Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301

RfC: Crowdfunders
Should crowdfunding platforms be blacklisted, as petition sites are, with specific links whitelisted as needed? Guy (help!) 08:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Petition sites are blacklisted, with specific links handled by whitelisting. This is due to widespread use of Wikipedia to promote petitions, often but certainly not always in good faith. Most uses of petition sites were of the form ''In (year), a petition was launched for (cause). Source: Link to the petition.''
 * Background

The same applies to crowdfunders, with the additional problem that they are not just asking for signatures, but actual money. Many of the links are (inevitably) to campaigns that have now ended, but even here, they are primary. Example:
 * On April 24th 2013 Braff started a Kickstarter campaign to finance "Wish I Was Here" which based on a script he wrote with his brother Adam Braff.

This was added on the day the kickstarter launched.

The scale of the problem is not small.
 * (123 references)
 * (876 references)
 * (2,973 references)

Opinions (Crowdfunders)
PS: I will add that these sites are like PayPal, because they provide (primary-source) editorial content and are not simply a payment mechanism; they're even more valid to link for WP:PRIMARYSOURCE-valid purposes, in this regard, than would be Amazon.com or some other "web store". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 08:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Guy - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – If the crowdfund is notable, then it should not be hard to find a secondary source as a reference. If there is no secondary source, then it is not notable and should not be mentioned. I also have a hard time imagining a situation in which these websites are necessary as a source for notable facts. (Perhaps as a source for self-published birth date on a BLP, but a request to whitelist will suffice in that situation.) --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if crowdfund is not covered in secondary RS, we should not cover it either. buidhe 12:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - We can mention the existence of a crowdfund if it is mentioned by independent reliable sources... but we should not link to it. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I agree, these funding requests can become very political, very quickly. --- FULBERT (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Agreed, a crowdfunding campaign on its own without secondary coverage does not establish notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support seems obvious to me. Springee (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I agree crowdfunding sites should be blocked. They are like fundraising links. You would not allow PayPal pages or links to someone's ebay page. --Althecomputergal (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: no brainer. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as explained below. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose But I'll explain more below - we should not be using these sites for anything notability related or similar, but once a notability threshold is reached they are fair game as equivalent to primary sources for the projects backed. --M asem (t) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Allow in external links for crowdfunding in relation to notable subjects, per Masem. BLPs who are supported by Patreon subscriptions, for example, ought to have their crowdfunding linked. EllenCT (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , What? Why? Why on earth would we include a link that basically says "give this person money here"? We can link the official website, and leave them to do thier own panhandling. My monthly Patreon bill for subscribed content is in excess of $100, I'm not opposed to crowdfunding, but it's not our job to drive donations to the article subject. Guy (help!) 09:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely clear how linking to their website is different from linking to the kickstarter of an active campaign. What if the website is nothing but promotion of the campaign and direct links to how to contribute? Isn't linking to any for-profit website, or non-profit that takes donations, or any official website for that manner, possibly construed as some kind of promotion? Is the issue here that it will increase search engine ranking for the actual kickstarter page? To which I ask again, how is it different from any link or reference to any official website? —DIYeditor (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for closed campaigns as per Masem's rationale but deprecate links to live campaigns, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Citations of active crowdfunding campaigns violate WP:NOTPROMO, and should be substituted with reliable secondary sources. Citations of closed campaigns might be usable as primary sources when used to supplement reliable secondary sources, but those cases can be whitelisted as needed when there is consensus to use them. —  Newslinger  talk   02:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support deprecation with an edit-filter set to "warn" as a second choice. —  Newslinger  talk   11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - We can always whitelist a link if relevant and appropriate. But we should ensure the message warning that the site is blacklisted includes an explanation on how to appeal for whitelisting. Per Newslinger. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  05:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support, with the proviso that needed whitelisting be done without a lot of tooth-pulling. The main reason to cite one of these is for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes (e.g. that a crowdfunding proposal claimed something at a certain date, and we've quoted it; or that a certain crowdsourcing site has a policy that states X and we're writing about that). That can be handled by selective whitelisting. We could also do this for cases where the subject has no official webpage other than their Patreon or whatever.  We don't block Amazon.com on the article about Amazon, despite the fact that following that link will lead you to a site at which you might agree to spend money. So "there's a shopping card form there" isn't really a rationale. Links to such pages frequently being added gratuitously as a fundraising mechanism, like posting survey links on WP as an input-generating means for them, is the actual problem to address.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree, the bar should be set low. Guy (help!) 14:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If most additions of links to such pages are in good faith, a Daily Mail-style spamlist will be adequate. These sites are often enough useful that requiring editors to whitelist every legitimate use would be too much of a hassle. feminist &#124; freedom isn't free 07:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Well-intentioned no doubt, this assumes secondary sources exist that parrot exactly the information we want to use, which obviously is not always true. This also seems to be a bad faith assumption that any use must be wrong, even for a live request. I have no problems with a warning filter that helpfully reminds editors about do’s or don’ts, but still allows the use. But I oppose basically banning their use especially when they are often the source of news. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , if there are no secondary sources then it probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. And the proposal doesn't prevent such use, it merely creates a presumption against it. Guy (help!) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s not what I wrote or intended. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The fact that something was crowdfunded can and should be included if that fact is significant. However, if that fact is significant, there should be other sources for that information.  I wouldn't mind links to the closed campaign in the external links section; but not cited as a source and never for ongoing campaigns. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * If there is no secondary source for a crowdfunder, then it is not significant. If there is a secondary source then use it and don't link the crowdfunder. This seems obvious to me. It's the approach we take for petitions, and it is working well for that. An edit filter or revert list will not work I think: revert lists can be overridden trivially by simply reinserting the link, an edit filter set to warn will be ignored, as is the case for blogs and self-published sources (e.g. filter 894, 1045), and if set to enforce, whitelisting of individual links is obscure. The blacklist / whitelist process is well suited to handling this issue. Guy (help!) 08:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems pretty obvious and clear - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I want to create CrowdFunderFunder, a crowdfunding site to collect donations for creating new crowdfunding sites. If it works out, CrowdFunderFunderFunder... --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AngelList (but see discussion below)
 * ArtistShare
 * Community Funded
 * Crowd Supply
 * DonorsChoose
 * Experiment
 * Fundable
 * Fundly
 * FundRazr
 * GoFundMe
 * Groundfloor
 * Indiegogo
 * InvestedIn
 * JustGiving
 * Kickstarter
 * LaunchGood
 * Lending Club
 * MicroVentures
 * Patreon
 * Piggybackr
 * RocketHub
 * Seed&Spark
 * Wefunder
 * , but how will you fund that? Guy (help!) 15:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the WMF will create wikifunding. They seem to be pretty good at that sort of thing... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * AngelList is not a crowdfunding site, it has information similar to Crunchbase and is more like Linkedin. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 09:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Would you be so kind as to look at Template:Crowdfunding platforms and remove any non-crowdfunding platforms you see??
 * Crowdfunding platforms--Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * for some reason, having this template expanded at the indent level was screwing up indents down the rest of the entire talk page, I've "nulled" out the expansion from above as a note. --M asem (t) 13:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the rapid sense to treat these like change.org (which I fully agree should be blacklisted) but I do agree with waving the huge flag on their frivolous use. Hundreds of projects attempt crowdfunding, few met their goal, and fewer still of those are WP:N-notable before they get completed. But there are more than a few exceptions of projects that have been announced first through things like Kickstarter that get attention through secondary sources that we have had articles on. And where I have found the crowdfunding sites sometimes useful is in that they serve as a primary source for some information not always captured by the secondary sources but needed to properly flesh out an article. (but not documenting EVERYTHING said on the funding page). This is no different from using a development blog hosted anywhere else for some of the finer details, as long as notability has clearly been shown and we're talking filling in some of the holes rather than building the entire page off that primary source. But again, this is under limited cases, and not the common situation that these links are used for which is the promotional spam without any sense of notability. --M asem  (t) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem. I took the time to look through a few dozen pages with these links to get a sense of how they're used. I removed a few clearly egregious cases, but in a reasonable minority of cases I see this pattern: a secondary source describes an event/item that underwent crowdfunding, and the crowdfunding reference is placed after the secondary reference. I can see from a user's perspective why this would be useful. Jlevi (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Masem has a good point. Look at Ogre (board game) as one example of a legitimate citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If we have to spamlist it as opposed to blacklist (so that I have to press "accept my edit" twice to reduce the "change.org"-type additions, that's fine. I understand the clear concern of when these are being added as inappropriate promotional links and this is definitely a goal I back. And I would certainly make it a RS/P item as very situational as a primary source, not for notability, only to be used in moderation when trying to be comprehensive but not "complete". (I am speaker here as having backed video and board games through KS and others, and have once in a while used those sources here to add the odd missing detail, but not to do anything close to WP:NOT regurgitation which is the other side of caution when allowing these.) And of course, when talking about crowdfunding, the non-funding parts of these sites are authoritative, such as KS listing out its top projects by $ amount. --M asem  (t) 23:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, but look at filter 1045 (blog) or filter 869 (deprecated source). Most editors are clicking through and making the edit anyway. And a mainspace filter will not prevent people spamming crowdfunders on talk pages. Guy (help!) 09:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I looked at Ogre. I tried to find a secondary source for the content currently cited to Kickstarter. Turns out to be remarkably difficult. Which is kind of my point: the two main uses are (a) active campaigns added by obvious fans and (b) primary sources for trivia. Neither passes WP:RS.
 * Of course most kickstarter projects ship late, some never ship at all - we both agree I think that live campaigns should not be included. How do we police that? How do we stop it on Talk pages?
 * With petition sites, we do link (via whitelist) a few closed petitions that have received external coverage and where the content of the petition page is of specific interest. That is exactly what I am proposing here, in fact. But for the most part the primary source is either excessive detail or an active solicitation for support, which is inappropriate IMO. Guy (help!) 09:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a factor here that not all crowdfunding sites are the same. Whereas I trying to make sure that Kickstarter or IndieGoGo pages are still open - because a key feature of most projects there is their running devblog/progress which is the information value we want - a site like Patreon or GoFundMe is all about getting you donation and rarely provides useful info or is about anything notable in the long run. (And as this question started, if any of those types of campaigns are actually of note, they will get secondary coverage). The Kickstarter/IndieGogo pages (and I think there's a few others like this) are the ones that are the basis typically for notable commercial products, which is a key difference here, and usually that's not going to be something "personal" that will get started. You still might have people spamming links during their open campaigns to get others to help support that, which is an issue but because these usually can't be started "on a whim" like a Patreon, GoFundMe, or change.org petition, they aren't as frequent or common. That might be a key distinction to think about here. --M asem (t) 13:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , crowdfunding is indeed a notable thing. We should certainly include it when mentioned by secondary sources. What we should not do is include links to crowdfunding projects, for exactly the same reason that we don't link to petitions. When I have gone through and found the original addition, almost all appear to have been added while the campaign was active. This seems to me to be a serious problem. Guy (help!) 09:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some crowdfunding projects gain notability while they are active in the month or so (And then you have something of the situation like Star Citizen which has been in a perpetual crowdfunding situation since 2013, but let's call that one the outlier).  In some cases (and these are cases I've edited on so I can speak to it), these are easily tied to existing topics - the Mystery Science Theater 3000 revival passed its goal quickly but that was easy to already tie to a notable topic (the original show). Surprisingly at the end of the day, the only time I ended up linking to the kickstarter was to provide a snippet of information about the ORIGINAL show that we didn't have before that came during the project updates during the campaign period from the show's creator. A separate case would be the example of Broken Age which when it launched as a KS in Feb 2012 was just known as Double Fine Adventure, and at the time because one of the highest-funded projects and gained significant attention to a point that it was clearly notable whether or not it ended up being made (in part because the team behind it was already a known factor ( eg state of the article about 2 weeks after the start of funding) Now, at this point, we hadn't had to link to KS, the only link being the one in the External Link, because the secondary sources were covering it well, but my point is that can be crowdfunded projects that are notable or tied to notable topics that we may need to touch on the updated and informational pages that most crowdfunding sites use for keeping the crowdfunding supporters up-to-date on the project as primary sources. Additions where they are used to build out details that we would expect for contemporary works like development (conception, influences, behind-the-scenes, etc.) are useful, and this is where I'm worried the action here is potentially cutting those off.  But in both cases, and in general, these were only included until after secondary sources established that crowdfunding was going on (and in the latter case, enough to establish independent notability).  I fully agree that if first mention of any project is by the inclusion of the crowdfunding link, particularly while it is actively, is more an attempt to draw people to participate in it, not to use for informational purposes, but that's not the only use of crowdfunding sites for WP's purposes. --M asem  (t) 13:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To add and stress: the cases I only started adding significant information on the crowdfunding efforts in these examples and others was after the project was clearly past its target goal well before the end of the project (these two examples were within days of the start of the campaign) Obviously, this is a key factor for notability. --M asem (t) 13:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not disagree at all. I just don't think we should be using the primary source, or indeed allowing users to publish links to crowdfunders on talk pages. The crowdfunder pages are SPS and primary and almost by definition promotional. Guy (help!) 14:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * SPS nor primary sources are not immediately disallowed by any policy (though obviously can't be used in some situations like BLP), and whether the links are used in a promotional fashion or not all depends on context where it is being used. There are some of the crowdfunding sites that you listed like Patreon that I cannot see any other use but promotional in any article because of how that is setup, whereas a Kickstarter project's use is going to depend how its incorporated - just dropping a link off on talk and saying you should back this is clearly promotion, while dropping the link off and saying there's some details on the project's inspiration that can be added is a good use, and something we'd not want to block. Now I fully agree that I'd rather pull that info from a secondary/third-party source repeating the information from the crowdfunding page, but that's not always possible. --M asem  (t) 14:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with MENTIONING a crowdfunding campaign in an article. The concern is with LINKING to it.  Linking seems promotional in nature rather than informational.  Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that linking to a crowdfunding campaign that...
 * is closed and no longer accepts money, and
 * is the origin of a product or service notable enough to have a Wikipedia article
 * ...is not automatically promotional. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, it's primary and self-published, but it's also a marketing communication, isn't it? Guy (help!) 14:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some certainly are. But the story in Ogre (board game) documenting how the game morphed from a tiny game in a zip lock bag that fits in your pocket to a massive box -- far larger than any board game I have ever seen -- because so many people donated is an interesting story, and the huge size (but not necessarily how it got that way) has been noted in multiple reviews of the game. Seeing as how they sold out of them and have no plans for making any more, it is hard to see how at this point that particular kickstarter page is promotional. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, it's an interesting story. Is it covered in any secondary sources that make this point? Guy (help!) 15:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that the sourcing for game reviews won't be found in The New York Times or The Gauardian, there are many sources that comment on it being huge, but none really explain how it got that way.


 * "Back in December, I got my hands on a copy of the Designer’s Edition of Ogre. It weighed over twenty-five pounds, took hours to punch out and assemble all the hundreds of pieces, and took up more width on the couch than I do... It sat there for seven long months, taking up the entire laundry room, beckoning in the night like a green light flashing at the end of a pier. Why didn’t I play it? It really comes down to intimidation, or maybe the fact that I can hardly lift the thing without pulling my back, groin, biceps, and hamstrings."
 * "Back in 2013, Mr. Jackson crowdfunded a special 6th edition of Ogre and you better bet I was on board for that. It proposed to be the complete Ogre package, featuring virtually everything ever made for it and then some. This was to be the first Ogre release since the somewhat ill-considered miniatures version of the game, featuring these lovely little cardboard models and big, mounted board that were a far cry from the tiny little paper maps that I once enlarged and mounted on foamcore. Fan material, supplements, all of the official expansions...it was epic. But it was also unwieldy, excessive and gigantic. The box was enormous, and in it were hundreds of counters, terrain overlays, variant Ogres, highly specialized units, and enough units for both sides to play multiple concurrent games. You'd think that an Ogre fan would be delighted. I wasn't. I was disappointed that the 'Designer's Edition' completely lost sight of the compact, contained nature of the game and turned it into a sprawling mess. It felt like a burden to own. I found myself wishing that there was something of a "compact" Designer's Edition. "
 * " It’s too damned big. Yeah, I know big is the point with 6th Ed., but seriously now. With the counters punched out the box still weighs in at over thirty pounds and it’s got an enormous footprint. The only place I have that’s large enough to store it is either in the attic or on top of my wife’s dresser. Guess which she vetoed? It’s difficult to get down and while the carrying bag was good idea, the shoulder strap isn’t wide enough and the load digs into my shoulder terribly, so transporting it to other places to play is kind of a non-starter, unless I break down and buy a hand cart."
 * "What’s 28 pounds, takes 2 people to lift and is back from the 1970s with a vengeance? Steve Jackson Game’s OGRE of course! "


