Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 300

Citing breitbart.com for their "Never Trump" opinion
In The Lincoln Project, an unsourced statement was recently added that the founders are Never Trumpers. I want to provide sources for that which show that many media outlets across the political spectrum have used that term. I found what looked like two good sources, representing opposite ends of the political spectrum:





and was blocked by the spam blacklist filter on breitbart. I raised the issue at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist and was surprised to discover that what I considered a legitimate need to cite this reference was rejected. I appreciate the input from and, who I'm sure are acting with the best of intentions, but I respectfully disagree with their point of view. Newslinger suggest I continue the conversation here.

I've had very little to do with the blacklist in the past, so I'm not well versed on the culture. I have had edits caught by the blacklist in the past, and in all those cases, once I've researched the source I was trying to use, I agreed that it was inappropriate and glad that the blacklist had caught my error. In this case, however, I disagree.

I'm not saying Breitbart is reliable for facts. I'm just saying that they're a well-known (far) right-wing media source, and as such, it is useful to cite their opinion to support the statement that opinion sources across the political spectrum have used the term "Never Trumper" to describe the Lincoln Project founders. This seems like a WP:BLUE issue to me. It's easy to find tons of places that call the founders Never Trumpers. There's no doubt that the term is widely used and accepted. So much so that no newspaper, political commentator, etc, is going to write, "The Lincoln Project founders have been called Never Trumpers by media outlets across the political spectrum". The ubiquitous use stands on its own. As I pointed out on WP:SWL, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248 states, It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary, which is all I want to do. I contend that denying my request to allow this source is overstepping the bounds of the administrative function of the blacklist and wading into editorial discretion.

I'm especially concered about the argument that this is WP:SYNTHESIS. There was a suggestion that I use some other sources, namely Washington Examiner or The Washington Times. That would certainly get around the blacklist, but it is at direct odds with the synthesis argument. Surely if using my two sources is synthesis, then swapping out Breitbart for one of those would be exactly the same synthesis.

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, the basic problem here problem is in the statement "I want to provide sources for that which show that many media outlets across the political spectrum have used that term". Yes. I get that you want to show that. Lots of people want to show lots of things. Has any reliable source talked about whether many media outlets across the political spectrum have used that term? See WP:WEIGHT.
 * Also, how do you personally know that many media outlets across the political spectrum have used that term? It does not appear that you read somewhere that many media outlets across the political spectrum have used that term. Instead it appears that you personally looked at a bunch of media outlets that used the term (most likely through googling), evaluated where they are on the political spectrum, and came to the conclusion that many media outlets across the political spectrum have used that term. I have no doubt that your conclusion was correct, but it is still WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , So, where does that leave us? I could revert this edit, (PS: as well as this one and this one) but I think that would be silly.  I could leave it unsourced, which would be worse.  Or, I could source it to (for the sake of argument), the sources suggested by Newslinger, but that doesn't address the OR/SYNTH question. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem silly at all to remove information that could not be verified by reliable sources (or even by unreliable sources without doing WP:SYNTH.} Either you have a reliable source that directly says that The Lincoln Project was formed by Never Trumpers or you came to that conclusion with any reliable sources that I can use to verify the claim. No source, no claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Couldn't you identify them as Never Trumpers with the non-breitbart sources you have and leave out the 'by media outlets across the political spectrum' bit? - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a list of those sources and what they are being used as citations in support of. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * RoySmith is right, Fish+karate the closer of the Breitbart discussion said "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary." Obsidi objected to the blacklist in 2018, but Dirk Beetstra rejected the complaint. Peter Gulutzan (talk)
 * Yes, it can be used as a source when attributing opinion, but should it? I don't think breitbart and the blacklist is the problem here. The problem is a claim that no reliable source has directly made. Whitelisting brietbart for this one citation will not change that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , exactly. And I checked: I can't even find a source that definitively places this as part of the never-Trump movement. WaPo describes it as founded by people who were formerly members of the never-Trump movement, which it frames as having effectively ended with the 2016 election. Guy (help!) 11:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , "X says Y, source, X saying Y" is never a great idea, and when X is Breitbart it becomes a very bad idea indeed. Guy (help!) 09:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

