above commenters that RT can be useful for non political content related to Russia, otherwise I would avoid using it due to disinformation concerns. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Regularly publishes disinformation, regardless of the quality in some topics, It's too great an issue to overlook. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 for most things. Not better than 3. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Cannot be trusted. Guy (help!) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. As discussed in, at least 30 in-depth reliable sources describe RT as a propaganda outlet. The list is reproduced below:




 * Option 3.999 Propaganda outlet. But if they interview Putin or Lavrov then I think they can be trusted not to mangle Russian officials.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1. It’s my main source for news. Very professional approach with some great presenters on its TV network and incredible diversity of opinions. Its web service is reliable and has a wide coverage of events and places. Its coverage of my small corner of the world is invariably accurate. Ruptly provides unmatched video from all parts of the world. Burrobert (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2.5 Seems a bit of a gap from 2 to 3. I think deprecation is OTT and attribution is as usual sufficient to deal with potentially suspect material. I just rolled over to rt.com and I don't see anything too outrageous there (other than the usual anti-US spin).Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per above. ~ HAL  333  21:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3/4 per above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 This is simply a propaganda outlet concerned with promoting the Russian government, not truth or verifiability. Of course, there are very specific situation were it can be useful as some people have mentioned, but those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)~
 * Option 4. In Russia, source deprecates you! — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 14:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Any story they post which may be true and reliable would be reported by a more reliable source that isn't a government stooge.  For any story or perspective of which they are the only source, I wouldn't trust them any farther than I could throw them.  Usual exceptions carved out for direct quotes and for demonstrating the positions of the source itself in direct attributions.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Like the Devil, RT spouts lies and falsehoods with the intent of causing chaos and political strife. Even when they do report accurately, there is no reason to use this Kremlin mouthpiece when independent journalism exists. Also, I do not care whether Russia bans me for saying this or even tries to hack my Wikipedia account, but I think that if Hitler were possessed by a demon, Putin is possessed by Satan. He and his news outlets are that bad. That may be greatly exaggerated, but I know no other words that describe my frustration with the government. I could have said worse.  Free Media  Kid ! 19:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Option 4 As RT just tweeted more antisemitic conspiracy theories. Reywas92Talk 23:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3.999: Per Bob the Snob. The standard has to flow from WP:RS. And there's massive issues with accuracy and independence here. It remains possible that a state-owned media isn't necessarily state-controlled. We'd want to look for legal protections that guarantee press freedom, and see if those rights are safe-guarded by the directing state. We'd also want to look for the rights of opposing media and opposing parties more generally in that state, the literal "free market of ideas". The fact that list of journalists killed in Russia is still a thing should put things in context. The presumption should be to remove the material cited to RT. If there's a discussion that leads to a consensus to include the source for some good reason (like describing the state's views, or describing a situation that no independent journalist has access to), we should note the source's ownership and control where we refer to it in the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4, regrettably. It's unfortunate to lose the occasional citations where RT reports on something objectively, but there are just too many conspiracy theories being recycled on RT without any level of fact-checking. Kaldari (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Invalid RFC, and generally 2 - Umm, this is a call for lynching, *not* a neutral statement of question under way.  That said, we’re talking of a publisher for a wide variety of shows, and outside of political guff I think there is clearly some decent reputations and good source content.  To any ranting away above or in response... are you *so* certain there is nothing good that you would agree to being wrong with one good counterexample ?   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC is authorized by WP:RSNRFC. The brief and neutral statement required by WP:RFCBRIEF ends at the first signature, as that is the statement that is transcluded into the RfC lists and publicized through the feedback request service. —  Newslinger  talk   06:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Newslinger Thank you for the cites, but RFCBRIEF requires *all* parts of the statements to be neutral.