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

YouTube personality subscriber and viewing figures in BLPs
What is the standard practice for sourcing with respect to stated Youtube subscriber and viewing figures in BLPs? This is one example, see in particular the info box data. Is editorial reporting on Youtube figures WP:OR? Also, with respect to notability, do these figures matter? Acousmana (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The latter is easy, no. Notability is determined by third parties nothing you and commenting about it. As to the former, as I recall YouTube stats can be manipulated and this are not really an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my reading as well. YouTube subscriber / view figures (taken directly from YouTube) are WP:PRIMARY statistics of generally unclear meaning and significance; this means that there are very, very few valid uses for them.  In particular, they should absolutely never be used in a way that implies popularity or which would encourage readers to make inference about the topic's reception - that would be WP:OR.  The potential risk of manipulation in particular is itself enough to make the numbers almost unusable without a secondary source, because it means that we, as editors, can't really ascribe any meaning to them, and using them in almost any context carries an implicit endorsement that we are not qualified to grant without a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well they matter in the sense that's how streamers/content creators make their money. But it's not really relevant to notability except that someone with very high numbers will be more likely to have been mentioned in what we consider reliable sources. But in terms of listing the figures, it's either a reliable primary or secondary source, not OR. In that the figures will most often be sourced to the person's channel. But those numbers are not curated by them, but by the host. So while it's still primary, it's extremely unlikely to be fudged. They can of course be sourced to secondary sources, most articles about these influencers will mention their numbers, but those are rarely stable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK so in the example given, we read in the lead: "...who is best known for his music-related YouTube channel The Needle Drop, which has gathered over 2.19 million subscribers." There is no discussion of this figure, or channel subscriptions generally, in the main body, but it is stated prominently in the lead as if something notable. I'm reading this statement as a synthetic construction, so therefore OR? no? Acousmana (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summary of the body of the text. If it's not sourced and mentioned in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead. It shouldn't be a problem sourcing it, but it needs more than a passing mention in the infobox to be lead material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The above, but that is not an RS issue, its a wp:weight issue. If he is know for something, independent third party RS would mention it, if they do not he is not known for it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, helps. Acousmana (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only are YouTube views/subscribers a weight issue, the numbers are also unreliable. Just do a google search on "buy youtube subscribers". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I cautiously use them to note the changes in popularity. Buying views is disreputable so I’d need some notable evidence they are accused of doing so before assuming they do. And the subscribers/views are notable as it ranks them against all others in their category, it determines their earning potential and track record, and reliable sources regularly report these figures indicating they believe the metrics are notable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "changes in popularity" according to what reliable source? Everything you describe here is editorialising, it's OR. The other aspect to consider is that YouTube is NOT a publisher. So, the way I see it, if an editor is not consulting independent sources that discuss a subject's viewing and subscription figures, they should not be entering this data in an info box. Acousmana (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are also accuracy issues, almost literally the information will be out of date as you enter it. At no time will any snapshot of views or subscribers will be current, thus its only use would be historical (in Jan 2018 gitvonwommblenose had 1.8 m subscribers). But then others issue crop up as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For example: Singer X, had 20,000 subscribers in 2016; after their appearance on Foo’s Got Talent 2017 that rose to 230,000 subscribers, with their cover of “FooMerica the Beautiful” having the most views of any of their videos at 4.6 million as of June 2020. It really depends where reliable sources lead as to what you can report, but there are encyclopedic ways to do so. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "but there are encyclopedic ways to do so" - yeah like following the guidelines on sourcing and original research. Additionally, with respect to so called music journalism, very little of it is genuinely independent, either a record label's/artist's publicity department has made a pitch or they have enlisted an advertising agency that runs a music webzine (Fader for example) to do a write up. Acousmana (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, someone’s a grumpy glum. Many reliable sources also quote YouTube metrics, and I would only use primary sources to supplement what those state. Not sure why anyone needs to use OR to report straight forward metrics. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "report straight forward metrics" - but we are not here to "report," that's the job of the reliable sources we consult. By "reporting" metrics you are making value judgements of their significance. Acousmana (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The same way we report the name of an album, if they got married, the date they were born, and every other fact we report in articles, we use our editorial judgement if it’s notable enough to report what reliable sources are saying. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "notable enough to report what reliable sources are saying" - YouTube is saying nothing about said figures, it's not a publisher, or a reliable source, that's the bottom line. Use reliable third party sources that discuss/report/assess significance etc. of the data. Acousmana (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If* you need to use YouTube, it’s generally a primary source, and as the world’s largest home of video content, by far, their system of recording views and subscriptions is the only one available. Secondary sources should be leaned on first but primary source usage for basic counts is acceptable. I’m not seeing anything worth getting worked up over. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "I’m not seeing anything worth getting worked up over." - it's reasonable to question the validity of the sourcing method, quite clearly it's flawed. Acousmana (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I don’t agree there are any flaws; the stats are what they are wether we report them or not, there they are. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Buying views is disreputable so I’d need some notable evidence they are accused of doing so before assuming they do. That is absolutely not how WP:V / WP:OR works; you can't just say "saying that this source could be manipulated is an unfair accusation, therefore we must trust it!"  Sources need to have their reliability and usability in a particular context positively affirmed  - if we have no evidence either way, the correct solution is to omit everything.  We would obviously need evidence to state that they buy views in the article text, but when approaching WP:PRIMARY data that can be manipulated in ways that can make its meaning unclear, we need a secondary source to establish any specific meaning, and probably even to establish WP:DUE weight - furthermore, using them uncritically in ways that implies the numbers are meaningful (ie. almost any usage at all) carries an implicit assertion that they are valid, which requires a secondary source to avoid WP:OR.  This means that you must provide positive proof via a secondary source in order to make the implication that the YouTube figure accurately represent popularity.  Otherwise, citing them directly in a way that implies that they are a meaningful measure of popularity is WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have to take up the argument with statisticians. We measure things and report those measures. With YouTube you’re alleging their measurements are faulty. I don’t see it but I’m eager to see RS that that’s true.If the NYTimes or any other RS was shown to err, we would balance that with a number of factors and likely to determine they’re still reliable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course we like it when secondary sources republish primary information because it makes us feel better about using it, but in this case I think it's a bit silly to say that Reliable News Daily has any more information than we do from looking at youtube.com when they say that Vlogger2 has 9,000,001 subscribers as of 1 January 1970. Either these figures are significant in general or they're still not significant when a secondary source says it—except for very rare cases where there's something significant about the particular subscriber/view milestone with reference to a particular YouTuber (e.g. PewDiePie vs T-Series). And as others have said, notability and subscriber count are unrelated. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In one case I used the counts to show subscriptions had tripled over a set time period coinciding with their time on national tv. It’s too simplistic to speak in absolutes and deny the statistics have any meaning. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We should not be using YouTube as a primary source for the number of YouTube views. The number of views is often increased artificially, especially by people prominent enough to have a Wikipedia biography. See "YouTube Users Are Buying Views", "The Flourishing Business of Fake YouTube Views", "Google’s YouTube clamps down on ‘fake views’", "The Business Of Fake YouTube Views Has Got To Stop", "Google inadvertently profits from fake YouTube views even as it fights them: report", "How to Fake Views on YouTube" and "Inside YouTube's Fake Views Economy". It's much better to use a WP:SECONDARY source that announces a number of views reached by a particular date. The secondary source may not be investigating fake views and determining or guessing the real number, but at least they are not an automatic number generated by some algorithm that can be manipulated. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These seem to support that the site has proactively combatted the practice much to the dismay of those who were vending the fakery. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

News Break
Should News Break (newsbreak.com) be deprecated? Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC) News Break is an AI news aggregator - it applies no human review of articles, but gives (just) sufficient detail to allow them to be traced to the original source. News Break's algorithms have picked up sites such as Communities Digital News (see below). It also harvests Breitbart (seen in ). Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rationale

Opinions

 * 1) Support deprecation: anything that's found on this site should be referenced back tot he original source instead. Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support for obvious reasons. This site serves no value on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. Praxidicae (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. News Break only provides a snippet of the article, so there is no reason not to cite the original source instead. —  Newslinger   talk   15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support No reason to use this source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - no value, stick to the original source. Deprecate the link. Doug Weller  talk 08:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Reliability is judged by the author and publisher. Republication by a news aggregator will normally neither increase nor decrease the Reliability of that content. Any citation to a news aggregator should preferably be rewritten as a ref to the original source - but per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT a replacement can only be made after confirming that new cite points to the same content or it is otherwise verified to support the relevant text here). Alsee (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose deprecation as it's a news aggregator and not an actual source on its own. News aggregators aren't sources and the site appears to consistently attribute the articles they republish, nor do they appear to alter the articles they aggregate. Deprecating this "source" would be equivalent to deprecating Google News, and given that in the past deprecation has been interpreted by many off-wiki that a particular news organization is bad-quality, we should seriously not consider labelling a news aggregator in the same manner that we do actual bad-quality sources. It also bloats deprecation overall, not every source that shouldn't be used needs to be formally deprecated. The website is only used in one article at the moment (likely due to mass-removal) and we can continue to replace it with links to the original source in the future. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Support.  Citing aggregators does a disservice to readers by making the original source unclear; we should always cite the actual WP:V-satisfying source instead. --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Given that MSN is now also AI run, and it cited over 14,000 times on wikipedia per, is MSN also worth having a depreciation discussion about? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * msn.com has 100s of sub-domains. For example what the difference is between msnbc.msn.com and msnbc.com I am not sure. There are independently operating organizations within MSN. --  Green  C  20:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * MSNBC has been completely separate from MSN for over a decade. I noticed that we have over 1,000 links to Encarta per, which has been defunct since 2009. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * They've only just switched to AI so existing refs are ok, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , still an aggregator, though - every ref I have found is taken from another site. Everything from clickbait ad sites to college newspapers. Guy (help!) 12:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that citations of MSN are acceptable, although citing the original source is preferred over citing MSN or any other news aggregator or republisher. MSN can be useful if the original source has been taken down for some reason. When citing MSN in this way, I would name the original source as the work in the citation template, and use the via parameter for to attribute MSN as the location of the article being cited. The AI switch affects how articles are selected to be republished on MSN, but does not appear to affect the content of MSN's republished articles. —  Newslinger  talk   02:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Communities Digital News
Should Communities Digital News be blacklisted? Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at this "journalist"'s contributions. Or this which is top of its politics feed right now: "What the lying liberal media falls to report is that the day before the rally, people in line were sent home due to a “curfew.” As attendees tried to enter the arena, they were met with anarchy and violence at the hands of George Soro’s funded mobs". Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

 * 1) Support blacklisting as a fake news site, in the classic sense of the term. Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) strong support This is just Breitbart light and by light, I mean the actual web design. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Blacklist. Yet Another Right Wing Conspiracy Theory Page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Propaganda site. Add one more to the list: their article "Summertime 2020: The Top 30 Hottest Political Women" lists a male politician as a woman because "liberals have taught us that gender is just a social construct". —  Newslinger   talk   15:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Blacklist. Pure BS propaganda. -- Valjean (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Per above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Blacklist this is a no brainer. Fake news, propaganda.  Doug Weller  talk 08:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Deprecate and blacklist and put it in a bin - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Deprecate and blacklist - 52 citations to this website as of right now (I will go through and try to nuke some) is absolutely horrifying. Neutralitytalk 20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

allaccess.com
I'm inclined to say this one is unreliable but I thought I'd get some opinions first, as it's always good to have a discussion for future editors to reference.

So, allaccess.com is owned by a company called "All Access Music Group, Inc." which is a privately held corporation formed in 1995 by President/Publisher Joel Denver and his wife and partner, VP/CFO & Operations Ria Denver. I can't find much about the company but according to this source All Access Music Group "specializes in promotion and marketing efforts for all major record labels, and aggressive independent record labels as well as non-music clients including radio networks, syndicators, consultants and others interested in reaching key decision-makers" within the radio industry. Their LinkedIn profile refers to them as "the largest music promotion company in the United States".

The website itself says All Access Music Group is "also a marketing partner with Mediabase, BigChampagne.com, PromoSuite, A&R Worldwide, Triton Digital, Dial Global, Citadel Media, Premiere Radio Networks, Westwood One, and many others."

So, I think simply because the website is promotional in nature, it fails WP:RS. On top of that, I see no way to confirm the presence of editorial oversight and/or a reputation for fact-checking. Almost certainly unreliable but any thoughts? SolarFlashDiscussion 21:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable as it seems to be a glorified pr operation in my view Atlantic306 (talk) now persuaded it is reliable in some cases Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There are over 4,000 uses. The interviews might be ok to use, but probably not the "top 40" and "future releases". Examples would help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The website is used for future releases of songs only, sure the interviews would be ok. Nobody uses the top of their charts as Billboard is the compilation of other data. It is reliable for said dates of future releases as labels send the songs there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going to say, I’ve never dug very deep into the website, but it’s used pretty frequently in citing release dates for music, and although it’s anecdotal, I’ve worked in the content area for over decade, and don’t recall it ever having errors. Actual, official “single” release dates can be hard to come by, so I think it’s at least good for that. Sergecross73   msg me  20:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I say it's reliable for future release dates of singles only, just as and  pointed out. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable. It's an music industry source, similar to Music Week though its focus is more specifically on industry news and releases. It is heavily relied upon for radio release dates because it is the main source of where they are published. I wouldn't personally read too much into what is listed on LinkedIn because that is self-published, and the whole purpose of LinkedIn is self-promotion. The site collates useful information for the radio industry from places like Mediabase and there are tonnes of interviews on their too with people from the industry. Being marketed as a promotional/PR site, isn't necessarily rendering All Access a factor to mean it is unreliable. While it is highly promotional, its not necessarily promoting itself or its services, its promoting artists, songs and albums which would be expected when it is used to promote release dates. It is independent of record labels and radio stations though it works with them very closely! ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }- 10:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The BBC
Over at 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes a user has claimed the BBC is not an RS [].Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I claim I am also a billionaire. Praxidicae (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No other source reported this he/she says. Quite incorrect. FDW777 (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I deliberately did not use potentially biased sources, there were a few Indian newspapers denying this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really consider Deccan Chronicle an RS though. But yeah, the point still stands that there's no reason to believe BBC is unreliable in this context. Praxidicae (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor concerned quotes this reference in an edit summary in an edit to their sandbox version of the article. I'd say there's nothing wrong with Indian media references (subject to reliability of course) for this point, since they are probably more likely than the BBC to have contacts at the Ministry of External Affairs. Whether the text really belongs in the article is another point, possible involving WP:RSBREAKING since it's not that unreasonable that a journalist's sources (apparently speaking off the record, since it's "said defence sources", "Indian military sources told NDTV" and "defence sources said on Wednesday") might not be completely honest due to it being a potentially ongoing military situation. But that's really a matter for the article's talk page anyway... FDW777 (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to elaborate on my previous point. The article doesn't need to have the whole "the Indians denied it, but then the Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirmed" it narrative. It can be just as simply stated along the lines of "Pakistan shot an Indian plane down". FDW777 (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The RS question is dead easy: the BBC is reliable. The WP:UNDUE/significance question is separate. Guy (help!) 12:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC News is generally reliable (though it has had some very poor mistakes). Other parts of the BBC less so, take for instance the fact that they falsely asserted that Florence Nightingale was a racist  . Regards   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would challenge you to find more than a handful of 19th Century English people who were not racist. There is close to zero doubt that Seacole was subject to racism, and that her interactions with Nightingale embodied at the very least institutional racism. It's a valid point, even if Horrible Histories (an entertainment show with a history theme, as the title implies) may have over-egged it.
 * Redux: that was a shit example, try again. Google Laura Kuenssberg if you need some suggestions. Guy (help!) 22:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The trust ruled that the sketch was historically inaccurate because it gave the impression that Nightingale herself rejected Seacole"... "They would "be likely to regard the implied allegation of racial discrimination as established historical fact", the trust said. There was no evidence to suggest that Nightingale had been racist. According to The Times. Anyway, this is not the venue for this type of discussion. However, I do ask you strike your comment: "that was a shit example, try again" based on Civility 1.a/1.d. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, a sketch, in a popular history programme. Nothing to do with BBC News. I was hoping that penny might have dropped, but apparently not. Guy (help!) 18:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree with some other editors here; the BBC is not a reliable source in some situations as it is government owned. For example the British government has interfered numerous times in the BBC's coverage of the Northern Ireland conflict. In conflicts to which the British government is a party or was significantly involved we should try to use more neutral sources. Likewise with many cases of BBC World Service, which exists to promote British interests abroad and we should view its opinions on many subjects as having a pro-British slant. Overall though the BBC is a reliable source and in this case it certainly is. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Legally, the BBC is independent from Government direction. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also practically, which is even more important. Clearly reliable.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Consistently reliable: The BBC can absolutely be wrong. One may dispute their facts. Any news source can be wrong. However, classifying them as an unreliable source is simply false and defamatory. They are one of the most reliable news sources in the world, and if we do not cite them, who would we cite? (The only sources I might argue are more reliable are the Associated Press, Reuters, and The Guardian. PickleG13 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The New European
What do people think about the reliability of The New European? It has been cited over 100 times per. Obviously it has a pro-EU, Anti-Brexit stance, and I would consider it to be usable for at least attributed opinion on that topic. However, it looks almost all of the UK politics news stories are written by Jonathon Read, which imo makes it somewhat blog-like. I can't find any evidence of a editorial policy but they at least have a complaints page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not blog-like in that it has a printed paper version that exists in reality, but magazine-like in the wide variety of editors, at times casual wording, and opinion-type pieces. Something like a slightly more opinionated Economist or newer Spectator? GPinkerton (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just a WP:NEWSORG, surely? Seen no red flags about it - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Has a definite POV, I would say handle with care in anything to do with Brexit, but it crops up on my social media feeds quite often and I haven't found any obvious bollocks yet. Guy (help!) 21:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Its pretty hard to think of a paper that did not have POV when it comes to Brexit ;-) ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone had a dog in that fight, at least in the UK, hard to think that in itself would disqualify them.--Hippeus (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed it quoted on the Parler social media platform page. It was quoted to describe the platform's userbase. I'm not sure how relevant it can be given, A it's miniscule readership (20k in 2017, and only losing relevance since UK left recently) and B, give over 90% of users are registered in North America, a British single issue publication surely isn't a relevant source. Can someone knowledgeable /experienced wade in on this. I would like to avoid an edit war on the article. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored the content you deleted, since it's a perfectly decent RS. Artw (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Catholic-Hierarchy.org
Many Catholic biography articles either cite to Catholic-Hierarchy.org or list it in the External links section. However, citations to CH often run into trouble with some editors, who claim that it is an unreliable, self-published source. Rather than duplicating it, I will point to the extensive explanation in the previous discussion of why CH passes the reliable source criteria. In short, it is a well-researched and accurate website that is routinely cited by other authorities and whose content creator (User:Dcheney) has come to be regarded as a published expert in the field. It is also considered a reliable source on other language Wikipedias.  Ergo Sum  16:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in the previous discussion, the website is a self-published source. It is therefore never acceptable as a source on third party BLPs, and should be avoided as an external link on BLPs for the same reason. Anything on this website that's WP:DUE should be also located in a more reliable source, such as Annuario Pontificio. buidhe 05:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The self-published source policy says that SP sources are considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. As was explained by the earlier discussion, the publisher has come to be known as a subject-matter expert who is published. Many official church authorities cite to him and directly publish his work.  Ergo Sum  18:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As you say, the information may well be accurate, and I wouldn't be as aggressive at removing it as a source on non-living people, but SPS and BLP policy are pretty clear that this can't be allowed. (I checked duses and it seems that many but not all uses are related to living people, such as Róbert Bezák and Jean-Claude Boulanger.) b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The website is not officially sanctioned by the Church. It is run as a private project by David M. Cheney in Kansas City". It's cited by a number of sources, but that may be due to the same mistake made here: assuming it's an authority. In the end, as a one-man self-published source with no editorial review, I don't see how it can be RS. Guy (help!) 09:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Appears to be self published then.--Hippeus (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS is pretty clear here. There's no way whatsoever this source can be used as a reliable source on BLPs. Even though I definitely agree that this person is likely a subject matter expert, this source still can't be used with respect to living people. However in general this site probably is a reliable source. It's been cited by many members of the Catholic Church and researchers in that field. Our own article on the website provides numerous instances where it's been treated as a reliable source. I would definitely be OK with using this website as a source on historical bishops or the general hierarchy of the Catholic Church (preferably better sources but it's possible this might be the only source in many cases) although our policy is clear we can't use this for BLPs. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References (Catholic-Hierarchy.org)