, I could do a lot of things. But, we had an RFC which said the source is not usable for facts, but it's still usable to attribute opinion. I want to attribute opinion. If people want to argue on Talk:The Lincoln Project about my editorial choices in the article, that's fair. And, the blacklist is exactly the problem here. The spam blacklist shouldn't be used to prevent citations which the RFC explicitly said are acceptable, and it shouldn't be used to enforce editorial direction. WP:BLACKLIST says, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers. Surely what I want to do is not spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You need a source that say implicitly that is used across the political spectrum not example by various fringe outlets as it WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * True. What you want to do is not spam. It is also true that what you want to do is also not allowed. It seems quite reasonable to, once a source is blacklisted for spam, only allow exceptions for legitimate uses. It does not seem reasonable to insist that an exception to the blacklist be made for an edit that would not be allowed for non-spam reasons. You just end up with an exception that is never used. If you go back to the article talk page or on a noticeboard and establish consensus that what you want to do does not violate WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, any admin will be glad to whitelist the source for the now-legitimate purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, the blacklist is against spam primarily. But with singling out that statement you have ignored WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS.  There is consensus that massively restricting the use of Breitbart is improving (better: not deteriorating) Wikipedia and the spam-blacklist (a misnomer in itself) is the most efficient and server friendly tool to do so (an AbuseFilter would be better, but technically also wrong).
 * Whitelisting a source that was blacklisted because of unreliability suggests that there will be consensus to use the specific document as a source. I don’t see that consensus yet.  I guess that more discussion is needed before this should be granted. Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I hear what people are saying. I don't agree with all of it, but it's clear that consensus is against me here and it's time to move on.  I've reverted the edit which started this all.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What's with this "it's clear that consensus is against me here and it's time to move on" garbage? This is the INTERNET. You are supposed to call me a Nazi Pedophile Bedwetter and accuse everyone who responded of being part of The Cabal. Get back in there and fight! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, what you may not realize is that I did do all those things. But I've also set the secret auto-censor bit on those edits.  Everybody else can see them, but you can't.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can confirm this statement is true. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's a relief. I have long thought that we should use Shadow banning for WP:LTAs and the As don't come much more LT than yours truly. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I see no reason needed to pull at Breitbart for this. What a "Never Trump" support is is pretty clear from sources and our article on the movement - any Republican politician or associated role that doesn't want Trump in office next term. That the Lincoln Project was formed with this goal, and that the group founders, and the group itself, is considered part of that movement is well supported by a number of sources that though may lean left but has enough sources at near center to support that (and while it's still good, Fox News too). It is not like some agency is trying to mislabel the Lincoln Group as a "pro-Biden" group and we need to show the counter evidence to that. It is not universally called a Never Trump group so it going to need some statement like "The group and its founders are frequently associated with the Never Trump movement" and add 3-4 good refs to support that (until such a time the group asserts they are Never Trump, which I could not find directly). --M asem (t) 00:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me address the synthesis issue first. To include the following example text:
 * the text must be supported by a reliable source that explicitly states that publications across the political spectrum (or some variant, e.g. "both left-wing and right-wing publications") have described The Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement. Citing two example publications that have published the description (regardless of what the publications are) is not enough to support the text, because it is a synthesis of five separate claims:
 * Publication A is a left-wing publication.
 * Publication A has described the Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement.
 * Publication B is a right-wing publication.
 * Publication B has described the Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement.
 * Publications A and B combined are representative of sources across the left–right political spectrum.
 * Based on current practice, editors generally accept combining claims #1 and #2 together, or claims #3 and #4 together, as this is explicitly recommended by the WP:BIASED guideline and occurs commonly enough to be uncontroversial (although this might not pass a featured article source review if Publication A or B lacks the left-wing/right-wing descriptor and is the only citation provided). However, combining all five claims together goes further to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", as proscribed in WP:SYNTH.
 * Eliminating the synthesis is fairly simple. Just name the sources directly:
 * Let's move on to reliability and due weight. To include a source into an article, it must be both reliable and due for the use case. First, I disagree that the provided Breitbart News article is reliable for the claim that the Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement. The applicable quote from Breitbart News is "The Never Trump super PAC The Lincoln Project endorsed Montana Democrat Gov. Steve Bullock on Wednesday over incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines." The article is published under the breitbart.com/politics subdirectory and is not labeled as an opinion piece. Breitbart's description of The Lincoln Project is a factual claim, not an opinion, and in any case fails WP:ABOUTSELF because the description is of a third party on an article (The Lincoln Project) unrelated to Breitbart.
 * Second, even if we assume that the Breitbart description is usable as attributed opinion, the description is also undue. The author, Sean Moran, is not notable (and is not the same person as the athlete named Sean Moran). WP:DUE requires articles to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Breitbart is not a reliable source, and its viewpoint is undue unless published in a reliable source.
 * In conclusion, I don't think the use of Breitbart is warranted in this situation, and recommend the Washington Examiner or The Washington Times  instead, with some adaptation of the suggested sample wording above. —  Newslinger   talk   07:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the blacklist exists to prevent abuse of external links. It is not only used for spam: all redirect sites are blacklisted. Spamming is an "I know it when I see it" thing: Breitbart was deprecated but still being widely added, often by WP:SPAs, and in some cases there was edit-warring to reintroduce it after removal. The same happened with some well known petition sites.
 * Breitbart is an edge case. There is broad agreement that it has no place as a source here, but a small band of dissenters who do not respect that consensus and some occasional involvement by offsite co-ordinated trolls. Blacklisting was used because it permits whitelisting, through a widely-watched and well understood process, which an enforcing edit filter does not.
 * Whitelisting for the reason you state above will be rejected not because it's Breitbart specifically, but because it's an inappropriate use of primary source. We would reject a change.org link for the same reason. Guy (help!) 09:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is an edge case. There is broad agreement that it has no place as a source here, but a small band of dissenters who do not respect that consensus and some occasional involvement by offsite co-ordinated trolls. Blacklisting was used because it permits whitelisting, through a widely-watched and well understood process, which an enforcing edit filter does not.
 * Whitelisting for the reason you state above will be rejected not because it's Breitbart specifically, but because it's an inappropriate use of primary source. We would reject a change.org link for the same reason. Guy (help!) 09:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think "across the political spectrum" is clear WP:SYNTH unless another source has specifically pointed that out. You can say that some commentators have said that, or (even better) list the specific sources that said it, but "across the political spectrum" is clearly an editor using their own characterization of the people who have used the term to make their own personal argument in an effort to convince the reader that the label is meaningful.  "There's bipartisan agreement on this fact", without a source saying so explicitly, is straightforward synthesis.  Or, to put it another way - why do you think "across the political spectrum" matters enough to want to mention it?  And to get back to the WP:RS issue, this undermines your rationale for wanting an exception for Breitbart in this case, ie. if your reason to insist that they need to be used here is "I want to make it look like there's support for this term across the political spectrum", well, you definitely shouldn't be using it that way.  Find a secondary source that notes that fact or don't include it at all, but WP:SYNTHing it out of Breitbart (or the Washington Examiner, for that matter) is no good. --Aquillion (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Workshopping a YouTube RfC
YouTube has been cited over 170,000 times on Wikipedia per. The use of YouTube as a reference is obviously problematic in many cases, as evidenced by the 19 discussions had about the source on this noticeboard linked at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources with 5 this year alone, but there are legitimate uses as well. Given the gravity of a RfC on a source that is that is this widely used, I think workshopping a RfC is necessary, as was done for QuackWatch. Obviously the 1-4 source reliabilty options are useless here as youtube is a self-publishing service. As such I propose several versions of a RfC question:

Feel free to propose other questions in the discussion below.
 * 1. Should YouTube be depreciated?
 * 2. Should YouTube be subject to a warn edit filter?
 * 3. Should YouTube be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which reverts the use of a source in  tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old?
 * 4. Both 2 and 3.

Additional things worth discussing:
 * How do we distinguish between problematic and acceptable uses of Youtube links? Personally I think YouTube is fine for an external link, as well as YouTube videos by major news organisations. From a cursory view many uses also seem to be for historical footage, but this also brings up WP:COPYVIO issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses

 * Oppose I oppose this deprecation system, especially when it is used as a stupid option like here. We are not going to "deprecate" YouTube. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ~ I oppose to all four. YouTube is a souce of information from accredited sources, example ABS News etc..~mitch~ (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)