 * The material below the ‘first’ statement is also part of the RFC, and all description of the issue is to be neutral - which here is just a vague denunciation and call to mob action. There does not seem to be a RFC question in discussions needing dispute resolution, nor of RT (TV) as a ‘perennial’ source, nor is there in the statement any details being considered - does anyone even know what publications are included under this generic corporate ban ?  This isn’t looking to ban specific publication or a specific website or a specific program, it’s looking to ban anything (unstated) tied to the entity RT (TV network) — because of unspecified claims.   The lack of neutral statement, lack of any specifics to the proposal, lack of evidence or policy cite - and lack of any apparent need...I mean if there are actual usages being proposed to RSN, then let’s see them.   The RSP is *supposed* to be about that yes?  Or is it a forum for at-whim denunciations?   This one is just not a valid RFC.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC statement ends at the first signature. Any additional comments are part of the RfC discussion. There is no restriction in WP:RFC that forbids the discussion starter from participating in the discussion. It is common for editors who author the RfC statement to immediately follow the statement with their opinion on the issue. Examples include these recently closed RfCs from the WP:RFCL archives:, , and . All of these RfCs (and many more in the archives) were valid, and so is this one. This RfC format was broadly authorized in WP:RSNRFC. —  Newslinger  talk   04:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything above the Survey is part of the RFC statement. Here, what little is above Snooganssnoogans first signature is reasonable, but then he goes into denunciation.  Tell you what, I’ll exercise RFC norms and put in the default and see if that flies.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your addition looks fine to me. —  Newslinger  talk   04:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your addition looks fine to me. —  Newslinger  talk   04:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thats a completely inappropriate word to use in this context, I will be placing a note on your talk page and we can discuss this further there. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Horse Eye Jack. Mmmm... spreading of hatred, incitement to mob action and extermination, done outside of any due process or judicial norms of evidence and law... the word ‘lynching’ seems metaphorically spot on. I suppose you could make literal use of ‘rigged proceeding’ or ‘Kangaroo court’, but the latter term always seemed offensive to Aussies by my lights.  At any rate, not a neutral RFC.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. I debated Option 3.999 per, but I don't think Wikipedia should link to a conspiracy theory promoting propaganda machine for official statements either, even if they can reliably report on Russian leaders. I suggest that instances such as describes should cite other news outlets which discuss RT's reporting. RT can't establish its own reliability or notability; we need other sources to even discuss it. Daask (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My argument for not using RT to cover official statements by the Russian government is that RT might not provide appropriate context to those statements. For example, if the Russian government's official position entails falsehoods and conspiracy theories, then RT would omit that context whereas actual RS would provide that context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4 Per pretty much countless RS, not reliable for anything. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Even for supposedly benign reporting, the fact that it's an extension of the Russian political propaganda machine and unable to report independently means any news story published is subject to interference and oversight. I say we nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. Grandpallama (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4, of course. Is this still debatable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. I don't think they are even reliable for interviews with Russian officials. Milpack (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Totally unreliable and, really, should not be used as a source under any circumstances today. We need less propaganda on Wikipedia, not more! &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3.5. I think there are two types of reporting for which it may sometimes make sense to use RT in Wikipedia voice: (1) non-controversial interviews/official statements/whatever quoting the Russian government or its high level officials (example), and (2) news about non-controversial, non-political internal Russian events and affairs. For case 2 it should only be used when it is the most detailed source and/or when it contains important details not covered in any other source. If the use of RT for Wikipedia-voice statements is questioned, the burden of proof should be on the inserting editor to demonstrate why RT in particular, instead of any other source, should be used there. Additionally, since RT is essentially the Western PR arm of the Russian government, it can be useful to cite it, not in Wikipedia voice, in order to describe the Russian government perspective on a topic. In these cases, it should be prefixed with something like "A report/op-ed/whatever in Russia Today (RT), which is widely recognized as a propaganda outlet of the Russian government, argued that Russia was right to do ABC because XYZ".  For anything outside these narrow use cases, RT should be completely deprecated. It's completely unreliable for literally anything involving the US, Russian politics, or geopolitics in general, as well as having clear bias in its news reporting as well as selective omission of relevant facts and context in addition to outright fabrications. I suggest putting an edit filter in place that warns the editor upon any insertion of RT, and where the warning includes a description of what conditions it may be used in. CJK09 (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. For anything related to politics, both foreign and domestic, they are a propaganda arm of the Russian government, not a true news organization. According to sworn testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Jake Sullivan, who has enjoyed top security status during his career, stated that "RT...shouldn't be regulated as a traditional media entity; they should be treated as a part of a foreign intelligence service." (bolding added) That quote should be added to the description at Perennial sources#RT (both general and controversial topics). In a tightly controlled authoritarian state like Russia, no media is allowed to be any else, so no Russian media can be trusted. If it is allowed to exist in peace, it exists at the mercy of Putin and must serve his purposes. -- Valjean (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1. It is also my main (but not only) source for news. Unfortunately most of the above comments are editor's personal opinions. Let us go through some facts.