 * I just wanted to note that I am the author of the website being discussed. For obvious reasons, I take no position on the current topic, but I would be happy to answer any questions regarding my site.Dcheney (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Bitcoin Magazine reputable
Is BitcoinMagazine.com reputable? doesn't think so. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , seems like it is, according to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That archived discussion does not seem conclusive at all. Regarding Bitcoin Magazine: co-founded by Buterin, editors claim to hold BTC (conflict of interest), almost not cited by reliable sources. So it seems to be an industry source with almost no history of doing quality journalism, with unknown editorial practices. In light of the general sanctions around cryprocurrency related topics I would suggest avoiding such industry sources altogether. Retimuko (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We have an informal consensus that we are not using any cryptozine sources for articles that fall under WP:GS/Crypto, and both bitcoin magazine and CoinDesk both fall under that. They are top shelf junk. It is my personal opinion that the clamp down on sourcing as well as GS has made article quality better. As far as I have seen the regular crypto genre editors (even if we disagree on content) have all agreed on excluding these types of sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would ask, as the resident expert on crypto. Guy (help!) 15:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , would you mind chipping in? I know BitcoinMagazine isn't completely neutral, but I think Aaron van Wirdum writes well researched articles, here is a list . Wouldn't it be possible to at least allow his articles to be referenced here? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It tries its best, but has all the problems in that CoinDesk discussion, i.e. it's fundamentally an advocacy blog rather than the specialist trade press it looks like. I would not use it for notability. I don't think it would deliberately lie, and I don't know of it being pay-for-play, but I would not trust its opinions on the facts or the spin it presents them with either. So no, file it as pink-rated with the rest of the crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * but you have written a book on Bitcoin, isn't there a conflict of interest here? It was described as the "first serious publication dedicated to cryptocurrencies", do you think that isn't true? You describe it as a blog, but a blog is defined as "diary-style". A blog typically is written in first-person, but Bitcoin Magazine is not. Why do you think it is a blog? --Ysangkok (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, being an expert is not a COI. There is no financial incentive for David to advance any specific POV here. Being an advocate might be, though. Guy (help!) 09:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Less free information on Wikipedia means more people buy your book. What does 'expert' mean? I was working on Electrum, can I be an expert too? By having single Wikipedians dictate what constitutes reliable, and then having everyone refer to the (see above) 'resident expert', isn't that a problem the same way primary research is a problem? I am not the only one that thinks the articles by Aaron van Wirdum in Bitcoin Magazine are reputable, and I am not convinced there is consensus that they are not reputable. David is not neutral at all, he is an admitted sceptic, and it manifests itself in the book he wrote. Is Wikipedia officially the 'sceptics' encyclopedia? No, that is not applicable because we just quote facts and statements. So you say being an advocate disqualifies you from editing, right? Why doesn't being a sceptic disqualify you? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is the most ridiculous argument for a COI I think I have ever heard on Wikipedia. The chances of David Gerard losing a single sale because someone can read in-universe cryptobollocks on Wikipedia are zero and the assertion itself, truly remarkable. Guy (help!) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * your use of superlatives ('most'), vulgarities ('bollocks'), religion ('cult', below) is tiring, and it derails the discussion. Could you please at least attempt to communicate in a civilized manner? I know that you consider yourself experienced and such, but you're not helping, not even helping yourself. Tone it down, now. I may reward you with some wikilove on your talk page if you behave. :) --Ysangkok (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you familiar with the actions of the crypto cultists on Wikipedia, at all? Guy (help!) 18:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, please enlighten me. I love cults. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, we got here, so look in the ANI archives for blockchain. Guy (help!) 21:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * more ridiculous was the one where I was accused of being an NSA shill - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also David had a COI case raised as well and it went nowhere. Why are you pushing to use Bitcoin Magazine as a source while simultaneously nominating a number of bitcoin articles for AfD (that if Bitcoin Magazine could be used for notability would pass)? What's the rush? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am pushing Bitcoin Magazine because I like the articles by Aaron van Wirdum and I don't see any issues with them. There is no rush in making a decision, but the articles are about similar subjects, if you have an opinion about A, you may also have one about B. Now that so many people have commented on article A, and they have researched the matter enough to form an opinion, why delay a decision on subject B? And I don't understand the question about AfD vs sources, those two matters are separate, no? Why would nominating for deletion cause me to not like a specific source? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This RS noticeboard is because you like a blogger's posts? I like to read zerohedge sometimes, but I am pretty sure it isn't an RS per WP:SENSE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree that it is probably reliable for non-contentious information but its information should be considered a dependent source - it is owned by BTC so there's a clear vested interest in promoting one form of cryptocurrency over another - and thus definitely should not be used for purposes of establishing notability. I don't do much in the area, but I see the work as something that if an existing RS mentions a subtopic Y as part of a larger topic X, and this source has more details on Y, I'll use that to expand reasonably, but not to build an a standalone on Y. --M asem (t) 15:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles by Aaron van Wirdum are not pitting cryptocurrencies against each other, they are talking about features and products the same way a review in e.g. the New York Times would. How can you judge a media solely based on who owns it? If anything, they would have a pro-Ethereum interest because it was founded by Buterin. But look in the articles, is it unfairly biased for Ethereum? No. Did we stop citing WSJ because Bezos owns it? No, give the man a chance, if the articles are all right, they can be used. Everyone can be accused of bias, but you can't dismiss everything. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they can't be used, they just can't be used to establish standalone notability, nor should be used for rather glorified claims (something akin to "Our analysis found that cybercurrency had the best rate of return compared to any other investment at 2000% in 5 years.) But if you have RSes already talking about a topic, then its fair to bring in this source to give some additional detail that the RSes likely will not have or overlook, but not too much detail. --M asem (t) 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , nothing about crypto is non-contentious, though. It's like any cult: a description of its beliefs as if they are genuine, fails NPOV pretty much by definition. Guy (help!) 15:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are things about cryptocurrency that can be said factually - how it is meant to operate in terms of its basic principles of computation and why it would be considered a currency -there's definitely a realm of actual facts to explain. Now as for being a "true" system of currency and claims from that, I agree now you start getting into claims which is where you would have to be careful.I would say, for example, if one way trying to describe how the creator of a new cryptocurrency envisioned how it was going to work via this source, that's a claim but that's not a contestable one - that's what they believed they could do. But then if the source makes the claim "This clearly is better than gold, invest in it now!" yes, there's a line there. There's a spectrum here for certain and we'd expect editors to be careful. Treating it as a dependent source, which are the type of sources we try to minimize in use, is a good way of approaching this. --M asem  (t) 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, we can describe the technicalities - there are decent academic sources for that. But these in-universe sources are like citing Freedom as a source on Narconon. Guy (help!) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, again, by tagging these as dependent sources, it would push editors to locate independent sources for replacement and avoid inclusion of outlandish claims from it otherwise. If you do that for the technical side, the only real areas I could see (doing a quick check on some articles this source provides) would be citing interviews with the creators of certain currencies on their reasonings for it, and the like, which is an acceptable use. --M asem (t) 16:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We may be confusing reliability, neutrality and notability. I would say the magazine is generally accurate as a source of facts, but perhaps a bit biased in its opinions due to its ownership. The same could be said of the Washington Post, Fox News or any other source. Coverage of a topic in the magazine would contribute to notability, since it seems to have wide readership, but I would warn the reader with an inline citation: 'According to Bitcoin Magazine, "this technology is deeply flawed ..." ' Aymatth2 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't edit crypto areas, from my cursory reading of the sanctions, the placement of effectively self-published crypto blogs sites as generally unreliable questionable sources and unable used to establish notability seems well founded. I don't see a reason to make an exception in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it is a blog? Is it diary-style? No. So what is it? --Ysangkok (talk)
 * I am using "blog" as effectively equivalent to a zine. Bitcoin Magazine is controlled by BTC media since 2015 a cryptocurrency related company, I don't think this establishes independence from effectively being self-published. The website also looks pretty unprofessional, having a "You on Kazoo" meme hype video right at the top of the page. I'd say it's about on par with The Grayzone, which places it barely above totally self-published, but not enough to matter. Like The Grayzone, it clearly has a non neutral point of view regarding its main subject matter. Being published in print does not make something reliable, see the Daily Mail or The Sun. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BTC media is a company that covers cryptocurrency topics, as one might expect for the owner of Bitcoin Magazine. To show that the magazine is unreliable, we would need examples of repeated inaccuracies. See this article, a film review first published in Bitcoin Magazine, republished by Nasdaq. Nasdaq, which most people would consider reliable enough, is comfortable endorsing the views given in the Bitcoin Magazine article. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? Nasdaq also publishes CoinDesk, which according to Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources "should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk." Advice which I think is also salient for use of Bitcoin Magazine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we be using opinion pieces from non-experts?
The rapid expansion of the internet has resulted in far more opinion-based commentary, even from reasonably high-quality sources, than was once available. In practice this makes it easy for any editor to find a source for any opinion they desire, which frequently turns sections of articles devoted to reception or opinion into dumping-grounds for commentary from sources whose only credentials are being a columnist and having opinions that an editor agrees with. Often these sections become massively bloated as editors argue back-and-forth by proxy, or become painfully one-sided as one editor overloads it with opinions they agree with.

Those things are theoretically addressable, but... assuming their opinions lack secondary coverage (ie. there is no reason to think they are significant or representative of anything), what value is served by including them? There is a huge risk that their inclusion could mislead readers into believing they represent some meaningful opinion or credible, reliably-sourced facts. Even the implicit assertion that an opinion is representative (eg. citing a single commentator from a well-known liberal or conservative publication with the implication that this is the liberal or conservative position on a topic) is WP:OR. Furthermore, opinion pieces often have lesser or no fact-checking, yet are frequently used to introduce "facts" to the article, or arguments made by someone with no expertise in the field that we have no genuine reliable source for.

Therefore, I suggest changing WP:RSOPINION to require that opinion pieces either be from published subject-matter experts (as with WP:SPS), or that they have secondary coverage in a reliable source. Obviously, opinion can still be included from non-opinion pieces when it is reported there (that would be using a secondary source!); the point is that this would place additional restrictions on using labeled editorial or opinion pages. What do people think? --Aquillion (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only issue I have is how we ascertain who is a subject matter expert. I say this in the knowledge that I have seen some sections of Wikipedia argue that a paid professional critic isn't notable / relevant, despite being a paid critic / commentator on that specific subject because he wasn't a formal "expert". This is particularly common around new media formats. Koncorde (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the WP:SPS definition is usually all right - even if sometimes it results in back and forth, it's generally a discussion worth having. There's no rule or guideline that would be completely certain; it's enough to ensure that we're actually having that discussion rather than having people citing people with no relevant expertise whatsoever.  I'd also say that what they're being cited for matters.  For instance, we could cite a professional book reviewer to say "this is a badly-written book."  We shouldn't be citing them to say "this book is wrong on the science" unless they actually have the relevant scientific expertise in that field to back it up. --Aquillion (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , This was just discussed: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298 (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The book/film/etc review question raised there struck me as important, and not particularly well answered. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that just make those who do this claim that sources whose only credentials are being a columnist and having opinions that an editor agrees with are subject matter experts? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this above, but my answer is that they have to have expertise in the specific things we cite them for; "established commentator / critic" has to be considered in the context of what specific statement we're citing for and what expertise means in that context. We could cite Roger Ebert to say "this is a bad film", because his expertise as a film critic is impeccable. We should never cite him to say "the science in this film is wrong", because that's outside of his field of expertise. We can cite Paul Krugman on economics because he's a Nobel-prize winning economist, not because he has a NYT column.  But we shouldn't cite his opinion for points of facts on genetics, or arguments that rely on or imply points of facts on genetics, even if he's discussing them in a cultural / political context. --Aquillion (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am unsure we can say a critic (which by its very nature is a matter of taste) is an expert in the same way someone who is actually qualified in a subject is. That is why we have undue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this? If someone is reasonably well-known as a commentator or reviewer, they can be cited on that basis only for things that are genuinely subjective (ie. matters of taste.)  They cannot be cited for statements of fact even phrased as their opinion.  Saying that a film is not entertaining is opinion; saying that it got the science or history wrong (even with an in-line citation) is a statement of fact that ought to require appropriate expertise. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would echo those who say how do we determine who is an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've said it before, I'll say it again: opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one (and most of them stink). No we should not be using opinions from non-experts. In my view we should not be including opinions unless they are demonstrably significant, with a presumption that they have been mentioned in secondary sources. We're not supposed to be part of the echo chamber, we are supposed to get past the bluster and bloviation and look at the facts. The use of opinions, especially self-published ones, is far closer to what you'd expect from a news publisher than an encyclopaedia. Guy (help!) 15:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For determining expertise in science, I'd propose a bright-line definition of having a Ph.D and actively publishing in the area. For clinical medicine we can require practicing MD. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the relevant field? After all having a PHD in Klingon would not make you an expert about Shakespeare.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah the "in the area" should be distributive. JoelleJay (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So would a practising GP have expertise in rare tropical diseases? how broad do we count it, does a phd in history make you an expert in all human history, or just your specialised field?Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would depend on how general the opinion is supposed to be, but "in the area" should be interpreted to mean "in the topic under discussion". Medical specialization should apply too. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That particular line would exclude the rare prominent researcher that hasn’t held a PhD for one reason or another.In mathematics alone this includes the extremely influential Srinivasa Ramanujan, Stefan Banach, and Mary Everest Boole. Moving away from mathematics (and living/recently living people), this also includes Freeman Dyson, Jane S. Richardson, Oliver Heaviside, and Ed Fredkin off the top of my head. — MarkH21talk 02:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true, although (from the wording "rapid expansion of the internet") I interpreted this question as regarding opinions in the very recent past or in the future, which would exclude most people with such a distinction for the obvious reasons. Opinions from the past should be treated with the same discretion we use for a lot of historical subjects (although scientific opinions become outdated very quickly, so someone's input on a contemporary issue would probably become unDUE unless it was otherwise newsworthy). For those few who gained esteem as academic researchers before the barriers to entry made it difficult to even get a post-doc, I would say holding a professorship and/or winning prestigious awards would suffice. JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are more recent examples as well, and this even extends to undergraduate degrees as well, e.g. Edward Witten doesn’t have a Bachelor's degree and Jack Horner has no degrees!. I’m fine with what you’ve said in principle, but just wanted to exclude the strict bright-line for the occasional exception that does occur with provisions based on professorships and awards (essentially a WP:NACADEMIC-lite). — MarkH21talk 04:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Witten has a Ph.D in physics according to his page. Anyway, I agree we can leave some room for exceptions; my concern is leaving the wording vague enough that editors could cite idiots like Ocean Ramsey as experts because some news sources mistakenly credit her as a "marine biologist". But if we throw in professorship/awards as alternative requirements then that would be fine. JoelleJay (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * For politics, ANY opinion will be contentious... even those by “experts” with PhDs in political science. In-text attribution is fundamental. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely, but I'm mostly concerned about the use of sources who have no expertise at all, or whose only "expertise" is being a cultural commentator with a column. Sources like those shouldn't be cited for definitive statements of fact (even when phrased as their opinion) in areas where they have no other expertise.  If we're going to cite someone saying eg. "in my opinion, the US is heading to a recession for reasons X, Y, and Z", they need to have actual economic credentials.  Perhaps it could also be noted that opinions should be replaced with ones from more authoritative sources rather than allowing a WP:FALSEBALANCE between experts and non-experts - the example (and this is something we see a lot) would be eg. "here's a bunch of expert sociologists and historians talking about the history of a social issue; now here's a bunch of opinion-pieces from people with no expertise in either field disagreeing with them."  In that case the opinion pieces should be omitted or condensed to a few brief sentences cited to secondary sources to note their existence, rather than massive quotes that treat them as equally-authoritative. Contentious opinions are fine, but we have to rely on the best sources there like we do for anything else.  Similarly, if someone wants to argue  "this opinion, while it goes against the experts, is common, and we need to show that fact to the reader", we should rely on secondary sources to establish that.  --Aquillion (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this proposal as written. Where would I find a subject matter expert on the question of whether a comic book character has been successfully translated to live-action film? There is no degree in that discipline, so it has to suffice that a venue with some editorial control specializing in the area allows publication of that opinion on their platform. I would agree that specifically with hard science questions, hard science qualifications should be favored, but in areas of the arts and popular culture, we must be on footing more grounded in the reality of what is available and what people generally trust as sources. BD2412  T 17:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said above, Joe Blow, respected film critic, said "this is an excellent film" is an entirely reasonable thing to cite to someone who has an established history as a respected film critic. Joe Blow, respected film critic, said "this film gets the history entirely wrong" is not.  The in-line attribution does not change the fact that we are citing them for a statement that they have no expertise to support.  Partially this might also be interpreted as saying that we should cite opinion-pieces from people whose expertise is "commentator" only for actual opinions (ie. matters that are genuinely subjective); if a quote makes a definitive statement of fact then expertise should be required to cite it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This. Taking the case in BD2412's example, the question if a comic book character was translated to film well, I would be looking for an expect in comic books or in film, and ideally one that has shown interest in book. There are experts that fit that bill (Kevin Smith would be a starting point), but to identify those, if that was an issue, would be require consensus discussion on the talk page of the work/character in question, and if needed, drawing in from appropriate Wikiprojects and potentially pinging a Village Pump for input. What I would say that at minimum, such "experts" should have at least had been recognized, even by a name drop, in an normal RS as an expect; that still can lead to be debate if they are the best expert but that's a way to avoid "but YouTubeFanboy2003 is really an expert!!!" type arguments. We can consensus build on who the experts should be with some help from sourcing - it will take work to do that but its not insurmountable and it is not an impossible task. --M asem (t) 21:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with this. Most news articles, even, are not written by people who are themselves noteworthy or passed upon in other media. If something is published on CBR or ScreenRant, the presence of the piece on the notable platform should suffice, irrespective of what third parties have to say about the author. BD2412  T 02:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand the OP point, and given how I see CBR and ScreenRant categorized for matters for comic book and film articles, those are actually RSes, and we would not have to be reaching into RSOPINION to ask their opinions to be considered to be used in an article. UNDUE would become a factor at that point, but that's a separate matter. What I read would be like if we were talking, in the example, Kevin Smith's personal blog commenting in depth about something, which would definitely be an SPS and fall under RSOPINION but as a subject matter expert to draw from. In other words, the question here is being asked beyond sources already considered RSes. --M asem (t) 14:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as too restrictive, attributed opinions such as the film got the history wrong (don't they all?) should not be omitted if they have been published in a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Either way they are one step removed in wp:relevance E.G. in the "Person A" article, if person "B" expresses an opinion about person "A", this is not info about person A, it is info about person B's opinion about person "A". And the wording to include that inherently includes attribution. Such should require stronger reasons for inclusion in the article than info about person "A". <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are talking commentary about a living person, WP:BLPSPS explicitly disallows the use of self-published sources, no matter how expert that other person may be, to be used in such cases. --M asem (t) 14:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think the opinions by non-experts can be included, but not in all cases. A couple of examples. #1. - Yes, Harding is great investigative journalist and his opinion matters, but he tells nothing of substance on the subject in this example. #2.  - Using vews/opinion pieces by notorious xenophobes like Aleksandr Dugin and Igor Shafarevich  to accuse others of xenophobia is bad. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This proposal basically describes the existing guidelines on self-published sources: they may be used (with discretion) as sources on themselves, or where there is significant secondary source coverage, or where author is an established expert writing within their field. Two other points:
 * It is not universally true that opinion pieces are not usually fact-checked. Any publication with a solid reputation for fact-checking is going to fact-check their op-eds as well. Not for the opinions or personal experiences relayed therein, but for the statements of fact.
 * The line between conventional news reporting and opinion has blurred immensely, to the point that many younger journalists, in particular, openly view their profession as a vehicle for advocacy, and are taught to do in journalism school. People writing op-eds are at least more likely to be up front about where their biases lie, and there are circumstances in which an opinion essay, written by an expert and grounded in empirical evidence, may in some cases be more useful as a source than a news article. The Blue Canoe  22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Three-finger salute (Serbian)
Article Three-finger salute (Serbian) and information: During the Croatian War, there were instances of massacred Serb civilians having had their three fingers on the right hand cut off. Source for this information is Serbian or Bosnian book ("Станко Нишић (2004). Од Југославије до Србије(From Yugoslavia to Serbia). Књига-комерц. p. 162. ISBN 9788677120399. одсечена три прста десне руке" (cut off three fingers of right hand)). As far as I can see there is little information about this writer Станко Нишић(Stanko Našić). What I found is this "The first doctor of military sciences in the Banja Luka district, he graduated from the Military Academy in 1961 in Belgrade. After serving in the JNA for five years, he graduated from the Higher Military Academy in Moscow in 1971. In addition to his work, he studied pedagogy part-time at the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje and obtained a master's degree in industrial pedagogy in Rijeka. He also graduated from the School of National Defense in Belgrade and received his doctorate in the field of military education system in Belgrade. He has written several books in the field of Geopolitics." In serbian. Since I can’t check what exactly is written in the book I found this in google, page 162 from his book: "Вршене су и масовне егзекуције, па је, на примјер, у Жарговићу пронађено девет убијених цивила старијих од 50 година, којима су претходно одсечена три прста десне руке. Радио Лондон не рече која су то три прста, али зна се — три прста православног крста, да се, стари четници, више мртви не би крстили или показивали три прста у знак побjеде. Не зна се за двије стотине људи из тог краја" "Mass executions were also carried out, so, for example, nine killed civilians over the age of 50 were found in Žargović, who had previously had three fingers of their right hand cut off. Radio London did not say which those three fingers were, but it is known - three fingers of the Orthodox cross, so that, old Chetniks, the dead would no longer be crossed or show three fingers as a sign of victory. It is not known about two hundred people from that area.... "