 * FACT #1: RT is strictly regulated by Ofcom in the UK for broadcasting standards. While Ofcom said that Fox News in the UK broke UK TV impartiality rules.
 * FACT #2: RT has been nominated 4 times for the news award in the International Emmy Awards Current Affairs & News in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016.
 * FACT #3: RT has many internationally recognised journalists/politicians; Larry King, Peter Lavelle, Kevin Owen, Bill Dod (https://rt.com/onair-talent/bill-dod/), Max Keiser, Scottie Nell Hughes, Mike Papantonio, Alex Salmond...I don't think anyone would question Larry King's integrity, or call him pro-Russian.
 * "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" (or in this case a nice piece of anti-Russian bias). Possibly most editors have never watched RT to give an opinion, who knows? Seth Whales   talk  16:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (RT)

 * I've upgraded this discussion to an RfC, as a deprecation proposal requires an RfC by definition. See the perennial sources list entries for RT (general topics) and RT (controversial topics, international politics) for past discussions. —  Newslinger  talk   23:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how reporting unpopular opinions makes a source reliable, particularly when those opinions have already been published in reliable sources. What makes sources unreliable is when they treat opinions as facts. For example, your first example quotes climate change denier James Taylor in an article from 6 years ago in Forbes, which is America's foremost business magazine. It's doesn't present his opinion as a fact. Conservative media, such as Forbes, Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal, the Telegraph, the New York Post and the Washington Times pay too much attention to lots of unpopular positions, but are still considered reliable sources. What puts RT in a different category? Incidentally, I watch RT occasionally: Lee Camp, Rick Sanchez, Chris Hedges, Mike Papantonio, and formerly Larry King and Ed Schultz. None of them are climate change deniers. On the other hand, CNN once had climate change deniers Glenn Beck AND Lou Dobbs on for four hours every night. PBS hired William F. Buckley, Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan. Ann Coulter was a correspondent on MSNBC.TFD (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , what makes RT not a reliable source is that they do not have independent editorial oversight. Yes, they have editors, but their editorial oversight is ultimately Putin (and by extension the Russian government). It's true that not everything RT puts out is propaganda, or false. I also sometimes watch RT for news, and sometimes they cover stories in an objective and factual way and provide a different perspective than what you find in mainstream US media. But that doesn't make them a reliable source for Wikipedia. IMO, no government-controlled media can be a reliable source, because politics will always cause the editorial oversight to not be independent. We can't separate the propaganda from the "clean" content, so we can't trust it. Unlike, say, The New York Times or Wall St Journal, where we can be confident the editors aren't taking their marching orders from the President. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 05:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, most international news stories on RT are factual and relate to true events, and provide center-right coverage. However, they for stories involving Russia they are highly biased in favor of Russia and occasionally run Pro-state conspiracy stories.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Motherland controversy
Is a new article reliant on non English sources, this would not be an issue except the article about the chief subject makes no mention of this controversy (and seems to even contradict some of it), and seems to use archaic terms. And it is using this [] as a source, and it seems a bit iffy to me. Can someone who speaks Chinese check the sources?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , I can find most of the claims in the sources, albeit not all. Some of it seems exaggerated. The article is mainly a more or less direct translation from the Chinese article, created in 2013. Which partly explains the "archaic" language, some of it is PRC communist slogan rhetoric. The first two sources are the same, new are two linked e-books, one is a 2010 PRC book, one a 2016 ROC book. Of the two linked sources, the PRC book from 2010 is more detailed. I'd like to find out what the 1992 book says, its quoted, but it doesnt seem to provide much information. Which contradictions do you mean? What I think should happen is to add clarification markers, e.g. at "This controversy is believed to be deliberately raised by Japanese military, who tried to warn Taiwanese intellectuals about their Chinese nationalism." Believed by whom? Etc. EnTerbury (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

madridbullfighting.com
Does this website, called "madridbullfighting.com", qualify as a reliable source for noncontroversial and technical information? I am trying to source Spanish-style bullfighting's parts of a bullfight section. For example, would this be OK to use to source the first, second, and third tercio (parts) of a bullfight? This is not for a lack of reliable sources, such as this great one from Britannica, but it would be helpful to know if these sources have any value for sourcing technical names, etc. Thank you! Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 00:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so. "madridbullfighting.com" seems to be user-generated content, and does not have any indications of notability. While the website does contain information about the mechanics of the parts of a bullfight, it seems like it has a focus on selling tickets, not necessarily giving reliable insight into your topic. Maxmmyron (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thank you! Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 13:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Expert interview in Epoch Times spinoff channel