 * Since in the source is mentioned Radio London, Chetniks, village Žagrović I assumed these were events from WWII not from Croatian War. I tried to find possible crimes of the Croatian army(91-95) in village Žagrović but I did not find anything, even Serbian sources do not state anything, Serbian Wikipedia also. Whether this information can be part of the article even though it can’t be verified and whether that source is RS at all. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As always with Balkan related article subjects, outside sources are preferred. Although there were several crimes committed by both sides in the nearby area (at least judging by HRW reports), this particlar claim is so specific and exceptional it requires a better source. Maybe the very next source (Martin Gilbert (1997)) in that paragraph offers a better context? Pavlor (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is and with information from source(Martin Gilbert (1997)) as well, see talk page I can't find that book publicly. Otherwise 9 people had been killed and their fingers had been cut off, I think the whole Croatia would known that. I immediately assumed it wasn’t about  Croatian War. Mikola22 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an assumption, and thus cannot be used to dismiss a source (not can you not having access to it).Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean at the first book "Од Југославије до Србије(From Yugoslavia to Serbia)from Станко Нишић (2004) "? If you are right, then we must state everything which is written in the source, ie that 9 people were killed in Zagrovići and that three fingers were cut off from their hands for which we do not know which they are because Radio London did not specify. In addition, we will state the fact and that this is happened in Croatian War(91-95). This means that we will have a new crime in Croatia for which no one has been accused or convicted, nor do Serbian and Croatian sources mention that crime. Did I understand you well? Mikola22 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I will look into our library, if that book by Gilbert is there (no guarantee) and report back. Pavlor (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum: It looks like this third volume is not available in any public library in my country (even university libraries and National library have only the second volume). Pavlor (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that Gilbert is citing Misha Glenny (The fall of Yugoslavia: the third Balkan war) and his interview with a refugee that talked about her lossing three fingers in an attack on them. On page 282 is her statement:
 * "Vacillating between tearful hysteria to the numb indifference of deep trauma, a middle-aged woman holds up a tree-stump bandage around her left hand. 'Some shells hit our village which began to burn, so the whole family, seven of us, piled on to our tractor and left without taking anything. We were just outside Knin when some Croatian soldiers hidden by the side of the road opened up with machine guns. Three of our men died immediately. I suppose I was lucky just to lose three fingers.'"
 * That is not related to the three-finger salute. Tezwoo (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide a picture of the scanned page. The book is per WP:RS, for now. I could get the book but not any time soon.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

forbes.net.ua
Was this a fake site pretending to have an affiliation with Forbes? The site has been sold as per here but is used on 41 articles here, a number of which are promotional and/or suspected upe articles such as SoftServe, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article gives a handy explanation. Essentially the story is the website was originally opened as forbes.ua in 2012 as the website of the officially licensed Forbes Ukraine (set up in 2010-11) run by UMH group. In 2013 the group (including Forbes Ukraine) was sold to Serhiy Kurchenko, and the original editor in chief resigned stating that he thought it was likely that Kurchenko would interfere with the editorial policy. In 2014 Forbes revoked the license of which is stated in the piece to be due to "editorial interference" by the UMH group, although other sources state that is due to Kurchenko being under US sanctions and a fugutive after the Euromaidan.


 * The website then moved to forbes.net.ua while UMH appealed the license decision which failed and the website stopped being updated in February 2016, (this is contradicted by the internet archive which shows that the website stopped updating in early 2017) but the website was only taken offline during mid-2019. So the website (at least initially) was legit. As to whether it is reliable? I would say that the publication was probably reliable for its initial year of existence, but the alleged editorial interference since the sale in 2013 would make me question its reliability for the remaining lifespan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's interesting. So it can't be outright deprecated but is at least questionable from 2013 Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Jacobs 1919. Valid source for an exceptional claim
Joseph Jacobs's book published posthumously in 1919 was in the lead of Judaism, with, to my knowledge, an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims need multiple sourcing. The sentence I removed, one stuck there with a request for a page number for three years, and the link only to a Questia registration of its title, stated "Many aspects of Judaism have also directly or indirectly influenced secular Western ethics and civil law." Jewish law (religious) and Western law are usually treated as diametrically opposed, for the simple reason that one stems from a sacred text, and the other from both Roman and canon law, and cannot find any source that gives even a bare warrant for this exceptional claim. II duly removed it. The revert was challenged, and when restored, again back, without a talk page comment and after I had notified the relevant page of this discussion (tagteam editwarring). I don't mind anyone citing anything, as long as the source is competent. This one is a popular book written by an Australian folklorist, a century old, for an exceptional bold and broad generalization. So? Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , for starters, it would help if you weren't so antagonistic. But right off the bat, the Golden Rule had an impact on western ethics, and while you may claim it is not entirely Jewish in origin, the spread to Western ethics is primarily from Judaism and Pirkei Avos, not from the Eastern Religions. It's also not an absurd claim for a western civilization based on Christianity to have Jewish ethics or laws as a foundation since that was the original foundation. Judaism has a system of jubilee and tithes, it had a system of courts and judicial districts, etc. Not everything needs to be a dispute because you have an issue. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I want authoritative evidence., not your personal impressions on the topic, such as the comically erratic notion that the golden mean was originally Jewish. From the above, you don't seem to have read anything relevant to the issue. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Try to read what I wrote a bit more carefully before you insult. Not everything has to be so confrontational with you. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the facts, a better source than a 101-year-old semi-scholarly book like this is needed. Zerotalk 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regard for the facts is important. The concept of Judaism, the word itself, emerged after the establishment of the Christian heresy. It cannot therefore be said to have influenced Roman law- a totally independent tradition,- or ecclesiastical statutes on organization and procedures at a time when Christianity and Judaism were in radical conflict, and most Church fathers could not access halakhic texts (which don't follow the Golden Rule, since ethics there is related primarily to Jewish obligations to Jews, with some subsidiary different principles regulating Jewish relations with Gentiles). Jeezus, this is obvious to anyone with a minimal interest in ancient history, as is the absurdity of claiming halakhic law influenced the secular legislation (an extraordinary claim of influence on a congenitally anti-Semitic civilization likt the West).  Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If this claim is possibly true and due weight, it must be in some more recent, more reliable source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We've been waiting three years for someone to check the source, provide a page number, and supply the ostensible source text. That's too long. No one should edit Wikipedia without a strong source at hand. And no one should restore 'information' that has consistently failed to be verified. These are basic rules, and are being ignored by the reverters, who are restoring the source without even reading it, on faith, because apparently, they think what it is supposed to state seems reasonable (instead of being bizarre, which it is, if one has any basic knowledge of the two civilizations involved).Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Here are some more items that had an impact on Western Civilization, including the nada and monetary damages (as opposed to death penalty), and free public school for all children. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Aish is not a reliable source for anything except Orthodox Jewish theology. (t · c)  buidhe  21:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that Sj, who introduced it, doesn't know that several claims there are nonsense. SJ, have you ever read anything about the history of the ancient Middle East? Anything= The mythical Moses in 1400 BCE introducing the first census in history, 2,500 years before the Doomsday Book? Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've only skimmed thru the introduction and a couple of chapters, but i can look closer if anyone would like or provide some quotes. My first impression is that Jacobs is focusing on the Jewish people and their contributions to liberalization of Europe, rather than Judaism. both as regards the sphere of private life, and as regards the action of the state, we should easily discover how very much besides religion we owe to the Jew, but Jacobs discussion here is concerning the Bible. He is making an argument against antisemitism and there is no real discussion of Judaism. The Bible is a creation of the Jews and the book that has thus made the Jews what they are has also, in large measure, laid the foundation of European civilization. I think a citation to a work that has more discussion of Judaism would be more appropriate, Jacobs is i think more concerned with an argument against antisemitism. fiveby(zero) 21:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed for going to that trouble. If you can find the exact page where he is said to have made this extraordinary claim, I'd be much obliged. I know modern scholarship on legal systems will not support his contention, and it is too dated, but once does well to be scrupulous. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, I am not sure this qualifies as an exceptional claim. It is quit logical and commonplace knowledge. Secondly, I see no problem with the source, and disagree with the unexplained assertion that this is a "semi-scholarly book". The author was a scholar, including in the field of anthropology. He was President of the Jewish Historical Society. In my understanding that makes for a reliable source. Nor do I agree that because it is an old book, it is less true or authoritative, although I agree that any claim that is true, can probably be found in more modern books as well. Just trying to give some perspective on the subject of this section. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just now noticed that another editor also think that this claim is not so exceptional. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I.e. SJ. Jews themselves down to the first centuries CE did not describe their acts and beliefs as 'Judaism'.His edit summary shows he is unaware of the fact that the concept of Judaism came out of Christian polemics, the adversary's nomenclature. This much is known.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To repeat (surely you and SJ have been here long enough to know this) 'l0gic and commonsense' by individual editors have zero value in a discussion of Reliable Souces. zilch, nada, naught. We have a mass of modern scholarly works on law in Judaism and Western civilization. Find one that repeats what was the putative view (unverified) of Jacobs, and well and good. I'm not going to waste time listing a dozen sources that say the opposite. Anyone can google and read. SJ began this under the misprision that the Golden Rule was a product of Judaism. Well let him explain how Judaism influenced Thales at Diogenes Laertius 'Life of Thales,' 1.36 (πῶς ἂν ἄριστα καὶ δικαιότατα βιώσαιμεν, "ἐὰν ἃ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιτιμῶμεν, αὐτοὶ μὴ δρῶμεν:"); Plato at Laws XI.013 (τὸ δὴ μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ εἴη συμβολαίων ἂν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἡμῖν δεόμενα προσηκούσης τάξεως. ἁπλοῦν δέ γέ ἐστίν που τό γε τοιοῦτον: μήτε οὖν τις τῶν ἐμῶν χρημάτων ἅπτοιτο εἰς δύναμιν, μηδ᾽ αὖ κινήσειεν μηδὲ τὸ βραχύτατον ἐμὲ μηδαμῇ μηδαμῶς πείθων: κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ περὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐγὼ δρῴην, νοῦν ἔχων ἔμφρονα); or Isocrates at Busiris (καίτοι πῶς οὐκ αἰσχρὸν τοιαύτας ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀπολογίας, ἐφ᾽ αἷς ὑπὲρ σαυτοῦ λεγομέναις μάλιστ᾽ ἂν ὀργισθείης). Moses Hadas indeed saw it the other way around, and conjectured, before his untimely death, that Plato's Nomoi had exercised a major impact on rabbinical thinking, per Hellenizing Jews. Why are we forced to waste time saying the obvious to correct errors based on a total lack of knowledge of the subjects, the basis of this consistent revert practice? Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought we were trying to verify it here? Will provide a fuller quote of the passage it think was meant to be cited. fiveby(zero) 22:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please don't put words into my mouth. I already asked you to read my comment more carefully before you decide to go your usual route of being insulting to editors. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is being insulting to other editors (a) to edit without familiarizing oneself with the topic (b)when pressed to find a replacement source for at least a book, come up with googled junk by a  fundamentalist religious organization (Aish HaTorah) financed by the Israeli government to promote (dis)"information". I always feel obliged to read a link, or a source, and reading that tripe was a pain in the arse, one feels put on by a bad joke. After the IZAK case, everyone should know fundamentalist skewing is not acceptable, and RS exclude religious propaganda. You know that, but went ahead posting the rubbish as a legitimate option to source a grandiose statement. That is insulting to any wikipedian's intelligence and time.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"But the book that has thus made the Jews what they are has also, in large measure, laid the foundation of European civilization. In all matters spiritual the Bible is the one common fountain-head of European thought and feeling, as, with perhaps Æsop's Fables, it is the only book which every European has read who has read any book. If, in Matthew Arnold's phrase, Hebraism rules the conduct of three-quarters of life (for most men he might have made it ninetenths), for the majority of men it has been the Bible alone which has represented what the poetcritic calls Hebraism. In the Middle Ages, indeed, the remaining quarter of life, which is filled up with art and thought, was also mainly dependent upon the Bible for its influence...Even in law, in which the genius of Rome was ultimately to exercise so supreme an influence on European legislation, the Bible in the beginnings had its word to say. Alfred Dooms were prefaced with extracts from Leviticus adapted to the needs of Anglo-Saxon England, and in almost all the early Teutonic codes, when written down, were extracts from the pentateuchal codes which formed part of the record; nor must it be forgotten that the Digest in its final form is a Christian document and has undergone the influence of the Christian, which includes the Hebrew Scriptures...'It would be a mistake, however, to ascribe to Roman legal conceptions an undivided sway over the development of law and institutions during the Middle Ages. The Teuton came under the influence, not of Rome only, but also of Christianity;and through the Church there entered into Europe a potent leaven of Judaic thought. The laws of Moses as well as the laws of Rome contributed suggestion and impulse to the men and institutions which were to prepare the modern world; and if we could but have the eyes to see the subtle elements of thought which constitute the gross substance of our present habit, both as regards the sphere of private life, and as regards the action of the state, we should easily discover how very much besides religion we owe to the Jew.'"

Footnote to the last quote: Mr. Chamberlain, however, goes too far in suggesting that the universalistic element in Roman law is due to Semitic (he hints at Jewish) influence. Here, of course, he is working as usual for the nationalism of his party against any taint or tinge of universalism.

Is that sufficent or should i keep looking in the source? Anyone feel free to move this quote to the talk page if that's more appropriate. fiveby(zero) 23:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * More than sufficient, thanks for your sedulous care for examining the source for the rest of us.

Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Many aspects of Judaism have also directly or indirectly influenced secular Western ethics and civil law."
 * In short, fiveby's quote shows that we have an exemplary case of WP:OR and that the text failed verification. Sincde 3 years have passed since this was questioned, and now, examined, it failed the test, both source and ostensible paraphrase must be removed.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a statement that begs further explanation, my question is where can i find such explanation on WP? Not in the article and not in Jewish Law or Halakha. As puts it "depending on depth of perspective", as a reader i should be given the perspective to understand. I don't think statements in the lede should be cited at all, but summarize article content. Where do i find this content? fiveby(zero) 14:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source is used in the lead of Judaism. I haven't read the article - I find this 'stuff' unbearably ill-informed- and give up after a few paragraphs (there is a massively glaring error in that lead which no editor has noted, to fo do with sects)But if you have read it all, and cannot find a section which this curious assertion is per WP:lede supposed to summarize, that is one more reason to expunge it.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Judaic led to Christian led to Roman. There was not a neat separate of church and state, Augustine's City of God ensured the mess we have been trying to untangle ever since. The quote can make total sense, or no sense at all, depending on depth of perspective. -- Green  C  23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reduce it to, um, 'logical' form and you get
 * The West is a product of Christianity
 * Christianity is the product of the Bible
 * The Bible is a product of Judaism
 * Ergo the ethics and civil law of the secular West are products of Judaism


 * Now, out of kindergarten and back to the real world. How ‘secular’ (the division of state from church, with the latter’s influence radically cut back)  fits in to this mess is left obscure. How 'Judaism' whose halakhic system excludes a separation of state and society came to influence the emergence of Western secular society,  premised on their radical separation, is left obscure. C'mon. This is all obvious. The Bible in Jacobs' usage refers to two bodies of documents: one is canonical for Judaism (Tanakh/OT), the other, the New Testament, writes a New Covenant that in good part abrogates the legalistic core of the Old Testament. Judeans were predominantly responsible for both, but Judaism excludes Christianity, as Christianity boasted of burying Judaism. I once tried to state the obvious in our list of distinguished Jews, adding Christ. It was repeatedly erased as offensive. Now that I try to eliminate a suggestion that Judaism influenced via Christianity western secular law, I get reverted again. Go figure.
 * Can we agree therefore that a folklorist's book with a popular slant,  verbal haziness and largescale generalizations about complex historical questions, published in 1919 is not appropriate?Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Are Political Think Tanks considered reliable sources?
Hi, would like some input here. I edited the Three Percenters wikipdia page by removing a claim of them as a "paramilitary group," as the only citation for this was a book which, itself, cites a self-described "social justice think tank." I thought it was a pretty comfortable assumption that a left-leaning progressive think tank wasn't a Reliable or NPOV Source for describing a right-wing movement as "paramilitary," when the group, itself, does not consider itself as such - but my edit was VERY quickly reverted by the user Jorm who told me to take my issues with the source to this noticeboard. What's the ruling on "politicalresearch.org" or, more generally, relying on political think tanks as WP:RS when they are the only source to characterize a movement on the opposite end of the political spectrum? Thanks. Krakaet (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the claim, "Paramilitary" in the article is currently sourced to an academic book titled Violent Extremists: Understanding the Domestic and International Terrorist Threat. I don't see anything wrong with the sourcing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think I can't read? What does that book cite? That book, citation 73 under the claim in the book, is citing the source that I linked . Don't patronize me. Krakaet (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * And the book apparently found that the description was accurate. If the book is reliable that is fine - that kind of vetting is why we use secondary sources. - MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The book confirms the assessment. It's a solid reference. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources cited by the book don't matter at all. Provided the book itself (or its author + publisher) has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires, we can trust that they've researched and verified the claims make, or that they are willing to stake their reputation on them.  Otherwise you end up in an absurd situation where we couldn't have cited Woodward and Bernstein because they relied on the then-anonymous Deep Throat. --Aquillion (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Avoid all think tanks like the plague. They are designed to try to influence opinion, they are often obscurely funded so we don't know who pulls the strings, and they are a cancer on all discourse. Guy (help!) 21:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ^ Ok, that's kind of funny.
 * In this case, I don't see why the book cited above would not be reliable, but if I'm missing something please explain. Would it be acceptable to the parties involves to say something to the effect of "the three percenters reject their classification as a paramilitary group, yet according to so-and-so, they imitate the structure of a citizen militia?"  The Blue Canoe  22:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sourcve here is not a think tank, it's a book published by ABC-CLIO (and thus presumed reliable unless the author is a known crank). He says "they have been aptly described as" and then links to someone describing them as, but the "aptly" is the author's judgment and thus this fact is "fact-washed" via the author.
 * But also: avoid think tanks as sources. BNever cite them on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , How do you define think tank? Shrike (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , by reference to reliable independent sources. Guy (help!) 09:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It depends on the think tank. Think tanks vary - some, like the Brookings Institution or the Council on Foreign Relations, are highly reputable, reliable, and expert-based; others, like the Center for Security Policy, are downright fringe. If a statement is seriously contested within the expert/academic world or is only supported by one or two think tank sources, it would be wise to consider whether in-text attribution is necessary. Neutralitytalk 00:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Even so, I would not include their content unless via secondary sources. The influence of think-tanks is pernicious, and is deliberately designed to place ideology-driven arguments on an equal footing with academic analysis. That's why refuted concepts like trickle-down remain in play. Guy (help!) 10:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The question is overly broad (nearly infinite in fact as *all* think tanks have a political dimension by definition) and doesn’t actually appear to be based on the issue at hand. Think tanks run the gamut from generally reliable to publishes false and misleading information, painting with a single brush is simply not possible. On the more specific question of whether the use of the term paramilitary is acceptable I say yes it is but I note that its sourced to a book not directly to the think tank. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with User:Horse Eye Jack that the question is overbroad. Think tanks are essentially a hybrid between a lobbying firm and a research institute. If their values reflect the former, they are worthless as an RS, if the latter, then they may have some value. We should treat each think tank separately, and we should be aware that, just as with universities, individuals working at think tanks vary in their reputation. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Think tanks vary, the question is overbroad. As for the content here, Violent Extremists: Understanding the Domestic and International Terrorist Threat,, is a reliable source. Krakaet is trying to challenge citation 73 in that source, but that's second guessing the work of Dr. Thomas R. Mockaitis and ABC CLIO. --Bob not snob (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Avoid, at least in the area I am (mostly) editing in: the Middle East (=ME). Most of the think tanks (or "stink tanks" as they are commonly known as in the ME) are funded either by: Saudi-Arabia/UAE (eg Center for Strategic and International Studies, or by Qatar (eg Brookings Institution), or by Zionist (eg The Washington Institute for Near East Policy). And it is very easy to see who funds them by what they write, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As per Neutrality, Horse Eye Jack and the other Bob, the question is too broad. The category "thinktanks" varies a lot, shading into academic institutes at one end, activist organisations at another. Political Research Associates has a strong reputation for high-quality research and accuracy so I would consider reliable; others less so. Also agree this question is not relevant for this particular citation, which is via the book. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources for party positions
1) Far-right position - In the Miroslav Škoro Homeland Movement article, a new party formed in February 2020, there is a source for the far-right position. It is an op-ed from September 2019, from a Croatian web portal telegram.hr, and in Croatian language: "Konsolidira li se oko Miroslava Škore skoro cijela hrvatska radikalna desnica?" ("Is almost the entire Croatian radical right consolidating around Miroslav Škoro?")

Is that source enough to put the "far-right" position in the infobox/lead?

2) Labels of parties and the coalition - In the article body, there is a source to another Croatian web-portal, index.hr: "Zapeli pregovori Škore sa Suverenistima i Mostom" ("Škoro's negotiations with the Sovereignists and Most are stuck"). This source is used for the following sentence, and the underlined text is the subject of dispute:

"Opinion polls conducted before the election have shown that right-wing populist and nationalist coalition led by Miroslav Škoro – consisting of Škoro's own party, some of the parties of the far-right Croatian Sovereignists coalition (which was formed to contest the 2019 European elections) and several other smaller right-wing and far-right nationalist parties"

The text in the article on index.hr starts like this:

"PREGOVORI o zajedničkom izlasku na izbore široke koalicije desno od centra oko Domovinskog pokreta Miroslava Škore dospjeli su u slijepu ulicu, piše danas Večernji list. Istovremeno, navodno su zapeli i pregovori sa Suverenistima." ("NEGOTIATIONS on joint participation in the elections of the broad right-of-centre coalition around the Homeland Movement of Miroslav Škoro have reached a dead end, Večernji list writes today. At the same time, negotiations with the Sovereignists allegedly stalled.")

Should those underlined labels in the first text remain there based on this source, or should that source be used to describe the coalition as a "broad right-of-centre coalition"?

3) Environmentalist position - can these two sources be used for the Environmentalism position: first from dalmatinskiportal.hr - "Miroslav Škoro simbolično posadio dva stabla javora" ("Miroslav Škoro symbolically planted two maple trees") - quote from the article: "Zalaže se hrvatsku poljoprivredu, samodostatnost, zaštitu okoliša i nacionalnog blaga" ("He advocates Croatian agriculture, self-sufficiency, protection of environment and national treasures")

2nd source is the Economic program of the party. Among the seven points, number one is Energy and environment, where they present their views on energy and climate goals, etc. Can their own program also be used for a party position? Tezwoo (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * For something like party positions, I would rely on reputable newspapers independent of the party or (better still) books published by university presses or major publishing houses. Certainly, the party's own manifesto/agenda could not be used in most cases to classify positions, since that would involve a measure of OR. But something like this Guardian article could certainly be used to classify Miroslav Škoro as hard right. Neutralitytalk 00:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are very few if any such sources (and no books) in English for this party as it is a new one and has no MP's. I'd say all of those four Croatian portals are also reliable sources, it's more of a matter of interpretation of their texts and the types of articles that are suitable to describe a party position. Unfortunately, none of them are in English.
 * That Guardian source is about the presidental election campaign, which happened about 3 months before the party was formed, so I'm not sure if it can be used for a position of this party? Tezwoo (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The party's own statements on matters should always be given credence, although they are primary sources so we should be cautious. But if a party writes in their manifesto that they consider themselves to be "centre-right" while other sources call them "far-right" we should inform the reader of those facts. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an article, from the Associated Press, that was just published by both Washington Post and New York Times. The article calls them right-wing: "The right-wing Homeland Movement, which is led by folk singer Miroslav Skoro".
 * There's China-CEE Institute's "Forecast of Political Events in Croatia", which says "political movement that assembles different people from different backgrounds that have been, or still are, in charge of some minor parties on the right." Tezwoo (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just found one more new article, this one is for point 2) (the party's partners in coalition) from SeeNews. The article says "conservative Croatian Sovereignists", not far-right. Tezwoo (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Op-eds in internet portals are not a good source. However, I did come across a good source, the Financial Times: "Miroslav Skoro, who sings of heroes defending their homeland, is head of the newly formed far-right Homeland Movement, which could potentially form a coalition".--Bob not snob (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

gamasutra.com
I am looking into [ https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134614/the_burger_speaks_an_interview_.php ], used as a source on the Rebecca Heineman BLP. Am I right to assume that the words of the person being interviewed (properly attributed and quoted) are reliable but that the thirteen paragraphs of introduction are not? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking from the video games project Gamasutra is one of the key reliable sources (it is our NYTimes in video gaming to speak), so generally the source is RS for the field, but obviously to be careful on the BLP factor that may be in place. Gamasutra has a range of staff writers but hosts a number of special articles - this would be one of them - that are still editorially vetted so mud's not being slung around. The first 13 para (and then the bolded text after) are the words the byline Matt Barton, who, as per the profile is "assistant professor of English at St. Cloud State in Minnesota" so its probably fair game that while the language is formal, the details aren't wrong. So I would consider the first 13 para to also be reliable particular given the content being a high level overview of Heineman's career to date. --M asem (t) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Gamasutra is as reliable as say NME for music or any other reputable entertainment magazine. It has a full editorial staff and well-regarded writers. Is there a specific thing in the article that its being used for that seems problematic? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was concerned with the sourcing for calling Rebecca Heineman a lesbian. When it comes to sexual preferences, I really prefer a source where the person self-identifies over one where someone else identifies their sexual orientation for them.
 * Full disclosure: I was active in the effort to defeat 2008 California Proposition 8 and have a pro LGBT-rights position, and thus I am not neutral on this issue. Please let me know if ever see my opinions on this overriding Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and neutrality. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , in this, neutrality is itself not a neutral position. Guy (help!) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Other reasonable sources GLAAD and LGBTNation. --M asem (t) 17:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * LGBT Nation says that Rebecca Heineman is transgender, which the BLP covers. It says nothing about Rebecca Heineman being lesbian. Gender identity and sexual preference are not the same thing. GLAAD says that Rebecca Heineman is LGBTQ without specifying which of those letters apply. Where is the source where Rebecca Heineman self-identifies as a lesbian? WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines says "A living person may be categorized and identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) only if they themselves publicly identify as such" (Isn't there a policy on this? I did a quick search but did not find it.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So looking around I found where she self-identified as trans from her livejournal here, while she makes a more explicit statement as to being lesbian in her twitter here . I think as long as we are citing these directly after the statement, we should be good. --M asem (t) 01:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will note that in the lead-in to this publication of the sameinterview, it says not that she is a lesbian (which would be them identifying her as such) but that she identifies as a lesbian, which would be reporting what she says about herself, even if it's not a quote. So if we accept that book as a RS, then we can accept that she has made such a self-identification. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Does anyone agree or disagree that the above establishes self-identification?-Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Didn't notice the Twitter cite above. That one is unambiguous self-identification. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC: FrontPage Magazine
Should FrontPage Magazine be deprecated?--PatCheng (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of deprecation, it shouldn't even be an issue here. It's an hysteric phobic screed not worth a nob of goatshit.Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the SPLC piece FrontPage reprinted an altered version of an article from American Renaissance, a white nationalist publication. Any use of FrontPage as a source of opinion is likely to constitute undue weight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Depreciate FrontPage is cited 400 times on Wikipedia per . FrontPage is run by David Horowitz a far right anti muslim campaigner who is associated with Jihad Watch. According to the SPLC "In 1988, Horowitz launched FrontPage Mag, an online publication that exists under his DHFC’s umbrella. FrontPage, which is still in operation, has become a platform for publishing a plethora of far-right and anti-Muslim writers and commentators. The DHFC employs a few dedicated writers to produce content on the website, including Daniel Greenfield, a prolific anti-Muslim blogger and writer."
 * Definitely deprecate. Brought to you by the man behind the triumph of senselessness, Discover the Networks. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate near-zero due weight for just about anything. "Horowitz's racial bigotry is scarcely shocking for his website FrontpageMag.com often includes articles that “flirt dangerously with racism or even praise it outright.” One such example was a piece penned by John J. Ray which praised a “very scholarly” book on IQ by Christopher Brand, a devotee of eugenics who believes that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.469 Horowitz has also extolled the virtues" of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a segregationist association." Springer book It's hard to find factual inaccuracies in this source because it's light on facts and often not even wrong. (t · c)  buidhe  15:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We need to start chipping away at those 400 times FrontPage is cited on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed my tithe of 10 this morning, as soon as I saw the link to the articles where it is used. If a couple of dozen editors reading here chip in for 10 minutes each, the whole mess could be fixed rapidly.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Deprecate. Clearly unreliable for facts, and the opinions are sufficiently problematic that we should never be citing those either. Guy (help!) 19:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate unreliable extremist site run by an unreliable extremist, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Depreciate as said above: totally unreliable extremist site. (That it was one of the inspirations for this shit   doesn't help.) Huldra (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate The amount of factually incorrect information on this site means that it should never be cited. It's not different from other deprecated sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Previous discussions:, , , — (t · c)  buidhe  14:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama
I see the source from this cite is cited generally in Bollywood related articles as according to my research its one of the reliable sources when it comes for Bollywood related stuff, Still i wanted to confirm weather i shall take this as Reliable or not? some of the examples of this used as a reference is Imran Khan (Bollywood actor) and Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards and (https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebrity/vivek-verma/filmography/) ref for Vivek Verma.Stonertone (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bollywoodhungama may have some pieces which are reliable but links to filmography are not reliable for the purposes of establishing notability or much of anything else for the same reason iMDb isn't. Praxidicae (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zak Smith
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zak Smith. This invitation particularly pertains to those who are knowledgeable in the area of reliable sources. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 04:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on this version, sources are below.    There are also denials from Smith's website.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Quartz
Is Quartz a reliable source and can it be used in a Wikipedia article. Also, if something is featured in Quartz does it establish notability. Quartz has a Wikipedia article: see Quartz. Thank you. Got it! Thank you for your response. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to treat it as a normal WP:NEWSORG. Was there a particular issue where it's being used that you were wondering about? - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable, probably something akin to the Intercept (see recent above) in that exceptional claims should probably attribted to them but that's it. --M asem (t) 16:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the site: Quartz (publication) - mostly I know them for their pop science coverage; worst I've seen from them is slightly breathless bitcoin coverage, but I haven't seen anything that would make me go "what on earth", they're not even particularly controversial in their coverage - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen Quartz and used them, never seen them in anything overly controversial, but just as they are not NYTimes or BBC, if they ever put their heads into a hot topic, just the usual caution I would give these types of sites. --M asem (t) 16:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