I have been discussing the inclusion of an expert interview|interview at the Wuhan Institute of Virology page about the possibility that they might have received the samples earlier than 30 December, 2019. Because, according to him, it would be impossible to get the whole genome sequence in three days (you might have to browse a bit in order to get the right time of the start of the interview, the tag doesn't seem to be working). It was already debated in the talk page, and was dismissed as conspiracy theory because it is from the Epoch Times. What I want to know is not wether the Epoch Times is considered WP:MEDRS, because it absolutely isn't. What I want to know is if this interview is credible, considering it involves what appears to be an expert in the field. Maybe his opinion on the subject could be found elsewhere, but I find this particular interview to be detailled enough, regarding the timing of a scientific process, to be relevant. I want to know wether this interview in particular could be considered WP:MEDRS because of it's level of scientific timing detail, even if it might enter the WP:BIASED category. I would also like an evaluation of the WP:MEDRS criteria for this source, as it does not involve science directly, but the timing of it happening. Disclaimer1: I do not pretend to be an expert in the field, and I would very much appreciate if someone with the right background could comment. Disclaimer2: I know the Epoch Times is currently being discredited for their behaviour during the pandemic, and by including one of their videos here It doesn't mean that I adhere or promote their views/behaviour, which is in fact the opposite. Please don't WP:BITE me, I recently started editing here. Thank you. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we can not trust the Epoch Times to accurately present what the expert said. Even with video, an interview can be edited (manipulated) so that it appears as if the expert said X, when he in fact said Y (or even Not X). Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an issue here, I am watching the interview almost in repeat to make sure I didn't prematurely wrote a notice here. And if you watch the interview from 15:12 to 17:53 (where he first says it's impossible) there is no apparent audio gap or appearance of editing. If you want, I can try to isolate the audio track of it to find if there are any abrupt changes or oddities, but I think this goes way beyond the normal procedure for reliable sources on wikipedia. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There's also the issue of who the Epoch Times chooses to interview. Does this person represent the scientific mainstream? Would the views they're presenting pass peer review in a reputable journal? The Epoch Times supports the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab, and they found someone with a PhD who is willing to support that view. That doesn't mean the view isn't WP:FRINGE. We should be using WP:MEDRS sources for these sorts of issues, not the Epoch Times. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you on that, but it seems that no one else in the mainstream media has noticed/commented this timeline oddity. That's why I came here in the first place, to see if there are other occurences of experts stating that. I also think that the timing of a particular scientific process might not meet the requirements to be validated with WP:MEDRS. That's a very good question to ask the other ditors here in my opinion because it is a very specific and interesting question. And please, may I remind you that the Copenhagen interpretation was also considered WP:FRINGE by Albert Einstein at some point (God doesn't play dice with the universe). The comparison I want to make here is only that being the first to point out something doesn't automatically relay it to WP:FRINGE. It might not be an appropriate example/comparison, but it's the one I could think of first. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * They didn't just "find" someone to support their view: their expert is literally a regular contributor to Epoch Times, practices Falun Gong, and is "executive director of the Global Alliance against Communist Propaganda and Disinformation" according to Present Danger China! JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would strongly oppose including any media from Epoch Times whatsoever, but especially as a source for material that is anti-China. Their expert is also not independent of Epoch Times: https://www.theepochtimes.com/author-xiaoxu-sean-lin JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As per WP:IS: "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified". PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Since we started talking about this, i'd like it to be in a more rigourous format. Feel free to edit the ballpark options I did here to better reflect the process in this example. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: This interview is unreliable
 * Option 2: This interview is reliable
 * Option 3: The Epoch Times is generally unreliable but this interview is.
 * Option 4: The science might be right, but the Epoch Times is generally unreliable.