stalkerzone as a source for claim about Bellingcat
One of our editors recently posted a link to an article on the site stalkerzone which claimed that Bellingcat was in the process of manufacturing evidence of Russian interference in the 2020 United States presidential election. There has been no previous discussion about the reliability of stalkerzone although it is being used as a source in three articles on wikipedia. Does anyone know anything about this site and whether it would be a reliable source for this claim? Burrobert (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable It describes itself as "• Anti-capitalist. Anti-war. Anti-liberal. For building a better world for our present and future children. Searching for and transmitting important information." Looks like an incredibly dodgy SPS/group blog, absolutely not reliable. There's no link with any of the bylines and I suspect that they might be fake pseudonyms of a single author. The twitter link identifies the author as Ollie Richardson, which from this tweet looks like he supports George Soros conspiracy theories. Sourcewatch identifies Ollie Richardson as a "translator", but doesn't specify the source of the content, it also states that he was involved in the production of "8 Months in Ukraine (Euromaidan - MH17)", a pro-russian documentary. I would never trust this source for any information that was only found there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't tell yet about reliability, but this looks like a very, very marginal source (at least based on English-language sources). I can find almost no references to it in English-language material. Given that Wikipedia can use non-English material, it is always possible that weight could be established from sources I cannot review, however. Given this, even if this source is eventually determined reliable, it may not be admissible from a perspective of weight.
 * From a reliability standpoint, this site is ringing alarm-bells. Its about page indicates some off-putting perspectives: "Anti-capitalist. Anti-war. Anti-liberal. / For building a better world for our present and future children." Looking through a variety of articles, it seems like the primary editorial perspective of this site is "Ukraine Bad." One thing that stood out was its editorial style in its article Nazi Militant Biletsky: We Need to Strike Donbass the Same Way Israel Strikes Palestine. It is just... odd? It kind of just translates from what it describes as a Nazi and lets that text sit there without any additional context.
 * Again, I have not looked deeply at this source, but I would definitely want the editor suggesting it to provide evidence of reliability and weight prior to inclusion. Jlevi (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Russian disinformation. Worthless as a source. Guy (help!) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into it and . I'll refrain from including the statement until we get independent confirmation. Burrobert (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They're literally a blog that doesn't know how to put people in the byline field in their CMS. Their very pro-Russian stance (nor their stances on other issues) isn't nearly as much of a problem as the fact they're obviously a self-published source. I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it as "Russian disinformation" though. They're clearly just a pro-Putin blog and I see no reason to disbelieve that their opinion on the homosexuals infiltrating America aren't actually held by them. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Dodgy as hell, deprecate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Journal of Natural Science Biology and Medicine
Is this reliable?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4518420/

Cited at Talk:Ayurveda in response to Talk:Ayurveda. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable There are always predatory publishers willing to publish bogus studies supporting the effacy of traditional medicines, so I was supicious from the start. The publisher of the journal Phcog.net, an Indian organisation, is obscure, but was on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers between 2012 and 2015. Per WP:RSMED primary studies on the effacy of treatments should not be cited in articles as they lend undue weight to the effectivess of treatments in comparison to reviews. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Medknow is a curate's egg, with some good journals but a lot of bad ones. Thgis oine uses some fake impact factors and other indicia of bogosity, and the paper itself is a standard True Believer comparison of a normal procedure branded with Added Extra Woo, and a different procedure. Indian-authored papers on ayurveda and homeopathy are as unrelibale as chinese-authored papers on TCM. Guy (help!) 22:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * (EC) Unreliable Going off the objective parts of the Think.Check.Submit checklist for trustworthy journals: It is not indexed by DOAJ, the Directory of Open Access Journals. It's published by Medknow (a publisher of one of the journals duped by the Bohannon sting), but is not among the Medknow publications affiliated with COPE. It is not an OASPA member. Compare the qualifications of their editors with those of a medium impact journal like eLife. The latter team comprises scientists who are all at least established associate professors running their own labs, and is mostly full profs and directors of institutes. JNSBM lists, as full editors, current PhD students. Their editorial board includes an associate professor of electrical engineering, a "research scientist" with only a BA in physics, and someone whose only google search hits are the JNSBM board page and some unsecure mirror site for "Journal of Contradicting Results in Science" (that has an archived list of the editorial board of the phcog predecessor(?) scibiomed). Probably their most distinguished board member is a pharmaceutical sciences department head whose university profile lists many, many professional affiliations and memberships (including editorships) but does not mention JNSBM.

The first 5 editors listed on their site:
 * Editor-in-Chief:
 * Arun HS Kumar -- ok research background, although his linkedin education section is cluttered with a variety of corporate "certifications" and the rest of his profile has a highly entrepreneurial/commercial bent. I also can't find evidence that his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree from UAS Bangalore is legit (it doesn't appear as a program on the site now), especially as he describes that degree as an "undergraduate program"... But he does at least have a PhD in pharmacology (2004) with focus on cardiovascular pharmacology, and lists his involvement in phcog.net. Is apparently a research group director at U Dublin.
 * Editors
 * Barbara Kemp-Harper -- PhD in pharmacology (1995), focus on pulmonary vascular function. Research fellow/senior lecturer (not professor) at Monash, but does lead research groups. Doesn't mention involvement with phcog or JNSBM.
 * Chien-Ling Huang -- PhD (2009), focus on cardiovascular regenerative medicine. Assistant prof. at Hong Kong Poly, spent ~4 years as a post-doc in Ireland. Doesn't list involvement with JNSBM. Early career, not a major publisher in her field.
 * Gustavo Adolfo Lopes Ferreira da Silva -- Does not have doctoral degree, but has three MScs in pharm, chem, and herbal medicine and is currently a PhD student at the university at which JNSBM claims he is a "principal investigator" (he does not show up on their list of funded projects or researchers or staff). Lists association with JNSBM in linkedin bio. Some low-impact pubs.
 * Jitesh Iyer -- PhD in cell bio (2007), focus on inflammation, oxidative stress. According to his linkedin, he started editing JNSBM in 2009 while working at a pharma company.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable Even a whiff of predatoriness is a bad sign when it comes to medical matters. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Scientific American
Is Scientific American a reliable source? It's not on the WP:RSP list. A lot of their articles are written by guest posters who are generally working at Universities in teaching positions. Sxologist (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's reliable depending on the context. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And while Scientific American doesn't only post on topics that fall within the WP:MEDRS realm, WP:MEDRS does address it in its WP:MEDPOP section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it's generally reliable and probably in the upper tier of pop-science publications (lacking the checkered history of New Scientist, for example). The blogs they host are by subject-matter experts, and the opinion pieces are marked as such. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Omniglot
Is omniglot.com a reliable source? It's a resource about writing systems of different languages, but it seems to be managed by only one person. I also know that users can send an email to the site manager to request information to add. In some cases this has resulted in the addition of personal writing systems or obscure systems that may not be widely used (especially in the constructed scripts section of the website). On the page about requesting a script to be added, the author of the website says "I don't add every alphabet I receive to this site - only the ones that really appeal to me." His basis for adding a page for a writing system is if it looks good, not if it is notable or well-sourced.

This source is cited in multiple pages sometimes being one of the only websites cited: LesVisages (talk)
 * Writing systems of Southeast Asia
 * Bengali numerals
 * Writing systems of Africa
 * Hawaiian alphabet
 * Languages of Djibouti
 * Toki Pona
 * Folkspraak
 * etc. (it's often found in the resources section of a page about a language or its writing system)


 * This has come up before, see here and here. My take on this is that Omniglot is a great and quite reliable source of information; if it can really add something of value to an article, there's nothing wrong with quoting it. However, since Omniglot is a rather indiscriminate collection of information, it shouldn't be used to demonstrate notability. &mdash;IJzeren Jan <sub style="color: green">Uszkiełtu?  16:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable. Personal commercial site operated by an individual with no background in linguistics. Note Amazon affiliate links. Obvious WP:RS fail: Recommend removing wherever you see it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Monkey Cage
The Monkey Cage appears to be a political blog hosted by the Washington Post. This view is supported by the publisher's (John Sides') description of TMC. Specifically: "TMC is an independent site currently published here at the Washington Post." The "articles" published under the Monkey Channel banner are not subject to editorial review or fact-checking by The Washington Post. I would like clarification on two points:


 * 1) Should articles published under the Monkey Channel banner be cited as articles published by The Washington Post?
 * 2) Should articles published under the Monkey Channel banner be afforded the same reliable source designation as articles in The Washington Post?

If it helps, one of the Monkey Channel articles in question is titled "The white press has a history of endangering black lives going back a century". There are several problems with this article - I can elaborate if necessary. Seamusdemora (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The Monkey Cage is run by recognized experts and all the op-eds are written by recognized experts. The blog does have editors and they do provide editorial oversight. The author of the article you're talking about is Megan Ming Francis, an associate professor at the University of Washington, and author of Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State (Cambridge University Press, 2014). The article in question appears to be derived from parts of her peer-reviewed Cambridge University Press book. So, to answer your questions: The article in question is a reliable source. The Monkey Cage blog is a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sure "recognized experts" is defined somewhere - could you share that with me?


 * I'm also curious how an article with a clear and obvious flaw in it can be declared "reliable". Are "recognized experts" relieved of all responsibility for accurate and factual reporting? And I'm not talking about a difference of opinion - this is a clear and obvious gaffe. Seamusdemora (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * She is a PhD, she is a professor and has published peer-reviewed research. Thus, she is a recognized expert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Conceded that she has credentials. All I have is facts:


 * 1. In her article, she states, "On Sept. 30, 1919, in Phillips County, Ark., white residents joined with federal troops to kill at least 237 African Americans." She cites this article as the source for the "237" number. Apparently PhD Professor Francis can't be bothered with facts - the referenced article never mentions the figure 237.


 * 2. In this same article she goes on to credit Ida B. Wells and Walter F. White for "shifting the narrative". And indeed they did. But she fails to mention that both Wells and White published articles that contained interviews and attributions with blacks who were eye witnesses to the events in Elaine. She failed to mention that none of these eye witness accounts supports a figure of 237 killed.


 * 3. I wonder why she would do this? In her closing she states, "Reckoning honestly with history can help these institutions choose the better path." Fine words, but her actions suggest that she is willfully engaging in the same "fake news story" that she accuses the "white establishment" of creating a century ago.


 * Just one other question: Is this what Wikipedia is going with? Overlooking clear errors, omissions and bias in favor of her credentials? I really hope that's not the case. Seamusdemora (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all clear to me why you think the EJI is linked as the source of that particular claim; it looks to me like it is linking an easily accessible resource with more information for the interested reader. Generally speaking, articles in newspapers don't include academic-style footnotes. Separately, you will be more likely to generate consensus in discussions if you act less like an asshole than above. --JBL (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek reports on exclusive reporting from The Daily Mail
Newsweek recently published an article entitled Mary Trump's Brother Says She Shouldn't Publish Tell-All Trump Book.

Mary L. Trump, Donald Trump's niece, is about to publish Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man.

When she and her brother, Fred Trump III, challenged the will of their grandfather, Donald Trump kicked them off the list of family members whose medical care was paid for by a foundation set up their late grandfather. Donald, and his siblings, used the desperately needed medical coverage to force them to agree to a settlement of their claim on the estate.

Now, Newsweek reports her brother, whose son has expensive on-going medical expenses, called on her not to publish her book, out of fear it violates a non-disclosure agreement they signed, in 2001, which will trigger terminating the medical coverage of their branch of the family.

So far, so good, right?

Except Newsweek reporting relies on reporting from The Daily Mail. Some years ago there was a long discussion over whether contributors should be prohibited from using The Daily Mail in references. I came across this discussion, which I personally disagreed with, after its closure.

What I am looking for today was endorsement of using RS that trusted The Daily Mail's journalist's reporting. In this particular case Newsweek reported We consider Newsweek an RS because we trust the profession standards of its jounralists and editors. So, I suggest that we allow the use of Newsweek, and other RS, that choose to base their reporting on exclusive reporting from The Daily Mail. Geo Swan (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Newsweek, post-2013, is situational, and I would definitely not use it to re-quote DM. (In 2013 Newsweek was purchased by an organization that decided to degrade the quality of its reporting and took it into clickbait material).
 * But if there was a hypothetical case of a good RS like the NYTimes quoting the Daily Mail for the same statement, that would be fine, as long as it is clear the statement came via the DM's ringer with our referencing showing the NYtimes blessed it that way. (We don't have to mention the NYtimes in running prose). --M asem (t) 01:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify "took it into clickbait material"?
 * Practically every traditional newspaper and magazine's future is threatened. Their old revenue models had them relying on (1) print ads; (2) subscriptions.
 * Now that advertizers have more options, like advertizing online, publications have a deficit to make up elsewhere. Subscriptions are down also, as readers read news online.
 * Consequently print publications have tried other revenue streams, including:
 * Paywalls. The NYTimes tried their first paywall system, a decade ago, for about three years.  They decided to go paywall free, for several years.  They are on their second paywall system.  I decided to pay up, because I use them so often, even though there are workarounds, like opening all your articles in an incognito window, or looking for the version on the wayback machine.  Publications can use clever programming to defeat those techniques.  I figure that, when they don't, it is because they have found those counter-measures interfere with their paid-up subscribers.
 * Including paid links, to other sites - maybe what you call "clickbait material", at the bottom of their own legitimate articles, links that might be confused for their own legitimate articles. No, those third party links were not subjected to the review of their editors.  But, if this is what you mean by "took it into clickbait material", I think your standards are too narrow.  Even if, for the sake of argument, Newsweek were providing paid third party links, that kind of looked like links to their own articles, but were actually external links to crap non-articles, that tricked readers into reading about, I don't know, boner-pills, this will not fool any competent wikipedia contributor into using a non-RS link in an article.
 * First, any competent wikipedia contributor, who didn't recognize they followed a link from a legitimate publication, to an illegitimate article on a third party site, will recognize this when they go to populate their cite news template, and they see the URL they copied is not from Newsweek.com, but rather is from BonerPills.com.
 * In my experience the third party links to less reliable sites - to what you might call "clickbait material", aren't hard to distinguish from legitimate publication's internal links to their own legitimate articles.
 * What are your favourite RS? Are you sure they too don't provide some links to third party sites that could be mistaken for a link to one of their own articles, if you were tired?
 * If we were to prohibit use of all RS that accepted paid links to third party sites that might look like articles, we'd have to prohibit not just Newsweek, but a significant fraction of the RS we use.
 * With regard to Newsweek, post new ownership - did you have the url to any Newsweek articles that were demonstrably unreliable, since te purchase? Could you provide even one url to an unreliable Newsweek article, where the unreliability is due to the recent purchase?
 * Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * See This RFC in Dec 2019 that put Newsweek post-2013 into the "generally not reliable" category. As you read there, in 2013, it was bought by International Business Times (IBT) which drove it to clickbait journalism. It had some newsworthy stories but the site serves more to drive clicks for ads and not serious journalism as it once was. This is not about advertising (which all sources have) or the once-in-a-while story meant to get you to click on, but that's not their day-to-day purpose. --M asem  (t) 18:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I was not familiar with the 2019 discussion you linked to above. Thanks.  I am going to want to take a good look at it.
 * The Guardian says "In a statement, which the Mail said was provided by Eric Trump, the president’s second son, Fred Trump III said: “At the time that our lawsuit with the family was resolved, Mary and I had each received a generous financial settlement from the family and were more than willing to agree to execute non-disclosure provisions … in my opinion, those provisions of the 2001 settlement agreement are still in effect and binding today.' So, basically the same quote Newsweek used.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Guardian would be sufficient to bless that quote from the Daily Mail without having to source the DM --M asem (t) 21:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is sourcing Daily Mail, The Guardian tells you the source is Daily Mail. WP:DAILYMAIL says "nor should it be used as a source in articles", and WP:RS says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." So you'd be violating both WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:RS. You can propose an exception to the ban, but it's easier to leave out the quote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not sourcing the Daily Mail. We routinely allow the use of unreliable sources that are quoted in a reliable source as along as the name of the unreliable source is asserted in that statement. The fact that a well-respected reliability source (The Guardian) has decided to quote the DM here (with attribution in their articles) means we should consider that at face value by taking the Guardian as the source. As a hypothetical, what if the Guardian simply restated what Eric Trump said but didnt state the origin of the quote? Is that an issue ? Again, the DM ban was using DM directly. This is not that. --M asem  (t) 22:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying not doesn't make a not, the source is Daily Mail. I quoted WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:RS, you replied with assertions backed by no references to any RfC result or guideline or administrative closer's statement. And if your hypothetical had happened, then the source would have been The Guardian, but it didn't happen. Instead The Guardian, which you call well-respected, says the source is Daily Mail, so respect that. The Daily Mail ban was about using Daily Mail. This is that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When we usually say "use as a source on WP" that means "using it as what comes in the ref/citation tags". That another source that we consider reliable compiled information from the DM should impact the use of that reliable source at all, because we are not touching the DM directly as a reference. It's still why the source quoting the DM should be a high quality source because we're trusting in that source that they believe what they're using from the DM is legit. Otherwise, you are now creating a case where for any source, we need to check that they don't use DM or any other deprecated sources, then check recursively the remaining sources and check for DM and other sources, and so on.  Its why I consider it a "blessed" aspect, so that we are putting the onus on the Guardian to take the fall if the DM falsified the information there.
 * Also remember that the RFC's language is should not be used not must not be used. It is not a total ban against the DM as a source but we should be always questioning if the use is needed, like is if this case is UNDUE or not (I don't know). --M asem (t) 23:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:Verify says we should aim for verifiability, not truth. Now, apparently, we have made specific decisions to not use articles from They Daily Mail, or post-2013 Newsweek, as references.  But if the reliable professional journalist and editors, at The Guardian, or The New York Times, decide an article from Newsweek or The Daily Mail is worth reporting on, prohibiting their reliable reporting, wouldn't that lapse from WP:NPOV, WP:Verify, and WP:NOTCENSORED?
 * Thought experiment - did you see that movie The Interview, which may have triggered North Korean cyber-warriors to retaliate against Sony, for producing a film they thought insulted their leader? In that film James Franco plays a moronic interviewer, like Alec Jones of Infowars, disrespected by everyone - except the leader of North Korea.  He scores an interview with the leader of North Korea - the only westerner to ever get an interview with him.  Suppose Alec Jones, of infowars, scored an interview with the leader of North Korea, or some other politician who never gives interviews?  We decided not to allow references to articles from infowars, but  The Guardian, and The New York Times would not ignore an interview with a country's leader, even if it came from infowars.  If Alec Jones seemed to accept highly questionable assertions, at face value, how would The Guardian or The New York Times report them?  They'd probably say, something like, "Kim Jung Un told Alec Jones that North Korea had the fairest justice system in the World, but, when The Times asked JQ Smartypants, author of North Korea Today, he named a large number of North Koreans arrested and held without charge, in 2019."  When an RS covers something published in an Unreliable Source, it is not necessarily an endorsement of the POV of the original unreliable source.  And, when an RS comments on material first published in an unreliable source, without an explicit challenge, that is still not an endorsement of the conclusions in the unreliable source.  In my experience many wikipedia contributors do not attribute comments to their sources, often enough.  Exclusive reporting from The New York Times should be attributed to The New York Times, even by contributors who consider it the most highly reliable source.
 * WRT NPOV, The New York Times is an RS. I'm not.  Masem isn't an RS. Jimbo Wales isn't an RS. And you aren't an RS.  Prohibiting coverage of NYTimes coverage of reporting from an unreliable source is pitting the judgement of the professional journalists and editors at the NYTimes, who are RS against your judgement and my judgement, individuals who are not RS.  I think our policies are clear.  The editorial judgement of wikipedia contributors should never trump those of RS.
 * I've made this point in other discussions. During my fifteen years here I must have made well over 10,000 edits to articles where I personally disagreed with every RS. I think contributors in that situation have just two policy compliant choices.  (1) Do our best to fairly and neutrally cover the RS we disagree with; or (2) walk away, and let other contributors work on those articles.  I think I did an okay job of ignoring my personal conclusions, and fairly and neutrally covering what RS wrote.  I think any contributor can do that, if they try hard enough.  I'd like to be able to count on every other contributor to stick to those two choices.  Can I count on you to set your personal opinion aside, and rely on the RS you personally disagree with?  Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan Actually according to this essay WP:V hasn't said to aim for "verifiability, not truth" for eight years. And it is 100% opposite of the truth that I have suggested prohibiting use of the source -- I voted "oppose" in the Daily Mail RfC and I suggested above that the OP could propose an exception to the ban, though I had to add that it's easier to leave it out because objections are likely. However, if the OP decides instead to follow Masem's advice, it's now apparent that that would be easy too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We believe The Guardian when they say their source is the Daily Mail. If we use the passage from the article that attributes the Daily Mail, our source is The Guardian. If the Guardian were lying about what their source said, then the fault would the The Guardian's. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am pinging the closers of the previous DM RFCs to this because I think Peter is reading the closures wrong
 * - did the results of the prior DM RFCs mean that we cannot use a statement made in the Daily Mail (whether the DMs own writing or a quote as in this quote) that is introduced through a high-quality reliable source such as the Guardian as in this case? Or is the Guardian's attribution of the statement to the Daily Mail sufficient to avoid the core issues that were central to the RFCs, as we are not using the Daily Mail as the direct soruce? Or is this a wholly new question that needs further community input? (This speaks nothing to whether the statement is necessary to be used.)   --M asem  (t) 23:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say that we cannot use the statement. What I suggested to the OP was: WP:DAILYMAIL says "nor should it be used as a source in articles", and WP:RS says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." (The material in question has a direct quote.) So, to avoid violating WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:RS, I suggested (1) proposing an exception to the ban, or (2) leaving out the quote. Instead Masem is proposing (3) source The Guardian which repeats Daily Mail's quote and acknowledges that the source is Daily Mail. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a grey case in terms of the RFC, which didn't discuss in depth whether a Daily Mail article could be used as an indirect source (i.e if another source cites the Daily Mail). A number of people mentioned bogus quotes in the RfC so the fact that Daily Mail is quoting someone else does not necessarily invalidate the RfC's finding of unreliability. If Newsweek itself is unreliable and there are recentism problems that would add up. I'd say that since there is a consensus that Daily Mail is unreliable, that Newsweek itself isn't necessarily reliable means that the reliability issue isn't really compensated and thus that we still shouldn't use it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , The Guardian also reported on the DM's exclusive. They quoted the exact same passage from the statment Eric Trump gave to the DM.  You were asked to comment on The Guardian use of the DM's reporting, not Newsweek.  Could you please considering answering that question?  Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid the answer is "it needs further community input".--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye. Personally, I'd probably wait to see if anyone challenges the factuality of the DM's report. Sometimes waiting for more input is the correct approach, especially on a contentious politics matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Daily Mail is correctly categorized as entirely unreliable, then the reliability of RS who site it should be reconsidered. That, or the reliability of the Daily Mail should be reconsidered so that it can be sited (at least in some circumstances) by WP as RS are doing. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 23:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem said "I am pinging the closers of the previous DM RFCs to this because I think Peter is reading the closures wrong", but did not ping Yunshui and incorrectly pinged Vanamonde. And I think the responses from Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ymblanter don't support the claim that I was wrong. However, I acknowledge that most editors want to cite The Guardian, and only request that this be properly explained as "in this instance we have consensus to ignore the guideline" rather than "Masem's 'blessed' theory is as good as a guideline". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem is right. DM is not reliable and will never be, but in this case it may be due because it has been cited by a reliable source (the Guardian) and if this factoid appears in mainspace the reliable source (aka the Guardian) should be cited. (t · c)  buidhe  05:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Determining whether a source is SPS in deciding whether BLPSPS applies
I have two general questions arising from the WP:BLPSPS prohibition:

(1) WP:BLP speaks to “information [or material] about living persons.” If a non-biographical WP article includes info about a living person, am I correct in understanding that the material about other content doesn’t have to meet BLP standards, even though the material that refers to the person does have to meet BLP standards?

(2) Given the WP:BLPSPS prohibition, how do we determine what constitutes WP:SPS when it’s unclear whether the author and publisher are the same / whether it’s a SPS? I'll specify 3 sources below, in "More background."

Background:
 * I’m a “learner”-stage editor, and I’ve been working on a draft for the legal case US v. Flynn, which has just been split from Michael Flynn’s page. Flynn’s page is clearly BLP, and I want to check whether the entirety of US v Flynn is BLP or only the sections that focus on Flynn, Judge Sullivan, or some other specific person.
 * Some online legal fora, such as Just Security, appear in the references for US v. Flynn. They’re written by experts and are WP:RS for appropriate claims (perhaps in the author’s voice rather than WP’s voice, depending on the particulars), but I’m trying to determine whether they’re SPS and have to be rejected as BLPSPS.

I’d appreciate a more general discussion of my questions, as the issues aren’t limited to US v. Flynn and specific sources, or even to pages about legal cases and online legal fora. Depending on the discussion, it may be that WP should slightly revise Verifiability, Identifying_and_using_self-published_works, and Biographies_of_living_persons. Or, if the general questions should be discussed someplace else, please let me know.

More background, this time about three online legal fora where I'm wondering if they're SPSs: None is self-published in the sense of an individual or group Wordpress blog.
 * “Just Security is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security [RCLS] at New York University School of Law,” is “editorially-independent” of RCLS, and has a large editorial board of experts (see the masthead: ). Some of the editors work at NYU and others of don't; some (maybe all) of the editors sometimes publish articles there. It also has an advisory board:.
 * Lawfare is “Published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with Brookings.” The Lawfare Institute and Brookings are both 501(c)(3)s, and the former only exists to support the blog. It has multiple editors: ; some are at Lawfare/Brookings, some are faculty at law schools and/or associated with other non-profits such as the Hoover Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations. The editors sometimes publish their own articles; other times they publish work by others.
 * SCOTUSblog strikes me as self-published for the primary staff. But they also publish work by diverse other legal scholars (e.g,. in sponsored symposia), and I'm wondering if it becomes more like an outside publisher at that point. They are extremely reliable, have a neutrality policy, publish corrections, and are cited by MSM and legal scholars.

Yet more background: I discussed this with a few editors while trying to get clear on my questions and where to ask them before learning about this noticeboard and bringing them here. I’m including links to those discussions for reference, but no need to read them:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law (permalink)
 * User_talk:FactOrOpinion (permalink2)
 * User_talk:FactOrOpinion (permalink3)

I’ve searched a few different talk archives but haven’t found clear answers to my questions. Some of what I found that’s relevant:

Some discussion of SPS/not-SPS in terms of things like editorial scrutiny, author-publisher connection, and whether the current definition of SPS would imply exclusion of government publications: Some discussion of scholarly online fora and whether they’re RSs:
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37
 * Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_63
 * Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_225 - includes discussion of fora such as: SCOTUSblog, Just Security, Lawfare Blog, and The Volokh Conspiracy (law), The Monkey Cage (political science), Skeptical Science and Retraction Watch (science/science policy)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91, both saying more about SCOTUSblog.

Sorry that this is so long. I’ve tried to condense, but also wanted to include relevant background. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S. just learned that someone has published the US v. Flynn draft, so I'm updating the URL: United_States_v._Flynn

-- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In general, when we say "Self-published sourced" and its application to SPSBLP, we're talking about a singular individual or a very small group that publishes without editorial control, so that we're not letting small solitary voices be able to throw their weight around, but it is good to be cautious. We're also talking about a legal
 * SCOTUSblog is not an SPS. They have an editoral staff, and while they are connected with a law firm they aim for impartial coverage of events at SCOTUS (and whenever a case that the firm is part of comes up, they always add that disclaimer). See . So no issues there. Just Security has the same set of principles and approach that I can see, so again, I would think they are fine. And same with Lawfare. Now, I can't speak much to the last two but I can speak to SCOTUSBlog and there, you just want to watch the difference between case summary and opinions by others that submit to it. Eg at SCOTUSBlog Amy Howe is their workhorse in writing the SCOTUS news, and nearly all her pieces can be taken as RSFACT while they often get a number of guest contributors that are clearly RSOPINIONS. So to take a recent case page like, all those that start with Symposium should be treated as opinions. --M asem  (t) 01:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thanks. I agree that SCOTUSblog is very reliable, and I'm comfortable separating out RSFACT and RSOPINIONS. But my concern is partly with how WP defines SPS: "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." As best I can tell, Amy Howe is both a key writer and a publisher there. Could you say more about why you think "SCOTUSblog is not an SPS," as distinct from it being RS and ethical? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Amy Howe is not the "publisher" for SCOTUSBlog but ...uh, Goldstein and Assoc. I think ? Additionally, with the editorial staff sitting between her and and publishing (outside of the live blogs). That clearly sets it apart from what we'd normally take as an SPS. Key is that editorial staff, as it doesn't let Amy or any other writer (even their opinion pieces) to write their mind without a editorial check. --M asem (t) 03:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Amy Howe and Tom Goldstein are married, and they both founded SCOTUSblog when the firm was Goldstein and Howe. She eventually left the firm to work fulltime on SCOTUSblog. Presumably they're the ones who employ those editors and other people, which would make them the publishers. This highlights the challenge of figuring out whether something is a SPS under the current definition (e.g., what kinds of details one has to ferret out) and also whether the current defintion of SPS (which boils down to author = publisher) is a good one. Because even if author = publisher for Amy Howe, there are lots of other legal experts whose work is published by SCOTUSblog, and for them author =/= publisher. So do we conclude that in a situation where some authors are publishers and others aren't, then it's not SPS? or do we conclude that it's SPS for articles written by the author-publishers but not the rest? I agree that independent editorial oversight (as contrasted with editors who simply do as ordered) should be central to the distinction between SPS and not-SPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's enough of a distinction in the two agencies (SCOTUSBLog and the law firm, despite the married relationship and past factors) that its still not a self-published blog. When we're talking self-published, the intent are things like posting to social media, or a personal blog space, or a company or group posting to their website's own blog but with no clear sign of any oversight in that post. Things like SCOTUSBlop, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or the American Civil Liberties Union when they post items to their websites, while the groups are "self publishing", we do not consider these SPSs, there is that factor that there is editorial oversight and control that prevent raw thoughts from going from pen to publication without any check, and that's basically what's the distinguishing factor here. But basically, the SPS is more gears to individual blogs more than anything else. --M asem (t) 13:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got to disagree with Masem a bit on this. While the obvious cases of self-publishedness are social media and personal blog spaces, our policy doesn't end there.  The full determination is whether or not there are independent reviewers, (those without a conflict of interest) are there to check content.  Certain organizations (aka advocacy groups) have an inherent conflict of interest with regards to their own advocacy, and as such their internal review mechanisms cannot be viewed as independent.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent, but now we're getting into areas that in reference to the specific article in question (a pending case in the US justice system) and the sites in question (those that try to cover the legal system in an impartial fashion but from the law angle) aren't an issue. BLPSPS is a valid concern obviously, and we want to make sure we're not introducing new claims here, but I think for the purposes of what FactOrOpinion is looking to write, which should be using the three foremention sites to summarize the history and ongoings in the case in regards to a named BLP, these should not be called "SPSBLP" as they're not trying to advocate anything here on either side of the case but cover it in the remit as part of a legal/judicary process. If we were talking, say, a similar group but with clearer partisan interests like The Lincoln Project, yes, I would agree that the COI that they may have would warn away from that. --M asem (t) 14:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know for certain whether the law firm owns SCOTUSblog or if the latter is a distinct entity (say, an LLC). Masem, do you know for certain that it's owned by the law firm? And even if it is, if Goldstein owns the firm, isn't he still an author-publisher? I don't think these 3 online fora should be considered personal/group blogs, but my central question is whether the WP guidelines are sufficiently clear about these issues for people to make appropriate decisions about them. I think the guidelines can and should be made clearer, so that they not only address personal/group blogs and newsblogs but also say something more explicit about scholarly fora with editors, about work published by advocacy organizations like the ACLU, web content published by the government, etc. Maybe this isn't the right place for me to have asked my questions (maybe they belong on the talk pages for BLP and RS guidelines), but I'd rather not move the discussion yet again. Kyohyi, you say "The full determination is whether or not there are independent reviewers, (those without a conflict of interest) ..." If everyone agrees that that's a key issue, then shouldn't it appear along with the discussion of whether author=publisher? Masem, just to be clear: all three legal sites do sometimes publish opinion pieces that advocate on one or the other side of a legal issue. But with respect to BLP, the question is still whether they're SPS; if they are, they can't be used, but if they aren't, they can serve as RSOPINION. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first part of my comment is a paraphrase of note 10 in WP: V which is referred to in the section of WP: SPS. To quote the first sentence of note 10 "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content."  The second part of my comment is my view that by their very nature advocacy groups fail this.  --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that footnote. I'd read it previously, but had forgotten and missed it when I went back to review the guideline before posting my question. If reviewers are key, I think it would be good to mention them in the body, not just the footnote (and then footnote to the quotes). Also, when I look at WP:Identifying and using self-published works, the different sections are internally inconsistent with respect to the role of reviewers. For example, in the first section, it says: But then the second section makes no mention of reviewers:

And further down it suggests that independent reviewers may be important in determining if it's RS but not to determining if it's SPS: Perhaps some of the problem is also figuring out who WP has in mind when referring to "author" and "publisher," as there are cases where the individual who does the writing is the author and other times when the employer is considered the author even if the individual writer is credited with authorship. In discussing SCOTUSblog so far, it's unclear who the publisher is (e.g., Goldstein's law firm?). Maybe it would help if we also discussed who we think the publisher is for Just Security and Lawfare. I'm really not sure what the answer is. For ex., is Just Security itself a publisher? or is the publisher the Reiss Center on Law and Security? or New York University School of Law? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think all three sources are reliable and are not self-published -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't want to try to answer more (I personally think that none of the three blogs here are "advocacy" in same manner than we're worried about), but I do want to highlight probably the most closest last case to where we drew a line, and that was after a lot of debate - that was on Quackwatch. Quackwatch is a site run by one person that highlights people that claim to offer medical advance but which is considered to be pseudoscience or false claims. The guy that runs the sight has good knowledge in this area, but also relies on a number of experts - anonymous for the most part but assured they are experts - to double check. We came to the conclusion this was an SPS because what the guy wrote didn't have the editorial control expected. To me, when we put SCOTUSBlog there, there is editorial control (the editor board is clearly named), thus making it better here. But again, I offer that discussion as it touches on several same points. --M asem (t) 18:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree with all of the analysis of above in this section. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

et al.: I, too, agree with comments about editorial control and fact-checking. Thus, imagine my surprise to find that the definition at Identifying and using self-published works contradicts our view of this, and that o1f countless discussions. Sufficiently so, that I think this needs attention at the source: I've raised WT:USINGSPS in an attempt to change the definition at that policy supplement page, and this related discussion pre-dates it. In my view, the discussion here, is dependent upon the outcome of those, or they should be merged. Kudos, btw, to who is coming along fast as an editor, for raising this here and describing it appropriately and raising the essential points. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding Just Security - it seems to me that Just Security is a WP:SPS, not an RS.
 * As explained above, Just Security is a non-profit advocacy blog, who "aim to promote" and advocate for their ideology regarding national security policies - so their editorial board has an "inherent conflict of interest" which "invalidates the reliability of their content." From Just Security website, "Just Security is an online forum for the rigorous analysis of U.S. national security law and policy.  We aim to promote  principled and pragmatic solutions to national security problems that decision-makers face.
 * Many bloggers on Just Security post their individual views without going through independent editorial control -which also invalidates the reliability of their content. Just Security writes, "The views expressed on this site are attributable to their individual authors writing in their personal capacity only ..." So given all that, excluding case summaries, Just Security is WP:SPS not an RS and has no independent editorial control over their bloggers publishing their individual views.
 * Since Just Security is not an RS (at least not at this point) and is a advocacy blog, I do not think RSOPINION or RSFACT applies to Just Security. In order to be RSOPINION the "opinion piece" would have to be in a RS (which Just Security is not, at least not right now). The WP:RSOPINION says "A prime example of this is opinion pieces <U>in sources recognized as reliable.  - or - from an "Otherwise reliable news sources —for example, the website of a major news organization [a.k.a RS of which Just Security is not, at least not right now]— that publish in a blog-style format.".
 * So, as of right now, Just Security seems to be a WP:SPS not an RS; and given the fact that Just Security is an advocacy blog without independent editorial control over their blogger's individual views posted on their website, they may never be an RS.
 * As for SCOTUSblog, I agree with on that. As for Lawfare, as much as I think they usually offer brilliant, top-notch analogy, I see them as a WP:SPS, not an RS.
 * In case anyone is wondering why I'm commenting here, it is because came to my talk page and gave the impression that he/she wanted me to express my views on this topic here.