 * I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a request for comment (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at WP:RFCST, and use a brief and neutral statement as the first signed comment in the discussion. — Newslinger  talk   22:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * oh thanks, should I remove the options also? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't have to if you'd like other editors to use them. They're perfectly fine both inside and outside of RfCs. — Newslinger  talk   22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the option for "The Epoch Times is never a reliable source, and there is zero scientific merit to the claims as presented in the interview"? JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The Epoch Times is never a reliable source and should not be used as a reference under any circumstance. One of several propaganda arms of Falun Gong, a new religious movement that relentlessly peddles conspiracy theories and financially supports extreme-right wing politics, The Epoch Times makes for an excellent example of a truly unreliable source. If the only source one can find for a claim is The Epoch Times, it really shouldn't be on Wikipedia. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * (joke) even on their page? His point does seem to make sense though. Can we talk about that? I specifically wanted to extract this interview from the Epoch Times frame in order to consider his point as a virology expert, which even with his regular contribution to Epoch Times could be mentioned using WP:IS manner of stating his affiliation. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the place to discuss the merits of his position, although to me it reads as a blatant attempt at duping naïve laypeople into believing one of a revolving cast of anti-China conspiracies du jour. I would be just as critical of any interviews conducted by Chinese media touting the opinion of a random government-employed expert; if actual independent scientists (=exclusively PhD-holding lead researchers actively publishing in this field) give this newest proposal any attention, they will do so from a reliable source. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the WIV page has this notice on the top. I don't know if it is appropriate to add it here, because I don't really understand what it implies. But ultimately, this discussion will help decide the faith of a reference that will be used/not used on this page. And you talking about Falun Gong made me remember that banner.PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Epoch Times, including this interview, is unreliable. If any of the information is credible, reliable sources will repeat it eventually, and then it can be added to the article. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you that's very constructive. What do you think of the actual matter behind it though? Do you think it will get repeated sometime? I will start looking at it, but knowing the scientific process, I find that the timeline is indeed strange... Anyway, thanks! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly,, I don't see what difference it makes in the big picture. I think it's reasonable to suspect that China has not been entirely forthcoming; why would they be? I think that if China started the genome sequencing and looking for the virus a few weeks earlier, it might become a cudgel that gets used against them by other countries but will it change anything, really? Schazjmd   (talk)  23:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I get you. It won't change anything about the past. But it might just help the international community to wake up about believing what nations say. I think that this will keep happening if we continue to trust everyone blindly. And maybe pointing out errors in their alledged cover-up (just like this one) might help detecting the signs of a terrible outbreak in the future. That's why I do it. I don't want that thing happening again. And if we can find ways to scientifically detect cover-ups, like by looking at research timelines, well it's a hell of a powerful tool for pandemic prevention imo. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Exposing cover-ups is what scientists and researchers and investigative journalists do, not Wikipedia editors.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable, especially here Epoch Times has strong political motivations behind their reporting of COVID-19. They themselves refer to the virus as the certainly non-neutral "CCP Virus", so to include a supposed "expert interview" from someone involved in the group (as JoelleJay already established) would not be reliable, especially when WP:MEDRS are needed. Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ   Kɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)  23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Update! I just found two sources (one basically translating the other) that suggest they might have received the samples before Dec.30: "Upon interviewing a number of medical doctors who were in charge of treating patients at the very initial stage of the outbreak, Caixin journalists obtained a list of labs which had helped the hospitals to run an analysis of the new virus. Upon testing, a lab in Guangzhou found out that the genome sequence of the new virus was 87 per cent similar to Bat SARS-like coronavirus. The lab shared the results with the China Institute of Pathogen Biology and Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on 27 of December. However, the National Health Commission issued a new regulation banning all the labs from sharing and releasing their test results in early January." And the report it references in Caixin. saying "on December 24, a deputy chief physician of the Department of Respiratory Medicine performed bronchoscopy on the patient and then sent the patient ’s alveolar lavage fluid sample Tripartite testing agency Guangzhou Weiyuan Gene Technology". Does adding these independent sources on top of it makes this interview legit? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can discuss adding the information using those sources at the applicable article where interested editors can weigh in on WP:DUE. But the interview is not a reliable source. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok then Will not include for now, until it's not proven, but will be adding those two other articles. I thought that if you had multiple sources at once, you could include one that has less reliability, because the final reference is the combination of all three. Might be my lack of WP knowledge though, thanks! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I still find it funny though that it basically says the approximate same thing as those two other sources, but is defacto unreliable because it's the Epoch Times. I guess it'll take more time for me to understand how WP works. But I bet some of you already had that kind of flame I have to find and write about stuff like that. Thank you all again for your inputs, very appreciated. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is because of the "Stopped clock effect": the stopped clock is unreliable, but still gives the right time twice a day. You should not point to the stopped clock as evidence for the time, even if it is one of the two times when that clock does show the right time. "Reliable" means you can rely on it.