 * The previous comment is from BetsyRMadison, and here’s a link to our earlier discussion:
 * User_talk:BetsyRMadison (permalink)
 * Betsy, I agree that it was appropriate to continue the discussion here, but I’m going to refer a bit to your longer comment on your talk page, and I'll continue using the #s I introduced there to keep track of different elements of the exchange. I’m going to change the order a bit, though, as I think the discussion is better served by discussing #4 first.


 * 4) I hope you can agree that the truth-value of the claim “Just Security is a blog” — T, F, unknown, or a matter of opinion that has no truth-value — depends in part on the definition of “blog.” Here are a few definitions of the noun “blog”:
 * American Heritage: “A website that displays postings by one or more individuals in chronological order and usually has links to comments on specific postings.”
 * Cambridge: (a) “a regular record of your thoughts, opinions, or experiences that you put on the internet for other people to read”; (b) “a website on which one person or group puts new information regularly, often every day; weblog”; (c) “a record of news, people's opinions, photos, and videos about a particular subject that someone puts on the internet and adds information, pictures, etc. to regularly”
 * Collins: (American English) “a journal or diary written for public viewing on a website and consisting typically of personal reflections, commentary on current events, etc. arranged chronologically”; (British English) “an online journal”
 * Merriam-Webster: (a) “computers : a website that contains online personal reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks, videos, and photographs provided by the writer; also: the contents of such a site”; (b) “a regular feature appearing as part of an online publication that typically relates to a particular topic and consists of articles and personal commentary by one or more authors”
 * Oxford Online: “A regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style.”
 * Oxford Unabridged: “A frequently updated website, typically run by a single person and consisting of personal observations arranged in chronological order, excerpts from other sources, hyperlinks to other sites, etc.; an online journal or diary” (no link, this is by subscription)


 * Maybe you want to add more, but I think that’s enough to show that whether an online forum does or doesn’t fit the definition depends on the definition, and that Just Security specifically is a blog according to some definitions and not others. Can we find RSs online claiming that it’s a blog? Yes. Do we know what definition they were using? I doubt it (your links certainly didn’t specify). If you think it’s important to debate whether it is/isn’t a blog, we’ll only make progress if we start specifying which definition(s) we’re using, and — if either of us reject any definitions — why. But I don't think that issue is key WRT whether it can be a RS and whether it's a SPS.


 * 1) You claim that “anyone can publish” at Just Security and that it’s “without editorial control.” As evidence, you cite their “About us” statement that “The views expressed on this site are attributable to their individual authors writing in their personal capacity only…” But that statement doesn’t imply that anyone can post content there or that there’s no editorial control. Their style guide, the existence of an editorial board (see the masthead linked above), and their lack of a guarantee that submissions will be accepted all indicate that there’s editorial control and that the claim “anyone can publish” there is false.


 * 2) You claim repeatedly that Just Security isn’t a RS and add “they may never be an RS.” But WP’s discussion of RS says “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.” Several people here don't think they're SPS, but even if they are, Just Security articles can still be considered RS as long as the authors meet WP’s “expert source” characteristics (assessed in relation to the WP claim the person’s work is being used as a reference for). You seem to be talking about sources as RS or not in a rather absolute way, but as WP:RS notes, “The reliability of a source depends on context.” Would you agree that at a glance, the people whose articles are published on the Just Security site (both the many guest authors — — and the editors listed in the masthead link above) have significant expertise and are likely to meet WP’s definition of “expert,” depending on the context?


 * 3) I’d previously pointed out that you’re discussing “blogs” and “RS” as if they’re disjoint sets rather than intersecting sets. Did you understand what I meant by that? Specifically, do you agree that an online forum can be both a “blog” and a WP:RS (depending on other things, such as whether the author meets WP’s definition of “expert” for a specific claim), even if it's not a newsblog?


 * A few last notes:
 * Re: “Without knowing much about Just Security, it is obviously impossible for editors to decide it's status on WP," that’s a challenge for WP editors with all sorts of sources, as we're regularly faced with determining the “status on WP” of the sources we use.
 * Re: "you seem to be spending a lot of energy pushing for Just Security to be an RS,” no, I’m trying to sort out what’s SPS for the purpose of improving the article on US v Flynn and to sort out whether WP statements are consistent across various guideline pages and whether any definitions should be modified (see the discussion that linked to: ). Re: “Are you somehow connected to JS?,” no. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I decided to read the SCOTUSblog live blog this morning re: the last cases of the term, including the Trump tax return cases, and it made me think of a comment you made above: "you just want to watch the difference between case summary and opinions by others that submit to it. Eg at SCOTUSBlog Amy Howe is their workhorse in writing the SCOTUS news, and nearly all her pieces can be taken as RSFACT while they often get a number of guest contributors that are clearly RSOPINIONS." I agree, and their live blogs are yet another distinct category and are definitely SPS. Do you know if there's anywhere that I can place information about these different kinds of content, so that an editor who is less familiar with SCOTUSblog can separate out these different kinds of material there? It doesn't seem appropriate on the SCOTUSblog talk page, as these distinctions are not about the content of the SCOTUSblog article. Do you have any suggestions? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There's often confusion on this, but I'll pull from WP:SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (my emphasis). WP:INDEPENDENT gives guidance on what third-party means. In short, if you have a self-published source from an expert that would otherwise be usable in a non-BLP page, you just can't use it as an independent source without attribution (which is normally what we do with SPS sources anyways). Use at a BLP will require having attribution while also weighing WP:DUE, etc. to see if the statement should be included. There's a lot to go through on what's going on specifically here that I won't dive into right now, but just a reminder the third-party aspect is important in any SPS discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think I'd paid enough attention to the distinction between second-party and third-party sources here. Your point is very helpful to my understanding. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(comment) - Comparing Just Security to SCOTUSblog is like comparing an apple to a steak. Both are good, but one, Just Security, is a National Security advocacy blog (hence the word "Security" in their name); and the other, SCOTUSblog is not. The blog "Just Security," seems to be a WP:SPS, not an RS. WP:SPS page says, "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) ...". Bottom line: Since Just Security lacks independent reviewers due to their editorial board's inherent conflict of interest; therefore Just Security seems to be an SPS, ( not an RS) as per WP:SPS quote in green above. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As explained above, Just Security  is a non-profit advocacy blog, who write their "<U>aim to promote</U>" and advocate for their ideology of  national security policies  - so their editorial board has an " inherent conflict of interest. " - meaning their internal reviews for publication cannot be viewed as independent leaving them with no independent editorial control which "invalidates the reliability of their content." So that would make Just Security an SPS ( not RS) as per WP:SPS quote in green above.
 * Also, if Just Security is an SPS (not RS) then RSOPINION and RSFACT would not seem to apply to Just Security because those are for RS, not SPS, (hence the RS in their name).


 * BetsyRMadison - I think we'll make more headway if you answer the questions I asked you earlier:
 * "Would you agree that at a glance, the people whose articles are published on the Just Security site (both the many guest authors — — and the editors listed in the masthead link above) have significant expertise and are likely to meet WP’s definition of 'expert,' depending on the context?"
 * "do you agree that an online forum can be both [a SPS] and a WP:RS (depending on other things, such as whether the author meets WP’s definition of 'expert' for a specific claim)...?"


 * Re: your comment, I disagree with your claim that "As explained above, Just Security is a non-profit advocacy blog." Kyohyi said "Certain organizations (aka advocacy groups) have an inherent conflict of interest with regards to their own advocacy," but neither said nor implied that Just Security is one of them.
 * You also assert that Just Security is an "advocacy blog" based on: (a) taking the phrase "aim to promote" out of context from their "about us" page (the link for that page is in my previous comment, and the entire sentence is "We aim to promote principled and pragmatic solutions to national security problems that decision-makers face"), and (b) claiming that they "advocate for their ideology of national security policies." You then conclude that the editors have an "inherent conflict of interest" on the basis of your belief that they're an "advocacy blog" with an "ideology."
 * Would you provide a definition of "advocacy blog" that would enable us to distinguish between advocacy blogs and non-advocacy blogs more generally?
 * Would you articulate what you think "their ideology" is and how you've determined that (e.g., how many articles and other material have you read at Just Security, where by "other material" I'm referring to things like the "Trump-Russia-Ukraine Timeline", the "Timeline of the Coronavirus Pandemic and U.S. Response" , and the pages with primary documents)?
 * Your answers to these questions will help us make headway in determining whether the Just Security editors really do have an "inherent conflict of interest." Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Drazen Petrovic father is ethnic Serb, RS?
Article Dražen Petrović. and talk page Source is "Magazin Pečat je politički nedeljnik koji izlazi petkom. Posle četiri godine izlaženja postao je najčitaniji list ove vrste u Srbiji, "  ("Pečat magazine is a political weekly that is published on Friday. After four years of publishing, it became the most read newspaper of its kind in Serbia.")  In this magazine is column of some private person(journalist) and his claim. Personal information about his family. "Njihov otac Jovan (zovu ga Jole, kao Stojana Stojko) rođen je u selu Zagora, opština Trebinje, Republika Srpska." ("Their father Jovan (they call him Jole, as Stojana Stojko) was born in the village of Zagora, municipality of Trebinje, Republika Srpska.") The source does not mention that he is an "ethnic Serb", so I am interested in whether this information is allowed "ethnic Serb" in the article without evidence in the source, is this column in the source RS and whether that political magazine is RS? Mikola22 (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Drazen Petrovic father is ethnic Serb, RS II?
Article Dražen Petrović. and talk page Source is "Dušan Čolović (15 August 1990). "Igraću samo za Jugoslaviju!". Tempo (1277)."... ("Dušan Čolović (August 15, 1990)." I will only play for Yugoslavia! ". Tempo (1277).") Tempo is magazine Information that father of Dražen Petrović is ethnic Serb can be verified WP:VERIFY. I am interested in whether this information ethnic Serb is allowed in the article without verifiability and is this source RS?Mikola22 (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Drazen Petrovic father is ethnic Serb, RS III?
Article Dražen Petrović. and talk page Information from the source "Divac believes that Petrovic, whose father is a Serb, froze him out because Petrovic felt pressure to prove his pro-Croat bona fides." This is a personal statement of a Serbian basketball player Vlade Divac. The source does not mention that his father is "ethnic Serb". I am interested in whether this information ethnic Serb is allowed in the article that is, whether the statement of some private person in some source is RS. We know that Vlade Divac and Dražen Petrović were not in good relations (Serbian-Croatian conflicts). Mikola22 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Editorial stock imagery (Getty Images, Alamy etc.)
Many of the sources deemed reliable for use in Wikipedia do more often than not rely on stock imagery sites to supply them with images for their material. Such editorial stock imagery does seem to be acceptable by dint of being part of whatever source is being cited, but I wonder what the attitude would be if the originating stock imagery sites were to be cited in their own right.Dvaderv2 (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An image as such is rarely if ever a reliable source for a factual claim in an article, because basing a factual observation on an image would constitute WP:OR in most cases. I'm not quite sure what kinds of use you are thinking of, so I can't say much more about it right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be coming up a lot recently for some reason, see also 1 2. Photos (or other images) are not sources that can be cited. --JBL (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both Alamy and Getty have two types of photos, stock and editorial. The former are not required to meet any standards commonly accepted in photojournalism and the contributors don't go through any vetting. The captions on these images may be inaccurate, the contributors pseudononymous with questionable training or education or purpose, and the photos themselves may have been subject to manipulation. These should not be considered WP:RS. Alamy Editorial and Getty Editorial are supposed to meet higher editorial standards, however, there's no easy way to differentiate between the two in our citation format. Ergo, my preference would be that neither Getty nor Alamy be used as sources at all, even in the cases of their rights-managed, versus stock, imagery. Chetsford (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Fake journalists outed by Daily Beast - use in Wikipedia articles
I removed two articles by Lin Nguyen and one by Raphael Badani from William Erbey, as these are not real journalists. See https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-wing-media-outlets-duped-by-a-middle-east-propaganda-campaign. Other sources in that bio may need checking, Erbey seems to be a beneficiary of their faking. More generally, it's possible other articles are affected. Fences &amp;  Windows  11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's a means to search on references to find the named "authors" (double checking in case of legit authors with same names outside of this "sting") to figure out much of their stuff was used. I saw one of those you removed didn't include author fields so its not as simple as just checking the ref field names, but this is something that should be elevated to be an high priority removal. --M asem (t) 13:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone has a contact at The Daily Beast or is willing to ask them via social media, for example, they might share the list of URLs with us. The rest of the references in William Erbey checked out fine. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I reached out via social media to the author of the piece. We'll see whether I get a response. Jlevi (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not heard back. Jlevi (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The author has a thread on Twitter with some fascinating details (that presumably didn't fit into the article), including a list of names. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Lin Nguyen mentioned appears to be the same as this SCMP contributor Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those 5 are not used. There are 43 other links to SCMP opinion articles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scmp.com%2Fcomment%2Fopinion%2Farticle%2F&title=Special%3ALinkSearch Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If the account that started the Erbey article isn't controlled by a PR agency then I'm Walter Winchell.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, they stopped editing in February after being challenged on their talk page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What on earth is up with that article? Just a quick search of Google - or even parsing the sources already there - makes it clear that he's mostly notable as the founder of Ocwen Financial Corporation, yet until I added it just now the article didn't mention it at all.  Given Ocwen Financial Corporation's reputation and the fact that he was forced to leave amid serious conflicts of interest, I'm guessing the article was entirely promotional - it's not something that could reasonably be missed. --Aquillion (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

BMI, docketalarm, and an otherwise anonymous rapper
Recently I removed two sources from RMR (singer), which purported to give the real name of this otherwise anonymous rapper. I felt the sources were hardly reliable, and violated WP:BLP, or at least WP:OR. disagreed, and we couldn't come to an agreement on our own about the reliability of said sources:


 * BMI source, which seems to give credit to artists for their songs
 * A trademark application in Federal court

To me, those sources do not seem to meet the standards required for us to decisively give the name of a rapper that even RollingStone wouldn't name. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Reliable. In my opinion, a trademark application (versus a trademark registration certificate) made to the USPTO is not RS as it's more or less WP:USERG. Anyone can put anything in an application. Also in my opinion, BMI may be reliable for WP:FACTS — mundane, routine details — but since you note that unambiguous RS have indicated the name of the artist is unknown, this seems not to be a case of mundane, routine detail and better sourcing would be required. Chetsford (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Chetsford I don't think a USPTO should be considered user-generated content because it's a legal trademark someone is submitting to. Of course, someone has to file it, same with BMI, record label(s) and/or the artist(s) would need to register their songs in BMI, ASCAP, etc. (Official music metadata databases) in order for the people involved would get paid correctly. As I explained to CaptainEek, BMI is used on numerous music-related articles here on Wikipedia (I can link them for you if you like.), as well as ASCAP. Even through the discussion is involves BMI, the artist RMR has more registered songs in ASCAPs database here. I simply searched his name in those songs appeared in their database, however his name shows up as RMR instead, but you can easily tell the distinction from the other people credited for their respective songs. With BMI and ASCAP you can't have someone represent your name on songs you've worked on, as someone would get paid directly from those organizations or through their label. They have to be accurate for someone to get paid correctly. If you're interested in Eek's discussion and I where I explain a bit more in depth, you can check it out here. RodeoWrld (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is an application done under oath and/or can it be submitted pseudononymously? If yes / no, I'd be open to agreeing with you. I know with a copyright application, a pseudonym can be used in lieu of a legal name. Chetsford (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Chetsford According to the USPTOs official website here, it pretty much states that filing an application start a legal process and is done under oath. RodeoWrld (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is clearly OR being performed on primary sources. --JBL (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Journal of Novel Applied Sciences
Can anyone say how it can be established the source is a predatory source? -- M h hossein   talk 06:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is listed here and here.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously a garbage journal: website is all clip-art, statement about publishing ethics is plagiarized from a different journal, lists Google Scholar prominently in the "indexed in" list, etc. --JBL (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to make a website look like a garbage journal, that would be pretty much exactly how it would turn out. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)