 * Somebody who knows that ET is unreliable will not believe the WP article if it gives ET as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then, what about the people who have no knowledge of ET, yet believe that Wikipedia is generally a credible source?David notMD (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What about them? How are they relevant to the question at hand? Other users cannot read your thoughts, unless you write them down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For the avoidance of doubt, China plus Epoch Times equals unreliable. Guy (help!) 22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The interview is as unusable as the outlet; firstly, there is the issue of whether the "expert"'s views are being presented accurately and reliably by the unreliable source, and then there is the point JoelleJay raises, that the "expert" is not independent of the Epoch Times to begin with (so, his own reliability is called into question), and thirdly there is the issue Thucydides411 raises, that they picked this specific expert to advance their existing conspiracy theory, when his views may be WP:FRINGE/not WP:DUE, whereas this is a place where we should be using WP:MEDRS. If, as suggested above, there are two other sources that say the same thing, and if they are reliable and due, etc, then just use them...! -sche (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hushbeck and WP:RANDY
This is about. Please chime in. Hushbeck seems to be WP:RANDY in Bible scholarship.

Quoting myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The disagreement and I have revolves around whether or not we should be stating outright that the account of Saul's death in 1Samuel, and the report from the Amelekite in 2 Samuel should be described explicitly as a conflict within the Bible. Every apologetic I have read has seen no conflict, in that the author gives an actual account in 1 Samuel, but is merely describing a report in 2 Samuel.  Gleason L. Archer, Elgin Lewis Hushbeck and  Carl S. Ehrlich all claim that the report from the Amelekite should not be considered trustworthy.  Given Tgeorgescu's sources (Ernest Nicholson and Lucy Bregman) and belief that we should list it as a conflict within the Bible, I have tried to edit the section in a way that incorporates both. -- Bertrc  (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ehrlich, or more precisely Meier, acknowledges there is a conflict between the biblical stories about the death of Saul.
 * did not get the point that apologetics books are often junk sources.
 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In context, Ehrlich, or more precisely Meier, says that there is a conflict between the narrator's (ie. author's) account in 1 Samuel and the Amelekite's report in 2 Samuel: "Of the two conflicting accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, the reader is supposed to assume the narrator account in 1 Samuel .. The account told in 2 Samuel 3-10 is naturally suspect told as it is by an Amelekite." This is why we have had an editting war where I keep trying to edit in Tgeorgescu's view and Tgeorgescu simply keeps reverting my changes, wholesale. -- Bertrc  (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In context, Ehrlich, or more precisely Meier, says that there is a conflict between the narrator's (ie. author's) account in 1 Samuel and the Amelekite's report in 2 Samuel: "Of the two conflicting accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, the reader is supposed to assume the narrator account in 1 Samuel .. The account told in 2 Samuel 3-10 is naturally suspect told as it is by an Amelekite." This is why we have had an editting war where I keep trying to edit in Tgeorgescu's view and Tgeorgescu simply keeps reverting my changes, wholesale. -- Bertrc  (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"17. Of the two conflicting accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, the reader is supposed to assume that the narrator's account in 1 Samuel 31, regardless of how he got the information, is reliable. The account told in 2 Sam 1:3-10 is naturally suspect, told as it is by an Amalekite, Israel's old foe (Exod 17:8-16; 1 Sam 15:1-33). But how does David know that this Amalekite is lying, since David does not know what the reader knows from the preceding chapter? Saul's crown and bracelet look like the plunder that battlefield scavengers would harvest from the slain after a batter, and if the Amalekite could escape, why could not Saul?"

- Samuel A. Meier


 * That's the full quote. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ; I had transcribed manually. -- Bertrc  (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All, Here is a diff of desired content -- Bertrc (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again there are two different questions:


 * Is there a conflict between the stories?
 * Why is there a conflict between the stories?


 * I was talking about the first question, not about the second. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

All, In addition to the diff, here are direct links to my version and Tgeorgescu's -- Bertrc (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)